4 Discussion
This section of the report offers reflections on the findings and conclusions set out above.
4.1 Interpreting the range of evidence
This study has reviewed a range of evidence, from anecdotal to conclusive. Most is drawn from overseas, but there is also some from New Zealand. The report has sought to discriminate among the sort of evidence available, enabling the creation of a nuanced picture of findings.
The subject area of this report, the value of urban design, is a relatively new one. It continues to change because some concepts are only gradually being clarified and studied. Therefore, it is one in which many conclusions must remain provisional while further research continues. Part of the interest in further research is driven by contemporary issues, such as rises in the price of oil, and the widespread increase in obesity. Emerging trends like these focus researchers' attention on the conditions that might contribute to the problem.
The nature of urban design will also continue to be contested as long as it remains an art as much as a science. Design must always be context-specific, with the consequence that generalisations will always need to be qualified. Some design concepts will remain elusive, such as the way good design responds to local context with what might be described as 'economical gestures'.
4.2 The interconnectedness of urban design factors
Various aspects of urban design work together to generate high-quality urban places. Put another way, good urban design is unlikely to emerge unless a number of conditions are in place.
First, good urban design needs to operate at a range of scales simultaneously, from the site to the wider city or region. This is particularly so in respect of transport arrangements, which are so pervasive in relation to urban design. But it is also true in respect of other cross-cutting initiatives, such as raising the quality of architectural design, and ensuring the quality of green areas.
Second, highly attractive urban places are likely to be ones in which there is a combination of several physical attributes - including good physical connectivity, medium or high density, a mix of land uses, and good street design, often emphasising local character. Repeatedly, interaction between these factors tends to lead to reduced vehicle use and increased walking - mutually reinforcing environmental and social benefits that many studies conclude are indicative of good design. As a recent US Environmental Protection Agency review notes, there is a need for multiple, place-specific initiatives if lasting social, environmental and economic benefits are to be achieved: "The effectiveness of good urban design practices depends on how well they are implemented, and how they are combined with other programs." [United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.] Some of the factors in this interaction are illustrated in Figure 1below.
Figure 2: The value of mixed use and connectivity: illustrating the linkages
See the figure at full size (with text description)
This figure focuses on only two of the important factors in urban design - mixed use and connectivity - and their impacts. It is illustrative only, and does not imply that the design elements that are included are the most important elements. It does underline, however, how two important design elements can reinforce one another.
In many instances, physical design measures must be complemented by non-physical initiatives if they are to deliver optimal value. For example, perceptions of comfort and safety are influenced by the physical environment, but also by the behaviour of other street users and the degree to which streets are active and lively. These conditions can be influenced by local city governance, and by either public or private initiatives. Good design and planning can act to enhance people's sense of security, [Wekerle, 2000; Cozens, 2002, pp 132, 133.] which is also influenced by other factors such as personal experience and the social environment.
4.3 Outstanding findings
Five sets of findings stand out in this report. The evidence supporting them varies in robustness, but they are clear themes running through the literature and are of obvious relevance to New Zealand urban design today.
- Good urban design can sometimes cost more upfront, but it also offers significant benefits to the community. Considerable evidence points to well-designed projects generating higher returns to developers, although this is not always the case. Generally, some of the 'value' accrues to the developer, especially if they retain a longer-term stake in the development, while some accrues to those in the vicinity of a well-designed building, street or other public place. Benefits may spill over to a whole neighbourhood or city, and this matters increasingly in an age in which the quality of an urban area is an important part of its comparative advantage. Well-designed urban areas have greater potential to be focal points for interaction, enterprise and innovation. Moreover, good urban design, characterised by compact nodes, mixed use and a high-quality fabric of buildings and places, is important if a city is to be adaptable and resilient in a changing economic environment. An interesting strand of research suggests that cultural assets - including characterful historic areas - can help to attract both tourists and skilled workers.Similarly, as noted above, people choose to live in places that offer a distinctive quality of life, along with career opportunities. [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2003; Planning Institute of Australia, 2004, Appx A, p vi; Worpole, 2000, p 19.]
- Conversely, poor design, or 'business as usual' is likely to have significant adverse environmental, social and even economic effects. The perpetuation of poor design can lower quality of life and limit employment opportunities. An example of an outdated design 'model' that continues to be commonplace in New Zealand is low-density peripheral urban development with rigidly segregated land uses, and residential areas poorly connected to commercial activity and with poor internal connectivity. The literature is clear that the 'external costs' generated by such development are significant; essentially, such urban design is unsustainable.
