Parenting in Proximity to Others: The Importance of Transitions and Trajectories

ABSTRACT

In many cities, living in an apartment throughout the life-course challenges the status-quo. While density is acceptable during some life-stages, the default is the detached dwelling during others. The parenting period is one such stage. Using records of the experiences of 20 parents of children 0-5 in apartments in Sydney, Australia, this paper questions the adequacy of density for family life in the case-study city. We add a unique focus on temporality, conceptualising densification and parenting as projects in transition. Our analysis reveals disruptions to densified family life, suggesting that the process of densification is at odds with the timings of childhood and the urgency of the problems perpetuated by lower-density urban form.

摘要

在许多城市，一生都住在公寓里是一种挑战现状的选择。在人生的某些阶段，一定程度的居住密度是可以接受的，但在其他阶段，默认的居住方式却是独立式住宅。育儿期就是这样一个阶段。本文通过记录澳大利亚悉尼 20 位 0 至 5 岁儿童父母的公寓生活经历，对案例研究城市的家庭生活密度是否适当提出质疑。本研究对时间性进行了特别的关注，将密集化和养育子女概念化为过渡时期的项目。当中的分析揭示了高密度家庭生活的混乱，表明了高密度化进程与童年的时机以及低密度城市形态所带来的问题的紧迫性相悖。

KEYWORDS:

• Density
• children
• transport
• parenting
• apartments

1. Introduction

In growing cities, increased residential densities are key to the provision of healthy, liveable, affordable and sustainable urban environments (Beenackers et al. 2018, Bentley et al. 2018, Boakye-Dankwa et al. 2019, Bibri et al. 2020). In many of these same cities, living in density throughout the whole life course presents a challenge to the status quo. While apartment living may be acceptable during some life stages, the cultural and practical default is the detached dwelling as a preference during others. The parenting period, where the mess, complexity and vulnerability of growing bodies needs to be nurtured and accommodated, is one such stage (Wessel and Lunke 2021, Kleeman et al. 2022).

In many cities, particularly those in the colonised global north, aspirations to sustainability and liveability will require more families to live in density. Case based explorations of potential disruptions to parenting in density as a common practice are therefore needed. In particular, it is imperative to understand the experiences of parents living in higher-density environments in cities under transition where density is increasing. The aim of this paper is to provide such an understanding, with the explicit intent to reflect on the likelihood that families will live and remain in apartments in cities accustomed to the space, privacy and comfort of lower-density housing options. We do this through records of the experiences of parents living in higher-density environments, and their interpretation of density as a place for families to call home.

The study contributes to a growing body of qualitative research that chronicles practices and perspectives of parents in density in cities under transition (Gleeson and Sipe 2006, Easthope and Judd 2010, Woolcock et al. 2010, Andrews et al. 2018, Raynor 2018, Andrews et al. 2019, Kerr et al. 2021, Opit et al. 2021). Using previous work as a point of departure, we take a broad focus on the impact of the design, distribution and processes of change associated with density from the perspective of 20 parents with children aged 0–5 living in apartment buildings in Western Sydney, Australia. Data are analysed thematically, travelling through the various structural, cultural and personal barriers and enablers experienced by families. In our analysis, we add a unique focus on temporality, conceptualising both density and parenting as projects that are not temporally static but instead experienced as constantly enduring transformation. Our discussion draws out the interplay between structure and agency which shapes parents’ experiences and intentions. Archer’s concept of morphogenesis (1995, 2000, 2010) is suggested as an appropriate theoretical frame to explore the way time intersects with the material and cultural factors defining familial experiences of density. Our proposal, which is unique in research on this topic to date, is that elements of temporality thwart attempts to position density as a viable preference for families in Australian contexts. This suggests that a mass voluntary uptake of density for family living will be unlikely, and that a large-scale involuntary shift towards families seeking more affordable higher-density dwellings will be required. The paper progresses to reflect on the impact of our proposal on the sustainability and liveability of cities, outlining a series of hypothetical outcomes with a particular focus on transport as a key contributor to city aspirations. We conclude with considerations of whether the process of densification is at odds with both the timing of childhood and the urgency of the problems perpetuated by lower-density urban form.

