City living and sustainable development: the experience of a UK regional city (Leeds)

TPR, 78 (6) 2007

Rachael Unsworth

‘City living’ and sustainable developmentThe experience of a UK regional city

Rachael Unsworth is a Lecturer in the School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT; email: [email protected]

‘City living’ has the potential to contribute towards sustainable development as well as to urban renais-sance: medium to high density, mixed-use property development on brownfield, central sites provides accommodation for people in city centre employment, reduces the need for travel and adds to urban vitality and viability. But city living developments, driven by demand from buy-to-let investors, have not fulfilled all their potential in terms of environmental, social and economic sustainability. The paper argues that the structure of incentives and lack of adequate controls have created a phenomenon that is economi-cally precarious, socially elitist and environmentally ambiguous. The argument draws on an in-depth case study of Leeds in the north of England.

Sustainable development, though a contested concept that is used in different ways (Baker, 2006; Connelly, 2007; Purvis, 2004), is now widely accepted as a guiding principle that should be adopted for plans, projects, programmes and policies across all private and public sector activities. Economic development is no longer to be consid-ered in isolation from social and environmental matters; instead they are meant to be integrated and potential outcomes are to be assessed in terms of a ‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington, 1999). Sustainable development featured in UK government policy from 1990 (DoE, 1990) and has supposedly been threaded through all policy since the 1992 Earth Summit (DETR, 1999a; DoE, 1994; ODPM, 2005a). The guiding principles according to the UK government’s interpretation are social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; the prudent use of natural resources; and the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment (ODPM, 2005a).

In the context of urban regeneration, policy has stipulated that enhanced economic performance of towns and cities should be pursued such that consideration for the local and wider environment and for social justice, as well as for economic benefits, is integrated into policies and actions (Haughton and Hunter, 1994; Low et al., 2000; UNCHS, 1996; Unsworth, 2004). Special attention to reorientating urban development in England came in the Urban Task Force report (DETR, 1999b), the subsequent Urban White Paper (DETR, 2000a) and three particular Planning Policy Statements (ODPM, 2005b; 2005c; 2006). Priority has been given to redeveloping sites and reusing redundant buildings, focusing mixed-use, medium-density development around transport hubs, and improving the quality of the urban realm and the quality of urban life. In city centres, apartments – both in converted buildings and in new

TPR78_6_03_Unsworth.indd 725 24/6/08 12:48:48

Rachael Unsworth726

blocks – have been welcomed as an essential element of improving urban vitality and viability (Nathan and Urwin, 2005) and providing for the increasing numbers of one- and two-person households. As more people live in these moderately dense, mixed-use central areas, working within walking distance, there should be a significant reduction in demand for travel and this should have a positive impact on energy demand, road congestion and air pollution. The objective of the ‘Urban Renaissance’ is

to construct new sustainable urban realms, founded upon the principles of social mixing, sustainability, connectivity, higher densities, walkability, and high-quality streetscapes with the express aim of attracting the suburban knowledge and service industrial demographic back to the city. (Rogers and Coaffee, 2005, 323)

But does high-density, high-value city-centre residential development amount to a thorough manifestation of sustainable development? Can it be said that the revital-ised city centres, which are undeniably well connected and thriving economically, are also environmentally sensitive, socially equitable and likely to endure beyond the first phase of fashionability? Or is the urban renaissance to be judged as a less than holistic success, producing a phenomenon that is successful in some limited ways but is also economically precarious, socially elitist and environmentally ambiguous? If so, why is this the case? 1 This paper argues that commercial considerations dominate, that the planning system was ill-prepared for expansion of the market and that consumer behaviour is not principally governed by sustainable development criteria.

The paper starts with a summary of the reasons for city living arising as a new residential and lifestyle option. There follows a critical examination of the principles and practice of city living in terms of sustainable development, in which the economic, social and environmental elements of sustainable development in the Leeds context are examined, with the explanation drawing on supply-side factors that have contrib-uted to the development boom as well as on an analysis of occupier survey research and on evidence from other researchers’ work. It concludes with comments on the outlook for city living and potential improvements in meeting sustainable develop-ment criteria.

1 From 2003, the government reconstituted its entire housing policy under the heading of ‘sustainable communi-ties’ (ODPM, 2003; 2005a), defined as places that are self-reliant, prosperous and vibrant, energy wise, allow people to lead healthy lifestyles and which have less crime and community tension. There is a whole debate to be explored about this official definition of ‘sustainable communities’ and also about the way the policy is being used to supply the housing needs of the south-east as well as to rescue failing markets of the north and help to narrow the inter-regional economic gap. However, city living in Leeds cannot be considered to have been stimulated and guided by this sustainable communities policy; it was initiated under the earlier phase of urban policy. Thus, this paper does not give a critique of ‘sustainable communities’ policy.


‘City living’ and sustainable development 727

Accounting for new city-centre residential demand and supply in the UKThis section summarises the economic, institutional, demographic and housing tenure trends over the last 15 years that have given rise to great expansion in the provision of small, centrally located apartments for rent and for sale.

As manufacturing has dwindled and financial and business services, media and software sectors have grown, the associated growth in skilled, knowledge-intensive employment has created demand for executive-style accommodation within easy reach of workplaces. While many service sector employees and business owners still prefer a suburban or rural/small town location (Nathan and Urwin, 2005), there are other factors that have helped to stimulate demand for a new kind of residential ‘experience’.

One-person households and households without children – the main type of occupiers of city apartments – are no longer unusual (Hall and Ogden, 2003). Between 1961 and 2004, the number of families in Britain rose by 2.6 million, but the number of households rose by 7.8 million (ONS, 2005). One reason for this change has been the rise in the number of young people living alone (Bennett and Dixon, 2005).

In the case of city centres, it is argued that young singles without dependants are attracted to ‘the city core’s cultural resources, architectural sense of place, and to the concentration of single, non-attached people’ (Kotkin, 1999, 2–3). These people are part of the trend towards having fewer children later in life (ONS, 2004). Other important market segments are gay singles and couples (Allen and Blandy, 2004) and divorced people. Changing household structure will mean that although the popula-tion as a whole will grow at around two per cent over the first decade of the century, there will be a 5–7 per cent increase in household numbers (Gibb et al., 2001).

Essential to the success of city-centre revitalisation has been the possibility of securing funding for mixed-use developments. Until the 1990s, investing institutions were averse to the concept of developments that combined different uses: they were seen as complex to value and as complex and expensive to manage. There has subse-quently been a change in investor attitudes as initial experiments in regeneration were seen to attract occupiers and were reappraised as having good investment potential (Adair et al., 2005; Coupland, 1997). At the level of individual investors, low interest rates and relaxation in lending criteria enabled both buy-to-let investors and owner occupiers to borrow money easily – in many cases with no deposit (see ‘economic criteria’ below).

