This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 09:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Housing StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20

Building Competitiveness and Cohesion:The Role of New Housebuilding inCentral Scotland's CitiesGLEN BRAMLEY a & JAMES MORGAN aa School of the Built Environment , Heriot-Watt University ,Edinburgh, ScotlandPublished online: 14 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: GLEN BRAMLEY & JAMES MORGAN (2003) Building Competitiveness and Cohesion:The Role of New Housebuilding in Central Scotland's Cities, Housing Studies, 18:4, 447-471, DOI:10.1080/02673030304245

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030304245

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Housing Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, 447–471, July 2003

Building Competitiveness and Cohesion: The Role ofNew Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities

GLEN BRAMLEY & JAMES MORGAN

School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland

[Paper first received 30 September 2002; in final form 17 February 2003]

ABSTRACT This paper begins by mapping out the ways in which new private house-building may impinge on two of the key themes of contemporary urban policy, economiccompetitiveness and social cohesion. It then examines aspects of this relationship in moredepth, drawing on evidence from Central Scotland. First, it considers the pattern of newhousing provision in two adjacent city regions. Second, it examines buyers’ choice ofnew housing per se and between higher density, urban locations versus lower densitysuburban locations for new housing. Third, it looks at the role of new building inpromoting social cohesion/integration. A mixture of sources of evidence are drawn on,particularly surveys of residents of selected new housing schemes and existing neigh-bourhoods in Central Scotland, but also linked analyses of planning and market data.The conclusions draw attention to the significant role of new housebuilding in support-ing city competitiveness and regeneration, at the same time as its rather unevencontribution to sustainability and balanced communities becomes apparent. This leads tosome positive pointers for policy while recognising the inherent conflicts betweendifferent dimensions of social cohesion.

KEY WORDS: new housing, cities, competitiveness, cohesion

Introduction

This paper addresses some key aspects of the relationship between new house-building and the competitiveness and social cohesion of cities. It focuses on newprivate sector housing in the two major city regions of Central Scotland,Glasgow and Edinburgh, and presents new empirical evidence based ontargeted household surveys conducted there. As such it contributes to a widerdebate in the UK and elsewhere on the future policies and prospects for cities,stimulated in part by major policy reviews (DETR, 1999, 2000; Scottish Executive,2003) and in part by the major ESRC research programme on ‘Cities: competi-tiveness and cohesion’ of which this project forms one small part.

The Rogers report (DETR, 1999) calls for an urban renaissance, couched verymuch in terms of providing an urban environment which people will want tochoose to live in. This puts housing at the centre of urban policy. But in theincreasingly knowledge-based economy of the early 21st century, cities are alsoseen as significant focal points for processes of creativity and interaction which

0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 Online/03/040447-25 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/0267303032000117870

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

448 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

support innovation and competitiveness. So how can new housing investmentsupport a vibrant urban system in a way which is both sustainable andcontributes to economic competitiveness? How, at the same time, can newhousing help to counter the failures of past housing policies which have createddivided, unequal cities which some people seem to want to leave behind(Champion et al., 1998)? And how can policy achieve this when most newhousing promotion and production is in the hands of the private market sector(Adams & Watkins, 2002; Bramley et al., 1995)?

The next section elaborates on these questions and identifies some of the morespecific hypotheses which the paper is investigating. This is followed by a briefdescription of the survey data sources. The next three sections analyse threemain sets of questions, the first relating to the pattern of supply, the second tolocational choices, and the third relating to aspects of cohesion, integration vs.segregation and stability/attachment.

The research looks at two adjacent city-regions in Central Scotland, GreaterGlasgow and Greater Edinburgh. They may be seen as representing a microcosmof urban Britain, offering some contrasts in terms of economic structure, demandpressures and recent policy interventions. Bailey et al. (1999) and Turok et al.(2003) present a concise overview of these two contrasting cities in the contextof the themes of the ESRC Cities research programme.

Key Questions

The roots of urban economic competitiveness are explored in the work of Porter(1990), Krugman (1995) and Fujita et al. (1999), but involving an increasinglywide range of contributors from the urban research community (Brotchie et al.,1995; Castells, 1996; Hall, 1995; Healey et al., 1995; Hirst & Thompson, 1999;Sassen, 1991). Key recent contributions focus on inter-firm linkages and knowl-edge spillovers (Glaeser et al., 1992), but draw some inspiration from the earlierwork of Jacobs (1969) which emphasises urban diversity. Investment in humancapital plays a central role in other contributions (Black & Henderson, 1999;Ladd, 1999, pt 3), underlining the importance of all levels of education. Morepractical reviews of urban growth promotion and competition (e.g. Duffy, 1995)identify a range of roles for local government, but some caution that much localpublic intervention in economies may be misguided (Porter, 1999).

In the light of this wider literature, it is not suggested that housing is the onlyor even the most important influence on competitiveness, but simply that it hassome role to play. It is suggested that new housing may increase competitivenessof cities in three main ways:

• Ensuring an adequate and responsive supply of housing• Providing a high quality living environment• Promoting urban vitality.

The first and most basic way is through increasing the supply of appropriatehousing in a way which ensures adequate labour supplies for the city-region’seconomy. Krugman (1995) draws attention to the role of elastic labour supply inenabling potentially growing sectors and clusters to expand. Quantitative supplyadequacy and responsiveness is likely to reflect planning controls over landsupply (Bramley, 2002a; Bramley & Leishman, forthcoming; Bramley et al., 1995;School of Planning & Housing, 2001). Planning will also affect housing location

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 449

and hence commuting time and cost. This supply side aspect is not developedfurther in this paper, except in relation to the consumer perspective on locationalchoice and related transport options.

Whether housing is affordable and value for money is also important, andprice will reflect supply adequacy indirectly as well as the existing marketstructure. The market may or may not provide a continuum of options in termsof type, location and affordability. It is hypothesised specifically that the marketalone is unlikely to promote an affordable new supply in high demand areassubject to planning restraints, and that in more urban locations it will specialisein providing high density flats which will not be attractive to family households.There is also an issue of ready availability and ease of choice for mobile groups,where new housing may play a particular role. The hypothesis examined is thatnew housing has advantages of ease of purchase which makes it particularlyattractive to mobile workers. Some evidence on these issues is provided later.

Some of the above works, and recent research on business locational determi-nants and attractors (e.g. Begg, 2002; Simmie et al., 2000), place increasingemphasis, directly or implicitly, on the quality of living environments on offer tokey workers and managers. This begs the question: what aspects of housing andneighbourhood quality are important to these groups? It is increasingly apparentthat many local economic development strategies emphasise attracting residen-tial population in general or particular groups within this. This is exploredprimarily in the fifth section by contrasting the different qualities and appeal ofdifferent kinds of housing location, city versus suburban, and the associatedhousing types, to different groups. It is hypothesised that, while some attributesof new housing (quality, equipment, lower running costs) will appeal across therange, other attributes will apply differentially in different location/type combi-nations. Therefore, size, space, layout and appearance may be more importantfor suburban buyers whilst accessibility to jobs and services may be moreimportant for city buyers. It may be expected that quality attributes will be moreimportant to higher-income buyers whilst affordability and value for money aremore critical for lower-middle income groups and new buyers.

The vitality of city centres is increasingly identified as important for culturaland creative industries as well as knowledge-based sectors (Jacobs, 1969;Landry, 2000; Leadbeater & Oakley, 1999). Bringing life back into central andinner areas of cities through housing investment is seen as part of the packageof measures needed to promote and sustain such vitality (DETR, 1999, 2000).However, living in a ‘lively’, dense urban core may only be attractive andacceptable to some types of household (Champion et al., 1998). There are alsodangers of tension and conflict in the close juxtaposition of very differentsocio-economic groups (an aspect of cohesion).

The fifth section examines evidence on household preferences between differ-ent types of housing, density levels and locations, given the options actuallyprovided. It is hypothesised that some household types (particularly families)are unlikely to choose high density city-centre living, while other groups,including some higher-income households and key workers/managers, willchoose this if available. The assumption that many buyers do in fact searchhousing options across quite a wide range of locations in a city region is alsotested.

