Social isolation pilot project

Investigating Community
in Apartment Living

I.B. Fell Housing Research Centre
Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning
The University of Sydney

Social Isolation
in Residential Flats
Pilot Project

I.B. Fell Housing Research Centre
Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning
The University of Sydney

Research by
James Lette, Associate Director
BBC Consulting Planners
55 Mountain Street, Broadway, NSW 2007

JANUARY 2012

FOREWORD
The origins of the I B Fell Centre go back almost 50 years over which it has initiated many
housing research and prototype projects. The particular focus has been on the interrelation
between social issues, architecture and planning. During recent years there has been
increasing concern about serious problems of social isolation, in some part as a result of the
way residential flats have been designed. On the one hand the overall standard of amenity
has markedly improved, but on the other the physical organization of buildings all too
frequently discourages residents meeting even their immediate neighbours in the same
residential block. The problem may be more extreme in high-rise developments in central
urban areas, but is all too common in other apartment types.
BBC Consulting Planners was commissioned to investigate the issues and has worked
closely with I B Fell in carrying out the research. It is a modest pilot project and identification
of case studies in which anecdotally the design of apartment blocks facilitates a sense of
community has proven to be unexpectedly difficult. But the observations do give some
valuable indicators that we hope will be useful in suggesting directions for future designs and
further research. The Centre welcomes comment and would be grateful for suggestions in
relation to future research in this area.

Emeritus Professor Peter Webber
Chair, I B Fell Housing Research Centre
fell@arch.usyd.edu.au

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1

2. THE ISSUE OF SOCIAL ISOLATION........................................................................ 1

3. THE EVIDENCE BASE SO FAR ............................................................................... 4
3.1 What influences social isolation in apartment buildings? .................................... 4
3.2 What is the role of neighbouring? .......................................................................... 4
3.3 What are the forms / stages of neighbouring?....................................................... 5
3.4 How does building design influence neighbour relations? .................................. 6
3.5 What can be done to increase neighbouring in apartment buildings? ................ 7
3.6 What are the physical and design features which are thought to
encourage social contact? ...................................................................................... 8
3.7 Directions for research .......................................................................................... 10
4. CASE STUDIES....................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Approach ................................................................................................................ 11
4.2 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 12
4.3 Case study typology .............................................................................................. 13
4.4 Nature of participants in the research .................................................................. 13
5. RESEARCH FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 14
5.1 What ‘community’ exists within the case study apartment buildings?.............. 14
5.1.1 Measuring cohesion ........................................................................................................ 14
5.1.2 Indicators of social isolation............................................................................................ 15
5.2 What is the role of communal facilities in community formation within
the case study apartment buildings?.................................................................... 17
5.2.1 How does community form within apartments? ............................................................ 17
5.2.2 Does building size play a role?....................................................................................... 18
5.2.3 People or facilities? ......................................................................................................... 19
5.3 What makes an effective communal space? ........................................................ 20
5.3.1 How do residents use communal spaces? .................................................................... 20
5.3.2 How can buildings/ communal spaces be improved?................................................... 21

6. KEY DIRECTIONS FOR BUILDING DESIGN.......................................................... 22
6.1 Summary of findings.............................................................................................. 22
6.2 How can communal facilities best create community? ....................................... 23
6.3 Policy recommendations ....................................................................................... 26
6.4 Further steps .......................................................................................................... 26
7. REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 28

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Detailed Case Studies ............................................................................ 31
Appendix 2: Reprint:
Turnbull, J.A.B., (1985). The habitability of communal spaces in high rise buildings for the
elderly.............................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix 3: Survey Tool ............................................................................................. 67

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to document the outcomes of an applied social research project,
undertaken for the IB Fell Housing Research Centre (‘IB Fell'), examining the role of
communal spaces in combating social isolation in residential apartment buildings. This
research comprised the examination of a number of case study buildings.

This report outlines the key findings arising from consideration of the case studies and makes
recommendations outlining the spaces, places and facilities which have been demonstrated
to be effective (or have significant potential) in addressing social isolation.

The focus of this report is on those changes to the physical fabric of buildings which can
potentially act as a catalyst for positive social interaction which have marginal construction
costs and function irrespective of the socio-economic profile of residents and independent of
property management, both of which are subject to constant change over the life of a
building.

The report concludes with suggested guidance which could be included into the State
Environmental Planning Policy No.65: Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP
65) and the Residential Flat Design Code to incorporate effective communal spaces into
residential apartment buildings.

2. THE ISSUE OF SOCIAL ISOLATION
Inexorable increases in population in large Australian cities have led to significant changes in
the types of dwellings in which we live. Urban consolidation has become an environmental
imperative and a major proportion of new housing will be medium and high density.

The policy framework established in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy seeks to increase the
proportion of residents living in high density building forms from 35% in 2001 to 45% by 2031
(or around 512,000 of the 640,000 new homes required) (Randolph, 2006). The strategy
aims to deliver 70% of new housing within the walking catchment of existing urban centres
with good access to public transport. A further 10% will be delivered in new centres (NSW
Department of Planning, 2010, p. 15, 23).

Whilst the urban renewal necessitated by the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy is not simply
about increasing housing densities, this strategic policy objective will only be achieved by
housing more people in higher density building forms, particularly apartments. Higher density
living can take many forms and sizes, not simply large 'high rise' buildings but also
townhouses and 3 or 4 storey 'low rise' buildings.

If such urban consolidation is to succeed and be accepted by the community, a currently
contentious proposition, apartment developments need to not only be environmentally
sustainable, but they also need to be socially sustainable. As recognised in the NSW
Planning (2010) discussion paper "Good design and building quality .. is vital to the success
of urban renewal". Apartment developments need to be places in which people choose to
live, and are happy to live, rather than places which people 'settle' for when they cannot for
reasons of affordability or proximity achieve the quarter-acre cultural ideal.

IB Fell Housing Research Centre, University of Sydney Page 1

Further, apartment developments need also to be welcoming and inclusive places, as a high
proportion of residents of apartments comprise groups which are more vulnerable to social
isolation. Occupants are often single, whether young and mobile, lone parents separated
from partners, or elderly, and many residents are living away from their extended family
support networks.

Social isolation is an increasingly prominent issue in apartment living. Social isolation has
been variously defined but includes low levels of involvement in community life/ having
minimal interaction with others combined with the absence of satisfying relationships (or
loneliness) (Findlay and Cartwright, 2002). At its extreme, social isolation can lead to tragic
consequences, reported increasingly frequently in the media. As noted by the UK Social
Exclusion Unit (2005) “Social isolation leads to depression, loneliness, anxiety, which in turn
stop people from interacting with their local community and accessing services they need”.
This issue is one not only of importance to those people who live in apartments – the loss of
suburban backyards (considered in detail in Hall, 2010) is making communal space
increasing important in the suburbs.

The reasons for social isolation are many and complex, relating to a variety of personal
circumstances. Necessarily, the responses which can be taken are also varied, primarily
relating to a range of community development interventions.

A key way of overcoming or preventing social isolation is to establish a ‘sense of community’
in an apartment development. This is supported by evaluations such as that of a Queensland
Government (2009) project, which concluded that the ability to access social connections and
activities is a protective factor against social isolation.

Increasing community within residential apartment buildings has a number of positive
benefits. As noted by Easthope and Judd (2010):

"Social interaction and communal activity can engender shared values and
cooperation which may be especially important in higher density environments
where issues of privacy, security and considerate behaviour with regard to
noise attract particular attention. A spirit of community can increase the
likelihood of good communication, tolerance and collective problem solving
(Mulholland Research and Consulting, 2003, p. 17-18). For example, a UK
study on neighbour noise found that community cohesion – identified by
participants as people looking out for one another and feeling involved in the
community – was associated with less complaints about noise (MORI Social
Research Institute, 2003, p. 29, 32). A well-developed community could also
enable residents with common interests, needs or concerns regarding their
development to mobilise and collectively address them (McKenzie, 2004).
Conversely, higher density living environments lacking these social
characteristics could be more vulnerable to disputes, dissatisfaction and
reduced resident wellbeing". (p. 22)

Social isolation is also linked to the concept of ‘social capital’, with a key indicator of it being
the inability to get help or assistance when needed. It has been demonstrated that higher
social capital may, amongst several positive outcomes, protect individuals from social
isolation (Whiteford, Cullen, & Baingana, 2005). Although there are many definitions of social
capital it has been defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004, p. 5) as relating to
“the resources available within communities in networks of mutual support, reciprocity, and
trust. It is a contributor to community strength. Social capital can be accumulated when
people interact with each other in families, workplaces, neighbourhoods, local associations,


interest groups, government, and a range of informal and formal meeting places”. There is a
wealth of sociological theory regarding the social variables involved in the functioning of
social capital. Beyond providing a brief context to the study, there is little value in offering
another review of this literature, and it would over-complicate the issue being considered,
divorcing it from this paper’s intended aim of producing straightforward and practical design
guidance.