The above trends give a strong set of drivers of demand for city living, as a result of which the development industry has been encouraged to deliver accommodation that seems to meet that demand. The city-centre residential population of all the ‘core cities’ has increased markedly since the late 1980s (Nathan and Urwin, 2005).


Rachael Unsworth728

Manchester led the way, with Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool and Newcastle following (FHP City Living, 2003; Knight Frank, 2005; Liver-pool City Council, 2005; Williams, 2003). The phenomenon then spread to smaller cities and towns. Planning authorities everywhere seem to have been unprepared for the rush of applications and unable to limit supply. England’s supposedly ‘plan-led’ system2 has been made to look rather feeble. This matter is discussed specifically in the case of Leeds below.

The Leeds experience The northern English city of Leeds, with a population of approximately 715,000 people, is one of the country’s major regional cities (Unsworth and Stillwell, 2004). As in other cities at the top of the UK urban hierarchy, city living development grew rapidly from the turn of the millennium. Yet in the first half of the decade, little research was initiated to yield insights into this new feature of urban regeneration. Research in Leeds was thus initially undertaken with the purpose of giving a clearer picture to public and private sector actors in the city of the relationship between supply and demand in this specific context: the national and local drivers of change, the supply pipeline, the nature of occupiers of these new apartments, their opinions about city living’s strengths and weaknesses and their future intentions (Fox and Unsworth, 2003; Unsworth, 2005; 2007). In this paper, the focus is on the elements of the research that throw light on whether city living is meeting sustainable development criteria and the ways in which the planning system has influenced outcomes.

Supply-side information was gathered from the local authority, agents and devel-opers to demonstrate the scale and nature of development across the city centre. Large-scale questionnaire surveys of occupiers were carried out in 2003, 2005 and 2007. In each case, an attempt was made to send the questionnaire forms to all units in completed developments. The most recent survey, in March 2007, therefore targeted a total of 4510 addresses. Responses were received from 610 households (a 13.5 per cent response rate), relaying information about 954 residents. The data was entered in a spreadsheet and processed by a professional firm of market researchers (Swift Research). Interpretation of the evidence has included much debate with developers, agents, policy makers, researchers and residents within the city and beyond.

2 Planning systems can be more or less statutory or discretionary. The British system lies somewhere in the middle: government sets a legal framework within which local authorities prepare a plan – currently a Local Development Framework. The system can be said to be ‘plan-led’ in that any decision should be guided by the prepared plans relevant to the site in question and that there is a presumption in favour of a development in accordance with the plan. But there is still the possibility of exercising discretion in each individual case according to perceived need for the type of development and the weight of local opinion. The strength of this approach is supposed to lie in its combination of certainty and flexibility, though it can also be argued that it exemplifies the best and worst elements of both statutory and discretionary systems (Carmona, Carmona and Gallent, 2003).



The urban renaissance in central LeedsWhen independent consultants reviewed progress in economic, social and environ-mental development in Leeds, they concluded that ‘Leeds has succeeded in changing its image in many quarters from that of a declining northern industrial town to a go-ahead city which is good for business, good for shopping and entertainment, and a good place to live in’ (Urbed, 2002).

In the 1950s, 75 per cent of the Leeds workforce was in manufacturing. By the early 1990s, manufacturing accounted for 23 per cent of employees and in 2005 the figure was down to just 9 per cent (Leeds City Council, 2007a). In contrast, a significant proportion of the job growth in Leeds has been in the service sector and these are the kinds of employees who find city living an attractive option. In 2005, there were 124,000 people working in the central Leeds ward (City and Holbeck) – an increase of 17,000 over the 2003 figure (Annual Business Inquiry 2003 and 2005). By 2005, total employee jobs in financial and businesses services alone stood at over 47,000 (Leeds City Council, 2007a).

In 1994, Leeds started to promote itself nationally and internationally as a place that welcomes high-level direct investment and job creation and also as a ’24-hour city’ of European stature (Haughton, 1996). The number of leisure venues (pubs, cafés and café bars, nightclubs, restaurants) in the city centre has more than doubled in the last decade (Leeds City Council, 2007b), adding to its appeal as a place to enjoy outside working hours.

Housing development was not originally part of the 24-hour city initiative, but it was recognised in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Leeds City Council, 2001, 255) that this would add vitality, so town and city-centre residential development was specifically encouraged but without any firmer guidance or provisos (Leeds City Council, 2001 – Policy H7, 136). The policy simply reads: ‘New housing will generally be encouraged within the city centre and town centres […] Conversion of vacant upper floors of premises in these centres will be actively encouraged, where this does not prejudice the functions of the premises’.

From the end of the 1990s, developers had started to pick out opportunities for conversion of secondary office stock and accommodation above shops in the city centre. Central government policy also encouraged expansion of housing supply and use of ‘brownfield sites’: 60 per cent of all housing development was to be on such land by 2008. So in the Leeds UDP, residential use was encouraged as part of the mixed use to be permitted along the waterfront. But there was no formal designa-tion of housing sites in the city centre, though it was acknowledged that additional residential sites would be brought forward. Planners have not been in a position to refuse permission for developments as there are usually no planning reasons to justify refusal (i.e. they are not contrary to local development plan policies) while potential


Rachael Unsworth730

market demand is not a matter for planners to judge. So there has been a permissive regime for developers to gain consent and a distinct lack of control by planners over the pace of the delivery of units into the market.

As it happened, it was just after the UDP was finally adopted in 2001 that the pace of activity picked up rapidly and followed a pattern similar to that in London (Heath, 2001): more development companies entered the market, the range of locations considered for development widened and the scale of individual schemes increased (see Fig. 1). The scene was not set for plan-led development in that the plan was only broadly/vaguely permissive rather than giving a clear vision for the way that residential development should fit within the city-centre landscape, how it might best be related to other existing and new uses and how it should meet sustainable develop-ment criteria.

Sustainable development?This section addresses the three elements of sustainable development – economic, environmental and social – in the Leeds context.

Figure 1 Location of city living schemes in Leeds: completed and under construction

A64(M)

St GeorgeHouse K2

Basilica

SaxtonGardens

2020House

Aspect14

ClarenceDock

BreweryWharf

TheQuays

GranaryWharf Bridgewater

Place

West Point

CityIsland

WhitehallWaterfront

RoundFoundry Manor Mills

Velocity

Echo City

Gateway

RIVER AIRE

LEEDS CITY

STATION

LEEDS-LIVERPOOL CANAL

Graphics Unit • School of Geography • University of Leeds • June 2008 AJM • © Crown Copyright. ED100018888

Number of unitsunder construction

45022545

Number of unitscompleted



Economic criteria

Economic success should be judged by the demand for city-centre apartments and the relationship of demand to supply. If supply greatly outstrips demand, rents and values cannot continue to move upwards and may even go into reverse. The financial position of developers and purchasers will be undermined.