What happens to city centres and the extent of ‘urban consolidation’ is anaspect of evolving urban form. Major housing developments often play a leading

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

450 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

role in determining the evolution of urban form and supporting the provision ofthe infrastructure which underpins this. The location, shape and density ofhousing development, relative to patterns of commercial development, have asignificant influence on patterns of travel behaviour and the associated environ-mental and congestion costs (Anderson et al., 1996; Breheny, 1996). This isperhaps the major reason why urban form, and particularly the balance betweenhigher density urban consolidation (including the maximal redevelopment of‘brownfield’ sites) and lower density suburban ‘sprawl’, is seen as a core issuefor long-term sustainability of cities (Adams & Watkins, 2002; Breheny & Hall,1996; DETR, 1999, 2000; Jenks et al., 1996; UK Round Table, 1997). Unsustainableurban form (‘sprawl’) threatens to undermine longer-term competitivenessthrough congestion, pollution, infrastructure and other costs, and this perspec-tive is reflected in recent US debates as well as in the UK (Danielsen et al., 1999;Dear et al., 2001; Downs, 1997; Katz, 2002; Myers & Kitsuse, 1999). Sustainabilitycan be seen as a theme which links quality, vitality and environmental accept-ability in the longer term.

The article looks at the general consumer perspective on living in the compactcity (vs. the suburbs) in the fifth section. It is hypothesised that it is easier topromote consolidation in high demand city regions, but that this may be partlyat the cost of pushing some groups (middle-income families) even further out.Some specific data are also presented on the travel behaviour of residents ofdifferent kinds of new housing. The general hypothesis is that low densitysuburban housing is associated with high car-dependence, but that this ispartially modifiable by locating housing alongside public transport links.

Social cohesion has been defined as having a number of dimensions, includinginclusion in the labour market, participation in civic life, and social interactionwith neighbours and wider groups (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). Lack of socialcohesion is argued to be reflected in such phenomena as crime and disorder,voter apathy, as well as wider problems of extreme inequality of outcomes. It isargued that new housing may affect social cohesion chiefly through its effects ontwo dimensions:

• Socio-spatial segregation• Excess mobility and its corollary, lack of attachment to place and community.

There are a number of ways in which segregation might be reinforced orweakened. The sixth section examines the extent to which new developments door can promote more social/demographic mixing at estate/neighbourhood level(Page, 1993), or at broader sectoral level (Quercia & Galster, 1997). There is alsoa look at second-order impacts on segregation induced by moves into newhousing from existing housing areas. It is hypothesised that new market housingwill tend, in general, to be homogeneous at the estate level and will not promotediversity in demographic or socio-economic terms. However, this tendency maybe modified in particular circumstances (e.g. some city locations) and/orthrough policy intervention (e.g. through planning). At a broader neighbour-hood or sectoral level, new private housing can induce more tenure mix in low-income renting areas, but this may require some subsidy where markets areparticularly weak.

In relation to the second dimension of cohesion, stability/attachment, there isa look at the extent to which people become attached/committed to neighbour-hoods, thereby reducing residential mobility and increasing local networks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 451

Specific hypotheses include the proposition that introducing owner occupationto low-income rental areas may effect a net increase in attachment as well asraising average levels of income and economic participation. There is also a lookat the factors associated with mobility, and it is asked whether significantmobility may be an inevitable corollary of mixed city neighbourhoods, andwhether this is exacerbated by neighbourhood-level interactions.

Cohesion may be desirable, but does it aid or frustrate competitiveness? Thereis no attempt to answer this wider question, and it is recognised that some recentwork (including within the UK Cities research programme) does not support theproposition of strong interdependence of these dimensions. The argument ismore limited. It is argued here that it is possible to develop housing in wayswhich facilitate both goals, and to that extent they are not incompatible. Clearly,at the same time, there are considerable dangers of new housing having negativeeffects on cohesion through the mechanisms of segregation and mobility. Thereare also quite complicated arguments about how far different kinds of socialmixing or interaction create positive social outcomes (Atkinson & Kintrea, 2000).Whether positive or negative, the effects may operate through secondary pro-cesses like local educational quality and performance. In this way cohesion hasfurther feedback effects on competitiveness. However, these wider impacts arelargely beyond the scope of this paper.

Generalisable patterns may have to be tempered by significant differencesbetween different city regions. The two case study cities differ markedly in boththeir current market status (Edinburgh high demand, Glasgow lower) and intheir historical development legacy (e.g. the much larger level of public housingprovision in Glasgow). These historical/policy influences can lead to quitedifferent housing market profiles for particular cities than standard textbookpictures; for example, the familiar house price ‘gradient’ from city centre toperiphery applies in Edinburgh but not Glasgow. Both cities are relativelyunusual in Britain, apart from London, but more like continental Europeancities, in having a substantial core of high density ‘tenemental’ housing, some ofit quite ‘up-market’. Overall, the results of the surveys of new housing andexisting neighbourhoods point up more similarities than differences between thetwo cities, but where differences are strong these are drawn out.

In discussing the role of new housing in influencing aspects of competitive-ness and cohesion, it should be emphasised that the study is not proposing asimple model of direct causation from new housebuilding to certain desirableoutcomes. Rather, it is being suggested that new housebuilding has the potentialto facilitate these outcomes being achieved, or to frustrate them, given theoverall pattern of market demands. The forms of new housing provision can beinfluenced by policies, particularly land-use planning but also other measuresincluding subsidies. Such policies need to be intelligently applied, in a waywhich is informed by the kinds of evidence on demand, preferences and choiceswhich this paper provides.

Data Sources and Methods

In addition to secondary analysis of a variety of datasets including Register ofSasines house price data, Housing Land Audits and the 1991 Census, this paperdraws on two surveys undertaken as part of the ESRC Cities programme

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

452 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

Table 1. New housing scheme typology by location, market segment and housingtype

AverageLocation Market segment price (£) Density and house type

City Lower 85 850 High (mostly flats)City Upper 117 060 High (mostly flats)Suburban Lower 95 680 Medium (mix of terraced semi-detached and

detached houses)Suburban New Medium-Upper 104 030 Medium (mix of semi-detached and detachedTown houses)Suburban Upper 170 280 Low (detached houses and larger plot sizes)

Integrative Case Study of Central Scotland. The methodology of these twosurveys is briefly described below.

New Housing Survey

In May to June 2001, 15 private sector new-build schemes in 10 locations (fiveeach in Greater Edinburgh and Greater Glasgow) were surveyed using a postalsurvey. Schemes were identified using land audit data, discussion with planners,site inspection and where possible discussion with developers’ on-site sales staff.

Each location had to include at least 100 new or recently built units. A totalof 15 individual developer schemes were therefore included in the survey. Theschemes selected on these criteria effectively represented most of the medium-larger new private schemes ‘in scope’ during the period in question in definedradial segments of the two cities.

The schemes were paired so that there were five sets of similar scheme in eachcity in terms of location, density and market segment. The resultant typology ofschemes was as shown in Table 1. Average sale prices are quoted but it shouldbe noted that there were quite wide ranges of individual prices within eachstratum.

In order to increase response rates, research assistants hand-delivered anduplifted questionnaires where contact could be made with the residents. Wherethis was not possible, the questionnaires were sent by post and returned inpre-paid envelopes. This resulted in a higher response rate from the suburbanschemes, consisting of individual houses, than the City schemes. The latter werelargely flatted, and here door-entry systems largely precluded hand delivery anduplift of questionnaires.

1356 questionnaires were issued to valid addresses and 571 valid responseswere analysed. This represented a response rate of 42 per cent (27 per cent incities and 53 per cent in the suburbs). No re-weighting of responses to anynotional population base is attempted.

Neighbourhood Survey

An interview survey of residents in four neighbourhoods, two in Edinburgh andtwo in Glasgow, was carried out by System 3 in early 2000. This was awide-ranging survey, covering a variety of issues including community co-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 453

hesion, economic competitiveness and governance. It surveyed residents ofexisting older housing and a boosted sample of new housing. The four areaswere selected to represent two pairs: one pair exhibiting a range of indicators ofdeprivation (based on Census and other data) and the other pair more mixedand ‘mainstream’. In practice, the Edinburgh mainstream area was an inner-cityarea with a predominance of tenemental property, whereas the Glasgow main-stream area was a suburban area close to the edge of the city.