Fundamental to the establishment of a sense of community is the concept of ‘neighbouring’ -
the strength of the relationships between neighbours (social cohesion) present in a building.
However despite this need it is evident that 'neighbourliness' is declining in Australia, not only
in apartment buildings but in all communities. A recent survey (Pure Profile, 20091) identified
that only 22% of people know all of their neighbours first names, 47% rarely have
conversations with their neighbours, and 35% report that they are too busy to get to know
their neighbours. This negative trend is more strongly prevalent amongst younger age
groups, a core apartment dweller.

Neighbouring can be promoted in many ways. However an aspect which is often overlooked
is the opportunity presented by the design of the physical environment. The design of a
typical residential unit block takes little to no account of the problem of social isolation. Larger
developments may provide central landscaped areas which are valuable for relaxation and
sometimes children's play, gymnasia and swimming pools, but very few individual unit blocks
are consciously designed to include communal space and places where residents will meet
informally and naturally - spaces which can act as catalysts for the formation of mutually
supportive social networks.

Indeed there is little guidance available to the development industry as to the places and
devices which are likely to work effectively. In NSW, State Environmental Planning Policy
No.65 (SEPP 65) and the Residential Flat Design Code draw attention to the need to
address 'social issues' in residential apartment building design, but specific advice is lacking.

There is a clear need to identify an evidence base and provide design guidance on how this
issue can be addressed at the design stage. In NSW a number of SEPP 65 advisory panels
are strongly advising Council's and developers to take heed of this issue. It is also an issue
being driven by the market, with purchasers looking beyond the apartment to the building as
a “nice place to live”.

A core aim of residential apartment building design should be to build social capital (“the glue
that binds communities together” (Falk, c.2007, p. 35). In the long run, it is more cost
effective to design informal socialisation opportunities into a building, rather than to later
implement community development approaches or seek to change structures in response to
socially dysfunctional housing layouts.

1 A poll of 2100 households by Pure Profile for NRMA Insurance. (Christiansen, Courier Mail, 23/12/2009)


3. THE EVIDENCE BASE SO FAR

3.1 What influences social isolation in apartment buildings?
Approaches to overcoming social isolation are many faceted, involving both community
development and physical design responses. Research such as Chou et al (2002) and
Hugman (2001) tie a residents’ satisfaction with their personal space to their level of social
interaction with other residents (this is particularly so amongst the elderly).

The fostering of community through resident interaction is an issue with a long history
(Cooper Marcus, 1992, Turnbull, 1985, Lewin, 1967), but it is an issue which is only recently
returning to prominence. Since we commenced this project a number of research studies
have been published on aspects of the subject (Whitzman and Mizrachi, 2009, Easthope and
Judd, 2010).

Summarising Australian and international literature, Easthope and Judd (2010) review the
factors which affect quality of life and resident satisfaction. This review can be synthesised
into several categories:

• resident diversity - norms and expectations tend to vary according to different
demographic characteristics and lifestyles affecting their demands on space and their
relationships with neighbours (ie. behaviour).
• neighbour relations - that is, neighbouring discussed previously. For example, in the
1960's environment-behaviour studies considered behaviour (B) to be a function of
the interaction between personal factors (P) and the environment (E), which was
summarised in the equation B = f (P, E) (Lewin, 1967).
• management - as identified by Falk (c.2007, p. 14) “The management systems in use
... have a real influence on the way people from different backgrounds get on”. For
example, the link between strata title and resident discord is well documented2.
• building and apartment design.
It is clear that the development of community in apartment buildings is not just reliant on a
building's spaces, but also the nature and demographic characteristics of the residents
(which are arguably more determinative). However, it is the building’s design which ties
residents together in space and provides the forum for their interaction, on which their
relationships are developed.

3.2 What is the role of neighbouring?
Research consistently recognises that a key aspect of resident satisfaction and their quality
of life is the 'sense of community' present in an apartment building. This community is based
on ‘neighbouring’ - the strength of the relationships between neighbours (social cohesion).

It is important to understand that there is a difference between neighbourhood (the physical
environment) and neighbouring (the quality of local social interaction between neighbours)
(Forrest and Kearns, 2001, p. 2130), which as noted by Crawford (2006) debates about
social capital tend to combine. The lack of strong social ties does not of itself result in chaos
or disorder (Crawford, 2006). Rather their presence is a feature of a resilient community and
a mechanism by which the community can adapt and respond to such disorder.

2 See Christensen, S et al (2006).


For the purposes of this research what is important to note is that it follows from this that,
while an ideal outcome, it is not necessary to seek to build a 'strong' community in apartment
buildings - what is important is the establishment of what are known as "weak ties"3. As
noted in Crawford (2006):

In sum, policy interventions based on assumptions about neighbourhood-based social
capital might be better aimed at working with weak ‘bridging’ ties that stretch across
social groups and extend beyond the neighbourhood, rather than focusing on the
support and strength of strong ‘bonding’ ties. Porous, outward-looking
neighbourhoods rather than solid, introspective communities may be more conducive
to tolerance, respect for difference, trust and an absence of prejudice.

Henning and Lieberg (1996, cited in Crawford, 2006) found that "weak ties provide security, a
sense of identity and a feeling of home, as well as practical and social support". Weak ties
are "often the most useful form of social organisation for getting things done" (Crawford,
2006) as they "perform an important function in the routines of everyday life and these
routines are arguably the basic building blocks of social cohesion" (Forrest and Kearns,
2001).

Weak ties are particularly important to those who are more vulnerable and at risk of social
isolation. Strong ties can have a negative, exclusionary effect on new-comers and “may lead
to less trust and reciprocity to those outside the group” (VicHealth, 2005).

3.3 What are the forms / stages of neighbouring?
Easthope and Judd (2010, p. 22) identified several stages (or forms) of neighbouring
behaviour:

1. acquaintance (a level of recognition and/or courteous greeting of neighbours);
2. reciprocal helping (a level of trust and availability to, for example, borrow something
off a neighbour or have them look after a pet when absent);
3. participation (participating in structured community activities and events, like a
barbecue or play group); and
4. socialising (making friendships with and visiting neighbours informally).

Regular encounters are seen by much of the research as the first steps towards friendship or
as the beginning of a community. For example, Dines et al (2006) concluded that “Fleeting
and more meaningful encounters in public spaces were both beneficial in sustaining people’s
sense of community, or raising their spirits”. Some literature considers even eye contact and
nodding (passive contact) as social interaction. Others find whilst recurring visual contact can
establish initial social ties, it is weak, often not leading further. This is in essence the
commencement of the ‘weak ties’ outlined above.

This research further investigates how a building’s design can assist residents to develop
through each of these stages of neighbouring.

3 Defined by Henning and Lieberg (1996:6) as “unpretentious everyday contacts in the neighbourhood”. Forrest
and Kearns (2001) consider that "these kinds of contact range in their terms from a nodding acquaintance to
modest levels of practical help (taking in a parcel)".


3.4 How does building design influence neighbour relations?
Neighbour relations can be seen as the outcome of the interaction of resident diversity with
building design. Such interactions can create positive or negative outcomes. Points of conflict
tend to commence where there are differing resident norms and expectations. These issues
are heightened in apartment buildings “where spaces have to be shared, particularly when
large numbers of people with different lifestyles come into close proximity, particularly if
people are competing for space in a poor location” (Falk, c.2007).

It is the position of this paper that these issues predominantly arise where design is
inadequate to the needs of users. Further, the impact of such resident behaviour can either
be worsened or mitigated by appropriate design. It is a particularly important issue as
neighbour tension acts against effective community cohesion. If design reduces points of
conflict it makes socialisation and the building of community easier.

