A “liveable” capital is not defined by one landmark project or a single policy idea. It is defined by how the city feels to live in, day after day, across decades. Can people move around easily? Can they find homes that suit their life stage? Are neighbourhoods pleasant and safe? Can businesses grow without being constrained by utilities and congestion? Does the city make it easy to pursue a good career without sacrificing health, time, or community?
By 2040, cities will be judged less on ambition and more on delivery. The fundamentals will matter: infrastructure that works, a talent ecosystem that flourishes, and sustainability choices that create resilience rather than friction. The challenge is that these goals often compete. Each has legitimate demands on budgets, space, timelines, and attention. A truly liveable city is one that makes trade-offs deliberately and transparently, with a clear view of long-term outcomes.
For businesses, this is not an abstract discussion. City liveability affects recruitment, retention, productivity, and investment decisions. For residents, it shapes daily life and long-term wellbeing. For the city as a whole, it influences competitiveness on a national and international stage.
Liveability sits at the intersection of three systems
When people talk about liveability, they often list features: housing, transport, parks, jobs, culture, safety, clean air, and a sense of community. These features are real, but they are also outputs of three interdependent systems:
- Infrastructure – transport networks, housing delivery, water and energy capacity, digital connectivity, and the public realm.
- Talent – education, training, career opportunities, employer practices, and the ability for workers to build stable lives.
- Sustainability – resource efficiency, climate resilience, low-carbon choices, and long-term stewardship of land and water.
None of these systems works in isolation. A city can build new offices, but without housing and transport, the labour market strains. A city can commit to sustainability goals, but without resilient utilities and realistic delivery plans, progress stalls. A city can develop great education and training, but if the daily experience is too difficult, graduates may leave.
The central trade-off is speed versus cohesion
Rapid growth can create momentum, but it can also create stress if infrastructure and services do not keep pace. A city can attract investment and jobs, but if housing supply is constrained and commuting becomes painful, the growth can undermine its own foundations.
This is why cohesion matters. Cohesion means that housing, transport, utilities, and workplace development are planned as a connected system. It means that investment in one area does not accidentally create pressure in another. It also means that liveability improvements reach beyond a small number of districts and become part of how the whole city works.
By 2040, the capitals that succeed will likely be those that create stable, predictable systems rather than chasing constant reinvention. This includes reliable maintenance, clear planning signals, and projects delivered in a sequence that supports daily life, not just future aspirations.
Infrastructure trade-offs – capacity, cost, and the shape of the city
Infrastructure planning forces difficult choices because cities have limited space and limited resources. Building a liveable capital means choosing which forms of growth to prioritise.
Housing density versus commuting distance
One of the biggest structural decisions is whether housing is built close to jobs and amenities, or whether it is pushed further out where land is cheaper. Lower-density sprawl can feel easier in the short term, but it often increases commuting distance and car dependency, which raises congestion and emissions over time. Higher-density housing closer to transport and services can reduce travel demand, but it requires careful planning, local amenities, and high-quality public realm to feel liveable.
Transport modes versus public space
Cities must decide how space is allocated between cars, public transport, cycling, and walking. Each choice affects liveability. Prioritising cars can support convenience for some journeys, but it can degrade air quality, increase noise, and reduce the space available for parks, footpaths, and local social life. Prioritising public transport and active travel can improve health and community feel, but it requires reliable networks and safe infrastructure that people trust.
Utility resilience versus visible improvements
Utilities rarely generate excitement, but they can become the main constraints on growth. Water, energy, and digital capacity underpin everything else. Investment in these systems can feel invisible compared to a new street or a new building, but without it, the city’s ability to grow and withstand shocks can be compromised.
A key sustainability and resilience trade-off is whether to invest early in strengthening critical infrastructure, even when the benefit is not immediately visible. This kind of “boring excellence” often determines whether a city can deliver liveability over the long term.
Talent trade-offs – attractiveness, affordability, and opportunity
A liveable capital must work for the people who keep it running. That includes highly paid specialists, but also teachers, healthcare workers, hospitality staff, logistics workers, and early-career professionals. If a city becomes attractive only to a narrow segment, it can lose the diversity of skills that supports a healthy economy and a healthy civic life.
Attracting talent versus retaining talent
Some cities are good at attracting people for a short period, but weaker at retaining them. Retention is shaped by whether people can build stable lives. That includes housing options, commuting time, childcare, healthcare access, and the ability to transition between life stages without leaving the city.
Employers have a meaningful role here. Flexible work practices, learning pathways, predictable working hours, and supportive management can reduce the “friction tax” that pushes people away. Employers also influence the rhythm of the city: where people spend time, when they travel, and how local areas thrive.