A total of 200 interviews were to be achieved in each of the four areas, 40 newand 160 ‘not new’. A response rate of 53 per cent was achieved for the surveyas a whole, including 66 per cent for new housing. Analysis of this survey takesinto account the differential sampling and response rates, to achieve a balancedrepresentation of the whole population of each area.

Supply and Availability

This section addresses aspects of the supply of housing in Central Scotlandrelated to the needs of a competitive economy, in particular the range of typesand prices of housing, and the particular role of new housing in relation tomobile workers.

Current Development Profile

Table 2 shows the type mix in the sample of 15 recent private new-build schemesin Central Scotland. This confirms the picture of polarisation suggested in Schoolof Planning & Housing (2001) rather strikingly. The city schemes are almostentirely flatted while the suburban schemes are devoid of flats and, with thepartial exception of the Suburban Lower market schemes, dominated bydetached houses. There is also a strong polarisation in terms of size measuredby number of bedrooms. Most city homes are two-bedroomed; most suburbanhomes have at least three bedrooms. Part of the emphasis on flats in cities maybe related to demographic trends towards more single-person households,although this argument is controversial (Hooper et al., 1998).

Densities of new housing in Central Scotland are quite high compared withtypical values found with new private housing in England (Bramley & Watkins,

Table 2. House type mix in new private housing schemes by location and marketsegment (percentage within each area/type)

Location/market With 3 �

segment Detached Semi-detached Terraced Flat bedrooms

City Lower 0.0 0.0 1.1 94.4 18.0City Upper 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 30.3Suburban Lower 45.8 36.8 17.4 0.0 70.1Suburban New Town 81.6 17.2 0.0 0.0 97.0Suburban Upper 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Greater Glasgow 56.4 14.1 7.0 20.3 74.1Greater Edinburgh 52.2 14.3 2.9 29.7 68.5

Source: Survey of 571 households on 15 new private schemes at 10 locations in Greater Glasgow andGreater Edinburgh.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

454 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

1996), suggesting that policies for urban consolidation are already beingachieved to a considerable degree. Recent new-build densities are remarkablyhigh in Edinburgh City, much more so than in Glasgow, supporting theexpected link with pressure and property prices.

Brownfield land predominates in the supply used for housing in the corecities, and also in some tightly constrained suburban areas and in some otherurban authorities. Greenfield land is more significant in certain other districts.

Prices and Affordability

School of Planning & Housing (2001) and Bramley & Morgan (2002) indicate thatthere is a much greater supply of affordable housing in most of the GreaterGlasgow market, whilst this is much more limited in Edinburgh. This helps toexplain the tendency for middle-income families to move out of the city to buyhousing, as noted in the recent DTZ Pieda (2000) study. At sector level newprovision mimics second-hand price patterns, at a higher level.

As the economy has experienced a long upswing from the early 1990s to theearly 2000s, the Edinburgh housing market has exhibited boom conditions notunlike those of London and the South East of England. This is now beingreflected in labour shortage problems and commuting/congestion problems,both of which threaten the competitive edge of Britain’s most successfulmedium-sized city.

The Particular Appeal of Newly-built Housing

How important is the newness of new housing as a factor in people’s choices?Chapman Hendy (1997) found that the advantages of new housing included easeand speed of purchase and a preference for the design and layout, althoughmany people criticise the quality of new in comparison with older housing(Scottish Executive, 2001).

The entire survey sample had bought new houses, although the majority didconsider the second-hand option. When asked “why did you choose a newproperty?”, the most common reasons given were: fewer repairs (56 per cent);ease/speed of purchase (56 per cent); no bidding required (51 per cent); like newdesign (42 per cent); cheaper to heat/more energy efficient (29 per cent); valuefor money (28 per cent); much less commonly mentioned were: new whitegoods/furnishings (11 per cent); and type of neighbours (8 per cent). There is astrong theme here of convenience/less hassle as well as less uncertain futurespending commitments. The really striking finding, however, is that ease/speedof purchase, together with not having to engage in a bidding process, isimportant for many buyers. This could have wider policy implications, in thefield of house purchase reform.

It would be expected that this factor would be particularly important formobile working households moving into the area to take up employment. Easeof buying is cited even more frequently by buyers from outwith Central Scotland(60 per cent), and also by ‘key worker’ households (65 per cent of this group givethis reason). (‘Key workers’ are defined in the new housing survey as house-holds with one or more members working full-time, with higher or degreequalifications, and earning over £20 000 per annum. In the neighbourhoodinterview survey they are defined slightly differently in detail. It is recognised

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 455

that these definitions are fairly wide, and do not focus on the particular categoryof ‘entrepreneurs’ who feature in some of the literature on competitiveness.) Thisgroup are particularly associated with the higher market city developments (69per cent of buyers, vs. 52 per cent overall).

Job Change as a Housing Trigger

Continuing this theme, what kind of housing opportunities are particularlyrelevant to individuals who are changing job? In the mainstream inner-city areain Edinburgh, a quarter of the interview respondents who had moved home inthe last five years changed jobs around the time they moved house. In thedeprived areas comparable figures were 4 per cent and 10 per cent (and 14 percent in the suburban mainstream area). Over one-third of key workers comparedwith only 7 per cent of non-key workers changed job around the time theymoved house. Therefore, job-related housing moves are more associated withkey workers. Although the proportion of new and existing housing residentswho changed jobs was the same at 14 per cent, 60 per cent of new housingresidents who changed job moved house because of their job change, comparedto only 24 per cent of residents in existing housing. Similar findings emerge fromthe survey of new housing schemes. Thirty-seven per cent of city higher marketarea buyers changed job around the time they moved (vs. 24 per cent overall),and 43 per cent of them moved because of the job change. For the lower citymarket segment the figures were 25 per cent and 34 per cent. So there is somefurther evidence here of a particular link with new housing, especially in citymarkets and particularly the higher segment city market. It is shown (Table 5)that being nearer a job is more important for city buyers. (The only note ofqualification here is that job change did not emerge as a significant independentexplanatory factor in the model reported in Table 7.)

Locational Choice and Preferences

This section considers evidence from the surveys on the circumstances, natureand motivation behind the key housing choices made by new house buyers inCentral Scotland. This evidence is contextualised to some extent by reference toother recent surveys, particularly national housing preference and conditionstudies (Chapman Hendy, 1997; Evans et al., 1998; Scottish Homes, 1997) and theGlasgow Housing Choice studies (Market Information Team, 1997a & b). Whileclearly choices are conditioned by incomes and affordability, the key choice ofgreatest interest is that between different urban/suburban locations, which ashas been seen is strongly related to the choice between flats at high density andhouses at lower density.

Search Areas

Three-quarters of buyers were able to buy in their preferred area, reflecting theoptions open to a relatively affluent group. However, it is noteworthy that lessthan two-thirds of buyers in the City Lower market segment were in theirpreferred area. This may be a comment not just on the nature of the area but alsoon the more limited means of this group.

Two-thirds had searched in other areas, and this proportion was slightly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

456 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

higher in the suburbs, again suggesting suburban buyers exercised more choice.It is interesting to look at the areas searched in, to establish how far this evidencesupports the notion of urban housing sub-markets. The evidence suggests thatfor the city new house buyers, insofar as they searched in other areas, these areaswere still overwhelmingly within the city local authority area (87 per cent inEdinburgh, 64 per cent in Glasgow). No other individual local authority wassearched to any significant degree. This suggests a City sub-market, tying inwith the distinctive emphasis on smaller flatted property and non-family house-holds. For suburban house buyers, there was clearly much more searchingacross boundaries, typically into adjacent districts and back into the core cityitself (32–67 per cent). This suggests that the typical suburban buyer (workingfamily or couple) operates over a wider housing market area and can exercisemore choice, partly perhaps because such households are more car-oriented (seebelow). At the same time, there is plenty of evidence that the core city as a wholedoes compete for such buyers in the sense of featuring in their search. Thisevidence also supports the notion of planning for housing provision on the basisof housing market areas which link cities and suburbs together.

Between 60–70 per cent of buyers also considered second-hand property,suggesting that in general new housing is not a completely separate sub-market.The City Upper market buyers were more likely to consider this than the CityLower market buyers, as were buyers in Glasgow.

