The expansion of urban consolidation in Sydney: Social impacts and implications

IntroductionOne of the main arguments for urban consolidation is that it improves the range of housing choice open to households in terms of dwelling type, tenure and location. This is seen as particularly important now that a much more diverse range of household types has developed over the past twenty or thirty years with demographic, cultural and lifestyle changes. However, this assumption has not been empirically tested through analysis of the kinds of households living in various types of attached dwellings at different locations. This article explores the social impacts and associations of urban consolidation in this regard.Policies of urban consolidation in Sydney have had a somewhat uneven and episodic character (Searle, 1999, 2004a). The 1988 and 1994 strategy plans set a target for multi-unit housing of 65 per cent of total housing and the compact city discourse remained central to all subsequent planning policies (Searle, 2004a). The building of attached dwellings overtook separate houses in 1993/4 accounting for 55% of residential construction in 1998/99, up from 33% in 1982/83 (Urban Frontiers Program, 2001). At the Census dates, the share of attached housing in the total dwelling stock has risen from a low point of 30% in 1986 to 35% by 2001. The building of attached dwellings in existing built-up areas is the major instrument for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth for the next twenty-five to thirty years in the emerging metropolitan strategy.The purpose of this article is firstly to establish the present propensities of different kinds of households to live in the main types of attached housing existing in 2001 in various parts of Sydney. This is then broadened to take account of recent findings on the characteristics and distribution of populations suffering social disadvantage. From these trends it is argued that an enlarged role for urban consolidation requires much more consideration of local circumstances, particularly with regard to the housing needs and social conditions of local communities living in attached housing. Without this, social dysfunction and disadvantage could be deepened and accentuated.The discussion is in six parts, after some necessary definitions. The first examines the Sydney attached housing market and the sub-markets that can be defined and located in it, providing a description of local housing conditions within a metropolitan overview. The second discusses localised studies of those living in areas of urban consolidation, providing bottom-up supporting evidence for the sub-markets defined in the first section. The third reviews recent work on social disadvantage in Sydney much of which is associated with attached housing. The fourth examines the magnitude of plans for future urban consolidation in Sydney and the different kinds of densification proposed. The fifth discusses the planning implications of these proposals and the final one argues for a more forceful injection of housing needs and social conditions into urban consolidation policy on the basis of the previous findings and suggests the main themes that might inform them so that the outcomes are optimal rather than regressive.DefinitionsUrban consolidation is here defined as the densification of residential areas through the building of attached dwellings and their use for residential purposes. While there are other definitions, this variant allows the empirical analysis of those living in privately occupied attached dwellings through the use of customised Census data. In doing so it necessarily overlooks households living in other, often institutionalised accommodation; unoccupied dwelling stock; or whether densification has halted or reversed population decline (Michell and Wadley, 2004). The definition also excludes detached dwellings built on the same lot, as in dual occupancy. These are classified as separate houses in Census practice. While most commentators would regard such development as urban consolidation, it is at the lowest end of ‘medium density’ growth. Researchers have found this kind of development to be significant in localised areas of Melbourne (Buxton & Tieman 2004), but the exclusion of these separate houses does not materially affect the numbers used in or the argument of this paper.In the subsequent discussion, following Census practice, ‘attached dwellings’ refer to any residence which is attached to another as opposed to a separate house. There are three main types. Semi-detached, row, terrace, villa and townhouse dwellings (hereinafter referred to as semi-detached) are joined horizontally. Flats, units and apartments are joined vertically and horizontally, and constitute the other two types. Where these flats and units are built in complexes of fewer than four storeys (usually not needing lifts), they are called ‘low-rise’. Where they are arranged in structures of four storeys or more they are called ‘high-rise’, forming the final category. For the purposes of this paper, high-density means those high-rise flats, and the two other kinds of attached dwellings are regarded as medium-density. Table 1 shows the total dwelling stock in the Statistical Division of Sydney in 1991 and 2001 including the other dwelling types of separate houses, flats attached to a house, and other dwellings such as caravans, houseboats and mobile homes.