I asked my self a question while on holiday in Melbourne – why is this city almost always placed on the top 10 list of  ‘liveable cities’ regardless of who is publishing said list?  Also, while I’m thinking of it,  why are these lists composed entirely of large cities (are there no small livable cities?) Another interesting point, while I’m on the subject, all of these livable cities seem to be  built in the western tradition (CBD and suburbs of decreasing density on the way to rural urbia). Suppose there is nothing else to choose from, or more likely a limited choice of who will pay the bills.

Back to Melbourne, it fits the model, but what makes it stand out?

Surprisingly Melbourne has only one thing I could identify which makes it different from any other city fitting the traditional liveable model.

Drum roll – this is it:

A street grid composed of VERY WIDE streets alternating with narrow streets. In my view this is the secret of Melbourne success.

Wide streets allow multiple transport options to be used along one corridor, want to catch a tram, a bus, ride a bike, drive a car – it’s all there on the same street. No confusion about where to go to get some where, just find a wide

 

street. The streets don’t even need to be particularly attractive because they get the job done. The job being to move the maximum volume of people to where they want to go as efficiently as possible. Luckily or possibly through good design most Melbourne streets are quite attractive as well.

The alternating narrow streets follow the current trend in most cities, being pedestrianized and attractive for a variety of interactions. There are plenty of  shopping and entertainment options together with that critical city ‘vibe’ thing.

So that’s it, the secret of success. If your city is not blessed with super wide streets get out the bulldozers and make some, liveability will be yours. Just remember to leave plenty of narrow streets and lanes for that all important interaction.