Current character of the area:

This section of the questionnaires enquires about the current character of the Cannington TOD area by asking respondents what they most like about the area and what they least like about the area. The written comments for the most liked characteristics were categorised in six groups which are: being close to the city, close to public transport, close to amenities, close to family and friends, having special environmental or landscape characteristics and social character. More than 60% of the responses (63.2%) indicate that the most-liked characteristics of the Cannington area are being close to amenities such as Curtin University, schools, shops and a leisure centre, and 60.7% indicate the most-liked characteristics are being close to public transport (Figure 7.18).

Figure 7.18: The most-liked characteristics of the area, (n=79).

Unlike Canning Bridge TOD area, Cannington TOD area does not have major landscape features such as being adjacent to a ‘river’ or having ‘leafy, or clean streets’. As a result, comments indicate that the most-liked features of the area are their proximity to the large Carousel Westfield shopping centre and station. Therefore participants’ comments, such as ‘close to transport’, or ‘close to shopping centre’, dominate. Respondents’ opinions

63.20% 60.70%

were further investigated by asking about the least-liked characteristics of the area. The comments were categorised into three groups: ‘economic issues’, such as housing affordability, property price and so on, ‘environmental and amenities issues’, such as lack of services such as retail and cafes within walking distance, traffic, noise, lack of parking, lack of trees, etc., and ‘social issues’, such as crime, security and anti-social behaviour, neighbours’

behaviours and so on.

Among the three groups, almost 70% (69.6%) of responses refer to existing

‘environmental and amenities problems’ in the neighbourhood, such as traffic, airplane noise, lack of streetscape, lack of trees, poor street lighting, dumped rubbish in wetlands and overgrown verges. These are mentioned most by respondents in identifying the least-liked characteristics of their neighbourhood. Specific comments referring to environmental and amenities issues include: ‘airplanes passing every minute and making lots of noise’,

‘vacant uncared lots’, ‘council could do more on parks etc.’, ‘railway crossing causes traffic in peak hours’ and ‘not kids friendly environment’. Similar comments in City of Canning Speaking Out report also reflect participants’

being ‘frustrated by a lack of property maintenance on verges and in gardens’

(City futures, 2012, p.3).

‘Social issues’ are the second least-liked characteristic with 37.9% of responses reflecting problems with ‘hooning’, ‘crime’, ‘violence’, ‘drugs’,

‘break ins’, ‘bad schools’ and ‘anti-social behaviours’. Comments such as:

‘drugs in the area’, ‘hoons in the middle of the night’, ‘noisy neighbours’, the area being ‘seen as lower to middle [income] class’, ‘gangs of youth on the street’, ‘people who do not try to assimilate’ and ‘security’ refer to social issues. There appears to be some dislike of migrants and ethnicity too, respondents indicate a dislike of the area due to the ‘influx of major groups of Middle Eastern immigrants’ and fear an ‘ethnic majority’. Finally, the responses show only 19% of respondents to be familiar with the Transit Oriented Development, and the potential changes in their area.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 well-designed pedestrian plazas and paths

well-designed biking lanes high quality public open space such as BBQ and kids play

area

walking to services such as shops and public transport high quality landscaping of the precinct including streets and

plazas

more pedestrian friendly environment than car oriented different architecture style within the precinct increasing the chance of meeting more people in the area availability of different housing types in the precinct (including

apartments, terraces, villas, units)

a diverse mix of people in the precinct

Percentage

The least liked dense environment features

Cannington, n=79

C.3 Desired dense neighbourhood features

In order to investigate respondents’ opinions about the desired features of their proposed dense neighbourhood setting in future, further questions were asked. The comments will be discussed in two sections: on neighbourhood and on housing features, which include physical and social aspects.

 Neighbourhood features

Regarding neighbourhood features, the responses from Cannington area were similar to Canning Bridge’s data in terms of physical and social aspects.

Social features such as having ‘a diverse mix of people in the precinct’,

‘increasing the chance of meeting more people in the area’ and physical features such as ‘availability of different housing types in the precinct’ and

‘different architecture styles within the precinct’ were the features deemed least popular (Figure, 7.19).

