What makes inner city high density liveable? Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia

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


Introduction
As elsewhere in the world, state and local governments in Australia have adopted urban consolidation policies aimed at meeting the main liveability and sustainability objectives of decreasing car dependence and minimising the loss of greenfield areas. This pursuit of a city of short distances involves reducing the physical separation of daily activities and the more effective integration of land use and transport (Howley, Scott, & Redmond, 2009) thereby reducing car dependency for everyday activities. While the policy of urban consolidation has been positively received by some Australian consumers (Neilson, 2008), traditional suburban housing preferences for a large detached house with a private backyard, continue to work against widespread public acceptance and uptake of consolidation planning initiatives, both in the innercity and suburban areas (Smart State Council, 2007). Shifting Australians' perceptions so that compact urban living is viewed in a more desirable light will require the coordinated efforts of policy-makers, developers, designers and end-users. This research investigates the views and experiences of inner city high density (ICHD) residents, to provide important insight into how built environments, within the domains of dwelling, building and community, deliver on liveability and sustainability needs in ICHD. ICHD for this study is defined as thirty dwellings per hectare within a five kilometre radius of Brisbane's General Post Office (GPO).
Liveability, like sustainability, is a driving vision of the 21 st Century. The two terms are often perceived as synonymous with each other. Indeed, sustainability and liveability concepts often overlap in practice (Andrews, 2001;Evans, 2002;Van Assche, Block, & Reynaert, 2010;Wheeler, 1999). For example, urban amenity and diversity, mixed uses, sense of place and safety, reduced travel demand and lively and walkable streets are objectives of both liveability and sustainability practice. While there are a lot of similarities between the concepts of liveability and sustainability, the main difference between them is that liveability objectives can be focused on the here and now whereas the objective of sustainability is future generations (Van Assche, et al., 2010). However, if urban consolidation policies are to be successful they need to meet the dual goals of liveability and sustainability (Howley, et al., 2009).
What constitutes a liveable place is complex, very personal and therefore difficult to articulate.
'Liveable' is a commonly used term that lacks a single definition due to its relativistic use for a range of ideas about place-based quality of life. The relativism is implicit in this description, as where people choose to live can be considered liveable through their subjective filter. This subjectivity has been one of the major challenges for researchers attempting to develop a more objective based definition of liveable places (Andrews, 2001).
Several researchers have attempted to measure liveability (Andrews, 2001;Myers, 1988;Schmandt & Bloomberg, 1969;Southworth & Parthasarathy, 1996). A theory of liveability requires attributes which can be defined and measured. It is important that definitional attributes enable focus on their efficacy and ability to target improvement (Andrews, 2001;Myers, 1989).
A theory of daily life has the great advantage of focussing attention on the required elements, regular functioning and social use of place (Chiesura, 2004;Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003;Lefebvre, 1991). Notions of daily life urbanism have driven much of the recent interest in the New Urbanism, Urban Village, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Complete Communities movements (Grant, 2006(Grant, , 2006a. Within the design fields, notions of daily life are providing a serious rationale for improving the urban environment for regular daily functioning toward the goal of liveability (Bakardjieva, 2003;Grant, 2006;Newman, 2008). A liveability theory of daily life suggests the need to understand the impact, availability and use of elements such as dwelling, building and community on ICHD liveability. Pacione (1990Pacione ( , 2003 argues that a daily life perspective is a way of looking at liveability that may help cities and neighbourhoods function better physically, socially and economically to provide for both basic needs and more fulfilling experiences. Review of the modern urban movements and liveability theorists such as Lynch (1981) Myers (1988 and Whyte (1988Whyte ( , 2001 suggest general agreement on the aspects that contribute to a more liveable place. While rationales differ, there is a significant amount of overlap between the physical attributes which centre on the degree to which a place supports the quality of life, health and wellbeing of occupants. These physical attributes include greater amenity for pedestrians and active public space, resulting in more walkable and liveable cities through densification, mixed land uses and closer proximity to amenities (i.e., residential, commercial, retail, offices, green space and bikeways). Liveable places, are concerned with the quality of space and the built environment, encompassing issues such as safety, ease of use and the physical aesthetics, specifically how dwellings, transport infrastructure and public spaces are planned constructed and connected.
Residential satisfaction studies link liveability to specific features of the home and building, such as dwelling age, size, structure and aesthetic feelings (Lu, 1999), as well as features of the broader neighbourhood, including access to facilities, noise, pollution, safety risks, neighbourhood reputation and social features (Howley, et al., 2009;Sirgy & Cornwell, 2002).
Many researchers and advocacy groups attest to the importance of having a built environment with settings requisite for socialising on a regular basis, community formation and cohesion that is conducive to a sense of belonging and community (Hampshire, 2000;Jacobs, 1961;Myers, 1987Myers, , 1988Whyte, 2001). Overall, liveable communities should "create a comfortable, convenient, efficient and safe public realm and to meet the needs of the full range of users taking into account age, abilities, gender and race" (Rowley, 1998, 154).
The liveability theories developed by researchers such as Whyte (1988Whyte ( , 2001, Lynch (1981) and Myers (1988Myers ( , 1989 have been so influential on urban design as to be embodied and incorporated as protocols at the operational level in countries such as the United Kingdom with Urban Design Compendium, New Zealand with Urban Design Protocol and here in Australia with the Australian Urban Design Protocol, the Agenda for Urban Quality in Queensland and the Guide to TOD. Principles of TOD are very much aligned to the physical attributes espoused by the theorists and movements discussed above. TOD principles are designed to create higher density, mixed use neighbourhoods with transit stations developed within 800 metres or a 10 minute walk of high density areas (Crewe & Forsyth, 2011) thus managing traffic and encouraging widespread public use of well-connected public transportation and other forms of non-car mobility (e.g. walking, cycling) (McCrea & Walters, 2012).
This research focuses on Brisbane in subtropical Queensland. The Queensland state and local governments are actively pursuing urban consolidation with higher density around transport nodes to create vibrant and active urban spaces using innovative subtropical design (Gleeson & Steele, 2010;Smart State Council, 2007). With the popularity of urban consolidation policies with governments, it is important to ask how urban liveability and sustainability are affected by ICHD living (Lovejoy, Handy, & Mokhtarian, 2010;McCrea & Walters, 2012). There is some debate about the extent to which urban consolidation policies enhance environmental, economic and social sustainability of cities (Ancell & Thompson-Fawcett, 2008;McCrea & Walters, 2012). Ancell and Thompson-Fawcett (2008) argue that the compact city ideal has undergone some analysis with regard to environmental sustainability but there has been little evidence to support claims concerning social sustainability outcomes which encompass such aspects as those linked to the dual goals of liveability and sustainability including increased amenity, improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure and reduced motor vehicle traffic, air pollution and noise.
The purpose of this research is to explore the viewpoints of current ICHD residents to better understand the liveability and sustainability matters that affect their everyday experiences and perceptions of this urban form. Engagement with residents can help modify and enhance definitions and understanding of liveability and sustainability (Wheeler, 1999). Understanding how built environments deliver on liveability and sustainability needs in the context of the everyday is key to improving the desirability of ICHD living.

