RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Market Perceptions PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Market Perceptions PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Presented by Helen Fischer, Research Manager

Overview of Objectives • Study sought to determine: • building forms that would be attractive to the community; • constraints to higher density choice; • motivations towards / barriers against higher density living; and • identify gaps between perception and experience of higher density living. • The tasks were to: • Review existing research reports and findings - establish base understanding of perceptions, motivations, knowledge, preferences of housing decision makers and the influences upon them, and • Use this knowledge to develop a research instrument to undertake primary research into the Adelaide housing market to establish benchmark of community thought about higher density living. • Follow up with group discussions, to reveal greater depth of understanding of the key perceptions.

Overview of Project • Three components to the primary research: • A CATI survey (n=600) - housing decision-makers 18 years and older, either renting or owner / occupier with or without a mortgage, living in metropolitan Adelaide. • An Online survey (n=601) using a panel supplied by online research company, same profile as for the telephone survey. • Four group discussions, each 10 participants, recruited from the general public, segmented into life-stage - 18 to 30 years, 30 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years and 55 to 69 years. • Broadly representative of the socio-demographic profile of Adelaide. • Reliable and robust - ± 3. 99% margin of error @ 95% confidence level. • Results can be extrapolated to the population of housing decision-makers.

Profile of Respondents • CATI sample: • One in five (22%) thinking of purchasing a home in next 10 years. • One third (33%) have experience living in higher density (in Adel, i/state or o/seas or a combination). • Three in four (76%) live in a single detached house currently. • More than eight out of ten (84%) own or are purchasing their home versus 13% renting (remembering the criteria – housing decisionmakers). • Online sample: • Nearly one in three (30%) thinking of purchasing a home in next 10 years. • Two fifths (44%) have experience living in higher density (in Adel, i/state or o/seas or a combination). • Nearly three in four (73%) live in a single detached house currently. • Two in three (63%) own / purchasing their home versus 30% renting. • A quarter (26%) of the sample were 35 years or younger (vs 7%).

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Drivers of choice of home • Proximity to shops, schools, amenities and public transport is a key driver of choice of location for housing. Supports theory of “ 30 minute living”. • Size of property / built form also a significant factor in choice of home. • Size preferences include: • spacious living, • large block, • 3+ bedrooms, • 2 bathrooms, • parking 2+ cars, and • large outdoor entertaining and / or enclosed backyard. • Attraction to a house, based on its size and space, strongly affected by the peak family life-stage.

Drivers of choice of home Other attributes varied by lifestage: • Under 35 year olds perceived that medium density housing is too small / not enough space for growing families. They want internal space to grow and external space to live. • Older, “empty nesters”, on the other hand, want to reduce their ongoing living costs whilst living in a desirable and quiet area close to public transport. • Only attribute they have in common is the desire for a back garden and the ability

A person / household intends to buy / rent a house Number and size of rooms 27% 8 HOUSING DECISION-MAKING Cost / affordability (purchase or rental) not tested in the model, but is important. Building form 25% Open space 14% Proximity to work and services Other factors not in the model such as ongoing cost, suburb, familiarity with area etc. Move in! 12% Proximity to public transport 11% Proximity to the City 7% Views 3%

Barriers to choosing medium to high density • Predominant perception of higher density was “high rise apartments”. • Most respondents, especially if have not experienced higher density interstate or overseas, cannot conceive of living in higher density with children (or dogs). • Overcrowding and a perception that higher density attracts social problems and safety concerns were key negative impacts. • Noise from neighbours, limited space and no back garden / private enclosed space were also barriers. “Higher density equates to small homes suitable only for singles or families without children”.

Where new housing development should be located Good support for infill and TOD’s. Increased to more than half of those who had experience of higher density o/seas. However …. . 56% of private renters (now) and 47% of 35 to 44 year olds (youngmiddle families) said they thought new housing should be on urban fringe.