Figures in Table 1 show the growth in supply. If all proposals were to go ahead, the total of around 21,400 units would accommodate approximately 34,240 people (at 1.6 people per dwelling, the occupancy level that was established by the 2005 Leeds survey and further confirmed in 2007). This would amount to around 4.7 per cent of the city’s projected total of 725,000 at 2016 (Leeds City Council, 2007a). Even at present levels of supply, city living has enabled a significant reversal of the population decline that had taken place over several decades.3

But despite the strength of the local economy in Leeds, there is concern about whether there are enough occupiers for all the flats being delivered to the market. Certainly, there is less than 100 per cent occupancy as new units flood onto the market.4 However, although service sector employment growth is not expected to be as strong over the next decade as it was in the previous one (Leeds City Council, 2007a), there will still be many additional households requiring accommodation – households generated within the city and also incomers from outside the district.

The reality is that the majority of developers were spurred on not by the direct demand from these occupiers but by the requirements of the small investors who crowded into the market over the last few years, partly as a reaction to poorer alterna-tives for investment elsewhere. Better annual returns than other investment options, the perceived potential for long-term capital appreciation, and monthly income in excess

3 Official population figures are given for the wards of City and Holbeck. It is impossible to disaggregate the figures to give a total just for the city centre itself. However, between 1971 and 1981, the City and Holbeck population declined by more than 25 per cent and from 1981 to 1991 the decline was a further 8.4 per cent. The 2001 Census is now woefully out of date as far as city-centre living is concerned.

4 It cannot be said with any certainty how many of the apartments in central Leeds are occupied. Investigation of council tax records suggests a figure of around 75 per cent.

Table 1 City living schemes in Leeds

Stage of development 2003 2005 2007

Completed apartments 1,805 3,493 5,701Under construction 2,526 2.950 3,812With planning permission 1,695 4,440 5,622Planned 4,635 7,164 6,262TOTAL 10,661 18,047 21,397

Note: all figures are to end of Quarter 1. This table excludes schemes targeted at the student market.


Rachael Unsworth732

of their mortgage payments helped sustain this trend for several years. Growth in demand from investors raised prices, which in turn increased the demand for smaller, more affordable investment properties to lease at a lower rent and thus more likely to find a tenant in a competitive market place. Higher demand for the finished product fed back into higher land prices as developers competed for sites. The capacity of the property construction sector was stretched and building contract prices were pushed upwards.

Across the UK at the end of 2006 there were an estimated 850,000 buy-to-let mortgages, 14 times more than there had been in 1998 (Council of Mortgage Lenders, 2007). Developers were encouraged by the possibility of selling all their units ‘off plan’ and at a discount to investors, usually within a short time of launching a scheme, giving them financial security for the construction phase. So more and more devel-opments of investor-orientated apartments came through the development pipeline and sold out very rapidly. This is a new property market phenomenon: a substantial ‘interstitial’ market demand that is not from end users. The housing market has for a long time operated speculatively, in that dwelling units have been aimed at market segments rather than at individual buyers, but never before have dwelling units been produced principally as units of investment to trade rather than as a response to an identified market demand from people wanting somewhere to live. In this sense, city living apartments have been more like other non-physical investment vehicles than like traditional bricks and mortar supply.

Until 2003, there were many speculators in the market: they sold their invest-ment after achieving value uplift during the period between the initial marketing of the scheme and its completion. But the majority of buy-to-let landlords report that they expect to maintain or increase their holdings, and have a long-term interest in the market.5 Many investors have been stimulated by the need to save for retirement and are unlikely to disinvest in large numbers at the first negative market indica-tions. But some investors who over-stretched themselves to enter the market have found that their original calculations have been upset by the combination of higher interest rates, lack of capital growth and difficulties in letting or in maintaining rental levels. In consequence, repossessions are occurring, with flats being sold at auction. Anecdotal evidence suggests private arrangements between landlords and tenants to reduce rents. Avoiding publicity for such deals has helped to keep ‘headline’ rents – and therefore values – artificially high.

5 The rise in buy-to-let mortgage lending has been steep but this type of mortgage still only accounted for 7.1 per cent of the money lent by mortgage providers in 2003 (The Economist, 12 June 2004). In a CML survey published in 2005 (see Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005) almost two thirds (63 per cent) of the 1326 buy-to-let landlords surveyed anticipated being landlords for more than ten years. Another fifth (21 per cent) expected to remain in the market for 6–10 years and 14 per cent for 1–5 years. A further survey by the Association of Rental Letting Agents 2005 confirmed investors’ long-term outlook. See http://www.arla.co.uk.



Environmental criteria

This section looks at the possible measures that can be taken to make buildings perform better according to environmental criteria, the way in which the policy framework is encouraging moves towards environmental sustainability and then the policy setting and outcomes in Leeds.

A fundamental way in which city living could contribute towards sustainable devel-opment goals is in the design, construction and operation of the buildings themselves. The nature and sources of construction materials can be chosen to minimise environ-mental damage; designs can minimise resource consumption during the life of the building (Howard, 2000). Forty per cent of energy use in OECD countries is accounted for by buildings (Hasegawa, 2002) yet buildings can be designed to be highly energy efficient, using high insulation, natural ventilation and renewable power sources. High standards are now readily achievable: there is growing capacity for delivery through innovations in components and techniques as well as advisory services. However, most city living developments, despite re-using sites and even buildings,6 are not designed and built to the highest environmental standards. This is not unique to Leeds: despite concerted attempts to convince developers and building users of the benefits of ‘green’ buildings (Construction Industry Environmental Forum – various publications; Thomas, 2002; Vale and Vale, 1993), there has been insufficient interest from investors and occupiers, and therefore from developers, in voluntarily raising standards substantially. The perception has been that building to higher standards is more costly and troublesome and that the costs cannot be passed on to occupiers in the form of a price premium.

At the national level, some progress is being made both in tightening up building regulations and in demonstrating that higher standards make financial sense (e.g. BRE, 20067) but there is a need for more stringent planning controls and building regulations, with incentives for investing in higher standards, before these can become the norm (Sustainable Buildings Task Group, 2004; TCPA/WWF, 2003) and devel-opers and occupiers can be convinced to opt for buildings with the lowest possible environmental impact. The Code for Sustainable Homes (ODPM, 2005d), based on the BRE’s non-statutory EcoHomes rating system, will soon be applied across all housing types as a compulsory rating system incorporating both minimum standards across a full range of elements of environmental performance and a scoring system so that there is an incentive to exceed minimum standards in order to achieve a high rating. Statements by the housing and planning minister suggest that there is now

6 The proportion of new homes built on brownfield sites reached 72 per cent by 2005 – up from 56 per cent in 1997. The average density of new homes remains at 40 dwellings per hectare, up from 25 in 1997 (ODPM, 2006).