Participants
A total of 24 participants (14 men, 10 women) residing in inner city high density (ICHD) Brisbane suburbs were interviewed; half owned their unit, with the remainder paying of a mortgage (7 participants) or renting (5 participants). They had lived in their present accommodation for an average of three years and five months, with only three having children living with them. Ages ranged from 25 to 79 years, with approximately a third in each major age grouping -25-44 years (7 residents), 45-64 years (9 residents) and 65-79 years (8 residents). The majority were married or in a de facto relationship (14 participants), with the remainder single (7 participants), widowed or divorced (3 participants). Over half had a university degree, a combined household annual income over A$80,000 and worked in managerial/professional fields.

Procedure
The study received ethics approval and standard good practice ethical protocols were followed.
Interviewees were part of a larger study, with a proportionate sampling technique utilised to mail survey 2311 ICHD (defined as 30 or more dwellings per hectare) residents of six selected precincts (eight suburbs) located within six kilometres of the Central Business District (CBD) of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland, Australia. There was a 28% response rate, with 636 surveys (on the positive and negative social, environmental and economic impacts of living in the city) returned. This paper focuses on the qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with 24 residents randomly selected (ensuring range of socio-demographic differences) from those who expressed interest in the survey about participating in further research. Potential interviewees were contacted via email and phone and invited to participate in a face-to-face semi-structured interview (lasting approximately 60 minutes) to explore sustainability impacts of high-density (HD) living. The following areas were broadly covered: likes and dislikes of current dwelling and neighbourhood, social contacts within the dwelling, views on sustainability, transport practices, design perceptions and general opinions about high-density living. This article focuses specifically on perceptions and experiences of what makes ICHD areas liveable and sustainable for residents.

