• Need for a housing model suited for low-income dwellers

Residents of low-income high-rise housing in Colombo are dissatisfied with several physical indicators of their high-rise model-based living environment, such as natural light, ventilation, the size of the dwelling unit, maintenance, and services, and social indicators such as privacy, safety, interaction, and social exchange. Hence, owing to the implications of the same on liveability and housing-related satisfaction of low-income dwellers, there is a need for a housing model that is more suitable for low-income dwellers.

These findings and recommendations were made in an article on the "Assessment of residents' satisfaction of 'liveability' in low-income high-rise housing in Colombo" which was authored by M.R.S.M. Fernando and S.B.A. Coorey (both attached to the Moratuwa University's Architecture Department) and published in the Built-Environment Sri Lanka journal's 13th Volume's Second issue in February of this year (2023).

High-rise living has been associated with many physical, social, and psychological issues. A Singaporean study and R. Gifford's "The consequences of living in high-rise buildings" show that high-rise living affects dwellers’ mental and social health due to fear, phobia, dissatisfaction, stress, behaviour-related problems, suicide, poor social relations, a de-personalised living environment, reduced helpfulness, and hindered child development and child safety. Per Gifford, related fears include the fear of the family or a neighbour jumping off from the building, fires, earthquakes, attacks, strangers, crime, the lack of social support, the absence of community, and communicable diseases generated by others. A Singaporean study notes that low-quality construction, and the lack of maintenance and choice are some physical problems associated with the same. P. Lai, C. Low, W.C. Tse, C. Tsui and H. Lee's "Risk of tuberculosis in high-rise and high-density dwellings: An exploratory spatial analysis" points out issues affecting health due to the poor air quality and ventilation, the lack of daylight inside housing units, windows facing neighbouring blocks, and unpleasant living conditions. However, according to a Singaporean study, high-rises are also known to have sensible solutions to maximising the use of space and saving land for green space. Countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore show a public acceptance of living in high-rise housing in contrast to the West. A Hong Kong-based study, a Singaporean study and Gifford, observe that high-rise living is also associated with positive factors such as prestige, status, privacy, views, the sensation of height, savings in land for development, accessibility, vitality, and quietness.

In the 1980s, the Sri Lankan Government commenced facilitating infrastructure and services to upgrade slums on-site. However, in the 1990s, slum dwellers were relocated to high-rise apartments. S.L.D.K. Wijesinghe's "Factors contributing to the failure of development induced resettlement projects: A case study of the 'Sahaspura' slum relocation project, Colombo" observed that one of the major issues in these developments was that the residents sold or rented their apartments and returned to their original settlements as living on upper levels posed problems for their livelihoods. Maintenance and the cost for maintenance, and the quality of construction and management were also identified as issues in high-rise living in T.C. Samaratunga and D. O’Hare's "'Sahaspura': The first high-rise housing project for low-income people in Colombo" and "High-density high-rise vertical living for low-income people in Colombo: Learning from Pruitt-Igoe (the Wendell O. Pruitt Homes and William Igoe Apartments were joint, urban, public housing development projects in St. Louis, Missouri, United States, comprised of 33 11-storey high-rises, and have come to represent some of the failures of city and urban renewal programmes, and public policy planning, and housing)", and D.M.D. Wijayamali, K.G.A.S. Waidyasekara and K.W.D.K.C. Dahanayake's "Living in low-income condominiums: End user’s perspectives", and by Wijesinghe. R.G. Ariyawansa and A.G.P.I. Udayanthika's "Living in a high-rise: An analysis of the demand for condominium properties in Colombo" shows that social issues such as theft, trespassing, noise, and difficulties in educating and socialising children were problems found in low-income high-rise housing in Sri Lanka. When it comes to housing, people seek to move from place to place until they are satisfied with their housing-related needs, or, they attempt to change their houses as per their requirements, within their capacities. According to Samaratunga et al., relocation, and social, cultural, architectural, planning, technical, financial, management, and operational issues are the reasons for the residents’ dissatisfaction.

