The Residential High-Rise in London: Towards an Urban Renaissance?

By

Richard Baxter

ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme

Working Paper 18

2005 ISBN: 1-903825-27-X

Preface

Richard Baxter is a PhD student supported by the ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate

Research Programme at Kings College, University of London. Richard commenced

his research in October 2003, supervised by Dr Loretta Lees, with additional

support from Sarah Fielder in ODPM as an associate supervisor. Richard’s research

seeks to add to the evidence base on high-rise living, beyond stereotypical views

about council housing tower blocks, in order to consider the potential contribution

which the high-rise can make to an urban renaissance. This paper reviews the

existing literature on high-rise living and explains how the new research is being

conducted across Inner London.

Ade Kearns Programme Director a.j.kearns@socsci.gla.ac.uk

Abstract This ODPM working paper outlines the recent rebirth of the residential high-rise in

London, and highlights some of the blueprints for a new genre of socially and

environmentally sustainable high-rises. It also discusses the political, planning,

and policy debates that are associated with the high-rise in London. Critically, it

argues that the high-rise’s rebirth is currently foregrounded on a mixed and

limited evidence base with respect to the ‘experience’ of high-rise living in the UK.

This literature also tends to focus on the high-rise within the context of

marginalized, low-income ‘council’ estates. It argues that more empirical research

is needed into the experience of high-rise living in all tenures and social groups

and, in so doing, puts forward a methodology to frame such research. The findings

of the research will enable the ODPM to make informed decisions about the

residential high-rise’s potential contribution in developing ‘sustainable

communities’.

Contents

I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

II: The rebirth of the residential high-rise in the UK.................................................. 3

III: The promotion of the residential high-rise in London: politics, planning and

policy.............................................................................................................................. 6

IV: High-rise living: a mixed and limited evidence base ........................................... 9

V: Research aim and objectives ..................................................................................... 13

VI: Towards a research methodology on the experience of high-rise living........ 14

VII: Summary .................................................................................................................... 21

VIII: References ................................................................................................................ 22

I: Introduction In London, and other UK cities such as Manchester and Liverpool, the residential high-rise seems to be making a comeback of sorts. The turning point to looking at tower blocks in a more favourable light was probably about 1998 when Erno Goldfinger’s classic Trellick Tower in West London became a grade II listed building. It has now achieved near cult status and flats are selling for upwards of £150,000. More recently, the Mayor of London’s (2004) The London Plan has called for the rehabilitation of existing housing stock, including high rises (greater than 5 stories), which presently provide 8.7% of housing units in London (ODPM 2000/01), as well as, controversially, the construction of more tall buildings in areas of intensification. In many ways this came from the prevailing direction of central government urban policy towards more sustainable cities, as charted in Towards an Urban Renaissance, the report of the Urban Task Force (DETR 1999), and the subsequent Urban White Paper (DETR, 2000) (see Imrie and Raco, 2003).

However, the probable (see Binder 2003) rebirth of the residential high-rise in London and other UK cities is problematic given the high-rise’s association with social problems, alienation, and civil unrest. This is epitomised by Anne Power’s (1995) account of the Grande Ensembles, Les Minguettes, in Lyon, in her book Estates on the Edge:

‘ … It was 1981. The large estate (ZUP) was in a bad way. The signs had been visible for a while. Not a day without a letterbox being torn out, lifts wantonly damaged, abusive graffiti, rubbish bins emptied out of windows, complaints about rampant and aggressive delinquency. Bands of disturbed youths stood out against the enclosed sky-line, spasmodically burning large cars, emblems of a civilisation to which they had no key. The police response was tense, then tough. The worst nightmare had become reality – a cycle of violence, repression, violence – which would never resolve anything …’ (Elie et al 1989, cited in Power 1995).

Such negative stereotypes of high-rise living abound in the academic literature. For example, Dolores Hayden’s description of 20th century high-rises as, ‘machines for living … unliveable … cheap, nasty and badly thought out’ (1984, p.184), and Alice Coleman’s (1985) research that highlighted the relationship between anti-social behaviour, especially by youth, on high-rise estates, and the role of design and defensible space in combating it. As such the current anxiety and policy confusion that surrounds the residential high-rise, best illustrated in the Tall Buildings hearings of the Common Urban Affairs Sub-Committee is not surprising. Many of those submitting memoranda reject the Urban Task Force’s (DETR 1999, p.60) celebration of high-rise living as utopian elitism, out of touch with the legacy of alienation, social exclusion and anti-social behaviour, whilst proponents of high-rises acknowledge such problems, but attribute them to poor design and

1

management. These planners, architects, and environmental campaigners point to high quality developments like the Barbican and Deansgate in Manchester (ODPM 2001) as proof that high-rise housing can contribute to the development of environmentally sustainable, socially inclusive, and liveable urban environments (e.g. Church and Gale 2000, Brown 2003).

However, such claims within popular debate and policy are anecdotal. Critically, the academic literature on high-rises does not offer a clear understanding of the problems encountered on high-rise estates in the 1960s and 70s, nor have successful high-rise environments ever been investigated or explained. Much of the literature explains some aspect of the building of high-rises (e.g. Glendinning and Muthesius 1984) or focuses upon high-rise estates that are habited by marginalized and low-income residents (e.g. Power 1995). This is best summarised by Turkington’s (in Towers 2000, xiv) statement that, ‘the [British] experience of multi-story living has been little studied, and largely subsumed within the broader question of the ‘future of “council estates”.’

This project then seeks to fill this gap in the literature by providing in depth empirical research into high-rise living for all tenures and social groups. It will deliver a better understanding of the conditions needed to create ‘successful’ and ‘liveable’ high-rise environments. London has been chosen for two pragmatic reasons. The first is that interviews and experiential diaries are being used and it would be impractical, in terms of time and cost, to visit informants in a number of cities that are distributed across the UK. The second is that London is the logical choice because it has the most residential high-rises of any UK city, the majority of new high-rises are likely to be built in London (Guardian, Saturday 15th 2005), and it has a serious housing shortage (Hall 2002). The findings of the study will be disseminated to the ODPM so that the government can make informed decisions about the role of the residential high-rise within its ‘sustainable communities’ agenda.

