SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 8298 Posts

·
flame on.
Joined
·
4,968 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
im not one for creating random new threads, but i think we are in need of a general 'Melbourne' related thread.... (and im over scrolling through each thread, wondering which one is more appropriate to post articles on Melbourne)

anyway, from the hun this morning....

Melbourne, Sydney and Perth make most livable cities list

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25608711-662,00.html

MELBOURNE has ranked as the third most livable city in the world, one of five Australian cities in the top 20.

The cities occupy five of the top 20 places in a British survey ranking the livability of 140 of the world's major centres.

Melbourne ranked third in the world, behind Vancouver in Canada and the Austrian city of Vienna in the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2009 Liveability survey.

In the 2008 survey, Melbourne was ranked second.

The latest survey assessed 140 cities based on stability, health care, education, infrastructure and culture and environment, giving each one a rating out of 100.

Perth was equal fifth with Calgary in Canada, with Sydney sharing ninth place with Zurich in Switzerland and Brisbane in 16th place.

As well as Vancouver and Calgary, Canadian cities also featured strongly in the top 20, with Toronto (4th) and Montreal (17th).

The New Zealand cities of Auckland and Wellington finished 12th and 23rd respectively.
US centres were well down the list.

Pittsburgh ranked highest, in 29th place.

The highest-ranked Asian city was Osaka in Japan (13th).

The next highest was Hong Kong (equal 39th with Madrid, Spain) followed by Singapore (54th) and Seoul, South Korea (58th).

The worst city to live on earth is Harare, the strife-torn capital of Zimbabwe.

"The performance of Asian cities reflects the diverse levels of development throughout the region," EIU spokesman Jon Copestake said.

"Australian cities represent many of the best aspects of liveability, while instability in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh means that cities in South Asia fare much worse."

The Economist Intelligence Unit is a branch of The Economist Group, which publishes The Economist, a weekly news magazine, in London.
 

·
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Joined
·
3,222 Posts
^^ I was just about to create a new thread for that article as well. LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,402 Posts
Not for much longer. The UGB is possibly to again be increased into our green wedges, ruining leisure space as well as creating car dependent, unserviceable outer-suburbs with poor-infrastructure.
 

·
flame on.
Joined
·
4,968 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
^^ I think the government needs to accept that sprawl is just going to happen, like it or not. The Aussie dream home in suburbia is just too engrained into societys values. And they need to shift all their focus towards building better infrastructure. Especially out west.

And in regards to Melbourne being 3rd on that list.... That's great... But how many of these 'most livable' lists are there?? Seems just a matter of opinion to me. Some list says were 3rd... Another says 17th...
 

·
WARREN
Joined
·
7,969 Posts
^^ What suburb do you live in? I suspect you're using rubbish arguments to justify your personal preference for low density, detached housing. Look at it from a broader perspective :)

Fact - there's a LOT of people who would be happy to live in apartments if it was all done properly, ala overseas-style.

Fact - as nice as it may be to get a house on a block, people soon work out these outer developments are hellholes that hardly resemble the "Melbourne" we love so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Fact - as nice as it may be to get a house on a block, people soon work out these outer developments are hellholes that hardly resemble the "Melbourne" we love so much.
Ive said this before, but thats not quite right. For a lot of people, outer suburbia is just fine. In fact its nicer than the inner city.

Even many of those who like the inner city life during their 20s and 30s, plan on living in the burbs once they have kids. Theres nothing like a pool and a big backyard to play cricket in. Listen to talk back and you will hear people from Eltham or Croydon harp on about how wonderfully green their suburb is, and how infuriated they are that some developer is planning on building 12 2 story townhouses.

Basically, most people want their block, their detached house and their 3 cars.

That said, I certainly wouldnt support the idea of the state government giving up on higher density.
 

·
flame on.
Joined
·
4,968 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
^^ What suburb do you live in? I suspect you're using rubbish arguments to justify your personal preference for low density, detached housing. Look at it from a broader perspective :)

Fact - there's a LOT of people who would be happy to live in apartments if it was all done properly, ala overseas-style.

Fact - as nice as it may be to get a house on a block, people soon work out these outer developments are hellholes that hardly resemble the "Melbourne" we love so much.
Once again my dear friend, you're completly wrong.
I hate sprawl and encourage higher density living... There's nothing I'd love more than to see Melbourne bulked up with proper residential apartments, I myself am a melbourne Uni student and have been living in and around melbs for years..... BUT (and I'm pretty sure you know this...) the reality is, most Australians want a backyard to kick a footy... Simple as that. Sprawl will keep happening and the government needs to recognize and improve infrastructure AS WELL as buildings high density Melbourne.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
I think that many Australians (not just Melburnians) fail to connect with high density apartment living on a cost to scale basis.

I remember when I was (much) younger and the proposal to increase residential living in the CBD was first put forward how disappointed I was that high rise apartments were really no cheaper (in fact per m² quite a bit more expensive) than having your ¼ acre block with all the trimming, privacy and open space.

If you're packing 200+ apartments into a building and living like sardines I'd expect there to be a huge price trade-off, yet it just isn't the case.

