from the "living in the most livable city" dept.

Good reading from the Melbourne Age:

World's most liveable city: Vancouver

October 8, 2005

We've lost our crown to a city that takes the title with a grain of salt, writes Alan Atwood.

WELL that's it. Hardly worth going on, really. First the footy premiership contested at the MCG is won by a team based in Sydney. Then some bright spark tries to sell us a series of contrived cricket matches, played indoors in springtime. Now Melbourne has to get used to the idea that it's not as desirable as it used to be.

It didn't get much coverage — which was understandable, as you can file this one away under "B" for bad news (or bummer) — but this week Melbourne lost its title as the world's most liveable city. Vancouver, in the Canadian province of British Columbia, came out top of the pops in a survey carried out by a think tank aligned with The Economist magazine in Britain. Melbourne had to be satisfied with a silver medal, along with Vienna and Geneva.

This was a fine state of affairs, coinciding as it did with the 20th anniversary of the Committee for Melbourne. And there's no kudos for anyone pointing out that Melbourne fared considerably better than Port Moresby and Algiers, which came in at the other end of the scale. In the past, Melbourne has traded off its most-liveable status (Tourism Minister John Pandazopoulos rarely missed a chance to mention it), so now we must cop this demotion with dignity.

Or do we? Perhaps now is the time to suggest that such surveys, purporting to rank living conditions around the world, are about as meaningful as the cricket series that concludes tomorrow. The Economist's poll, for example, is just one of several floating around. A similar survey, released by Mercer Human Resource Consulting this year, had Vancouver and Vienna tied for second behind Geneva and Zurich. Melbourne was 14th, trailing Sydney and also Auckland, though streets ahead of Baghdad.

Meanwhile the upstanding citizens of Port Moody are still basking in the glow of winning first prize in the planning-for-the-future section of the International Awards for Liveable Communities last year. Finalists in the keenly contested 20,000 to 75,000 population category included Camden and Coffs Harbour, both in NSW. And where, you ask, is Port Moody? Why, just a short drive down the scenic Barnet Highway from Vancouver.

If they tried hard enough, tourism ministers worldwide could come up with a survey to suit their purposes (though it might take a little time in Baghdad). "Liveable" is an ugly, loose term anyway. One definition is "endurable", which is what you might call a prolonged stint in solitary confinement. Yet tags such as "most liveable city" tend to take on a life of their own, rather like the quaint idea that the loss-making formula one Grand Prix is a marvellous thing for Melbourne.

There is more than a touch of cultural cringe in our eagerness to embrace things such as a liveability poll. It's the civic equivalent of Sally Field at the Oscars: "They like us; they really like us." Never mind that, as one Canadian writer noted this week, such surveys are often the work of head-hunting or consulting firms, designed to give clients contemplating relocation some idea where they are least likely to be mugged or stuck in traffic.

Ah yes, traffic. If Mr Pandazopoulos is still agonising over Melbourne's mysterious drop from gold to silver status he could do worse than try driving over the West Gate Bridge in peak hours. That Economist survey coincided with figures confirming what many commuters already knew: it might be quicker for them to get out of their cars and jog over the bridge. One radio report the other day described traffic flow on the bridge as "sluggish". A good description of the speed of the Government in coming up with a viable solution.

Intriguingly, there are some in Vancouver who are apparently puzzled by their home town's honour. In The Globe and Mail newspaper, a geography professor at the University of British Columbia suggests that public transport might have dragged Vancouver down a bit. Toronto's system was better, he said, before adding that there were fewer gridlock problems in the world's most liveable city. "Vancouver's 2 million people don't have the same volume of traffic. The only trick here is getting across bridges." Seems that both Vancouver and Melbourne have a bridge too far.

Scanning Canadian responses to the latest survey, I get the feeling that they take it with far more salt than we do. The Globe and Mail, for example, quotes a local economist as pointing out that Vancouver (like Melbourne) plays a peripheral role in the global economy. Not only that: "Committed urban dwellers — such as those who live in Montreal, New York or Paris — will find Vancouver too quiet." Conclusion: the Pride of British Columbia should work on its night life and strengthen its economy.

Ha! Two can play at that game. If he really wants that title back, Mr Pandazopoulos should invest in nightclubs rather than car races. Then do something dramatic with West Gate. Punt Road, too, while he's at it. And cancel all government subscriptions to The Economist.

Alan Attwood is a Melbourne writer.