Settlement Liveability

Dr Anna Johnson Opus International (Dunedin)

with fantastic help from:Dunedin field work: Sarah Weller (Dunedin City Council, ex. Opus)Wellington field work: Dan Riley, Hannah Burgess (Opus Central Labs, Gracefield)

Background

Urban planning about goals of sustainability and liveability

Need to better understand what is liveable for New Zealanders in order to plan for the future form and design of our settlements

What is liveability?

While there are definitions and indicators of liveability it is a subjective and dynamic concept

..whose precise meaning depends on the place, time, purpose of the assessment and the value system of the assessor..

It is behaviour related function of the interaction between environmental characteristics and personal characteristics (Pacione, 1991)

Liveability in Planning Theory

New Urbanism strong focus on creating liveable communities

Principles reflected in New Zealand Urban Design Protocol Providing choices in housing, work, transport

and lifestyle opportunities Well structured cities and towns, transit-

oriented development, strong city centres, control of city expansion, compact walkable neighbourhoods, focus on public spaces, mixed use, design guides

Research

Key research question: How do New Zealanders’ understand ‘liveability’ in relation to settlement form or design?

Definition of settlement liveability: those factors related to settlement form and design that contribute to an individual’s perception of a neighbourhood and wider settlement as being a good or bad place to live.

What aspects of ‘liveability’ as captured by Planning Theory are supported by New Zealanders

Research Approach

Qualitative research interviews

Q methodology

Dunedin and Wellington

4 types of Interview Questions

Appreciative inquiry What they thought made their neighbourhood/suburb a

good place to live? What they thought made their city a good place to live?

Reflection on past location choice What were the main reasons that influenced them in

choosing to live there? Identification of key issues/ concerns about place

What future changes to the form or design of suburb or city would make it a better place to live?

What future changes to the form or design of suburb or city would make it a worse place to live?

Drivers for change of location If they wanted to move somewhere else where would they

go and why?

Interview results – key factors of liveability

Qualities of dwelling Social environment Amenity of street and suburb Neighbourhood accessibility Transport and mobility in the city City services City environment Economic environment

What do people think makes suburb a good place to live?

Dunedin (20 respondents): 10 – accessibility to city centre (either by

virtue of being close or out of city but easy to get there)

7 - views 5 – local residents and networks (both as

proximity to positive and absence of negative) 5 – community spirit 5 – accessibility to recreational areas and

green space 5 – accessibility to local shops

What do people think makes suburb a good place to live?

Wellington (20 respondents): 13 – accessibility to city centre 12 – accessibility to recreation areas

and green space 9 – accessibility to work or university

(often mentioned in terms of being able to walk to work/uni)

6 – accessibility to public transport 6 – local residents and networks 6 – safety and lack of crime

Why chose to live where they do?

Dunedin: Accessibility to city centre (9) Situation of house (6) Quality of house (5) Out of city but still accessible (4)

Wellington: Connection to family* (9) Housing affordability (6) Work opportunities (5) * more people in family home

What makes Dunedin a liveable city?

A city that is easy to get around A city without serious traffic problems (yet) A city with a lot of heritage and character A city with great scenery A city with lots of amenities and different recreation

opportunities both in city and nearby (Central Otago)

A friendly city A city with good schools and tertiary education

opportunities An affordable city A generally safe city

What makes Wellington a liveable city?

The compactness of the city The accessibility of the central city (distance to CBD) Availability of amenities and facilities Culture and art Availability of public transport The vibe/buzz Aesthetics Town belt of bush and green land surrounding the city Walkability Social/entertainment Convenience is more important than space Climate is appreciated by many (believe it or not!) Public transport

Key Issues of concern - Dunedin

Maintenance of heritage, architecture (6) Size of city/ population (concerned with

both getting smaller and larger) (4) Quality of PT (12) Urban form and design (9)

Keeping local neighbourhood services Development of harbour front (general support but

concerns over maintaining views) Strongly against big box retail, suburban malls Pedestrianisation of city centre high rise development, intensive development wanting revitalisation of South Dunedin/ Princes St.

Key Issues of concern – Wellington

Higher density development (10) Quality of PT (7) Design of new housing development – keeping

local character (6) Urban form and design (4)

Development on the harbour front, loss of public space (1),

Keep/add mix of recreation areas in residential areas (2)

Keep compactness of city, restrict sprawl (1) Big retail areas leading to loss of local services (1) Big box retail

Where is the grass greener?

Weather (8 Dun, 8 Wgtn) City of a different size (5 Dun, 2

Wgtn) Things to do, nightlife (6 Dun, 0

Wgtn) Suburb closer to the beach/ water

front (1 Dun, 4 Wgtn) Closer to family (6 Dun, 3 Wgtn)

Summary

Elements of urban form and design very important to people’s perceptions of liveability

Strongly associated social elements – ‘vibe’, ‘vibrancy’, ‘networks’ also important

Both Neighbourhood scale and City scale and even regional scale important

Quality of individual dwelling not as influential as others have assumed (1/4 acre ideal)

Economic factors (housing affordability and work opportunities) more influential in Wellington as one might guess

Q methodology

Q methodology is a research method which allows for the systematic study of subjectivity i.e. the different viewpoints, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, ‘ways of seeing’ or ‘discourses’ that individuals hold about a subject.