2

II: The rebirth of the residential high-rise in the UK

"I just love the quality of the living and the large amount of natural light shining all day, the feeling that I have this very private space which no one can invade … It’s very special and it’s very safe," (interview with architect Ian Simpson of Ian Simpson Architects, in the Guardian, Saturday 15th 2005).

For such an imposing housing form, the residential high-rise is making a quiet return to the skylines of many cities within the UK. The estate agents, Savills, have stated that, within the UK, there are 90 high-rises more than 20 stories either under construction or with blueprints submitted to planning authorities (Guardian, Saturday 15th 2005). In Deansgate, Manchester, the 20-storey, Number One, designed by Ian Simpson Architects has just been completed, whilst the 47-storey, Beetham Tower, is due for completion next year. In Leeds, the council has recently approved the construction of another 47-storey development, Twin Towers, again designed by Ian Simpson Architects at the Criterion Place site. Meanwhile, other councils have credible proposals for high-rise schemes. For example, Brighton is considering whether to give approval to Frank Gehry’s (architect of the Guggenheim in Bilbao) design of four futuristic towers that look like crushed tin cans, and Wilkinson Eyre Architects’, 40-storey, design at Brighton Marina that looks like a great lighthouse.

However, the bulk of high-rise development (49 out of the 90) is located in London. For some time now, private developers have been building luxury residential towers for the (upper) middle classes along the banks of the Thames (Davidson and Lees forthcoming 2005). In Canary Wharf, this includes the recently constructed and highly exclusive, 29-storey Ontario Tower, the 18-storey New Providence Wharf, and the 32-storey glass, wing-shaped building at 22 Hertsmere Road, where 3-bedroom apartments are selling for £2.85 million. With surprisingly little publicity, planning approval has also been given to the ‘Shard of Glass’, or the London Bridge Tower, designed by the Renzo Piano Workshop that at over 1000 ft will be the tallest residential building in Europe. Other buildings are catering to a broader social mix. The Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Peabody Trust are both planning and building residential high-rises, especially for key workers, but also for low-income households. Ex-council tower blocks are also being sold to housing associations and property developers, such as the Legendary Property Company, who rehabilitate the buildings and then either let or sell them on the open market. Emerging Blueprints for Sustainable High-Rise Towers New Labour’s ‘Sustainable Communities’ agenda has inspired the creation of a new breed of ‘sustainable residential high-rises’, such as ‘Eco Towers’, a collaborative project by HTA Architects Ltd and T.R. Hamzah and Yeang that is

3

due for completion in Elephant and Castle in 2011; the ambitious 35-storey ‘SkyZED – The Flower Tower’, proposed by the architect Bill Dunster, and the radical 40-storey ‘Skyhouse’ designed by Marks Barfield, architects of the London Eye. The aim of such designs is to reduce environmental impact and to be sensitive to the fact that most social housing providers in the world’s larger cities have no option but to build high to maximise density given the high cost of new sites for affordable homes. Mark Barfield Architects, ‘Skyhouse’, for example, is a 40-storey, 620 ft/189m, design with a cluster of three towers, connected vertically, and each giving support to the other. The trio of buildings are designed so that wind is channelled towards turbines that, in turn, generate electricity for communal areas. Not only is it mixed-use with Skyhouse offering apartments, health clubs, restaurants, sky-gardens, community lobbies, swimming pools, crèches and shops, but, radically, it will also be socially-mixed, with tenants from all backgrounds and classes (www.marksbarfield.com/skyhouse).

The 35-storey, SkyZED flower tower has been designed specifically for public housing providers that, generally, have to build high to maximise density given the high cost of new sites for affordable homes. The tower, which has four petal shaped floor plates arranged like a flower to optimise views, daylight and privacy, generates its own energy using a combination of wind and photovoltaic cells mounted in the cladding and roof, and either a woodchip or biomass fuelled boiler. It is mixed use, the basement contains a car pool and boilers, the base of the tower is work space, and along with the residential flats there is childcare, leisure and education accommodation throughout the building. The roof of each link floor is covered with lawn and provides a skygarden for the adjacent flats, the upper floors house a healthy living centre, bar, restaurant with views over London and a gym. Other more idiosyncratic elements include a glazed reception tunnel through which residents can see their black and grey waste water being treated and a farm shop to re-establish urban rural links and reduce foodmiles (www.zedfactory.com/flowertower).

4

Bill Dunster’s SkyZED (http://www.zedfactory.com/flowertower/flowertower.html)

5

III: The promotion of the residential high-rise in London: politics, planning and policy

The return of the residential high-rise to the policy agenda has emerged from a conjuncture of several factors: the reconstitution of a strategic level to urban governance with the establishment of the Greater London Authority in 2000 (Pimlott and Rao 2002); the election of a mayor – Ken Livingstone - with a strongly interventionist agenda in terms of city-wide housing targets and a clear agenda for population growth, combined with affordable housing targets (McNeill 2002a); a nation-wide shift in policy towards urban infilling, high-density and public transport as articulated in the Urban Task Force Report (which partially informed the subsequent government White Paper) (DETR 1999, Lees 2003); a growing political and popular anxiety about the city’s high-priced housing market, particularly given the ‘key worker’ shortage in central schools, hospitals and emergency services; and a growing commercial demand for tall office buildings in central London (McNeill 2002b).

Livingstone was undoubtedly influenced by the findings of the Task Force – he would appoint Richard Rogers as advisor on architecture in London shortly after his election. But it is important to stress that the Task Force report – Towards an Urban Renaissance – said little about tall buildings, and even less about the experience of high-rise living. The report was clear to point out that ‘density per se is not an indicator of urban quality’, pointing out that a single point block in a large plot of open space (the Corbusierian ideal), a low rise set of housing with high plot coverage, and a series of varying block sizes surrounding a smaller open space could all deliver the same number of housing units (DETR 1999: 60-64). Thus while the Report did much to place a presumption on higher density forms of development – with a suggestion that local authorities give out density bonuses ‘to reward developers who submit high quality designs compatible with a higher density solution’ (DETR 1999: 64) – this was not explicitly linked to a call for high or ‘supertall’ residential towers.

