Living The High Life

Housing Studies,
Vol. 27, No. 1, 97126, January 2012
Living the High Life? Residential, Social

and Psychosocial Outcomes for High-Rise
Occupants in a Deprived Context
ADE KEARNS*, ELISE WHITLEY*, PHIL MASON* & LYNDAL BOND**
*Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, **Medical Research Council, Social &
Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK
(Received June 2010; revised December 2010)
ABSTRACT The current period is one of ambiguity and contestation over the future of high-rise.
A range of analyses is performed on survey data from deprived areas in Glasgow to examine the
impacts of living in high-rise in comparison to other dwelling types. The findings show that many
residential outcomes are worse for people in high-rise, especially related to noise and security issues
in dwellings and buildings. Social and psychosocial outcomes are often worse in high-rise,
particularly frequency of contact with neighbours and a number of aspects of control and
recuperation at home. Further analysis shows that neighbourhood satisfaction and some social
outcomes are better (or ameliorated) for people living higher up in tall buildings. There were
different patterns of impacts for different household types. Contrary to much of the literature, the
study found that negative impacts of high-rise were most wide ranging among adult-only households
rather than families, with older persons least affected by negative social outcomes in high-rise.
KEY WORDS : High-rise, residential, social, psychosocial, Glasgow, GoWell
Introduction: Competing Contemporary Narratives about High-Rise

The current period is one of ambiguity over high-rise. In the private sector in cities, tall
buildings (commercial and residential) are advocated as necessary for urban competition,
although there are concerns that many developments may not include the good quality and
iconic design that a few celebrated buildings can. Meanwhile, in the social housing sector
high-rise is being slowly removed, although it has its supporters, and realistically much of
it will remain for some time to come. Given this conflict over high-rise, it was felt that it
was worth re-examining outcomes for high-rise residents in deprived social housing
areas (where there is most uncertainty over the future of high-rise), since much of the
existing UK evidence is dated and inadequate. To do this, the study has looked at high-rise
occupants in comparison to occupants of other dwelling types in deprived parts of Glasgow,
Correspondence Address: Ade Kearns, Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, 25 Bute Gardens,
Glasgow G12 8RS, UK. Email: ade.kearns@glasgow.ac.uk
ISSN 0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 Online/12/01009730 q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.632080
98 A. Kearns et al.
a city recognised as one of the most important in the history and current use of high-rise
housing in the UK. First, however, the current debate and existing evidence base will be
reviewed.
During the last decade or so in the UK, we have seen the simultaneous emergence of two
competing high-rise narratives, offering different claims about, and objectives for, high-
rise living. On the one hand, stimulated by Lord Rogers Urban Task Force (1999), high-
rise living is viewed as part of the future urban renaissance of British cities, providing the
route to higher residential densities and urban vitality. This advisory body to the New
Labour Governments argued that Britain needed to regain our urban tradition (p. 50) by
creating pyramids of intensity (p. 64) in order to contribute to greater vitality and energy
efficiency in urban areas. This perspective gained further momentum when the Mayor of
London, Ken Livingstone, professed enthusiastic support for the further construction of
tall buildings in the capital (Mayor of London, 2001). Livingstone aimed to set out at this
time his support for the positive benefits of tall buildings to safeguarding and enhancing
Londons World City role (p. 7). In this, he included not only commercial and office
buildings, but also stated that proposals for new residential towers . . . will be supported
in principle (p. 12). Baxter & Lees (2009) commented on how the combination of the
Urban Task Force and Mayor Livingstones planning policies led to the return of the
residential high-rise to London, with over 40 iconic designer towers being planned for
the capital by 2009 and were aimed at young professionals and key workers.
Tall buildings and high-rise flats have also featured prominently in recent years in
redevelopment projects in other British cities. Doucet (2010) argued that such flagship
projects are part of regeneration strategies for post-industrial cities (citing Glasgow as an
example), aiming to project a new, successful image in order to gain wealth and create
growth (p. 16). They typically consist of redevelopment on brownfield sites such as old
industrial railway yards and waterfronts. As part of their role to convey a message of re-birth
and success to the high-end market they are aimed at, the buildings concerned are
examples of iconic architecture, which nowadays tends to be high-rise. Thus, unlike the
previous, post-war construction period, high-rise flats in the current period are proposed and
constructed for predominantly economic rather than social welfare reasons. In a period of
globalisation and international, inter-urban competition (Turok, 2005), high-rise flats, and
tall buildings generally (commercial tall buildings being equally important), are part of the
projection of a 21st century cityscape image. Without further high-rise development, it is
feared that British cities will fall further behind their Asian counterparts in the race to be
seen as the future centres of global dynamism and urban quality of life. Over the past 30
years, the balance has shifted; in 1980, 80 per cent of the tallest buildings in the world were
in North America but by 2010 the vast majority, 70 per cent, were in Asia, the Middle East
and Africa (CBTU, 2008). Despite the policy and practice emphasis on high-rises role in
revitalising the fortunes of British cities, a House of Commons select committee inquiry
found the contribution which [tall buildings] can make to the urban renaissance . . . to be
very limited (HoC Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, 2002, p. 5).
In relation to social housing, however, a different narrative and associated debate has
ensued. Here, neighbourhood renewal policy (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001) has combined
with the sustainable communities agenda (ODPM, 2005) so that the renewal of social
housing estates has often involved the demolition and replacement of high-rise blocks of
flats rather than their refurbishment. Residents have then been rehoused in lower-rise flats
and houses with gardens in an attempt to produce better social and health outcomes as part
Living the High Life? 99
of the delivery of sustainable regeneration. This has happened to a greater or lesser extent
under successive urban regeneration policies since the 1990s, including Housing Action
Trusts (see, for example, Critchley et al., 2004), Single Regeneration Budget projects (see,
for example, Ambrose, 2000) and the New Deal for Communities programme. In the latter
case, the largest share of housing and environmental expenditure has been on land
acquisition and demolition items, not merely to improve the living circumstances of current
residents but also in order to assemble suitable parcels of land for private developers to
progress (Cole et al., 2010).
There is therefore a policy preference for future, sustainable communities developed out
of existing mass housing estates to be low-rise, mixed-tenure neighbourhoods wherever
possible. In this, UK regeneration of social housing estates has adopted an approach
similar to that seen in some Western European countries and in the USA. In the latter case,
the HOPE VI programme instituted across US cities since 1992 has adopted New
Urbanism principles so that to replace towers and mid-rise slabs, they brought back a
range of housing typesfrom bungalows to town houses and low-rise apartment
buildings; this was in order to replace projects with traditional neighbourhoods on a
human scale (Calthorpe, 2009, p. 52). During the New Labour era, transatlantic policy
influences were prominent, and a study of high-rise housing estates across Europe found
that most demolitions over the previous decade had taken place in Britain, along with
France and the Netherlands (Wassenberg et al., 2004).
However, the demolition and replacement of social sector high-rise faces a number of
challenges and obstacles. Perhaps the biggest issue is that of scale. Turkington (2004)
contended that although the rate of demolition in Britain increased, it was inconceivable
that enough money would be made available to demolish all 280 000 social sector high-
rise flats that still existed in England in the late-1990s. For similar reasons, looking across
Europe, Wassenberg et al. (2004) argued that most high-rise housing estates are here to
stay for decades to come (p. 277). Thus, realistically, improvement to the Governments
Housing Quality Standard is the likely outcome for many social sector high-rise blocks in
the UK.
There is also opposition of various kinds to the removal of high-rise housing.
Communities themselves are often divided in their views, although those fighting a
proposed demolition get more media coverage and attention than those in favour of removal
and replacement. Opposition comes either in the form of individuals who like high-rise
living, or groups of local people who fear the break-up of their community through a
demolition and redevelopment programme, the latter not necessarily being supporters of
high-rise per se. A recent overview of housing interventions in regeneration programmes in
the UK concluded that one of the biggest challenges facing policy and practice was that
demolition can prove a distressing experience and the process needs intensive management
and community support to minimise disruption (Cole et al., 2010, p. 30).
In addition, there is a more critical opposition to what some see as the privatisation of
social housing through the introduction of housing associations and owner-occupiers to
estates (of which demolition of high-rise and the release of land is a part), and the instigation
of what has been termed state-led gentrification, wherein physical renewal is seen as a
route to the social transformation of areas (Slater, 2006). Others have been concerned that
processes of displacement and dispersal of residents from distressed housing areas
represented by high-rise projects, whilst producing neighbourhood improvements, does
100 A. Kearns et al.
not necessarily result in better economic outcomes and often disrupts peoples social
support networks (Goetz, 2010).
There are also critics and commentators who believe that high-rise buildings make an
essential contribution to urban life and for this reason alone should be retained and
improved. Thus, if the problems of high-rise are located as having their source either in the
economies made during their construction or the partial approaches to their renovation, it
can be argued that all types of multi-storey housing have the potential for successful
transformation (Towers, 2000, p. 207). One study of a proposed demolition of high-rise
housing in Glasgow gave the impression that only by means of a particular assemblage of
evidence and arguments was the fact of . . . housing failure produced, stabilised and
hardened (Jacobs et al., 2007, pp. 621 622). However, less than 20 years after much of
the UKs high-rise flats were built, such mass housing was already being called a failure
of public policy (Dunleavy, 1981), with research before and since that date identifying a
range of problems with high-rise living, which will now be briefly reviewed.
The Effects of High-Rise Living

The backlash against modernist design and planning began in the late-1960s, focusing on
problems of social breakdown, crime and vandalism on estates. Subsequently, the majority
of research in this area has sought to identify and explain negative health and social effects
of high-rise, although there are also some examples of research that identify positive
effects in certain circumstances. The potentially harmful effects of high-rise living can be
considered in five categories, each of which will be considered in turn: crime and informal
social control; mental health effects; social effects; impacts on families and children; and
physical health effects.
Early Critiques: Crime, Vandalism and Informal Social Control

