Impacts of Urban Consolidation on Urban Liveability: Comparing an Inner and Outer Suburb in Brisbane, Australia

Abstract Urban consolidation involving increasing densification around existing nodes of urban infrastructure is a strategy pursued by all levels of government for addressing rapid population growth in urban regions. This has both positive and negative impacts on the everyday lives of residents (or their urban liveability as perceived by them), even though urban consolidation is commonly resisted by residents. This paper aims to better understand impacts of urban consolidation on liveability by comparing similarities and differences in impacts between two Brisbane suburbs: an outer fringe suburb (Wynnum) and an inner city suburb (West End). Wynnum residents generally expressed less resistance to urban consolidation, with some residents willing to trade additional densification for additional amenities. Two issues concerning residents in both suburbs were aesthetics of high-rise development and traffic congestion. Building heights more than a few storeys above surrounding buildings were commonly seen as detracting from urban liveability, though buildings up to 30 stories were accepted by some if close to the Commercial Business District. Traffic congestion was seen as a problem in both suburbs reflecting widespread car dependency. Other impacts differed between suburbs, reflecting their different values and ways of living. For example, most West End residents were concerned about losing social diversity with declining housing affordability while many Wynnum residents were concerned about gaining more public or social housing and disadvantaged residents. The impacts of urban consolidation on liveability differ between suburbs, and local neighbourhood plans should be sensitive to local notions of urban liveability because residents often stay after urban consolidation, even if they perceive negative impacts on their liveability. These interviews reinforce liveability as primary focus for urban planning, and thus urban consolidation at the expense of liveability is a poor outcome for both local residents and urban planning.

[1]  Yizhao Yang.  A Tale of Two Cities: Physical Form and Neighborhood Satisfaction in Metropolitan Portland and Charlotte , 2008 .

[2]  G. Searle.  Sydney's urban consolidation experience : Power, politics and community , 2007 .

[3]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence , 1999 .

[4]  E. Burton,et al.  Housing for an Urban Renaissance: Implications for Social Equity , 2003 .

[5]  J. Jacobs.  The Death and Life of Great American Cities , 1962 .

[6]  Declan Redmond,et al.  An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing , 2009 .

[7]  J. Palmer.  Equity in density , 2007 .

[8]  G. Searle.  The limits to urban consolidation , 2004 .

[9]  Jacqueline Desbarats,et al.  Spatial choice and constraints on behavior , 1983 .

[10]  Claude S. Fischer,et al.  The Subcultural Theory of Urbanism: A Twentieth-Year Assessment , 1995, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Billie Giles-Corti,et al.  Is practice aligned with the principles? Implementing New Urbanism in Perth, Western Australia , 2010 .

[12]  Slater,et al.  On gentrification , 2010 .

[13]  Thorkild Ærø.  Residential Choice from a Lifestyle Perspective , 2006 .

[14]  Thorkild Ær.  Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective , 2006 .

[15]  M. Giuliani,et al.  Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context , 1993 .

[16]  Wayne Swan,et al.  Australia to 2050: future challenges , 2010 .

[17]  M. Fried,et al.  CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES OF PLACE , 2000 .

[18]  M. Meehan,et al.  The Urban Condition; People and Policy in the Metropolis. , 1963 .

[19]  Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity , 1993 .

[20]  F. Archibugi.  City Effect and Urban Overload as Program Indicators of the Regional Policy , 2001 .

[21]  T. Hogan.  `Nature Strip': Australian Suburbia and the Enculturation of Nature , 2003 .

[22]  P. Troy,et al.  The perils of urban consolidation: A discussion of Australian housing and urban development policies , 1996 .

[23]  Karen E. Till,et al.  (RE)PLACING THE NEW URBANISM DEBATES: TOWARD AN INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AGENDA , 2001 .

[24]  Michael Pacione,et al.  Quality-Of-Life Research in Urban Geography , 2003 .

[25]  D. Walmsley,et al.  Migration to the New South Wales North Coast 1986-1991: lifestyle motivated counterurbanisation. , 1998, Geoforum; journal of physical, human, and regional geosciences.

[26]  G. Galster,et al.  Quality-of-life Measurements and Urban Size: An Empirical Note , 1992 .

[27]  C. Fischer.  Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism , 1975, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  L. A. Brown,et al.  The Intra-Urban Migration Process: a Perspective , 1970 .

[29]  Too concentrated? The planned distribution of residential density in SEQ , 2010 .

[30]  R. Golledge,et al.  Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective , 1996 .

[31]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type , 2004 .

[32]  R. Crane,et al.  DOES NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN INFLUENCE TRAVEL?: A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS OF TRAVEL DIARY AND GIS DATA , 1998 .

[33]  B. Gleeson.  Critical Commentary. Waking from the Dream: An Australian Perspective on Urban Resilience , 2008 .

[34]  William H. Frey,et al.  Residential Mobility, Migration and Metropolitan Change. , 1975 .

[35]  Brendan Gleeson,et al.  Urban Consolidation, Household Greenhouse Emissions and the Role of Planning , 2010 .

[36]  G. Seddon.  Landprints: Reflections on Place and Landscape , 1997 .

[37]  R. Fincher,et al.  At Home with Diversity in Medium‐Density Housing , 2007 .

[38]  Darren Holloway,et al.  The expansion of urban consolidation in Sydney: Social impacts and implications , 2005 .

[39]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods , 2010 .