The notion of ‘liveability’ has endured for over 50 years within policy discourses, shaping urban strategy and planning across the world. This Debates paper examines the current state of liveability discourse. Liveability is unpacked to consider the rhetorical work that it does to frame urban problems, select and order concepts and build narratives that shape policy action. Liveability discourse has a dual role: it defines normative goals for a city and also reifies and demands particular forms of expert knowledge to justify and maintain its discursive power. This power is created by connecting the vague rhetoric of the ‘liveable city’ to expertise represented in liveability rankings and indicators. The experiences of apparently ‘liveable’ cities show how liveability discourse creates a representation of the city that is in contrast to the experience of many residents. The use of aggregate metrics and reliance on indices generated from undisclosed data sources and ‘expert judgement’ obscures the differentiated quality of life and everyday experience for urban populations. Therefore, liveability discourse has exerted and maintained stronger discursive power to undermine urban livelihoods than to improve them, due to the phenomena and qualities that it conceals. Liveability’s distinct type of discursive power must be recognised and mobilised to support a counter-narrative that reconnects urban policy with everyday urban life.
BakerTRumingK (2015) Making ‘Global Sydney’: Spatial imaginaries, worlding and strategic plans. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39(1): 62–78.
5.
BarnettCParnellS (2017) Spatial rationalities and the possibilities for planning in the New Urban Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: BhanGSrinivasSWatsonV (eds) The Routledge Companion to Planning in the Global South. London: Routledge, pp. 25–36.
6.
BrennerNSchmidC (2014) The ‘urban age’ in question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(3): 731–755.
7.
BristowG (2005) The limits to competitiveness. In: BristowG, Critical Reflections on Regional Competitiveness: Theory, Policy, Practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 121–138.
8.
CallonM (2010) Performativity, misfires and politics. Journal of Cultural Economy3(2): 163–169.
9.
CallonMMeadelCRabeharisoaV (2002) The economy of qualities. Economy and Society31(2): 194–217.
10.
Centre for Liveable Cities (2014) Liveable & Sustainable Cities: A Framework. Singapore: Civil Service College.
ClarkGMoonenT (2017) World Cities and Nation States. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
14.
ClarkeACheshireL (2018) The post-political state? The role of administrative reform in managing tensions between urban growth and liveability in Brisbane, Australia. Urban Studies55(6): 3545–3562.
15.
CleaveEArkuGSadlerRet al. (2017) Is it sound policy or fast policy? Practitioners’ perspectives on the role of place branding in local economic development. Urban Geography38(8): 1133–1157.
16.
CongerB (2015) On livability, liveability and the limited utility of quality-of-life rankings. SPP Communique7(4): 1–8.
DoolingS (2017) Ecological gentrification: The dynamics of poverty and wealth that undermine climate change goals in Austin, TX. In: American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting, Contradictions of the Climate Friendly City 1. Boston, MA, USA, 7 April 2017.
19.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2015) Global Liveability Ranking 2015. Available at: www.eiu.com/liveability2015 (accessed 10 July 2017).
20.
EwersMC (2017) International knowledge mobility and urban development in rapidly globalizing areas: Building global hubs for talent in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Urban Geography38(2): 291–314.
21.
FuYZhangX (2017) Planning for sustainable cities? A comparative content analysis of the master plans of eco, low-carbon and conventional new towns in China. Habitat International63: 55–66.
22.
GiapKKaurS (2016) Measuring Abu Dhabi’s liveability using the global liveable city index (GLCI). World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development13(3): 205–223.
23.
HallP (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. 3rd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
HatukaTRosen-ZviIBirnhackMet al. (2018) The political premises of contemporary urban concepts: The global city, the sustainable city, the resilient city, the creative city, and the smart city. Planning Theory & Practice19(2): 160–179.
25.
HebbertM (2003) New Urbanism – The movement in context. Built Environment29(3): 193–209.
26.
HoldenMScerriA (2013) More than this: Liveable Melbourne meets liveable Vancouver. Cities31: 444–453.
ImmergluckDBalanT (2017) Sustainable for whom? Green urban development, environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Geography39(4): 546–562.
29.
International Organization for Standardization (2014) Sustainable Development of Communities – Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life. ISO/DIS Standard No. 37120. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/62436.html (accessed 9 May 2018).
30.
JacobsKA (2015) Australian unintended cities. Geographical Research5(3): 333–335.
JonesCLeyD (2016) Transit-oriented development and gentrification along Metro Vancouver’s low-income SkyTrain corridor. Canadian Geographer60(1): 9–22.
33.
KaalH (2011) A conceptual history of livability. City15(5): 532–547.
KingdonJ (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins.
36.
KirbyA (2013) Cities and powerful knowledge: An editorial essay on accepted wisdom and global urban theory [Part I]. Cities32(1): S3–S9.