Instead, the election of Ken Livingstone as mayor provided a very strong political impulse to building high. Possessing only limited powers of tax variation and revenue generation, the new mayor has sought to exploit his main set of powers, those of planning regulation (McNeill 2002a). Livingstone and his advisors have pursued a complex model of leveraging finance for improvements in the public transport network and affordable housing through the identification of zones of opportunity, areas where tall office buildings could be combined with dense nodes of public transport. Areas such as Paddington Basin, Docklands, the City, London Bridge and Croydon were enshrined in the London Plan as ‘opportunity areas,’ appropriate sites for new tall buildings (both commercial and residential). Within this line of thought, an increased density of new housing on a single footprint will contribute to urban sustainability (see Lees 2003) due to

6

shorter journeys to work, school, and leisure for example, and – when combined with mixed use developments – contribute to the regeneration of inner-city sites.

By the time of the approval of the London Plan in 2004, Livingstone and the GLA were eagerly championing, indeed pushing, local boroughs to accept high-rise residential apartments as cornerstones of a ‘sustainable’ brownfield regeneration policy. One high-profile case should serve to illustrate some of these issues. Between 2002 and 2004, volume-builder St George’s put forward a plan for London’s tallest residential tower, with 49 floors, rising to 181metres/593 feet, and topped with a wind-turbine that would provide 50% of the building’s energy. Lambeth Borough Council – a relatively poor borough bordering on the Thames in the southwest of the city – rejected on 3 occasions the planning application submitted by developers on the riverside site in Vauxhall on grounds of visual impact. Drawing on his statutory ability to demand that local development plans accord with the London Plan, Livingstone instructed Lambeth to accept the final application (with the threat of legal action if they did not assent), a decision upheld in a public inquiry in late 2003. Leaving the detail of the case aside, what interests us here is the manner in which the mayor supported the development, which can be organised in three main areas. Firstly, the project is seen as moving towards the increased density targets of the ‘urban renaissance’: “the Vauxhall tower will yield a significant quantum of high density housing in a highly accessible riverside location” (GLA 2003: 7). Secondly, the striking cylindrical design of the tower is seen by the mayor to be architecturally of high quality, and “the surrounding townscape is neither of significant historic interest nor in the backdrop of strategic views of St Paul’s or the Palace of Westminster” (GLA 2003: 19). Thirdly, the building contributes to the sustainability agenda: “no other residential tower of this size has yet incorporated bore hole cooling and wind turbines” (GLA 2003: 66), and “residential towers are known to make an extremely efficient use of floorspace.” (p.7-8); fourthly, the tower is seen to contribute to meeting housing targets and – particularly – affordable housing targets (with social rented and intermediate mixed tenure housing sited adjacent to the tower).

However, aside from prestige riverside developments (see Davidson and Lees 2005), it would appear that the market for high-rise residential developments is not sufficiently strong to encourage developers to build high apartments. Again, evidence for this is scattered. For example, reporting on a 1000-person poll undertaken by Mori, Helen Rice notes:

‘However, given the choice of where they would most like to live, the two most desirable housing types are bungalow and a village house, followed by a Victorian terrace and a modern semi. Only one in 50 chose a modern loft style apartment and no one at all opted for high rise living in a tower block. Taken as a whole, even young people tend to prefer houses like those in Prince Charles’ Poundbury to loft living in urban

7

centres,’ (Helen Rice, ‘Liveable communities’, MORI - www.mori.com/pubinfo/her/liveable-communities).

Such findings would tend to suggest a continuing British apathy towards high-rise living. Yet, strangely, reasons for this remain largely unresearched. Much of the debate on high-rise living is dominated by factors extrinsic to the lived experience of high-rise. For example, the 2002 Report on Tall Buildings by the House of Commons Select Committee, which followed a fairly extensive cross-examination of key witnesses, grouped its substantive findings into seven areas: ‘contribution to the urban renaissance’, transport, economics, ‘image, design and environment’ (including townscape), planning, the remit of English Heritage and the Commission of Architecture and the Built Environment, and safety. As is now explored, this means that the British debate circulates on the issues of the high-rise building rather than on the experiential nature – and sociality – of high-rise living.

8

IV: High-rise living: a mixed and limited evidence base The Anglo-American literature on the residential high-rise can be broadly divided into two. The first, which is relatively coherent and compact seeks to explain the high-rise building. It includes an explanation of their rapid construction in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and the architectural theory behind the design (e.g. Le Corbusier 1987, Allan 1992). The second, which is either implicitly or directly about high-rise living is far less expansive, scattered and mixed, and only discusses the high-rise as a low-income and marginalized urban space. Lee Rainwater’s (1973) Behind Ghetto Walls, for example, offers one of the few detailed accounts of everyday life on the high-rise project, Pruitt-Igoe, but it takes place within the context of a ‘ghetto’ environment. It offers, therefore, little empirical evidence of the experience of high-rise living under other conditions, such as for high-income groups, nor any substantive understanding of the factors that result in ‘successful’, and ‘liveable’, high-rise environments.

More coherent work on the high-rise building includes Dunleavy’s (1981) The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain 1945-1975, Glendinning and Muthesius’s (1984) Tower Block, Hall’s (2002) Cities of Tomorrow and Towers’s (2000) Shelter is Not Enough. Amongst these texts, there is consensus that the residential high-rise was built extensively during the 1950s, 60s and early 70s because of the specific social and cultural context after WWII. At that time there was a considerable housing shortage, rapid urbanisation, delayed planning initiatives and wartime bombing, especially of the East End (Glendinning and Muthesius, 1984). The period also demonstrated a growing concern over slum neighbourhoods that were characterised by poverty, overcrowding and deteriorating tenement housing, an increasing emphasis on the welfare state, and an associated prevalent culture of modernism. As partial solution to these uniquely urban problems, politicians, government officials and architects put their faith in a new vision for housing, living and society. The modern high rise, product of the ideology of influential architectural groups such as the Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) and the Modern Architecture Research Group (MARS), and celebrated architects such as Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, could provide for high density, modern, comfortable, efficient, and desirable city living. Not only could these high rises be constructed quickly, but the higher density meant that parks and gardens could blossom between the buildings themselves, in effect bringing the country to the city (Le Corbusier 1987).

