Just because an economist wrote a utilitarian calculus saying "this is what makes a city great" doesn't make it so. The logic they use to define "good" ultimately has, at it's deepest core a morality. The morality that "longevity is good" "per capita GDP good", "average happiness good" ... is not an objective fact and has no bearing on how human beings measure greatness. The anesthetized bug-brained western homo-economicus would probably be laughed at by a Spartan warrior ... is one objectively a "better" human than the other?