Figure 7.19: The least-liked features of a dense neighbourhood (n=, 79)

Respondents stated their opinions on each feature, which show that having

‘a diverse mix of people in the precinct’ was perceived negatively. Comments

linked this social feature to ‘social housing’ and ‘racial problems’. The following selected comments are a few of many comments about this issue.

 limit social welfare housing

 always racial trouble

 not everyone gets along

 too crowded

 This is currently not diverse!

 influx of people on welfare

 Australia is racist

 current people attracted to area are different

In expressing why, they are of the opinion that the ‘availability of different housing types in the precinct’ is an unattractive feature for their future dense area, respondents referred to related social issues such as high crimes rate, lack of privacy and open space. Below, a few comments were selected out of many.

 gets too built up

 too many units

 Believe there is still need for detached houses

 with higher density living, more crime

 don't want someone looking in my backyard

 increase population no tranquillity

 concentrated living will cause trouble

The third most unpopular feature noted was ‘increasing the chance of meeting more people in the area’, an aspect of density not perceived by respondents positively. While there are various reasons for the unpopularity of this feature, it is evident that the lack of interest for spontaneous socialising is the underlying concern. Each comment shows the negativity from a different respondent’s viewpoint, reflecting the current social problems.

 I don't know if this is important, as people have their own networks and don't necessarily connect with neighbours as we used to

 not enough time to 'catch-up' with those currently on 'friends' classification list!!!

 or getting bashed

 Cannington leisure centre and Carousel already do that. more of this and you see drunk kids picking girls up and bullying

 train station is transition area, not to meet people

 I don't think it matters either way

 influx of riff-raff

 not really a necessity

Furthermore, the following feature, ‘different architecture styles within the precinct’, was perceived negatively by linking it to high-density developments.

Comments mainly suggest that high-density developments make the area unattractive.

 will not make it more attractive

 houses packed in high density

 too dense

 different styles are ok, but must fit in with each other

 Housing features

Preferred dwelling types, or ‘housing features’, as stated in Chapter Five, are part of a desired residential setting. These preferences will show the extent of a community’s adaptation capacity for accepting future changes in their neighbourhoods. The following graph (Figure 7.20) shows that respondents in the Cannington area are in favour of medium density dwelling types, single or double storey grouped dwellings (35.4%) rather than detached houses (30.3%). While 55.6% of respondents live in detached houses, only 30.3% of them actually prefer such a dwelling type for living.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 apartments up to 4 storeys

apartments up to 6 storeys 2-3 storey townhouse single or double storey detached house single or double storey grouped dwellings

Percentage

Preferred dwelling types to live in dense neighbourhood

Figure 7.20: Preferred dwelling type for living, (n=69)

Furthermore, all ages are in favour of living in medium density housing instead of other dwelling types (Figure 7.21), but the middle age group is still more interested in choosing detached housing for living compared to other age groups, possibly because of their present family households.

Figure 7.21: Age and preferred dwelling type, (retiring age, n=28; middle age, n=23; young age, n=28)

Households with more than 2 people prefer to live in medium density housing than low density detached houses and households with 2 or less members prefer medium density housing to high density. The interesting point is that

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

low density medium density high density

retiring age (over 55) middle age (35-55) young age (18-34)

detached housing is not the most favoured option even among households with more than 2 people (Figure 7.22).

Figure 7.22: Household structure and preferred dwelling type, (Households with 2 people and less, n=43;

households with more than 2 people, n=36)

Income and house choices are presented in the following graph (Figure 7.23). It confirms that medium density housing is the most popular option among all income brackets, while high density apartments are the least popular.

Figure 7.23: Income and preferred dwelling type, (high income, n=15; middle income, n=37; low income, n=16)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 low density

medium density high density

households with more than 2 people

households with 2 people or less

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

low density medium density high density

Over 120K 40K-120K less than 40K

Further, respondents were asked to explain the reasons behind their dwelling type selection. As stated earlier, grouped dwelling housing, in particular single storey, (based on the comments) is the most popular housing type among the other dwelling types. Half of the retiring age group prefer grouped dwelling and further explain that it fits better than other options with their aging needs. Relevant comments were discourse analysed to find out the meaning associated to the preferred dwelling. Respondents indicated that grouped dwellings provide ‘privacy’, are ‘stair free’, ‘suitable for old ages’ and have ‘small gardens’ and are a balance of ‘comfort’ and ‘privacy’. A few comments are:

 single storey, stairs are no good for old people; it is better for privacy and children

 you don't hear what the next door neighbours are doing (TV, fighting etc.), you have your own garden+ lawn space to entertain outside

