000			02171nab a2200217 4500
999			_c11456 _d11456
003			OSt
005			20210303165609.0
007			cr aa aaaaa
008			210303b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aMcArthur, Jenny _941033
245			_aVictims of their own (definition of) success: Urban discourse and expert knowledge production in the Liveable City
260			_bSage _c2019
300			_aVol 56, Issue 9, 2019 : (1711-1728 p.)
520			_aThe notion of ‘liveability’ has endured for over 50 years within policy discourses, shaping urban strategy and planning across the world. This Debates paper examines the current state of liveability discourse. Liveability is unpacked to consider the rhetorical work that it does to frame urban problems, select and order concepts and build narratives that shape policy action. Liveability discourse has a dual role: it defines normative goals for a city and also reifies and demands particular forms of expert knowledge to justify and maintain its discursive power. This power is created by connecting the vague rhetoric of the ‘liveable city’ to expertise represented in liveability rankings and indicators. The experiences of apparently ‘liveable’ cities show how liveability discourse creates a representation of the city that is in contrast to the experience of many residents. The use of aggregate metrics and reliance on indices generated from undisclosed data sources and ‘expert judgement’ obscures the differentiated quality of life and everyday experience for urban populations. Therefore, liveability discourse has exerted and maintained stronger discursive power to undermine urban livelihoods than to improve them, due to the phenomena and qualities that it conceals. Liveability’s distinct type of discursive power must be recognised and mobilised to support a counter-narrative that reconnects urban policy with everyday urban life.
650			_adiscourse _934417
650			_a knowledge production _944872
700			_aRobin, Enora _944873
773	0		_011188 _915499 _dsage, 2019. _tUrban studies
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018804759
942			_2ddc _cART