Opportunity concentration versus ecosystem strength
In many capitals, opportunity is concentrated in certain districts and sectors. Over time, that can create inequality in access and can increase commuting pressures. A more liveable city tends to foster multiple hubs and a wider distribution of opportunity, supported by transport connections and local amenities. This can make daily life easier and reduce pressure on one central area.
Sustainability trade-offs – ambition, delivery, and lived experience
Sustainability can be framed as a moral imperative, but in practice it is also an operational challenge. The cities that deliver sustainability outcomes by 2040 will likely do so by aligning sustainability with liveability rather than treating them as separate agendas.
Carbon reduction versus affordability
Some sustainability choices can increase costs in the short term, such as building upgrades and new technologies. The trade-off is whether these investments are structured in a way that protects affordability while still delivering long-term benefits. When sustainability is framed as “expensive”, it can become socially fragile. When it is framed as “better value over time”, with clear benefits in comfort, health, and resilience, it can gain broader support.
Green space versus housing supply
Green space is essential for mental and physical health, heat mitigation, and neighbourhood liveability. At the same time, housing supply pressure can push cities to build on available land. The trade-off is not binary. It requires creative planning, higher-quality density, and public realm design that integrates green space into built environments rather than treating it as a separate luxury.
Resilience investment versus short-term priorities
Climate resilience requires investment in systems that prevent crises: flood management, heat mitigation, water security, and grid resilience. These investments can be hard to prioritise when immediate pressures dominate. Yet the cost of delay can be much higher, both financially and in terms of public wellbeing.
How trade-offs show up in reality
Trade-offs are not theoretical. They show up in the daily experience of residents and workers, and in the confidence of businesses considering long-term commitments.
One useful signal is how people rate the city today. In research focused on Dublin’s longer-term trajectory, respondents rated Dublin 64 out of 100 as a place to work and do business. That score is not a judgement on one issue. It reflects a combined experience of commuting, housing, amenities, reliability, and confidence in how the city functions. A city that wants to be more liveable by 2040 needs to improve the combined system that shapes those perceptions.
Building a liveable capital is a sequencing challenge
Even with the right priorities, the order of delivery matters. For example, building housing without transport and utilities can create pressure and frustration. Building transport without housing can underdeliver on its potential. Investing in sustainability without building the supporting data, skills, and operational processes can lead to slow progress and public fatigue.
Better sequencing often means:
- Prioritising projects that unlock multiple outcomes at once, such as transport investments that enable housing delivery and reduce emissions.
- Strengthening utilities and resilience early so growth does not run into hidden constraints.
- Designing neighbourhoods around daily needs, so liveability is built into the fabric of the city rather than retrofitted.
- Supporting skills and training that match the delivery agenda, so the city has the workforce needed to build and maintain critical systems.
The best plans are those that reduce friction quickly while also building toward long-term resilience. Quick wins are important because they build confidence and maintain momentum. Long-term investments are essential because they prevent the city from repeatedly returning to crisis mode.
What businesses can influence without controversy
Businesses do not control city planning, but they do influence how the city functions day to day. They can support liveability in ways that are practical and uncontroversial.
- Design work practices that reduce strain – clear hybrid policies, staggered start times, and meeting norms that reduce unnecessary peak travel.
- Invest in employee development – learning pathways and progression support that strengthen the local talent ecosystem.
- Support local amenities – using local suppliers, venues, and services that contribute to vibrant neighbourhoods.
- Improve resource efficiency – water and energy efficiency in buildings and operations, reducing pressure on public systems.
- Collaborate on skills – partnering with education providers to align training with the needs of growing sectors.
These actions are not substitutes for long-term infrastructure planning, but they can improve the lived experience of employees and strengthen the city ecosystem in ways that support growth.
Liveability by 2040 requires integrated thinking
A liveable capital by 2040 will not be achieved through one theme alone. Infrastructure, talent, and sustainability must be treated as a connected set of priorities. Trade-offs are inevitable, but they can be managed well when leaders focus on outcomes, plan for the long term, and sequence delivery to reduce friction.
For residents, liveability is felt in time saved, stress reduced, and opportunities accessible. For businesses, it is felt in a stronger ability to recruit and retain talent, and a more reliable environment in which to invest and grow. For the city as a whole, it is felt in confidence and resilience.
The most successful capitals will likely be those that make the basics work exceptionally well. Reliable transport. Adequate housing. Strong utilities. Well-designed neighbourhoods. Clear pathways for talent to develop. Sustainability choices that improve daily life while protecting the city’s future. Achieving that by 2040 is ambitious, but ambition becomes real when it is supported by practical trade-offs and consistent delivery over time.