Reasons for Moving

Table 3 looks at the reasons given for moving by these new house buyers inCentral Scotland, listed in descending order of frequency of mention. There isquite a strong split between a group of reasons much more associated withbuying in the suburbs—bigger and better house, in a better area, with agarden—and a smaller number of factors more clearly associated with Citylocational choice—neighbour problems, and being nearer work. A better area isparticularly important for those moving from poor areas, whilst a bigger houseis most important for those moving from affluent areas. A newly-built houseseems to be slightly more important for those buying in the lower marketsegments; this might be because of perceived lower running costs for those onmoderate incomes. Being nearer work is particularly important, unsurprisingly,for those moving in from outside the region.

The factors regarded as more important in the actual choice of house tell asomewhat similar picture, although it is interesting to note the high overallrating of ‘looks’ and also ‘layout’ (the elusive quality of ‘kerb appeal’). Again, agroup of factors regarded systematically as more important by suburban andmore up-market buyers includes: number of rooms, look of house, neighbour-hood and layout. Being near work, and convenient for shops, are more import-ant for city locations. Affordability/VFM are more important for lower marketsegments.

The patterns just described provide plausible evidence that suburban and cityhousing satisfy differing needs, priorities and aspirations associated with differ-ent groups in the population. However, it is interesting to pursue the questionof locational choice a little further. How far is it predictable where any particularhousehold will end up living, given the objective characteristics of that house-hold, and how far is that further modified by preferences? What is the relative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 457

Table 3. Reasons for moving by location and market segment (percentage withineach type)

Location/market Bigger Neighbour Better Better Newly Nearer Want Nearsegment house problems house area built work garden relatives

City Lower 10 51 16 7 22 17 2 1City Upper 18 48 14 12 9 24 0 3Suburban Lower 53 21 28 24 24 13 25 6Suburban New Town 48 21 23 24 14 19 10 10Suburban Upper 62 31 30 19 19 12 21 3

Greater Glasgow 44 27 26 22 23 17 18 6Greater Edinburgh 41 33 21 16 15 16 11 5

Source: Survey of 571 households on 15 new private schemes at 10 locations in Greater Glasgow andGreater Edinburgh.

Table 4. Logistic regression model for odds of new housebuyer choosing a flat ina city location versus a house in a suburban location

Explanatory variable Coefficient B Significance Exp(B)

Constant � 0.751 0.330 0.472SINGLE person household (non-elderly) 1.741 0.000 5.706COUPFAM couple with children � 3.904 0.000 0.020YOUNG respondent under 25 � 0.310 0.728 0.733MIDAGE respondent aged 45–64 � 0.647 0.175 0.524PREVPR previously private tenant 1.647 0.002 5.193PREVSR previously social tenant 0.680 0.613 1.973FROMCITY previously living in City 1.167 0.003 3.212OUTCSCR from outside Central Scotland 0.605 0.131 1.831NEARWORK reason for move: nearer work � 0.629 0.225 0.533LARGER reason for move: larger house � 1.838 0.000 0.159GARDEN reason for move: want garden � 2.925 0.009 0.054BETTHOUS reason for move: better house 0.204 0.693 1.227PROBNEIB reason: problem neighbours 0.699 0.094 2.013WIDESRCH searched other areas � 0.491 0.200 0.612PTWKR any part time worker in household � 1.177 0.084 0.308FTED resp or partner in full-time education 2.463 0.010 11.737DISAB not working due to disability/illness 2.802 0.056 16.472DEGREE resp or partner with degree qualif 1.270 0.003 3.562LONGJTW longer journey to work ( � 30min) � 1.364 0.001 0.256*CARS number of cars � 1.566 0.000 0.209*GHHINC gross household income £k pa 0.036 0.003 1.036Chi-square 376.34 21 df� 2 Log Likelihood 225.53r-squared (Cox & Snell) 0.527 (Nagelkerke) 0.756Correct predictions (%) 91.6

Note: Exp(B) measures the impact of variable taking value 1.0 (yes) on odds of choosing city flat;variables marked * are continuous, all other variables are 1–0 dichotomies.

importance of different factors? Are some attributes of city dwellers likely to becausal in their city location, while others are merely coincidental? These ques-tions can be approached by utilising the technique of multiple logistic re-gression, applied to this sample of new house buyers to try to predict the odds

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

458 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

of a household buying a flat in a city location as against buying a house in asuburban location. Table 4 reports the results of this exercise.

Most of the variables retained in the model shown in the Table are statisticallysignificant or marginally insignificant. A larger number of variables were testedand discarded. Overall, the performance of this model in predicting locationchoice is relatively good, by the standards of individual level models of thiskind. Most of the stronger/more significant effects of particular variables are inline with expectations and the simpler bivariate patterns already reported. Thus,single-person households, previous private renters, those moving from withinthe cities, disabled people and those involved in full-time education are all morelikely to choose a city flat. Couple families with children, those seeking largerhouses or gardens, those with more cars or willing to undertake longer workjourneys are more likely to choose a suburban house.

Some of the relationships are slightly more surprising, including that withproblem neighbours. Part-time working is more associated with suburban living,probably because it is associated with child-rearing. Finally, and most interest-ingly, the effect of income, allowing for all the other variables in the model(including number of cars) is positive. This suggests that there is some elementof demand for urban living which is income elastic, insofar as this can beseparated from car ownership, the demand for larger houses, etc.

Geography of Movement into New Housing

It is interesting to compare the distribution of new private housing developmentwith the distribution of origins of the households buying it, utilising postcodeinformation provided in the survey of 15 new housing developments. Table 5compares shares for the two city regions.

There is an interesting contrast in the geographical impact of new building inthe two city regions. In Glasgow, it can be seen that new building is effecting anet decentralisation. In the first three zones, the share of new-build is less thanthe share of origins, whilst in the two outer zones it is greater. This evidenceconfirms other evidence on the average distance of new-build vs. existingpopulation from the city centre. An emphasis on brownfield sites does not initself prevent a degree of decentralisation. In Edinburgh, new building iseffecting a net importation of households into the central area, and also into the

Table 5. Distribution of new private building and origins of intra-regional buyersby concentric zone, Greater Glasgow and Greater Edinburgh

G. Glasgow G. Edinbnew-build Origins of new-build Origins of

Concentric Zone locations buyers locations buyers

Central ( � 2km) 3.7 5.5 15.8 10.7Inner (2–5km) 12.2 26.4 30.1 31.3Outer (5–10km) 27.7 30.5 11.6 24.8Intermediate (10–20km) 44.3 34.7 17.0 16.3Landward ( � 20km) 11.9 2.8 25.3 16.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sources: Register of Sasines Sales by Builders 1998–99; Survey of 15 new housing schemes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 459

Table 6. Distribution of origins of all buyers by concentric zone by type ofdevelopment (percentage)

SuburbanSuburban New Suburban

Concentric Zone City Lower City Upper Lower Town Upper

Central ( � 2km) 14.6 13.6 2.1 0.6 4.6Inner (2–5km) 29.2 21.2 22.9 5.5 21.3Outer (5–10km) 12.4 7.6 33.3 9.1 16.7Intermediate (10–20km) 0.0 3.0 6.3 31.7 20.4Landward ( � 20km) 2.2 3.0 0.7 20.7 0.9Outwith region 41.6 51.5 34.7 32.3 36.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sources: Survey of 15 new housing schemes.

most peripheral landward area (which includes Livingston new town). Anumber of factors may account for this, including the very strong demand to livein central Edinburgh, together with the tighter planning controls around theedge of the city and in the green-belt zone around Edinburgh (School ofPlanning & Housing, 2001). This would suggest that it is easier for policy toachieve its aim of urban consolidation in a high demand context.

How do the different types of new private building draw on buyers from thedifferent zones of origin? Table 6 looks at this, but includes (unlike Table 5)buyers from outwith the region as well. This shows the striking association ofthe city flat market with migrants into the city region from further afield; inround terms, half of buyers compared with one-third in the suburbs. Apart fromthis, the city flat market draws mainly on the inner and to a lesser extent thecentral and outer areas of the city. By contrast, the suburban market draws bothfrom within the city, both inner and outer areas, and from the areas beyond thecity boundaries but within the region.

