Lecture 10: Liveable Cities Flashcards
Explain urban liveability
describes overall contribut n of urban environ in influence quality of life or residents’ well-being in cities
relative term whose precise meaning depends on place, time, purpose of assessment & on value system of individual assessor
this view contends that quality not an attribute inherent in environ BUT behaviour-related function of interact n btw individuals & environ
What are factors affecting urban liveability? (HINT: Diva hand)
Econ
- Cost of living
- Econ competitiveness & vibrancy
Environ
- Geographical locat n
- Environ quality
Social
- Cultural vibrancy
- Socio-cultural diversity
- Provision of social svcs & investment in public infra (eg school, hospital, library, eldercare facility, recreational space, green space)
- Low crime rates
Political
- Quality of governance
- Citizens’ involvement
How does having green spaces improve liveability of a city?
i. help soften overall ‘concrete feel’ of city
ii. for recreat n & relaxat n
iii. reduce noise level (act as buffer)
iv. reduce urban heat effect (lower local temperature) -> achieve environ liveability
How does well-built infra eg reliable public transport system make cities highly liveable?
- less rely on private car ownership
- reduce no of cars on road, less incidence of traffic congest n
=> less carbon emissions
=> yields cleaner air qlty, ensure social health of urban residents & offer more +ve city image to potential investors ( socio-econ liveability) - strict govt regulat n on emissions by industries help lower pollutants & increase urban liveability of diff places
How do well-built amenities in cities help economically?
- built environ w unique architecture, historical, cultural structure give city unique characteristic; attractive to high net worth indivi
- these high net worth indivi can further stimulate econ growth, dvlopment in cities w their spending pwr & investments (+ve feedback loop)
How does social-cultural vibrancy influence urban liveability?
- city deemed more liveable if hv high lvl of social acceptance, tolerance,etc.
- inclusive city (all feel sense of belonging, hv opportunities to serve community)
eg. - SG (inclusive society)
- Toronto, Canada; most culturally diverse city, encompass >200 ethnic grp w >140 languages spoken
- global cities like London, UK; New York & San Francisco, US
How do provision of social svcs, investments in public infra (sch, hospitals, green spaces) influence urban liveability?
- Providing quality hc, edu n are impt public goods essential to community
- These services shd benefit all members of society, improve urban liveability of place
eg Shared Community Spaces, Age-Friendly Streets
Name some factors influencing urban liveability
Explain each factor
- Quality of govnance
- can ensure safety, secure, econ dvlpmt
- willingness of govt to improve environ - Citizens involvement
- more engagement w society = btr urban liveability - Transport mgment (environ)
- btr transport infra = less frustrations (social) - Provision of social svcs, investment in public infra (social)
- public svcs/gds = benefit all members - Low crime rates
lesser crime=safer residents feel (social)
What are some tensions btw Urban Liveability & SUD?
- Who shd define & benefit fr these concepts?
- Shd priority b given to ‘liveable sustainability’ OR ‘sustainable liveability’
- Shd priority b given to desires of present gen OR anticipated desires of future gen
Describe how sustainability and liveability complement each other
- Sustainability need liveability to demonstrate its practical rlvance to specific stakeholders & potential for change
- Liveability need sustainability to ground actions, investments for future/long-term change, ensure local preferences consider long term econ, environ, social equity
Elaborate on who should define and benefit urban liveability & SUD
- Inherent ‘subjective’ element in 2 concepts cause tensions
- increasingly diverse social grp (eg rich, poor, young, old, gender), each w diff needs, preference, compete for meaning of liveability
=> cause lack of consensus regarding WHOSE qualities of liveability shd b consider, WHO benefit fr following liveability investments made to achieve long-term sustainability vision - oso, attempts to attain urban sustainability often fraught w conflict where implementat n largely favour 1 dimension over other 2
=> often prioritise econ dvlpment over social equity, environ conserv n, neglect ‘liveable’ needs of some local community grp (low income, etc)
eg ‘care-less’ evict n of slum dwellers during implement of 2016 Olympics in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
Elaborate on whether priority should be given to ‘liveable sustainability’ or ‘sustainable liveability’
- Diff underlying anchorage create tension btw 2 concepts
- Liveability is subjective/relative term, evolve in response to change condit n, preference, values of various urban residents in citites
eg in US, environ mvment of early 1970s focused on protect natural environ & give pwr to citizens marginalised by corporate America, protect their qlty of life
Now, rise of values linked to community health, food systems mvments, aim address issues eg access healthy food, community design encourage physical activity
Thus, def n of liveability can change over time & geographically w associated human values - However, unlike liveability, SUD assume unchanging vision, results in tension
1. Sustainable liveability - prioritise sustain, but gd sustain decision no always create desirable liveable outcome (eg protect environ by remove air con in SG in climate getting hotter; fewer cars on road w/o alternatives)
2. Liveable sustainability - prioritise liveable
eg allow local preference for liveability take priority over broader visions of sustain
=> Thus, tension arises fr diff underlying emphasis/anchorage, so challenging for cities to balance, achieve
Elaborate on whether priority should b given to present gen’s or anticipated future gen’s desires
- Tension btw 2 concepts arise due to question on meet inter-gen needs of ppl
- Urban liveability: more focused on present conditi n (shorter term view)
- SUD: (recall def n) no burden to leave on future gen (concern abt longer term view), how city attain dvlopment (diva hand) at rate continue into future, inter-gen horizon
- eg if resource consum n is high in city, liveability ranked high, overtime, sustain may b affected due to rapid resource deplete, make cities less ‘liveable’ in future
- However, long-term view of sustain present impt tension btw each gen’s needs, lead to negotiat n at various lvl of govt over WHOSE sustainability & at WHOSE expense
What can liveability interventions serve as? What does it mean?
- incremental steps that collectively increase potential for long-term sustainability
- IMPT to understand how liveability relate to sustainability as it help planners bridge desires of residents in present moment w longer term needs associated w sustainability vision.
=> sustainable outcomes bcome more tangible over time thru series of liveability outcomes
