Social Sustainability & High Density Development

Social Sustainability &

High Density Development

PIA Queensland Conference Paper

Please contact: Liam Kavanagh

Town Planner

Planning Acquisitions & Development Pty Ltd

ACN: 110 889 784

Level 3, 10 Market Street Brisbane

Liam Kavanagh Social Sustainability & High Density Development PAD Partners

2

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 WHY SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY & HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT?......................................................... 4

2 MODELS OF SUSTAINABILITY .......................................................................................................... 7

3 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY – SOCIAL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 11

3.2 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY – PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................... 12

4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 16

4.1 MERCER‟S QUALITY OF LIVING SURVEY............................................................................................... 16

4.2 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX ....................................................................................................... 17

5 CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................................................... 18

5.1 CASE STUDY – AUCKLAND ................................................................................................................... 18

5.1.1 Sustainability policies ................................................................................................................. 18

5.1.2 Auckland Regional Council Sustainability Framework .......................................................... 18

5.2 VANCOUVER .......................................................................................................................................... 21

5.2.1 EcoDensity .................................................................................................................................. 21

5.3 SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES .................................................................................................................... 22

5.3.1 Social Development Plan .......................................................................................................... 23

5.3.2 Social Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 24

5.4 VIENNA .................................................................................................................................................. 25

5.4.1 Legislative Framework ............................................................................................................... 25

5.4.2 Planning and Land Use ............................................................................................................. 26

5.4.3 Sustainability Policies ................................................................................................................ 28

5.4.4 Social Policies ............................................................................................................................. 28

5.4.5 Vienna – Best Practice City ...................................................................................................... 28

6 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 30

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 33


3

Preface

This paper is an abridged version of comparative case study research paper of Brisbane’s land use

planning and sustainability policy framework and those of Auckland, Vancouver, and Vienna. This

version of the research has excluded some of the literature review and analysis as to fit into the PIA

conference compendium. This paper is designed to provide the key ideas and findings of the initial

research. For further information or details on this research please contact Liam Kavanagh at

[email protected].

1 INTRODUCTION

With the rise of globalisation and the change of economic conditions the nation-state is becoming a

less relevant entity. With the easy flow of capital and labour through markets and nations the city is

becoming more important to the economic success of communities. City-regions may become more

important than nation-states during this century due their important role in promoting and sustaining

economic competitiveness (Scott, 2001). However, a city‟s productive capacity may not be the

determining factor in its competitiveness but rather the city‟s ability to be socially sustainable. (Ward &

Jonas, 2004; While, Jonas, & Gibbs, 2004).

The increased importance of the city-region increases the importance of urban and regional planning

and its ability to assist in the delivery of healthy, happy, and prosperous communities. With the push

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, urban landforms will change to reduce energy consumption.

Reduced freight and commuter distances and more energy efficient homes and buildings are the first

steps. The low density cities of Australia and North America have high levels of car dependency and

results in higher levels of energy consumption as compared with higher density cities of western

Europe (Newman & Kenworth, 1999). The move toward denser urban forms needs to be paired with

changes in the form and function of our city-regions to provide environmental and economic

sustainability. These changes will have impact on our communities. The need to understand the

impact of the more compact and dense urban forms on the community is vital.

This paper will investigate the impact the increased densities will have on the community specifically

asking the question “is high density development socially sustainable?”

This is supported by a review of the Mercer Quality of Living Survey. A case study review of the

highest ranking cities for Europe, North America, and Asia Pacific will be undertaken. This review will

mailto:[email protected]


4

investigate the legislative framework, land use planning, and sustainability policies for each of these

locations to identify why these locations provide a better quality of living than other cities. The cities

that will be investigated are Auckland, Vancouver, and Vienna. These cities will be compared against

Brisbane‟s policies and plans.

1.1 Why Social Sustainability & High Density Development?

Most measures of development or progress focus on flows, such as annual income or consumption.

Sustainable development requires us to look deeper. The purpose of progress is to improve quality of

life – Justify or remove this sentence (Hatfield-Dodds, 2008). Quality of life can be defined as the

degree to which societies provide living conditions conducive to health and well-being (physical,

mental, social, spiritual). Quality of life is both subjective and objective, as much a matter of how

people feel about their lives as about the physical conditions in which they live (Eckersley, 2008).

The current dominant model of progress – material progress – regards economic growth as

paramount because it creates wealth necessary to improve quality of life: increasing personal

freedoms and opportunities and meeting community needs and national goals (Eckersley, 2008).

Research has found that rising average income does not make people happier. Little change is

evident in the results of happiness surveys in Australia that began in the 1940s, while GDP and

incomes have dramatically increased. Happiness appears to be a function of relative income or social

position, rather than absolute purchasing power. While we are richer now we are not by the same

degree happier (Hatfield-Dodds & Coggan, 2008).

Sustainability is a part of the common discourse of Australia today. With its rise to common use the

meaning of the word has been changed and altered to fit multitude of causes. Sustainability decrees

an ability to maintain a process, system, or situation infinitely. The most commonly quoted and used

definition of sustainability is that provided by the United Nations where sustainability is defined as the

ability of the current generation to meet their needs while not compromise the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs. The definition of sustainability is hotly contested and debated.

However the three pillars of sustainability or triple bottom line have remained:


5

Environment;

Society; and

Economy.

These three pillars have not changed. Yet, only two pillars receive significant attention.

Environmental protection is the common understanding for sustainability with economic factors

determine whether the protection of the environment will occur. Social sustainability is rarely

considered, defined, or researched. (Dobson, 2003; Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2003).

