Sydney is ranked 5th in that same survey.
Would be embarrasing if Sydney overtake Melbourne next time too.
Not surprising to be honest (as a Melbournian)
After reaching #7 spot in the equivalent survey last year, I wonder how Perth did this time?
Quite surprisingly, Sydney actually improved considerably on the 2017 results where the city was ranked #11!
Although for many reasons, I personally don’t think we’re worthy of being called one of the Top 10 most liveable cities in the world let alone the Top 5.
It’s even more embarrassing misspelling embarrassing.
Tbh, I associate the unconventional term “livable” with “number 1”. Just saying. Sydney like any global city would want the mantle.
I’ll add a there too.
Housing prices and traffic congestion should be 2 reasons why that DOESN’T happen.
I honestly can’t see why Sydney is so highly ranked in this index. The cost of living is numero uno. Congestion is already appalling for a city of Sydney’s size and it’s getting worse exponentially. The push for comprehensive public transport is too little, too late. Add in a summer climate that’s becoming wretched and worsening air pollution, too. Vancouver, one notch below Sydney, doesn’t suffer from these environmental problems as much.
These quality of life issues become more pronounced the further west you go. If one limits the analysis to the inner suburbs where the transport options are plentiful and the climate and air quality are more pleasant, the ranking might be justified.
Canberra is probably Australia’s most liveable city, and I’d rank every city in NZ above Sydney and Melbourne, too.
And Melbourne doesn’t have chronic gridlock and insanely poor affordability as well??
Not as bad as Sydney though.
Do you think so? London is 48th on the list , New York 57th but are both regarded as global giants.
But isn’t a high cost of living an indicator of high demand which in turn points to high liveability (or at least, perceived liveability)? Especially in a country like Australia where land is abundant.
Just a thought. But these rankings are totally pointless anyway, a better approach would be to categorise cities (ie good, average, bad) but that wouldn’t create headlines or generate clicks.
The concentration of work and human capital in cities has pushed people to migrate from rural areas to urban areas, which in turn puts pressure on house prices and filters through to other prices. This is true for every city in the world; Sydney’s cost of living relative to other cities in the region is high. Moreover, population doesn’t guarantee that a city will provide a good quality of life- think Mumbai or Beijing! But as a city grows, it should make the life of its citizens as good as possible to keep them there!
There’s the small matter of water resources in arid and semi-arid climates to consider here.
This appeared on The Weekly tonight, as part of the segment called “Go Away”, which is a parody of Getaway.
PLEASE NOTE: What Tom Gleeson says here should not be taken too seriously.
Glad to see the boffins agree with some of what I said above:
Both Sydney and Melbourne got full points in the “infrastructure” category…
While this may be true for inner-city residents, our research has found that some suburbs – particularly those on the urban fringe – are less lucky. Public transport in particular is often missing in outer suburbs. The index doesn’t consider how liveability is distributed across a city and if some people are missing out.
Have they seen Sydney, or NSW, public transport, as a whole? It makes Australia’s media industry sound like a responsible citizen and a powerhouse!
I reckon living in Point Piper or Toorak would be rather lovely.
Hot Europeans visit bondi beach, so Sydney.
You won’t find many expats living in Point Piper, far too expensive.