Analysis
Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed, with a thematic analysis conducted to identify categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). Three iterative steps were involved in the thematic analysis. First, transcripts were read and re-read to identify the overarching themes. Second, coding was done manually, with common and contrasting concepts identified, highlighted and grouped. Third, themes were identified, reviewed, categorised and named to create a comprehensive picture of how ICHD residents defined 'liveability' (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005).

Results/Discussion
Focussing on the experience of residents from ICHD locations, this research highlights the ways in which multiple aspects of the immediate living environment, the unit, building complex and the community intertwine to provide residents with a liveable space. Judgements about liveability are not related to one single identifiable and dominant characteristic of the home or locality, but instead involve a complex array of interconnected domains that can be grouped conceptually as characteristics of the individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, noise mitigation), building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, environmental sustainability) and the community (sustainable transport, amenities, sense of community). Table 1 identifies the characteristics conceived to fall within these three domains, which emerged from the data as being important for enhancing the liveability of ICHD areas.
Like community quality of life, where isolating just one dimension leads to "issue-specific planning efforts that pay too little attention to the web of interconnections among these dimensions" (National Research Council, 2002, 5), it is essential that each of these domains are conceptualised holistically as inter-related, multi-layered attributes which interlace to determine ICHD residents' judgements of everyday liveability and sustainability. These findings further highlight the importance of a holistic approach to exploring and addressing issues of liveability and sustainability, with various stakeholders, including policy-makers, developers, designers and urban planners, having ultimate responsibility for creating the foundational conditions that promote everyday liveability and sustainability. While we strongly advocate a holistic perspective, we will discuss each domain separately to highlight the implications of our findings as a means to inform the efforts of stakeholders interested in creating urban spaces and dwellings that are more liveable and sustainable places.  and lack of services) with high density that lead to dissatisfaction rather than high density per se.
The seeking of particular design features in their high-density accommodation in the present study may well reflect a desire for replicating dwelling attributes that they enjoyed in their earlier lives.

Thermal comfort and ventilation
Design features that enhanced thermal comfort, which include indoor air quality, temperature and humidity, emerged as being very important to study participants. Features found to contribute to thermal comfort included: natural air-flow and control over exposure to the sun's heat and light; dwellings with balconies and other outdoor living areas; internal and external modifications (e.g. shades and blinds); and orientation of the dwelling to maximise breezes during summer months and to maximise access to the sun's warmth in winter months. The nature of climate considerations will differ depending on local characteristics. Heating over ventilation may be the key factor in cooler climates, however in this subtropical climate the emphasis was on keeping cool in the humid summer months. Interestingly, participants indicated a preference for natural air flow rather than air-conditioning. This is in keeping with Australian research in Sydney on thermal comfort which has shown high occupant comfort satisfaction scores in naturally ventilated mixed-mode buildings with sustainability dividends of reduced energy use by a quarter (Rowe, 1996) and occupants being comfortable in temperatures that closely reflect the outdoor climate (Artkins, 2007). Thus, passive temperature control is an extremely desirable dwelling characteristic that should be prioritised by developers and designers.

Natural light and balconies
The importance of exposure to abundant natural light for its aesthetic, thermal and lighting value was emphasised by residents. Most rooms in traditional Australian homes have windows that allow for natural lighting and ventilation (Australian

Noise Mitigation
Levels of annoyance are associated with various sources of noise in high density urban areas and managing noise is crucial for enhancing satisfaction with high density living (Bramley & Power, 2009;Saville Smith, 2010). Noise is generated internally within a building (e.g. noise from surrounding neighbours' voices, music or appliances) or externally (e.g. traffic noise industrial activities or surrounding neighbours). Noise can also be classified as either air-borne (through openings, closed windows, doors, walls and floors) or structure-borne (through building materials from sound sources such as vehicular or foot traffic, banging, or objects dropped), with design solutions not always being the same (Australian Government, 2002). For these participants, although motor vehicle noise was the most commonly heard noise, it was voices, music or sounds from animals that were identified as the most annoying noises. This is in keeping with research undertaken by Williams (2000). Williams (2000) found some evidence of increases in "bad neighbour" effects of noise complaints although causal attribution was difficult to substantiate. Varying tolerance to these different types of noise may result from the nature of the noise, be it constant, intermittent, anonymous or identifiable, as well as the time of day in which it occurs.
There has been a move in recent years for unit owners to change their floors to timber.  Vallance, et al., 2005). While it is important to insulate and provide barriers against noise, it is also important to look at measures to control noise at the source.