The exclusion of social sustainability from most sustainability literature and policy maybe due to the

difficulty of defining and measuring it. With a multitude of factors and aspects of life relating to social

issues and the differing levels of importance to each individual in a community social sustainability is

an elusive idea. Aspects for consideration are: health, employment, education, safety, security,

political freedom, personal freedom, religious freedom, spiritual freedom, sexual freedom, social

capital, social equality, social equity, and social inclusion are just a few issues that could be including

while researching social sustainability. Kevin Lynch (1981) recognised the inherent role of change

and its role in the development of communities over time. This change and evolution of social norms

and behaviours are part of the social sustainability. Therefore change is an essential part of

sustaining a community. This change makes the measuring and defining of social sustainability even

more difficult.

The measurement of social sustainability currently uses simple demographic indicators. It is done by

population growth, average income, health statistics, political stability, religious freedom, quality of life

index, or a combination of multiple measures. The idea of social sustainability is grey and ill-defined

yet is the central aspect of planning. Planners work to organise the built environment for use by

people. Sustainability of the community is required for planning to be justified.

With the current regulatory framework in SEQ a better understanding of the influence of a compact

urban form on the community is required. With an increasing population and restricted new land for

development, densities in SEQ will increase to accommodate the population growth. To


6

accommodate the growing population on limited Greenfield land, infill development is required. This

infill development will increase the density of development within Brisbane.

To date, sustainable development has mainly been about environmental conservation (Dobson, 2003;

Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2003).

Key Findings:

1. Current approach looks at sustainability in its separate spheres of economy, society, and

environment; and

2. Common understanding of sustainability is environmental protection and conservation.

3. Environmental sustainability generally places priority on variety in plant and animal species,

decreased pollution levels, and efficient utilisation of resources;

4. Economic sustainability commonly favours improved productivity, personal finances, and

public finances; and

5. Social sustainability is generally concerned with security, liveability, and social equity.

6. Sustainability is a dynamic process that is currently approached reactively.


7

2 MODELS OF SUSTAINABILITY The two most common models are “Interlocking Circles” model and the “Concentric Circles” model as

shown below.

The interlocking circles model is the most commonly seen and used model of sustainability and

supports the current divisive understanding and action in relation to sustainability. This shows three

separate parts of the world that converge in a small section to be sustainable. Currently sustainability

is considered in each of its separate circles with little interaction considered between the different

aspects.

The concentric circles model gives a holistic representation of sustainability. This is how the

relationships between the different aspects of sustainability should be considered. It shows the

mutual interdependence and our reliance, as social and economic beings, on the physical

environment that surrounds us (Barron & Gauntlett, 2002).


8

Figure 1: Interlocking Circles

Figure 2: Concentric Circles


9

3 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

Historically human societies were organised around large families and low consumption levels. This

remains the norm in developing countries. In the developed world people have made the transition to

small families and high consumption levels (Basiago, 1999). The changed levels of independence

and reduced dependence on the family unit has put new stresses on the existing social and physical

structures in our cities. Over the next 20 years the number of `lone person‟ or `couple without

children households‟ will be significantly higher the number of households with children (PIFU, 2007).

This change in the social and physical make up of housing needs to be addressed immediately. This

rapid change in the social constitution of the SEQ population will put pressure on existing social

networks and infrastructure. Three core issues of social sustainability are housing, employment, and

services (Barron & Gauntlett, 2002).

Social sustainability refers to maintenance and improvement of wellbeing of current and future

generations (Chiu, 2003). Development is socially sustainable when it creates harmonious living

environment, reduces social inequality and cleavages, and improves quality of life in general (Enyedi,

2002). The rapid population and housing changes that will be experience in SEQ over the next 20

years will provide challenges to the maintaining the existing quality of life.

Social sustainability calls for economic growth constrained by the requirements of social equality. In

order to link these, an enabling environment must be created that optimizes resources use, prioritises

resources allocation, and fosters equitable resource distribution. Communities that have

demonstrated the greatest stability and lowest levels of poverty have demonstrated the following

characteristics. This form of social organization has emerged in the Indian State of Kerala (Basiago,

1999). The criteria includes (Basiago, 1999; Kahn, 1995):

Equity;


10

Empowerment;

Accessibility;

Participation;

Sharing;

Cultural identity; and

Institutional Stability.

The goal of sustainable development is to ensure a good quality of life for all member of the

community. What constitutes a good life is arguable however observable indicators of individual or

social well being include (Hatfield-Dodds & Coggan, 2008).

Infant mortality rates;

Access to food;

Literacy;

Relationships (such as divorce rates);

Social participation (such as volunteering);

Employment levels; and

Political freedom.

In summary, the common principles of social sustainability are (Barron & Gauntlett, 2002):

Equity – provision of equitable opportunities particularly the vulnerable. Equity is the filter

through which the other principles are viewed;

Diversity;

Interconnectedness – provision of processes, systems and structures the promote

connections within the community and to other communities in formal and informal ways;

Quality of life & wellbeing – ensure that the basic needs of individuals are met and fostered;

Democracy and governance - open and accountable governance structures and processes.

Wellbeing is an often forgotten measure of social sustainability;


11

3.1 Social Sustainability – Social Systems

As previously mention, an interpretation of sustainable development is that it has a purpose wider

than environmental conservation. This suggests that the reduction of social exclusion and the

promotion of greater social cohesion and social justice are fundamental objectives. They are as

vitally important to the achievement of sustainable development as responsible economic progress

and the effective management of the environment. This can postulate that provision of social justice

through the reduction of poverty or increased access to employment and education as equally

important as the abuse of human rights (Roberts, 2003). To achieve the goals social sustainability

such as social inclusion, enhancing quality of life for the community, efficiency and compactness, and

accessible and inclusive communities are central. In the most basic sense “social sustainability”

implies a system of social organisation that alleviates poverty (Basiago, 1999). Social sustainability

must be considered with the economic and environmental factors to understand the total system.

