Key Findings about the Value of Urban Design
Recent international research shows conclusively that good urban design has the potential to create value for communities, individuals, the economy and the environment. The potential benefits include:
- better public health
- greater social equity
- enhanced land values
- a more vibrant local economy
- reduced vehicle emissions
- more sustainable use of non-renewable resources.
Table 1: Summary of Findings about the Key Urban Design Elements provides a more detailed summary of the key findings. Overall, the following broad themes emerge consistently from the research:
Good urban design can be profitable, and it also offers significant benefits to the community.
Good design does not necessarily cost more and delivers enhanced benefits to both the developer and the wider community. Well designed urban projects may generate higher returns to developers, especially where they take a longer term view. Good design may sometimes involve more investment upfront, but this generally pays off over the lifetime of the building or place. Good urban design that addresses issues such as mixed use and the quality of the public environment can help a city remain adaptable and resilient in a changing economic environment. Well-designed urban areas can become focal points for economic interaction, enterprise and innovation and can help attract skilled workers, residents and tourists.
Poor design can have significant adverse effects on the urban environment, society and economy.
Poor urban design may lower quality of life, limit employment opportunities and generate a wide range of unsustainable costs for the community and the city as a whole.
Communities value the better quality of life that good urban design can deliver.
'Quality of life' is an increasingly important basis on which towns and cities compete for investment and skilled workers. But it is also highly valued by communities. There are two key areas where good urban design is shown to make an especially positive contribution to people's quality of life:
- Good urban design can encourage people to undertake physical exercise, thereby creating health benefits.
By making streets and neighbourhoods safer, better connected and more attractive, good urban design can create more walkable cities. Walkable cities can generate more custom for businesses, reduce environmental costs and enable better access to services by those who cannot drive or access public transport.
- Good urban design can help make towns and cities safer and more secure.
The risk of crime is lower when there are interconnected networks of streets which increase opportunities for natural surveillance. Mixed use areas may also be less affected by some kinds of crime, and by the fear of crime. Poor connections between neighbourhoods or individual dwellings can increase the risk of burglary and lead to other problems, including vehicle dependence and social isolation.
These potential benefits cannot be realised by a piecemeal approach to urban design.
The various elements of urban design identified in this report must be consciously brought together so they reinforce one another. Urban design initiatives must also work at a number of scales: within individual sites or streets, within neighbourhoods, across the wider city and its connections with the region. Urban design initiatives need to be supported by complementary economic, social and environmental policies and programmes to maximise benefits - it is not enough to address the physical environment in isolation.
These broad conclusions are based on findings about the following urban design elements.
Value to developers: can urban design be profitable?
Value to developers and investors is often the hardest to demonstrate. But the evidence shows that good urban design can be profitable:
"While good urban design by itself cannot guarantee positive financial returns, and lack of attention to good design principles can still result in a financially successful project, it is also clear that it substantially enhances a project's likelihood of becoming a financial winner." The Property Council of Australia, 1999
"If the product mix and architecture is correctly executed and phased, TNDs [traditional neighbourhood developments - i.e. developments following new urbanist principles] can command base pricing levels which are 10 percent to 15 percent higher than conventional single-product projects." Schleimer, quoted in Steuteville, 2001
The UK Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment cites an exploratory study carried out by property consultants FPD Savills in 2002, indicating that "volume house builders who had invested in higher quality design in residential schemes could expect to yield a residual value per hectare of up to 15% more than conventionally designed schemes".
CABE, 2002
A study led by Carmona in London for CABE and the United Kingdom's environment ministry (DETR) "consistently concluded that good urban design added economic value in the form of better value for money, higher asset exchange value and better lifecycle value". These elements tend to accrue to the investor, especially if the investor retains a longer term stake.
Carmona et al, 2001
A US study assessed the correlation between objectively-measured levels of physical activity and aspects of the physical environment around each participant's home (while controlling for socio-demographic variables).
The research found that 37 percent of the people in the quartile of neighbourhoods with the highest walkability index exercised for 30 minutes or more per day compared with 18 percent in the lowest walkability index quartile.
The study concludes: "This research supports the hypothesis that community design is significantly associated with moderate levels of physical activity. These results support the rationale for the development of policy that promotes increased levels of land-use mix, street connectivity, and residential density as interventions that can have lasting public health benefits."
Frank et al, 2005
"The efficacy of [good urban design practices] depends on how well they are implemented, and how they are combined with other programs."
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2001