7 Presentation by George Martin, Building Research Establishment, at Yorkshire Forward’s Renaissance Towns conference, Harrogate, 3 March 2006.


Rachael Unsworth734

recognition of the need to improve the regulatory regime to force higher standards.8 The UK Green Building Council attempts to draw together and spread best practice across the range of property development types, including residential.9

In terms of Leeds’ local policy framework, the Leeds Initiative, founded in 1990 as the local partnership of public, private and voluntary sectors, stimulated some action on environmental issues and was responsible for Leeds securing Environ-ment City status in 1993 (While et al., 2002). Sustainable development was a guiding principle for the Leeds Initiative’s first strategic plan covering all aspects of the metro-politan district, the Vision for Leeds, and its successor, Vision II (Leeds Initiative 1999; 2004). Environment Leeds is one of the eight strategic themes of this cross-sector plan and many initiatives are in place across the whole range of activities in the city, with some progress demonstrated (Leeds Environment Partnership, 2003). Yet despite the rhetoric of sustainable development, some strengthening of the national framework supporting sustainable development, strong levels of commitment from a range of stakeholders and from senior officers in the council (While et al., 2002) and the adoption of a sustainable development design guide as supplementary planning guidance (Leeds City Council, 1998), the growing prosperity of the city and the associated development pressures have generated higher resource consumption and waste and pollution output (Mitchell and Unsworth, 2004). This lack of success in decoupling economic growth from environmental damage stems from the high status accorded to the ‘competitiveness agenda’ – it is still a minority of organisations and households that are prepared to put the environment higher up the agenda.

The signing of the Nottingham Declaration10 in June 2006, making a pledge to integrate climate change actions into local policy, was a significant turning point and both a Climate Change Strategy and a Supplementary Planning Document on sustainable design and construction will be in place during 2008. Proposals for Tower Works11 and The Green House12 pay much more attention to environmental matters than any structures yet delivered and a proposal still at the pre-planning stage in Leeds is avowedly using the eight ‘sustainable communities’ criteria (as set out in n. 1)

8 Yvette Cooper, Minister of State for Housing and Planning in the Department for Communities and Local Government, speaking to the Green Alliance, May 2006. http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/ourworks/Sprin-gReception2006/YcooperSpeech0506.

9 http://www.ukgbc.org. 10 The Nottingham Declaration is a voluntary pledge to address the issues of climate change. It represents a high-

level, broad statement of commitment that any council can make to its own community. Originally launched in October 2000 at a conference in Nottingham, it was relaunched in 2005 and by April 2008, 330 out of 410 English local authorities had signed it. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housingbuildings/localauthorities/NotthinghamDeclaration.

11 See Yorkshire Forward, ISIS and Bauman Lyons websites: http://www.yorkshire-forward.com, http://www.isis.gb.com, http://www.baumanlyons.co.uk.

12 See http://www.greenhouseleeds.co.uk.



as a framework for planning the scheme.13 But such proposals have come forward at a stage when many thousands of apartments have already been constructed without close regard to environmental standards in design, construction or use (Langstraat, 2006; Millard, 2004). Competitive pressures on the build costs per square foot have dominated decision-making as developers have rushed to supply the market for buy-to-let properties. Where there was a lack of local policies and insufficient support from national regulations, it was inevitable that the result would be an oversupply of stock that has low environmental performance standards and a tendency towards low quality of finish.

In addition to the environmental credentials of new buildings as structures, there is the question of whether the advent of ‘mixed-use’ and higher-density develop-ment really help in the aim of achieving sustainable development. Theoretically, when people live near their place of work, there are good public transport links, high population densities and facilities close by, and therefore less need to travel by car. Following from this, there should be lower car ownership, lower parking require-ments and therefore a positive contribution to reducing congestion and pollution. However, though many city-centre dwellers may walk to work, there is still a high level of demand for car parking (Stubbs, 2002) and a need for travel beyond the city centre where services are still inadequate to support residents. There is also the issue of resale value: occupiers perceive that their flat will be more appealing to future purchasers if there is private parking (Stubbs, 2002). Several researchers who have examined these issues consider that the balance sheet in terms of positive and negative environ-mental impacts of higher density development remains unclear (Burton, 2000; Carter, 2004; Hall, 2001; Roberts and Turner, 2005). The evidence from Leeds does not give grounds for concluding that mixed-use development has fulfilled all the theoretical potential of this built form.

Nearly two thirds of Leeds city-centre residents have chosen an apartment with a parking space – at an extra cost of £10–15,000 (plus an extra service charge). A third of households indicated that having a parking space was a deciding factor in choosing their property. Car ownership, at 75 per cent of households, is similar to the British norm and only a small number of households belong to a commercial car pool scheme. Two thirds of respondents work in LS1 or LS2 (the core of the city centre) with over half working in LS1 alone. So despite relatively high car ownership, 59 per cent of people walk to work. Altogether, 72 per cent of respondents travel to work by means other than private car.

While many people manage to walk to work, fewer have a satisfactory way of buying food without using a car. The city centre is the single most important place for food shopping (44 per cent of households) but a third of households shop for food

13 Reland (Gladedale Group) is proposing this approach on the two former Yorkshire Chemicals sites. Personal communication with developers and their advisors.


Rachael Unsworth736

mainly in suburban Leeds or out of town. As new developments spread outwards, there will be substantial demand for high-quality convenience and main shopping outlets close to hand.

There is no immediate sign that the city living lifestyle is about to become car-free. Any slight benefits in terms of reduced pollution by those who can walk or cycle to work are likely to be outweighed by continuing high levels of use of private cars for non-work journeys.

Residents who wish to reduce their environmental impact by recycling are frustrated by a lack of facilities, either within individual developments or at council-run sites within easy access of those living in the city centre. Discussions with the City Council waste management officers confirm that this is a difficult problem to resolve in constricted sites which have not been designed with waste management as an explicit criterion. But it is clear that such circumstances are at odds with national and local aims to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill (DEFRA, 2007; DETR, 2000b; Leeds City Council, 2007d). Work is progressing on suggestions for resolving this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

High-density, mixed-use development may also fail to meet sustainable develop-ment criteria in other respects that relate to environmental criteria: quality of life may be undermined rather than enhanced because of noise pollution and relative lack of open space. Potential residents will be deterred and some of those who do take up city living will be likely to forsake it for quieter, greener neighbourhoods (see below on moving intentions).

Social criteria

The evidence from Leeds mirrors findings from elsewhere: the population is not ‘balanced’ and it is not stable. The rhetoric of ‘mixed communities’ is not being borne out in reality (Colomb, 2007) and indeed the very term ‘community’ is not really appli-cable to the collection of people who have moved into city-centre apartments.