Social sustainability can only be achieved if it is working in compatibility with other systems.

Social sustainability is not an innocent concept. Gray & Milne (2004) discuss the political minefield of

social sustainability, suggesting that it rests on nothing less than interpretations and explanations of

the relationship between modern capitalism and social justice. The danger lies in creating insiders

and outsiders. A world disfigured by poverty and inequality is unsustainable. Over a billion people

live on less than a dollar a day, more than 800million are malnourished, and over 2.5 billion lack

access to adequate sanitation (HM Government, 2005). Thus social sustainability is a restless

concept. It implies interrelationships and interdependencies built on communication over time; local

or global communities in constant struggle toward living together without exploitation in an ever

changing world. To achieve social sustainability, it seems, would be to achieve lasting global

harmony, and not just between social systems but also between social systems and their

environment. Striving for a new utopia – this could lead to disappointment however. Instead of utopia

social sustainability should be grounded in the idea of wellbeing (Murray, Dey, Lenzen, 2006).

Sustainability should be looked at as a process of learning to manage in a shifting world (Cox,

MacLeod, & Shulman, 1997). A focus on the “sustainable quest for systems of inquiry” (Bawden,


12

1997). This implies a framework in which to consider the likely issues embedded in our actions.

Social sustainability implies an ethical position based on principle of equity. Whose notion of “equity”

should prevail and be sustained or whether an indentified social system, pronounced “sustainable”

today will “fit” in a future world?

Key findings in relation to social sustainability are:

Social sustainability cannot be achieve by considering it outside of the systems linked to it –

environment and economy;

Housing, education, and employment are the building blocks for social sustainability.

3.2 Social Sustainability – Physical Characteristics

Social sustainability draws on the discourse of social welfare and is often viewed through a social

capital framework. Social capital may allow us to accrue wellbeing. Luhmann suggests we cannot

examine social systems through one of society‟s possible realisations, wellbeing, which is just one of

many culturally defined constructs. Social sustainability and social justice are closely linked and often

interchangeable in sustainability literature. However, in most treatments of social justice little

consideration is given to spatial concerns. It is increasingly evident that spatial and territorial factors

play a major role in determining life chances and in helping to deliver social inclusion (Roberts, 2003).

Spaces and territories can be defined as:

A single jurisdiction defines the territorial extent of concern;

Multiple jurisdictions are addressed simultaneously;

The spatial extent of social, economic and/or environmental processes are used to define

the territorial extent; and

Nested systems that incorporate horizontal and vertical relations between social, economic,

and environmental components are used to define territorial extent.


13

Space is the common element that brings together the triad of sustainable development. The spatial

dimension of sustainable development can be seen both as a unifying element and as means for

maximising the strength of the relationship between environment, society, and economy (Roberts,

2003).

Arguably the most influential thinker on physical factors of social sustainability is urban designer Jan

Gehl. His book “Life Between Buildings” (1971) provides a systematic approach to researching the

public spaces created by the buildings. Gehl has a strong focus on the creation of pedestrian friendly

urban environments to promote street activities. Gehl defines outdoor activities into three categories

– necessary, optional, and social activities. He contends that the design of a space will have no effect

on the frequency that people part take in necessary activities, such as going to work or shopping.

Under Gehl‟s theory the likelihood that a resident will undertake optional activities are related to the

design of the outdoor environment and other factors such as the weather. If a good outdoor

environment is provided people are more likely to spend time outdoors doing optional activities such

as exercise or playing. A result of this activity is resultant or social activities. This is where people sit

and talk and interact with each other. This increases the quality of the outdoor environment, providing

a snowball effect on the amount of activity. The good weather conditions of Brisbane should be taken

advantage of by providing the best quality outdoor environment. These social activities are vital to a

vibrant community as they provide the opportunity for everyone to have social contact – either

passive, through watching and listening to passerby, or active, through meet and engaging with

friends. The available opportunities to participate in the various intensities of contact from low

intensity (passive contact) to high intensity (meeting with close friends) generates the strong sense of

place and community.

Physical factors effecting social sustainability are:

Townscape Design;

Provision of Social Infrastructure;

Availability of Job Opportunities;

Accessibility;

Ability to fulfil psychological needs; and

Preservation of local characteristics.


14

Townscape design: Visual images of street furniture and pavement, and interconnectivity of street

layouts have impacts on social sustainability of places (Porta & Renne, 2005).

Provision of social infrastructure: the location and number of schools, medical facilities, meeting

areas, and recreational facilities have an impact on the social sustainability of place.

Availability of job opportunities: employment is a major focus of social sustainability. Employment

provides income and workplaces provide a place for social contact and interaction which is essential

to improve the feeling of social well-being of citizens. Divorce, suicide, and alcoholism rates are

higher if unemployment rate are high in the community. Social problems such as social exclusion,

welfare dependence and psychological problems reduce when the employment rate increases (Chan

& Lee, 2008).

Accessibility: people want to live, work, and participate in leisure and cultural activities without

travelling too far. Everybody, regardless of his/her age and physical condition should have proper

and convenient access to certain places in their daily lives. Freedom of movement from place to

place is recognized as a basic human right that should be preserved (Chan & Lee, 2008).

Ability to fulfil psychological needs: security is an essential element in every neighbourhood. People

prefer to stay in a safe and secure place where thieves, burglars, or vandals are absent (Chan & Lee,

2008).

