Next month (June), “Monocle” magazine, the glossy chronicler of culture and design, will publish its latest annual “liveability index”. Ranking the world’s cities in this way has become a rather popular activity in recent years. Similar lists are produced by the management consultancy Mercer, the Economist Intelligence Unit and others. Largely, though, they cater for corporations looking to decide what they should pay in living and other allowances to personnel located around the world. As such, they tend to favour smaller cities that suit families. For example, the latest EIU list is topped by the same 10 cities as took the top spots the previous year (albeit with a couple of place swaps) and seven of the 10 are in Canada and Australia, countries where – as the report points out – population densities are well below those in much of the United States and Europe.
This is all fine and understandable – to a degree. But as Edwin Heathcote, the “Financial Times” architecture correspondent, pointed out in a recent article, having proximity to the great outdoors, efficient transport systems and a substantial number of coffee shops does not necessarily add up to a city that actually draws in the innovative and creative people who can make a place so vibrant and an attractive tourist attraction. Offer a couple of teenagers the option of a weekend in Munich or Vancouver (traditional stars of liveability lists) over Los Angeles or New York and see what kind of reaction you get.
Indeed, this favouring of these smaller-scale cities over the great metropolises is made all the harder to understand when set against the apparent resurgent interest in cities. For all the continuing popularity of the suburbs and comfortable towns within commuting distance of the likes of New York and London for families looking for somewhere safe, convenient and offering easy access to the countryside, many cities are successfully reinventing themselves. Not least because of the growing belief in these environmentally-conscious times that city life – with its plentiful public transport, encouragement of cycling and denser housing – is in many ways “greener” than that in villages and small towns. Add to this the dynamism and excitement that results from having lots of people from different cultures and backgrounds thrown together and the attractions become clearer. Even the traditional balancing factors of high crime rates and poor transport are in many cases – such as New York and London – less of an issue than they were thanks to strong civic leadership and, it has to be said, the drive of citizens determined to improve their surroundings in ways that are not always apparent out of town.
This turnaround in attitudes owes much to the work of Charles Landry, a pioneer in developing the concept of the “creative city”. But, as he states, more and more cities call themselves creative when all they really mean is that they have a strong cultural and creative economy infrastructure as well as a large creative class. Urban creativity has far wider scope than this. “A creative city is a place where people feel they can fulfil themselves, there are opportunities. Things get done,” he says. “It is a place where people can express their diverse talents which are harnessed, exploited and promoted for the common good.”
Full commentary
Source: Future of Business, May 24, 2011
New housing forecast mostly good for walkable communities
How and why American cities are coming back
The secret to Tokyo's rail success