The success of housing programmes in either developed or developing countries is not measured by simply providing sufficient housing but by the suitability of the living environment to meet its residents' needs. A Chinese study noted that such needs will significantly vary across different contexts. A Nigerian study pointed out that housing projects fail due to the lack of knowledge of the physical aspects of housing-related quality and the design criteria that satisfies the residents’ needs. According to a Saudi Arabian study, affordable housing should not just aim at providing affordable shelter but should be sensitive to privacy, social cohesion, preferences, and the lifestyles of the target population.

The liveability of housing plays an important role in resident satisfaction and sustains the community. Liveability can be measured based on the scales pertaining to dwelling, the building, and the housing complex. Several important neighbourhood-level indicators such as access to public transport, schools, shops, and employment are considered within the building complex related scale.

Livability and other factors

Liveability is associated with factors such as life-related quality, safety, health, services, the economy, comfort, mobility, living standards, and social interaction. A Chinese study defines liveability as the ability of an environment to meet the people's living-related demands while examining the liveability of high-rise housing based on four scales, namely, the dwelling unit, the building and tower, the complex and estate, and the neighbourhood scale. The liveability of housing varies across socio-cultural, income, and location related differences. The liveability of one's living environment greatly depends on the resident’s satisfaction. A Nigerian study observes that residents' satisfaction is a guide for planners, designers, developers, and policymakers to provide more habitable and sustainable housing. According to C.C. Marcus's "House as a mirror of the self: Exploring the deeper meaning of home", housing satisfaction is determined by one’s cultural background, place in the life cycle, socioeconomic status, personality, hopes, and values. Factors such as spatial, physical, social, economic, and location-based components have been identified as critical factors for housing-related satisfaction. A Singaporean study investigated the residents’ living experiences in high-rise public housing using several indicators for satisfaction such as the floor level, the location, the views, the breeze, privacy, the noise from the traffic and the neighbours, the space between buildings, and the convenience with regard to facilities. Per a Nigerian study, the users' and dwelling unit related characteristics, the management, environment and location-related factors, and facilities and services in housing units are important for resident satisfaction. J.M.A. Manatunge and U. Abeysinghe's "Factors affecting the satisfaction of post-disaster resettlers in the long-term: A case study on the resettlement sites of tsunami affected communities in Sri Lanka" pointed out that physical, environmental, and socioeconomic factors affect housing related satisfaction, and that appearance, arrangement, structure, and the housing condition matter to the user in order to maintain their living standards and social level in society.

M. Lukuman, I. Sipan, F. Raji and O.S. Aderemi's "Sustainable liveable housing: A review of what traditional urban areas’ residents find important" noted that the physical aspect of the dwelling is the foremost important attribute of several pertinent attributes of liveability. Per studies in Ghana and Nigeria, several indicators such as crowding, the size, the quality of the housing unit, and the suitability have been identified in connection with liveability. A Nigerian study states that features, the size of the spaces, privacy, and the housing condition, affect the satisfaction of housing units. According to Gifford's "Environmental psychology: Principles and practice", the size, layout, and infrastructure of the housing unit, daylight, natural ventilation, the number and position of the windows, thermal comfort, noise, the view from the windows, and private outdoor spaces are important indicators concerning the housing unit.

A Chinese study identified several liveability-related indicators at the building scale such as the quality and quantity of the lifts, public lighting, the ventilation of public spaces, a barrier free design, the upkeep of public facilities, and the collection of domestic waste. In addition, per two Chinese studies, a Brazilian study, Wijayamali et al., two Singaporean studies, two New Zealand based studies, three Nigerian studies, a Malaysian study, N. Senlier, T. Salihoğlu and R. Yildiz's "Liveability of different housing settlements", J. Kraatz, F. Mancini, F. Perugia, T. Glusac, S. Reid and J. Venable's "Liveable social and affordable higher-density housing: Review of the literature and conceptual framework", a Hong Kong-based study, and B. Yuen and A.G.O. Yeh's "High-rise living in Asian cities", features such as building elevation, identity, the construction-related quality, communal spaces and facilities in the building, the household density within the housing block, safety and security in the high-rise building, the relations with the neighbours, green areas and landscapes, and the maintenance and management of the building block are important indicators for residents living in high-rise housing.