From the 1960s to the 1980s, there developed, particularly in the USA and the UK, a line of
argument and inquiry which contended that modernist residential design, and high-rise
estates in particular, had produced damaging social environments. Jane Jacobs has been
described as the most celebrated of the early critics of the effects of centralised rational
planning on urban life (Ley, 1987, p. 307). Jacobs (1961) was mostly concerned with the
impacts on informal social control of the segregation of land uses into large blocks and the
removal of dense street networks and mixed-use areas; these things lowered pedestrian
traffic, reduced circles of acquaintance and removed casual, visual surveillance. However,
Jacobs (1995) was not talking solely about high-rise; whilst she did say that the problem of
fear reaches its most baffling dimensions in rebuilt parts of cities (a reference to high-rise
public housing projects perhaps), she also said the problem was most serious in genteel-
looking, quiet, residential areas (p. 112). Her main criticism of modernist planning was that
it removed surprise and organic development from urban interaction (Cochrane, 1999).
The focus on high-rise followed the empirical studies of Newman (1972) and Coleman
(1985). Newmans study of crime levels in New York identified building height as the
strongest influence on crime and vandalism, but also block size, the extent of shared space
and the existence of multiple escape routes. His thesis was that a lack of territorial
influence and few opportunities for surveillance were problematic. Newman later argued
that he did not consider high-rise bad per se, but that the interaction of certain physical and
social conditions was best avoided, such as families with children in high-rise (Sim, 1993).
Colemans work on estates in London and Oxford sought to identify the most influential
design features for prevalence of social malaise (environmental incivilities and,
curiously, numbers of children in care). The most significant features were found to be
numbers of dwellings per block and per entrance, and storeys per block, thus highlighting
the negative consequences of high-rise design. Although her work was heavily criticised
on a number of groundsnot least the lack of consideration of: block size (Hillier, 1986),
the effects of poverty on estates (Anson, 1986), and of the fit between building type and
household type (Heck, 1987)Coleman was influential on policy and practice in the UK
(see Sim, 1993).
Mental Health Effects

Much of the interest in the mental health effects of high-rise living stems from Fannings
(1967) early study, which showed that younger women living in multi-storey flats consulted
their GPs for psychological reasons more often than women living in houses. Subsequent
studies in London and Bristol in the 1970s, whilst finding no differences in mental health
indicators between women in high-rise flats and other dwellings, suggested, however, that
there were other key differences, namely lower housing satisfaction and higher desire to
move home, among high-rise dwellers. Other studies have pinpointed some of the personal
factors involved in the relationship between high-rise and mental health: mothers with
several school-age children are more at risk of depression than others (Brown et al., 1975);
and people with a neurotic personality are more vulnerable to feelings of isolation and
loneliness in high-rise flats (Moore, 1975). Cook & Morgan (1982, p. 846) concluded that
Living in a high-rise flat may be ideal for some people, but it seems hazardous and stressful
for certain vulnerable disadvantaged groups. Residents also perceive this. A study of lay
perceptions of health-impairing factors in poor neighbourhoods in Melbourne, Australia,
showed that those living on high-rise estates were more likely than those living in low-rise
areas to identify place-based factors as damaging their health and well-being, mostly
concerning being unable to avoid the habits and incivilities of others in close, proximal,
shared spaces and feeling unsafe (Warr et al., 2007).
A recent review of the research concluded that the evidence overall shows that people
living in high-rise flats have more mental health problems, with the author suggesting that
social isolation may be an important factor (Evans, 2003). An American review of the
potential for sustainable technologies in high-rise (Wener & Carmalt, 2006), concluded that
psychological states and behaviours were negatively affected by disengagement from
natural elements and reliance on technology in high-rise. This was because studies have
shown that spending time in natural settings has restorative effects (Hartig et al., 1991;
Kaplan, 1995), the presence of vegetation reduces aggression (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001),
views of nature reduce stress (Ulrich, 1994), and exposure to daylight enhances emotional
well-being.
Social Effects
Several studies have reported that high-rise dwellers have a lower sense of community,
less familiarity with their neighbours, and lower levels of social support than other people.
Moreover, the social effects of high-rise are deemed to have consequences for poor mental
health (Evans et al., 2003). These social effects have been attributed to various factors
such as the higher turnover in tower blocks (McDonald & Brownlee, 1993); the
deterioration of public space within high-rise estates due to the lack of defensible space
(Lowry, 1990); and the inability to regulate social interaction within high-rise
environments, which leads to social withdrawal by residents (Evans et al., 2003). The
most recent study of 29 large housing estates across Europe (mostly medium- and high-
rise) also reported common problems of lack of safety and architecture and urban design
[which] support individualisation and anonymity (Musterd & van Kempen, 2005, p. 21).
Recent research from Singapore has been more inconsistent in its findings; some
research has reported minimal neighbourly relations and concluded that high-rise living
does not readily build community, with neighbourly relations described as cordial but
distant (Appold & Yuen, 2007, p. 584); other research has refuted concerns that
neighbourly interactions deteriorate in high-rise (Yuen, 2007). Similarly, occupants of
high-rise in Taipei, Taiwan have been reported as socially withdrawn and uninterested in
neighbourly relations (Lin, 1988, reported in Huang, 2006). However, design can help, and
the decision from 1984 to build high-rise developments with enclosed central courtyards
as defensible space has sustained more social interaction, especially where scenic spaces
are provided with visual centrepieces like fountains and sculptures (Huang, 2006).
The potentially contradictory impacts of high-rise living had earlier been discussed in
the case of high-rise in Israel (Churchman & Ginsberg, 1984); on the one hand, a greater
variety of potential social contacts was provided, but on the other, there was a greater
possibility of avoiding social contacts. In the view of the authors here, there is an
important distinction to be made here between the effects of density and diversity
(providing greater opportunities) and those of design (reducing the chances of casual
interaction in high-rise towers).
There is some emerging evidence that the alienating and isolating effects of high-rise
estates can be ameliorated through community interventions. On one Australian public-
high-rise estate, an Internet project has helped enhance residents sense of safety, trust in
neighbours and feeling part of the local community. This was partly due to the use of the
Internet to find out more about the community and local services, and partly due to social
connections made at computer training sessions on the estate (Hopkins, 2007). Technology
plus social programmes can help, it seems.
Impacts on Families and Children

As already indicated, high-rise is generally viewed as inimical to families, with the design or
built form seen as mediating the relationship between overcrowding and mental health
(Evans et al., 2002). An extreme example of this is Hong Kong, where low space
consumption in high-rise dwellings drives housing mobility. Here, two-thirds of all moves
which involve an increase in space consumption are by householders under 40, in the midst
of family expansion (Yip et al., 2009). Other studies in Asia have reported high levels of
satisfaction with high-rise among family households, with adaptation over time from living
in low-rise housing in past periods. Nonetheless, family householders in Singapore do have
concerns in high-rise, mostly about inadequate neighbourhood facilities in dense areas and
safety in lifts (Yuen et al., 2006).
In Western studies, parents of young children in high-rise are reported to keep their
children indoors more than other parents, due to safety concerns and difficulties of
supervision at a distance. This is deemed to have three types of impact: heightened family
conflict within the home; slower social development of the children; and more isolation for
parents, who lose an opportunity to get to know their neighbours (other parents) (Kellett,
1982). In addition, children of families in high-rise flats have been identified as displaying
more psychological distress and as having more behavioural and learning difficulties than
other children (Saegart, 1982).
Again, in contrast, such spatial restrictions may not apply in other high-rise societies.
Research in a large, planned, high-rise estate in South Korea (albeit described as middle
class) reported that despite the restrictive, planned setting, children readily identified
outdoor places of value and meaning to them (more so than indoor places), usually official
play areas and parks, spaces close to home in their own neighbourhood, and where they
could achieve some group territorial occupation (Min & Lee, 2006).
Physical Health Effects

There is less direct evidence that living in high-rise differentially affects physical health,
because many studies of housing conditions and health do not specifically isolate
the effects of high-rise from those of other dwellings or flats. For example, there is
valuable longitudinal evidence about housing and health in the UK which indicates that
multiple housing deprivation presents a greater risk of severe ill-health across the life-
course (Marsh et al., 2000), and that a reduction over time in the experience of housing
problems is associated with a concomitant reduction in multiple health problems (Pevalin
et al., 2008), but neither of these studies indicates the role played by dwelling type in
producing these health outcomes. Research in Scotland does suggest that living in a flat
rather than a house is worse for respiratory health in children and adults (Grainger &
Robinson, 2004), but again the effects of high-rise rather than other types of flats are not
examined. One specific physical health impact of high-rise living is that of sick building
syndrome, namely a range of diseases and symptoms (eye infections, respiratory
problems and headaches) resulting from bird droppings, which can be a particular problem
in high-rise buildings (Waldorf, 2006).
In a perverse and tragic twist to the current resurgence of interest in high-rise, recent
events in the UK, namely fatal fires in social sector tower blocks in London (2009) and
Southampton (2010), have re-ignited fears about the safety of high-rise flats and their
ability to preserve or jeopardise life when accidents occur (Walker & Meikle, 2010). This
has echoes of the Ronan Point disaster of 1968, when the corner of a tower block in
Newham, London, collapsed following a gas explosion in a flat and three people died. For
some time this incident was referred to as the death knell for the tower block.
One area where high-rise dwellings may have an advantage over other dwelling types
with respect to physical health, however, is in relation to energy efficiency and fuel
poverty. Evidence from Scotland indicates that high-rise flats (although again, included
within an other flats category that also included deck access flats) have better energy
efficiency than houses and tenement flats (Hinchliffe, 2006a), and a lower prevalence of
fuel poverty (Hinchliffe, 2006b).
Other effects of high-rise on health may arise from the relationship between high-rise,
neighbourhood quality and health behaviours. The evidence shows that peoples
perceptions of both the aesthetic quality and safety of their neighbourhoods (two things
often reported in other circumstances to be worse on high-rise estates) affects their levels
of physical activity, especially walking (Croucher et al., 2007; McCormack et al., 2004;
Pikora et al., 2005). However, this is a rather indirect indication, rather than direct
evidence, of the potential effects of high-rise on health.
Salient Characteristics of High-Rise