In city centres, most households consist of one or two young adults. There are very few families or people over 35, and not many owner-occupiers (Allen and Blandy, 2004; Knight Frank, 2005; Madden et al., 2001; Nathan and Urwin, 2005). Just over 60 per cent of residents in Leeds city centre are between the ages of 18 and 30; only 12 residents under 18 and 31 residents over the age of 60 are to be found within these 610 households.14 The city centre population is also lacking in strong diversity in terms of the nature of employment and income levels: a very high proportion of respondents

14 In contrast, across Leeds, 29 per cent of households include dependent children, the age group 20–29 years accounts for 15 per cent of the population and those of 46 years and above account for 37 per cent. Whereas 46 per cent of city living apartments are home to only one person, the figure for single person households in Leeds as a whole is 31.6 per cent (http://www.leeds-statistics.org).



are service sector professionals in middle management or above, followed by frontline service workers and students.15

As well as being demographically distinctive, the city-centre residents differ from the average across the city as a whole in terms of tenure mix and rate of turnover: 56 per cent of respondent households are in private rented accommodation, compared with 14 per cent in Leeds as a whole; 44 per cent are owner occupiers whereas the figure for Leeds overall is 61 per cent (Jones et al., 2004).

Criticism is also levelled at city living developments because apartments are mostly too expensive for all but the highest-paid professionals. Purchase prices and rental levels are higher in the city centre than elsewhere in the city (Leeds City Council, 2007c). Efforts to secure the delivery of affordable units within city-centre develop-ments met with little success in the early years (Fox and Unsworth, 2003; James, 2002). A change in the rules in 2003 should have meant that 15 per cent of units in each development must be ‘affordable’16 but the policy has been altered again since then (Unsworth, 2007). Developers have been keen to maximise gains from selling to inves-tors, who have bought large numbers of apartments and put upward pressure on prices (Unsworth, 2005).17

Davidson and Lees (2005) have argued that this amounts to gentrification. In Leeds, the majority of new apartments have been built in areas that had no resident popula-tion, so there is no question of ousting people on lower incomes, as was the case in the classic gentrification of the 1960s and as can be demonstrated in various areas of inner London. On the east side of Leeds city centre there is, however, encroachment into already occupied areas and some evidence of a lack of effective consultation with existing residents (Langstraat, 2006).

The unstable nature of the population is dramatically exposed by the 2007 Leeds survey. The majority of respondents have lived in the city centre for only a short time: 70 per cent moved to their current address in the two years before the 2007 survey date. And they are not likely to remain in their current apartment for long. Only a fifth of households had no plans to move and all the rest (80 per cent of households) state an intention of remaining in their property for less than two years. Forty-eight

15 Across the city, 27 per cent of the workforce is in professional and managerial occupations (Leeds City Council, 2007a). Sixty-one per cent of city centre households for whom there is information earn over £35,000 whereas the average household income in Leeds is approximately £33,000 (Leeds City Council, 2007c).

16 Affordable housing: housing, whether for rent, shared ownership or outright purchase, provided at a cost consid-ered affordable in relation to incomes that are average or below average, or in relation to the price of general market housing.

17 Forty-two per cent of owner occupiers who responded to the 2007 survey bought properties within the price range £120,000–170,000. Over a quarter of purchasers paid more than £195,000 for their property. Eighty-two per cent of rented flats cost £500–899 per month but there are relatively few extremely expensive apartments: only 7 per cent of households pay over £900 per month. There is anecdotal evidence that rental levels have been privately negotiated at levels well below notional market rents.


Rachael Unsworth738

per cent of tenants and 24 per cent of owner occupiers plan to leave the city centre altogether inside two years. The private rented sector is a dynamic sector: across the country, households in private rented accommodation move relatively frequently (Communities and Local Government, 2007). Across Leeds, it is the young and those in private rented accommodation who have been more mobile and are likely to be more mobile in the next few years (Cole et al., 2003). But the turnover of residents in the city centre is certainly greater than in other areas of Leeds.

Transience and lack of affordability are the main reasons given for renting rather than buying. Agents consider that higher levels of owner occupation in the city centre would increase commitment and reduce turnover of properties. But the cost of property is one of the main factors mentioned as a potential reason for moving away from the city centre.

It has been understood from the early days of the 24-hour city – in Leeds and elsewhere – that problems as well as benefits are generated by the close proximity of a mix of activities and building functions (Hamshaw, 1998; Jones et al., 1999; Matley, 1999). People want to be where there is the highest density of activity (Glaeser, 2000; Marsh, 1999), but there is clearly a conflict between what people want as consumers and what they prefer as residents. Allen et al. (2004) speculate as to whether the combined effects of high costs, lack of conveniences, crime/fear of crime, noise and smells will drive people out of the city centre. Blank et al. (2002) found that many more people would consider city living if the risks and neighbourhood problems could be successfully addressed.

Perhaps surprisingly, only a small minority of Leeds city centre residents consider the noise level in their flat to be unacceptable. The young age profile may be a factor here, giving a tolerance of a certain level of noise as a part of city living, but even young people have had some dissatisfaction with the reality of living in the city centre: people trying to sleep in their conveniently located apartment do not appreciate noise pollution from 24-hour city activities such as bars, nightclubs and rubbish clearing.

The City Centre Management Team has been making efforts to reduce incompat-ibilities within the 24-hour city, following a report by Urban Practitioners (2003). Leeds City Council Environmental Health Department is becoming increasingly stringent with respect to controls applied over noise from bars and clubs within the city centre. An ‘inaudibility requirement’ is being applied to upper floor flats, with zero tolerance of infringements. Developers have had to spend large sums attempting to design out the possible problems associated with nearby noise sources but now increasingly look for more compatible and less intrusive ground and lower ground floor uses.

In the 2005 Leeds survey, lack of green space was the factor most frequently given the highest rating in influencing a decision to move out of the city centre; then came ‘having children’ and ‘inadequate living space’. Recent research by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment has shown that ‘there is a positive relation-



ship in value associated with residential properties overlooking or being close to a high quality park’ (CABE Space, 2005, 86). A network of parks and green spaces has even greater potential to lift values.18

The lack of space within apartments is clearly a ‘push’ factor. The average size of new two-bedroom apartments has been reduced (from 70 to 60 square metres) and there are very few three-bedroom apartments. A building society survey showed that the strongest motivating force for moving house is not the need to be near to work but the desire for more space (Alliance & Leicester, 2001).

In 2005, improvement of food shopping facilities was given as the top factor that would improve satisfaction with city living and although a few more outlets opened before 2007, this was once more the top suggestion for improvement.

There are many aspects of city centre life that, if attended to, would greatly increase people’s level of satisfaction and probably extend their residence. This in turn would make for a more demographically varied population over time and a greater chance of the development of a sense of community. Some problems in the centre of Leeds are undoubtedly being addressed by residents’ associations, though only a minority of residents belong to them. But there is a strong interest in a city-centre-wide residents’ forum to interface with the City Council and this could have a positive influence on both quality of life and social cohesion.