Future housing choices • Just 5% of Adelaide residents perceive they will be living in a flat or apartment with shared walls, or multi-storey terrace or townhouse, in 10 years’ time. • Most aspire to living in a detached, single storey house or staying where they are currently. • Among those who intend to purchase a home in the foreseeable future, half expect it to be a single storey detached house. On the other hand …. . Medium to high density generally perceived as alternative, transitional and affordable housing for “alternative” family types and young people starting out - until they can afford “a home of their own”.

Perceived benefits of TOD’s and Infill • Better public transport systems / services (i. e. more frequent, more routes) was perceived as the top benefit of TOD’s. • Followed by: • affordable housing close to City, • reduction in private car use, • walking distance to shops / services, • close neighbourhoods / sense of community, • better social infrastructure, and • environmental benefits / less urban sprawl. Nine out of ten believe that local neighbourhoods should include cafes, open space and public play areas. However, this lifestyle is aspirational – most perceive it is too expensive. Hence preference for fringe development – space and affordability in one package.

Desirable design attributes Common attributes included: • Most no higher than 2 storeys, • Most had private balcony, • No or limited front garden, • Contemporary designs, • Most had no communal open space, • Most had some greenery / trees to ‘soften’ the building. Brick was perceived as more durable and attractive than concrete

Desirable environment / community Common attributes included: • Tree-lined walkways and lakeside paths were popular. • Top lifestyle environments had communal open space. • Mix of small retail and residential is acceptable (café lifestyle desirable), but not industrial / commercial. • Most had greenery / trees.

Lifestyle implications • Having several options available for transit to work, services and shops is at least as important as being close to public transport. • Most recognised that access to integrated walking, cycling, bus and rail transit can provide better solutions for transport, health, environmental and economic issues than car-dependent lifestyle. At least in theory!

Lifestyle implications • Ongoing cost of large houses on large blocks, alongside travelling long distances to work, is only a minor factor in decision-making about housing for most young couples and young families. • With rising energy and water costs, cost of living likely to become more important. • Living costs become significantly more important to older residents (primarily financial reasons, then sustainability).

Lifestyle implications • Location which offers connectivity; affordability; integration and ease of mobility are desirable lifestyle elements which add value to a neighbourhood, but ………. , • the ‘deal breaker’ is size of: • house / dwelling, • block on which it sits, and • the useable open space nearby.

Lifestyle implications • Features such as the number of mature trees, expanse of lawns, clean lakes, gardens, walkways and piazzas tend to mitigate the impact of higher density. • Adds street appeal. • Adds value to surrounding properties. • Higher density dwellings must be perceived as durable to avoid the perception that they will deteriorate more quickly than surrounding homes and therefore devalue the neighbourhood. • Quality of both the built form and the surrounding environment is very important to the market. • Must be maintained over time, not left to Council or residents.

Target market • Profile of those most likely to live in medium to high density dwellings tends to be those in “alternative” lifestyles and as an option prior to “a house of their own”. • The café lifestyle, low maintenance apartment living is aspirational among young people, but is still perceived as transitional – pre-family. • Small proportion of “empty nest” couples or singles would live in this type of development – downsize, low maintenance, easy access to transport, sense of being part of a community, affordable ongoing living costs.

Target market • At this point in time, families with children cannot conceive of living in a medium / high density housing environment. • However, they see some advantages: • Being near to social networks and families (“people won’t visit us if we live 30 kilometres away”). • Being within zoning for “good” schools. • Inner location gives access to wide range of facilities for recreation, sporting and entertainment.

Target market • If higher density is to become an important part of the decision set, home buyers need: • quality homes which have longevity, • flexible space and family-sized homes / apartments, • parking areas, • private outdoor space for children (access restricted), • possibly indoor common areas, and • public, open space nearby.

Challenges • Desire by community to ensure that higher density does not adversely impact on the value, character and amenity of their neighbourhood. • Conflicts with need to provide affordable and inclusive housing which meets the needs of mainstream home buyers, not just alternative or temporary housing market. • Both of these conflict with the need to attract development and ensure profitability. • How do we ensure that local residents become collaborators in creating and maintaining sustainable, liveable communities?

Thank you