37.
KitchinRLauriaultTMcArdleG (2015) Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science2(1): 6–28.
38.
LatourB (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30: 225–248.
39.
LeesLDemerittD (1998) Envisioning the livable city: The interplay of ‘Sin City’ and ‘Sim City’ in Vancouver’s planning discourse. Urban Geography19(4): 332–359.
40.
LegrandT (2016) Elite, exclusive and elusive: Transgovernmental policy networks and iterative policy transfer in the Anglosphere. Policy Studies37(5): 440–455.
41.
LeyD (1990) Urban liveability in context. Urban Geography11(1): 31–35.
42.
LloydK (2016) Where is the ‘social’ in constructions of ‘liveability’? Exploring community, social interaction and social cohesion in changing urban environments. Urban Policy and Research34(4): 343–355.
43.
McArthurJ (2017) Auckland: Rescaling governance and post-suburban politics. Cities64: 79–87.
44.
McCannE (2007) Inequality and politics in the creative city-region: Questions of livability and state strategy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31(1): 188–196.
45.
McCannE (2013) Policy boosterism, policy mobilities, and the extrospective city. Urban Geography34(1): 5–29.
46.
McNeillD (2011) Fine grain, global city: Jan Gehl, public space and commercial culture in central Sydney. Journal of Urban Design16(2): 161–178.
MasseyD (2005) For Space. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
49.
MayT (2017) Urban crisis: Bonfire of vanities to find opportunities in the ashes. Urban Studies54(9): 2189–2198.
50.
MayorofGM (2018) ‘Not only have we shot up the ranks faster than any other European city – but #Manchester has been named as the UK’s best city to live in, according to the renowned @TheEIU Global Liveability Index. Great news – shows the world what we all knew’. Twitter, 14August. Available at: https://twitter.com/MayorofGM/status/1029283677233131525 (accessed 20 August 2018).
MetzgerJWibergS (2017) Contested framings of urban qualities: Dis/qualifications of value in urban development controversies. Urban Studies55(10): 2300–2316.
53.
MillerP (2001) Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter. Social Research68(2): 379–396.
ParnellSRobinsonJ (2006) Development and urban policy: Johannesburg’s city development strategy. Urban Studies43(2): 337–355.
59.
ReinMSchönD (2012) Frame-reflective policy discourse. In: WagnerPWeissCWittrockBet al. (eds) Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 262–289.
60.
RichardsonTJensenOB (2003) Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies40(1): 7–22
61.
RobinEAcutoM (2018) Global urban policy and the geopolitics of urban data. Urban Geography66: 76–87.
62.
RobinEBrillF (2018) The global politics of an urban age: Creating ‘cities for all’ in the age of financialisation. Palgrave Communications4(1): 1–5.
63.
RobinESteenmansKAcutoM (2017) Harnessing inclusive urban knowledge for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. Urban Research & Practice. Published online 12 December 2017. DOI: 10.1080/17535069.2017.1414870.
64.
RobinsonJ (2005) Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London: Taylor & Francis.
65.
RydinY (2012) Policy networks, local discourses and the implementation of sustainable development. In: BakerS (ed.) Politics of Sustainable Development. London: Routledge, pp. 161–182.
66.
SchafranA (2014) Debating urban studies in 23 steps. City18(3): 321–330.
67.
SchönD (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. London: Ashgate.
68.
ScottJ (1998) Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
TeoS (2014) Political tool or quality experience? Urban livability and the Singaporean state’s global city aspirations. Urban Geography35(6): 916–937.
71.
TheodoreNPeckJ (2011) Framing neoliberal urbanism: Translating ‘commonsense’ urban policy across the OECD zone. European Urban and Regional Studies19(1): 20–41.
72.
UN-Habitat (2008) Broad-based partnerships as a strategy for urban livability: An evaluation of best practices. Technical report, United Nations, New York.
73.
UN-Habitat (2016) New urban agenda. Technical report, United Nations, New York.
74.
Van DammeS (2005) Les sciences humaines ‘á l’epreuve de la ville: Les enjeux d’une archéologie des savoirs urbains (XVIIe–XXe siecles). Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines12: 3–17.
75.
Van HulstMYanowD (2016) From policy ‘frames’ to ‘framing’: Theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. American Review of Public Administration46(1): 92–112.
76.
Van LindertP (2016) Rethinking urban development in Latin America: A review of changing paradigms and policies. Habitat International54(2): 253–264.
VincentB (2014) The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of public engagement in science. Public Understanding23(3): 238–253.
80.
WalmsleyD (1988) Urban Living: The Individual in the City. Harlow: Longman.
WetzsteinS (2013) Globalising economic governance, political projects, and spatial imaginaries: Insights from four Australasian cities. Geographical Research51(1): 71–84.