18 Brook Lyndhurst, in work for the ODPM, noted that there is a tendency for the environment to register more in terms of the ‘cleaner, safer, greener’ agenda of ‘liveability’ than in terms of ‘sustainability’: what the environment can deliver as an element of the good life, rather than deeper concerns for carrying capacity in the longer term (ODPM, 2004).

Testimony of a tenant in a waterside development (Murray, 2006)

‘It is clear that every expense has been spared.’

This tenant encountered poor standard of fitness for purpose of fixtures and fittings and low durability. Impacts vary from the mildly irritating (bendy cutlery, poor finishes) to the dangerous and annoying (an exploding glass panel on the balcony and an unreliable lift). Many of these inadequacies will prejudice future values, especially in an oversupplied market. If values decline rather than appreciating, maintenance will become even worse. The risk of such a future is demonstrated by the fact that the flat in which Murray stayed was bought to mark up and sell on, ‘but the owner has been unable to sell it. It’s become a buy to let by default, as many others have. The demand was low enough for me to negotiate the rent downwards considerably.’


Rachael Unsworth740

The future of the marketThere is much uncertainty about the scale and nature of future demand for city centre living. Nathan and Urwin (2005) argue that the city living phenomenon is bound to be dominated by young adults and that it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. They also argue that these young residents are bound to move to the suburbs before long.

There is some evidence that the 2005 survey was influential in affecting public and private sector policy and actions in respect of city living: the City Council has been even more concerned to find ways in which the city centre can be made greener (Leeds City Council, 2007e). The Property Forum (a grouping of property profes-sionals brought together by the Leeds Chamber of Commerce) took the findings to the City Council Development Department to make the case for changing the planning rules to allow retail units serving residents to locate in areas beyond the retail core. City Centre Management has reacted positively to some of the sugges-tions about ways in which the city centre could be made more appealing to residents. Some developers seemed to take note of the indications of the potential over-supply of standard apartments. Also, proposals coming forward are starting to address some of the points raised about resident satisfaction and the environmental credentials of buildings. A survey of developers would be necessary to find out the details of their evolving approach and whether sustainable development criteria are coming signifi-cantly more to the fore in their thinking and actions.

As far as extending the market is concerned, some commentators see as yet untapped potential to appeal to ‘empty nesters’ and childless older people (Knight Frank, 2005). If such demand were to materialise, it would help to broaden the ‘community’ as well as ensuring that more apartments were occupied. It could be argued, though, that it does not matter too much if there is rapid turnover of city-centre populations provided that there is a constant stream of new households coming forward and suitable options for maturing households to move on to. In the longer term, there may well be a market for family accommodation in areas adjacent to the city centre – the ‘inner suburbs’ (Atkin, 2000; Nathan and Unsworth, 2006; Nathan and Urwin, 2005). However, if demand from families is to pick up, or people who start a family are to be catered for, different kinds of accommodation will be needed: more spacious flats, maisonettes or houses with three bedrooms, two living rooms and more storage space and with access to outdoor play facilities. Provision of suitable proper-ties in the inner city would help to ensure an option for those who have outgrown city living in terms of both space and lifestyle without necessitating ‘leapfrogging’ to the outer suburbs. In the process, a boost would be given to inner areas in urgent need of regeneration. A few examples are starting to emerge, for example in Birmingham and Manchester (Nathan and Unsworth, 2006). But there is much ‘place making’ to do before the inner city becomes sufficiently attractive to city living movers. The 2007



survey showed that there is a strong preference for the outer suburbs or smaller towns and rural areas beyond the city itself and those who are upwardly mobile socially have shown little tendency to assist in bringing to fruition the avowed policy preference for creating mixed communities.

In terms of the economic outlook for the market in the short to medium term, there has been some reluctance in Leeds and in other city-centre markets to face up to the possible impacts of a new phase of market weakness. But as the housing market in general and the oversupplied city-centre apartment market in particular enter a phase of price correction this may well deliver more affordable properties by default. Although this will be painful for some current owners who are forced to sell at a loss, some households on lower pay may be able to enter the market – if they can find a financial institution willing to offer a mortgage. In the meantime, a period of slower growth may give the City Council a chance to think more strategically about the way that the city centre might be improved. The new City Centre Area Action Plan is still in draft form and there is a chance to form a stronger framework for the future, incorporating some of the aspirations that were articulated by private, public and community sector delegates at the ‘Visioning’ event organised by City Centre Management in January 2008.

ConclusionsA complex set of shifts in the nature of the economy, approaches to city regeneration, demographic patterns and lifestyle preferences underlies the rapid emergence of city living as an established sub-market which is likely to continue to expand but within a context of oversupply. These changes have occurred at the same time as awareness has grown of the need to consider the ‘triple bottom line’ of social, environmental and economic outcomes (Elkington, 1999). But overall, despite ticks in the boxes of ‘increased urban vitality’, ‘high development density’, and ‘re-use of sites and build-ings’, city living does not amount to a thorough manifestation of sustainable devel-opment. The main thrust of policy has been more about a narrower conception of urban renaissance, dominated by profit-maximising private sector activity, than about prioritising sustainable development. It is noticeable that property industry actors are wont to use the term ‘sustainability’ with reference to whether the market in general or an individual property will be profitable in the longer term – a narrowly economic use of the term. Although there is a slowly dawning awareness among property industry professionals and among consumers of the seriousness of environmental issues, the political process has not yet formulated policy and legislation sufficiently robust to ensure delivery of buildings that have minimal environmental impact and to encourage sufficient change in the lifestyle of the occupiers. Developers have often tried hard to argue that social equity cannot be allowed to enter the equation: they use


Rachael Unsworth742

the argument that high land values dictate high asking prices. In truth, the calculation of land values, and therefore of how much should be paid for sites, should include an assessment of the impact of including affordable units. Planners argue that they have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of proposals coming forward and have not had the tools with which to make more stringent demands on developers. Indeed, the whole phenomenon has taken place in something of a strategic vacuum and a whirlwind of development ‘control’.

City living can, though, move further in the right direction. Building regulations, more demanding planning policies and eventually occupier demands for energy efficiency and other elements of high environmental performance will deliver build-ings of higher specification in the medium term. The evidence from survey work gives clear indications of some priorities for action by both public and private sectors to help ensure the longer-term health of the market by improving aspects of the residen-tial schemes and the quality of life in the city centre. More affordable apartments, better recycling facilities, better access to transport options apart from the private car, the improvement of local facilities to support residents and better provision of high-quality public realm will all help to reduce environmental impact, encourage more people to enter the market, to stay for longer and to be more engaged in their immediate environs. If these improvements are augmented by innovative regeneration of the adjacent inner-city areas for a wider demographic base, the whole phenomenon of city living will enter a new phase of maturity, success and positive contribution to sustainable development as well as contributing to improved urban vitality.