These technological and utopian intentions that first accompanied the high-rise building have largely been forgotten. In the UK, the high-rise’s reputation quickly declined into a far more sinister and unfortunate narrative, with the popular press printing shocking accounts of anti-social and pathological behaviour within confined high-rise environments. This negative narrative is continued in the second literature on the residential high-rise, work that is either implicitly or directly about high-rise living. Much of this is scattered and makes

9

unsubstantiated generalisations, such as Sandercock’s (1998) depiction of the high-rise as the ultimate symbol of the failures of an alienating and inhuman modernist planning regime, and the commonly held notion that the high-rise is a ‘failed experiment’, taken for granted in the works of Dunleavy (1981), Towers (2000) and Hall (2002).

Intentionally or not, significant in cementing this negative narrative has been Oscar Newman’s (1972) Defensible Space and Alice Coleman’s (1985) Utopia on Trial: vision and reality in planned housing. To different degrees, both authors argued for a strong positive relationship between the actual particularities of the high-rise design and anti-social behaviour. Newman argued that, with socio demographic variables kept constant, high-rises would, firstly, tend to have higher crime rates than lower rise neighbourhoods, and that, secondly, some high-rises would experience more crime than others because of subtle differences in design. His thesis rests upon the notion of ‘defensible space’ where certain physical environments encourage resident surveillance and attachment. The ‘defensible space’ thesis has, for the most part, been well received. Newman did not argue that design caused crime, rather ‘… the root cause of inner city ghetto crime lies deep in the social structure of our nation’ (1972, p.13).

By way of contrast, Alice Coleman’s (1985) Utopia on Trial was far more deterministic in its relationship between the high-rise design and certain anti-social behaviours, or what she called social malaise. Her research team investigated 4,099 high-rise blocks in Southwark and Tower Hamlets in London, collecting scored numerical data on the extent of social malaise and a block’s design disadvantagement (see Coleman 1985, Chapter IV). The findings presented a strong positive relationship between social malaise and disadvantaged designs. It was an important study because Coleman received substantial funding from the Conservative government, under Thatcher (see Towers 2000), and she had also implicitly argued that the free-market produced the most safe and socially desirable housing designs. However, Utopia on Trial was vehemently criticised within architectural publications (see Hillier 1986, Hill 1997). For example, Spiker (1987) was critical of both Coleman’s methodology (p.290) and also what he deemed, ‘her inadequate theoretical analysis’ (p. 283). His main point was that the social problems encountered on her high-rise estates were less attributable to design per se, as they were to the incidence and concentration of poverty (p.291).

This negative portrayal is also apparent in isolated and scattered journal articles, providing snapshots of high-rise living, under distinct environmental and social conditions. One set of research has implied that a positive relationship exists between high-density living and anti-social, or pathological, behaviour (e.g. Schmitt 1966, Saegert 1976). For example, Saegert’s (1976) study indicated that high-rise residents are likely to exhibit higher stress levels, because of the higher density and proximity to neighbours. There is also Greene et al.’s (2002) research of 405 adults in 21 tower blocks in Liverpool, UK, in which they found that well being

10

was lower amongst high-rise residents, when compared to the inhabitants of lower rise dwellings in nearby neighbourhoods. Greene et al. (2002) attributed this to the higher crime rates in the outside common areas immediately surrounding the buildings, which tended to increase worry and, therefore, decrease well being.

Certainly, more comprehensive in scope, but still confined to marginalized estates by income and ethnicity, is Anne Power’s (1995) Estates on the Edge. This book offers a detailed chronicle of the two infamous high-rise projects, the Grand Ensemble of Les Minguettes, Lyon, and the Broadwater Farm Estate in Haringey, London1. Les Minguettes was an archetypal, modernist project, consisting of 9,500 flats in 63 buildings. By 1979, there were 2,400 vacant units and, by 1981, frequent rioting and conflict between socially excluded North African youths, the police and a growing white National Front. The Broadwater Farm Estate endured a similar tale of high-rise decline. By 1973, the estate had gained a reputation for poverty, crime, insecurity and poor service provision. The parking lot had become the local supermarket for illegal drugs. In 1984, a police raid resulted in the heart attack and death of a black mother, Cynthia Jarrett, and, an already volatile situation between black youths and the police, erupted. The outcome was the well-publicised Broadwater riot and the stabbing of PC Blakelock. ‘What the police got was a bloody good hiding’, declared one of the first black MPs, Bernie Grant, after the event (BBC News 8th April 2000).

The sole exception to the rather negative discussion of the residential high-rise in the academic literature is Pearl Jephcott’s (1971) Homes in High Flats, an in depth and sophisticated, but out-of-date, account, which provides a much more ambiguous discussion of the type of experience that can be found in the high-rise environment. Interviewing a 5% sample of high-rise residents on five Glaswegian estates, his study points out the problem with conveying that only one form of living can be found in high-rises, such as socially deviant behaviour. Critically, Jephcott concluded that the type of experience was also related to the divergent socio-demographic characteristics of residents. For example, his research illustrated that elderly and single mothers were more vulnerable to isolation and loneliness, and somewhat prophetically that the high-rise design was not suitable for children because it hindered their social and psychological development. But the environment did ‘work’ for certain social groups, including middle-aged couples whose children had left home, twenty to thirty year old professionals, and students.

‘To sum up, the households most likely to make a success of multi-storey life were those whose interests did not centre on their home, who had plenty of personal resources; and were relatively well educated and well off,’ (Jephcott 1971, p.105).

1 For an ethnographic account of everyday life on an equivalent marginalized, low-income high-rise estate, but in the US, see Lee Rainwater’s (1973) Behind Ghetto Walls.

11

There is overall very limited research based evidence in the literature on the British experience of high-rise living. The limited literature that there is on high-rise living in the UK is either out-of-date (Jephcott 1971) or has been investigated within the context of the low-income council estate (Coleman 1985, Power 1995). There, therefore, needs to be further in depth empirical research into UK based high-rise living across all tenures and social groups. Only once this goal is met can any confidence be placed in a future project of ‘sustainable’ high-rise towers.

