In order to carry out our assessment of the quality of life, based on such indicators, we adopted an assessment schedule developed by Duncan in 1997, as can be seen below in table 1.
Table 1. Duncan’s assessment schedule
Two areas of the city were chosen. The first of these was a large residential complex called the Antigone. Located in the heart of the city this development was designed by Ricardo Bofill in 1984 and was built on a 25-hectare site costing 200million francs to construct. The Antigone’s location within the city can be seen in the map below.
As the Antigone is such a large complex we decided to carry out our enquiry at three different places within the complex. These areas are shown below. Unfortunately the map does not cover the last section of the Antigone where our third assessment was made, this section of the complex leads onto the River Lez.
POINT ONE
POINT TWO
POINT THREE
In adaptation to Duncan’s schedule we added additional elements to our assessment. Firstly we added ‘cleanliness’ as we felt that any care taken to keep an area clean would most definitely improve the quality of the area and therefore life by providing a pleasant environment. We also added ‘access to leisure facilities’ because leisure has become an increasingly important requirement of life. Over the years stress in the workplace has become a very serious issue and we believe that access to facilities away from work is important for relaxation and consequently improves the quality of life. The results of our assessment can be seen below in table 2.
The results clearly depict the Antigone as providing a high quality of life, scoring zero for the majority of categories. One of its consistent failures however was in its proximity to primary schools. We are not one hundred percent sure that there is not a primary school close by, but we did try to walk from each point, in different directions for five minutes and did not find one, and could not locate one on the map. It may be that if you know where you’re going you could reach one in five minutes.
The second consistent failure was noise levels. At all three points we experienced an above residential (but not industrial/commercial) standard. The reason for this is that the Antigone is very much a ‘through way’ from the city centre to the river because it is a pedestrian zone and provides a more pleasant, direct route to Le Port Juvénal (river front). A second reason is the very nature of the Antigone and its purpose. The complex was originally constructed to the design brief of incorporating residential and commercial holdings in the same locality i.e. providing homes as well as workplaces. Some of these workplaces are small offices that are not attributable but a number are shops and restaurant/cafes. These attract higher numbers of customers and with outdoor seating, contribute to higher noise levels.
The other areas in which the Antigone scored more than zero included landscape quality. We felt that the complex lacked sufficient greenery, despite gaining perfect visual quality scores. We believe that the first two points could benefit perhaps from some trees, plants or grass, like point three has. The second area was air pollution, which was found to be light at point two. Of course the Antigone is a pedestrian zone and therefore pollution is on the whole negligible, but point two happened to be located close to the main road (Rue Léon Blum) that traverses the complex and we felt this point should be highlighted. One last detail is the privacy category. The Anitgone consists of over 2000 flats and we felt that because flats cannot strictly overlook each other in the same way houses can, that this category was not applicable.
The second area that we studied was an inner city area called the Gambetta. Its location can be seen on the following map.
Again the area was dived into three separate points at which to carry out assessments (as can be seen below) and the results can be seen in table 3.
The quality of life in the Gambetta is evidently poorer than in the Antigone, at worst the quality of life proves to be 6 times poorer. As can be seen from the total column, the Gambetta scored fifteen in 3 of the categories, one of which is proximity to primary schools. The reason for this high score is again explained by the fact that we could not find one on foot or on the map but there may actually be one in existence. Like any inner city in Britain this area clearly suffered a number of housing and social problems, lacking open space, quality landscape and cleanliness. The lack of privacy derives from the housing type that consisted of a lot ‘2up-2down’ terraced housing in cramped and narrow streets. At point two the housing mostly consisted of apartments above shop fronts. The cleanliness of the area was also accentuated by a lack of street cleaners, whose presence in the Antigone and city centre is nearly constant.
The disparity in the quality of life in Montpellier is clear and can be explained by a number of factors. Firstly is age. The Antigone is brand new, incorporating modern technology, infrastructure and amenities. The Gambetta developed in the late 19th and early 20th century and therefore suffers problems (such as poor visual quality) as a result of its age. Because it is older the Gambetta will naturally feel a less appealing a place to live.
A second reason is locality. Both areas are located within the inner city and within walking distance of the city centre. In fact the two are little more than a mile from each other. However the Antigone’s location is more desirable as it leads on to the river and is situated right on the edge of the CBD. The Gambetta is slightly further away and lacks the landscape that the river provides.
An important factor in explaining this difference in quality of life is the nature of the two areas. The Gambetta will have gradually developed over time as increasing numbers of people began living in Montpellier, and were forced to locate outside the old city walls. This urban sprawl has created an unplanned area that lacks structure and homogeneity. The Antigone, however, was purpose built. It provides planned structure and form as well as continuity. If it did not the planners would have failed and the Antigone would provide no better a quality of life. The fact that the complex was planned also meant that everything was considered (shops, landscape, access etc) and included in its construction. Such things can be forgotten when an area like the Gambetta develops in a seemingly ‘haphazard’ nature.
However a significant factor may well be the assessment itself. As described at the beginning of this essay the use of soft indicators in assessing the quality of life can be problematic. The main reason for this is the subjectivity of the assessment. Each result is based on a value judgement according to the perceptions and interpretations of one individual or group. Perception and interpretations will vary between groups and from individual to individual. Therefore it is not fact that the Antigone provides a better quality of life than the Gambetta, only that I believe my life would be better in quality in the Antigone than in the Gambetta. This of course may not be true of all people. For example the Gambetta is home to a high population of immigrants from northern Africa. These people may feel that the Gambetta provides a high quality of life (perhaps compared to their home in Africa) and this quality may be because they are living amongst people of similar origin. These people may think that living in the Antigone would be of lower quality because people of a similar background (other immigrants) would not immediately surround them.
Another problem is the indicators/categories used to make the assessment. The original indicators included in Duncan’s schedule are things Duncan believes to be important in the assessment of quality of life. This again will vary from person to person, indeed we added to additional categories that we felt were important to us. In reflection there are other indicators I might include if I were to carry out this assessment again. For example safety, the Antigone felt to me to be a very safe place with ample lighting and parents were happy to leave their children to play football outside. Another indicator I might use is access to medical care. There are many different factors that go into the quality of life and it would be impossible to test them all. Even if you could test them all the validity of the assessment is still jeopardised by taste, different people would weight different factors differently.
In conclusion I believe there is a wide diversity in the quality of life lead in Montpellier. Given the choice I would prefer to live in the Antigone as opposed to the Gambetta as I believe it to provide the means of living a better quality of life. It is extremely difficult to assess the quality of life of an area and value should be given to both hard and soft methods. A more comprehensive assessment would include both types of indicator and a broader range of soft indicators. Another way of gaining results might be to discuss views with the residents of the areas to get a better idea of what life there is really like. Care should always be taken when using soft indicators in an assessment, as subjectivity is a problem; results cannot be displayed in a factual manner only as an opinion.