K.J. Gruber and G.G. Shelton's "Assessment of neighbourhood satisfaction by residents of three housing types" observes that housing cannot be separated from its surroundings and that the level of acceptance or satisfaction is dependent on where the unit is situated more than on its actual or perceived quality. Two Hong Kong-based studies and a Chinese study observe that sufficient open spaces, gathering and recreational spaces, and safety, are considered important for residents living in high-rise buildings. Lukuman et al. note that parking bays, playgrounds and shops close to the housing complex are also important indicators for residents. A Chinese study identified several physical and psycho-social dimensions for liveability in the housing estate or complex related scale. A Hong Kong-based study and a Chinese study, Lukuman et al., a Brazilian study and a Singaporean study noted that green areas for the landscape, play areas for children, activity places for the elderly, pedestrian walkways, internal motor roads, car and bike parking, internal public service facilities, a barrier-free design, the building density, spacing, the outdoor environment in the summer and in the winter, and the wind-related environment are indicators for liveability. A Chinese study elaborated that psychosocial dimensions include the population density, maintenance and management, community security, and a sense of community. Some of the neighbourhood-related factors identified by a Chinese study are local public spaces, local service facilities, the noise, the traffic situation, public transportation, and environmental tidiness. Indicators such as access to public transport, education, and employment are considered. However, the importance of these indicators varies across residents of different contexts, lifestyles, cultures and socio-economic groups.

Liveability indicators per the dwelling unit include natural light (day) and ventilation, the size of the dwelling (unit), the dining area, the bedroom, the kitchen and the toilet, sound-related privacy, safety, balconies, private open spaces, identity, dignity, economic standing, having more bedrooms, and living areas. Liveability indicators per the building include safety, the size of the corridor, the colour (theme), the floor level, the circulation, the aesthetics, the condition, services including the water supply, electricity, lifts, garbage, and drainage, cleanliness including of service areas, noise (levels), and spaces for interaction and social exchange. Liveability indicators per the building complex include gathering places, open spaces (places), playgrounds, small shops, a community hall, Government medical facilities, parking facilities, cleanliness, noise, safety at night on the streets, safety during daytime on the streets, streetlights at night, safety in pedestrian pathways, safety due to unauthorised activities, safety to property, and access to public transport, employment, and education.

Examining SL situation

A survey research-based strategy was employed by Fernando and Coorey. A simple random sample of 65 household representatives was selected from two typical low-income high-rise housings in Colombo consisting of a total of 1,694 households. The survey was conducted immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic. In the first case, an Urban Development Authority (UDA) development was occupied in 2018. The site extent is 16.84 square metres (sq.m). A total of 941 housing units are located in four towers consisting of 15 floors. The dwelling units are approximately 500 square feet (sq.ft) and consist of two bedrooms, a kitchen, a living and dining area, and a toilet. In the second case, a UDA development was occupied in 2018. The site extent is 16.75 sq.m. A total of 703 housing units are located in three towers consisting of 14 floors. The dwelling units are larger than 500 sq.ft and consist of two bedrooms, a kitchen, a living area, and a toilet.

The sample included 52% males and 47.7% females. All were above 26 years. A total of 90% are married. Respondents include Sinhalese (38%), Tamils (33%), and Muslims (27%). A total of 87% of the residents own their housing unit. A total of 86% had lived there for three to five years while 14% had lived there for one to two years.

The overall satisfaction of the building scores a higher mean for satisfaction as opposed to the dwelling unit and complex. Results show that 81.5% are either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their building while only 49.2% and 44.6% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied”, respectively, with their complex and dwelling unit, thus indicating that residents show higher satisfaction with the building compared to the dwelling unit and the complex.