12

V: Research aim and objectives The research aim is to investigate and to better understand the residential high-rise in London. There are three related research objectives. 1. To collect empirical evidence on how high-rises are being experienced by

residents in London. 2. To identify patterns in the data so that the factors that contribute to

‘successful’ and ‘liveable’ high-rise living can be better understood. 3. To evaluate the extent to which the high-rise design impedes or encourages

community formation and social mixing. ‘Objective one’ reflects the limited evidence base on how high-rises are being experienced by residents. Interestingly, it will also allow us to determine the extent to which the common perception of the high-rise as a deviant housing form corresponds with the reality of high-rise living. ‘Objective two’ will be met through the detailed analysis of that empirical evidence base. It is important to the ODPM because it will provide for an understanding of the factors that contribute to both ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ high-rises. ‘Objective three’ responds to the significance placed on healthy, socially mixed communities to the government’s Sustainable Communities agenda. The influence of the high-rise’s design on the formation of communities and the mixing of different social groups will, therefore, be examined. These objectives will enable the ODPM to make informed decisions about the residential high-rise and will help in the future construction of sustainable, socially inclusive, and liveable high-rise environments.

13

VI: Towards a research methodology on the experience of high-rise living

We need a research methodology that will produce empirical evidence on high-rise living, as all residents are experiencing it across different social groups and across different tenures. It is critical that a multi-method approach is used that combines both quantitative and qualitative data. This will ensure that findings and conclusions are based upon the analysis of data that is not only representative and generalisable, but also in-depth and detailed enough to investigate the complexity of everyday life. This combination of quantitative and qualitative data also means that the research will counter the limitations of previous studies into high-rise living. For example, although Rainwater (1972) provided an in-depth ethnographic account of everyday life at Pruitt-Igoe, the findings cannot be considered representative of high-rise living because it is focused on only one marginalized estate. Greene et al.’s (2002) investigation of 21 tower blocks in Liverpool has greater breadth and scope, but lacks an understanding of the richness and complexity of resident experiences because it only focuses on the issues of well being and crime.

The following ‘Box A’ summarises why a multi-method approach has been chosen for this study. The key point is that the multi-method approach envisages combined methods not in isolation but as interacting to produce a complete and multi-layered appreciation of a phenomenon by combining the strengths and limiting the weaknesses of each method (Rocco et al. 2003). Box A. Four reasons for using the multi-method approach (see Greene et al. 1989 and Rocco et al. 2003). (1) Complementarity

There are two characteristics of complementarity. The first, is where the two, or more, methods overlap. The second, is where two, or more, methods do not overlap, and produce different ‘kinds’, or ‘types’, of data. The overlapping characteristic means that one method can ‘elaborate, enhance or illustrate’, (Greene et al. 1989, p.267) the findings of another. This crosschecking increases the validity and accuracy of findings. The second characteristic is also important because the different ‘types’ of data, recording the different facets of the same phenomenon, can result in richer and deeper understandings. This is very much in alignment with postmodernism that posits the advantages of both studying and reflecting on the world through different philosophical positions.

(2) Developmental The developmental design is pragmatic in nature. Simply, it means that both the design and execution of the latter

14

method(s) can learn from, and be informed by, the method(s) that have proceeded. For example, informants for the latter method(s) can be recruited via the former, or the structure, and order, of an interview schedule can be influenced by the informants’ responses to a questionnaire.

(3) Initiation In a way, Initiation is similar to the latter characteristic of complementarity. This involves the deliberate mixing of different philosophical paradigms, manifest in the use of different methods, with the objective of, often accidentally, discovering areas of non-convergence, paradox and contradiction. Potentially, this can throw up new insights, lead to new lines of thought, and possibilities for further research.

(4) Expansion Relevant to this study, Expansion is characterised by the co-joining of both quantitative and qualitative methods. This ensures that the research is not limited by the problems of only using quantitative method, or only using qualitative method. Applying both means that the data will contain properties of representativeness and generalisability, and also the depth, complexity and detail, not only important to communicating the unique emotive and sensual qualities of being human, but also important to understanding causality (Hoggart et al. 2002).

The following ‘Box B’ illustrates the research methods that will be used in the project. Complying with the interactive nature of multi-methods, the methods will be deployed sequentially and in three phases. This means that the latter phase(s) can be informed by the proceeding method(s). For example, questions asked in the in depth interviews will be able to be guided by the responses provided in the questionnaires. Importantly, this interactive research design, using multiple methods, will also allow us to understand a variable from different view points. This is because each method delivers different types of information. For example, the outside area thirty metres surrounding a high-rise will be able to be understood not only through the medium of language, in the questionnaires, interview transcripts and experiential diaries, but also through the visual images in photographs.

15

Box B. The research methods deployed in sequence. Quantitative Method Phase 1 - A Postal Questionnaire Qualitative Method(s) Phase 2 - Semi-Structured In-depth Interviews Phase 3 - Experiential Diaries - Visual methods Quantitative Method Phase 1 The Postal Questionnaire Inner London has been chosen as the study area. This includes, under the Greater London Authority’s definition, London boroughs2: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

City of London Tower Hamlets Southwark Lambeth Wandsworth Hammersmith and Fulham

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Kensington and Chelsea Westminster Camden Islington Hackney Haringey

Inner London was chosen for three reasons. The first is that Greater London is too large, and would have been impractical to research in terms of time and cost. The second is that Spiker (1987, p.290) has criticised Coleman’s Utopia on Trial for only taking her evidence from the two Inner London boroughs, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Taking the sample from 12 Inner London boroughs reduces the potential biases that might arise from local areas effects, for example, the unique housing procedures and policies of individual Local Authorities. The third is that Inner London is a well-known and logical boundary to use. A potential problem with not having Greater London boroughs included in the study is that ‘periphery estates’, on the edge of urban areas, will be omitted. These are often discussed in the literature as problem estates (e.g. Jephcott 1972), unique in their isolation, suffering from social problems, lacking access to public transport, local amenities and facilities. It is acknowledged that this should be an area for further research.

The sample frame for all residential high-rises in Inner London will be created by merging the GeoInformatics Cities Revealed dataset on Building Class, with Ordinance Survey Mastermap (topography and address layers). Cities Revealed Building Class is a digital dataset with information on all residential buildings by type. There are 32 categories, including high-rises between 6-9 storeys and 10 storeys and above. This merged dataset will be run in ArcView and a search

2 The Inner London boroughs, Lewisham and Newham, were not included in the study because, at the time, Cities Revealed Building Class data was not available for these boroughs.

