The Factors Driving the Escalation of Community Opposition to Affordable Housing Development

Desirable Dense Neighbourhoods: An Environmental Psychological Approach for Understanding Community Resistance to Densification

“…Many urban planning strategies in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth are focusing on developing Activity Centre (Transit Oriented Development) policies (Kenworthy and Newman, 1999;Curtis, 2009;Newman, 2009), promoting non-car mobility, diversity of housing types and a mixture of uses. While the objectives of TODs', or Activity Centres' in sprawling cities seems appealing, the real challenge arises when proposals for dense developments are discussed with existing communities as part of a collaborative planning process (Rice, 2009;Cook et al, 2012;Davison et al, 2013;Weller and Bolleter, 2013;Ruming, 2014;Hedgcock and Brunner, 2015).…”

“…It creates an environment that constrains the ability of the planning system to deliver on its housing location and density targets, a key prerequisite for success of TOD and Activity Centre urban policies (Rice, 2009;Cook et al, 2012;Davison et al, 2013;Weller and Bolleter, 2013;Ruming, 2014;Hedgcock and Brunner, 2015). The disagreement and strong friction between the parties also reduces trust, a key element in a successful and genuine community engagement process (Ciulla 2004cited in Pierson, 2008Tiwari and Pandya, 2014) Local community opposition and resistance to dense urban development often arises during the engagement process, and is attributed to the idea of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard)a selfish reaction to change (Dear, 1992;Lake 1993;Pendall, 1999;Tighe, 2012;Nguyen et al, 2013;Scally and Tighe, 2015;Davison et al, 2016). This opposition to urban densification has been attributed to reasons such as perceived threats to property values, personal security, and neighbourhood amenities (Dear 1990(Dear , 1992 as well as the disappearance of valued open space (Pendall, 1999).…”

“…This opposition to urban densification has been attributed to reasons such as perceived threats to property values, personal security, and neighbourhood amenities (Dear 1990(Dear , 1992 as well as the disappearance of valued open space (Pendall, 1999). Further concerns that have been noted include an expected increase in noise, loss of trees, visual bulk intrusion into existing streetscapes, loss of views, overshadowing, loss of character, traffic congestion, parking problems and cynicism towards developers, and undesirable residents (Smith, 1997, Ainsworth, 2005Dovey and Woodcock, 2010;Davison et al, 2013;Davison et al, 2016).…”

“…Consequently, the initial contribution of this study is to step back from prominent community opposition studies which are mainly linked to subsidized dwellings, group homes, affordable housing, and social housing shelters for the homeless (Pendall, 1999;Davison et al, 2016) or new built gentrification projects (Davidson & Lees, 2009;Davison & Rowden, 2012) and rather explore the broader picture of community concerns to urban densification.…”

Housing and Socio-Spatial Inclusion

“…They showed that place defending includes, but is certainly not limited to: physical and emotional violence against minority groups that are constructed as invading a majority group's space (Nelson, 2013;Poynting, 2006); local political and discursive resistance toward providing (Davison et al, 2013) or removing (Rogers & Darcy, 2014) affordable housing projects; national political and discursive resistance to acknowledging the claims of asylum seekers (Magner, 2004); monitoring and policing gendered or radicalized spatial practice (Amin, 2012); sensory conflicts, such as cooking smells or cultural music performances, within urban spaces (Wise, 2010); and housing morphologies within urban areas whereby an imagined other threatens to invade a space through their occupation of newly constructed housing projects (Rogers, 2014).…”