The foregoing raises the question of what it is about high-rise that might cause the variety of
negative effects. The attempt here to distil the salient characteristics from the literature, for a
West European context, is shown in Table 1. Some of the effects, such as fear of accidents or
sound transmission, stem from the built form itself, namely tall buildings, together with the
way they were constructed. Other effects, such as feelings of social exclusion, are partly due to
the broader context for high-rise, often in poor locations and with deficient provision of
amenities. Finally, there are problems which are the product of poor management and
maintenance of the buildings and the estates on which they are located, such as concentrations
of poverty and insufficient supervision of common areas and public spaces.
Studying the Impacts of High-Rise Living in a Deprived UK Context

The review here of current housing and urban policy, and the existing evidence base on the
effects of high-rise occupancy lead to the conclusion that there are a number of reasons
that justify presenting fresh evidence about high-rise living. First, there is a lack of UK
evidence and sometimes, as has been seen, evidence of the effects of flat-living does not
Table 1. Detrimental dimensions of high-rise
Dimension Component Aspect having negative effects

Built Form Dwellings Poor construction: damp; low thermal qualities; poor sound
insulation.
Insufficient internal space; lack of privacy.
Height Increasing height: fear of accidents; feelings of loneliness.
Towers Enforced communality in use of facilities.
Poor aesthetics; visually unappealing.
Prominent and stigmatising built form; low demand for housing.
Estate context Size Oppressive environment due to number of towers.
Density Large number of residents on estate and within each tower;
inability to know neighbours and exercise informal social control.
Amenities Lack of sufficient amenities on estates; reduced use of estate and
less social interaction; feelings of social exclusion.
Layout Lack of defensible space; reluctance to engage with others in
public.
Hidden spaces and poor sight-lines; lack of grid layout of streets:
fear of crime and lack of sense of safety.
Materials Harsh materials. Lack of nature / green spaces.
Location Isolated location disconnected from the rest of the urban area.
Management Maintenance Expensive and poor maintenance of buildings.
Allocations Used to house poor, vulnerable households with multiple social
needs. Results in concentration of problems and pressure of high
demand on social and other support services.
Staffing Insufficient local management presence for the number of
residents sharing the space(s) of the estate.
distinguish high-rise. Others have complained that evidence about high-rise is subsumed
within the broader question of . . . council estates (Towers, 2000, p. xiv). Second, the
evidence on the social effects of high-rise is thin on the ground; again, Towers argues, in
the UK context, that . . . accounts have focused on why? and how?, but the
experience of multi-storey living has been little studied [emphasis added] (p. xiv). Third,
often the evidence consists of accounts from residents of high-rise without a contrasting
group (for example, McDonald & Brownlee, 1993; Williamson, 1981), and whilst this
often reveals difficulties of living in tall blocks on deprived estates, it also raises the
question as to how different that experience is from that of other households in similarly
deprived circumstances living in low-rise situations.
Finally, the effects of high-rise are very context-specific in several respects: to the
culture and climate of a particular nation, e.g. what works in Asia may not work in North-
West Europe; to the economic circumstances of a particular region (the argument is often
made that high-rise can be more successful in high-pressure housing markets); to the
housing tenure and ownership pattern within the blocks and neighbourhood; and to the
locality within a city, i.e. high-rise in deprived areas may perform very differently from
high-rise in non-deprived, accessible locations. Past studies and reviews of research have
tended to avoid the context-dependent nature of the effects of high-rise.
Research Questions
The questions that are to be addressed in this paper are as follows. Within a deprived
context:
. Are residential outcomes, in terms of ratings of the dwelling and neighbourhood,
any different between high-rise occupants and others?
. Controlling for differences in personal characteristics, how do high-rise residents
sense of community and social relations compare with those of residents of other
dwelling types in similarly deprived areas?
. Do high-rise residents derive psychosocial benefits from their homes to the same
degree as residents of other dwelling types?
. Do the effects of high-rise living differ between household types?
. Is it possible to differentiate any effects of the building type itself (the fact of
living in a tall block), from the effects of height itself: whether living higher up in
a block is any different from living lower down?
Why Glasgow?
Glasgow is an important, symbolic city in the UK, often noted for its traditions of
municipal socialism (Smith, 1984), extensive council housing and progressive or volatile
housing history (Mooney & Poole, 2005, p.29). Glasgow also has a lot of high-rise flats,
especially in the social housing sector, which is relatively large: 33 per cent of the citys
population lived in social rented housing in 2006 compared with 20 per cent in the rest of
Scotland (Freeke, 2008). The analysis here of council tax records indicates that in 2006 the
city had over 200 high-rise buildings and nearly 31 000 multi-storey flatsjust over 10 per
cent of the citys housing stock. From 1957 1970, the City Council erected high-rise
blocks on many gap sites as well as in slum redevelopment areas in order to avoid further
loss of population through overspill to surrounding towns (Horsey, 1990). Indeed,

accounts of the spread of high-rise developments from the late-1950s onwards ascribe an
important role to the Housing Committee of the Glasgow Corporation, which is said to
have had a pervasive influence over national government policy at the time (Horsey,
1988). The ability of a city like Glasgow to ensure the successful performance of high-rise
as a residential environment is therefore significant in national terms.
However, the task of successfully managing and maintaining high-rise dwellings and
mass housing estates in Glasgow may have been made more difficult by a few significant
factors. First, the city has a very disadvantaged resident population and areas of social
housing in particular suffer multiple deprivation. For example, the average level of income
deprivation in the city in 2006 was 25 per cent (twice the Scottish average), but in those
regeneration areas where high-rise dominates it reached over 40 per cent (Walsh, 2008).
The population is also very unhealthy, with low life expectancy, high mortality and poor
health behaviours in many areas. For example, whilst the Scottish standardised rate of
mortality from coronary heart disease in the period 2001 2005 was 75 per 100 000
population, in regeneration areas in Glasgow it was at least 2.5 times higher at close to 200
(Turner, 2008).
Furthermore, the climate in the west of Scotland is poor, being very wet, windy and
cloudy, with few warm, sunny days. This adds challenges to living in tall blocks, including
those arising from water penetration, cold temperatures, wind buffeting to dwellings, and
wind and shadowing effects at ground level. Thus, it cannot be assumed that relatively
successful high-rise living in parts of the world with better climates would necessarily
translate to the Glasgow context; rather, the question is what might be achievable given
these circumstances.
The Glasgow context is also interesting because of recent developments in housing
investment and regeneration. Glasgow City Council transferred its council housing stock to
the Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) in 2003, allied to a strategy both to reduce the
amount of social housing in the city, and to improve the remainder in order to comply with
the Scottish Housing Quality Standard (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-
Environment/Housing/16342/shqs). GHAs plans have included the demolition of up to
19 000 dwellings, many of these being in high-rise blocks. Whilst this has been proceeding
over the past few years, the advent of economic recession in late 2008 has subsequently
slowed GHAs redevelopment plans for the citys regeneration areas and raised the prospect
that more high-rise blocks may be retained than previously estimated. In addition, some
resident groups have successfully opposed the demolition of their high-rise blocks
(Fergus, 2009).
It is against the backdrop of this general context and the current regeneration situation
that the study has undertaken to analyse the effects of high-rise living in the city of
Glasgow.
Methods
The Survey and Sample
A survey was conducted across 14 areas within Glasgow in the summer of 2006. The areas
chosen represent a range of types of social housing area in the city, subject to different types
of regeneration intervention, ranging from housing improvement programmes, incremental
private sector new-build construction, to wholesale demolition and redevelopment (for more
information see Egan et al., 2010; Egan & Kearns, 2007). The study areas range from the
popular to the less unpopular, from high-rise to low-rise, from entirely social housing to areas
of mixed tenure.
All the locations had a substantial social housing presence, ranging from 40 per cent to
95 per cent (GoWell, 2007a). Addresses were randomly selected from the Postal Address
File and interviews conducted with the householder or partner, yielding 6016 completed
interviews (see Egan et al., 2010 for more details on the study design). However, migrants
were omitted from the analysis. Glasgow has been housing asylum seekers since 2000 and
they tend to be concentrated in some of the locations with the most high-rise flats, but are
largely absent from other areas, and thus they represent an obvious unknown quantity that
might distort the apparent effects of high-rise living.
The restriction to British citizens only results in a total sample of 5151 cases, although
there are some further small reductions in the sample for particular analyses due to dont
know responses and refusals. The numbers in each category can vary slightly between
analyses either because some outcomes are not applicable to certain dwelling types (e.g.
common security features in houses), or due to omitted cases where any of the outcome
elements was missing a response. Of the total remaining sample, 1392 (27.0 per cent) lived
in high-rise flats (6 storeys or more), 1907 (37.0 per cent) in other flats (deck access,
maisonettes and tenements), and 1848 (35.9 per cent) in houses. A comparison with local
property tax records indicates that the sample contains approximately the correct
proportions of these three dwelling types for each study area (within 1 per cent of the actual
proportions). Owner-occupation varied from 5 per cent in high-rise to 20 per cent in other
flats and 47 per cent in houses; the vast majority of the non-owning cases were social renters.
In relation to the study area populations, the sample has a slight under-representation of
adult households and two-parent families (by 6 per cent and 2.5 per cent on average), and
an over-representation of older person households (8.5 per cent on average). Single-parent
families are either over-represented or under-represented in the sample from area to area
(by a maximum of 5 per cent either way). Yet it is worth noting that some of the regeneration
areas in the study that are dominated by high-rise contain 3 4 times as many single-parent
families and large families as in Glasgow or Scotland. Further, residents in the high-rise-
dominated areas in the study have few if any educational qualifications, high benefit
dependency and very low incomes compared with those in employment in the city (see
GoWell, 2007b).
Measures Used
The outcome measures used are summarised in the Appendix. A range of measures across
three domains of residential, social and psychosocial outcomes was chosen to reflect the
breadth of issues commented on in the literature on high-rise. Thus, the measures cover
assessments of quality (e.g. of buildings, services, environment), reported activities and
experiences (e.g. frequency of social contact), and accounts of how people feel (e.g. about
aspects of empowerment and status).
Residential outcomes relate to housing and neighbourhoods. Housing outcomes include
housing satisfaction as well as ratings of space, noise, security and condition. In the
analysis of ratings of dwelling condition, anyone who reported that they had received
housing improvement works to their home in the past year was excluded; this was because
GHA were progressing a housing renewal programme that would differentially improve
houses and low-rise flats over and above high-rise. In the analysis of dwelling security,
anyone who reported that they had had works done to their home in the past year to
external doors and windows or home safety and security measures was excluded.
Neighbourhood outcomes include neighbourhood satisfaction as well as ratings of the
local environment, amenities and anti-social behaviour. For residential outcomes the study
was interested in negative positions, e.g. rating an aspect of the dwelling or neighbourhood
as poor.
Four areas of social outcomes were examined: safety in the area at night-time;
community cohesion; social contacts; and social support. For social outcomes the study
was interested in a mix of negative positions, e.g. disagreeing about the presence of
informal social control, and relatively worse positions, e.g. having less social contact or
less social support than others.
Psychosocial outcomes related to the home and the neighbourhood were also examined
(see Gibson et al., 2011; Kearns et al., 2000). Psychosocial outcomes are phenomena or
constructs lying at the interface between the social and the psychological, involving both
comparisons of ones circumstances with those of others, and perceived control over ones
interactions and relations with others. In line with the key constructs of self-efficacy and
self-esteem emphasised in studies of the psychosocial environment (Siegrist & Marmot,
2004), the psychosocial outcomes cover empowerment issues such as privacy, control and
safety, and status issues such as sense of progress and area reputation. Here the outcomes
of interest are defined more broadly to represent the absence of a psychosocial benefit,
rather than the presence of a negative outcome.
In all cases, the study presents the prevalence of worse outcomes amongst occupants
of houses (reference category) compared with low-rise and high-rise flats. Worse
outcomes are sometimes straightforward and sometimes involve a judgement on the
authors part looking at the pattern of responses. They include: those who gave either of
two negative responses on a Likert scale (e.g. something is fairly poor or very poor);
those who reported a very low frequency (e.g. having social contact no more than once a
month); those who reported multiple negative responses to a group of questions (e.g. on
cohesion); and those who did not report deriving an outcome (e.g. psychosocial
benefits).
Most of the negative outcomes we have investigated occurred in around one-fifth or
fewer cases, with exceptions being some of the psychosocial outcomes, most notably sense
of progress and safety, where worse outcomes occurred in one-third to a half of cases,
reflecting the generally poor situation in social housing areas.
Analyses
Logistic regression models were developed for each measure to estimate the odds ratios
(with 95 per cent confidence intervals) of negative outcomes for respondents. In all
models, there was control for several aspects. First, there was control for personal
characteristics, including age, sex, housing tenure, household type, employment status and
income. As income questions had a poor response rate, a measure of households having
difficulty meeting a range of domestic bills was used in order to divide the sample into
those with more or less financial resources to meet their needs. For housing outcomes there
was control for length of residence in the home; for social and neighbourhood outcomes
there was control for length of residence in the area.
Finally, there was control for area deprivation, since an often-ignored confounder in
looking at the effects of high-rise, particularly in the social housing sector, is that high-rise
blocks are often located in the most deprived estates and neighbourhoods. Based on
calculations at postcode level of the extent of income deprivation within areas of Glasgow
(Walsh, 2008), the sample was divided into the most deprived and the less deprived. The
most deprived areas have income deprivation at least 1.5 times the Glasgow average. All
other areas are also relatively deprived by national standards, reflecting the situation in the
city itself, where 43 per cent of the city is classified as being in the most deprived 15 per
cent of areas in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2009), with all but one of the study areas
falling within this group.
Four sets of analyses were conducted for each outcome measure:
. A comparison of high-rise flats, with other flats and with houses (reference
group), to investigate the effects of dwelling type.
. A comparison of high-rise flats with other flats, restricted to those living on the 5th
floor or below, to investigate the effects of living in tower blocks as a built-form.
. A comparison of those living on the 6th floor or above within a tower block with
those living on the 5th floor or below in towers, to investigate the effects of living at
those heights normally regarded as high.
. A comparison of high-rise flats with other dwellings separately for adult
households (all aged over 16, with no dependent children), families with
dependent children (any children aged under 16 present), and older persons (one
or two adults, of whom at least one is aged over retirement age, and there are no
dependent children), to see whether the effects of high-rise living are
differentiated by household type. All controls other than household type were
applied in these analyses.
The full results from the first set of analyses are presented in Tables in the Findings
section. The results from the other three sets of analyses are given in summary form in two
Tables in the Summary and Discussion section.
Thus, the analyses have several specific characteristics. There is control for up to eight
potential confounders, particularly the personal characteristics of residents, their length
of residence and area deprivation. Second, as far as possible attempts are made to
compare like-with-like, in both people and property terms. Third, there is a separate look
at the effects of high-rise living on different types of household (this has more often been
done in the past through qualitative research with families, for example, than by
quantitative analysis). Fourth, within the category of high-rise, there is a separate
examination of the effects of built form (the fact of being in a tall block) and the effects
of storey height.
Findings
Residential Outcomes: Housing
As Table 2 shows, all seven housing outcomes were more likely to be poor in high-rise
flats than in other flats or houses (although the confidence intervals suggest that one item,
Table 2. Residential outcomes: housing, by dwelling type
n % Odds ratioa CI (95%) p