 Privacy, backyard, secure garage, open yard.

 represents the suburb outlook instead of city image

 single storey, because of age

 we prefer family oriented houses

 bigger space, more comfortable, more privacy

 Gives me more of a feeling to have a living space and

garden/courtyard to make my own. It allows for privacy, fewer shared walls but also opportunities to meet neighbours. A single story is also easier to accommodate for people with disabilities who may not be able to use a fire escape in multi-storey

apartment building.

 walking up+ down stairs gets more awkward & exhausting as one ages

 prefer to live in a house with back/front yard

 Privacy & comfort living

 small gardens, no stairs, community atmosphere

 more community oriented

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 apartments up to 6 storeys

apartments up to 4 storeys single or double storey grouped dwellings single or double storey detached house 2-3 storey townhouse

Percentage

Preferred dwelling types to be seen in dense neighbourhood

As part of investigating desired neighbourhood features, dwelling types that respondents prefer to be seen in their neighbourhood were studied (Figure 7.24). It is interesting that unlike the popularity of grouped dwelling as preferred housing choice of living, 2-3 storey townhouses and detached houses are the most desired option to be seen as part of a desired dense neighbourhood.

Figure 7.24: Preferred dwelling types to see around the neighbourhood (n=68)

In order to further investigate the respondents’ opinions, relevant comments were analysed. The popularity of 2-3 storey townhouses was linked to characteristics such as being ‘modern’, ‘attractive’, or ‘affordable’, and a good choice to balance ‘density’ and current lifestyle. A few comments are:

 This is probably what we'd be able to afford so I'd like to see lots of it.

 If I had to choose I would again choose this one.

 look good and not overcrowded

 I like the look of them. Individual families, responsibility for own space. Still economical with land space so not greedy.

 Option 1 (yes, It will be fine if they use good building materials)

 Funky & Modern easy to maintain=likely to be better kept.

 Won’t be too compact. It looks better.

 Not too high density

 Allows for greater density whist minimizing problems associated with social & infrastructure issues

 This would be most attractive dwelling

 There are already a lot of villas + detached houses in the area.

Town houses would provide another option and look smart.

 Attractive

 Practical & not too crowded

 New design and architectural

 Architecturally designed. Most look individual, bright, and clean.

In expressing the reasons for selection of detached houses, comments are mainly about characteristics such as creating a ‘family oriented’ environment and having better ‘privacy’. A few comments are:

 Much nicer, attracts 'better' people.

 Increases value in the area (houses are more expensive) and attracts more affluent couples.

 More family oriented more space for families.

Townhouses/Apartments can be eyesores if not properly maintained by the occupants.

 Privacy

 No over population

 This type of housing maintains quality of living and keeps the Australian dream of owning your own patch of lawn alive;

 Aesthetic value

 I like my children to be able to play unsupervised in the back yard.

 Allows for more privacy, the cultivation of gardens while have many benefits.

 Less cluttered , views not obstructed

Summary of chapter:

Majority of Cannington respondents are middle-income households, live in the middle ring area. Area has been nominated as a TOD with a higher target density than the Canning Bridge area. While the middle income group is dominant among respondents (46.8% of respondents earn between 40K to 120K), they identify medium density housing as a preferred dwelling-type for living. This is similar to the Canning Bridge respondents, and they express similar reasons for their selection. They believe medium density provides physical features which are a good choice between ‘privacy’ and ‘density’,

‘attractive’, ‘modern’ and the social feature of attracting the right people into the area. However, in terms of current liked and disliked characteristics of the area, while environmental characteristics, such as the proximity to the river and having leafy streets, are the most-liked characteristics of the Canning Bridge area, for Cannington respondents this characteristic, represented by airplane noise, lack of streetscape and lack of trees, is the least-liked.

Furthermore, Cannington area is already an ethnically diverse place, yet, having ‘diverse people in the area’ is perceived as the least-liked characteristic of a dense neighbourhood, reflecting the negative perception of respondents (social feature). Further comparisons of case studies will be discussed in Chapter Nine.

Figure 8.0: a banner at Wellard Village (taken by the author, 2018)

CHAPTER 8

In document Desirable Dense Neighbourhoods: An Environmental Psychological Approach for Understanding Community Resistance to Densification (Page 162-173)