The points of conflict faced by residents of apartment buildings are well documented both in
academic research and in mainstream media (see, for example, data on complaints to NSW
Community Justice Centres from apartment residents in 2008-094). The predominant
problems that are known to lead to conflict are –

• Noise (the most fundamental issue);
• Children (13.4% of complaints in NSW) and pets’ (16.6% of complaints in NSW)
behaviour;
• Use of common facilities (7.4% of complaints in NSW);
• Privacy;
• Car parking competition; and
• Rubbish removal (i.e. differing standards).

This is supported by a survey conducted by the City Futures Research Centre, UNSW
(2010) of strata executive committee members in New South Wales. Whilst not a
representative sample, respondents identified the range of disputes that occur in strata
schemes, as identified in Figure 1.

Design and construction standards are the starting point for much of this conflict. It must also
be noted that there are three areas in which interventions addressing conflict in apartment
buildings have an effect - physical, social, and management. Their interaction is complex,
and their separation poses difficulties in any assessment of occupied buildings as case
studies.

A diversity of norms, behaviours and lifestyles can be effectively accommodated within an
apartment building, as long as the design of the building can successfully prevent, limit and
manage any conflict which arises from that diversity. As noted above, a more cohesive
community is more tolerant, better able to communicate and solve issues as they arise.

4 Daily Telegraph 19/9/10


Figure 3-1: Causes of Strata Scheme Disputes in NSW

Source: City Futures Research Centre (November 2010), page 35.

3.5 What can be done to increase neighbouring in apartment
buildings?
Typically the research identifies community building responses which can be classified in the
following broad terms:

• Physical design which supports or encourages social interaction. This can be either
through -
o more formal activity spaces which have been the traditional focus of planning /
design (e.g. common room, gym, pool, BBQ area); or
o elements which facilitate incidental interactions ("serendipity"5).
• Community development approaches, such as those currently used in low density
'greenfield' estates -
o organised activities which get residents interacting;
o communication avenues, including digital ones; or
o communicating expectations of appropriate behaviour up-front, to avoid
conflict later.

5 Discussed further in Foth M (2005).


It is important to recognise that design alone will not in all cases be enough. Design simply
provides the opportunity, it cannot make people interact, let alone create community. It is a
matter of resident choice and preference - the influence of resident diversity discussed
previously. As discussed, it is clear from the research undertaken that community formation
is dependent on who lives in an apartment building, their demographic characteristics, but
also their personalities and preferences. These will change over the life of a building.

The focus should be on providing design elements regardless of the nature of a building's
inhabitants.

3.6 What are the physical and design features which are
thought to encourage social contact?
Easthope and Judd (2010, p. 23) identify a range of research which supports the argument
that "the design of the physical environment in higher density environments can increase or
decrease the frequency and quality of social interaction, and that facilities and spaces
designed to support contact and proximity can greatly enhance neighbourliness and
community". It is not the role of this paper to consider these arguments in detail, however the
following conclusions, which hold a number of important implications for building design, can
be drawn from the research base:
• Social contacts between neighbours seem to be enhanced by the presence of three
variables in neighbourhoods: the opportunity for passive social contact, proximity to
others, and appropriate space to interact (Festinger et al., 1950; Fleming et al.,
1985)6.
• It must be recognised that people don't use common spaces or congregate just for
the sake it. They require a purpose when doing so - facilities give purpose to a space
and enhance its social vitality (Dines et al, 2006).
• Design needs to consider how people circulate within a building and its site, spatially
arranging amenities to encourage residents to cross “paths” whenever possible.
• Whilst it is important to encourage group activities (Easthope and Judd, 2010), there
is a need for more than simply a common area. The common area is not always a
convenience for residents because, for example, they have to travel to the ground
floor (Walicki, 2006). Some literature suggests that in larger complexes each floor
needs to have an individual identity and features which enable people to congregate
in or adjacent to movement areas. Huang (2006) found that significantly more social
interactions are found in circulation spaces, and significantly fewer social interactions
are observed in seating and vague spaces.
• Design needs to provide an environment which facilitates "accidental communities",
that is “communities which spring up naturally when like-minded people gather in an
area that offers activities that they either like to do or have to do” (Patnaik, cited in
Rafter, 2005). The basis for this is recognising the activities which people need to do
and building socialisation opportunities around them. It could include gardening, or
pet exercising.
• Continued, regular use of common areas is instrumental in developing good relations
(Dines et al, 2006).
• It is important to also recognise that the future residents are not necessarily those
envisaged by design. It is no longer solely renters, the young and the less
advantaged who live in apartments. The demographic character of apartment
dwellers is projected to continue to dramatically change into the future with increasing

6 Cited in Skjaeveland O and Garling T (1997)


proportions of families and seniors resident. It is also noted that current lifestyles
“work against producing social capital naturally” (Falk, c.2007, p.36, citing Putnam,
2001).
• Design must be inclusive of people of all social and age groups (particularly children
and older people).
• Spaces must be designed so that they are adaptable to changing activities or the
space required (“more important than the facilities themselves are the things you do
in those facilities”7).
• Building quality standards are required which design out the 'points of conflict'
previously identified. For example, providing spaces where noisy activities can occur
(such as an acoustically treated common room). As identified by Dekker and Bolt
(2005), people who like the place where they have chosen to live may actively seek
out their neighbours.
• Common areas need to be pleasant, inviting spaces where people want to spend
their time. People are drawn to spaces that offer interest, stimulation, comfort and
amenity (Holland et al, 2007). Sullivan et al (2004) found that trees / green space not
only increased a spaces level of use, but also increased the amount of social
interaction which occurred within them.
• The layout of a space is more important than its size. The sense of a space offering
the freedom to linger is important (Dines et al, 2006). Sarkissian and Kerr (2003)
recommend avoiding formal demarcation in common space and ensuring direct
connections between commonly used spaces.
• Seating needs to be adequate, in appropriate locations, and orientated in a way that
facilitates interaction (O’Connor, 2006).
• Places should be design to foster the perception of safety (“trusted spaces” in which
people can mix (Lownsbrough and Beunderman, 2007)).
Guthrie et al (2009) posited the aspects of communal open space which was considered
important to families living in apartment buildings. Listed below in order of importance, this
list has broader applicability to all apartment residents.

Theme Sub-factor
1. Design and Comfort Layout and Size
Microclimate
Physical Features (Facilities; Materials; Lighting;
Extent and type of greenery; and Useability
throughout year)
Accessibility
2. Diversity and
Scope of potential uses
Opportunity
Appeal to different user groups
Aesthetic Quality
3. Safety Surveillance (seats, tables, windows to facilitate)
Safe Physical Features
Maintenance of Communal Open Spaces
4. Sociability Facilities
Accessibility

7 Theo J M van der Voordt, Dick Vrielink and Herman B R van Wegen (1997)


3.7 Directions for research
A number of themes have been identified from the literature as areas which would benefit
from further research. These themes, which have shaped the pilot study and informed the
development of the research tools utilised (detailed in Section 4), are:
• What is (and isn't) an effective communal space? Why is it effective? What's valued
about it?
• What level of neighbouring is necessary for an apartment building to reduce social
isolation, one component of a socially sustainable building community? How can this
best be achieved?
• How can community development best be encouraged? What are the triggers?
• Do design features work across all lifestyle/ age groups or does design need to be
tailored? What is the role of resident characteristics?
• How can communal spaces be made adaptable?
• What is the role of building size? Is there a critical mass needed (number of residents
in building)? Is there a tipping point which is too many?
• What is the role of building management (e.g. strata committees) in community
formation?
• Are recent trends in building design more beneficial to the formation of community?
(namely grouping several buildings together to provide larger, better quality and
higher order communal spaces in centralised locations).


4. CASE STUDIES

4.1 Approach
This research project has its genesis in an opinion article published in an industry magazine
City-scape News (Webber, April 2008), which outlined the issue driving the research,
established potential directions, and sought to gather together practitioners interested in
discussing the issues. This was followed up by the convening on 30th July 2008 of a
colloquium with designers, local government representatives and housing providers to
discuss the issues. This colloquium confirmed a need for a research project of this kind, one
which provided practical guidance and was based on real world experience. The IB Fell
Housing Research Centre determined to undertake research to develop such guidance,
utilising case studies to investigate the issues.