Dissatisfaction with the home ,0.001
House 1896 5.1 1.00
Other flat 1796 11.2 1.85 (1.41 2.42)
High-rise flat 1361 18.4 2.88 (2.19 3.79)
Poor space ,0.001
House 1896 9.8 1.00
Other flat 1796 15.2 1.39 (1.12 1.73)
High-rise flat 1361 25.6 2.33 (1.86 2.90)
Poor internal noise ,0.001
House 1896 2.5 1.00
Other flat 1796 7.1 2.96 (2.07 4.22)
High-rise flat 1361 14.3 5.30 (3.70 7.59)
Poor security (exc. common areas) ,0.001
House 1804 4.7 1.00
Other flat 1717 9.1 1.84 (1.37 2.45)
High-rise flat 1291 18.4 3.39 (2.54 4.54)
Poor security (inc. common areas) ,0.001
House 1307 7.0 1.00
Other flat 1713 13.7 1.89 (1.45 2.48)
High-rise flat 1291 23.8 3.09 (2.35 4.07)
Poor internal condition ,0.001
House 1501 8.5 1.00
Other flat 1399 16.0 1.67 (1.30 2.13)
High-rise flat 1078 27.6 2.88 (2.24 3.70)
Poor external condition ,0.001
House 1501 8.5 1.00
Other flat 1399 14.1 1.54 (1.19 1.97)
High-rise flat 1078 27.6 2.97 (2.30 3.84)
Note: a Odds ratio after adjusting for age, sex, housing tenure, length of residence in the home, household
type, employment status, income and area deprivation.
home dissatisfaction, may not differ significantly between high-rise and other flats).
Indeed, at least a quarter of high-rise residents reported problems with one or more
elements of space, internal condition and external condition. After adjusting for personal
characteristics and area deprivation, the odds ratios for poor outcomes in high-rise flats
compared with houses ranged between 2.00 and 5.00, with the highest being for problems
of internal noise in high-rise flats (OR 5.30).
All housing outcomes were worse in high-rise flats than in other dwellings (houses and
other flats combined) in the case of each of the three household types examined (adult
households, families and older person households) (results not shown). In the case of one
outcome, poor internal condition, the odds ratio for adult households (OR 2.68)
was significantly higher ( p 0.03) than that for families (OR 1.63) or older persons
(OR 1.60), suggesting that poor internal condition in high-rise flats was noticed more by
pre-retirement, childless households than others.
When flat occupants on the 5th floor or lower were examined (results not shown), poor
outcomes were still more likely in high-rise than other flats, although the odds ratios
were lower than in the main analysis (OR 1.70 2.20). Nonetheless, this indicates that
there is an effect on housing outcomes of living in a tall building per se in comparison
with lower-rise flats. However, no significant differences were found in outcomes

between high-rise occupants on the 6th floor or higher compared with high-rise
occupants on lower floors, so height itself did not have an effect over and above the
effects of building type.
Residential Outcomes: Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood outcomes were often no worse for high-rise residents than for occupants
of flats or houses (see Table 3). In the case of quality of environment and of local services
and amenities, occupants of all types of dwellings were equally likely to identify poor
items, perhaps reflecting the fact that many social housing areas in Glasgow, of whatever
built form, are very deprived. Two exceptions to this were neighbourhood dissatisfaction
and serious anti-social behaviour, where occupants of houses had better outcomes. Only in
the case of anti-social behaviour, however, is it clear (from an examination of the
confidence intervals) that outcomes were worse for high-rise occupants compared with
those of other flats or of houses. The finding for the variable measuring amenity use,
Table 3. Residential outcomes: neighbourhood, by dwelling type

