What Makes Inner City High Density Liveable? Insight from Residents in Brisbane, Australia

Abstract

Australia's urban form and planning has shifted from traditional individual dwellings on spacious suburban blocks towards higher density urban consolidation. Despite relatively strong market demand for inner city high density (ICHD) living, there is ongoing need to explore and understand the aspects that make this urban form liveable and sustainable. The purpose of this research is to explore the viewpoints of current ICHD residents to better understand the liveability and sustainability matters that affect their everyday experiences and perceptions of this urban form. Qualitative interviews with 24 ICHD Brisbane (Australia) residents illustrates their perceptions and experiences of liveability and the ways in which it is broadly understood within three main domains and nine key sub-concepts, including: individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, noise mitigation), building complex (shared space, good neighbour protocols, environmental sustainability) and the community (transport, amenities, sense of community). Focussing on the experience of ICHD residents, this research highlights the ways in which multiple aspects of the immediate living Environmental Management and Sustainable Development ISSN 2164-7682 2013 www.macrothink.org/emsd 15 environment, the dwelling, building complex and the community intertwine to provide residents with a liveable space. The results show that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for greater sustainability such as lower energy use are the exact same features sought by ICHD residents in determining their liveability. By highlighting the aspects current ICHD residents value most about their dwellings, buildings and communities, these findings will help inform policy-makers, planners, developers and designers as they create urban spaces and dwellings that are more liveable and sustainable.

The role of dwelling type on food expenditure: a cross-sectional analysis of the 2015–2016 Australian Household Expenditure Survey

“…Another related explanation may be the social aspect of eating out in restaurants, hotels and clubs. Previous studies have found that apartment living may be associated with a lower sense of community (27)(28)(29) and lower social interaction (29)(30)(31)(32) . Households living in apartments may be more likely to go out for meals in restaurants, hotels and clubs to engage in social interaction as the design of their homes and kitchen may not foster social bonds and intimacy among friends and family (32) .…”

“…This shift may therefore represent lifestyle changes for many dwellers (26) . Previous research suggests high-rise apartment living is associated with a weaker sense of community (27)(28)(29) , reduced social interaction (29)(30)(31)(32) and more behaviour problems among children (27) . There is limited evidence on the impact of dwelling type on food expenditure and food practices more generally.…”

Changing greenspace in residential developments in an inner suburb of Brisbane, Australia

“…Australia's urban design has shifted from traditional individual dwellings on spacious suburban blocks to higher density developments with building footprints, parking spaces and concrete driveways covering most (or practically all) of a lot. Such developments have led to significant loss of private greenspace where residents can socialise and children can play; and the loss of amenity and biodiversity (Beumer and Martens 2015;Buys, Vine, and Miller 2013;Hall 2010a). Urban consolidation should not preclude provision of public and private greenspace.…”

Evaluating Neighborhoods Livability in Nigeria: A Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) Approach

“…Sanoff and Sawhney (1972) in their study of the town of Asheboro, North Carolina identified dwelling and neighbourhood features as the key factors that contribute to residential environment livability satisfaction of the low-income families housing. The previous researchers posit diverse dimensions but common factors to explore the livability of the living environment namely housing/dwelling unit features (Omuta, 1988;Heylen, 2006;Li, 2012;Namazi-Rad et al, 2012;Buys et al;, physical/neighbourhood conditions (Balsas, 2004;Chaudhury, 2005;Heylen, 2006;Leby and Hashim, 2010;Asiyanbola et al, 2012), economic vitality or development (Balsas, 2004;Song, 2011;Saitluanga, 2013), safety (Leby and Hashim, 2010;Asiyanbola et al, 2012;Lawanson et al, 2013) and social interaction (Pandey et al, 2014a;Leby and Hashim, 2010;Saitluanga, 2013). These dimensions of measuring livability were reported to have high internal reliability index (i.e.…”