It’s that time of year again. Last week The Economist‘s annual “global liveability index” named Melbourne and Sydney, respectively, the second and third most liveable cities in the world. Vienna took out the top spot.
However, one day earlier, these same cities were ranked only 23rd and 24th on a “generation Z liveability index”, after last year placing 21st and 24th on the “best millennial cities index”. Compiled by renting platform Nestpick, these studies determine which cities best match the values and interests of young people.
While ranking 20-odd out of 110 cities is respectable, the question remains: why are our cities so much less liveable for youth?
Liveable for whom?
There are more than 500 indexes that rank global cities, ranging from well-respected methodologies of life-quality indicators, to business-focus rankings to ones based solely on the number of dog attacks on postal workers. The Economist’s “global liveability index” is the most widely publicised, but it largely caters to professional expats. As Matt Holden writes, the index “was originally developed to figure out how much hardship money you’d need to pay an executive you were going to post to some far-flung outpost”.
Consequently, it really ranks inner-Melbourne and inner-Sydney, where many wealthy globetrotters reside. Privileged criteria include the quality of private schools but not public ones, and the quality of housing but not its affordability — which suits Australia’s inner ‘burbs just fine.
But the list largely ignores the experiences of those more than a few train stops from the CBD. This is particularly unhelpful for young people, who increasingly must choose between perpetually renting in suburbs proximal to work, loved ones and amenities, or moving to urban fringes to afford to buy a home.
These (barely) affordable outer suburbs, growing rapidly as young families flock, suffer inadequate social and transport infrastructure including fewer and poorer quality schools, hospitals, cultural and entertainment venues, public spaces and parks.
Our lauded “liveability” ends where the bulk of auctions begin.
Fortress suburbia
Why is our “liveability” so concentrated? Partly because of governments’ delayed vital investments in growing areas. But as Grattan Institute and the Reserve Bank have shown, planning rules have also allowed wealthy inner-suburban communities to hoard quality infrastructure and amenities by rejecting new building proposals and locking out young buyers.
But rampant NIMBYism has gone beyond preserving community character and is now blocking reasonable access for young buyers who, unable to buy in well-equipped suburbs, spill over into neglected areas. For instance, the NSW government’s “missing middle” policy to encourage residents to subdivide lots was so heavily resisted that temporary exemptions were granted to wealthy suburbs. NIMBYs in one exempted suburb, Mosman, have now hired a PR company to fight a proposed Woolies.
NSW Labor’s planning spokesman Adam Searle nailed the issue on Sunday, claiming that some councils in affluent areas adopted a “we’re full” approach, which “simply shifts the pressure for housing and other development elsewhere”.
No wonder we got average scores on the gen Z index; the index factors in whether city planners “have shown initiative to act on the demands of previous young generations such as millennials and generation X”.
Yes in my backyard
Earlier this year, I visited long-time anti-development activist Mary Drost OAM in her supremely liveable Melbourne suburb of Camberwell. Drost leads Planning Backlash, a network of over 300 local resident groups across Victoria.
“One by one, all these old houses will be gone,” Drost said wistfully. “They replace these beautiful old homes with new McMansions. It makes me sick.”
I couldn’t help but admire Drost’s passion for the look and feel of her streets. The true value of our cities cannot be expressed in dollars. But for the sake of my generation, something has to give. As Grattan Institute’s Brendan Coates and John Daley wrote, “Either people accept greater density in their suburb, or their children will not be able to buy a home”.
We passed a backyard tennis court slated for subdivision at the owner’s behest. Drost had submitted a challenge to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to prevent the development. Arguably, private tennis courts are the exact kind of urban space we should encourage owners to convert into dwellings if we are to equitably grow our housing supply.
If we don’t, buyers will continue to spill over into communities like Heidelberg West, a few blocks from my home. Once dubbed “the Bronx of Melbourne”, it is the kind of community that can only dream of having “too many McMansions”.
Entire new streets of “concrete slabs” have been developed there on subdivided blocks, largely catering to middle-class buyers priced out of other areas. Some find the prevailing style unattractive, but residents can’t be picky — and they don’t have the money to hire PR companies to campaign on their behalf.
We should focus less on inconsequential disparities between global cities and focus more on the growing disparities within our cities. Until we do, young people will be forced further afield, and our celebrated liveability will be hoarded by the lucky few.
Join us today for just $1 a week.
Get your first 12 weeks for $12. Cancel any time.
Our journalism is funded directly by our members — that’s how we maintain our fierce independence. We don’t rely on advertisers, clickbait or culture war obsessed columnists.
If you like what we do, join us today.