Referencesadair, a., berry, j., mcgreal, s., hutchison, n., watkins, c., and gibb, k. (2005), ‘Investment

performance within urban regeneration locations’, Journal of Property, Investment and Finance, 23, 7–21.

allen, c. and blandy, s. (2004), ‘The future of city centre living: implications for urban policy’, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University.

alliance & leicester (2001), ‘People on the Move’, research for Alliance & Leicester by RSGB, a division of the Taylor Nelson Sofres Group. http://www.alliance-leicester-group.co.uk/html/media/non-indexed/release.asp?txtTable=PressReleases&txtCode=PR04060125.

atkin, r. (2002), ‘Lessons learnt by an urban visionary’, Christian Science Monitor, 22 May 2002 http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0522/p13s01-lign.html.

baker, s. (2006), Sustainable Development, London, Routledge.bennett, j. and dixon, m. (2005), Single Person Households and Social Policy: Looking Forwards, London,

IPPR/York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. blank, n., senior, m. and webster, c. (2002), ‘Mixed use, densification and public choice’ in Y.

Rydin and A. Thornley (eds), Planning in the UK: Agendas for the New Millennium, Aldershot, Ashgate, 337–56.



burton, e. (2000), ‘The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis’, Urban Studies, 37, 1969–2006.

cabe space (2005), Does Money Grow on Trees?, London, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

carmona, m., carmona, s. and gallent, n. (2003), Delivering New Homes: Processes, Planners and Providers, London, Routledge.

carter, h. (2004), ‘City living – Manchester goes mad for it’, The Guardian, 10 May, http://society.guardian.co.uk/urbandesign/story/0,11200,1213051,00.html.

cole, i., hickman, p. and reeve, k. (2003), ‘The Leeds housing market: perceptions of change’, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University – report for Leeds City Council, http://www.leeds.gov.uk/pageView.asp?style=0&identifier=200379_811992825.

colomb, c. (2007), ‘Unpacking New Labour’s “Urban Renaissance”: towards a socially sustain-able reurbanization of British cities?’, Planning Practice and Research, 22, 1–24.

communities and local government (2007), Housing in England 2005/6: A Report Principally from the 2005/06 Survey of English Housing, London, Communities and Local Government.

connelly, s. (2007), ‘Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept’, Local Environ-ment, 12, 259–78.

council of mortgage lenders (2007), Market Commentary May 2007, http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/mcomm.

coupland, a. (1997), Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development, London, E. & F. N. Spon.davidson, m. and lees, l. (2005), ‘New build “gentrification” and London’s riverside renais-

sance’, Environment and Planning A, 37, 1165–90.defra (department for environment, food and rural affairs) (2007), Waste Strategy for

England 2007, London, DEFRA. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/pdf/waste07-strategy.pdf.

detr (department of the environment, transport and the regions) (1999a), A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom, Cm 4345, London, The Stationery Office.

detr (department of the environment, transport and the regions) (1999b), Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the Urban Task Force, London, DETR.

detr (department of the environment, transport and the regions) (2000a), Our Towns and Cities: The Future – Delivering an Urban Renaissance, The Urban White Paper, November, London, DETR.

detr (department of the environment, transport and the regions) (2000b), Waste Strategy 2000, London, DETR.

doe (department of the environment) (1990), This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental Strategy, Cm 1200, London, Department of the Environment.

doe (department of the environment) (1994), Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy, Cm 2424, London, HMSO.

elkington, j. (1999), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, London, New Society Publications.

fhp city living (2003), Nottingham City Centre: Residential Market Report, Issue 6, September 2003.


Rachael Unsworth744

fox, p. and unsworth, r. (2003), ‘City living in Leeds – 2003’, Leeds, University of Leeds and K. W. Linfoot plc. http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/publications/cityliving.

gibb, k., lever, w. and kasparova, d. (2001), ‘The future of UK cities: measurement and inter-pretation’ (RICS Foundation Report Series, December), London, RICS.

glaeser, e. l. (2000), ‘Demand for density? The functions of the city in the 21st century’, Brook-ings Institution Review, 18, 10–13.

hall, p. (2001), ‘Sustainable cities or town cramming?’ in A. Layard, S. Davoudi and S. Batty (eds), Planning for a Sustainable Future, London, Spon, 101–14.

hall, r. and ogden, p. e. (2003), ‘The rise of living alone in Inner London: trends among the population of working age’, Environment and Planning A, 35, 871–88.

hamshaw, k. (1998), ‘Living with the 24 hour economy’ (unpublished paper), Leeds, Leeds City Council City Centre Management.

hasegawa, t. (2002), ‘Sustainable buildings’, Observer No. 233, August, OECD Territorial Development Service, Paris, OECD. http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory/php/aid765/Sustainable_buildings.html.

haughton, g. (1996), ‘Local leadership and economic regeneration in Leeds’ in G. Haughton and C. Williams (eds), Corporate City? Partnership, Participation and Partition in Urban Development in Leeds, Aldershot, Avebury, 19–40.

haughton, g. and hunter, c. (1994), Sustainable Cities, London, Regional Studies Association.heath, t. (2001), ‘Adaptive re-use of office for residential use’, Cities, 18, 173–84.howard, n. (2000), ‘Sustainable construction: the data’, CR258/99, Watford, Centre for

Sustainable Construction, Building Research Establishment. james, r. (2002), ‘Residential development in central Leeds’ (unpublished report for Leeds

Development Agency, Leeds).jones, h., kettle, j. and unsworth, r. (2004), ‘The roofs over our heads: housing supply and

demand’ in R. Unsworth and J. Stillwell (eds), 21st Century Leeds: Geographies of a Regional City, Leeds, Leeds University Press, 75–102.

jones, p., hillier, d. and turner, d., 1999, ‘Towards the 24 hour city’, Town and Country Planning, 68, 164–65.

knight frank (2005), ‘Future city: the northern residential development review 2005’. http://www.knightfrank.com/webui/ResearchReportDir/10562.pdf.

kotkin, j. (1999), ‘The future of the centre: the core city in the new economy’, RPPI Policy Study No 264. http://www.rppi.org/urban/ps264.html.

langstraat, j. (2006), ‘The urban regeneration industry in Leeds: measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance’, Earth & Environment, 2, 167–210. http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~lecmsr/ejournal/2,167-210.pdf.

leeds city council (1998), Sustainable Development Design Guide, Leeds, Leeds City Council.leeds city council (2001), Unitary Development Plan, Leeds, Leeds City Council.leeds city council (2007a), Leeds Economy Handbook 2007, Leeds, Leeds City Council Develop-

ment Department.leeds city council (2007b), 8th City Centre Audit, Leeds, Leeds City Council. leeds city council (2007c), Strategic Housing Market Assessment (prepared for Leeds City Council

by Outside Research & Development, Leeds).