Preservation of local characteristics: Heritage should be preserved for enjoyment of future

generations. It bears witness to changes in time and it identifies who we are, what we do and how we

lived in the past. Local characteristics/distinctiveness of an area should be respected and the existing

community network has to be conserved (Chan & Lee, 2008).

In summary the physical characteristics of social sustainability are:

1. Safe and secure places;


15

2. Accessibility;

3. Promotion of social interaction and inclusion through design; and

4. Diverse housing options.


16

4 METHODS

The next stage of the research will undertake an analysis of the existing data and surveys that related

to the liveability of cities and regions and compared with the density of the city. As stated at the

beginning of this research, the role of cities as economic drivers for national economic growth is

growing in importance. Therefore the attractiveness of cities for locations of business and economic

investment needs to identifiable. The standard measure for the liveability of a city for many

businesses and corporations is Mercer‟s “Quality of Living” Survey. It is the measure used to

determine the scale of hardship payments for employees working away from their home office. The

2009 results have recently been released and the top cities from Asia Pacific, Europe, and North

America have been selected for further analysis. The cities that will be investigated will be

1. Auckland, New Zealand (equal 4th)

2. Vancouver, Canada (equal 4th)

3. Vienna, Austria (1st)

All of these cities far out ranked Brisbane that come in at 34th place out of the 215 city review. The

land use, urban and regional planning, and sustainability policies will be assessed for each of these

locations to understand how these locations provide for high standards of liveability.

4.1 Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey

Mercer‟s Quality of Living Survey is a survey of 215 cities on 39 different criteria. The survey

investigates different factors such as

Political and Social Environment

Medical & Health Considerations

Economic Environment

Socio-cultural environment


17

Natural environment

Public services & transport

Consumer goods

Housing

Recreation

The Mercer survey provides a wide and varied amount of information about the different factors that

will impact on the quality of life experienced by a person living in an area. However as a baseline for

information required for this research the survey does investigate many of the aspects relating to

social aspects of social sustainability. New York City is used as the baseline score at 100. The

investigation into the planning and land use policies will provide the missing information for this

research.

The research will then investigate the legislative framework, land use planning, and sustainability

policies used in the city to provide a good quality of life. These aspects were selected because:

Legislative framework – defines the limitations of development and local planning schemes

Land Use Planning – is the practical application of the legislative framework and

incorporates stakeholder needs and wants

Sustainability Policy – provides direction on more specific topics and actions relating to

social sustainability and its interrelatedness with wider sustainability initiatives.

4.2 UN Human Development Index

The UN Human Development Index is provided as a comparison for how the country, containing the

case study city is located, compares on a national liveability scales. The results are from 2006 based

on 2004 data. This study used to measure quality of life through factors such as life expectancy,

educational attainment, and adjusted real income.


18

5 CASE STUDIES

This is an abridged version of the case study review. More detailed case studies are available in the

full report.

Location Urban Density

(Persons/km2)

Mercer

Rank 2009

Mercer

Rank 2008

Mercer

Score

2009

UN Human

Development

Index

(National)

Brisbane 918 34th 34th 102.4 3rd

Auckland 1209 4th 5th 107.4 20th

Vancouver 5335 4th 4th 107.4 6th

Vienna 4011 1st 2nd 108.6 14th

These case study reviews provide details of the land use planning and sustainability policies that each

of these cities have used to provide a higher quality of life than that provided in Brisbane, according

the Mercer Survey. Each location has different approaches and each has merit that could be applied

to local planning policy to assist in Brisbane‟s 2026 goal of being the most liveable city in the Asia

Pacific.

5.1 Case Study – Auckland

5.1.1 Sustainability policies

New Zealand government has adopted a slightly different definition of sustainability. Commonly, as

previously state, sustainability is looking for balance between the three pillars of society, environment,

and economy. New Zealand has adopted a four pillar approach of society, environment, economy,

and culture (nationhood).

5.1.2 Auckland Regional Council Sustainability Framework

The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) has developed the ARC Sustainability Framework to establish

a strategic direction for the region over the next 100 years. This strategies timeframe is far greater


19

than that used in Queensland were 20-25 year plans and strategies are the length of foresight for the

government. The ARC Sustainability Framework provides strategic direction for its constituent local

councils and comprises eight goals that the ARC has determined will meet their community needs in

the long term. The eight goals are:

1. “A fair and connected society” – means looking after each other, especially the

disadvantaged and the fostering of community and belongingness. This also includes the

provision of social infrastructure. The focus of the goal is generate wellbeing.

2. “Pride in who we are” – respect and recognition of culture and heritage of all people in the

community. The focus of this goal in on caring for and respecting Auckland’s diverse

peoples, our sense of place and identity.

3. “A unique and outstanding Environment” – the focus of this goal is to protect the

environment with specific emphasis on unique local features such as beaches and open

space.

4. “Prosperity through innovation” – this goal is focussed on securing the long term prosperity

of the region through the provision of a good quality of life to attract and retain people that

will make Auckland a globally competitive City region.

5. “Te puawaitanga o te tangata – Self sustaining Maori communities” – This goal is to ensure

that the local Maori communities have a role in the future direction and development of the

region.

6. “A quality compact urban form” – this goal is to maintain and enhance the existing compact

urban form that has generated specific roles and characteristics for different

neighbourhoods in Auckland. The focus of this goal is to manage where people live and

work, where new retail and business will be located, and where and how key infrastructure

will be developed.

7. “Resilient infrastructure” – this goal recognised the critical role that infrastructure plays in

supporting the regions social, cultural, economic, and environmental goals. This goal is


20

focussed on the efficient provision of infrastructure that protects the environment and

promotes positive social outcomes.