2. Background

Australia, and many Australians, echo the experiences of countless lower-density cities around the world that have grown up with access to the private car and a seemingly endless ability to absorb the population within detached dwellings located on large blocks in sprawling suburbs (Forster 2006). Culturally and structurally, apartment living has traditionally been accepted as a thing for young professionals or older empty nesters, with the idea of raising children in anything other than a detached dwelling adjoining a private backyard perceived as a less than ideal outcome (Fincher and Gooder 2007, Willing and Pojani 2017).

This notion, however, is being challenged, and families are increasingly calling apartments home across our cities (Easthope and Tice 2011). For example, census data from Australia’s largest city, Sydney, indicates that more than one in four apartments is home to a family with children, and that the number of families with children in high-rise units more than doubled between 2006 and 2021 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021). The increase in some children living in higher-density comes as no surprise to urban economists, who have foretold of families experiencing a growing housing affordability crisis in Australian cities for many years (Wood and Ong 2011, Morris et al. 2020). It is also welcome news to urban planners, who have long espoused the need to curb urban sprawl by providing accessible and adaptable higher-density housing across car-dependent cities around the world (Cervero and Duncan 2003, Ewing and Cervero 2010).

Although the number of families in density is increasing in Australia, there is also evidence that the structure of some higher-density dwellings and environments is at odds with the expectations of parents. This is reflected quantitatively by the fact that in Australia in 2021, almost 11% of children 0–4 resided in density, with this figure dropping to just over 4% for children aged 5–14 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021). This infers a lack of permanence to the arrangement of parenting in density. This lack of permanence represents a threat to densification and, by implication, the development of more sustainable, healthier and equitable cities.

We now have a series of empirically informed understandings of the structural needs of families in density in various contexts, including in cities traditionally dominated by lower-density living. Perhaps reflecting the region’s pursuit of densification in currently low-density and car dependent cities, and responding to calls for greater understandings in this context (Gleeson and Sipe 2006, Woolcock et al. 2010), much of the research in this space has emerged from Australia and New Zealand (Mee 2010, Carroll et al. 2011, Klocker and Gibson 2013, Carroll et al. 2015, Nethercote and Horne 2016, Andrews et al. 2018, Kerr et al. 2018, Andrews et al. 2019, Andrews and Warner 2020, Opit et al. 2020, Kerr et al. 2021, Opit et al. 2021, Cook et al. 2023), with some exceptions (for example Wessel and Lunke 2021). In seeking to develop understandings of the experiences of families in density from the perspective of liveability, we have been drawn to several qualitative studies which provide detailed records of the practices and perceptions of parents. These studies give relevant insights not only into the structural shapers of parenting in density, but also the intersections of these with cultural conventions and social practices. The findings of some of these studies are now reviewed to provide context.

Several studies have examined the way space in density–its distribution and adequacy–can support or hinder parental aspirations. Through a series of interviews with 20 families with young children living in high-rise in inner Melbourne, Australia, Nethercote and Horne (2016) revealed the implications of families with perceived spatial deficit. Some families in this study purchased external storage spaces to keep the inevitable “stuff” associated with being and raising children (including bikes, camping gear, books and out-of-season clothing). Others without access to this luxury described how “boxes were stacked against walls making small rooms smaller and narrow corridors narrower” (Nethercote and Horne 2016, p. 1588) resulting in very real experiences of over-crowding. Parents subsequently described the heightened importance of communal spaces within the apartment complex, including swimming pools and gyms, gardens and function rooms.

In another piece, Kerr et al. (2018) conducted interviews and observations involving 17 families with children under the age of 15 residing in apartments in middle to outer urban areas in Sydney, Australia. Their focus was on sound and the challenges of living near others, including the dilemmas of trying to be both a good parent and a good neighbour. Parents in this study described how the sleeping problems associated with newborns are more pronounced in apartments, making already stressed parents extremely conscious of neighbours’ disturbance, surveillance, and moral judgements throughout the night. Many families also talked about the challenges of reducing noise from their children's activities during the day, including acknowledged over-reliance on screen-time rather than more active play to regulate the noise associated with children’s physical activity. Others recalled discrepancies with neighbours over what kinds of noise is suitable in an apartment living context, with most concluding that the dominant cultural expectation is that children do not belong in higher-density living. In earlier work, Gleeson and Sipe (2006) expose the enshrinement of this expectation in strata laws which prohibit children from using common areas for play.