Or is it just me?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
More on that article, but from The Age.

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/melbourne-named-worlds-third-most-liveable-city-20090609-c10w.html

Melbourne named world's third most liveable city
June 9, 2009 - 9:51AM

Australian cities occupy five of the top 20 places in a British survey ranking the liveability of 140 of the world's major centres.

Melbourne ranked third in the world, behind Vancouver in Canada and the Austrian city of Vienna in the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2009 Liveability survey.

It assessed 140 cities based on stability, health care, education, infrastructure and culture and environment, giving each one a rating out of 100.

Perth was equal fifth with Calgary in Canada, with Sydney sharing ninth place with Zurich in Switzerland, Adelaide in 11th place and Brisbane 16th on the list.

As well as Vancouver and Calgary, Canadian cities also featured strongly in the top 20, with Toronto (4th) and Montreal (17th).

The New Zealand cities of Auckland and Wellington finished 12th and 23rd respectively.

US centres were well down the list. Pittsburgh ranked highest, in 29th place.

The highest-ranked Asian city was Osaka in Japan (13th). The next highest was Hong Kong (equal 39th with Madrid, Spain) followed by Singapore (54th) and Seoul, South Korea (58th).

The worst city to live on earth is Harare, the strife-torn capital of Zimbabwe.

"The performance of Asian cities reflects the diverse levels of development throughout the region," EIU spokesman Jon Copestake said.

"Australian cities represent many of the best aspects of liveability, while instability in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh means that cities in South Asia fare much worse."

The Economist Intelligence Unit is a branch of The Economist Group, which publishes The Economist, a weekly news magazine, in London.
 

·
WARREN
Joined
·
7,969 Posts
woozoo said:
Ive said this before, but thats not quite right. For a lot of people, outer suburbia is just fine. In fact its nicer than the inner city.
I said "many people", not "everybody" or "a majority".

There's plenty of people living in suburban houses who wouldn't mind living in an apartment, on the other hand there are plenty of people who are happy in suburbia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
ye, u also said this:
"Fact - as nice as it may be to get a house on a block, people soon work out these outer developments are hellholes that hardly resemble the "Melbourne" we love so much."

anyway doesnt matter. the clear majority prefers their blocks of land. Should something be done to change this? yep.
 

·
WARREN
Joined
·
7,969 Posts
^^ Well, what comes to your mind when someone says "Melbourne", or talks about living in Melbourne, thinking like a non-local?

I'm certain it isn't the thought of a cookie cutter block in Goldielocks Drive, Mernda/Narre Warren North/Wyndham Vale. These areas are actually fairly different to the middle suburbs that have been around longer.

melburn21 said:
Once again my dear friend, you're completly wrong.
But you still hide what part of Melbourne is "lucky" enough to have you. I don't hide stuff about L2 ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
^^ Well, what comes to your mind when someone says "Melbourne", or talks about living in Melbourne, thinking like a non-local?

I'm certain it isn't the thought of a cookie cutter block in Goldielocks Drive, Mernda/Narre Warren North/Wyndham Vale. These areas are actually fairly different to the middle suburbs that have been around longer.


But you still hide what part of Melbourne is "lucky" enough to have you. I don't hide stuff about L2 ;)
Vermont South - Ramsey st. Mill Park also fits the bill. Thats Melbourne to me, and always has been. I grew up in NZ, so i guess u could call me a non local, sorta.

What would you have said?

The suburbs developed in the 70's and 80s had differences to those developed in the 50s, just as those developed today have differences to those developed in the 70s. For the most part though, they are very similar.

Ive always wondered, where are you from L2?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,402 Posts
Yet houses today are built in estates in which houses are identical, excessively huge and remove all trees on the block and replace them with lawn which will soon die off. We can not just 'accept' that sprawl will happen, if we continue to do this then Bendigo will soon be a suburb, meaning that 'the country' will be further away and 'green spaces' will no longer exist..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
A high quality public transport system can neutralise the effects of sprawl, I don't see the point of pushing medium density developments in outer suburbs... I'm all for urban consolidation but by simply cutting sprawl certainly won't help Melbourne become a more liveable place.
 

·
WARREN
Joined
·
7,969 Posts
woozoo said:
Ive always wondered, where are you from L2?
My palace is located at Box Hill.

No need to start criticising my suburb cos I live there, I'm not full of love for the area. I've read enough criticisms of it on other forums, apparently it's a hole full of asian gangs dealing drugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
My palace is located at Box Hill.

No need to start criticising my suburb cos I live there, I'm not full of love for the area. I've read enough criticisms of it on other forums, apparently it's a hole full of asian gangs dealing drugs.
Nothing wrong with Box Hill, it's in a very good location and is for the most part a good looking suburb. It's just the shopping centre district that is the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Yeh box hill isnt bad. Not a bad distance from the city when compared to the other Eastern burbs, and at least it has some character. Some of the restaurants close at like 5am, which is a plus too - though i have to be starving to eat from there at that time.
 
1 - 20 of 8298 Posts
Top