leeds city council (2007d), Integrated Waste Strategy 2005–2035, Leeds, Leeds City Council.leeds city council (2007e), Renaissance Leeds Delivery Plan 2007–2009, Leeds, Leeds City

Council.leeds environment partnership (2003), Leeds State of the Environment Report – Overview Document,

Leeds, Leeds Initiative.leeds initiative (1999), Vision for Leeds: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, 1999–2009, Leeds,

Leeds Initiative.leeds initiative (2004), Vision for Leeds 2004–2020, Leeds, Leeds Initiative.liverpool city council (2005), City Centre Living: Residential Development Update, July 2005, Liver-

pool, Liverpool Vision/The City of Liverpool.low, n., gleeson, b., elander, i. and lidskog, r. (eds) (2000), Consuming Cities: The Urban Environ-

ment in the Global Economy after the Rio Declaration, London, Routledge.madden, m., popplewell, v. and wray, i. (2001), ‘City centre living as the springboard for

regeneration? Some lessons from Liverpool’, Liverpool, University of Liverpool Depart-ment of Civic Design, Working Paper 59.

marsh, g. (1999), Estates Gazette Millennium Property Survey, December.matley, r. (1999), 24 Hour City: The Leeds Experience, Leeds, Leeds City Council City Centre

Management.millard, j. (2004), ‘The regeneration of sites and structures in south central Leeds: sustainable

development?’ (unpublished undergraduate dissertation), Leeds, School of Geography, University of Leeds.

mitchell, g. and unsworth, r. (2004), ‘How green is my city? Environment and sustainability: status, policy and prospects’ in R. Unsworth and J. Stillwell (eds), 21st Century Leeds: Geogra-phies of a Regional City, Leeds, Leeds University Press, 291–316.

murray, c. (2006), ‘Vertical neighbourhoods’ (The experience of city living in Leeds). http://www.cabe.org/uk/default/aspx?refid=182&sl=4.2&contentitemid=1117.

nathan, m. and unsworth, r. (2006), ‘Remaking the inner suburbs’, Built Environment, 32, 235–49.

nathan, m. and urwin, c. (2005), City People: City Centre Living in the UK, London, Centre for Cities, Institute for Public Policy Research. http://www.ippr.org.uk/centreforcities.

office of the deputy prime minister (2003), Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, London, ODPM.

office of the deputy prime minister (2004), Liveability and Sustainable Development: Bad Habits and Hard Choices, final report for the ODPM, July, by Brook Lyndhurst Ltd.

office of the deputy prime minister (2005a), Securing the Future: Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

office of the deputy prime minister (2005b), Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

office of the deputy prime minister (2005c), Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

office of the deputy prime minister (2005d), Proposals for Introducing a Code for Sustainable Homes – A Consultation Paper, London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

office of the deputy prime minister (2006), Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, London, Office


Rachael Unsworth746

of the Deputy Prime Minister.ons (office for national statistics) (2004), Social Trends 34, London, ONS. ons (office for national statistics) (2005), More People Were Living Alone in 2004, London,

ONS. http://www.statistiscs.gov.uk/cci/nugget_print.asp?ID=1162. purvis, m. (2004), ‘Geography and sustainable development’ in M. Purvis and A. Grainger

(eds), Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives, London, Earthscan, 33–49.roberts, m. and turner, c. (2005), ‘Conflicts of liveability in the 24-hour city: learning from

48 hours in the life of London’s Soho’, Journal of Urban Design, 10, 171–93.rogers, p. and coaffee, j. (2005), ‘Moral panics and urban renaissance: policy, tactics and

youth in public space’, City, 9, 321–40.scanlon, k. and whitehead, c. (2005), ‘The profile and intentions of buy-to-let investors’,

London, The Council of Mortgage Lenders.stubbs, m. (2002), ‘Car parking and residential development: sustainability, design and planning

policy, and public perceptions of parking provision’, Journal of Urban Design, 7, 213–37.sustainable buildings task group (2004), Better Buildings, Better Lives, London, DEFRA. http://

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/betterbuildings.htm. tcpa/wwf (town and country planning association/worldwide fund for nature) (2003),

Building Sustainably: How to Plan and Construct New Housing for the 21st Century, London, TCPA/WWF.

thomas, r. (ed.) (2002), Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach, London, Spon/Routledge.

unchs (united nations centre for human settlements) (habitat) (1996), An Urbanizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements 1996, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

unsworth, r. (2004), ‘Making cities more sustainable: people, plans and participation’ in M. Purvis and A. Grainger (eds), Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives, London, Earthscan, 128–55.

unsworth, r. (2005), City Living in Leeds 2005, Leeds, University of Leeds and K. W. Linfoot plc. http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/publications/cityliving.

unsworth, r. (2007), City Living in Leeds 2007, Leeds, University of Leeds, K. W. Linfoot plc and Morgans City Living. http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/publications/cityliving.

unsworth, r. and stillwell, j. (2004), Twenty-First-Century Leeds: Geographies of a Regional City, Leeds, Leeds University Press.

urban practitioners (2003), ‘Leeds’ evening and night-time economy’ (unpublished report for Leeds City Centre Management Team).

urbed (2002), ‘Vision for Leeds II: Lessons from Vision I’ (unpublished report for Leeds City Council).

vale, b. and vale, r. (1993), ‘Building the sustainable environment’ in A. Blowers (ed.), Planning for Sustainable Development, London, Earthscan, 93–110.

while, a., gibbs, d. and jonas, a. (2002), ‘Environment as good governance: sustainability and the Vision for Leeds’, Governance and Regulation in Local Environment Policy Making (Case Study Working Paper No. 5), Hull, Department of Geography, University of Hull.

williams, g. (2003), The Enterprising City Centre: Manchester’s Development Challenge, London, Spon.



AcknowledgementsPaul Fox, formerly of K. W. Linfoot, now Fox Lloyd Jones, was the pioneering supporter of the idea of thorough research of city living in Leeds. K. W. Linfoot plc funded the 2003 and 2005 surveys and in 2007 Morgans City Living joined in supporting the work. A series of students have helped gather and analyse data on city living over the last few years: Julie Deptford, James Norbury, Rachel James, Tom Wong, Emily Hartley. Allsop & Co provided valuable assistance in the first attempt to create a supply database. Robin Coghlan, Alan Cranswick, David Haigh, Megan Godsell, Huw Jones, Rob Norreys and Chris Tebbutt of Leeds City Council have helped with data and advice. Swift Research carried out the data analysis for the 2007 survey. Discussions with Max Nathan (formerly of the Centre for Cities), Kevin Grady (Leeds Civic Trust) and colleagues in the School of Geography, University of Leeds, have helped to shape up interpretation of the Leeds evidence.


City living and sustainable development: the experience of a UK regional city (Leeds)

Documents

Transcript of City living and sustainable development: the experience of a UK regional city (Leeds)