Neighbourhood dissatisfaction ,0.001
House 1870 7.3 1.00
Other flat 1749 14.5 1.64 (1.29 2.09)
High-rise flat 1325 13.2 1.75 (1.33 2 2.29)
Poor environment (exc. play areas) 0.22
House 1870 20.5 1.00
Other flat 1749 21.7 0.91 (0.76 1.08)
High-rise flat 1325 25.8 1.06 (0.87 1.28)
Poor environment (inc. play areas) 2 0.53
House 523 24.5 1.00
Other flat 463 25.3 0.84 (0.61 1.14)
High-rise flat 291 27.1 0.89 (0.61 1.30)
Poor Amenities (exc. schools & childcare) 0.07
House 1870 17.5 1.00
Other flat 1749 15.6 0.84 (0.69 1.01)
High-rise flat 1325 14.3 0.79 (0.63 0.98)
Poor amenities (inc. schools & childcare)b 0.14
House 523 19.9 1.00
Other flat 463 19.2 0.84 (0.59 1.18)
High-rise flat 291 16.2 0.65 (0.42 1.00)
Infrequent use of local amenities ,0.001
House 1851 13.9 1.00
Other flat 1729 8.9 0.62 (0.50 0.78)
High-rise flat 1315 12.0 0.89 (0.70 1.15)
Serious anti-social behaviour problems ,0.001
House 1870 9.5 1.00
Other flat 1749 14.3 1.54 (1.24 1.93)
High-rise flat 1325 22.9 2.64 (2.08 3.35)
Notes: a Odds ratio after adjusting for age, sex, housing tenure, length of residence in the home, household
b
Analysis restricted to family households.
whereby flat occupants (high-rise or other flats) were less likely to use local amenities
infrequently, is harder to interpret. It might reflect the fact that house occupants are more
likely to have mobility through the use of cars and so be less dependent on local amenities,
rather than amenities being poor in high-rise locations, since no marked difference was
found between dwelling types regarding this issue.
The analysis by household type similarly revealed that the vast majority of
neighbourhood outcomes were no different for high-rise occupants than occupants of
other dwelling types (results not shown). The one exception was anti-social behaviour,
where the likelihood of identifying serious problems was greater in high-rise flats than in
other dwellings for both adult and family households (OR . 2.0). Anti-social behaviour
was also worse when high-rise occupants below the 6th floor were compared with occupants
of other flats (OR 1.90, p , 0.001), indicating that tall buildings are associated with
worse perceptions of anti-social behaviour. Perceptions of the local environment, local
amenities and anti-social behaviour were no worse for high-rise dwellers above the 5th floor
compared with those living lower down.
Overall, neighbourhood dissatisfaction was more likely to occur among those living in
high-rise buildings compared with those living in other flats at the same height (5th floor or
below) (OR 1.45, p 0.02) results not shown. However, those on higher storeys (6th
floor or above) were less likely to express neighbourhood dissatisfaction than those living
on lower floors (OR 0.66, p 0.02). Thus, living higher up in a tower block may
insulate residents from feeling bad about their area.
Social Outcomes
Most social outcomes are worse for occupants of flats compared with houses (see Table 4).
Three outcomes, however, are markedly worse in high-rise flats than in both other dwelling
types. Occupants of high-rise flats are around twice as likely as others to perceive poor
cohesion in the local community, to have infrequent social contact with neighbours (less than
once a fortnight) and to have no available means of social support of any kind. Moreover, these
negative outcomes occur for approximately a quarter of high-rise residents.
All household types in high-rise flats experienced less frequent contact with
neighbours, and poorer perceptions of cohesion (results not shown). However, the
greater likelihood of infrequent contact with family and friends and of no social support
in high-rise, whilst true for adult and family households, was no worse for older
households in high-rise than in other dwellings. Being more likely to feel unsafe after
dark among high-rise dwellers was only true for adult households, which might reflect
the fact that this group are the more threatened by their peer group in the area. Although
it is possible that members of family and older households might be more likely to avoid
this feeling by not going out after dark, those who said they never walk alone after dark
were asked if this was because they felt unsafe.
The cohesion, contact and social support outcomes were all worse for those on the
lower floors of high-rise when compared with occupants of other flats, suggesting that
building type has a negative effect upon social relations (results not shown). Some
outcomes were better for high-rise occupants on upper floors compared with their
neighbours lower down in the blocks. Those on the 6th floor or above were less likely to
perceive poor cohesion (OR 0.75, p 0.03), less likely to have infrequent contact
Table 4. Social outcomes, by dwelling type

Feel unsafe walking after dark 0.04
House 1870 15.4 1.00
Other flat 1749 15.8 1.05 (0.86 1.27)
High-rise flat 1325 18.3 1.31 (1.05 1.63)
Poor cohesion ,0.001
House 1870 15.7 1.00
Other flat 1749 15.9 0.94 (0.78 1.14)
High-rise flat 1325 26.3 1.82 (1.49 2.24)
Low social contact with relatives & friends 0.02
House 1870 15.8 1.00
Other flat 1749 16.5 1.13 (0.94 1.37)
High-rise flat 1325 20.3 1.35 (1.09 1.67)
Low social contact with neighbours ,0.001
House 1870 13.6 1.00
Other flat 1749 15.5 1.14 (0.94 1.40)
High-rise flat 1,325 29.3 2.09 (1.70 2.58)
No available social support ,0.001
House 1870 17.0 1.00
Other flat 1749 18.0 1.06 (0.88 1.28)
High-rise flat 1325 24.2 1.77 (1.44 2.17)
Note: a Odds ratio after adjusting for age, sex, housing tenure, length of residence in the home, household
with relatives and friends (OR 0.59, p , 0.001), and less likely to have no social
support (OR 0.61, p , 0.001).
Psychosocial Outcomes
All psychosocial outcomes were worse for occupants of flats than of houses, and some
were also worse in high-rise flats compared with any other dwelling type (see Table 5). In
relation to the dwelling itself, security-related outcomes were at least twice as likely to be
poor in high-rise compared with houses; this is true for privacy, safety and retreat at home.
It is worth noting that not feeling safe at home, and not feeling you can get away from
things at home, affected two-in-five high-rise occupants.
In addition, empowerment-related outcomes from the neighbourhood were also
twice as likely to be poor for high-rise occupants, whether this was feeling a sense of
personal progress from living in the area, or being able to influence decisions about the
area. The other neighbourhood-related outcome, poor external reputation, was more
strongly perceived by both high-rise and other flat occupants than by people living
in houses.
For all but one of these psychosocial outcomes, the effect of high-rise on poor outcomes
was weakest for family household respondents and strongest in older person households
(results not shown). For example, the relative odds of not feeling in control of ones home
in high-rise compared with other dwellings were: older persons 2.33; adults 1.32; families
1.11. Other variables followed a similar pattern. The only exception to this rule is that
Table 5. Psychosocial outcomes, by dwelling type

No feeling of privacy at home ,0.001
House 1896 12.0 1.00
Other flat 1796 16.5 1.36 (1.11 1.67)
High-rise flat 1361 28.3 2.24 (1.81 2.77)
No sense of control of the home ,0.001
House 1870 12.6 1.00
Other flat 1749 17.5 1.29 (1.06 1.58)
High-rise flat 1325 28.5 1.83 (1.48 2.27)
No sense of progress from the home ,0.001
House 1870 26.7 1.00
Other flat 1749 33.8 1.29 (1.10 1.51)
High-rise flat 1325 47.0 1.63 (1.37 1.95)
Do not feel safe in the home ,0.001
House 1870 19.5 1.00
Other flat 1749 23.8 1.16 (0.98 1.39)
High-rise flat 1325 42.7 2.03 (1.68 2.45)
No sense of retreat at home ,0.001
House 1906 21.9 1.00
Other flat 1804 28.0 1.24 (1.05 1.46)
High-rise flat 1374 49.9 2.59 (2.17 3.09)
Poor empowerment in relation ,0.001
to landlord or factorb
House 1031 6.1 1.00
Other flat 1369 11.9 1.85 (1.35 2.54)
High-rise flat 1272 9.8 1.52 (1.08 2.13)
No sense of progress from ,0.001
neighbourhood
House 1906 46.0 1.00
Other flat 1804 51.4 1.17 (1.02 1.35)
High-rise flat 1374 67.2 2.11 (1.79 2.48)
Strong perception of areas poor 0.01
external reputation
House 1870 6.4 1.00
Other flat 1749 8.5 1.31 (1.01 1.71)
High-rise flat 1325 9.2 1.56 (1.15 2.11)
Poor local area empowerment ,0.001
House 1870 11.7 1.00
Other flat 1749 13.1 1.07 (0.86 1.32)
High-rise flat 1325 21.7 2.03 (1.63 2.55)
Notes: a Odds ratio after adjusting for age, sex, housing tenure, length of residence in the home, household
b
Respondents without a landlord or factor were excluded from this analysis.
living in high-rise had a greater impact upon feeling strongly that the area has a poor
external reputation for adults compared with other households.
All but two of the psychosocial outcomes (poor area reputation and poor housing
empowerment) were significantly worse for high-rise occupants on the lower floors,
compared with other flat dwellers (results not shown). This indicates that the built form of
tower blocks has a negative effect, particularly upon security-related feelings at home, and
status- and empowerment-related feelings about the area. The implication that this is a
built-form effect is strengthened by the finding that none of the psychosocial outcomes
was any worse for occupants of high storeys in tower blocks compared with those living
lower down.
Summary and Discussion

Table 6 summarises the findings of the built-form analyses. In one of the largest and most
extensive studies of its kind, across relatively deprived communities in a north European,
post-industrial city in the early 21st century, it was found that most outcomes (residential,
social and psychosocial) are more likely to be poor or worse for flat dwellers compared
with house occupants, and that many outcomes are even more likely to be poor for high-
rise residents compared with anyone else. In particular, high-rise dwellings are relatively
prone to offering poor quality in terms of physical condition, space, sound insulation and
Table 6. Summary of the built-form effects identified
High-rise flat Tower block Higher storey

