Planning and urban policies emphasise ‘sustainability’, but claims that ‘compact cities' are more socially sustainable and acceptable have been controversial and subject to limited empirical testing. After a brief review of the concepts and debate, we set out new empirical evidence based on household surveys linked to neighbourhood physical, map-based, and sociodemographic data for five British cities. Statistical models are developed to account for systematic variations in the main social sustainability outcomes. The results are considered both in terms of the role of particular urban form and locational measures, but also in terms of the broader patterns of effects of packages of measures. Outcomes relating to residential satisfaction, stability, neighbourhood environment, and safety are all shown to be lower in higher density/central places, but it is also shown that a good deal of this apparent effect is due to social and demographic factors. Interaction with neighbours and participation in groups is better at medium densities, controlling for other factors, while use of local services is, as expected, greater in denser, more central locations. These findings indicate that compact cities are not ‘win-win’ on all dimensions of sustainability but, rather, that reductions in transport emissions will have to be weighed against social criteria. In addition, urban form has different aspects, which have differing social effects, and this knowledge could inform the future design of ‘smarter’ urban environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACPO, undated, “Secured by design: the official police flagship for security and designing out crime”, Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd, 1st Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN
2.
AlexanderCIshikawaSSilversteinMJacobsonMFiksdahl-KingIAngelS, 1977A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
3.
ArnottR, 1998, “Economic theory and the spatial mismatch hypothesis”Urban Studies351171–1185
4.
AudiracIZifouM, 1989, “Urban development issues: what is controversial in urban sprawl? An annotated bibliography of often overlooked sources”, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida
5.
BaileyNLivingstoneM, 2007Population Turnover and Area Deprivation research report, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York
6.
BartonH (Ed.), 2000Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods (Earthscan, London)
7.
BramleyGMorganJ, 2003, “Building competitiveness and cohesion: the role of new house building in central Scotland's cities”Housing Studies18447–471
8.
BramleyGPowerS, 2009, “Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3630–48
9.
BramleyGBrownCPowerSDempseyN, 2006, “What is sustainability and how do existing urban forms perform in nurturing it?”, paper presented at the Planning Research Conference, University College London; copy available from the authors
10.
BrehenyM, 1992aSustainable Development and Urban Form (Pion, London)
11.
BrehenyM, 1992b, “The contradictions of the compact city: a review”, in Sustainable Development and Urban Form (Pion, London) pp 138–159
BrymanA, 2004, Social Research Methods (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
14.
BunkerR, 1985, “Urban consolidation and Australian cities”Built Environment1183–96
15.
BurtonE, 2000a, “The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis”Urban Studies371969–2001
16.
BurtonE, 2000b, “The potential of the compact city for promoting social equity”, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form Eds WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM (E&FN Spon, London) pp 19–29
17.
CalthorpeP, 1993The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream (Princeton Architectural Press, New York)
18.
CardilloAScellatoSLatoraVPortaS, 2005Structural Properties of Planar Graphs of Urban Street PatternsUniversity of Catania, Sicily
19.
CEC, 1990Green Paper on the Urban Environment (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels)
CollieM, 1990, “The case for urban consolidation”Australian Planner2826–33
22.
DempseyNBramleyGPowerSBrownC, 2009, “The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability”Sustainable Development17 forthcoming
23.
Design for London, 2007Superdensity: Recommendations for Living at SuperdensityDesign for Homes, 26 Store Street, London WC1E 7BT, www.designforhomes.org
24.
DETR, 1999aTowards an Urban Renaissance—Final Report of the Urban Task Force Department for Environment, Transport and the Region (E&FN Spon, London)
25.
DETR, 1999bA Better Quality of LifeDepartment for Environment, Transport and the Regions, London
26.
DiamondH LNoonanP F, 1996Land Use in America (Island Press, Washington, DC)
27.
DuanyAPlater-ZyberkE, 2001The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (North Point Press, New York)
28.
EwingR, 1997, “Is Los Angeles style sprawl desirable?”Journal of the American Planning Association63107–126
29.
FergusonNWoodsL, 2009, “Urban form and travel behaviour”, in Dimensions of the Sustainable City Eds JenksMJonesC (Springer, New York) forthcoming
30.
FisherTBramleyG, 2006, “Social exclusion and local services”, in Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain Eds PantazisCGordonDLevitasR (Policy Press, Bristol) pp
31.
ForrestRKearnsA, 1999Joined-up Places? Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood RegenerationYork Publishing Services for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York
32.
ForrestRKearnsA, 2001, “Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood”Urban Studies382126–2143
33.
FreemanL, 2001, “The effects of sprawl on neighbourhood social ties”Journal of the American Planning Association6769–77
34.
GlynnT, 1981, “Psychological sense of community: measurement and application”Human Relations34789–818
35.
GordonPRichardsonH, 1997, “Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?”Journal of the American Planning Association6396–106
36.
HastingsAFlintJMcKenzieCMillsC, 2005Cleaning Up Neighbourhoods: Environmental Problems and Service Provision in Deprived Areas (Policy Press, Bristol)
HM Government, 2005Securing the Future Cm 6467 (The Stationery Office, London)
39.
HoustonD, 2005, “Employability, skills mismatch and spatial mismatch in metropolitan labour markets”Urban Studies42221–243
40.
IhlandfeldtKSjoquistD, 1998, “The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform”Housing Policy Debate9849–892
41.
JacobsJ, 1961The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
KatzP, 1994The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community (McGraw-Hill, New York)
44.
NasarJJulianD, 1995, “The psychological sense of community in the neighbourhood”Journal of the American Planning Association61178–184
45.
NashVChristieI, 2003Making Sense of CommunityInstitute for Public Policy Research, London
46.
NelessenA C, 1994Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Urban Communities (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
47.
ODPM, 2003Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (The Stationery Office, London)
48.
ODPM/Home Office, 2004Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention (Home Office, London)
49.
PantazisCGordonDLevitasR, 2006Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (Policy Press, Bristol)
50.
PiersonJ, 2002Tackling Social Exclusion (Routledge, London)
51.
PutnamR D, 1993Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
52.
ShaftoeH, 2000, “Community safety and actual neighbourhoods”, in Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods Ed. BartonH (Earthscan, London) pp 230–245
53.
ShoreW B, 1995, “‘Recentralization’: the single answer to more than a dozen United States problems and a major answer to poverty”Journal of the American Planning Association61496–503
54.
SimmelG, 1995 [1903], “The metropolis and mental life”, in Metropolis: Center and Symbol of our Times Ed. KasnitzP (Macmillan.Basingstoke, Hants) pp 30–45
55.
SnijdersTBoskerR, 1999Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Level Multilevel Modelling (Sage, London)
56.
Stata, 2005Stata Release 9: Longitudinal and Panel Data (Stata Press, College Station, TX)
57.
TalenE, 1999, “Sense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism”Urban Studies361361–1379
58.
TCR P, 1998, “The costs of sprawl revisited”, Report 39, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
59.
WilliamsK, 2000, “Does intensifying cities make them more sustainable”, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Forms Eds WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM (E&FN Spon, London) pp 30–45
60.
WilsonJ, 1985Thinking about Crime (Random House, New York)
61.
WirthL, 1938, “Urbanism as a way of life”American Journal of Sociology441–24
62.
WoolleyH, 2002, “Inclusive open spaces”Landscape Designnumber 310, pp 43–45
63.
WorpoleK, 2003, “The social dynamic”, in Urban Villages and the Making of Communities Ed. NealP (Spon, London) pp 118–131
