Melbourne or Sydney?

This is how our two biggest cities compare for liveability.

The question of which city is the most liveable is an annual hot topic. Competition is fierce, especially between Melbourne and Sydney. We have previously highlighted the limitationsof The Economist Intelligence Unit Global Liveability Index. In this article we analyse the differences between Sydney and Melbourne using clearly defined liveability indicators based on objective spatial data.

Liveability is an important concept with implications for health and well-being that go beyond promotional material or the prestige of being named number one. As part of our Creating Liveable Cities project, in July we released a scorecard looking at the liveability of Sydney. The scorecard for Melbourne comes out today.

For this research, we mapped policies designed to create liveable cities. We found great variation in these policies. Both cities do well on some but not all aspects of liveability.

We also found inequities in the delivery of infrastructure relating to liveability policies in both cities. Some suburbs do better than others, but in both cities suburbs on the urban fringe are less liveable. These areas often have poor access to the basic amenities needed for daily living.

So, let’s take a closer look at the liveability of Melbourne and Sydney.

Public transport access

Melbourne has an ambitious policy for public transport access. This requires 95% of residences to be within a 400-metre walk to a bus stop, 600m to a tram stop, or 800m to a train station. At present, 69% of residences meet this target.

The policy we measured spatially for Sydney is even more stringent. It requires 100% of residences to be close to public transport – within 400m of a bus stop with a service every 30 minutes, or 800m of a train station with a service every 15 minutes. Only 38% of residences and 2% of suburbs meet this target.

To create a consistent comparison between Sydney and Melbourne, we developed a common national liveability indicator that measures access (within 400m) to frequent public transport (a 30-minute service frequency). Results using this indicator were very similar: 36% of residences in Melbourne achieved this, compared to 35% in Sydney.

In both cities, however, inner and more established suburbs have the best public transport access. Many middle and outer suburbs miss out (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of residences by suburb within 400m of a public transport stop with a service every 30 minutes. Author provided

Another important liveability indicator measures how people get to work. This is especially important with growing population, increased traffic congestion and longer commuting times. Our research shows cities are healthier, more liveable and sustainable when walking, cycling and public transport are more convenient than driving.

Residents of Sydney are more likely to use public transport (26%) than residents of Melbourne (18%). The proportions who walk or cycle to work in each city are similar (6% Sydney, 5% in Melbourne). Both Melbourne and Sydney are doing well relative to other Australian cities.

By international standards, though, we have a long way to go. For instance, 50% of people (and 63% of MPs!) in Denmark’s capital, Copenhagen, commute daily by bike.

Walkability

Coinciding with good access to public transport are walkable areas, which combine somewhere to walk (to local shops and services), population density (to support the services) and a way to get there (connected road network). Walkable neighbourhoods are the backbone of a liveable city.

Figure 2 shows that in both Sydney and Melbourne inner areas have the highest walkability. This declines dramatically towards the urban fringe. Yet neither city has policies in place to achieve walkable neighbourhoods in the suburbs.

Figure 2: Composite walkability indicator* for suburbs within each capital city. Author provided

Walkability is also unlikely to be achieved with population density requirements set at only 15 dwellings per hectare. That’s too low to achieve walkable neighbourhoods.

Higher residential densities ensure there are enough people and the associated demand to support the transport and everyday services that help make cities liveable. Research is now showing that this requires higher densities of at least 25 dwellings per hectare, and even higher around activity centres and transport nodes.

Suburban densities are higher in Sydney, at 19 dwellings per hectare, than in Melbourne, which has only 13 dwellings per hectare.

Better policies create better cities

So to the question: which is the most liveable city? The answer in turn depends on another question: liveable for whom? Both cities have areas performing well on some liveability domains and other areas where more could be done.

The findings of these reports show a need for more ambitious policies, research evidence linking liveability indicators to health and well-being, and investment in infrastructure and spatial planning to improve liveability, health and well-being for all residents of all cities.

Lucy Gunn - Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, RMIT University

Billie Giles-Corti - Director, Urban Futures Enabling Capability Platform and Director, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University

Julianna Rozek - Research Officer, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

Melanie Davern - Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

Originally published on The Conversation.

Society and Environment

11 September 2018

Society and Environment

11 September 2018

Society
Environment

Engage

Contact RMIT News

Find an expert

Study with us

More from RMIT academics on The Conversation

Related News

RMIT student awarded European internship with industry leader

An RMIT engineering student has spent two months in the south of Spain working on an innovative solar energy project for one of the country's largest chemical groups.

Landscape Architecture students engage with remote regional community

RMIT students have worked with the Wilcannia community and the Barkandji people in the development of a new cultural centre in regional New South Wales.

New partnership in health innovation connects Australia and Spain

Innovative therapy to assist with brain injury rehabilitation is extending to Spain as part of a new agreement between RMIT and one of the country’s largest teaching hospitals.

Citizen scientists take heatwaves into their own hands

RMIT researchers are working with citizen scientists in Melbourne to collect local climate data that will enable communities to plan for extreme heat.

Acknowledgement of Country

RMIT University acknowledges the people of the Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung language groups of the eastern Kulin Nation on whose unceded lands we conduct the business of the University. RMIT University respectfully acknowledges their Ancestors and Elders, past and present. RMIT also acknowledges the Traditional Custodians and their Ancestors of the lands and waters across Australia where we conduct our business - Artwork 'Sentient' by Hollie Johnson, Gunaikurnai and Monero Ngarigo.

More information

Melbourne or Sydney?