Within the limitations noted below, an initial ‘long list’ of case study sites was identified,
drawing heavily on the assistance of the IB Fell team, 2008 colloquium participants, and their
contacts. A representative selection of case study sites was then selected, which
characterised a broad typology of building types and social environments. The case studies
selected were located within inner Sydney due to project resource constraints. The buildings
selected had been occupied for some time in order to allow social networks the opportunity to
develop.

A variety of case studies were suggested, but for a range of reasons (particularly access),
they could not be included in the pilot study.

A detailed examination of each case study building was undertaken via resident discussion
(focus groups) and administration of a survey of participating residents. It was initially
planned to architecturally document each of the case study buildings, however due to
resourcing issues this did not prove to be feasible. Documentation was instead limited to
evidentiary photographs and the completion of a building assessment checklist.

Focus group discussion themes included:-

• exploration of the sense of community in the building, for example, how well
neighbours know each other, how any relationships developed and the role (if any) of
communal spaces.
• exploration of the value and role of communal facilities in the building, for example,
whether or not residents utilised communal spaces, how they use them or why they
didn’t, the types of communal space they prefer to use, what they value about their
communal spaces, which aspects work well and how their communal spaces could
work better.

As identified in the literature review, it is important to also understand the characteristics of
residents in order to contextualise the study and understand what influence it has on the use
of communal space8. Further, a focus group is not an appropriate forum to gather certain
personal information and view points.

Accordingly, a survey tool was also developed and administered to the focus group
participants. In order to enable the survey results to be broadly comparable to other datasets,
the survey tool was developed by reference to other similar surveys which had been

8 For example, in terms of length of residence, AHURI research confirms that older residents that move in later in
life find it hard to find community or family connections (McNelis et al, 2009).


undertaken. In particular, reference was made to the measures of neighbourhood cohesion
(such as the 'Buckner scale') as well as indicators of social isolation and neighbouring
behaviour (such as those used by the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia
(HILDA) survey).

4.2 Limitations
A number of key difficulties were faced by this project, the principal of which was that, as a
small research project, the number of case studies which could be undertaken was limited.
However a number of important methodological challenges were also faced.

Firstly, the identification of appropriate case study buildings proved problematic. Despite wide
consultation with industry participants, ranging from building designers to approval agencies,
few people were able to confidently nominate buildings which they believed functioned well
from the perspective of fostering community interaction. In part, this could be explained by a
disconnect between theory and practice - between the development process and an ex-ante
understanding by industry participants of the actual living experience which eventuates post
occupation. If so, this is an important conclusion which further supports the need for research
of the type undertaken here.

However, it may also be that current industry practice does not widely reflect 'best practice'.
As noted in the literature review, the generally accepted principles by which community can
be fostered in apartment buildings have been established for some time. It may be that
commercial imperatives outweigh design intent. If so, this points to a need for established
design guidance which has regulatory force but also a need to demonstrate that the
necessary design improvements have only marginal affects on construction costs.

Once a building was identified a second challenge faced was gaining permission to access
those buildings and convening a meeting of interested residents. This challenge could not be
overcome in a number of instances, necessitating the exclusion of several buildings from the
project.

Gaining meaningful attendance at focus groups was a further challenge faced, however
residents were on the whole very keen to express their views on their living experience in
apartments and adequate numbers were achieved at each focus group convened to ensure
meaningful and diverse discussions.

While the overall number of research participants is small, making it difficult to accurately
generalise to the wider population, it does provide a basis for examining the physical qualities
of the case studies and to act as a pilot study. A basis is also provided for initial design
guidance for further discussion by those involved in the sector.


4.3 Case study typology
Five buildings were examined as case studies:

1. A seniors’ living apartment building.
2. A small building of walk-up flats developed in the post-war period.
3. A large multi-building residential complex with shared facilities, which was recipient of
a number of industry design awards.
4. A townhouse style building with a high proportion of renting residents.
5. A townhouse style building with residents who have a high level of socio-economic
advantage.

In addition, a public housing building previously analysed by IB Fell in Turnbull et al (1985)
was included for comparison.

These case studies represent a broad typology of building types (from small to large), design
styles (1940's, 1970's, 1980's and 2000's), and social environments (a variety of socio-
economic levels, and a mix of owner-occupied and rental buildings).

4.4 Nature of participants in the research
Within these buildings, 23 residents participated in the research. Whilst as a proportion of all
residents of the buildings this represents only a small proportion of their occupants and is a
limitation of the research, adequate numbers were achieved at each focus group convened
to ensure meaningful and diverse discussions.

There are other characteristics of the research participants which also influence the
interpretation of the studies findings -

• Participants were older, all being over 30 years of age. This is likely to be a result of
the case studies selected, which are proximate to the city and have higher property
values. Half were over 55 years, which is influenced by the inclusion of a seniors
living building within the study.
• For similar reasons most are engaged in professional occupations or are retirees
(40%).
• The gender of participants was slightly skewed, being 45% male.
• Just 5% of residents rented.
• Residents were not new to apartments. Over half the residents had lived in
apartments for over 5 years in their lifetime. Just 10% had lived in apartments for less
than a year.
• Most had resided within the case study buildings for some time (15% for less than a
year).


5. RESEARCH FINDINGS
This section presents and discusses the outcomes of the case studies and survey tool.

The survey tool was administered in order to seek information on aspects of participants
which could not be discussed in a group format. As such it is intended as a supplement to,
rather than director of this study. In reading the analysis of the survey tool it is important to
keep in mind the limitations identified in Section 4. Due to the small number of surveys
administered, discussion of exact response rates has been avoided where possible, with
trends being identified instead. There are not enough respondents to provide statistically
significant findings and statistical analysis has not been undertaken.

5.1 What ‘community’ exists within the case study apartment
buildings?

5.1.1 Measuring cohesion
The sense of community and social cohesion present amongst the case study buildings was
very high.

This is further supported by the survey data, which incorporated 18 indicators of
neighbourhood cohesion developed by Buckner (1988). Buckner discerned three dimensions
of neighbourhood cohesion - sense of community ("residents' sense of community felt within
the context of neighborhood)", attraction to neighbourhood ("residents' degree of attraction to
live and remain in the neighborhood") and neighbouring ("residents' degree of interaction
within the neighborhood"). Buckner’s ‘neighbourhood cohesion instrument’ is considered
useful as, "When evaluated at the neighborhood-level of analysis .... (it) exhibited good
discriminatory power and evidenced criterion-related validity in the assessment of
neighborhood cohesion."

The survey suggests that:

• Over half of respondents strongly agreed that they were 'very attracted to living in this
building'. No residents disagreed.
• Around a third of respondents strongly agreed that they felt they "belong to this
building’s community". No residents disagreed.
• All respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that "living in this building gives me
a sense of community".
• All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would "work together with others
.. to improve my building".
• There was a high level of loyalty amongst residents (three-quarters agreed or strongly
agreed, and none disagreed).
• Two thirds of respondents planned to remain resident for a number of years (only 5%
did not).
• However, respondents were more ambiguous regarding the sharing of other people’s
plans (half neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, "If the people in my
building were planning something I'd think of it as something "we" were doing rather
than something "they" were doing").


When combined the Buckner indicators form a scale to measure the sense of
community/cohesion (equal to the mean of all 18 items). The limited survey data has a mean
of 3.89.

This high level of resident satisfaction with their building and its community supports the
basis for the selection of the case studies, that is buildings recommended to the project team
by housing industry participants as having a good sense of community and well thought out
aspects to their community facilities components.

In order to provide some relative context to the limited data obtained through study survey, it
is beneficial to compare the survey results to other available data sets. Some data for the
Greater Western Sydney region (GWS) has been published in Stubbs et al (2005), and
compared in the following table.

The case study buildings have a higher sense of community and greater attraction to
neighbourhood than the GWS average. However the case study buildings and the GWS
have a similar degree of interaction within the neighbourhood in some respects. The reason
for this can not be determined from the study survey, and could be due to a range of factors
such as the physical quality of dwelling or characteristics of the neighbourhood (such as
perceived community safety).

