Dr Ooi Giok Ling, Today Online 26 Jun 08;
LIVEABILITY might seem to be yet another measure added to the range that are already in place for comparing cities.
Other measures of cities as places to live, work and play include the quality of life, sustainability, costs, competitiveness and even the ease of doing business.
There has been speculation as to why Singapore fell off the list of the top 20 most liveable cities in a recent poll by Monocle magazine.
However, there have been few questions about how “liveability” is conceived and from whose point of view. Would liveability mean the same to the poor as well as the rich, the young and old, those with families and single professionals or locals and visitors?
Cities are now so diverse and disparities so evident, particularly in ones that are thriving, and changing fast, in terms of employment patterns, social networks and urban living, generally.
Furthermore, city governments, businesses and, often, citizens themselves have generally forgotten the raison d’etre for living in cities — most of us have migrated to cities to live a better lives.
By 2025, close to two-thirds of the world will be living in cities because, to many, cities continue to hold the promise of greater economic opportunity and the good life.
Much of the work done to study liveability in cities has centred around lifestyles and social networks, the well-being of the urban population and environment. Not surprisingly, the recent accounts of what liveability means for people have been highly personal and personalised.
For the researchers concerned about liveability, the key areas have been processes such as civic participation and the space allowed for citizens to shape the cities in which they live. Sceptics may point to the highly varied ways the dimensions of liveability can be translated to what we see on the ground.
However, cities may be highly liveable for young families but too staid for swinging professionals. Even swinging professionals with young families may think of liveability differently.
Liveability as a concept for assessing life in cities suggests that they have to be practically all things to all the people living in them.
In other words, rich or poor, families or single professionals, young or old, swinging or otherwise, cities are liveable where they provide the spaces and places for people as well as options that make life pleasant, convenient and largely hassle-free in their everyday lives, work and social engagements.
People living in some of the sprawling cities of South-east Asia — where mobility is dominated by private transport and its travails — are likely to adjust their social networking when faced with the prospect of traffic jams and spiralling fuel prices. This has an impact on social life and, hence, liveability.
Urban neighbourhoods with character are important in determining liveability. This underscores the processes that researchers consider to be important — urban residents having a say in how they like their neighbourhoods.
Cities like Vancouver fare particularly well in terms of civic participation to determine the kind of developments in their neighbourhoods. Cities listed as highly liveable are also relatively cosmopolitan; people of different cultural backgrounds appear to be able to feel at home, whilst expatriates and tourists feel at home away from home.
In a world of growing diversity, particularly in our cities, the accommodation of differences and divergent needs will be a challenge. Not addressing these growing needs generally implies widening disparities, particularly between urbanites who can manage on their own and those who cannot.
A check of the list of “liveable” cities will show that many have good infrastructure — public transport, public spaces such as parks, libraries and art galleries, among others — that help to level up and address the disparities in costs and standards of living.
Common goods — such as air and water — of good quality add to liveability, regardless of where one lives or works in the city. Topping it would be sound environmental infrastructure that ensures high standards of public health.
At the same time, there is likely to be low crime because of attention to security and safety in the city — yet another levelling-up process to ensure that disparities do not grow as cities change.
The writer is a humanities and social studies professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. The views expressed are her own.