(worse outcomes) (worse outcomes) (better outcomes)
Housing outcomes: p p
Dissatisfaction with home p ** p ** X
Poor space p ** p ** X
Poor internal noise p ** p ** X
Poor security (home only) p ** p ** X
Poor security (inc. common areas) p ** p ** X
Poor internal condition p ** p ** X
Poor external condition ** ** X
Neighbourhood outcomes: p p p
Dissatisfaction with neighbourhood ** * * (better)
Poor environment X X X
Poor environment (inc play areas) X X X
Poor amenities X X X
Poor amenities (inc schools/c.care) p X X X
Infrequent use of local amenities **p(better) pX X
Serious anti-social behaviour ** ** X
Social outcomes: p
Unsafe after dark p * pX p X
Poor cohesion p ** p ** p * (better)
Low contact with relatives/friends p * p ** ** (better)
Low contact with neighbours p ** p ** p X
No social support ** ** ** (better)
Psychosocial outcomes: p p
No privacy at home p ** p * X
No control at home p ** p ** X
No sense of progress from home p ** p * X
Not safe in home p ** p ** X
No retreat at home p ** ** X
Poor housing empowerment p ** pX X
No sense of progress from nhd. p ** ** X
Poor area reputation p * pX p X
Poor local empowerment ** ** * (better)
p p
Notes: **p ,0.01. *p ,0.05
security. A further significant set of problems relates to the communality of high-rise, with
occupants being less likely than people elsewhere to derive recuperative psychosocial
benefits of the home such as privacy, safety, and retreatthings which are important for
mental health in a busy, dense and diverse modern society.
The difficulties of high-rise extend beyond the dwelling itself to the surrounding area.
High-rise occupants were more likely to have a weak sense of community, citing serious
anti-social behaviour problems to a greater degree than others, alongside a weaker sense of
community cohesion, i.e. being less likely to rely upon or trust others. This is not simply a
product of the fear factor in some locations, as high-rise occupants also exhibited lower
levels of social contact and weaker social support networks, so that everyday life appears
to be altered by living in high-rise.
This was confirmed by the analyses which compared high-rise occupants on the lower
storeys with occupants of other flats at similar heights; all the social outcomes, together
with the housing outcomes and the vast majority of the psychosocial outcomes, were
worse for those in the high-rise buildings (see column labelled Tower Block in Table 6).
However, given this fact, it was also found that for several of the social outcomes and for
neighbourhood satisfaction, outcomes were less likely to be poor for occupants of higher
storeys, suggesting that, given the socially erosive effects of high-rise, living higher up
may offer some insulation from the negative impacts of the surrounding area (see column
labelled Higher Storey in Table 6).
In terms of the salient characteristics of high-rise identified earlier in Table 1, it was
found that all three main dimensions are relevant. The dwelling-type dimensions of high-
rise flats give rise to worse housing, social outcomes and psychosocial outcomes (see
column labelled High-Rise Flat in Table 6), although the structural form of tower blocks
also affects most of these outcomes. Given the fact of high-rise living, height itself seems
to have a positive or ameliorating effect on some of the social outcomes, with those on
upper storeys being less likely to have a negative perception of community cohesion and
more likely to have regular contact with neighbours and available social support.
The management of high-rise is implicated in worse outcomes in several ways. Poor
maintenance would to some degree account for the range of poor condition outcomes. A
mixture of an inadequate staffing presence and allocations practices that treat high-rise as a
dumping ground for tenants with a wide range of social needs would help explain the
poorer control-related psychosocial outcomes and the relatively low contact with
neighbours in high-rise.
The context of high-rise is important: estate density may play a part in the worse
control-related outcomes such as privacy and retreat; the location of high-rise estates,
combined with their unattractiveness, may make contacts with relatives and friends more
difficult, whilst estate layout may lower casual contacts with neighbours and make people
feel unsafe outdoors. On the other hand, the study did not find the quality or use of local
amenities to be a significant and detrimental dimension to high-rise living, compared with
living in other types of dwellings in deprived areas.
Table 7 summarises the findings for the effects of high-rise on different household
types; over one-third of the outcomes examined differed in prevalence between household
types. In contrast to the impression given by much of the literature on high-rise, the study
did not consistently find outcomes in high-rise to be worse for families. Indeed, adult
household respondents recorded the largest number of effects, whilst family household
respondents were the least affected in terms of psychosocial outcomes. Family
Table 7. Summary of high-risea effects by household type
Adult Family Older Person

