High density neighborhoods: Who enjoys them?

Abstract

To date, research into the subjective aspects of high density has focused mainly on the negative consequences of overcrowding. This study, in contrast, outlines some of the positive aspects of high density in neighborhoods, exploring the physical-spatial environment of two neighborhoods in the city of Haifa, Israel. It was found that while the relatively high residential density was similar in both neighborhoods (40 housing units per acre), this was more positively evaluated in one neighborhood as compared to the other. This can be attributed to some specific environmental and planning features. In particular, where physical planning enabled the potential advantages of high density to be realized, this was positively perceived and evaluated by local residents. Such advantages mainly comprised accessibility to a variety of services, more frequent public transportation, and access to open spaces within walking distance. Particularly advantageous were the increased opportunities for social gathering. At the same time, however, high density did not foster social relationships on the neighborhood level. The study further identified the gender and age groups that benefited most from the high density. Thus, women evaluated high density more positively than men. Young families with children and senior citizens (over 65) were also more likely to benefit, and to evaluate the high density environment more positively than other social groups.

Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia: role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours

“…The small body of research focusing on IUHD residents suggests that residential satisfaction may not necessarily be related to residential density per se, but to other neighbourhood factors, which may or may not be unique to dense locations, such as environmental quality, traffic and pollution, noise, lack of social cohesion and community involvement, lack of services and limited choice of residence (Bishop andSyme 1995, Howley et al 2009a). For example, Mitrany (2005) qualitatively explored the physical and social features which contribute to neighbourhood satisfaction in two high-density Jewish neighbourhoods in Israel and found that high density was rated more positively in the neighbourhood with greater transport services, facilities and open spaces within walking distance. Similarly, Kearney (2006) investigated residential satisfaction in various densities in a master-planned community in the USA and found density was not a predictor of residential satisfaction but the presence of shared outdoor areas was.…”

The relationships between land use measures and travel behavior: a meta-analytic approach

“…Mitrany (2005) found a significant sociodemographicsÁland use relationship by identifying sociodemographic groups that favor compact land use. Others (Ewing 1995;Van de Coevering and Schwanen 2006) showed that if sociodemographics were controlled for, the land useÁtravel relationship became weaker.…”

A Comparison of the Effects of Objective and Perceived Land Use on Travel Behavior

“…By definition, perceived land use is a subjective opinion held by the traveler (Churchman 1999; Mitrany 2005). For instance, although perceived density and crowding are both judged by the traveler, only crowding is evaluated in terms of the appropriateness of a given level (Churchman 1999).…”