16

programme created to locate all high-rises over 9 storeys (i.e. the sample frame). This sample frame will be stratified, and then randomly sampled, balancing factors of distribution, the requirement for representative data, and the need to include specific variables, for example, households in NS-SEC categories 1 and 2. Address data for households in the sample will be extracted from the ‘address layer’ of OS Mastermap using ArcView.

The structure and content of the questionnaire is the product of four stages. This is (1) a consideration of the project’s research objectives, (2) reviewing the literature on high-rise living, (3) informal pilot interviews with high-rise residents, and (4) piloting the questionnaire in four high-rises each with different types of residents. Briefly, the questionnaire is divided into four sections. Section 1 is on basic demographics, Section 2 creates a two-part scored index on high-rise ‘success’ or ‘liveability’ that can either be aggregated, or used to correlate individually. Section 3 is about the factors that influence ‘success’ or ‘liveability’ and is broken down into ‘high-rise building’, ‘high-rise management’, and ‘local neighbourhood’. Section 4 measures community and social mixing in accordance with the ‘sustainable communities’ agenda. Some of the question instruments have been self-devised, such as questions 40 and 41 that investigate social mixing. However, most are either based on well-known indicators, like questions 4 and 5 that will enable the calculation of NS-SEC categories (reduced version), or are modifications of instruments used in other studies. For example, the question series on high-rise management is a hybrid of questions taken from Satsangi and Kearns (1992) and Varrody and Corozza (2000).

Codes, from the returned questionnaires, will be inputted into SPSS 12 for analysis. This will enable patterns to be identified in the data and correlations to be made between variables, so that the factors that contribute to ‘successful’ and ‘liveable’ high-rise living can be better understood. For example, the various components of Section One or demographics can be correlated with Section 2 which measures high-rise ‘success’ and ‘liveability’ to help reveal the social groups best suited to the high-rise environment. Again, this quantitative phase of research is critical to providing generalisable findings from representative data. However, it must be integrated with the qualitative phase of research that will not only support, illustrate and enhance, but will also add new insights (Greene et al. 1989), adding to the depth, detail and complexity of the project. Qualitative Methods If the benefit of the questionnaire is the breadth and scope of data, it is limited by a ‘superficial’ (see Hoggart et al. 2002, p.171-172) appreciation of the complexity of social situations, including the in-depth thoughts, feelings and experiences of residents. Qualitative methods, in this instance semi-structured in-depth interviews, experiential diaries and visual methods, will be used to address this limitation and therefore illustrate the complexity and diversity of experiences that

17

take place within the different high-rise environments. This richer account is influenced by Lees’ (2001) study of the Vancouver Public Library, where she argued that a combined approach should be used to investigate the interior lived-space (Lefebvre 1991) of buildings that includes both ethnography and the recent turn towards everyday activity or how space is performed (see Thrift 2000, Laurier et al. 2001). This multi-approach that combines different methods and epistemologies will provide a multi-layered and multi-faceted evidence base that will both validate, add new insights and information, and potentially challenge taken for granted assumptions, in alignment with the notions of ‘complimentarity’ and ‘initiation’ (Rocco et al. 2003).

As an example of the complexity involved in studying social categories and concepts, Varady and Carrozza (2000) have argued that the ‘tenant satisfaction’ question on questionnaires (also used in this project) must be supported and supplemented by other, qualitative, methods. This is for two reasons. The first is that there is an ‘acquiescence’ tendency amongst residents to respond that they are ‘satisfied’. The second is that satisfaction is related to ‘expectation’ (ibid, p. 800) and is, therefore, not a good indicator of actual living conditions.

‘There is a growing consensus that to understand tenant satisfaction results, the closed-ended findings should be supplemented with other information: (a) open-ended items (Binks and Southan 1992, Prescot-Scott et al. 1993); (b) ethnographic approaches, such as participant observation (Franklin 1989); (c) focus interviews (Peter Gibson Associates 1993); (d) in-depth personal interviews (Poplin et al. 1995); and (e) satisfaction cards distributed and collected after a particular service has been provided combined with landlord records (Prescott-Clarke et al. 1993),’ (Varady and Carrozza 2000, p.799-800).

Phase 2 Semi-Structured, In-depth Interviews In accordance with the ‘developmental’ research design informants for Phase 2, the semi-structured in depth interviews, will be recruited via the questionnaire. As stated, this interview stage is critical to exploring the ‘depth’ thoughts, feelings, experiences and encounters of residents, who should be permitted to talk freely and without the bias of leading questions introduced by the interviewer. This ‘conversational’ and relatively ‘informal’ interview approach that is directed by themes, but not constrained by the set, sequential questions of the closed-interview format, has two benefits. The first is that the beliefs, values and social categories of the informant, rather than the interviewer, are more likely to be accessed (McCracken 1988, Valentine 1997, Davies 1999). The second is that it can encourage the informant to focus less on the ‘interview situation’ per se, more on themselves, and in the process communicate more ‘expansive’ and ‘detailed’ information about their own lives, priorities and concerns. A good example of this more ‘conversational’ style can be found in Chapter 4 of Lee Rainwater’s (1972) Behind

18

Ghetto Walls. The field researchers were able to gather an extremely detailed understanding of everyday life at Pruitt-Igoe because Mrs. Annette Madison was so open and not self-conscious about the thoughts, feelings, and experiences that her, and her family, faced on the estate. Phase 3 Experiential Diaries Experiential diaries are being used for two reasons. The first is to provide an even more complete, in depth, picture or understanding (Zimmerman and Wieder 1977, Latham 2002) of high-rise living, by illustrating the highly detailed and concentrated daily lives, trajectories and experiences of residents. Certainly these experiential diaries complement the semi-structured interviews, but they also have some very real benefits over them, including the recording of a closer approximation of the daily flow of events over longer time periods (Elliott 1997), and the omission of less data because they overcome the problems of memory and time constraints. The diary is, further, not as influenced by the ‘intersubjective’ relationship between informant and interviewer (see Pile 1991), and the ‘socially constructed’ nature of the interview. They, therefore, potentially, provide more accurate, personalized and detailed accounts that better relates the initial thoughts and feelings of ‘diarists’, that might have been changed later, to more rationalised or socially acceptable thoughts and norms. Diaries:

‘… perhaps reflect more accurately the diverse range of thoughts and feelings that make up human consciousness,’ (Meth 2003).