Returning to issues of space, and in particular its design, Andrews et al. (2018) used photo-voice techniques to collect detailed data from 10 parents living in high-rise apartments in Melbourne, Australia. Parents photographed aspects of their development and neighbourhood perceived to have positive or negative impacts on their child’s health and were also interviewed about the photographic collection. The process revealed issues from the micro-scale design of the apartment (including sinks that were too shallow to properly soak a nappy, and rooms too small to house both a cot and a play mat) to the meso-scale of the apartment building (such as communal areas either devoid of furniture and facilities altogether or designed to accommodate adult gatherings rather than children’s play). Areas for play became a particular focus, with photos displaying vast swathes of concrete space, devoid of soft edges, greenery, or shade. Spaces appeared barren, indicating that while the development may have satisfied a control for the provision of “a space”, the treatment and management of that space to make it useable for the diversity of residents occupying the building had been forgotten. Parents also described the lack of acoustic protection provided by poorly designed dwellings, again describing anxieties around the impact of noise from playing children or newborns learning to sleep and settle. Participants highlighted the lack of facilities to dry the copious amounts of washing generated by children, exacerbated by regulations prohibiting the drying of laundry on balconies.

Some studies explore the importance of the surrounding urban environment to parents in density. Carroll et al. (2011, 2015) used interviews with families to collect data about their experiences with living in high-rise apartments in Auckland, New Zealand. Key findings from these interviews found positive aspects related to proximity to amenities and services, including work and schools, as well as the ease of being able to walk to most places. These findings were echoed in a study of mothers in density in the Australian context (Cook et al. 2023). These positive aspects were balanced, however, by numerous negative drawbacks for parents and their children, including a lack of space (particularly for storage, family food preparation and areas to play) and insufficient acoustic protection. Andrews and Warner (2020) also studied the impact of the surrounding built environment, reporting that families appreciate that density facilitates better family/work life balance because of minimal commute times, yet also found that there were downsides related to space, poor design and safety both within and around the building.

The experiences of families in density recorded by these detailed, qualitative studies reveal several planning, design, cultural and governance factors that contribute to the liveability of high-density urban settings for families. Structural (built) considerations dominate, including the impacts of inflexible living spaces; inadequately sized bathrooms, bedrooms and kitchens; inappropriate sound insulation; unsafe balconies and windows, and a lack of communal open space. More individual factors identified include concern about neighbourhood disturbance and the general sense that having children in density is unusual, if not quite unwelcome. Collectively, these studies all identify the seemingly contradictory, but somehow understandable, notion that families in density yearn simultaneously for privacy and connection through acceptance of their presence.

While the research to date on this topic is relatively prolific, it generally focuses on experiences of families in higher-density living at the location of the apartment and at a particular point in time. Studies do not generally consider the way parenting in apartments can be connected to other opportunities, cultural appreciations and ways of living. Nor do they examine the ways density is experienced in a context of the ever-changing demands of parenthood, and the shifting structural affordance of built environments in a city under transition. Yet parenting and the densification of cities are both defined by elements of temporality. The parenting project develops, as children grow, demand more, then less, then nothing. The built environment too has its own sluggish timeframes, where plans are drawn up, soil turned, and homes delivered over the course of an entire childhood. Making density work for families will inevitably require an understanding of the interplay between these aspects.

Theoretically, elements of this gap reflect the “problem of structure and agency, widely acknowledged to lie at the heart of social theorising” (Archer 2000, p. 1). Although studies on families in density–and the ability for this practice to increase the sustainability and liveability of urbanity–have recognised aspects of this tension, they have avoided explicit recognition of its basic ontology, often prioritising the effect of structures over people, or conflating the two in a relatively nebulous duality. The latter approach is reflective of the structurationist school (Giddens 1984, Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992), where structure and agency are autopoietic yet indivisible for the purposes of analysis. This paper’s stated aim–to understand familial experiences and trajectories of higher-density living–suggests the need to incorporate the relative influence of temporalities into the analysis. As already articulated, parenting is a temporally dynamic task, and the process of densification in cities traditionally defined by urban sprawl also displays shifting temporalities demanding exploration. There is an obvious tension between the long-durée of built environments, and the relative impermanence of urban transition on the unique but powerful temporalities of parenting. As such, we have sought an ontology which enables recognition of the dualism between structures and agents as a way to acknowledge inconsistencies in temporality. We are particularly drawn to the concept of morphogenesis (Archer 1995, 2000) and use this in our analysis.