Building Complex
The building in which dwellings are located was discussed in relation to liveability within high density urban areas, with shared space, good neighbour protocols and environmental sustainability identified as key aspects of building design.

Limited use of shared space
The social impacts of high density include the necessity to use shared space for everyday activity due to reduced private space (Ancell & Thompson-Fawcett, 2008). Shared space includes areas in multi-unit dwellings and apartments that can be accessed by all residents. This includes outdoor amenity areas such as swimming pools, gyms and children's play areas as well as indoor shared access areas such as corridors, lifts and stairwells. Mulholland Research and Consulting (2003) identified outdoor space as vital to making high density liveable for a wide cross-section of people. Access to communal facilities was considered useful to those interviewed in the current study, with over half indicating they were satisfied with the communal facilities (pool, barbeques, decks, clotheslines, etc) within their building complex. However, communal facilities within the building were used infrequently. For example, most have a swimming pool in their building and yet indicated that they never or infrequently used it or other shared facilities, such as barbeques and deck areas.
I'm ashamed to say I've never used the pool, but I'm not really one to use the pool.
Except when I've stood around it for drinks and common social gatherings (HD11, male aged 70-74 years) The social interaction of those interviewed in the current study included brief, trivial and small exchanges. Many of the participants said they liked to keep to themselves and valued privacy in shared areas, indicating that they were happy to maintain a simple 'hello' relationship with their neighbours but did not want to feel pressure or any obligation to talk to neighbours.  (Adams, 1992;J. Williams, 2005) . Critically, however, this research suggests that it is residents themselves who choose to maintain distance between themselves and others in order to maintain their privacy. While further research would be needed to more fully explore their motivations in this regard, these findings suggest that residents choose to remain 'friendly strangers' because of their strong desire for privacy within their home.

Good neighbour protocols
Many Australians accustomed to living in detached houses on larger blocks of land may find it confronting or difficult to live in shared proximity with others. High density buildings and facilities are covered by community title laws that allow Body Corporates and other management structures to develop guidelines for shared facilities, which include management of noise, behaviour around common areas such as pools and use of shared parking areas (Queensland ). Some participants indicated a level of voluntary behaviour towards neighbours, explaining that they engaged in social adaptation and reciprocity in high density dwellings, by monitoring their own behaviour (e.g. noise generated) and being tolerant of particular neighbour behaviour such as routine and expected noises. A study undertaken by Mulholland Research and Consulting (2003) found that residents were very aware of the needs of their neighbours and adjusted their own behaviour accordingly. They identified a strong spirit of community organisation and agreement on core shared values aimed at protecting privacy (Mulholland Research and Consulting, 2003). In the present study, limited tolerance was displayed for particular neighbour behaviours that were not deemed as 'acceptable' however, which were described as generating noise early in the morning or late at night, loudly exiting and entering the building, pet noise and disregard for allotted car-parking spaces. Residents placed value on 'good neighbour protocols' and most were aware of how their behaviour impacted on others and engaged in voluntary mitigation activities. These findings align with those of Williams (2000) and her description of the "bad neighbour" and Saville-Smith (2010) who identified the built environment key determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction. The elements identified by Saville-Smith (2010) and Williams (2000) were the same as those identified by the current study's participants including low noise and other disturbance when living in close physical proximity with other residents. These findings highlight the value of developing and disseminating a 'code of behaviour' for building residents that explains, especially for new high density residents, how seemingly innocuous behaviours may negatively impact upon their neighbours' quality of life.

Environmental Sustainability
Environmental sustainability for high density buildings and complexes may involve a range of initiatives such as recycling bins, installing water efficient fixtures in dwellings and common areas, planning garden spaces with limited need for watering, and designing dwellings and common areas that utilise daylight, natural air-flow and passive heating and cooling (Queensland . Participants were aware of environmental sustainability and some believed utilising less space by living in higher density dwellings led to more sustainable use of resources.
However, many voiced concerns over the lack of sustainability initiatives within their building and indicated that there was significant room for improvement in the provision of recycling facilities.