Table 5-1: Comparison of Study Survey to GWS Data
GWS IB Fell
Agree/ Agree/
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree
Living in this neighbourhood gives me a sense of community 62% 100%
Overall I am very attracted to living in this neighbourhood 69% 89%
Given the opportunity I would like to move out of this suburb 37% 12%
I visit my neighbours in their homes 46% 28%
I rarely invite people in my neighbourhood to my house to visit 34% 28%
I would be willing to work together with others on something to
86% 100%
improve my neighbourhood
I regularly stop and chat with people in my neighbourhood 69% 67%

5.1.2 Indicators of social isolation
The survey tool was informed by questions included in the Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. The HILDA survey is a nationwide longitudinal survey
(since 2001) focused on issues relating to family, employment and income. The HILDA
survey includes ten statements about people’s perceptions of the personal support and
friendship available to them. Flood (2005) utilised these 10 questions to create an 'Index of
Social Support' 10 felt by an individual.

9 Cohesion index values can theoretically range from a high of 5.00 to a low of 1.00.
10 Flood (2005) notes that "total scores on the Index of Social Support range potentially from -30 to +30. A score
closer to -30 indicates that the person perceives that very little support or friendship is available to them: they
often feel lonely, people do not visit, they cannot find people to help them out, they do not have people to
confide in or lean on, and so on. A score closer to +30 indicates that the person perceives a high level of
support or friendship. In other words, a high score on the Index of Social Support indicates lower loneliness,
while a low score indicates higher loneliness".


Overall, residents of the case study buildings are not considered to be socially isolated11.
The case study building respondents had a mean score of 15 on the 'Index of Social
Support', suggesting that residents perceive they have a good level of support and
friendship.

However a proportion of respondents, notable in the context of generally high levels of
agreement with other indicators of social connection, report that they would like to have more
social contact than they currently do. For example:

• Only half agreed that "people come to visit me as often as I like".
• Only 40% agreed with the statement "if I feel like talking I can generally find someone
in this building to talk to straight away".
• Only 40% disagreed with the statement that they "would like to have more contact
with their neighbours than they currently do".
Several questions drawn from the HILDA survey also provide an indicator of the degree of
social capital present/ the degree of social interaction in the neighbourhood (e.g. 'Neighbours
helping each other out' and 'Neighbours doing things together'). The survey suggests that:

• Two-thirds agreed and strongly agreed that they regularly stop and chat with their
neighbours. One third of respondents talk to their neighbours every day, and half do
so at least once a week. All talk to their neighbours at least once a fortnight. 80%
report that they spend on average over an hour each week talking to their neighbours.
• Two-thirds of respondents socialise with their friends or relatives at least once a
month. All respondents did so at least once every six months.
• Residents generally don't visit each others apartments, but around a third do.
• Two-thirds viewed 'neighbours doing things together' as common behaviour.
In terms of helping behaviour neighbours helping neighbours was overwhelmingly seen as
common practice in general terms in the case study buildings (three-quarters of
respondents). No resident saw it as uncommon. Three-quarters of respondents strongly
agreed that they can get help from neighbours when they need it.

In terms of specific examples of helping behaviour, neighbours looking in on the elderly or
vulnerable was less common, but still seen as such by 60% of respondents. All respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that their neighbours would help them in an emergency.

This was confirmed by focus group participants.

11 The difficulty in generalising social isolation survey is noted, as for example, those more isolated residents are
less likely to have attended a focus group. Further, it is expected that those residents who do not feel
connected to a building and its community would be less likely to attend.


5.2 What is the role of communal facilities in community
formation within the case study apartment buildings?

5.2.1 How does community form within apartments?
Focus group discussions and survey data confirm that residents consider a building’s design
and facilities to be important in forming a sense of community (with two thirds of survey
respondents agreeing and none disagreeing, although a quarter held no opinion). The key
points identified are:

• Neighbours meet each other in a wide variety of spaces.
• Connections are incidental and not the primary purpose of residents.
• All neighbour interaction identified occurred in the course of engaging in another
activity. Meetings predominantly occurred when residents were:
- Either leaving or coming home (at the front entry/ foyer/ lift/ stairs); or
- Undertaking a household chore (predominantly getting the mail, taking out the
garbage, using communal clothes drying areas).
• Few residents mentioned that other communal areas played a role, but of those
mentioned included pool, gym, library and gardens.
• The informal (facilitating “accidental encounters” amongst residents) is more
important than the formal (e.g. community BBQ’s).
• Facilitating common interests is important - the role of dogs and children in
developing neighbouring demonstrates the need to provide spaces which facilitate
activities which bring residents together informally.
• Communication (e.g. through a noticeboard) can facilitate lines of communication,
maintaining amicable relations between neighbours. However, in larger groups there
is the danger that these can be ignored, or even become impersonal and heighten
tensions.
• Residents can move through the stages of neighbouring (identified in Section 3.3),
becoming friends after forming initial ‘nodding’ acquaintances (as in the large multi-
building residential complex) however this does not appear to be common (as in the
townhouse style building with a high proportion of renters). It depends on other
factors which usually form the basis of friendship.
• A commonality of the case studies is that neighbouring best develops when residents
undertake activities which require them to share space together for a length of time
on a regular basis (e.g. laundry, gardening, dog walking, car washing). The purpose
is not to socialise but that develops from it. It provides a 'reason' (social permission)
to start to converse. This lengthy sharing of space appears to also provide the
opportunity for other, more developed stages of neighbouring to form.
The study supports findings, such as those by Dines et al (2006), that "different types of
encounters were valued - casual or organised, serendipitous or routine".


5.2.2 Does building size play a role?
The typology of case studies utilised provided some degree of insight into one of the key
questions identified in Section 3.7 - What is the ideal number of dwellings within a building,
as well as within each floor? (or what is the ideal size of social groups to interact in space?).

Whilst this study did not collect adequate data to enable a conclusive distinction to be drawn
on this issue, some general indicators from this study are that residents themselves
recognise that there is a maximum residential apartment building size, where the number of
households is too many, which seems to weaken community ties.

Further, there is likely to also be a minimum size, where the number of households is too
few. This is where, for example, neighbour difference can become pronounced and
disagreements magnified. However, as evidenced by the small building of walk-up flats case
study, the intimacy of small size can provide other social benefits. Importantly to community
formation there is also a threshold number of households for various types of facilities to
ensure that they are viable (this threshold varies by facility). There is also a statutory
planning relationship between the number of dwellings and the amount/ hierarchy of common
areas provided.

A range of sociological literature considers optimal social group size (for example "Dunbar's
Number"12 which suggests a maximum group size of 150). This research is not discussed
here, other than to note their generally shared conclusion that an optimal size is one that
enables residents to "receive some impression ... of each other member <neighbour> distinct
enough so that he or she ... can give some reaction to each of the others as an individual
person". 13 Hasic (2000) for example, recommends planning buildings of 16 - 20 households
and larger complexes of 64 - 80 households.

This is not to say large development cannot function in a socially sustainable manner, as in
the case of the large multi-building residential complex they clearly do. However it is clear
that each building within a larger complex needs to consider its identity and community in
isolation, as well as the part it plays in the larger whole. In these cases both large 'country
club' type facilities, serving the needs of dwellings in several buildings, as well as smaller
facilities within each building are required.

The focus group in that residential complex discussed whether the location of communal
facilities (such as the pool, gym etc) within the footprint of just one of the complex’s buildings
affected the level of use or led to a perception of “priority” or “ownership” amongst residents
of that apartment building. All residents indicated that they did not perceive this to be the
case, and that their location within just one building did not deter or impact use.

This study provides no quantitative basis on which to make a finding in this area and further
research is required. In terms of an individual apartment building, the total number of units in
a building or development may not necessarily be relevant. What appears to be more
important and determinative of community formation, is the number of units which share a
lobby and circulation space. A building’s design should cluster units in such a way that they
develop as smaller, distinct groups.

12 Dunbar, R (1998)
13 Bales, R. F. (1950) page 33


Guiding this, an intuitive direction from this study is that neighbour connections appear to
weaken more noticeably above a grouping of 10 units. Typically, larger case study buildings
provided 8 units per level. This is in line with the Residential Flat Design Code, and this
guidance is supported by this research.

This research suggests that an ideal size should not exceed 20 units, however this could
increase to 30 with appropriate and high quality building design and construction. It is noted
that 3 levels of 8 units would provide a grouping of 24 units. However, as a rule of thumb, the
smaller the better.

5.2.3 People or facilities?

5.2.3.1 What is the role of resident characteristics, for example age and lifecycle
group?
This study confirms that individuals play a role as important, if not more so, as facilities in
community formation. The design/structure of a building can be an impediment to meeting
others, but on its own, good design will not always be sufficient.