Lesser mean values are observed for satisfaction with natural ventilation, and the size of the dining area and the bedroom. The least mean value is observed for satisfaction with the “size of the dining area”. Most units do not have a designated space for dining, and therefore use other spaces for this function. The levels of satisfaction with the liveability indicators in the dwelling unit are low except for safety.

Satisfaction with the dwelling unit is not significantly correlated to any of the indicators considered. However, the overall satisfaction with the size of the dwelling is significantly correlated with the satisfaction with the size of the bedroom and the kitchen. This indicates that when satisfaction with the bedroom and kitchen size increases, their overall satisfaction with the dwelling size significantly increases, indicating that these two spaces play an important role in the overall satisfaction of the dwelling unit size. Satisfaction with ventilation is also correlated to their satisfaction with lighting, and the size of the dwelling, the bedroom and the kitchen. The correlation is significant.

Different aspects

Most referred to their previous house and stated dissatisfaction with the “limited number of bedrooms”, the “small living area” and having “no dining” area. Some have also lived in two-storey houses and have therefore been restricted in the floor area in their current house. Factors such as “no storage places”, “no private balcony” or small “private open area”, and the inability to reflect “differences, identity, dignity, power, and economic standing” were also mentioned as reasons for dissatisfaction. Hence, the above indicators are relevant to low-income high-rise housing in Colombo.

A high mean value for satisfaction is observed for “circulation” while low mean values for satisfaction are observed for “safety”, “aesthetics” and services such as “electricity”, “water”, “lifts”, “drainage”, “garbage collection” and the “cleanliness of the service areas” in their building.

Results show dissatisfaction with the safety in the building although safety in the dwelling was satisfactory. The overall satisfaction of the building is significantly correlated with “safety” and “noise”. The correlation is significant. The services such as satisfaction with the “water supply” are also significantly correlated to the overall satisfaction of the building. The correlation is significant.

Residents are dissatisfied with safety. Hence, safety measures such as gates, locks, and barriers to fire staircases, and rooftops have been installed to protect the buildings. Such measures will further create a sense of fear among the residents. They further noted that they have limited spaces for interaction and social exchange compared to their previous housing.

Residents are most satisfied with “access to public transport”. Both cases are located in the Colombo City, adjacent to the main roads and with easy access to public transport. The satisfaction with gathering places, open spaces, shops, community halls, medical facilities, kids’ play areas, and playgrounds, and related facilities in the complex is low, indicating the need for the provision of these spaces and for the further improving of the quality of these spaces. The satisfaction with safety-related indicators such as the streets at night, the safety of pedestrian pathways, safety from unauthorised activities, and safety to property shows low mean values. Results indicate the need for improving liveability at the complex related scale.

Overall satisfaction of the complex is significantly correlated with satisfaction with “open spaces”, the “safety of the streets at daytime”, the safety of street lights at night“, “safety from unauthorised activities” and the “safety of property”. The correlation is significant. Further, the availability of “small shops”, medical facilities, and the safety in pedestrian pathways show significance for the overall satisfaction of the complex. The correlation is significant.

Recommendations

Future housing needs to focus on improving the housing complex scale. The provisions for open spaces, gathering spaces, commercial and medical facilities, safety, and the control of vandalism were identified as important for liveability at the complex scale. Safety is of major concern for residents at both the building scale and the complex scale; hence, future housing design should focus on creating a safer built environment. The ability to reflect one's individuality and identity, spaces for interaction and social exchange, more space in the dwelling unit, private balconies, and private open spaces were found to be important for the residents’ satisfaction. The residents’ memories of their previous home have a strong influence on their acceptance and satisfaction with the current dwelling unit. Hence, the design should reflect on their previous homes and spatial characteristics when designing for the future. 

The inclusion of more social and psychological indicators such as crowding, privacy, social interaction, community spirit, neighbourly contact, solidarity, identity, and personalisation will enhance the situation.