Peter Fray
Editor-In-Chief of Crikey
9 thoughts on “Australia’s most liveable cities are only liveable for some”
Swing Required
September 10, 2019 at 1:40 pmI know Australia stops at the Great Dividing Range, but was there another Australian city in the top ten?
Roger Clifton
September 10, 2019 at 2:04 pmPeople want to live within 20 minutes of their most frequented facilities, such as employers, dentists and hardware stores. Increasing congestion decreases the area of facilities accessible within 20 minutes. In other words, their village shrinks. State funds are frequently diverted to decongesting the central business district of each of the capital cities. This investment attracts more employers into the CBD, worsening the congestion of their employees.
Instead, employers’ floor space in the CBD might be taxed to pay for all the extra roadworks and upgraded superstructure caused by the growing CBD. Employers might then be motivated to move further out of the city. Satellite business districts, probably along the intercity arteries, might then be planned to provide a 20 minute village for employees who move into their radius.
Woopwoop
September 10, 2019 at 3:43 pm“Either people accept greater density in their suburb, or their children will not be able to buy a home”.
That is, assuming immigration continues at its current breakneck speed.
Kimba
September 10, 2019 at 8:24 pmThank God someone said it.
This big Australia push-endorsed by both sides of politics-is not regarded with any great fondness by the Australian population if surveys are anything to go by.
One can only assume that the influential proponents are deemed too important to ignore-money talks after all.
Furthermore this notion that it’s a binary question-you’re either for 250 000 plus immigrants per year or a paid up member of One Nation-is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.
I’m still waiting for someone to make the case why we need the fastest population growth in the developed world.
mark e smith
September 10, 2019 at 3:58 pmThis is well worn territory but it’s still worth pointing out the furphies and debunking the golden age that never was.
I spent my teen years in the then new suburbs just out from the newly opened Doncaster Shoppingtown (aka Westfield) Poor public transport, overloaded roads, few amenities besides pubs and sports. Pretty much the same as new suburbs now. Maybe worse – the teenage mind is overprone to assuming the grass is always greener.
Why should older people who’ve lived in an area for decades move on the dubious notion of making affordable room for younger people. How about you wait your turn ? We promise we won’t live forever and then you can squabble at auctions and then moan about the ugly jerry built overpriced flat or unit you end up with. It’s not hard to see that the windfalls go mainly to developers, financiers and middle men.
Costs of housing aren’t completely dependent on population pressures which in reality aren’t high in Australia. Unrealistic expectations and excessive credit supply and foisting are just as big IMO. Where do you think all those trillions that got created with quantitative easing ended up ?
allen brown
September 10, 2019 at 5:16 pmTown planners have forgotten the lessons of medieval and renaissance Italy. When a city approached a size too big to comfortably walk around it, they built a wall to stop further growth and started a separate, self-contained city nearby to handle the overflow.
lethell
September 10, 2019 at 5:35 pmThis article seems a little incoherent: its thesis seems to be that once-working-class Heidelberg West is being filled with ugly middle class housing because the owners of established houses in older middle-class suburbs don’t want to sell their houses, tennis courts or gardens to developers of multi-storey apartments. Presumably the new Heidelberg West bourgeoisie don’t want to live in apartments anyway, so getting the established residents to replace their houses/tennis courts/gardens with apartments wouldn’t persuade them to leave Heidelberg West and similar areas.
The only sense I can make of it is that the writer is suggesting that the middle classes should have no alternative to living in apartments in middle class suburbs in order to preserve more working-class housing closer to the city and that a preference for preserving what beauty remains of our cities is mere self-indulgence.
On the other hand, perhaps the problem is the unrestrained growth of our major cities due to a short-sighted growth-at-all-costs attitude which is rapidly destroying what might be termed the “liveability” of our cities exacerbated by very poor building standards; neither of these problems is due to so-called NIMBYism.
AR
September 10, 2019 at 7:28 pmAn ancient German saying was “the air of a city makes men free” but, with more than 3 times Austrlia’s population in an area less than half that of NSW, there are no cities the size of Sydney or Melbourne – Berlin has fewer than 4M – and only three others more than a million.
If only this country were not so small & crowded, we could decentralise and leave the coastal Wens of overinvested pgieon lofts to drown in their own affluent effluence.
R. Ambrose Raven
September 10, 2019 at 11:38 pmWell, I wish us luck in finding any money to fund deliberate, planned, positive change.
Senators Stirling Griff and Rex Patrick and Jackie Lambie not only utterly destroyed the possibility of more and better services when they endorsed the recent $144 BILLION tax giveaway (in addition to the $150 BILLION already legislated), they destroyed the possibility of repeating the success of Labor’s 2008 stimulus package, or of easier provision of support funding should a general collapse in house prices threaten to drive a wave of evictions, or any other of a lot of options.