Community opposition:

A challenge for TOD implementation

Among the challenges facing TODs, such as improving efficiency in terms of speed and flexibility of the transportation system and its governance, gaining community support for increasing residential and commercial density is undoubtedly the major one (Cervero et al., 2004; Bertolini et al, 2009; Rice, 2009; Woodcock et al, 2011, Newman, 2017). Depending on the nature of the TOD and its location, various stakeholders are involved, such as residents, business owners, schools, minority groups, youth and senior groups and government agencies. Often TOD proposals become the focus of local community resistance as they see their interests affected or threatened by proposed development outcomes (Rice, 2008).

In an Australian context, the spectrum of community concern varies. It may be related to concerns about land use changes, movement networks such as road design, speed limit, number of parking bays, traffic, noise, privacy, dislike/fear of change (Ainsworth, 2005). It may be that the impact on amenities, loss of heritage, and loss of natural environments are among the concerns. There might be scepticism of public transport systems due to psychological attachment to the low density and high car use lifestyle, a

psychological and cultural attachment to cars, a belief that high status equals a car (Ainsworth, 2005; Rice, 2009). There may be some cynicism that creating a TOD is merely about developers making a lot of money at their community’s expense (DOT, 1996; Ainsworth, 2005; Rice, 2009). Concerns also include issues in regard to urban form such as building heights and dwelling types which are labelled as being ‘out of character’ (Dovey and Woodcock, 2010). Rice (2009, p.177) states having a big house on a big block aspires people and gives them the feeling that they live in high quality desirable neighbourhood.

Rice (2009) argues that TOD resisters feel strongly about keeping the status quo of place and people, a way to protect their home from challenging impacts such as new and different people, or living closer together than is desirable. They desire to control interactions with other people rather than enjoying spontaneous interactions with the whole diversity of society (Rice, 2009). Scepticism to social heterogeneity was also highlighted by Davison et al., (2016) in his study of factors that escalate community opposition to affordable housing development.

TODs, in a similar way to other dense/infill developments²², encourage a high density lifestyle which will change the character of current low density cities and cultural change for those living in such dense areas is required for their success (Troy, 1996; McManus, 1998; Lewis, 1999; Bunker et al., 2002;

Searle, 2003, 2007; Randolph et al., 2005; Randolph, 2006; Woodcock et al, 2011; Nematollahi et al, 2015, Newman, 2017). Not only the community, but even some researchers are cautious about promoting a rapid increase of density through urban policies such as TOD (Hitchcock, 1994; Goodchild, 1994; Orchard, 1995; Randolph, 2006; Gibbs and Krueger, 2007; Moroni, 2016). They argue that increasing residential density without considering not only the need for change in current lifestyle and culture, but also other land

22 In addition, tackling housing affordability by only increasing density (compact city model), is not a valid argument

(Van Den Nouwelant et al., 2014). For instance, new high density centres are being built for childless groups (Randolph, 2005) such as apartments in Parramatta in Sydney. However, rapid price gr owth in the inner city has driven many buyers to Parramatta and nearby areas that offer more affordable housing (Johnstone, 2014) including families with kids to live in apartments, which do not address their needs such as community rooms, outdoor

uses such as those which serve the residential areas, providing services and amenities, may result in undesirable consequences.²³

Further, in the Australian context, Easthope and Judd (2010) question whether higher density living is a desirable lifestyle for Australians. They argue that neighbourliness, the maintaining of good relationships with neighbours, is influenced by the mix of the residents living in close proximity (apartments), construction and design quality, such as having adequate privacy, low level of noise, and the management of the complex. While density is a key ingredient to make a TOD work efficiently as an urban policy, it is the culture of residents and their relationships which play an important role in the creation of desirability and satisfaction with a TOD when it is implemented.

This uncertainty about TOD outcomes may cause community concerns.

However, in order to overcome the concerns and gain community support for implementing dense TODs, community education and intensive community engagement are initial first steps (Rice, 2009). Genuine negotiation and understanding that the change is affecting people, their homes and lives, and their right to voice their concerns are suggested by Rice (2009) as ways to first build trust with community, then later gain their support for TODs. Even achieving consensus during the planning decision process for a moderate development would be a great success, rather than causing resentment and cynicism in order to achieve a greater density outcome (Rice, 2009).

Instead of labelling all people who don’t agree as troublemakers who need to be beaten; engage, understand, discuss and negotiate. Not everyone is likely to agree in the end, but if you have the majority support the consultation will have built a good platform for further development in the future (Rice, 2009; p.183)

23While Cox’s (1999) anti-densification ideas were loud in defending the American dream and people’s freedom to choose where they like to live and work, Gordon and Richardson (1997) challenged compact city principles such as high density preferences, saving agriculture lands, reducing congestion, saving energy and promoting transit in the US context. Further Moroni (2016) argues, density is just a tool to achieve a broader objective in urban planning, not an end in itself.