The second reason for using experiential diaries is as a replacement to ‘participant observation’ (Zimmerman and Wieder 1977, Latham 2002). This method has been deemed not practical for this project because there is only one researcher, residents are likely to be distributed across London, and much activity will take place in semi-private and private environments. It follows that the diaries will also be used to identify the non-cognitive behaviours, culturally related routines, or decentred practices (see Schatzki et al. 2000) that take place in high-rise buildings. These unarticulated actions or performances, that Laurier et al. (2001) argue are the ‘stuff of everyday life’, constitute what we do, and how we both negotiate and experience space. This on-going activity also shapes our feelings, identities and relationships with others (Amin 2003). To further communicate and illustrate these performances, ‘diarists’ will be given disposable cameras so that they can record their experiences visually. This will not only help us better understand the type of experience, but also how residents are interacting with others, and the physical design of their high-rise environments.

The use of visual methods in this project is important because the number of qualitative methods is limited (Crang 2002, 2003) and there is a current imbalance towards textual, rather than visual data (Crang 2002). This relative absence of visual methods in human geography, and the social sciences more generally, can

19

be explained by three reasons. The first is the continued ‘gendered’ hierarchy in society where ‘male’ characteristics and related ideas are valued over their ‘female’ equivalents. Qualitative methods, especially photography and film, have tended to be devalued because they are traditionally equated with possessing ‘feminine’ attributes. This is evident in the commonly used and unequal notion that they are ‘soft’ methods. The second is that visual methods have traditionally been used to present snapshots back home and to justify truth claims, actions that have provoked accusations of academic tourism, objectification and realism (Crang 2003). The third is the heavyweight opposition between science and art (Holliday 2000). ‘Aligned’ with art, the techniques of photography and film have tended to be associated with those ‘horrible self-absorbed’ qualities such as expression, exaggeration and subjectivity.

However, as Holliday (2000) has argued there is no reason why photography cannot be undertaken with scientific rigour (p.505) and simply used to collect empirical data (Banks 2001, Crang 2003) about, in this instance, high-rise living. There are also two other advantages to using visual methods. The first includes their contribution to a depth of understanding (Holliday 2000) by supporting alternative data, or by communicating a different type of knowledge, for example, the partial re-production of the sensual, emotive and affective components of space (Crang 2003). At root, the latter signifies the distinction between traditionally separate knowledges, Cartesian Western thought, or language, and tacit appreciation, not cognitively understood, that involves emotion (see Thrift 1996). For example, the words ‘deserted’, ‘windy’ and ‘alienating’ are understood more effectively, and differently even, when complimented by the actual experience to which the words ‘refer’. Visual methods can, therefore, deliver us closer to the world as it is experienced, and this is not just important in terms of aiding our understanding. As anyone who has donated to the Tsunami appeal, partially, because of the visual images knows, this affective component is also critical to instilling both change and action.

20

VII: Summary In the 1940s and 50s there were problems of overcrowded slum neighbourhoods, a depleted housing stock because of the bombing of the East End (Glendinning and Muthesius 1984), and a general shortage of housing. The urban planners, architects, and politicians of the day turned to the new symbol of a ‘utopian’ and ‘technological’ modern age, the residential high-rise. Now, over half a century later, there are very similar problems that include a chronic housing shortage (Hall 2002), a related lack of affordable housing, and a new discourse with utopian overtones, this time not of ‘technology’ and ‘modernity’ but of ‘sustainability’ and ‘civic responsibility’. Interestingly, once again the residential high-rise has returned to the fore-front of debate.

However, within the UK a certain unease accompanies this rebirth of the residential high-rise. This is not surprising for two reasons. The first is that within popular opinion and the academic literature the high-rise has become a symbol for social problems, alienation, and social exclusion, and the second, is that this negative association has never been properly clarified or resolved. The high-rise literature has explained its construction (e.g. Dunleavy 1981), articulated its design (Le Corbusier 1987) or focused upon marginalized high-rise estates housing low-income residents (e.g. Coleman 1985, Rainwater 1973). Not since Pearl Jephcott’s (1971) Homes in High Flats, researched before the stereotype of the high-rise as a negative housing form emerged, has there been any sustained investigation of everyday life in high-rises across all tenures and social groups.

The intention of this project, therefore, is to address this gap in the literature by providing in depth empirical research into everyday living in residential high-rises in Inner London, across different tenures and social groups. This will allow the high-rise to be appreciated in all its diversity and complexity. The multi-method approach (see Greene et al. 1989, Rocco et al. 2003), which uses a questionnaire, in depth interviews, experiential diaries, and photography, is critical because the resultant evidence base will be generalisable, and yet also be able to communicate the richness, uniqueness and detail of residents living out everyday life in high-rises. Such an in-depth methodology into the daily experiences of high-rise residents will enable the ODPM to make informed decisions about the role of the residential high-rise in developing environmentally sustainable, socially inclusive, and liveable urban environments.

21

VIII: References Allan, J. (1992) Lubetkin. London: RIBA Publications Ltd. Amin, A. (2003) Unruly strangers? The 2001 urban riots in Britain, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, pp. 460-63. Banks, M. (2001) Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage Publications. BBC News (2000) Bernie Grant: A controversial figure, Saturday, 8th April, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/706403.stm). Binder, G. (2003) Sky High Living: Contemporary High Rise Apartments and Mixed Use Buildings. Mulgrave: Vic. Brown, P. (2003) Lofty solutions to the housing crisis—architects propose 200 m towers, Guardian 11 February. Church, C., and Gale, T. (2000) Streets in the Sky—Towards Improving the Quality of Life in Tower Blocks in the UK (Birmingham National Sustainable Tower Blocks Initiative). Coleman, A. (1985) Utopia on Trial: vision and reality in planned housing. London: Hilary Shipman. Crang, M. (2002) Qualitative Methods: the new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography, 26, pp. 647-655. Crang, M. (2003) Qualitative Methods: touchy, feely, look-see? Progress in Human Geography, 27, pp. 494-504. Davidson, M. and Lees, L. (2005) New Build ‘gentrification’ and London’s Riverside Renaissance, Environment and Planning A, 37, pp. 1165-1190. Davies, A. (1999) Where do we go from here? Environmental focus groups and planning policy formation, Local Environment, 4, pp. 295-316. DETR (Department Of Environment, Transport And The Regions) (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the Urban Task Force UK. London: The Stationery Office. DETR (Department Of Environment, Transport And The Regions) (2000) Our Towns and Cities: the Future: delivering an urban renaissance, UK. London: The Stationery Office.

