Many cities claim that they are prepared for the future, but often, each city has different ideas about what the future holds. Further complicating the situation is that each city has a unique strategy to prepare for their vision of the future, which is based upon their unique circumstances such as, population growth, economic growth, city priorities, current infrastructure and current ecological and geographical realities.

In order to even compare cities and their future plans, we must first start on an even playing field. It wouldn’t be very clear for residents, or useful to city governments to compare cities on differing criteria. But this method of comparison brings up two important questions: first, on what criteria should we evaluate these cities, and second, won’t that criteria be biased in some way? When we make decisions on criteria, we can make them as unbiased as possible, however some decisions about the “proper” criteria must be made. This opens up the selection of criteria to questions of bias in selection. I respond in two ways, no matter what, we must focus on only a select number of criteria if a meaningful rubric of a city is to be made. Not every difference in cities is honestly that important or in need of consideration. A few criteria are so important to the success of a city, that they can be indicative of the health of many cities.

In order to choose a decent set of criteria, let’s first describe what a successful hypothetical city could look like. Most local government’s could agree to a reasonably similar idea of success no matter what differences are inherent in their cities. What that means for this hypothetical example is that our description may not be perfect, but it can be reasonable to those who are intimately tied with the success of their particular cities.

First, let’s look at housing: a successful city emphasizes the importance of having enough housing available at a reasonable price, within a reasonable distance of the areas that residents need to go (work, shop, etc.) A successful city has all the qualities that make cities special places, from increased access for everything from world-class events, to an abundance of good job opportunities, commerce etc, to a greater connection to the wider world. A successful city has elements of these qualities no matter what part of the city one finds itself, ensuring that the benefits of city-life are reasonably accessible for every neighborhood.

A successful city also has a vibrant street life, with people enjoying the many attractions that the city has to offer at all times of the day. Because the entire city is relatively safe, friendly and accessible, much of the city is opened up to all classes of people.

All residents of the city, and even those from surrounding suburbs and populated areas feel as if they are connected to the city, and wish to see it succeed. A successful city serves as a linchpin for a successful region, and benefits its entire regional area.

One of the most pressing problems with ensuring this connectivity to the central city is actually demonstrated by the density paradox outlined in this Planetizen article about the problem. Basically, the article states that connecting dense places, like the city center, to public transportation is easy, but as one moves farther away from the center of a region to its fringes, it becomes financially harder to justify public transportation, and thus, harder to make sure that these places have a strong connection to their central city. As an example of how unconnected suburbs make a central city worse, and thus a region worse, look at Detroit. Many of its suburbs are ashamed of the city, and do not wish to be associated with it (For many good reasons), however this attitude is self-harming. None of Detroit’s suburbs benefit from an unsuccessful Detroit, and would fare better if Detroit itself were a better functioning city.

These are just a few of the ways of defining a successful city. Next, we will cover how these criteria can be used to compare cities in the real world.