The world’s most livable city would have no Starbuckses at all and would be called San Melbournecisco

In an FT article this weekend asking why the world’s most liveable cities aren’t the world’s most lovable cities (ahem, Melbourne?), Monocle editor Tyler Brûlé explained his rather strange definition of a “most livable city”:

All the [most-livable-cities] surveys use an index. But what is on it? “There’s always proximity to nature,” says Tyler Brûlé. “Global connectivity is important, education and we’ve recently added chain store metrics – is there a Starbucks or a Zara?” he says.

Wouldn’t a preponderance of Starbuckses and their milky, burnt-tasting coffee make a city less livable? Australia certainly didn’t get any less livable when we booted the Seattleites out in mid-2008.

Has Tyler been taking a few too many hits from his sleek, minimalist, brushed-aluminium Alessi bong?

This entry was posted in Miscellaneous. Bookmark the permalink.