New Housing and Sustainable Travel

The Cities Baseline study (Bailey et al., 1999) documented evidence of growingjourney to work distances over the 1980s, accompanied by a shift to greaterreliance on the car for commuting. Evidence for the 1990s is less complete, butsuggests that commuting patterns are still mainly focused around the two maincity regions, with commuting between them still quite small in scale (Bailey &Turok, 2001), but that general traffic levels are still rising.

The New Housing Survey showed a reliance on cars. Only 8 per cent of newhousebuyer households had no car. Forty-six per cent had two or more privatecars or other vehicles. Over 70 per cent of households in the Suburban Upperschemes had two or more vehicles. Table 7 shows a clear Suburban/Citydifference in travel to work behaviour. In the suburbs the overwhelmingmajority of people travel to work by car. More people walk to work in the Cityareas than use other means of transport. Public transport is used more often inthe City Lower areas than in the City Upper areas. Few people walk or cycle towork in the suburbs. A higher percentage of people drive to work in the GreaterGlasgow sample than in the Greater Edinburgh sample.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

460 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

Table 7. Form of transport taken to work (percentage within each type)

Self: Partner: Self: Partner: Self: Partner:Location/market Private Private Public Public Walk/ Walk/segment car/van car/van transport transport cycle cycle

City Lower 30 23 27 44 38 31City Upper 35 37 16 15 47 44Suburban Lower 77 76 19 17 2 1Suburban New Town 87 76 10 8 2 10Suburban Upper 88 83 9 10 1 2

Greater Glasgow 75 76 11 12 10 8Greater Edinburgh 66 66 18 17 14 11

Source: Survey of 15 new private housing schemes.

Access to public transport was stated to be important in choice of location by54 per cent of respondents. Nevertheless, 70 per cent of respondents and theirpartners travel to work by car. A comparison can be made between theSuburban Lower scheme in Greater Edinburgh, which is built immediatelyadjacent to a train station, and the paired scheme in Greater Glasgow which wason bus routes but had no train station within reasonable walking distance. In theformer case, 79 per cent of respondents stated that proximity to public transportwas important in their choice of home but 74 per cent (and 69 per cent ofpartners) still travelled to work by car. 18 per cent/21 per cent used the train toget to work (vs. 6 per cent of whole sample) whilst 4 per cent/3 per centtravelled by bus. In the latter case, convenience for public transport wasimportant for 49 per cent of respondents, but over 80 per cent travelled to workby car, almost no one by train, and 10 per cent travelled by bus.

These comparisons show somewhat fewer people travelling to work by carwhere there is convenient rail travel, with some displacement from bus as well.But perhaps the strongest conclusion is that suburban development is associatedwith car-dependence, and hence with the worsening problem of congestion.

Cohesion, Segregation and Mobility

Social Mix at Estate Level

The survey evidence, summarised in Tables 8 and 9, shows that recent newprivate schemes in Central Scotland are not very ‘mixed and balanced’ at estatelevel, and could not be said to promote integration very much.

Table 8 shows that there is a polarisation of household types between city andsuburban schemes, which parallels the polarisation of house types mentionedearlier. Families are virtually absent from the city schemes, but dominant in thesuburbs. Single-person households are rare in the suburban estates, as are younghousehold heads, whilst pensioners are rare in most new estates except someupper market city schemes. Ex-renters are common in the city schemes but rarein the suburbs. It should also be noted that 16–19 per cent of city schemeresidents are currently renting, which is virtually unknown in the suburbs. Thus,even privately developed housing for sale can, in an urban context, quicklyevolve into a degree of tenure mixing (aided by the development of a ‘buy to let’market). There are sizeable numbers of students and modest numbers of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 461

Tab

le8.

Sel

ecte

din

dic

ato

rso

fso

cial

com

po

siti

on

by

mar

ket

seg

men

tan

dlo

cati

on

(per

cen

tag

ew

ith

inea

chty

pe)

Lo

cati

on

/m

ark

etS

ing

leL

on

eC

ou

ple

Yo

un

gD

isab

led

/se

gm

ent

per

son

par

ent

fam

ily

Pen

sio

ner

16–2

4E

x-r

ente

rS

tud

ent

un

emp

loy

ed

Cit

yL

ow

er46

.10.

01.

11.

115

.738

.212

.44.

5C

ity

Up

per

42.4

0.0

4.5

6.0

7.6

19.7

7.6

1.5

Su

bu

rban

Lo

wer

6.9

3.5

52.1

1.4

2.8

4.8

2.1

2.0

Su

bu

rban

New

To

wn

8.6

1.8

52.4

3.7

1.2

4.9

1.8

2.4

Su

bu

rban

Up

per

3.7

1.9

64.8

0.9

0.0

7.4

1.9

0.0

Gre

ater

Gla

sgo

w21

.12.

642

.51.

34.

89.

74.

42.

2G

reat

erE

din

bu

rgh

13.3

1.7

40.2

2.5

4.1

14.0

4.1

2.1

Sour

ce:S

urv

eyo

f15

new

pri

vat

eh

ou

sin

gsc

hem

es.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

462 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

Table 9. Variation in selected characteristics of new home buyers bylocation and market segment (coefficient of variation within each type,

percentage)

GrossLocation/market No. of Household No. in full- householdsegment bedrooms size time work income

City Lower 28 45 63 56City Upper 28 43 69 48Suburban Lower 27 41 44 39Suburban New Town 18 41 44 38Suburban Upper 10 37 38 31

Greater Glasgow 29 49 50 42Greater Edinburgh 31 38 48 44

Source: Survey of 15 new private housing schemes.

disabled/unemployed present in the lower market city schemes, but thesegroups are rarer in the suburbs.

Table 9 looks at a standardised measure of variance in four continuousvariables: number of bedrooms, household size, number of FT workers andhousehold income. These measures show clearly that the suburban estatesdisplay significantly less variation than new schemes in the cities.

One of the ‘feelings about neighbourhood’ questions also provides somesupporting subjective evidence here. The proportion who disagree with thestatement ‘I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in thisneighbourhood’ is only 13 per cent overall, and as low as 8 per cent in theSuburban Upper estates, but rises to no less than 32 per cent in the City Lowerareas (see Table 11).

The Contribution of New Development at Wider Neighbourhood and Sectoral Level

New building may not make for mix and balance at the level of individualschemes or estates, but it may still do so at a broader neighbourhood or sectorallevel. One approach is to ask what contribution new private housebuildingmakes to the availability of housing in different price bands in different areas.Other evidence indicates that new building mimics the existing market but at agenerally higher price level (School of Planning & Housing, 2001). Thus itcorrects neither the lack of affordable housing in high priced areas nor the lackof higher quality housing in the more run-down industrial areas. Social rentedhousing provision does not help to correct imbalances much either, because it isconcentrated in poorer ‘regeneration’ areas.

A somewhat more positive picture can be painted of the contribution of newprivate housebuilding to changing the tenure balance, particularly in GreaterGlasgow (Bramley & Morgan, 2002). Over the period 1993–99, at postcode sectorlevel, neighbourhoods where new building represented a dramatic change intenure balance were relatively unusual; but 25 out of 294 sectors (8.5 per cent),could be characterised as having mainly private new-build in a predominantlysocial renting context. In sectors with over 80 per cent social renting in 1991,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 463

Table 10. Distribution of new private building and origins ofintra-regional buyers by neighbourhood poverty level, Greater

Glasgow and Greater Edinburgh

Poverty level G. Glasgow G. Edinb(Breadline Britain new build Origins of new build Origins ofIndex, 1991) locations buyers locations buyers

Poor 29.2 15.2 2.2 4.2Moderately poor 36.4 29.1 29.2 26.1Moderately affluent 18.3 32.0 51.4 48.1Affluent 16.1 22.9 17.1 21.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sources: Register of Sasines Sales by Builders 1998–99; Survey of 15 new housingschemes; 1991 Census.

63 per cent of new building was private and this represented a 95 per centincrease in the private stock. Forty-six per cent of completions on private siteswere in areas with more than 50 per cent social renting in 1991.