- Urban design that delivers improved quality of life is valued by the community. As noted above, 'quality of life' is increasingly a platform from which towns and cities compete for inward investment and high-skilled footloose workers in the new globalised economy. [Worpole, 2000, p 36.] But quality of life is also valued for its own sake. Quality of life includes, for most people, attributes such as high-quality air, water that is not threatened by diffuse run-off from traffic, and redevelopment of unused or derelict sites rather than unsightly carparks. [Carmona et al, 2001a, p 79.] In social terms, 'quality of life' includes greater city pride, social inclusiveness, increased vitality and safety, and the simple sense for both residents and visitors that pleasant amenities and facilities are available. [Carmona et al, 2001a, pp 78, 79.]
- Urban design can result in health benefits, for example, through facilitating physical exercise. Some of the strongest emerging evidence about good urban design relates to walkability and to urban features that encourage walking. Walkability is linked to the density of a neighbourhood, the mix of uses it contains (especially the retail-residential mix), the connectivity and attractiveness of the street network, the reasonable proximity of the activities that are the destinations of trips, and perceptions and conditions of safety. There is also some evidence, although less conclusive, that areas with distinct character encourage walking. This report has noted strong evidence that walkable public environments can lead, by a variety of means, to a better quality of life. They can enhance public health for the benefit of individuals as well as the national health budget, provide support and increased custom for business, [Litman, 2004, p 12.] reduce environmental costs, and may even help to enhance social equity.
- Urban design can help to make towns and cities safer and more secure. The risk of crime is lower with interconnected network street systems than with complex cul-de-sac arrangements. A lack of connectivity, and segregation - either of a new neighbourhood from surrounding areas, or of a dwelling from its neighbours - can produce negative effects ranging from vehicle dependence and social isolation at the neighbourhood level to increased risk of burglary at the site level. Mixed use is also associated with reduction in some types of crime, and reduced fear of crime.
4.4 Taking the wider view of good urban design
There can be a divergence of interest in good urban design between those who seek profitability in a property investment, and those who are concerned with the wider, longer-run return to society from a development. As noted above, short time horizons can be an important issue. Private property investors may seek a payback within a few years, and thus be reluctant even to invest in energy efficiency and other sustainable building features that would offer returns within a decade or so. [Frej, 2003, p 5; Kats et al, 2003.] On the other hand, some developers are concerned with wider 'spill-over' benefits and are aware of the broader, longer-term impact of their projects.
In the case of public investments in better urban design - such as public places, street landscaping and transport system configuration - the benefits can be expected to accrue to a wide group or to the community as a whole, rather than to a few individuals. Because so much of the value such investments offer is intangible, such as greater social inclusiveness, they pose the even greater problem of deciding what sort of design investment is likely to yield the best return.
As one UK writer says in relation to both buildings and places:
[G]ood design can add enormously to the quality and vitality of the urban or rural setting. Indifferent design, or endless rows of standardised buildings and ill-fitting developments can cumulatively contribute to a form of urban entropy, a general deadening of the visual and even spiritual qualities of the places in which we live and work, leading to what ... has [been] described as 'the long term winding down of the system as a whole, in terms of aspiration and the quality of life.' Good design has the capacity to make everything work better, economically and socially, and bring benefits to all. [Worpole, 2000, p 53.]
4.5 Applicability to New Zealand
It was noted earlier that most of the research on urban design is from abroad. This poses a challenge for New Zealand, because in applying it we cannot assume that conditions here are the same as those in the originating country. New Zealand urban areas are sometimes more like European cities (Wellington, Dunedin) and sometimes more like American or Australian cities (Auckland), although many aspects of our cities are also unique. Moreover, the research often suggests that those urban design features that most influence desired outcomes can be quite location-specific, and can vary from one cultural context to another.
This report has identified the research findings that appear most relevant to the current New Zealand context, noted where those findings come from, and has drawn, where possible, appropriately nuanced conclusions. In particular, it is clear that care should be taken in drawing conclusions from large and dense overseas cities and applying them to smaller and much less dense New Zealand towns and cities. Having said that, it is clear that much of the evidence from abroad in this report can be applied to New Zealand as a robust basis for policy development.
