Decision time
We have flirted with this question before, but perhaps the time has come to embrace it fully: what is Australia's most liveable city? I realise, of course, that this could unleash the most uncivil of civic stoushes. But this long-running debate has an especially topical edge right now following the publication of a number of global league tables that set out to rank the world's best cities.
Perhaps the most authoritative standings come from Mercer, a consultancy that advises multi-national companies on where to locate staff. Its findings are a matter not of taste or sentiment but statistical measurement: 39 quality-of-life indices, such as schooling, housing, crime and the environment.
First off, Mercer has confirmed Australia's status as a global lifestyle superpower, with five cities in the (curiously, the only country to do better is Germany, with six). I've included the list below, with last year's ranking in brackets.
Sydney 9 (9)
Melbourne 17 (17)
Perth 21 (21)
Adelaide 30 (29)
Brisbane 32 (31)
Zurich comes top by the way, followed jointly by Geneva (2), Vienna (2), Vancouver (4) and Auckland (5). London ranks 38, the only British city to make the top 50.
A few thoughts, before you hopefully weigh in.
I've said before that Sydney can be both a wonderful and frustrating place to live - an epic city of colossal underachievement. Given its glorious harbour, its urban beaches and its rich architectural heritage (even without the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, its skyline would surely be considered world-class), it should be the "Bradman of Cities" - so far ahead of the pack as to be in a league all of its own. But its creaking infrastructure and shrieking politicians hold it back.
Melbourne is another urban treasure. I've rhapsodised before about the abundance of its sporting life, but there's obviously much more to Australia's second most populous city than its collective surge of match-day adrenalin. Its charms are more subtle - hidden-away laneways, for instance, rather than in-your-face beachfronts - but no less enchanting.
Much as I love watching cricket at the "WACA", Perth sometimes leaves me a bit cold (unlike Fremantle down the road). Australia's great boom-town has always struck me as a bit soul-less? Is that massively unfair? It reminds me a bit of those other "resource capitals" of the world, Houston, Dallas and Calgary. I get the feeling it is a better place to live in than to visit.
I always enjoy Adelaide. Great churches, pretty parks, some fabulous civic architecture and one of the world's most charming test cricket venues, the Adelaide Oval.
For all that, I'm surprised that it outranks Brisbane, which is one of the country's most thrusting cities. Before my first visit there, someone regaled me with that old chestnut about adjusting my watch by at least 30 years. But parts of Brisbane seem to be so efficiently run and serviced that they are a long way in advance of other cities and truly state of the art. From its stylish new art gallery, , to its floodlit bridges, from its showy skyline to restaurants like the Cru Bar, it's a winner. And can any Australian city boast a prettier drive from the airport into the city?
I'm surprised that Hobart (a possible rival to Brisbane in the airport-to-city drive stakes) doesn't make the top 50. Others will contest that Canberra ranks high in the liveability stakes, despite its preponderance of politicians.
So what is Australia's most liveable city? Why? And how, within the bounds of decency and the law, would you spend the perfect day there?
UPDATE:
Tragic , the wife of the Australian fast-bowling legend Glenn, who lost her brave, 11-year battle with breast cancer on Sunday morning. She seemed lovely and a quite extraordinary woman. The Australian team will wear pink ribbons in her honour when they play the West Indies.
Sad news, too, about , the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s peerless "voice of Australia", who died at the age of 75 on Friday.
Comments
or to comment.