It could be said from these data that private building is doing more for socialmixing than new social sector building, although this was perhaps inevitablegiven that 81 per cent of all new completions were private in this period.

In the areas with more than 80 per cent social renting, average house pricesfor all dwellings and for new dwellings were very low, at around £37 500 in1999. In these areas 62 per cent of all sales were priced below £40 000. Thisindicates the difficulty facing market providers in achieving viability with newprivate provision in areas dominated by social housing without some form ofsubsidy. The two deprived case study neighbourhoods illustrate this; newbuilding for owner occupation in these areas was mainly in the form of sharedownership or GRO schemes (Bramley et al., 1997).

Table 10 presents an analysis similar to that in Table 5, except this time brokendown by the poverty level of the postcode sectors in question. Again, it showsmarked differences between the cities, with this time Greater Glasgow achievingmore in terms of the relevant policy goal of integration. In Greater Glasgow, bycomparing the first and second columns, it is clear that new private building iseffecting a net redistribution of buyers into the poorer areas. In Edinburgh, thedistributions are more similar, but in net terms new building is shifting buyersslightly from both the poorest and the most affluent areas towards those morein the middle.

Again, it is shown that the different types of new-build scheme draw theirbuyers differentially from different areas. The Suburban Lower and City Lowerschemes draw relatively more buyers from the poorest areas, whilst the pro-portion is low for upper market City and new town schemes, and negligible forSuburban Upper. This can of course be considered both a good thing and a badthing. Catering for households from poor areas provides opportunities forchoice, mobility and improvement in conditions. However, it carries the dangerof sifting out more of the already small number of middle-income workinghouseholds living in such areas, and so worsening their situation. This seemsmore forgivable in the case of the City Lower developments, because these score

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

464 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

well on other indicators of diversity, as well as contributing to regeneration andsustainability. The ‘suburban-lower’ developments do not have these redeemingfeatures.

There may be some dangers of ‘displacement’ effects on investment andmarket viability in fragile market areas, particularly in a city like Glasgow(Bramley & Pawson, 2002; Bramley, 2002b). However, the proportion of localbuyers drawn from ‘low demand’ areas is not more than 8 per cent in any case.It should also be remembered that between a third (suburban) and a half (city)of buyers actually come from outwith the city regions.

The Experience of Owner Occupation in the Poorest Areas

If social cohesion entails less segregation, then in Scotland a primary target forthis is to introduce a significant element of owner occupation in the former‘mono-tenure’ council estates which are the main concentrations of poverty anddeprivation. The evidence summarised above indicates that this has beenachieved to some extent, particularly in Glasgow, but how does this work inpractice?

Evidence from the household interview survey in two deprived local authorityhousing estates can provide some indications that owner occupation can pro-mote greater stability and attachment. As a benchmark, the SHCS found thatacross Scotland, 18 per cent of households and 17 per cent of home owners witha mortgage moved in the previous two years, while 34 per cent of all householdsand 40 per cent of buyers were “fairly or very likely” to move (SHCS, 1996,Table A13.16). In the current survey, in the Edinburgh deprived area, only 14per cent of owners had moved in the last two years compared to 36 per centof social renters, while 27 per cent of owners were fairly or very likely tomove compared with 50 per cent of social renters. In the Glasgow deprived area11 per cent of owners and 18 per cent of social renters had moved in the lasttwo years. Around 35 per cent of both owners and social renters were fairly orvery likely to move. So, in both of these cases there is evidence (from a limitedsample of owners) that owners in such areas are relatively stable by nationalstandards and at least as likely to form part of a stable community as socialrenters.

The household survey confirms that introducing owner occupation into thedeprived estates has helped to ‘thin’ indices of deprivation. For example, usinga composite definition of a ‘key worker’ (slightly different from that used in thepostal survey), only 5–10 per cent of social renters were considered key workers,whereas 25–33 per cent of owner occupiers were in this category.

In both deprived areas, high proportions of owners thought the neighbour-hood a fairly or very good place to live, with approval ratings around 90 percent for owners compared with 70 per cent for renters. Owners were also morelikely to feel that they belonged to the area. Owners and renters expressedsimilar levels of agreement (around 70 per cent or more) with the statements thatpeople in the neighbourhood were similar to themselves and that they regularlystopped and talked with people in their neighbourhood.

The overall impression from this analysis of the household survey is that thereappears to be a degree of social integration which may be greater than that inAtkinson & Kintrea’s (2000) study. This is encouraging but points toward theneed for additional research in this area (see also Jupp, 1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 465

Table 11. Indicators of attachment to neighbourhood by market segment andlocation (percentage within each type)

Feel I Plan to SimilarLocation/market belong remain peoplesegment –agree Disagree –agree Disagree –agree Disagree

City Lower 20.2 23.6 38.2 37.1 34.1 31.9City Upper 32.8 23.4 44.6 26.2 36.9 15.4Suburban Lower 58.4 7.7 76.0 13.4 57.5 7.1Suburban New Town 47.9 11.0 68.7 10.5 50.9 7.3Suburban Upper 42.6 11.1 73.2 8.4 44.5 12.0

Greater Glasgow 41.4 16.3 63.8 17.1 43.4 14.2Greater Edinburgh 44.8 11.8 63.8 16.5 50.1 12.1

Source: Survey of 15 new private housing schemes.

Neighbourhood Attachment in New Estates

Turning to the current wider sample of new housing estates, some similarindicators of neighbourhood attachment can be looked at for comparison (Table11). Feeling similar to other residents shows a comparable or slightly higherscore than the 70 per cent quoted above for deprived neighbourhoods in the caseof suburban areas, but a lower score in the city areas. In the light of the earlierdiscussion of social balance, however, this indicator may be seen as a somewhatdouble-edged sword. The scores on the other two indicators are generally lower,and in all cases markedly lower in the city areas than in the suburban areas, withthe lower market suburban area showing the highest scores. Recent new-buildestates are relatively ‘new’ communities and may not have had time to settledown and build a full range of community ties; this would explain the lowergeneral level of these scores. There would also seem to be some trade-offbetween different dimensions of the cohesion agenda here: social balance versuscommunity attachment.

Mobility

Mobility is the other side of the coin from attachment and, as noted earlier, it canpresent opportunities as well as problems. For deprived or unpopular areas,mobility can be a symptom of failure, people voting with their feet, as well asa cause of lack of community ties and cohesion. However, mobility out mayrepresent people getting more connected into the mainstream, while mobility incan bring new people into an area, and these people may bring a freshcontribution to the community in terms of spending power, investment in homeimprovement, active citizenship and participation (Kearns & Forrest, 2000).

Using the survey of new housing schemes, it is possible to use negativeresponses to the question on “planning to remain resident of this neighbourhoodfor a number of years” (Table 11, column 4) as an indicator of potential outwardmobility. It is then possible to use the technique of multiple logistic regressionto explore the influence of a wide range of variables on this propensity. A similaranalysis can be undertaken of those expecting to move in the four-neighbour-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

466 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

Table 12. Logistic regression model for odds of new housebuyer not expecting toremain resident in neighbourhood for a number of years

Explanatory Variable Coefficient B Significance Exp(B)

Constant � 4.466 0.000 0.011SINGLE person household (non-elderly) 0.904 0.059 2.469COUPFAM couple with children � 0.679 0.097 0.507OTHHT ‘other’ household type 0.413 0.499 1.511MIDAGE respondent aged 45–64 � 0.546 0.228 0.579PREVPR previously private tenant 0.301 0.445 1.351PREVSR previously social tenant 2.581 0.014 13.209FROMCITY previously living in City 0.127 0.733 1.136OUTSCOT from outside Scotland 0.127 0.733 1.136OUTCSCR from outside Central Scotland 0.402 0.246 1.495TRADEDWN traded down 1.631 0.001 5.108BETTHOUS reason for move: better house � 0.184 0.628 0.832PROBNEIB reason: problem neighbours � 0.268 0.379 0.765WIDESRCH searched other areas 0.786 0.013 2.195JOBCHANG job change assoc with last move 1.051 0.009 2.861PTWKR any part time worker in household 1.451 0.004 4.268DISAB not working due to disability/illness 1.214 0.405 3.366UNEMP unemployed 3.124 0.001 22.741LONGJTW longer journey to work ( � 30min) � 0.136 0.653 0.873CITYLOW City lower market scheme 1.045 0.019 2.843CITYHIGH City higher market scheme 0.359 0.464 1.432SUBNT Suburban New Town scheme � 0.648 0.144 0.523SUBHIGH Suburban higher market scheme � 0.541 0.293 0.582*NFTWKR no. of full-time workers 0.796 0.029 2.217*GHHINC gross household income £k pa 0.009 0.380 1.009Chi-square 96.31 24 df� 2 Log Likelihood 368.145r-squared (Cox & Snell) 0.173 (Nagelkerke) 0.289Correct predictions (%) 84.6