As a theoretical construct of critical realism, morphogenesis emphasises that processes of change occur for agents and social structures in interlocking, yet temporally complex, ways. In short, life in cities is shaped not only by the interplay between structures and agents, but also the synchronicity of the dance in which they are engaged. Examination within a strict morphogenic framework would require closer adherence to specific ontological and epistemological assumptions and research practices pertaining to a critical realist philosophy, which would be applied over time (as explored by Hastings 2021). The idea to recognise time as a component of both structure and agent can be brought to the fore, however, in cross sectional, point-in-time, studies through reflections on the temporal imprints of various disruptions and constitutions. In this way, we have intentionally paid greater attention to processes and timings of generation through specific interactions between structures and agents. This has enabled development of a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of parenting in density, and identification of barriers to the practice previously under-considered.

3. Method

This paper is informed by a report associated with the Healthy Higher-density for Children project – an examination of experiences of families with children aged 0–5 years living in higher-density housing in the City of Parramatta, Sydney, Australia. Qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews with 20 parents.

3.1. Site and Participant Selection

Although the locality of the Parramatta Central Business District (CBD) is positioned in the geographical centre of the Sydney greater metropolitan region, it is 25 kilometres west of the Sydney CBD and has long been tagged to become Sydney’s second largest business zone (Pfister et al. 2000, Hamnett and Freestone 2017). Parramatta Local Government Area, known as the City of Parramatta, is experiencing a rapid surge in residential population, increasingly housed in newly constructed higher-density dwellings. Some of these residents are families, with the 2021 census showing over 60% of 0–4-year-olds live in apartment buildings. Parramatta CBD contains a major public transport hub, and is well serviced with heavy rail, particularly when compared to other areas outside of the Sydney CBD. The area is also increasingly considered attractive to major employers (including several government agencies) and contains shopping, service and entertainment precincts. Importantly, the locality is an area under demographic and structural transition. While shopping opportunities are prolific, schools and community infrastructure are yet to meet the demands of the increasing population. This context, characterised by a rapidly shifting urban environment housing families whose lives and demands are also, by nature, dynamic, makes City of Parramatta an appropriate site from which to view familial experiences of short- and long-term temporalities.

The study was conducted between September 2017 and December 2019. Participants were recruited through existing networks within the local government authority and the Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD). Parents of children 0–5 years residing in higher-density housing (defined as any housing with 3 or more storeys/floors), for at least 12 months or more, were eligible to participate. All participant information and promotional material was in English. Interpreter services were offered, however none of the participants used this service.

3.2. Data Collection

Interviews were semi-structured. An interview guide was used to explore parents’ perceptions of living in higher-density housing; the way density might shape the developing child, and perceived opportunities for mitigation of any negative effects. Questions were also asked about opportunities for play and socialisation in the neighbourhood, as well as mode of travel to access these opportunities. Car owners were asked about barriers to the use of more sustainable modes. All interviews were audio recorded, ranging from 20–75 min in duration and participants were required to provide written and verbal consent to have their interview recorded. This study received ethical approval from HREC WSLHD Human Research Ethics Committee, reference 2019/ETH02446.

3.3. Data Analysis

Ritchie and Spencer’s (1994) framework method for qualitative data analysis was used. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. The researchers (MM and NV) then familiarised themselves with the data, reviewed the accuracy of the transcripts against the audio recordings and added contextual information from the field notes to the transcript using NVivo (12 Plus). Taking an interpretive phenomenological approach, the researchers independently coded four transcripts using NVivo. They compared codes and agreed on a common coding framework, reviewed throughout the data analysis. The researchers then systematically processed each transcript in NVivo, attaching an appropriate code from the final analytical framework, and ensuring all qualitative data plotted for each code. A wider research team (including MM, NV and HR) then met to discuss and record their collective interpretations of the data in report format, with these interpretations later shared with the lead author (JK). From this analysis, data was written up by the lead author (JK), with themes and deductions crossed checked with and augmented by the original research team.

