Uploaded on 2017-06-04 by Boston (by Nicholas Swedberg)

Livability of Cities For this exercise, I have chosen to rank five cities in which I have lived in or visited for a substantial duration in order to more fairly offer an assessment of livability. The following five cities form my personal livability ranking: 1. Washington, DC, USA 2. Boston, MA, USA 3. Montréal, QC, CAN 4. Richmond, VA, USA 5. New York, NY, USA These are the only five cities with which I have engaged for a substantial period of time. As such, I do not consider Washington the most livable city in the world or New York the fifth, but rather Washington as the most livable city in which I have lived and New York the least, with all the others falling in between. As evidenced by the various city livability surveys linked to this exercise, the ranking services all considered a range of different factors when composing their livability rankings. The inclusion of numerous and varied categories used in the different surveys illustrates the complexity inherent in cities and the difficulty in developing universal metrics for city ranking. Considering this complexity, I found it challenging to consider only five ranking factors. In an attempt to cover the breadth of the city, I have ranked the following characteristics as the most important for livability: 1. Political/social stability 2. Affordability/cost of living 3. Accessibility/quality of public transit 4. Access to nature/recreation 5. Cleanliness Political and social stability are essential for a livable city. Growing up in the USA, I think that living in a relatively stable social and political realm is something that many US citizens take for granted. Given this bias, I did not initially consider stability until I had examined the metrics in the linked surveys. However, a stable social and political system is very important to citizen well-being. Stability and a degree of certainty allow citizens to focus on leading meaningful lives, or working to improve other characteristics of their city without fear that the systems and institutions that support their daily lives are in danger of collapse or a threat to their personal well-being. Included in this characteristic is also the notion of individual safety. It is essential that citizens are safe, and feel safe, and are able to enter the public realm without fear of physical injury or civil and/or governmental harm. Affordability and cost of living are also very important livability factors. Some of the linked surveys, like the EIU, did not account for cost of living, but this is a very important metric. Cities need to be affordable for a range of income groups, not simply the extremely wealthy. Of course, there will always be market factors at play, such as supply and demand, which are affected by the desirability of neighborhoods and quality and availability of the existing housing stock. However, many other qualities that make cities wonderful, such as vibrant art and culture scenes, gastronomy, entertainment; stem from citizens who run the range of the socio-economic spectrum. Livable cities need to offer access via quality public transit. This factor is especially important when we consider the imperative need to reduce CO2 production, or the desire to make walkable and pedestrian friendly zones within the city. The opportunity to take personal vehicles off the road can help reduce emissions and decongest downtown urban zones. Walkability and pedestrian friendly zones should also take precedent over automobile traffic. In order to reduce traffic and the use personal vehicles, cities need to make public transit a superior alternative to the car, both in terms of cost and convenience. Access to nature and recreation opportunities are also central to city livability. While the man-made city offers its own intrigue and delights, cities must offer outdoor spaces both within the city proper and in the immediately surrounding hinterlands. This natural access is important both psychologically, offering citizens the benefits of mental relaxation that natural spaces provide, and with regards to physical well-being as it affords the chance for exercise. Finally, I decided to include cleanliness as a criteria for livability. Cities should be relatively clean and healthful. The handling, removal, and processing of urban waste, at both macro and micro scales, is important for inhabitants. Clean cities are visually attractive, but also reduce adverse effects from exposure to unpleasant or dangerous materials, aerosols, etc. I will use the US city of Boston for the component on urban analysis and proposed livability improvement. According to my personal criteria, Boston scores well in some regards, but it also offers chances for improvement. Boston scores well in political/social stability, it receives average to above average marks in accessibility/quality of public transit, access to nature/recreation, and cleanliness, and a low score in affordability/cost of living. Located within the USA, with a strong economy and solid local governance, Boston’s wealth and the US national dynamic ensure that the city easily meets the most important criteria for livability. Boston possesses a range of transit systems: heavy rail (the commuter trains and regional trains), subway (known as the “T”), and buses. The combination of these modes of transit provides generally good access to the areas of the city at a price that is reasonable for the associated expense. However, the T line is very old and requires updating. With regards to access to nature and recreation, the city also scores well, but it lacks truly great and numerous public spaces, spaces that that other cities on my list like Washington and Montréal possess. Boston does, however, have a nice main park, the “Common;” an excellent waterfront, and the Charles River, which all provide recreation and natural access. Boston’s proximity to the rest of New England means that nature reserves, mountains, lakes, and beaches are accessible on short day trips from the city. The overall cleanliness of Boston is acceptable, but it could use improvement, and it can struggle during the winter months as a result of snowfall. Better waste management in the form of more frequent pick-up and more public receptacles would be one simple solution. The livability characteristic that Boston would be best served to improve would be its overall affordability/cost of living. Given the geography of the city, land is a limited commodity, which is one factor that increases the cost of housing. However, there is also a disparity between the top earning professionals in the city, those in the financial, technology, and medical sectors; and the bottom earners. As a result, the high cost of housing perpetuates itself in part because the top half of citizens can still pay substantial sums of money for housing. Further, neighborhoods that are traditionally of a lower or more moderate income face the threat of gentrification as they become more desirable. However, with the exception of Richmond, the issue of affordability is common to the other US cities on my list. In contrast, a city like Montréal has a much more broadly affordable housing stock. Without instituting a socialized housing program, there needs to be a market response to providing broader ranges of housing types. Endemic of the US housing market is the developer construction trend of “luxury” apartments, which carry a high price tag and cater to only a specific portion of the population. In order to maintain the vibrance of the city and keep the cost of living from rising, Boston would be well-served to increase its housing stock, which is a limited option; and avoid the “luxury” apartment development trend. This issue would likely be a good opportunity to implement city models and simulations in conjunction with citizen meetings and crowdsourcing strategies. Models and simulations would have to place a particular emphasis on economics, and the planning and design of housing would need to consider relevant funding models.