Note: Exp(B) measures the impact of variable taking value 1.0 (yes) on odds of expecting to move;variables marked * are continuous, all other variables are 1–0 dichotomies.

hood interview survey, although there are considerable technical differences insome of the variables

Table 12 shows the detailed results for the model based on new house buyers.This is a rather poorer model, in terms of fit to the data and significance ofexplanatory variables, than that shown in Table 4. Nevertheless, 10 of thepredictors are significant and these include, as positive factors, single-personhouseholds, previous social renters, those who traded down, those whosearched wider areas before, those who changed job in association with their lastmove, households with part-time workers or unemployed members, and house-holds with more full-time workers. Couple families again are less likely toexpect to leave. Most of these individual factors are the expected correlates ofhigher levels of mobility. Many of these factors were also associated with thechoice of a city flat location last time. One can thus characterise this populationas an inherently more mobile one, whether for reasons of demography (young,prior to family formation), previous housing history or job instability. Some ofthis group may be experiencing some adversity, for example having traded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 467

down as a result of relationship breakdown or unemployment, and this mayaccount for their limited attachment to their city neighbourhood.

It is interesting, therefore, to test whether neighbourhood has an independentinfluence on the likelihood of moving away in future, after allowing for all ofthese individual attributes and experiences. It turns out that one neighbourhoodtype, the City Lower market area, does have a significant effect in increasinglikelihood of mobility, even after allowing for the other factors. Thus, the ratherpoor scores of this type of locality on neighbourhood/community attachmentare not wholly a product of the very different profile of people living in theseareas, but also to some degree a product of the environment of the neighbour-hood itself (including its social environment). This again underscores the pointthat there is ultimately some trade-off between the two dimensions of socialbalance and social attachment, but also suggests that there may be scope formeasures to improve the environment of city neighbourhoods so as to improvetheir stability.

A similar model can be fitted to data from the interview survey, providingbroadly consistent results.

Concluding Policy Discussion

New housing is significant in relation to several aspects of city competitiveness.Apart from an adequate level and responsiveness of housing supply, affordabil-ity and availability are also important. The market does not typically promote anaffordable supply in higher demand areas subject to planning restraint, likeEdinburgh. New social sector provision has been concentrated in deprived‘priority’ areas and consequently has not contributed much to affordable supplyin pressured areas, or to the diversification of tenure and social composition inthe more affluent suburban areas. Significant progress towards more diversifiedprovision in higher demand and suburban areas could be made, at low cost interms of public subsidy, by utilising the emerging planning policies for afford-able housing provision (Monk & Whitehead, 2000; School of Planning & Hous-ing, 2001). This would also contribute to cohesion, and may be seen as a UKparallel to the US movement towards ‘inclusionary zoning’ (Bogdon, 2001;Danielsen et al., 1999).

The evidence presented confirms that new housing is particularly importantfor mobile workers, especially those with higher skills, partly because of itsrelatively easy purchase process. New housing in city locations is particularlyimportant for these groups, as well as a wider range of other groups.

Competitiveness can be enhanced through urban vitality, which points to thepromotion of city centre and urban living. A strategy of urban renaissance andconsolidation also has strong environmental sustainability arguments behind it,which can arguably support competitiveness in the longer run. Experience inEdinburgh and Glasgow shows that it is quite possible to achieve a lot of privatesector housebuilding in cities, often re-using brownfield land and often at highdensities. This can constitute a significant part of the investment in urbanregeneration. Generally such development is viable in market terms, althoughsome subsidy may be needed in the worst locations in a lower demand city likeGlasgow. It is also clear that the housing preferences of some key mobile groupsindicate a desire for high density housing in areas which are convenient forwork, study and amenities. This is a clear example where all three policy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

468 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

goals—competitiveness, cohesion and environmental sustainability—can be metsimultaneously.

Market-led development produces a quite polarised structure in terms ofhouse types and this is also reflected in a polarised demographic structure.Many households, particularly families, prefer the housing and environmentoffered by the suburbs, houses with gardens at moderate density. If cities are toattract these groups, they may have to offer housing of this kind, or somethingmore like it than the modern tenement flat. This may entail stronger planningpolicies, or in some cases subsidy. The concept of ‘new neighbourhoods’promoted in Glasgow is an example of an attempt to achieve this.

Most new house buyers look at alternatives, including second-hand housing,and families buying in the suburbs are particularly likely to look at a range oflocations, within and outside the city authority boundaries. This again supportsthe idea of trying to create attractive residential opportunities within cities, aswell as confirming that it is appropriate to plan housing provision on asub-regional basis.

New housebuilding is effecting a net decentralisation of population withinGreater Glasgow, even with a significant emphasis on brownfield sites. InGreater Edinburgh, new-build is shifting more households into the central area,but also exporting more to the most distant part of the city region. There is a casefor more housing, especially for families, in locations closer to the city, althoughthe policy mechanisms involved might differ between the two cities. In Edin-burgh, this could entail both some rethinking of the green belt as well as theapplication of planning policies for affordable housing. In Glasgow this couldentail well-designed, serviced and promoted ‘new neighbourhoods’ within theexisting urban area, utilising currently derelict land or moribund public housingareas.

Current suburban development in Central Scotland is highly car-dependentand could not be said to promote sustainable transport patterns. This willincreasingly impact on competitiveness through congestion. Locating new sub-urban estates alongside rail stations can help to some extent, although car use isstill moderately high in these cases.

It is argued that new housing can promote two aspects of social cohesion,through greater integration (vs. segregation) and attachment (vs. mobility).Existing development patterns do not promote ‘mixed and balanced’ communi-ties at the scheme/estate level, especially in the suburbs. New private buildingdoes not provide many opportunities for first-time buyers or people from poorerareas, but it is more likely to do so in the case of lower market city develop-ments. It could do more if planning powers were used more to promoteaffordable provision within private developments, as argued above.

New private building in Greater Glasgow has been quite successful at diversi-fying tenure in some sectors previously dominated by social housing, and henceat shifting middle-income residents into poor areas. Some of this activity hasdepended on subsidy. There is also evidence to support some arguments fortenure diversification in deprived areas. Owner occupiers can bring morestability, more income and a more outward-looking, as well as more civicly-minded, economically-active population.

Lower market city schemes are the most mixed and diverse of private sectordevelopments, but they are still demographically restricted. Such areas areinevitably characterised by higher mobility; many of the same attributes predict

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 469

choosing a city flat and expecting to move on. This illustrates that there mayalways be some trade-off to be made between different dimensions of cohesion:mix/balance versus stability/attachment. The character and performance of highdensity city neighbourhoods may exacerbate the mobility which is inherent inthe demography of demand. This suggests that it may be important for citysustainability and competitiveness to protect the vibrancy of inner, high densityneighbourhoods through the upkeep of existing stock, continuing new invest-ment, and perhaps more proactive neighbourhood management.

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

This paper is one output from a major research project, the Integrative CaseStudy (ICS) of Central Scotland supported by the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil (ESRC) under its ‘Cities: Competitiveness and Cohesion’ programme(Grant number L130 25 1040). The study also received support from Communi-ties Scotland (formerly Scottish Homes) and the Scottish Executive. Some of thework underlying this paper utilises data supplied by the local planning author-ities and/or the joint Structure Planning teams. The authors gratefully acknowl-edge the assistance of all of these organisations, and particular individualsinvolved, as well as the assistance and insights provided by other members ofthe ICS research team. However, responsibility for the views and interpretationspresented in this paper, together with any errors or misinterpretations, restswith the authors.