Uses factor analysis The results of a Q methodology study are a way of

exploring how different aspects of opinions/preferences cluster together

Similar to personality profiling Results do not give the percentage of the sample

(or the general population) that adheres to any perspective

Q sort

37 cards with statements sorted into forced distribution from most agree (4) to least agree (-4)

Statements included both preference and opinion statements

Statements sometimes included trade-offs

Example statements

“I like to have lots of greenery and open space near where I live, even if it means I am a long way from shops, schools and other services”

“Neighbourhoods should be planned better so that people can walk to the shops instead of driving everywhere”

Q method results -

Used Varimax rotation process 4 statistically significant factors or

perspectives

Dunedin Pilot

Group 1: Greenies

very supportive of public transport, walking and cycling both in terms of the way in which neighbourhoods and the city centre are designed, and also as a personal preference for transportation.

different from the other groups in their attitude to design codes, of which they are very supportive.

like diversity both of people and in terms of housing styles.

reasonably sociable group and prefer to know their neighbours.

like the convenience of living near to work if possible.

Group 2: Car-oriented

love to drive, and are not particularly supportive of alternative travel modes, especially public transport.

do not feel strongly that neighbourhoods should be planned for walking or cycling.

Convenience is a strong feature for this group, who have a strong preference for retail park or main street shopping compared to the other groups, and they like to live near to recreation opportunities.

Like group 1, this group like a neighbourhood with a good mix of people, and like a variety of housing styles.

Group 3: Urbanites

Group 3 are characterised by their strong feelings about the city centre.

like to have lots of shops and amenities and things to do, and they want a pedestrianised city centre shopping area.

like to live near to where they work/study, and do not want a long commute or feel a strong need to get away at the end of the day.

Diversity in terms of people and housing styles, and proximity to greenery/open space are significantly less important for this group than the other groups.

For transport, they like the convenience of driving but are supportive of walking and cycling.

Group 4: Suburbanites

One of the most important things for this group is to have friends and family nearby.

Like their neighbourhood to have lots of greenery and open space.

Out of all the groups, they have the strongest need to live somewhere they feel safe.

Time pressures are notably less for this group than for the others.

Do not feel strongly about having lots of places to go in the evening within walking distance, but they do feel the city centre should be easy to walk around.

A strong position on design codes, which they feel restrict creativity and enforce uniformity (perhaps reflecting a general anti-regulation feeling).

Summary There are clear differences in people’s

preferences as well as opinions Q method useful for showing different and more

complex perspective on people’s views Support for aspects of New Urbanist/ Urban

Design Principles spread throughout perspectives though most strongly in Perspective 1

Showed people’s views are often not consistent Personal preferences often conflict with

overarching ‘political’ opinions and value orientations

Discussion

All scales of urban form and design contribute to people’s notion of liveability from: quality/situation of dwelling; to amenity of street and suburb and local access to services and recreation/open space; to city scale – things to do, ease of mobility.

Surrounding landscape and access to other valued places also important.

Recognition that preferences change with life course and changes in personal circumstances

Discussion Preferences and opinions do not always

logically align Differences in key personal concerns that

factor into choices where to live and key ‘political’ issues or opinions related to liveability

Different opinions about role of government intervention and designing communities clearly reflected in views

Values and ideals – such as support for diversity, PT etc. often not reflected in personal choices

Discussion

Planning is both a rational and a political process – there are choices about both goals and means

There is more consensus on goals than means (esp. intensification)

In general people have a poor understanding of planning principles

For example both supporting cheaper/ more parking in city and concerned about traffic in city

Lots of support for public transport but use it little and little support for measures to increase its viability (increased densities)

What does this tell us?

We know people clearly differ in the type of residential environment they prefer BUT

The key elements of ‘liveability’ addressed in theory/ UD protocol are generally supported particularly, Local access to services/ mixed use Good walking and cycling infrastructure Good public recreational and open space Compactness and strong CBD City vibrancy – things to do in city centre and

neighbourhood centres Choice in housing options

But protection of local character, heritage architecture, and views also important

What does this mean for planning? Despite the view of the NZ ¼ acre ideal, people make

trade-offs when choosing where to live and choices are often driven by factors other than quality of dwelling/ property e.g. better suburb

Maximising the potential liveability of each type of urban environment should be a goal for planning

If a goal is to encourage people to live in certain areas (i.e. inner city suburbs, around transit) efforts to first increase the liveability of these areas (services, green space, schools etc) are likely to lead people wanting to live there

Already the popularity of the city-oriented lifestyle is clearly reflected in the housing prices of inner city suburbs

Need coordination between land use planning, rec. planning, economic development efforts, asset management, and key services (schools etc)

What does this mean for urban design?

There were very strong views about urban design and local character

People almost universally disliked the look of ‘big box’ retail but were mixed in their feelings about design codes

Overall there was support for architectural diversity but in keeping with character of existing neighbourhoods

No ‘Disney-like’ American style suburbs A major challenge is to protect the ‘character’ of

inner city suburbs that make them liveability while pursuing policies of intensification to enable more people to live in these locations

Lessons for how we engage the community in strategic planning Respondents more comfortable talking about what

they like about their city/ suburb then what they thought would be positive changes because

People struggle to ‘imagine’ new environments unless they have experienced them elsewhere

Support for ‘appreciate inquiry’ approach Asking people about “issues” will usually create a

wish list People in general want their cake and to eat it too,

when asking people what they want, need to give scenarios which include costs and benefits of choices to enable learning as well as influence

Community engagement does not avoid the need for tough decisions and strong political will by decision-makers

Community engagement needs to: ID existing aspects of city space people most value

not just ‘problems’ and ‘issues’ Understand preferences separate from opinions Help people understand choices for how to achieve

goals (planning trade-offs) – getting cars out of the city may mean providing less/ more expensive parking

Help to meaningfully engage people in design of future environments that both protect existing values, increase other aspects of liveability, and provide enough housing for a growing population

If new or changed environment must help people ‘experience’ what it would be like – imaging techniques

Must be at a scale people can relate to – engagement at the City or metropolitan-wide scale too big for most people to relate to