I’d rather live in…

Cities – we are obsessed with them. Nearly every newspaper article, television programme and film can be stripped back to reveal our interest in the relationship between cities and humans. Whether this is in the debates over teenage gun crime or the causes and effects of climate change, the interaction between man and the urban environment has never been more prominent. The excellent Global Cities exhibition recently showcased at the Tate Modern in London was testament to this trend and allowed one to explore the social consequences of the sheer scale of urban growth. More than 50% of people now live in cities and this is expected to rise to 75% by 2050.

Yet for all the awe-inspiring figures on density, diversity and form it is the little things that matter the most. London might be commissioning flagship skyscrapers and enjoying economic prosperity, but for most of its residents everyday life has changed very little. So, does the planning profession give due importance to the liveability of cities or is there a tendency to look at big projects and showpiece events? Everyday life might be relatively mundane, but it is where and how we spend most of our life and should therefore be the focus of most of our energy. While some cities get this, others don’t. So what are the lessons we can learn from a greater appreciation of liveability?

Polls, polls and more polls

If central government and the planning profession have not yet grasped the importance of liveability, the media has. These days barely a day goes by without the publication of some new study, survey or opinion poll telling us where we should go to school or what music to listen to while pregnant.

Among this plethora of polls are those that rank global cities on factors that could be loosely described as quality of life or liveability. Polls are by their nature highly subjective and give varying results, but those polls ranking cities do give us a clue as to the type of issues we consider to be important when judging success. They also raise some interesting questions for professionals in the built environment sector and beyond.

How important is liveability?

The key message to come out of all three surveys is the importance nowadays given to liveability. They purposefully avoid rankings based on financial centres or level of innovation and instead stress that the liveable city is the optimum. This is not a new idea but is one that is beginning to gain weight. For example, surveys are moving away from pure economic indicators such as GDP, patent applications or number of Fortune 500 companies, in order to adopt more creative indicators such as access to wireless internet (Wi-Fi) and the availability of international media.

One recent survey collected data on 16 indicators to rank cities that could broadly be classified into four categories: connectivity (international flights, public transport, Wi-Fi), social infrastructure (education, medical care), the environment (green space, access to nature) and openness (tolerance, access to international media). On top of these indicators, a dose of subjective realism was added in order to disqualify contenders such as Berne seen as not urban enough. Similarly, other surveys have used wide-ranging determinants including the availability of international schools and limitations on personal freedom.

This creative approach to ranking reflects the weight of importance given to “everydayness”. While a major corporation locating its headquarters in your city may be of great economic relevance, to the person on the street it has little practical relevance. To them the availability of Wi-Fi or a good local school are arguably more helpful to their everyday life. Yet, economists and politicians would argue that access to Wi-Fi and well-performing schools are only available because of the economic strength of a city, reflected in the willingness of major businesses to locate in the area.

So are liveability and economic success mutually exclusive?

Munich (the top city in one of the surveys) would suggest not. The city is home to corporate giants such as BMW, Siemens, Allianz and Microsoft and is recognised as the most successful economic region in Germany. Yet it also manages to foster a work-life balance that allows locals to sunbathe on the river, chill out in bars or attend local theatre concerts. Similarly, Vancouver (the top city in the EIU survey) has built a strong economy from pan-Pacific trade, access to natural resources and a developing film industry – but still prides itself as a destination for outdoor recreation where locals can escape to the surrounding mountains, beaches and rivers. A liveable city is therefore one that fosters strong economic roots but does not compromise the liveability of its residents in order to achieve this.

London calling…not quite yet

One thing common to all three surveys was the absence of British cities in the top 20 (and in fact they did not even get into the top 30). “London,” I hear you cry, “the financial centre of the world and praised for its adoption of the congestion charging scheme.” Unfortunately not. London was continuously sidestepped as a liveable city due to the sheer weight of negative indicators, ranging from under investment in public transport, sustainability initiatives, crime, health, drinking hours, and airport congestion. For every Norman Foster-designed building there is a teenage murder to reverse the liveability of the capital.

One reason cited for London’s failures stems from the city’s bread and circus culture whereby hope is invested in grandiose ideas (for example, the Olympics) and little attention is given to the smaller, more relevant elements that make up everyday life. For example, the government trumpets the forthcoming Cultural Olympiad but fails to mention the £112m raid on the Arts Council lottery fund.

This is an unsustainable approach because there could be no Cultural Olympiad without grass roots skills, those exact skills that organisations such as the Arts Council do so much to foster. Similarly, while the congestion charge is rightly celebrated, in the main transport across the city is not up to world standards. London Underground has suffered from continuous overspend by a public private partnership (now approaching £1bn), while horror stories are all too common regarding the length of queues at Heathrow Airport.

So while London may be riding an economic wave it must ask itself whether it is liveable at the everyday level. Just ask any young professional whether they want to raise a family in London and you may not get such a rosy picture.

Chris Quigley is regeneration consultant at URS