8. “Effective, Collaborative, Leadership” – this goal is focussed on efficient and effective

administrative structures that engages and reflects the region.

This brief summary of the eight goals demonstrates that people and the community are central to the

sustainability initiatives in Auckland. This focus on people, liveability, wellbeing, and community could

be one reason that Auckland has been recognised as the most liveable cities in the world.

ARC Sustainability Framework has recognised “eight shifts” that need to occur for the region to

achieve its sustainability goals. The eight shifts are:

1. “Put people at the centre of thinking and action” – this is to ensure that people are

Auckland’s most important assets. Everything the ARC does is to benefit people.

2. “Thinking in Generations, Not Years” – this is to provide the necessary timeframe for

planning and investment to provide the greatest possible advantage.

3. “Value tea o Maori” – to the Maori culture and values into regional planning and

development

4. “Activate citizenship” – this shift is aimed at increasing community participation and

increase equality.

5. “Create prosperity based on sustainable practices” – this is to brand Auckland as a

sustainable city as a point of difference to attract global investment.

6. “Reduce our ecological footprint” – this relates to the goals of the Resource Management

Act to reduce the need for life supporting resources and improve environmental wellbeing.

7. “Build a carbon neutral future” – this is to change the consumption habits of residents and

production methods of industry.


21

8. “Integrate thinking, planning, investment, and action” – this is to integrate the social,

cultural, economic, and environmental aspects of development. By understanding the

interdependence of the four aspects of sustainability will provide the best possible

outcomes.

Again, these shifts have focussed on people and the change of people‟s habits and behaviours to

improve the region. Although the plan does not specifically state that social sustainability is its

primary motivation the actions of ARC are based on many of the principles mentioned in the theories

and literature mentioned earlier in this paper.

Another important aspect of the framework is the monitoring and measuring component that seeks to

manage the city‟s compliance and success against its goals and shifts.

5.2 Vancouver

5.2.1 EcoDensity

EcoDensity is a draft policy initiative currently under community consultation in Vancouver. This

policy is focussed on the provision of high density mixed used development in strategic location

throughout the city. This is aimed at reducing travel distances, increase affordability of housing, and

reduce emissions. The driving force of this policy is environmental sustainability. The derivative

social advantages of high density mixed used development is a bi-product of this policy and not a

motivating factor.

This policy emphasises sustainable design and increased density. The increased density and low

energy construction methods and “green” buildings are captured within a prescriptive document that

details how environmental sustainability will be achieved through these mixed used developments.

The socially sustainable aspect of this policy again focuses on the design aspects of social

sustainability such as the provision of gathering locations in each neighbourhood. The utility of these

space is for the formation of common experiences to build community bonds. These ideas on based


22

on the theories and writings of Jan Gehl. The other design aspect of this policy is the integration and

protection of heritage and character areas to define the history and previous functionality of the

neighbourhoods. This again provides for common community experiences that increase community

bonds.

Another goal is the provision of a variety of housing types, styles, sizes, and tenure types that are in

close proximity to services, infrastructure, transport, and employment. This allows for a diverse mix of

socio-economic backgrounds, professions, and household types into a compact geographic location.

Another interesting proposition of this policy is the alternative tenure types that have been suggest.

The primary tenure alternative is secondary rental suites that will allow for basements and granny flats

to be easily converted or constructed for the provision of housing. Although this type of tenure and

activity is allowed in most jurisdictions, including Queensland, this policy encourages this activity to

maximise the number of people that can be accommodated in the community.

5.3 Sustainability Policies

Vancouver City‟s understanding of sustainability is the long term wellbeing of the planet, people, and

other forms of life. Vancouver adopts the Brundland definition of sustainability. Vancouver has

established the Sustainability Group as a department of the City Council to focus on reducing the

City‟s ecological footprint. The general focus of the Vancouver City Council is environmental

sustainability.

The sustainability principles for Vancouver are more generic than those presented by Auckland with

the direction to be a prosperous and vibrant community the meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The sustainability principle of

Vancouver are:

1. Today’s decisions must not compromise the choices of our children and future generations


23

2. We are all accountable for our individual and collective actions

3. Resources must be used fairly and efficient without compromising the sustainability of one

community for another

4. Using renewable resources is encourage and supported, while the use of non-renewable

resources should be minimised

5. Renewable resource consumption should not exceed the rate of regeneration

6. Strong collaboration and open communication between the public, the business sector, and

all levels of government are important

7. We value cultural, economic, and environmental diversity

8. A community should provide a safe, healthy, and viable setting for human interaction,

education, employment, recreation, and cultural development

9. A sustainable Vancouver contributes to , and provides leadership towards, regional,

provincial, national, and global sustainability

The Vancouver economy should move from its dependence on non-renewable carbon-based fuels,

particularly for transportation, which are likely to fluctuate dramatically in price and supply.

5.3.1 Social Development Plan

Vancouver City Council has established a Social Development Plan that is separate from the City

Plan. This is a detailed document that incorporates concepts of quality of life, social sustainability,

and social development. This plans definitions and concepts are:

Quality of life contributes to the wellbeing of residents by

o Enabling residents to meet their basic needs

o Promote fair and equitable sharing of common resources

o Develop and maintain a vibrant local economy

o Protect and enhance the natural and built environment

o Offer opportunities for the attainment of personal goals, hopes, and aspiration


24

o Support rich, social interaction and inclusion of all residents in community life

o Quality of life is influence by

Affordable housing

Civic engagement

Community and social infrastructure

Education

Employment

The local economy

The natural environment

Personal and community health

Personal financial security

Personal safety

5.3.2 Social Sustainability

Vancouver‟s efforts to achieve social sustainability are based on three require components of basic

needs, individual or human capacity, and social or community capacity. This supported by four

guiding principles equity, social inclusion and interaction, security, and adaptability.