For example, several case study focus groups identified that that the presence of a sense of
community varied between floors within their building, despite the same physical layout. This
was attributed to the nature of the people (personalities, friendliness, etc) who were living on
each. A common distinction was also drawn between apartment owners and renters, with
focus groups perceiving that it is more difficult to create community amongst a transient
population.

Such a conclusion is lent further weight by the survey data. Only 5% of respondents viewed
themselves as different to their neighbours or that they did not shared interests/ hobbies. No
respondent disagreed with the statement that "I agree with most people in my building about
what is important in life".

Whilst the likely socio-economic characteristics of residents is an important consideration in
apartment building design, the make-up of residents is subject to constant change over the
life of a building. Potentially, such changes can be dramatic and can do so in as little as 5 to
10 years (as evidenced for example in the multi-building residential complex).

Accordingly, it is important the apartment building includes community building features
which can be effective regardless of resident type. The key messages from the research in
this regard are:

• Designing spaces which are flexible, able to be adapted to meet a variety of changing
interests over time.
• Focussing on certain ‘core’ initiatives, informed by findings such as those in Section
5.2.1. For example, attending to core entry and movement paths of a building,
features which cannot be altered at a later date.

5.2.3.2 The need for social activism
As expected, apartment buildings generally (with the exception of seniors’ living) provide only
the physical spaces ('hard' infrastructure) in which interaction can occur. Whilst not the focus
of this paper, a message from the study participants which should be noted, is that there is
also a role for active community development approaches.


Participants acknowledged a need for an outside force to ‘jump-start’ community formation.
This could be in the form of organised activities (e.g. BBQs) which encouraged residents to
meet each other, or could constitute a detailed ‘welcome program’ for a residential apartment
building similar to those which are implemented on low density greenfield estates. The
townhouse style building case study identifies the role that a building’s sales program could
play. It is acknowledged that such a program cannot be implemented over the life of a
building, but it can be used initially to establish a base level of neighbouring at the
commencement of occupation, providing residents with a catalyst for taking relationships
further.

The study also identified a need for better information dissemination mechanisms within
apartment buildings. For example:

• There was some uncertainty amongst residents as to the timing of formal activities
which were held in their buildings spaces (common rooms).
• Several focus group participants identified a desire to connect with people who had
similar interests and hobbies who lived in their building. For example, they would like
to form a reading group but were not sure about how to go about finding participants.
There is a role for physical awareness raising measures in response, primarily noticeboards,
but also information dissemination mechanisms such as newsletters, email or facebook sites.
Internet based tools are not widely in use in apartment buildings, but their introduction was
supported by case study residents.

5.3 What makes an effective communal space?

5.3.1 How do residents use communal spaces?
Despite indicating in the survey that most respondents spent an hour or more each week
talking to their neighbours, only a quarter socialised with their neighbours in their buildings
communal spaces, and less than a third visited neighbours in their homes.

Building common areas were normally used for socialisation, however they are most
commonly used for entertaining friends and extended family rather than neighbours. Other
main uses identified were for exercise or relaxation (including reading).

This lends further support to the importance of establishing "weak ties” amongst residents
(Section 3.2). These were more in evidence in the case study buildings than firmer
friendships. As noted in the multi-building residential complex case study:

Residents don’t necessarily know each other by name, but more of a “nodding
relationship” – saying hello to familiar people upon passing etc. It was noted that the
same people leave for work at roughly the same time, on a regular basis. “You may
not be on a name-basis, but you get to know “their patch and their routine” and say
hello".

The study survey suggests that:
• Gardens and seating received more frequent use than other facilities surveyed.
Approximately one third of respondents used these at least once a week.
• Residents prefer however to use their private outdoor spaces over a buildings
common spaces.
• BBQ's received particularly infrequent use from respondents.
• If available, on-site cafes were popular.


Spaces whose use entailed no physical exertion more widely utilised. The survey suggests
that only a minor proportion of residents regularly utilise 'active' spaces within a building (e.g.
pool, gym). (This proportion will be influenced by the age profile of participants). This is not to
say that respondents do not appreciate their availability, with focus groups clearly indicating
that they do. However it can be concluded that their role in community formation is likely to
be less important than other, less formal, facilities.

In addition to frequency of use, the survey measured the relative importance of facilities to
residents and their lifestyles. Private outdoor space, common outdoor space, pool and gym
all featured prominently.

Across the case studies specific locations were more commonly involved in neighbour
interaction:

• The Lobby is an important area for informal interaction and exchange. A number of
residents commented that they had met more residents and interacted with more
people whilst waiting in this informal setting than during some of the formal activities
organised in their communal space (e.g. BBQs).
• Pathways and corridors. Main movement routes become the informal spaces in
which neighbours interact.
• Non-residential uses either on-site or nearby are useful, with cafés particularly
important in community formation as a place of incidental meetings.
A common comment from participants was that neighbours should not be forced by design to
interact. It was viewed that the level of interaction was up to the preference of the individual,
with the opportunity to join in, or “to be a 'hermit' if you chose”. The design of communal
spaces needs to be flexible and allow shared use which recognises this choice.

5.3.2 How can buildings/ communal spaces be improved?
On the whole residents of the case study buildings were highly satisfied with their building’s
community facilities. No respondents expressed dissatisfaction and around 15% neither
agreed nor disagreed. Half of survey respondents did not suggest improvements to their
building (with some specifically stating that no improvements were needed). Those
improvements identified predominantly related to increasing the size of communal spaces
and improvements to the amenity (particularly increased amounts and types of seating).

Whilst the literature reviewed in Section 3 indicates it is not a key determinative factor, it is
considered probable that there is a relationship between resident satisfaction with their
building and living arrangements and the formation of a sense of community, although this
cannot be definitively established from the research. Participants in the multi-building
residential complex focus groups, for example, identified that the design and quality of their
complex, particularly the ‘excellent’ acoustic design qualities (such as thick walls, solid
floors/ceilings), had positively impacted on their ability to develop positive relationships with
neighbours. Participants attributed this to them being “less likely to be annoyed with
neighbours over noise/disturbance issues, you start off on the 'front foot', so are more likely
to be friendly with neighbours which encourages more amicable relationships”.


6. KEY DIRECTIONS FOR BUILDING DESIGN

6.1 Summary of findings
A number of key messages can be drawn from the research:

• Whilst common areas are important, the components of building design critical to the
formation of community are those which facilitate “accidental encounters” amongst
residents. Incidental spaces and encounters are more important than formal facilities
or planned activities. Movement spaces are the most important to community
building.
• Neighbours do not visit each other in their homes. Neighbour interaction
predominantly occurs in the course of engaging in another activity, that is when
residents:
- Either leave or come home (at the front entry/ foyer/ lift/ stairs); or
- Undertake a household chore (predominantly getting the mail, taking out the
garbage, using communal clothes drying areas or washing the car).
• Neighbour interaction occurs in locations which are not ideal for that purpose and in
which it wouldn’t ordinarily be planned (for example, car parks and garbage rooms).
• However shared activities and interests also play an important role in bringing
residents together (e.g. gardening, children). These shared activities provide
residents with social permission to converse.
• Whilst interaction is important, and opportunities should be provided, residents should
not be compelled to interact.
• Physical facilities only provide the space in which people could potentially be brought
together. Rather, it is design which accommodates residents’ needed and desired
activities within them that are needed to bring people together. Common rooms are
less important to community building.
• Activities within the communal space which take time to do increase the likelihood of
social interaction (e.g. car washing, clothes washing, gardening).
• Individuals play a role as important, if not more so, than physical facilities. The
design/structure of a building can be a huge barrier to meeting others, but on its own,
it’s not enough.
• Larger buildings should be distinguished by design into smaller social groups.
Apartment complexes require both large 'country club' type facilities, serving the
needs of dwellings in several buildings, as well as smaller facilities within each
building (or even floor).
• The overall quality of a building’s materials, construction and apartment design also
plays an indirect role, by increasing residents’ satisfaction with their dwelling, and
reducing the potential for conflict points to arise.
Design needs to adequately recognise the above and appropriately facilitate the activities
residents need to undertake in their day to day lives, activities which get them out of their
dwelling, providing the opportunity for incidental encounters to occur and “weak ties” to
develop.


