What makes one suburb more "liveable" than another? That's the question at the heart of the latest liveability survey, carried out by by Deloitte Access Economics and planners Tract Consultants for The Age, ranking every Melbourne suburb from 1 to 321. The study's authors chose 15 indicators to make or break individual suburbs. They are, in no particular order:
1. How far you are from the beach.
"Proximity to coastline" may not be a priority for everybody in Melbourne, but it's generally agreed that being near the beach is better than not being near the beach. The suburb that rated best: St Kilda West
2. How far you are from the CBD.
Like indicator (1), it's a personal thing: plenty of Melburnians never go near the CBD. But if you work in or near the CBD, or like going in for the shops and eating out, easy access is a good thing. The suburb that rated best: West Melbourne
3. Trains.
Yes, many prefer to sit in peak hour traffic rather than use them. But a train line is a life-giving arterial. The suburb that rated best: Burnley.
4. Trams.
Slower than trains, but more plentiful if you're within the network. And part of what make Melbourne Melbourne, of course. Which has to be good. The suburbs that rated best: St Kilda West, Fitzroy, Melbourne.
5. Buses. Ah, the oft-overlooked pack horses of the public transport network. None of the glamour of their cousins on the rails, but they connect far-flung places. The suburbs that rated best: South Kingsville, Strathmore Heights, Sunshine, Gowanbrae, Ripponlea.
6. Traffic.
The study marked suburbs down for congestion. No argument there. The suburb with the least congestion: Williamstown.
7. Arts and culture.
Whether it's your thing or not, we'd rather live somewhere that has a bit of culture – a gallery, a music venue, a decent library – than a cultural desert. The suburb that rated best: Southbank.
8. Schools.
Meaningless if you don't have school-aged children, but fairly useful if you do, in which case, the more schools to choose from, the better. So generally a plus. The suburb that rated best: Princes Hill.
9. Shopping.
A no-brainer. The suburb that rated best (due to its proximity to the CBD): Docklands.
10. Parks.
Public open space is again, a no-brainer. The suburb that rated best: Sherbrooke.
11. Trees.
Leafy tree coverage is not generally something we think about, but it's what makes the desirably leafy suburbs, well, leafy. The suburb that rated best: Sherbrooke.
12. Hilliness.
Like trees, not an obvious one. But it's the difference between featureless flat urban sprawl and charming hippie enclaves like Warrandyte. Rated best: Ferny Creek.
13. Cafes and restaurants.
Used to not be so important back when people thought moving to Ringwood was better than staying in Prahran. Now even the most down-to-earth types love their lattes. Often the first indicator that a suburb is gentrifying. The suburb that rated best: East Melbourne (again, due to its proximity to Richmond, Collingwood and the CBD).
14. Crime.
Not something everybody considers when choosing where to live. But getting burgled a few times will probably change your definition of liveable. The suburb that rated lowest for crime: Sherbrooke.
15. Broadband and mobile phone coverage.
Actually, this is the most important indicator. Who can live without five bars and high-speed broadband to stream Netflix? Rated best: Carlton North, Princes Hill.
And three things the study DIDN'T measure – but these are at least as important, if too difficult to quantify:
1. Community. Do you know your neighbours? Do you have cheery street parties or hide from the gangs running meth labs? Important measure of liveability but not easily measured unless you go house to house.
2. What the houses are like. Is yours one in a streetscape of Victorian terraces that you admire every time you step outside? Or do you have a quarter-acre block in the middle of nowhere? The study didn't measure this.
3. Demographics. Do you feel you fit in where you live? Are the other people like you? Is it a depressed area, or a thriving one? Again, this wasn't factored in.
It's all relative.
No suburb did better than every other suburb on each indicator: Even Skye, in overall last place, beat East Melbourne in at least one of the indicators, which if nothing else shows that the gap between top and bottom is not actually very pronounced.
Some suburbs helped each other out. For some criteria, the authors allowed suburbs to "borrow" facilities from a neighbour, such as culture, shopping and cafes and restaurants, reasoning that these were things you'd cross a suburban border for. East Melbourne, for example, picked up points from neighbouring cafe-heavy Collingwood and Richmond.
The study does not factor in house prices or housing stock. The first, because prices are largely governed by the same things that make a suburb liveable; the second, because housing stock is subjective (terrace house or rural spread?) and near-impossible to measure in a meaningful way.
The study does acknowledge the limitations of using just 15 broad criteria. As one of the study's authors, Adam Terrill, says, "If you value wide open spaces and rural views then Skye will be much better for you than East Melbourne."