Basic needs of residents can be met by

Appropriate and affordable healthcare

Locally produced, nutritious, and affordable food

Jobs that enable people to be productive and utilize their skills and abilities

Sufficient income for people to support themselves and dependents

Safe communities and workplaces

Individual or community capacity can be met or improved by

Opportunities to develop and upgrade skills


25

A variety of local employment opportunities throughout the area

Opportunities to develop and make use of creativity and artistic expression

Appropriate and affordable formal and informal life-long learning

Appropriate and affordable recreation, leisure, and cultural facilities and programs

A range of opportunities for individuals to contribute to the health and well-being of the

community

Social or community capacity can be met or improved by

Support and encouragement for community development

Community “identity” is reflective of community diversity

involvement in public processes and their results and in government

Opportunities and places for social interaction throughout the community

Opportunities, resources, and venues for a variety of arts, culture, and community activities

Support and encouragement for community organisations and networks.

Vancouver‟s Social Development Plan looks to combine aspect of quality of life and social

sustainability to produce a broad reaching plan. The goals of this plan is fulfil the United Nations

social development goal to “improve and enhance the quality of life for all people”. The Vancouver

City Council has recognised that they frequently perform well in quality of life survey‟s for urban

regions. However, they have also recognised that not all residents are able to take advantage of this

quality of life and have therefore implemented the Social Development Plan.

5.4 Vienna

5.4.1 Legislative Framework

The Vienna planning scheme is called The Urban Development Plan (Stadtentwicklungsplan –

STEP). It provides the land use zones and defines 13 target areas that have special potential and


26

key functions for Vienna‟s future development. The STEP is supported by the City‟s Traffic and

Transport Master Plan.

As Vienna is a city-state it only has one relevant level of government for land use planning. The

legislative framework is limited to the Urban Development Plan which is covered in the following

section.

The structure of Vienna as a City-State gives it a great level of autonomy due to the combination of

the two levels of government. Many of the programs listed below are would be controlled at a state

government level in Queensland such as the provision of health services.

5.4.2 Planning and Land Use

Vienna is a different case study to Brisbane, Auckland, or Vancouver due to the age and scale of its

built environment heritage. The centre of Vienna was registered on the UNESCO World Heritage

Register. This declaration limits the type and intensity of redevelopment that can occur in the

registered area.

Planning scheme objectives and goals

The STEP ‟94 was the first modern city plan for Vienna. It has been reviewed and now STEP „05 is

the fundamental regulatory instrument for Vienna to achieve its goals of innovative development that

meets the City‟s social, economic, and ecological requirements. The STEP is focussed on the

integration of land use and public transport. STEP pursued the goal of transforming the city into a

densely built districts that provided high quality design and affordable housing options. These efforts

were matched with target infrastructure projects to support the increased intensity of development. A

key aspect of the STEP is controlled urban renewal that improves the quality of the urban

environment while not displacing the existing community. The planning process in Vienna has a

strong emphasis on community engagement and input for affected residents and users.


27

STEP ‟05 has expanded the vision for Vienna to now envision Vienna as the primary Central

European metropolis to ensure strong connections with the rest of Austria and Central Europe. STEP

‟05 still has a strong focus on the integration of transport and urban planning now integrates how and

when residents are likely to spend the social and recreational time. Vienna is now experiencing

pressures of urban sprawl and has ensured development focus is on high density development

integrated with the public transport network.

The aims of STEP are:

1. By creating attractive locations, infrastructure and innovative facilities to guarantee an

investment-friendly climate for business with good supply lines

2. To ensure the variety and quality of living space in the Vienna region by securing an

extension of the green belt and the Danube landscape in collaboration with Lower Austria

3. To concentrate on the development of heavy-load public transport systems, utilising

resources space economically, promoting mixed-usage and preventing functional and social

separation

4. To increase the share of environmentally conscious traffic (bicycle, walking, public transport)

while reducing the share of motorised individual traffic

5. To guarantee quality of life in Vienna by equal opportunity access to cultural facilities, to

social-, educational-, health- and care-facilities with living spaces of adequate dimensions

and quality as well as to natural and leisure spaces

6. To strengthen the position of Vienna as a “scientific metropolis” by taking notice of demands

advanced by the “scientific community” for adequate research and instruction

The STEP has incorporated several models to control development

Spatial business model – develop business locations that will attract business investment

Green space model – protection and emphasis of good quality green space


28

Building model – location and density of development and urban renewal

5.4.3 Sustainability Policies

Housing

Social housing has a long tradition in Vienna. The City owns 220,000 dwellings and provides rental

subsidy to another 200,000 apartments. Vienna builds about 5,500 new dwellings each year for

affordable housing through not for profit and commercial vehicles. Land acquisition and right on non-

EU citizens to reside in Vienna are tightly controlled to ensure that housing is firstly available to local

residents and to minimise empty dwellings. The right of residence and land acquisition permit are

geared to ensure that social and general economic interest of Vienna are met. These actions limit the

commercial role of property plays in the local economy.

5.4.4 Social Policies

The main objective of Vienna‟s social policies is to secure and improve the quality of life of

disadvantaged people. This includes

preventative health care,

social services for the elderly and disabled

services for the homeless

services for those in financial difficulty and social distress

In 2006 Vienna allocated EUR 525million (approximately $AU 1billion) to the funding of social

services.

5.4.5 Vienna – Best Practice City

Vienna has been recognised as the city with the highest number of community, business, and

environment programs that have been recognised by the United Nations as good or best practice.


