What's the most liveable city ranking all about ?

Can they help strata buildings and stakeholders make improvements …

It’s great that Australian [and New Zealand] cities keep winning and making the top ten in the global liveable cities rankings, but what are they, how do they work, and, what is the relevance to strata title stakeholders …

[6:50 minutes estimated reading time, 1258 words]

Become a paid GoStrata Stak subscriber

Introduction

We’ve all read articles in the mainstream press telling us what cities are the most liveable in the world and, we can also proudly boast that Australian cities [and some of our antipodean neighbour cities] consistently rank in the top ten.

But, what exactly are these rankings all about?  Who runs the ranking system? And, what goes into the rankings?

Plus, do they matter to real people, and/or, for the purposes of GoStrata Stak, how do strata buildings fit into it all?

About the Liveability Rankings

The liveability rankings and reports are produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit which is the research and analysis division of The Economist Group [you know the group that publishes The Economist business magazine] and provides forecasting and advisory services through research and analysis.

The rankings are based on a concept of liveability to assesses which locations around the world provide the best or the worst living conditions.

Every city is assigned a rating [acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable, or intolerable] on 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across 5 categories:

• Stability

• Healthcare

• Culture & Environment

• Education

• Infrastructure

The qualitative ratings are based on the judgment of in–house analysts and in-city contributors and the quantitative ratings are calculated on external data points.

Scores are compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1 to 100 result [where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal] and city scores are benchmarked relative to New York.

And, so we get a liveability scale and rankings for global cities.

Assessing liveability has a range of uses for businesses like benchmarking perceptions of development levels, identifying ideal and non-ideal business locations,  assigning a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages, etc.  But since it quantifies the challenges to an individual's lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison between locations, it also helps people make lifestyle choices.

Usually, you’ll find out about the results by media release of news articles.  That’s because the detailed report is subscriber-only and costs over $6,000 per year.

The list of rating categories and subcategories are at the end of this article.

Australian [and New Zealand] over performance

The Economist Intelligence Unit makes the following comments about the performance of Australia as part of the Asia region in its rankings.

In Asia, liveability does not conform to any regionally defined norm and Asian cities register a strong presence throughout the ranking without being focused in any particular category.

Asia has 13 cities in the top tier of liveability, ten of which have scores of 90% or more. Asian cities also dominate the bottom of the ranking, with just under one-half of the worst 20 scores and six of the 13 cities where most aspects of living are severely restricted.

For example, in Papua New Guinea crime or unrest threatens basic activities such as sporting events or shopping. Conversely, hubs such as Hong Kong and cities in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand offer excellent infrastructure and perform well across all categories.

So, Australia [and New Zealand] perform well in their region and their cities are regularly represented in the top 10.

For example:

• In 2021, Auckland was the No 1 city in the world, and Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne, and Brisbane were also in the top 10 [that’s 50% of the top 10].

• Melbourne was the No 1 city in the world in 2015, 2016, and 2017 and No 2 in 2018 and 2019.

• Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, and, Auckland have appeared multiple times in the top ten since 2015.

That’s pretty impressive for a small [population wise] country like Australia and some smaller cities which gives us clues about what makes for a place better for people.

Strata buildings and liveability ratings

So, what can we learn from this for strata buildings, strata residents, and strata stakeholders?

Firstly, it’s clear that many of the top ten ranking cities are high [but not very high density] locations since they offer the benefits of higher populations like demand and centralisation without negatively impacting on living conditions.

So, the liveability rankings create challenges for strata building development/planning to find that elusive balance between not enough density and too much density to get it just right.

Secondly, most of the rating criteria are based on factors that are external to strata building operations and are driven by the larger locality and city issues. 

So, strata building operations have limited individual impact on them unless they are consistent and reach a scale or volume that has broader community impact [think about the prevalence of building defects in strata buildings and how that impacts that infrastructure quality and living amenity].

Thirdly, the criteria can give strata owners and residents clues to things about locations and surrounding community features and infrastructure when selecting where to buy or live in a strata building.  You know the saying … location, location, location … but in a slightly different way than the real estate sales hype about it.

Fourthly, there is a likelihood that the liveability ranking criteria may apply differently to strata buildings and freestanding buildings in a location such that there is a gap that could be closed to make the living experience better in one or the other. 

For instance, it’s pretty clear that telecommunications infrastructure in Australian strata buildings since the NBN rollout is worse than for freestanding homes because of the delayed rollout, compromises on delivery systems that are not fully fibre-based, shared fibre access that compromises speeds, and lack of understanding of strata building needs.

So, strata stakeholders and regulators can use those things as guides to close those gaps.

Fifthly, the criteria could be used as targets to work towards for everyone in their creation, management, and use of strata buildings, strata apartments, and strata workspaces

Conclusions

So, the global cities liveability rankings are an interesting and useful guide and measure where Australian and New Zealand cities do well, even though they are not directly applicable or transferrable to individual strata buildings

Maybe there are similar and unique measurements that could be developed and applied to strata buildings to create a building liveability rating for them covering areas like:

• Building structures - quality, maintenance, repair, and future provisioning

• Amenities - type, scale, quality, and availability

• Environment - noise, green access, space, air, and light

• Operations - stability, conflict, rule/by-law balance, meetings, harmony, and communication

• Finances - levy stability & levels, reserves, spending value, financial management, and reporting

Such things are probably a lot more valuable to strata stakeholders than developer-focused ratings of new developments as 3, 4 or 5 stars when they are new.

October 19, 2021

Francesco ...

———————————————————

LIVEABILITY RATING CATEGORIES & SUB-CATEGORIES

Category 1: Stability (weight: 25% of total)

• Prevalence of petty crime

• Prevalence of violent crime

• Threat of terror

• Threat of military conflict

• Threat of civil unrest/conflict

Category 2: Healthcare (weight: 20% of total)

• Availability of private healthcare

• Quality of private healthcare

• Availability of public healthcare

• Quality of public healthcare

• Availability of over-the-counter drugs

• General healthcare indicators

Category 3: Culture & Environment (weight: 25% of total)

• Humidity/temperature rating

• Discomfort of climate to travellers

• Level of corruption

• Social or religious restrictions

• Level of censorship

• Sporting availability

• Cultural availability

• Food and drink

• Consumer goods and services

Category 4: Education (weight: 10% of total)

• Availability of private education

• Quality of private education

• Public education indicators

Category 5: Infrastructure (weight: 20% of total)

• Quality of road network

• Quality of public transport

• Quality of international links

• Availability of good quality housing

• Quality of energy provision

• Quality of water provision

• Quality of telecommunications