(worse outcomes) (worse outcomes) (worse outcomes)
Housing outcomes: p p
Dissatisfaction with home p ** p ** pX
Poor space p ** p ** p **
Poor internal noise p ** p ** p **
Poor security (home only) p ** p ** p **
Poor security (inc. common areas) p ** p ** p **
Poor internal condition p ** p ** p *
Poor external condition ** ** **
Neighbourhood outcomes:
Dissatisfaction with neighbourhood X X pX
Poor environment X X *
Poor environment (inc play areas) n/a p n/a n/a
Poor amenities X * (better) X
Poor amenities (inc schools/c.care) n/a n/a n/a
Infrequent use of local amenities pX pX X
Serious anti-social behaviour ** ** X
Social outcomes: p
Unsafe after dark p ** pX pX
Poor cohesion p ** p ** **
Low contact with relatives/friends p * p ** pX
Low contact with neighbours p ** p ** **
No social support ** ** X
Psychosocial outcomes: p p p
No privacy at home p ** * p **
No control at home p* X p **
No sense of progress from home p * X p **
Not safe in home p ** pX p **
No retreat at home ** ** **
Poor housing empowerment pX pX pX
No sense of progress from nhd. p ** * **
Poor area reputation p ** X pX
Poor local empowerment ** X **
a
Notes:
p High-rise
p flats compared with other flats and houses (combined).
**p ,0.01. *p ,0.05
respondents and adult household respondents were more likely to report low levels of
social contact with relatives, friends and neighbours, and also a lack of social support,
indicating an isolating effect of high-rise on these household types. Adult households
were the most likely to identify problems of safety at night and a negative area reputation.
Older person respondents were least affected by high-rise in social terms but often the
most affected in psychosocial terms, and the most critical in terms of the neighbourhood
environment. Thus, different types of household are differentially influenced by particular
issues in high-rise, but not necessarily in the ways that might be expected.
Conclusion
It has been shown that for relatively deprived individuals and communities in a medium-
sized city in the UK, high-rise housing offers greater challenges than other dwelling types
and built forms for providing the best residential, social and psychosocial outcomes for
their occupants. Nonetheless, as has already been noted, it is unrealistic to expect that all
social sector (or lower-market) high-rise housing will be replaced in the foreseeable future,
if at all. In these circumstances, the study suggests that action is needed on several fronts to
try to raise the performance of high-rise. On a case-by-case basis technical decisions must
be made as to whether particular problems of high-rise can be solved, such as those
relating to noise, security and condition. The management of high-rise blocks and estates
must be improved in its degree of intensity and community engagement in order to tackle
problems of anti-social behaviour and a generally weaker sense of control and
empowerment among high-rise occupants.
Beyond this, high-rise estates require social and community-level interventions, not
simply neighbourhood- or area-based improvement programmes. Although the study did
not find poor ratings of the local environment and local amenities to be more common
among high-rise residents compared with others, nonetheless, measures of cohesion,
contact, social support and area level empowerment were found to be worse. This suggests
that regeneration programmes for mass housing estates have to take seriously the social
regeneration agenda and not rely on a hope that physical and service improvements will
subsequently rub off at the community level.
There are also issues of culture, status and reputation. Apart perhaps from iconic
architecture, high-rise housing, at least in the UK, suffers from stigma. If high-rise is going
to be retained as a significant although small proportion of the UK housing stock, then
substantial physical renewal needs to go hand-in-hand with more intensive block and
neighbourhood management, plus strategies to change the image of high-rise housing from
that of slums in the sky (Hanley, 2007), and the image of high-rise estates away from that
of the scheme.
Unless high-rise can be convincingly shown to provide decent homes in sustainable
communities, and thus as being at least an acceptable if not desirable form of
accommodation in the social sector, its occupants may continue to feel that living in high-
rise reflects badly on themselves, reinforcing a sense of powerlessness which is detrimental
to making progress on a range of fronts, both personally and collectively; recall that it was
found that psychosocial measures relating to personal progress and empowerment were
much worse in high-rise. Raising the status of high-rise and its residents depends both on
what is done to and with high-rise estates and the communities therein, but also on how
society talks about high-rise and how it is represented in the mass media. It could be argued
that public policy and the managers of high-rise housing have to accept this challenge of
presenting and promoting a better image of high-rise, in addition to the physical and social
renewal tasks.
Finally, there is a return to the question of context. On the local level, an important
question of context is left untouched in this study, namely to what extent the effects of
high-rise depend upon the scale of development involved; in other words, does the
clustering of high-rise tower blocks in certain numbers produce additional impacts, and
is there a threshold effect involved (Galster et al., 2000)? The issue of such a threshold
effect is more often investigated with respect to residential density than to the impacts of
the built form itself, and also more often posed than answered. Recently, findings from
three Canadian cities that perceptions of incivility rise as housing density rises led to the
suggestion that this could be called a threshold effect, although without ascertaining
the fact (Keown, 2008), whilst the possibility of a threshold effect of residential density
on total physical activity and walking specifically was empirically rejected in research in
two US cities (Forsyth et al., 2007). Something similar to the notion of a clustering effect
of high-rise blocks was hypothesised some time ago by Newman & Franck (1982) who
discussed a threshold effect whereby . . . a strong relationship between building size
and crime may be limited to high-rise buildings of different heights, to large housing
developments, or to high-rise buildings that also form large developments (p. 218). That
is the type of question the authors here wish to return to in further research, whilst
examining a wider range of social and psychosocial outcomes than previous studies have
considered.
On the larger scale, whether high-rise works depends upon the environmental, social,
political and economic context not only of the high-rise neighbourhood itself, but also of
the wider society in which it is located. Thus, it cannot be claimed that the findings here are
generalisable beyond the UK, although many particular findings may be applicable to
similar, advanced, liberal democracies in Western Europe. At the national level, there
remains an issue as to what aspects of context matter for successful high-rise. At the outset
it was noted that high-rise is returning as a popular built form (at least with planners and
developers) for inner city and riverside redevelopment projects, but whether the different
locations, tenure structures and management arrangements involved will enable these
high-rise projects to avoid many of the problems that have been found to exist for high-rise
in other localities is an important question that needs to be answered if future problems are
not to be created by todays higher density renaissance.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of the GoWell Glasgow Community Health and Wellbeing Research and
Learning Programme (www.gowellonline.com). GoWell is a collaborative partnership between the Glasgow
Centre for Population Health, the University of Glasgow and the Medical Research Council Social and Public
Health Sciences Unit, sponsored by Glasgow Housing Association, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS
Health Scotland and the Scottish Government.
References
Ambrose, P. (2000) A Drop in the Ocean. The Health Gain from the Central Stepney SRB in the Context of
National Health Inequalities (Brighton: Health and Social Policy Research Centre, University of Sussex).
Anson, B. (1986) Dont shoot the graffiti man, Architects Journal, 183(28), pp. 16 17.
Appold, S. & Yuen, B. (2007) Families in flats, revisited, Urban Studies, 44(3), pp. 569589.
Baxter, R. & Lees, L. (2009) The re-birth of high-rise in London: towards a sustainable, inclusive and liveable
urban form, in: R. Imrie, L. Lees & M. Raco (Eds) Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and
Community in a Global City, pp. 151 172 (London: Routledge).
Brown, G. W., Brolchain, M. N. & Harris, T. (1975) Social class and psychiatric disturbance among women in
urban populations, Sociology, 9(2), pp. 225 254.
Calthorpe, P. (2009) HOPE VI and New Urbanism, in: H. G. Cisneros & L. Engdahl (Eds) From Despair to Hope:
HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in Americas Cities, pp. 4963 (Washington: Brookings
Institution Press).
Churchman, A. & Ginsberg, Y. (1984) The image and experience of high rise housing in Israel, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 4(1), pp. 2741.
Cochrane, A. (1999) Administered cities, in: S. Pile, C. Brook & G. Mooney (Eds) Unruly Cities?, pp. 299335
(London: Routledge/Open University).
Cole, I., Foden, M., Robinson, D. & Wilson, I. (2010) Interventions in Housing and the Physical Environment in
Deprived Neighbourhoods. Evidence from the New Deal for Communities Programme (London: CLG).
Coleman, A. (1985) Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing (London: Hilary Shipman).
Cook, D. A. & Morgan, H. G. (1982) Families in high rise flats, British Medical Journal, 284(6319), p. 846.
Critchley, R., Gilbertson, J., Green, G. & Grimsley, M. (2004) Housing Investment and Health in Liverpool
(Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University).
Croucher, K., Myers, L., Jones, R., Ellaway, A. & Beck, S. (2007) Health and the Physical Characteristics of
Urban Neighbourhoods: A Critical Literature Review (Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health).
CTBUH (2008) Tall buildings in numbers, CTBUH Journal, Issue II, pp. 4041.
Doucet, B. (2010) Rich Cities with Poor People: Waterfront Regeneration in the Netherlands and Scotland.
Netherlands Geographical Studies 391 (Utrecht: Geography Faculty, University of Utrecht).
Dunleavy, P. (1981) The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain, 19451975: A Study of Corporate Power and
Professional Influence in the Welfare State (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Egan, M., Kearns, A. & Mason, P. (2010) Protocol for a mixed methods study investigating the impact of
investment in housing, regeneration and neighbourhood renewal on the health and wellbeing of residents: the
GoWell programme, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, p. 41.
Egan, M. & Kearns, A. (2007) Selection, definition and description of study areas. Working Paper 2 (Glasgow:
GoWell /Glasgow Centre for Population Health).
Evans, G. (2003) The built environment and mental health, Journal of Urban Health, 80(4), pp. 536 555.
Evans, G., Lercher, P. & Kofler, W. (2002) Crowding and childrens mental health: the role of house type,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(3), pp. 221232.
Evans, G., Wells, N. M. & Moch, A. (2003) Housing and mental health: a review of the evidence and a
methodological and conceptual critique, Journal of Social Issues, 59(3), pp. 475500.
Fanning, D. M. (1967) Families in flats, British Medical Journal, 4, pp. 382386.
Fergus, E. (2009) Tenants win battle to keep Glasgow high flats, Evening Times. Available at http://www.
eveningtimes.co.uk/tenants-win-battle-to-keep-glasgow-high-flats-1.969669.
Forsyth, A., Oakes, J. M., Schmitz, K. H. & Hearst, M. (2007) Does residential density increase walking and other
physical activity? Urban Studies, 44(4), pp. 679 697.
Freeke, J. (2008) Analysis of tenure change in Scotland, Glasgow conurbation and Glasgow city. Working paper
(Glasgow: Glasgow City Council).
Galster, G., Quercia, R. & Cortes, A. (2000) Identifying neighbourhood thresholds: an empirical exploration,
Housing Policy Debate, 11(3), pp. 701 732.
Gibson, M., Thomson, H., Kearns, A. & Petticrew, M. (2011) Understanding the psychosocial impacts of housing
type: qualitative evidence from a study of housing relocation, Housing Studies, 26(4), pp. 555 573.
Goetz, E. (2010) Desegregation in 3D: displacement, dispersal and development in American public housing,
Housing Studies, 25(2), pp. 137 158.
GoWell (2007a) Community Health and Wellbeing Survey: Baseline Findings 2006 (Glasgow: Glasgow Centre
for Population Health).
GoWell (2007b) The Regeneration Challenge in Transformation Areas (Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population
Health).
Grainger, S. & Robinson, A. (2004) Housing and Health in Scotland: Analysis of the 2002 Scottish House
Condition Survey. SHCS Working Paper No. 2 (Scotland: Scottish Executive / Communities Scotland).
Hanley, L. (2007) Estates: An Intimate History (London: Granta Books).
Hartig, T., Mang, M. & Evans, G. W. (1991) Restorative effects of natural environment experiences,
Environmental Behaviour, 23(1), pp. 326.
Heck, S. (1987) Oscar Newman revisited, Architects Journal, 185(14), pp. 3032.
Hillier, B. (1986) City of Alices dreams, Architects Journal, 184(28), pp. 3941.
Hinchliffe, S. (2006a) Energy Efficiency and Estimated Emissions from the Scottish Housing Stock2003/04
(Edinburgh: Scottish Executive).
Hinchliffe, S. (2006b) Scottish House Condition Survey Fuel Poverty Report 2003/04 (Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive).
Hopkins, L. (2007) Social capital, health and electronic community in public high-rise estates: an Australian
case-study, Health Sociology Review, 16(2), pp. 169178.
Horsey, M. (1988) Multi-storey council housing in Britain: introduction and spread, Planning Perspectives, 3(2),
pp. 167 196.
Horsey, M. (1990) Tenements & Towers. Glasgow Working Class Housing 18901990 (Edinburgh: Royal
Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland).
House of Commons Transport Local Government and the Regions Committee (2002) Tall Buildings, Sixteenth
Report of Session 20012, HC 482-I (London: House of Commons).
Huang, S-C. L. (2006) A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 78(3), pp. 193 204.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House).
Jacobs, J. (1995) The uses of sidewalks, in: P. Kasinitz (Ed.) Metropolis: Centre and Symbol of Our Time,
pp. 111129 (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
Jacobs, J. M., Cairns, S. & Strebel, I. (2007) A tall storey . . . but, a fact just the same: the Red Road high-rise as
a black box, Urban Studies, 44(3), pp. 609629.
Kaplan, S. (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 15(3), pp. 169 182.
Kearns, A., Hiscock, R., Macintyre, S. & Ellaway, A. (2000) Beyond four walls: the psychosocial benefits of
home. Evidence from West Central Scotland, Housing Studies, 15(3), pp. 387 410.
Keown, L-A. (2008) Life in metropolitan areas: a profile of perceptions of incivility in the metropolitan
landscape, Canadian Social Trends, No.86 (Statistics Canada). Available at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/
11-008-x/2008002/article/10621-eng.htm#a6
Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (2001) Environment and crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment and Behaviour, 33(3), pp. 343367.
Ley, D. (1987) Styles of the times: Liberal and Neo-conservative landscapes in inner Vancouver, 1968 86, in:
N. Fyfe & J. T. Kenny (Eds, 2005) The Urban Geography Reader, pp. 304 314 (London: Routledge).
Lin, G. W. (1988) A comparison of the relationships among residents living in apartments with escalator and
without escalator, Masters Thesis, Taiwan, Chung Yuan Christian University.
Lowry, S. (1990) Families and flats, British Medical Journal, 300(6719), pp. 245 247.
Marsh, A., Gordon, D., Heslop, P. & Pantazis, C. (2000) Housing deprivation and health: a longitudinal analysis,
Housing Studies, 15(3), pp. 411428.
Mayor of London (2001) Interim Strategic Planning Guidance on Tall Buildings, Strategic Views and the Skyline
in London (London: Greater London Authority).
McCormack, G., Giles-Corti, B., Lange, A., Smith, T., Martin, K. & Pikora, T. J. (2004) An update of recent
evidence of the relationship between objective and self-measures of the physical environment and physical
activity behaviours, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7(1), Supplement, pp. 81 92.
McDonald, P. & Brownlee, H. (1993) High-rise parenting: raising children in Melbournes high-rise estates,
Family Matters, 36, pp. 415.
Min, B. & Lee, J. (2006) Childrens neighbourhood place as a psychological and behavioural domain, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 26(1), pp. 5171.
Mooney, G. & Poole, L. (2005) Marginalised voices: resisting the privatisation of council housing in Glasgow,
Local Economy, 20(1), pp. 2739.
Moore, N. C. (1975) The personality and mental health of flat dwellers, British Journal of Psychiatry,
128(3), pp. 259261.
Musterd, S. & van Kempen, R. (2005) Large Housing Estates in European Cities: Opinions of Residents on
Recent Developments (Utrecht: Urban & Regional Research Centre).
Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City (London: Architectural Press).
Newman, O. & Franck, K. A. (1982) The effects of building size on personal crime and fear of crime, Population
and Environment, 5(4), pp. 203220.
ODPM (2005) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (London: ODPM).
Pevalin, D. J., Taylor, M. P. & Todd, J. (2008) The dynamics of unhealthy housing in the UK: a panel data
analysis, Housing Studies, 23(5), pp. 679 695.
Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., Bull, F., Jamiozik, K. & Donovan, R. (2005) Neighbourhood
environmental factors correlated with walking near home: using SPACES, Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 38(4), pp. 708 714.
Saegart, S. (1982) Environments and childrens mental health: residential density and low income children, in:
A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds) Handbook of Psychology and Health, pp. 247 271 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
Siegrist, J. & Marmot, M. (2004) Health inequalities and the psychosocial environmenttwo scientific
challenges, Social Science & Medicine, 58(8), pp. 14631473.
Sim, D. (1993) British Housing Design (Harlow: Longman).
Scottish Government (2009) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: General Report (Edinburgh: Scottish
Government).
Slater, T. (2006) The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 30(4), pp. 737757.
Smith, J. (1984) Labour tradition in Glasgow and Liverpool, History Workshop Journal, 17(1), pp. 3256.
Social Exclusion Unit (2001) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan
(London: Cabinet Office).
Towers, G. (2000) Shelter is not Enough: Transforming Multi-Storey Housing (Bristol: The Policy Press).
Turkington, R. (2004) Britain: high-rise as a doubtful guest, in: R. Turkington, R. van Kempen & F. Wassenberg
(Eds) High-Rise Housing in Europe: Current Trends and Future Prospects, pp. 147164 (Delft: DUP
Science).
Turner, S. M. (2008) Health and Wellbeing in GoWell and Social Housing Areas in Glasgow (Glasgow: Glasgow
Centre for Population Health).
Turok, I. (2005) Cities, competition and competitiveness: identifying new connections, in: N. Buck, I. Gordon,
A. Harding & I. Turok (Eds) Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion and
Governance, pp. 2543 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Ulrich, R. (1994) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery, Science, 224(4647),
pp. 420 421.
Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance (London: DETR).
Waldorf, P. (2006) Health Hazards from Pigeons, Starlings and English Sparrows (London: Bell Environmental
Services).
Walker, P. & Meikle, J. (2010) Fears grow over safety of tower blocks after ninth-floor flat blaze kills two
firefighters, The Guardian, 8 April, p. 4.
Walsh, D. (2008) Health and Wellbeing in Glasgow and the GoWell AreasDeprivation Based Analyses
(Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health).
Warr, D., Tacticos, T., Kelaher, M. & Klein, H. (2007) Money, stress, jobs: residents perceptions of
health-impairing factors in poor neighbourhoods, Health & Place, 13(3), pp. 743756.
Wassenberg, F., Turkington, R. & van Kempen, R. (2004) Prospects for high-rise housing estates, in:
R. Turkington, R. van Kempen & F. Wassenberg (Eds) High-Rise Housing in Europe: Current Trends and
Future Prospects, pp. 265280 (Delft: DUP Science).
Wener, R. & Carmalt, H. (2006) Environmental psychology and sustainability in high-rise structures, Technology
in Society, 28(1 2), pp. 157167.
Williamson, R. C. (1981) Adjustment to high-rise: variables in a German sample, Environment and Behaviour,
13(3), pp. 289 310.
Yip, N-M., La Grange, A. & Forrest, R. (2009) Making space: residential trajectories in Hong Kong, Urban
Geography, 30(7), pp. 756 778.
Yuen, B. (2007) Squatters no more: Singapore social housing, Urban Development, 3(1), pp. 1 22.
Yuen, B., Yeh, A., Appold, S. J., Earl, G., Ting, J. & Kwee, L. K. (2006) High-rise living in Singapore public
housing, Urban Studies, 43(3), pp. 583600.
Appendix: Definition of Outcome Measures
Table A1. Residential outcome measures: housing
Dimension Variable Outcome categorya Prevalence n
Dwelling satisfaction Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you fairly or very dissatisfied 11% 5151
with your home?
Dwelling space How would you rate your current home in Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 16% 5151
terms of the following? least one of these three items.
- overall space; storage space; internal layout
of the home.
Internal noise How would you rate your current home in fairly poor or very poor 8% 5151
terms of the following?
- noise within the building
Security (home only) How would you rate your current home in Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 10% 4905
terms of the following? least one item
- front door; security of the home
Security (inc. common areas)b How would you rate your current home in Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 15% 4396
- front door; security of home; security of the
common areas
Internal conditionc How would you rate your current home in Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 16% 4063
terms of the following? least two items
- quality or condition of bathroom/
shower room; quality or condition of kitchen;
heating system; state of repair inside the
home; internal decoration
External conditionc How would you rate your current home in Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 16% 4063
- insulation; state of repair outside the home,
for example roofs, gutters, walls; windows
Notes: a Unless otherwise stated, dont know responses have been included as constituting a response that was not negative.
Living the High Life?
b
509 respondents living in houses said the item security in common areas was not applicable to them, so these cases have been omitted from the analysis.
c
Respondents who had improvement works in the past year were excluded.
123
Table A2. Residential outcome measures: neighbourhood
124
Neighbourhood satisfaction Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your home? fairly or very dissatisfied 11% 5151
Neighbourhood environment How would you rate the quality of your neighbourhood in terms Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 22% 5151
(excluding play areas) of the following things? least one item.
- attractive buildings; attractive environment; quiet & peaceful
environment; parks/open spaces
Neighbourhood environment How would you rate the quality of your neighbourhood in terms Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 25% 1335
A. Kearns et al.
(including play areas)b of the following things? least two items.