22

Dunleavy, P. (1981) The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain 1945-1975: A study of corporate power and professional influence in the welfare state. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Elliott, A. (1997) The Use of Diaries in Sociological Research on Health Experience, Sociological Research Online, 2, (http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/7.html). Glendinning, M. and Muthesius, M. (1984) Tower Block: Modern Public Housing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. USA: Yale University Press. GLA (Greater London Authority) (2003), ‘Vauxhall Tower, Effra Site’, Planning Report PDU/0434B/01, 8 October, (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2003/oct_08_03.jsp#effra_0810). Green, G., Gilberson, J. and M. Grimsley (2002) Fear of crime and health in residential tower blocks: a case study in Liverpool UK, European Journal of Public Health, 12, pp. 10-15. Greene, J., Caracelli, V., and W. Graham (1989) Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, pp. 255-274. Guardian (2005) Today’s Castle in the Air: the tower block, Saturday, January 15th, (http://society.guardian.co.uk/urbandesign/story/0,11200,1392213,00.html). Hall, P. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow (3rd Eds). Oxford: Blackwell. Hayden, D. (1984) Redesigning the American Dream: the future of housing, work and family life. New York: Norton. Hill, S. (1997) A Roll of the Dice, Roof, July/August, pp. 12. Hillier, B. (1986) City of Alice’s Dreams, The Architects Journal, 9(July), pp. 39-41. Hoggart, K., Lees, L. and A. Davies (2002) Researching Human Geography. London: Arnold. Holliday, R. (2000) We’ve been framed: visualising methodology, Sociological Review, 48, pp. 503-522. House Of Commons, Transport, Local Government And The Regions Committee (2002), Tall Buildings. Sixteenth Report of Session 2001-2. London: the Stationery Office.

23

Imrie, R., and Raco, M. (Eds) (2003) Urban renaissance? New Labour, community and urban policy. Bristol: Policy Press. Jephcott, P. (1971) Homes in High Flats: Some of the human problems involved in multi-storey housing. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Latham, A. (2003) Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary-interview method, Environment and Planning A, 3, pp. 1993-2017. Laurier, E., Whyte, A. and K. Buckner (2001) An ethnography of a neighbourhood café: informality, table arrangements and background noise, Journal of Mundane Behaviour, 2, (http://www.mundanebehaviour.org/index2.htm). Le Corbusier (1987) The City of Tomorrow and its Planning. London: Architectural Press. Lees, L. (2001) Towards a Critical Geography of Architecture: the case of an ersatz colosseum, Ecumeme: A Journal of Cultural Geographies, 8, pp. 51-86. Lees, L. (2003) Visions of ‘Urban Renaissance’: the Urban Task Force Report and the Urban White Paper, in Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, community and urban policy, pp. 61-82. Bristol: Policy Press. LeFebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Mayor Of London (2004) The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Greater London Authority: London. McCracken, G. (1988) The Long Interview. California: Sage. McNeill, D. (2002a) Livingstone’s London: Left politics and the world city, Regional Studies, 36, pp. 75-80. McNeill, D. (2002b) The mayor and the world city skyline: London’s tall buildings debate, International Planning Studies, 7, pp. 325-334. Meth, P. (2003) Entries and Omissions: Using solicited diaries in geographical research, Area, 35, pp. 195-205. Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.

24

ODPM (Office Of The Deputy Prime Minister) (2000/01) Report on the 2000/01 Survey of English Housing, table A9.3. London: The Stationery Office. ODPM (Office Of The Deputy Prime Minister) (2001) Better Places to Live by Design: A Companion Guide to PPG3, (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=2325&l=2). Pile, S. (1991) Practicing Interpretative Geography, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16, pp. 458-469. Pimlott, B. and Rao, N. (2002), Governing London. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Power, A. (1995) Estates on the Edge: The social consequences of mass housing in Northern Europe. New York: Macmillan. Rainwater, L. (1973) Behind Ghetto Walls. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Rocco, T., Bliss, L. Gallagher, S. and A. Prado (2003) Teaching the next step: mixed methods research in organisation systems, Informational Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 21, pp. 19-29. Saegert, S. (1976) Stress-inducing and stress-reducing qualities of environment, in: W. Ittleson and L. Rulin (2nd Eds) Environmental Psychology, pp. 218-223. New York: Holt. Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: John Wiley. Satsangi, M. and Kearns, A. (1992) The use and interpretation of tenant satisfaction surveys in British social housing, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 10, pp. 317-331. Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., and E. Savigny (2000) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London and New York: Routledge. Schmitt, R. (1966) Density, Health, and Social Disorganization, Journal of American International Planners, 32, pp. 38-40. Spicker, P. (1987) ‘Poverty and depressed estates: a critique of Utopia on Trial’, Housing Studies, 2, pp. 283-292. Thrift, N. (1996) Spatial Formations. London: Sage.

25

Thrift, N. (2000) Afterwords, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, pp. 213-255. Towers, G. (2000) Shelter is Not Enough. Bristol: Policy Press. Valentine, G. (1997) Tell me about … : using interviews as a research methodology, in Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds), Research Methods in Human Geography, pp. 110-126. Harlow: Longman. Varady, D. and M. Carrozza (2000) Toward a better way to measure customer satisfaction levels in public housing: a report from Cincinnati, Housing Studies, 15, pp. 797-825. Zimmerman, D. and Wieder, D. (1977) Diary: Diary-interview method, Urban Life, 5, pp. 479-498.

26