What’s wrong with the world’s most liveable cities?

We all love a 'most liveable city' list: there's few things more fun than arguing with a mate over which list is right about our little slice of paradise!

Unfortunately, these mega lists aren't as useful in planning as they are as a conversation starter. They tend to compare very large geographies - entire cities or regions - using standardised, top-down metrics. And that means they can fail to recognise the nuance of place, the diversity of demographics and socio-economic characteristics, and most importantly, the views and lived experiences of the people who actually live there.

To be clear, we recognise that there are many legitimate and valuable ways to measure liveability – and there is certainly a place for these international rankings and performance frameworks. But if we’re serious about improving living standards across Australia, we need a complementary approach – one that starts with the people and places we serve.

That’s why any credible view on liveability must measure the values, experiences, and priorities of residents themselves.

Liveability isn’t just a technical concept. It’s about how people feel in their neighbourhoods, what they value in daily life, and whether their local area delivers on those expectations.

A suburb might perform well on paper, with strong transport links, good schools, ample green space, but if residents feel unsafe, disconnected, or unheard, is it truly liveable? 

And to express it another way - if planners build a fantastic new gym facility but residents care most about their huge commute (and can't make it to the gym, because they're stuck in traffic!), then an opportunity to improve liveability is lost.

If you're tasked with making decisions like these, .id Insight is packed with free insights that will help you make them confidently.

Sign up to make the right calls.

Within metropolitan areas, we consistently see a pattern. Inner-city areas tend to report the highest levels of liveability, followed by middle-suburban areas, with outer-suburban growth areas typically reporting the lowest.

This gradient offers both insight and direction. Outer-suburban areas should seek to lift the lived experience of residents to align more closely with that of middle-suburban areas, while middle-suburban areas - many of which are expected to densify - should aspire to the liveability attributes of inner-city areas.

A key factor in this progression is the presence and integration of major transport infrastructure. In inner areas, infrastructure such as underground rail, heavy rail, and light rail plays a dual role, not only enabling mobility, but also serving as social infrastructure by connecting people to major hospitals, higher education institutions, and research precincts.

These are not only essential services. They are also employment precincts and drivers of economic activity, ideas, innovation and ultimately productivity. This is why decisions around transport infrastructure should be made with a clear view of the social and economic benefits of co-locating transport with key social infrastructure. For middle and outer suburban areas, embedding this kind of connectivity is critical to improving quality of life, economic participation, and overall liveability, just as we see in many inner suburban areas today.

Building on the last point: in fast-growing suburban and peri-urban areas, transport infrastructure is a standout challenge.

Residents in these areas almost always report substantially worse local experiences with reliable and efficient public transport. They spend significant time stuck in road congestion, and can struggle to make their way to and from the services they need.

What’s particularly notable is the way poor lived experience elevates the importance of this issue in residents’ minds, making it not just a functional problem but a central concern in how liveability is judged.

Tackling transport infrastructure inequality in outer suburbs should therefore be a priority. State governments must lead in planning and delivery, federal governments have a crucial role as funding partners, and local governments should advocate strongly for their communities.