29

These programs have been selected by the UN for their participatory structure, their sustainability,

and their impact. The 35 cover the following areas with three of the key programs briefly summaries

below:

Housing & Urban Development

Environment & Infrastructure

Economy & Employment

Transparent Administration

Participation & Empowerment

Gender Mainstreaming

Sustainable Urban Renewal

This program has adopted a multidisciplinary model that looks to improve the social, economic,

cultural, aesthetic, and ecological demands of an existing urban location. This program uses future

orientated strategic planning to improve the system of the city. Vienna found that the greatest number

of social, environmental, and economic problems were concentrated in areas of the city in the

greatest need of modernisation. This program targeted these areas for improvement that would not

result in the displacement of the existing community.

Jobchance

This program provides follow up care to recently employed people that were part of the long term

unemployed part of the labour force. This program looked to minimise the number of short notice

dismissals for people re-entering the workforce. The goal of the program is to break the cycle of

unemployment for individuals and communities.

Property Developers Competition

This competition is targeted at improving the quality of social housing in Vienna. The competition

aims to reduce the construction costs and user cost in large multi-unit dwelling developments while at

the same time providing a building that minimises it ecological footprint. Site around the city are

selected and a call for open tenders is released. This competition has resulted in the provision of

50,000 dwellings since 1995.


30

6 CONCLUSION

In the 1900s, 90% of earths much smaller human population lived in the country. Less than 20 cities

had a population of more than a million. Just over 100 years last, in 2008, it is estimated, that for the

first time in human history most people live in cities. By 2050 urban populations are predicted to

reach seven billion. Homo Urbanis has prevailed (Schultz, 2008).

The increasing size and scale of cities will change the social systems, social characteristics of our

communities, and the physical structure of society. This research has demonstrated that high density

development is socially sustainable. This does not preclude the ability to create a socially sustainable

low density community. This conclusion does not suggest that through the provision of highly dense

urban environment people will experience a higher quality of life. As demonstrated through the case

studies the government and community need to make concerted efforts to improve the quality of life

and services available to residents. Vienna‟s high quality of life is the combination of the urban

environment, policy initiatives of the government, and community activity to generate shared

experiences, service availability, and sustainability of the community.

The case studies have identified that all four cities have identified a compact urban form as a planning

goal. However, Brisbane is the only city not to have achieved this. A future investigation into the

stated goals and desired environmental outcomes of the City Plan should be undertaken to ensure

that policy goals and objectives of the City Plan 2000 are reflected in the codes and builds that area

actually approved within the city.

Another important finding is that Vancouver and Vienna has identified international recognition of their

policies by the United Nations. This demonstrates that the policies have the appropriate goals and

have the substance within the body of the document to reach able to implement the goals.


31

The UN Human Development Index demonstrates that Australia ranks highly on the liveability factors

at a national level. Australia rates more highly than any of the other case study locations on this

measure. How is it that the macro liveability of Australia is not reflected in the local level with

Brisbane? The Brisbane planning scheme and policy structure must be held responsible.

This research has found that the legislative framework does not have an impact on the social

sustainability of a city. The framework for Vancouver does not mention or require any type of

sustainability. This research has also found that Auckland, Vancouver, and Vienna all have a

profound policy and land use focus on the liveability of their city to ensure that residents and the

community are happy and health. This focus on “people” as the centre of planning and policy has

given these cities world recognition for their efforts. A change of focus of Brisbane‟s and SEQ‟s

planning toward people and social sustainability may achieve this outcome also.

To improve the liveability of Brisbane the community and governments needs to

Create a more balanced sustainability policy framework with a more balance approach

resulting in more policy focussed on the social sustainability, community wellbeing, and

liveability of our Brisbane

Create an integrated system policy that does not segment sustainability policy into its

individual areas

develop a Social Development Plan to maximise economic development and attract

investment

Integrate the transport and land use plans for Brisbane to ensure the highest and best

outcomes are achieved for the community.

continue to promote increased density of development to provide bi-product advantages as

identified in Vancouver

Review Living in Brisbane 2026 Sustainability policy to make it more useable


32

Review land use planning into a more integrated sustainability document as used in

Auckland

Draft a comprehensive suite of policies to target specific social, environmental, and

economic issues specific to Brisbane that are based on “Best Practice” programs as

designated by the United Nations, as in Vienna.

Review the social housing programs to increase the amount of social housing to improve the

affordability of living in Brisbane

The current review process for the Integrated Planning Act, SEQRP, and the City Plan 2000 provides

an ideal opportunity to ensure that they provide a balanced and integrated systems approach to

sustainability. Each of these documents needs to put a greater emphasis on the social sustainability

to maximise the liveability of the region. The benefits of this more balance approach have been

exemplified by the case study examinations of Auckland, Vancouver, and Vienna. The community

and environmental benefits a more compact and social sustainable city will provide great economic

benefits to the region. As stated in the introduction to this paper a city‟s productive capacity may not

be the determining factor in its competitiveness but rather the city‟s ability to be socially sustainable.

(Ward & Jonas, 2004; While, Jonas, & Gibbs, 2004).


33

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agyeman, J., Bullard R., Evans, B. (2003). Just sustainabilities: development in an unequal world.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bawden, R. (1997). “Learning to Persist”. In Systems for Sustainability: People, Organisations, and

Environments. Stowell, F.A., Ison, R.L. Armson, R., Holloway, J., Jackson, S. & McRobb, S. (eds).

Plenum Press, New York, USA, pg 33-38.

Berke, P.R. & Conroy, M.M. (2000). “Are we planning for Sustainable Development?” Journal of the

American Planning Association, Vol 66. No 1. Winter 21-33.