- as above, plus childrens play areas
Neighbourhood services and How would you rate the quality of the following services in and Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 16% 5151
amenities (excluding schools & childcare) around your local area? least two items.
- public transport; rubbish collection; youth & leisure services;
policing; shops; banking or financial services; health centre / GP
Neighbourhood services and amenities How would you rate the quality of the following services in and Those saying fairly poor or very poor to at 19% 1335
(including schools and childcare)b around your local area? least two items.
- as above, plus schools; childcare or nurseries.
Use of local amenitiesc For each of the following types of places or amenities that Those who reported that only 50% or less of 12% 5098
people go to, can you tell me whether you mostly use these their amenity use was in the local area.
amenities within or outside your local area?
- sports facilities, swimming pool or gym; other social venues,
e.g. bingo, pub, bowling, dancing, social club; park or play area;
post office; small/local grocers; supermarket; general shopping
(not food); library; community centre; job centre.
Anti-social behaviourd Could you tell me whether you think that each of these is a Those who identified 4 or more items as 15% 5151
serious problem, a slight problem or not a problem in your local serious problems.
neighbourhood?
-Vandalism; violence; intimidation; noisy neighbours; abandoned
cars; racial harassment; drugs; drunkenness; gang activity;
teenagers hanging around; problem families; dogs; rubbish;
vacant buildings; sectarianism; house break-ins; untidy gardens.
Notes: a Unless otherwise stated, dont know responses have been included as constituting a response that was not negative.
b
Analysis restricted to family respondents only.
c
53 respondents claimed not to make use of any of the amenities listed, so were excluded from the analysis.
d
Items were described in slightly more detail than given here, e.g. people being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street.
Table A3. Social outcome measures

Safety at night How safe would you feel walking alone in this Those who said a bit unsafe or very 16% 5151
neighbourhood after dark? unsafe
Community To what extent do you feel that you belong to this Those who gave at least two negative 19% 5151
cohesion neighbourhood? responses from:
To what extent do you agree that this neighbourhood is a Belonging: not at all
place where people from different backgrounds get on well Harmony: generally disagree
together? Social control: disagree or disagree
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following strongly
statement? Honesty: disagree or disagree strongly
- It is likely that someone would intervene if a group of youths
were harassing someone in the local area
- Someone who lost a purse or wallet around here would be
likely to have it returned without anything missing.
Social contact with How often do you do any of the following? Those who say less often than once a 18% 5151
family & friends -meet up with relatives month or never to at least one item.
- meet up with friends
Social contact with How often do you do any of the following? Those who say once or twice a month,
neighbours - speak to neighbours less often than once a month or never 19% 5151
Social support Thinking about your relatives, friends and neighbours outside Those who answered none, would not
your home, can you tell me around how many people could ask or dont know to all three items. 20% 5151
you ask for the following kinds of help?
- to go to the shops for messages when you are unwell
[practical]
- to lend you money to see you through the next few days
[financial]
- to give you advice and support in a crisis [emotional]
Note: a Unless otherwise stated, dont know responses have been included as constituting a response that was not negative.
Living the High Life?
125
Table A4. Psychosocial outcome measures
126
Dimension Variable Outcome Category Prevalence n
Privacy at home How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree, strongly disagree, neither agree nor 18% 5147
statement? disagree or dont know.
- I feel I have privacy in my home.
Control of home How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree, strongly disagree, neither agree nor 19% 5147
A. Kearns et al.
- I feel in control of my home

Sense of progress via home How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree, strongly disagree, neither agree nor 35% 5147
- My home makes me feel I am doing well in life
Safety at home How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree, strongly disagree, neither agree nor 28% 5147
- I feel safe in my home.
Retreat at home How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree, strongly disagree, neither agree nor 32% 5147
- I can get away from it all in my home
Empowerment: housinga Thinking about your landlord/factor, how satisfied or Those who are fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. 10% 3810
dissatisfied are you with . . .
- Their willingness to take account of residents views when
making decisions.
Sense of progress via How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree, strongly disagree, neither agree nor 54% 5147
neighbourhood statement? disagree or dont know.
- Living in this neighbourhood helps make me feel that Im
doing well in my life.
Area reputation How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who strongly agree 8% 5147
statement?
- Many people in Glasgow think this neighbourhood has a bad
reputation.
Empowerment: area How much do you agree or disagree with the following Those who disagree or strongly disagree 15% 5151
statement?
- On your own, or with others, you can influence decisions
affecting your local area.
a
Notes: Homeowners without a factor were excluded from this analysis.
Copyright of Housing Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Living The High Life

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Living The High Life

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Housing Studies,

Vol. 27, No. 1, 97126, January 2012

Living the High Life? Residential, Social

(Received June 2010; revised December 2010)

Introduction: Competing Contemporary Narratives about High-Rise

The Effects of High-Rise Living

Early Critiques: Crime, Vandalism and Informal Social Control

Mental Health Effects

Impacts on Families and Children

Physical Health Effects

Salient Characteristics of High-Rise

Studying the Impacts of High-Rise Living in a Deprived UK Context

Table 1. Detrimental dimensions of high-rise

Dimension Component Aspect having negative effects

loss of population through overspill to surrounding towns (Horsey, 1990). Indeed,

Table 2. Residential outcomes: housing, by dwelling type

n % Odds ratioa CI (95%) p

with lower-rise flats. However, no significant differences were found in outcomes

Residential Outcomes: Neighbourhood

Table 3. Residential outcomes: neighbourhood, by dwelling type

n % Odds ratioa CI (95%) p

Table 4. Social outcomes, by dwelling type

n % Odds ratioa CI (95%) p

Table 5. Psychosocial outcomes, by dwelling type

n % Odds ratioa CI (95%) p

Summary and Discussion

Table 6. Summary of the built-form effects identified

High-rise flat Tower block Higher storey

Table 7. Summary of high-risea effects by household type

Adult Family Older Person

Dimension Variable Outcome categorya Prevalence n

Dimension Variable Outcome categorya Prevalence n

(including play areas)b of the following things? least two items.

Dimension Variable Outcome categorya Prevalence n

Dimension Variable Outcome Category Prevalence n

- I feel in control of my home

You might also like