6.2 How can communal facilities best create community?
The focus of this paper is on those changes to the physical fabric of buildings which can
potentially act as a catalyst for positive social interaction which have marginal construction
costs and function irrespective of the socio-economic profile of residents and independent of
property management, both of which are subject to constant change over the life of a
building.

The following key directions to guide building design arise from this research:

(1) Facilitate “accidental” encounters

Design’s primary objective should be to facilitate “accidental encounters” amongst residents
of a building. Principally, movement routes (including loft lobbies, in corridors, well utilised
stairwells) should be designed to facilitate interaction:

• By providing places where residents/ small groups can stop and talk, without
obstructing other movement along the path (including adequate corridor widths).
• Comfortable places to sit are particularly important. These can be informal, for
example the edges of planter beds. Seating should be arranged to allow
conversation.
• Shade/ weather protection are seen as important, as is a conducive amenity more
generally, to encourage people to sit and spend time in public (winter sun, pleasant
outlook and landscaping, well lit, etc). Some participants suggested that the presence
of “outlook bays” off/within corridors, containing a window/view and perhaps some
chairs could encourage people to stop and have a conversation.
Importantly, the design should cluster dwellings units in such a way that they develop as
smaller, distinct groups of residents. The number of dwelling units which share a lobby and
circulation space should be minimised to the greatest extent practicable. Each building level
should have a pleasant lobby with seating provided at which to wait for the lift.

The daily rituals of life should be used as catalysts. Design should recognise those activities
which residents must do in their day-to-day lives, and design them in a manner which
facilitates interaction – develop spaces which “Cause to Pause”. These include:

• Entering the building.
• Getting the mail.
• Taking of the garbage.
• Washing the car.
• Drying laundry.
Every residential flat building within a larger development should have its own communal
facilities of the type which facilitate such encounters. The location and layout of such
communal facilities should be planned to increase the likelihood of residents bumping into
other residents. As a general rule, residents should not be able to avoid their neighbours
when moving between their dwelling and the street. For example:

• Locating key common use spaces centrally, adjacent to main pathways and providing
users within good visibility of passers-by. This creates the potential for interaction with
other residents ("to catch them if <they> need to speak with them"). Further, the poor
location of communal facilities can deter use, depending on the nature of the facility.


For example, poorly located common rooms appear to receive less use, whilst
similarly located gyms would not.
• Locating car washing bays adjacent to entries or movement paths, rather than
isolated in a basement car park.
• Utility areas (e.g. letterboxes, garbage room entry points) providing places to sit,
space to talk, and allow users to see people passing by. Letterbox access should be
brought off the street into the building fabric. Recognising that some aspects of
gardening can’t be undertaken cleanly in apartments, a potting bench could be placed
near the entry to garbage room.
The design should consider unusual approaches to encouraging social interaction or
increasing the time neighbours spend together. For example:

• Residents of the multi-building residential complex liked that the lifts do not stop at
every floor, but rather every third floor, feeling that this can help with the sense of
community in their larger buildings.
• Some usually private facilities could be provided in semi-public space in order to
create opportunities for interaction with other residents which would not otherwise
occur. This includes, for example, clothes washing or drying facilities (particularly
important where unit blocks have strict rules about hanging washing over/on the
balcony to dry).
(2) Promote shared activities and common interests

In general, communal facilities (gardens, common rooms, etc) should be welcoming,
activated and stimulating, as such spaces are more likely to be used. Such places are likely
to contain elements which are perceived by users as:

• Useable.
• Spacious, of a size adequate to suit likely resident demand. They should enable a
user to choose whether to interact or not. Spaces which compel interaction can
receive lower rates of use. They should also be of a layout which avoids
monopolisation by one group (for example, a BBQ area whose use dominates all
other parts of a garden).
• Adaptable, providing spaces in which a range of activities can be undertaken, public
and private. Facilities need to be able to be adapted to suit the likely demographic mix
and lifestyle of the buildings’ residents, recognising that this mix will change over
time. Gardening, for example, is an activity which is intergenerational and cross
cultural.
• Accessible and inclusive to all.
• Safe (during the day and evening).
• Activated by the presence of activity generators, such as movement paths, gardening,
fitness uses (yet providing a sense of privacy).
• Stimulating and enjoyable, engaging multiple senses of its users. Aesthetically
pleasing and interesting natural, artistic or other interpretive elements should be
utilised.
• Accounting for climate and amenity.
• Encourage ownership of space (care and maintenance, safety) through quality of
design.


• Positioned to avoid becoming a conflict generator (due to noise or other amenity
impacts).
The case studies confirm that provision alone does not always equate to use. The design of
communal spaces also needs to ‘permit’ its use (the CPTED concept of territorial
reinforcement 14). This is best captured by the multi-building residential complex case study,
where the gardens are highly valued aesthetically, but are not used because “you’d look a bit
strange”15. Spaces need to be comfortable for the user.

In some of the case studies, common rooms were effectively wasted spaces, their potential
unrealised. Beyond their provision, consideration does not appear to have been placed into
how they could be utilised. However, case studies suggest that this is also due to an inherent
difficulty with this space - the number of occasions that a large internal space is required are
few (e.g. meetings, parties), and residents possess lounge rooms so they do not seek a
facility to fulfil that function. Ideally, common rooms should be planned as multipurpose
spaces, directly connected to external spaces to increase their size when required. Common
rooms should also be:

• adaptable (for example, being able to be divided into two rooms).
• adequately equipped (amenities, as well as items/ equipment which supports/
encourages resident use of the space).
• of adequate size and internal dimension to accommodate likely uses.
• have a warm, friendly design ethos which conveys that it is more than a bare,
commercial office space.
The case studies suggest that communal gardens should aim to be of a size which allows
residents to “maintain privacy, but also the opportunity for communal invitation, whilst not
being on top of each other”. It should afford the choice to interact or 'keep to themselves'
whilst residents simultaneously use different parts of the space. This expands the range of
potential uses, allowing them to be used independently of other areas, and avoids
monopolisation of space. The use of landscaping to divide a larger space into smaller spaces
was one way this was achieved in the case studies.

Awareness of what communal facilities are available and how they can be used can be as
important as provision, particularly in larger buildings with higher rates of resident turnover.
Rather than one noticeboard for a large building, it may be more appropriate to have one on
each floor. Other, electronic measures should be provided for and are preferred.

14 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a crime prevention strategy that focuses on urban
design. Territorial Re-enforcement uses actual and symbolic boundary markers, spatial legibility and
environmental cues to ‘connect’ people with space, to encourage communal responsibility for public areas and
facilities, and to communicate to people where they should/not be and what activities are appropriate. (NSW
Police, http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_prevention/safer_by_design)
15 Participants in Guthrie et al (2009) identified similar concerns.


6.3 Policy recommendations
The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat
Development establishes ten design quality principles for residential apartment buildings.
Principle 9 considers the social dimensions of residential apartment buildings:
"Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in
terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.
New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and
needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide
for the desired future community.
New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of
economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different
budgets and housing needs".

The Residential Flat Design Code supplies detailed information about how development
proposals can achieve these principles. Relevant information sheets within the code address
'Internal Circulation', 'Open Space' and 'Landscape Design'. Each information sheet contains:

1. descriptive text defines the topic and explains why it is important.
2. objectives state what the resulting outcome should achieve.
3. directive text outlines better design practice guidelines and provides some
possible design solutions for achieving the guidelines.
4. rules of thumb recommend minimum standards as a guide for local decision
making.

One of the objectives of the Internal Circulation information sheet is "To encourage
interaction and recognition between residents to contribute to a sense of community and
improve perceptions of safety". However specific guidance on the implementation of this
worthwhile objective is limited to "providing generous corridor widths".

The Code would benefit from an expansion of such guidance during any review. Such
guidance should provide guidance on the ideal number of dwelling units which share a lobby
and circulation space. A building’s design should cluster units in such a way that they
develop as smaller, distinct groups. This research suggests that an ideal size should not
exceed 20 units.

It may be beneficial for a stand-alone information sheet to be developed. Section 6.2 of this
paper has been compiled to inform the basis for any such guidance.

6.4 Further steps
Section 3.7 sets out a number of pertinent research themes related to community formation
in residential apartment buildings. This paper has undertaken an initial exploration of how
community forms in apartment buildings, what makes communal spaces effective and which
facilities best contribute to community formation in apartment buildings. These and the other
research themes identified would benefit from further research. Key aspects include:
• Detailed design resolution of communal spaces.
• Exploration of the ideal number of dwellings in a building.
• Further consideration of social housing, whose tenants may have a greater need and
different experience of neighbouring.
• Further identification of best practice examples.