Bertalanffy, Ludwig. Von (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Application.

Revised edition. New York: George Braziller.

Brown, Leanne & Gauntlett, Erin (2002). Housing and Sustainable Communities Inidicators Project:

Stage 1 Report – Model of Social Sustainability. Western Australian Council of Social Services

(WACOSS).

Burton, E. (2000). “The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis” Urban Studies, 37,

1969-2001

Capra, Fritof (1996). The Web of Life: Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Anchor Books.


34

Chiu, R.L.H.(2003) “Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development: The

experience of Hong Kong”. In R. Forrest & J. Lee (eds), Housing and social change: East-west

perspectives, pp221-239, USA: Routledge)

Cox, P.G., MacLeod, N.D. & Shulman, A.D. (1997). “Putting Sustainability into Practice in Agricultural

Research for Development”. In Systems for Sustainability: People, Organisations, and Environments.

Stowell, F.A., Ison, R.L. Armson, R., Holloway, J., Jackson, S. & McRobb, S. (eds). Plenum Press,

New York, USA, pg 33-38.

D. Basiago, (1999) “Economic, social, and environmental stability in development theory and urban

planning practice”. The Environmentalist, 19, 145-161

Department of the Environment and Water Resources: Australian Greenhouse Office. (2007). An

Assessment of the Need to Adapt Buildings for the Unavoidable Consequences of Climate Change.

Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Water Resources: Canberra.

Department of Climate Change (2008). Fact Sheet: Climate Change – Potential Impacts and Costs.

Department of Climate Change: Canberra.

Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Eblen, R & Eblen R. (1994). The Encyclopedia of the Environment. New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company, pp432-433.

Elkin, T., McLaren, D. & Hillman, M. (1991), “Reviving the City: Toward Sustainable Urban

Development”. Friends of the Earth, 26-28, Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ


35

Enyedi, G (2002). “Social sustainability of large cities”. Ekistics, 69 (412-414) pp142-144

Fell, Lloyd & Russell, David (1993). Co-Drift: The Biology of Living Together. Unfinished Manuscript,

Drs Fell, Russell & Associates.

Grey, R. & Milne, M. (2004). “Towards Reporting on the Triple Bottom Line”. In The Triple Bottom

Line: Does it all add up? Henriqes, A & Richardson, J. (eds). Earthscan, London, UK, pg 70-80.

Hall, PG. (1988). Cities of Tomorrow: an Intellectual History of urban Planning and Design in the

Twentieth Century. Edition 3rd

ed. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

HM Government (2005). “Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Development.” Strategy

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by

Command of Her Majesty, March 2005. HMSO: St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich.

Jacobs, Jane (1961). Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House

Lehtonen, M. (2004). “The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities,

social capital, institutions”. Ecological Economics, 49, pp199-214.

Lehtonen, M. (2004). “The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities,

social capital, institutions”. Ecological Economics 49, pg 199-214.

Lin, Jen-Jia & Yang, An-Tsie (2006). Does the Compact-city paradigm foster sustainability? An

empirical study in Taiwan. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, pp365-380..


36

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social System. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Luhmman, N. (1997). “Globalisation or World Society: How to Conceive of Modern of Modern

Society?” International Review of Sociology, 17:1, pg 67-79.

Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human

Understanding. New Science Library, London: Shambhala.

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, in association with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems 2008, Impact of

Climate Change on Infrastructure in Australia and CGE Model Inputs, report commissioned by the

Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Mills, E. & Hamilton, B.W. (1994). Urban Economics, 5th edn, Harper-Collins, New York.

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence.

Island Press, Washington D.C.

Petersen, Anna (2006). Planning for Social Sustainability. Presentation by Landcom.

Planning Information and Forecasting Unit (2007). Housing Projections: Queensland Local

Government Areas 2007. Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation. Online.

Accessed at 18 November 2008

(http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/docs/planning/planning/information_and_forecasting/HPQLGA2007/full-

report.pdf)

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/docs/planning/planning/information_and_forecasting/HPQLGA2007/full-report.pdf

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/docs/planning/planning/information_and_forecasting/HPQLGA2007/full-report.pdf


37

Porta, S. & Renne, J.L. (2005). Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban

sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Design International, 10(1), pp51-64.

Putnam, Robert (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon

and Schuster, New York.

Roberts, P. (2003). Sustainable Development and Social Justice: Spatial Priorities and Mechanics for

Delivery. Sociological Inquiry, 73:2, May, pp228-44.

Scott, A.J. (2001) Global city regions: trends, theory, policy. Oxford University press, Oxford.

The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program (2008). The Department of

Infrastructure and Planning.

The South East Queensland Regional Plan (2005). The Department of Infrastructure and Planning.

Queensland Government

Ward, K. & Jonas, A.E.G. (2004), “Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: a critical

reinterpretation of the new regionalism. Environment and Planning, A 36, 2119-39.

While, A., Jonas, A., Gibbs, D. (2004). “Unblocking the city? Growth pressures, collective provisions,

and the search for new spaces of governance in Greater Cambridge, England”. Environment and

Planning, A 36, 279-304.


38

Wolfe, J.M. (1994). “Our Common Past: An Interpretation of Canadian Planning History”, Plan

Canada, July, 75th Anniversary Edition: 12-13, 16-19, 22-34.

Wolfe, JM. (2002). “Reinventing Planning: Canada.” Progress in Planning, Vol. 57: 207-235.

Wright, R. (2004). A Short History of Progress. Melbourne, Australia: Text Publishing.

Social Sustainability & High Density Development

Documents

Transcript of Social Sustainability & High Density Development