‘Any place to raise children is a good place’: children, housing and neighbourhoods in inner Newcastle, Australia

Mee, Kathleen

doi:10.1080/14733281003691434

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contemporary North American society, the single detached home represents the "ideal" home for many. The public perception of single family homes is that they are ideal places in which to raise a family, in part because they are perceived as safe (Mee, 2010;Miller, 1995). In the past, high-rise buildings have been considered undesirable and even dangerous places to live (Costello, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Dwelling Type and Fear of Crime

Rollwagen

2014

Environment and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban sociologists and criminologists have maintained housing's importance in providing individuals with a sense of security within their neighborhood. Yet it remains unclear whether all types of housing provide this sense of safety in the same way. This article provides an analysis of the relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime. Data from the 2009 Canadian General Social Survey are analyzed. Results suggest that living in a multiunit dwelling has no statistically significant impact on fear of crime in the neighborhood; however, individuals living in high-rise and low-rise residences are less likely to be fearful of crime while at home in the evening. One possible explanation for these findings is the fortress effect: High-rise buildings isolate individuals in physical space, providing security in the home, and creating physical and social distance from the rest of the neighborhood. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Dwelling Type and Fear of Crime

Rollwagen

2014

Environment and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, these have examined families' urban residential preferences (e.g. Karsten, 2007Karsten, , 2015Lilius, 2014) and the appropriateness of city environments (Carroll et al, 2011;Mee, 2010), including family friendly consumption spaces (Karsten, 2014). In other studies, the sample of urban high-rise families is unclear and their distinct experiences are not specified (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ordinary vertical urbanisms: City apartments and the everyday geographies of high-rise families

Nethercote

Horne

2016

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many new world cities, inner city apartment development proceeds at unprecedented rates. In dominant urban planning and property development discourses, new inner city dwellers are consumption-orientated young professionals and “empty nesters”—all similarly childless. Nonetheless, families make their homes in city apartments, and their experiences are not well understood. Meanwhile, within urban and political geography, new interest in verticality has directed attention to the changing urban topography and volumetric profile of cities. However, a topographic bias occludes the mundane, intensive relations that enervate these everyday lived spaces (i.e. ordinary topologies), while a fascination with spectacular urbanisms and cities in conflict neglects other “ordinary” vertical urbanisms. Drawing on a qualitative study of high-rise families in inner city Melbourne (Australia), this article responds both to calls for a more topological rendering of vertical urbanisms and the neglected experiences of vertical urban families. We detail the intimate and material geographies of high-rise family living and highlight how the topologies of high-rise living and the topographies of urban intensification projects intersect, including with benign and hopeful prospects for the contemporary city.

show abstract

“…Growing up in a poor neighbourhood has negative effects on CYP, for example poorer health and educational outcomes (Brooks-Gunn et al, 1997;Sampson et al, 2002;Leventhal, 2000). Features of neighbourhoods considered important for children include the availability of green space, friendly people, positive role models, good quality services, good transport access, places to gather and good schools (Mee, 2010;Hume et al, 2005;Mota et al, 2002). Children who have better access to safe places are more likely to be physically active (Gordon-Larsen et al, 2006).…”

Section: Residential Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%