I've got 2 wine bottles by my door for me to take them down and throw in the… garbage.
I feel guilty throwing glass in the garbage because I've been so used to [recycling], you just don't do it here. There's no facility to do it (HD15, female 30-34 years) Providing opportunities for efficient waste, water and energy management through environmental sustainability initiatives is important to residents. Many of these building initiatives have been identified earlier as contributing to the liveability of the dwelling (e.g. building design capturing daylight and providing cross ventilation to reduce reliance on artificial lighting, heating and cooling), with past research also finding that sustainable cities are considered to be high quality liveable places where people want to live (Bishop & Syme, 1995).

Community
Community is the third major domain that is integral to liveable or sustainable places.
Communal outdoor space in high density is important compensation for the necessary restriction on private outdoor space (Mulholland Research and Consulting, 2003;J. Williams, 2005). Good management and skilful design are required to ensure that community space meets the needs of different residents (McCrea & Walters, 2012;Mulholland Research and Consulting, 2003).
Participants in the current study described the community aspect of liveability as including accessible and sustainable transport, amenities and services, and a sense of neighbourhood community. Many said they decided to live in the area because of the availability of public transport and accessibility to the neighbourhood community amenity (including foot and bike paths), explaining that residential complex selection was based on its location with respect to the city centre, facilities in the neighbourhood and facilities within the design of the residential complex.

Accessible and sustainable transport
The majority of participants agreed that it was easy to walk to a public transport stop from their home and felt safe walking or bicycling in their neighbourhood during the day; only half felt safe walking or bicycling at night. Walking was a common mode choice for various types of journeys, with participants reporting that they walked daily or weekly, commonly for the purpose of travelling to restaurants, recreational facilities and the newsagent. In terms of community socio-spatial issues, the walkable neighbourhood ideally performs two basic functions: a movement corridor to take people to destinations where planned exchanges will take place and a 'stage' or 'outdoor living room' to facilitate exchanges both planned and spontaneous (Engwicht, 1999). In the current study, walking was preferred for reaching certain destinations, providing ease of access to local services, a sense of the surrounding community and, for some, a reduced environmental impact. years) The availability of everyday amenities is necessary to encourage residents to walk in their neighbourhood (de Certeau, Giard, & Mayol, 1998). Access to amenities that facilitate participation in everyday type activities (e.g. retail shopping) appears for these participants to be principally undertaken with the use of a private motor vehicle.

Amenities and services
Providing services within the community has been linked to residential satisfaction and quality of life (Lloyd & Auld, 2003 While these findings suggest that access to amenities is a key driver of satisfaction with locality, the findings also suggest that not all areas of ICHD Brisbane are well served with a rich supply of amenities. Many areas of inner-city Brisbane have evolved from semi-industrial, brownfield sites of typically contaminated areas with minimal amenity to high density residential neighbourhoods. While brownfield projects are key strategies for compacting cities they are time-consuming to develop (Crewe & Forsyth, 2011). Development of necessary infrastructure (such as amenities and public transport) that keeps pace with the needs of residents in high growth areas represents a major challenge, given that neighbourhoods usually develop incrementally as social, physical and economic structures (Banks & Shenton, 2001). Residents of neighbourhoods with little or no available amenities are required to drive to other neighbourhoods for their everyday needs. Williams (2005) found that her study participants spent on average 38 per cent of their time per month outside their neighbourhood community.
Such behaviour is not in keeping with the liveability and sustainability goals of a compact city of short walkable distances.

Sense of community
Although participants describe liveable and sustainable aspects of their inner urban community, they were not likely to have strong connections with their neighbours. As mentioned above, these findings are consistent with previous studies (J. Williams, 2005;Zhang & Lawson, 2009) where very few of those interviewed were well acquainted with other neighbours and their interaction was mostly brief, trivial and regularly involved practical, small exchanges. Williams  For urban planners, these findings suggest that access to amenities is a key driver of satisfaction with locality and are consistent with the concept of 'complete communities'. 'Complete communities' refers to liveable places characterised by mixed land uses, as well as walkable and pedestrian friendly environments equipped with amenities and services that foster local selfsufficiency, meaningful place-based identity, attachment and ownership (Perkins, 1995). This research suggests that ICHD Brisbane residents strongly value many of the characteristics of 'complete communities', particularly easy, accessible connections between their homes, shopping, walkways, cycle paths and public transport. These characteristics, however, are not equally shared across this study's ICHD neighbourhoods causing residents in neighbourhoods with few or no amenities to drive to other neighbourhoods for their everyday needs. Howley et al. (2009) suggest that a city can be both high density and offer high quality living space but to achieve this, compact city policy makers must deal specifically with the critical link between design and density with greater emphasis on liveability. For the compact city to be a desirable planning goal, the individual dwelling, building complex and community must be carefully designed and built in such a way as to accommodate residents' social, environmental and economic needs that are integral to a liveable and sustainable ICHD environment. This suggests a significant role for designers and urban planners because neighbourhood design and good quality delivery of services and amenities can ease many of the problems related to high density (Howley, et al., 2009).