7. REFERENCES
Appold, S., & Yuen, B. (2007). Families in flats, revisited. Urban Studies, 44 (3), pp. 569-589.
doi: 10.1080/00420980601131860.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004). Information paper: Measuring Social Capital. An
Australian Framework and Indicators. (Cat. No. 1378.0). Canberra, Australia: ABS.
Bales, R.F. (1968). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bouma, J., & Voorbij, L. (2009). Factors in social interaction in cohousing communities.
Paper presented at the CMS2009 (Construction Material Stewardship) Faculty of
Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands: Hanze University of
Groningen. Retrieved: 2 April 2011, from:
http://145.33.5.235/NR/rdonlyres/87EA4269-3EAB-4141-B5A9-
0F0CE1B4A71D/0/paperJantineBouma.pdf.
Buckner, J.C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16 (6), pp. 771-791. doi:
10.1007/BF00930892.
Chou, S.-C., Boldy, D.P., & Lee, A.H. (2002). Resident satisfaction and its components in
residential aged care. The Gerontologist, 42 (2), pp. 188-198. doi:
10.1093/geront/42.2.188.
Christensen, S.A., & Wallace, A. (2006). Links between physical and legal structures of
community title schemes and disputes. Australian Property Law Journal, 14 (1), pp.
90-111.
Christiansen, M. (2009, 23 December). Talk to thy neighbour, The Courier Mail, Brisbane,
Australia, p. 12.
Chu, A., Thorne, A., & Guite, H. (2004). The impact on mental well-being of the urban and
physical environment: An assessment of the evidence. Journal of Public Mental
Health, 3 (2), pp. 17-32.
City Futures Research Centre. (2010). Survey of executive committee members: A report on
the findings of a survey of members of executive committees of NSW strata schemes,
November 2010. Sydney, Australia: Faculty of the Built Environment, University of
New South Wales.
Cooper Marcus, C. (1992). Architecture and a sense of community: The case of cohousing.
(Unpublished manuscript). Berkeley, CA.
Cooper Marcus, C. (1993). Considering residents’ needs in planning for higher density
housing. Planning Commissioners Journal, 8.
Crawford, A. (2006). 'Fixing broken promises?': Neighbourhood wardens and social capital.
Urban Studies, 43 (5-6), pp. 957-976. doi: 10.1080/00420980600676451.
Dekker, K., & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands:
Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban Studies, 42 (13), pp.
2447-2470. doi: 10.1080/00420980500380360.
Dines, N.T., Cattell, V., Gesler, W.M., & Curtis, S. (2006). Public spaces, social relations and
well-being in East London. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1998). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.


Easthope, H., & Judd, S. (2010). Living well in greater density. Sydney, NSW, Australia: City
Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South
Wales.
Easthope, H., Tice, A., & Randolph, B. (2009). The desirable apartment life. Sydney, NSW,
Australia: City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University
of New South Wales.
Edwards, R.W. (2004). Measuring social capital: An Australian framework and indicators.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). [ABS Information Paper
1378.0].
Falk, N. (c.2007). Achieving balanced and mixed communities – research review. Paper
prepared for English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, UK.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study
of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.
Findlay, R., & Cartwright, C. (2002). Social isolation & older people: A literature review.
Brisbane, Australia: Australasian Centre on Ageing, The University of Queensland.
Fleming, R., Baum, A., & Singer, J.E. (1985). Social support and the physical environment. In
S. Cohen & S.L. Syme, (Eds.), Social support and health. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press, pp. 327-345.
Flood, M. (2005). Mapping loneliness in Australia. Canberra, ACT: The Australia Institute
Canberra, Australia.
Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood.
Urban Studies, 38 (12), pp. 2125-2143. doi: 10.1080/00420980120087081.
Forrest, R., la Grange, A., & Ngai-Ming, Y. (2002). Neighbourhood in a high rise, high density
city: Some observations on contemporary Hong Kong. The Sociological Review, 50
(2), pp. 215-240. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.00364.
Foth, M., & Sanders, P. (2005). Social networks in inner-city apartment complexes and the
implications for the residential architecture of public space. In A. Aurigi, P. van den
Besselaar, F. De Cindio, G. Gumpert & S. Drucker (Eds.), 2nd International
Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 33-44). Milan, Italy:
Università degli Studi di Milano. .
Gifford, R. (2007). The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural Science
Review, 50 (1), pp. 2-17. doi: 10.3763/asre.2007.5002.
Guthrie, J., March, B., & March, A. (2009). Private open space for high density living. Paper
presented at the 2nd International Urban Design Conference, 2-4 September 2009,
Gold Coast, Qld, Australia: Urbandesignaustralia.com.au. Retrieved: 14 October
2011, from:
http://www.urbandesignaustralia.com.au/images/Papers09/Alan%20March%20final%
20paper.pdf.
Hall, A.C. (2010). The life and death of the Australian backyard. Collingwood, Vic.: CSIRO
publishing.
Hasic, T. (2000). A sustainable urban matrix: Achieving sustainable urban form in residential
buildings. K. Williams, Burton, E. & Jenks, M. (Eds.), Achieving sustainable urban
form. London: Spon Press, pp. 329-336.
Henning, C., & Lieberg, M. (1996). Strong ties or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a
new perspective. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 13 (1), pp. 3-26. doi:
10.1080/02815739608730394.


Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). Social interactions in urban public places.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Huang, S.-C.L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing.
Landscape and urban planning, 78 (3), pp. 193-204. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.008.
Hugman, R. (2001). Looking to the future: Ageing in space. Australasian Journal on Ageing,
20, pp. 57-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2001.tb00400.x.
Kingsley, J.Y., & Townsend, M. (2006). ‘Dig in’ to social capital: Community gardens as
mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy and Research, 24
(4), pp. 525-537. doi: 10.1080/08111140601035200.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:
Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 26 (6), pp. 823-851. doi: 10.1023/A:1022294028903.
Lewin, K. (1967). D. Cartwright (Ed.) Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical
papers by Kurt Lewin London: Social Science Paperbacks. Originally Published:
1951.
Lownsbrough, H., & Beunderman, J. (2007). Equally spaced? Public space and interaction
between diverse communities. [A Report for the Commission for Racial Equality].
Demos, 2007 (July).
McNelis, S., Neske, C., Jones, A., & Phillips, R. (2009, February). Older people in public
housing: policy and management issues. AHURI Research & Policy Bulletin, Issue
109. .
NSW Department of Planning. (2010). Metropolitan strategy review: Sydney towards 2036.
Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Planning, NSW Government.
NSW Department of Planning. (2002). Residential flat design code: Tools for improving the
design of residential flat buildings. Sydney, Australia: Department of Infrastructure,
Planning and Natural Resources, NSW Government.
NSW Government. (2002). State environmental planning policy No. 65: Design quality of
residential flat development. Sydney, Australia: NSW Government,.
O’Connor, Z. (2006). Happy campers? Investigating the interface between older people and
retirement village environments. In C. Shanley & T. Roberts (Eds.), Proceedings of
5th National Conference of Emerging Researchers in Aging: Research informing
Positive Outcomes in Older Persons, Sydney, Australia: The University of Sydney,
pp. 152-155.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Queensland Government. (2009). Best practice guidelines: Cross-government project to
reduce social isolation of older people. Brisbane, Australia: The State of Queensland
(Department of Communities).
Randolph, B. (2006). Delivering the compact city in Australia: Current trends and future
implications. Urban Policy and Research, 24 (4), pp. 473-490. doi:
10.1080/08111140601035259.
Rafter, D. (2005, 10 December). Making togetherness a strong selling point. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.
Sarkissian, W., & Kerr, A. (2003). Working Paper 11: High-Density Dwelling Design for
Children. Report for Mirvac Fini: Burswood Lakes. Brisbane, Qld, Australia:
Sarkissian Associates Planners..


Social isolation pilot project

Social isolation pilot project

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (17)

Similar a Social isolation pilot project

Similar a Social isolation pilot project (20)

Más de UN Migration Agency (IOM)

Más de UN Migration Agency (IOM) (17)

Social isolation pilot project