Correspondence

Glen Bramley, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Riccar-ton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland. Email: g.bramley@sbe.hw.ac.uk

References

Adams, D. & Watkins, C. (2002) Greenfields, Brownfields and Housing Development (Oxford, Blackwell).Anderson, W.P., Kanaroglou, P.S. & Miller, E.J. (1996) Urban form, energy and the environment,

Urban Studies, 33, pp. 7–36.Atkinson, R. & Kintrea, K. (2000) Owner occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts, Policy

and Politics, 28, pp. 93–108.Bailey, N. & Turok, I. (2001) Competitiveness through collaboration? Strategic planning in Central Scotland.

EURBANET—Urban Networks in North Western Metropolitan Area. Action 7: Central Scotland‘State of the Region’ Report (Glasgow, Glasgow University, Department of Urban Studies).

Bailey, N., Turok, I. & Docherty, I. (1999) Edinburgh and Glasgow: Contrasts in Competitiveness andCohesion. ICS Baseline Study (Glasgow, University of Glasgow).

Begg, I. (2002) Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities (Bristol, Policy Press).Black, D. & Henderson, V. (1999) A theory of urban growth, Journal of Political Economy, 107,

pp. 252–284,Bogdon, A. (2001) Monitoring housing affordability, in: G. Knaap (Ed.) Land Market Monitoring for

Smart Urban Growth (Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).Bramley, G. (2002a) Housing supply and land use regulation, in: K. Gibb & A. O’Sullivan (Eds)

Housing Economics and Public Policy (London, Routledge).Bramley, G. (2002b) Modelling new housing supply at site and neighbourhood level in Central Scotland.

Research paper (Edinburgh, School of Planning & Housing).Bramley, G. & Leishman, C. (forthcoming) A local housing market model with spatial interaction and

planning regulation, Environment & Planning A.Bramley, G. & Morgan, J. (2002) Building Future Living Environments: The Role of New Housing in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

470 Glen Bramley & James Morgan

Competitiveness and Cohesion. ESRC Cities Central Scotland Research Policy Paper for Communities

Scotland and the Scottish Executive.

Bramley, G. & Pawson, H. (2002) Low demand housing: incidence, causes and UK national policy

implications, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 393–422.

Bramley, G. & Watkins, C. (1996) Steering the Housing Market: New Building and the Changing PlanningSystem (Bristol, Policy Press).

Bramley, G., Bartlett, W. & Lambert, C. (1995) Planning, the Market and Private Housebuilding (London,

UCL Press).

Bramley, G., Cousins, L., Dunmore, K., Morgan, J. & Strode, M. (1997) Review of Scottish Homes OwnerOccupation Initiatives (Edinburgh, Scottish Homes).

Breheny, M. (1996) Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: views on the future of urban form, in:

M. Jenks, E. Burton & K. Williams (Eds) The Compact City (London, E&FN Spon).

Breheny, M. & Hall, P. (1996) The People: Where Will they Go? National Report of the TCPA Regional

Inquiry into Housing Need and Provision (London, Town & Country Planning Association).

Brotchie, J., Batty, M., Blakely, E., Hall, P. & Newton, P. (1995) Cities in Competition: Productive andSustainable Cities for the 21st Century (Melbourne, Longman Australia).

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford, Blackwell).

Champion, A.J., Atkins, D., Coombes, M. & Fotheringham, S. (1998) Urban Exodus (London, Council

for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE)).

Chapman Hendy Associates and Market Research Scotland (1997) Fourth Survey of ConsumerPreference in Housing (Edinburgh, Scottish Homes).

Danielsen, K., Lang, R. & Fulton, W. (1999) Retracting suburbia: smart growth and the future of

housing, Housing Policy Debate, 10, pp. 513–540.

Dear, M. et al. (2001) Sprawl Hits the Wall: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles(University of Southern California, Southern California Studies Center).

DETR (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. Final Report of the Urban Task Force Chaired by Lord

Rogers of Riverside (London, Stationery Office).

DETR (2000) Our Towns and Cities: The Future. Delivering an Urban Renaissance. Cmd 4911 (Urban

White Paper) (London, TSO).

Downs, A. (1997) Challenge of our declining cities, Housing Policy Debate, 8, pp. 359–408.

Duffy, H. (1995) Competitive Cities: Succeeding in the Global Economy (London, E & F N Spon).

DTZ Pieda (2000) Housing Needs Assessment 2000 (City of Edinburgh Council).

Evans, A., Pannell, B., Stewart, J. & Williams, P. (1998) Trends, Attitudes and Issues in British Housing(London, Council of Mortgage Lenders).

Fujita, M., Krugman, P. & Venables, A.J. (1999) The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and InternationalTrade (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J. & Shleiferr, A. (1992) Growth in cities, Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 100, pp. 1126–1152.

Hall, P. (1995) Towards a general urban theory, in: J. Brotchie et al. (Eds) Cities in Competition:Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st century, pp. 3–32 (Melbourne, Longman Australia).

Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S. & Madanipour, A. (1995) Managing Cities: The NewUrban Context (London, Wiley).

Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. (1999) Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilitiesof Governance, 2nd edn (Cambridge, Polity Press).

Hooper, A., Dunmore, K. & Hughes, M. (1998) Home Alone (Amersham, The Housing Research

Foundation).

Jacobs, J. (1969) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York, Vintage).

Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. (Eds) (1996) The Compact City (London, E & F Spon).

Jupp, B. (1999) Living Together: Community Life on Mixed Tenure Estates (London, Demos).

Katz, B. (2002) Smart Growth: the Future of the American Metropolis, Case Paper S8 (London School of

Economics, Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion).

Kearns, A. & Forrest, R. (2000) Social cohesion and multi-level urban governance, Urban Studies, 37,

pp. 995–1017.

Krugman, P. (1995) Geography and Economic Development (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

Ladd, H.F. (1999) The Challenge of Fiscal Disparities for State and Local Governments (Cheltenham,

Edward Elgar).

Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City (London, Earthscan Publications).

Leadbeater, C. & Oakley, K. (1999) The Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs (London,

Demos).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

New Housebuilding in Central Scotland’s Cities 471

Market Information Team (1997a) Greater Glasgow Housing Choice Survey: Results of the Face to FaceSurvey (Glasgow, Glasgow Regeneration Alliance).

Market Information Team (1997b) Greater Glasgow Housing Choice Survey: Results of the Postal Survey(Glasgow, Glasgow Regeneration Alliance).

Monk, S. & Whitehead, C. (2000) Restructuring Housing Systems: From Social to Affordable Housing?(York, York Publishing Services).

Myers, D. & Kitsuse, A. (1999) The debate over future density of development: an interpretative review.Working Paper (Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).

Page, D. (1993) Building for Communities (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation).Porter, M. (1990) Competitive Advantage of Nations (London, MacMillan).Porter, M. (1999) An economic strategy for America’s inner cities: addressing the controversy, in: T.

Boston & C. Ross (Eds) The Inner City: Urban Poverty and Economic Development in the Next Century(New Brunswick & London, Transaction Publishers).

Quercia, R. & Galster, G. (1997) Threshold effects and the expected benefits of attracting middle-income households to the central city, Housing Policy Debate, pp. 409–435.

Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).School of Planning & Housing (2001) The Role of the Planning System in the Provision of Housing. Report

of Research by the School of Planning & Housing, ECA/Heriot-Watt University, with theDepartment of Building Engineering & Surveying, Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh, ScottishExecutive Central Research Unit).

Scottish Executive (2003) Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities (Edinburgh,Scottish Executive).

Scottish Homes (1996) The Physical Quality of Housing: A Framework for Action (Edinburgh, ScottishHomes).

Scottish Homes (1997) Scottish House Condition Survey (Edinburgh, Scottish Homes).Simmie, J., Wood, P. & Sennett, J. (2000) Innovation and clustering in the London Metropolitan

Region, in: I. Begg (Ed.) Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities (Bristol, Policy Press).Turok, I. et al. (2003) Twin Track Cities? Linking Prosperity and Cohesion in Glasgow and Edinburgh

(Glasgow, University of Glasgow).UK Round Table on Sustainable Development (1997) Housing and Urban Capacity (London, Depart-

ment of the Environment).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

56 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014