Conclusion
The interplay of the relationships between policy, place and daily life must be better understood to facilitate the successful introduction of liveability and sustainability policy (Vallance, et al., 2005). This paper presupposes that the physical form of ICHD as space should address all aspects of residents' liveability and sustainability needs including social needs. While there is much debate regarding the extent to which development of the built elements are able to fulfill social needs there is also the recognition that physical and social aspects of the city are undeniably interlinked (Ancell & Thompson-Fawcett, 2008).
This study identifies significant synergy between the aspirations of customers' and those of society. The results show that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for greater sustainability such as lower energy use and more use of public transport are the exact same features sought by residents in determining the liveability of a particular community. From the dwelling perspective, enhanced thermal comfort and improved air-flow and natural lighting would significantly reduce the need to artificially heat, cool and light these homes. Within the building complex, shared space, good neighbour protocols and environmental sustainability were the key issues that affect ICHD liveability for residents. In the community realm, improved public transport and walkability infrastructure in inner urban areas would provide community dividends of increased sustainability from making public transport and walkability more appealing. These findings highlight a number of opportunities for regulators, developers and designers to incorporate design features that not only enhance the liveability of high density residences, but also their long term sustainability.
Sustainability and community dividends arising from better design of high density dwellings, buildings and urban areas identified by this study suggest the need for regulators to re-examine building codes and guidelines. Future building codes or guidelines that address issues raised by this study's ICHD residents could make dwellings, buildings and urban areas more liveable and sustainable from a user and community perspective. Implementation of many of the findings of this study could assist in reducing energy use and CO 2 emissions, while at the same time enhancing the liveability of inner urban high density dwellings. The relevance of these findings are not restricted to the study site since they are likely to extend to other major subtropical cities throughout the world.
Attributes and qualities that contribute to the liveability and sustainability of high density environments have been explored in this paper. While it is intrinsically tempting to focus on the immediacy of the present day liveability rather than the sustainability of some distant future, we argue that efforts to attain liveability and sustainability need not be at cross-purposes with one another. Rather, they can work in tandem to ensure the needs of the present are viewed more expansively and proactively in effecting preferred future outcomes. Considerable synergy between the aspirations of residents and those of society were identified. The data showed that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for greater sustainability such as lower energy use and more use of public transport are the same features sought by residents in describing the liveability of a particular community.
This research is both pertinent and timely. The study is grounded in local reality and highlights pertinent built environment challenges for potential policy and planning action. While the study reports on the experiences of a small number of high density residents living in one city in Australia thereby precluding generalisability of its findings, it captures the local knowledge and place-based cultures of everyday use for this group of ICHD residents providing insight into their lived experience. Such results tend to be more relevant and are more likely to be actioned than abstract generalities about liveability requirements (Myers, 1987;National Research Council, 2002;Stevens, 2006). Their experiences are also likely to have relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere without having to discount for local differences. However, further research is needed that explores, in more depth, how people, both residents and non-residents, view, experience and judge ICHD areas. In particular, future research should explicitly explore the extent to which characteristics of the dwelling (small size) and/or the amenities, services and recreational facilities within the neighbourhood either facilitate or hinder ICHD localities being accessible and socially inclusive places for all members of the community. Our results suggest that encouraging more inner-city retail, particularly services which are utilised frequently in people's daily lives such as grocers and pharmacies, would potentially help ensure residents fully engage in their local community and also attract a more diverse local population.
As stated above, a liveable place is a complex concept, very personal and often therefore difficult to articulate. It is a multi-faceted concept capturing many attributes which interplay and operate dynamically within and between the immediate living environment, the building and the community. These attributes provide the essential services and life enriching amenities and experiences within close proximity for its residents and visitors. Understanding the factors that influence residents' perceptions of liveability of ICHD locations can assist with the planning, management and design of high density residential complexes and locations to create liveable, supportive and sustainable cities.