Vertical Living Kids

The research, conducted in 2008-09, was funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) and had two objectives:

• To explore the physical, social, and policy environmental determinants of Children’s Independent Mobility (CIM – the ability of children, in this case children aged 6-12, to autonomously explore public space) in central Melbourne high rise housing.
• To review international best practice planning policy for these communities to recommend better approaches to supportive environments for children living in high rise housing: housing over four storeys.

The research project interviewed 40 children and their parents (18 living in public housing and 22 in privately owned housing). A range of qualitative and quantitative methods were used, including children having ‘a week with a camera’ and creating an annotated collage of their pictures; a travel activity diary filled out by children; GPS monitoring to supplement the travel diary in terms of knowing where children go in the day; an accelerometer measuring their physical activity during outdoor exploration; a parental survey; and a desk-top best practice policy review.

Research findings:

• Significant differences can be found between the travel behaviour of children residing in public and private high rise housing.
• Children in public high rise housing experience greater levels of CIM: 62% of their journeys were undertaken either alone or with other children; while only 17% of trips made by the private high rise sample were undertaken without adult accompaniment.
• The geographies of children residing in public high rise housing were dominated by local, designated play spaces. Conversely, the geographies of children residing in private high housing covered not only a larger territorial range but a wider variety of purpose built play spaces as well as public transport and commercial spaces.
• Distance to school and local open green spaces is a determinant of CIM. Participants residing within an 800m radius from their school or within a 300m pedshed of local green space were more likely to access those spaces independently than children who had to travel further.
• Factors contributing to children’s environmental preferences include accessibility and proximity to home, amenity, and the range of play and socialization opportunities.
• Singapore and Vancouver were identified to have best practice policies that support children living in high rise environments. Singapore enforces a clear hierarchy of walkable, transit-oriented play spaces and also provides sufficient housing diversity and social infrastructure for families in high rise housing. In Vancouver, high rise housing is regulated a by design guidelines with explicit consideration of the needs of children and families, including the proportion of affordable family units, informal surveillance of children’s play space, common open and indoor amenity spaces, private open space, and community services.

Recommendations to state and local government:

• That state and local planning authorities develop specific guidelines for children and families living in high rise housing, including enforcing a spatial hierarchy of interesting local play spaces that allow for a gradual extension of children’s travel range, facilitating informal surveillance of play spaces from adjacent housing for younger children, and supporting innovative design and age-appropriate play spaces for older children.
• That state and local planning authorities consult with children, and take action on the recommendations arising from that consultation, that recognises that the entire public realm can function as a play space for children, rather than the current norm of restricting urban child friendliness to child specific destinations such as parks and playgrounds.

Interview with report co-author Dr. Carolyn Whitzman, Associate Professor in Urban Planning

Given all we hear today in the media about ‘nature deficit disorder’ and ‘helicopter parents’, were you surprised by the levels of freedom and independence that many of the kids in your study enjoyed?
Our research suggests that there are important differences between children in public housing and children in private housing in the central city, based largely on their local environments. Keeping in mind that this was a small sample of 40 children, the study did find higher levels of CIM than usual, particularly amongst children in public housing. Sixty two percent of the public housing kids’ trips were undertaken without adult accompaniment, and 100% of their trips to school were on their own or with other children (Whitzman and Mizrachi 2009: 35).

In comparison, only 17% of the trips taken by private housing kids were without adult accompaniment. The most up to date and comparable state-wide information suggests 64% of primary school children in Victoria are driven to school (Department of Human Services 2007), and 71% of all trips made by children in Melbourne aged 0-14 are by car (Ironmonger and Norman 2007). Although these latter studies measure Active Travel rather than Children’s Independent Mobility, car travel is necessarily adult dependent.

Why is this? The majority of trips by the public housing kids was to a school adjacent to their housing – no major streets to cross, and friends’ houses and playgrounds were also close by. However, there were complaints about the quality of the local environments, particularly play spaces and other ‘social spaces’ where they could hang out with friends. The kids in private housing had the same dilemmas as most other kids: busy roads to cross to get to school, friends’ houses, playgrounds and shops. However, they enjoyed a far greater range of play and social spaces, including downtown shopping and attractions such as Federation Square and Flinders Station. Two different worlds, both less than ideal.

In the introduction to your report it says that children from lower socio-economic status (SES) areas are less likely to be physically active, yet your report shows the kids from public housing being more mobile than those in private housing. Is this unusual?
The literature on SES and active travel is actually equivocal – for instance, Tranter and Pawson (2001) show that levels of traffic are a stronger determinant than SES. Low SES areas often have high levels of traffic, and low levels of amenity (eg, poor maintenance of streets, buildings, parks) and fewer destinations. In other words, focusing on physical or social determinants alone does not make sense (McMillan 2004). Rather it is the combination in a local environment that counts.

There are lots of kids in public housing, nearby social infrastructure such as schools, and parental norms that allow travel within a limited area.

How much attention to surrounding space is generally given by developers of high rise accommodation in Melbourne?
Not very much attention in general and certainly not in regards to spaces suitable for children. This is a major policy failure. Our report explains how other cities, such as Vancouver and Singapore, mandate minimum social infrastructure and walkable paths in high rise housing. The sad thing is that the first generation of plans in Southbank, for instance, encouraged four storey buildings with central courtyards, ideal for playspaces for younger children. Then the State government took over, and building as high as you could with limited expectations as to public space and very busy car/truck traffic became the norm. The assumptions of developers and planners for Southbank, Docklands, and other central city redevelopment was that apartments would be occupied by DINKs and empty nesters (Fincher 2004), and planning proceeded accordingly.

Can you describe what the ideal environment would be for kids living in high rise apartments?
What the kids in our study indicated was:
1. Child-accessible social and recreational spaces within and adjacent to the building – at a minimum, a common room that older children can use along with a play space that is appropriate for older as well as younger children – eg, basketball hoop or handball/ hopscotch area or trampoline as well as swings or slide;
2. Nearby social infrastructure like schools and recreation centres, with safe walking paths linking housing to services;
3. A critical mass of families, which means mandating a minimum number of 3 plus bedroom apartments in high rises (as Vancouver and Singapore does).

If Singapore and Vancouver are best practice, where does Melbourne fit on the scale?
At the moment, close to zero. State government has shown no leadership on this issue.

Even if these buildings were to become more child friendly, given the fears of modern parents do you think kids would be given much more freedom?
As indicated above, children aren’t given much freedom in middle and outer suburbs. This is a society-wide problem (much greater in English-speaking countries such as US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ than in Germany or Japan). But the bottom line of this report is that children live in high rises downtown, they largely enjoy it, and they have a right to be there, and in the public spaces surrounding this housing.

This study has expanded to a national study of children in all sorts of local environments, CATCH: Children’s Active Travel, Connections and Health. It is funded by the Australian Research Council.