4. Results

Overall, interviews were conducted with 20 parents aged between 21 and 42, mostly from nuclear family households, with the exception of two single parent households. Families had one or two children, all with at least one child aged under five. Eleven families had a household income higher than the area average and all families had at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or above, which was also above the area average. Reflecting the cultural diversity of Western Sydney more generally, 15 households had at least one parent born in a country other than Australia, with India being the most dominant country of origin in the sample. Most families lived in two-bedroom apartment buildings, ranging between three and 17 storeys high. Families had lived in their current residence for various durations (from one month to six years); 12 families were renting, with the remaining eight homeowners paying off a mortgage.

The following section records experiences of raising young children in apartments from the perspectives of the 20 families in our study. We focus on the socio-material affordances and constraints of apartments; and the temporalities inherent to both parenting and densification in our approach. While structural features of the neighbourhood and dwelling were deemed important, we found that other cultural and emotional elements interact with these structures over different timeframes, to create barriers to parenting in proximity not previously considered. Some of these interactions relate to the staging of lives and development, which were described by parents as constantly in flux. The following analysis unpicks these interactions.

4.1. Design to Ease the Parenting Project

Echoing previous findings, the way apartments are designed can support or inhibit practices of parenting young children. Participants in this study stressed that ground floor apartments are particularly important because they add a sense of ease to the parenting task.

A ground floor apartment facilitates easier access and egress with prams and the other paraphernalia of childhood, and was also deemed to be safer:

I was very specific that I didn’t want a balcony for a toddler. So, I, I only wanted to be on the ground floor. Interview 1

Access to at grade private open space also provides an opportunity for children to play safely outside, easing parental fears associated with play on balconies and enabling a brief period of time out.

We are on the lowest floor, which means that, um, the back door opens out onto a porch … so we are really close to nature and, and outside. It doesn’t feel shut off. We were living on the third floor, and we had to take an elevator, and it meant we didn’t go outside as much. Interview 10

Parents also identified other quite simple features which make raising children easier and safer, such as installation of a bathtub; adequate provision of windows rather than balcony doors for cross ventilation; and an open plan layout large enough to facilitate supervised play:

[In an open plan] when I cook, I can still see what’s going on. Interview 11

One mother describes her apartment where the main ventilation comes from a sliding door which opens to a third-floor balcony:

There’s no window in the apartment. There is just a balcony … and then I cannot open it … he might fall and I’m on the third level … and as for the privacy, I can’t open my main door. Interview 13

4.2. Space to Accumulate and Engage

Modern childhood is culturally inculcated with the accumulation of “stuff” (McKendrick et al. 2000). Some objects improve safety or are educational, others give parents the hope of time-out by the provision of ongoing child entertainment and diversion. Many are simply just fun to have around, which, in a child’s eyes, doesn’t necessarily make them optional (Lange 2018). One non-discretionary tool for modern parenting of young children is a pram, and participants lamented not being able to store their pram somewhere external to their living quarters:

We keep our pram up here just because, you know, it’s quite dusty in the garage, and if you leave it in the common areas it’s quite likely to be stolen. Interview 6

Children’s clutter requires space. While the design guidelines for apartment buildings in the case study city have been revised to improve liveability for a diversity of household types (Yang et al. 2022), parents in this study still articulated a preference for older apartments claiming they offered more space, particularly larger bedrooms. In addition, internal storage was also identified as an important feature of these older dwellings:

I think a lot of the new apartments are very small … we’re lucky that this is like a 1970s building, so this two-bedroom apartment compared to a lot of other two bedroom apartments in … especially the new ones built, are tiny in comparison. Interview 6

4.3. Space to Play and Escape

While “stuff” needs storage, children (and their parents) need space to play, and a lack of safe play space was highlighted as one of the key challenges to parenting in density. Some described this becoming more challenging as children age and are more mobile.

Within the neighbourhood, parents identified a wide range of local play spaces. Preferences were for playgrounds away from busy roads or fenced for ease of supervision. Yet still, parents expressed concern that apartments lacked the internal and external private spaces for play when compared with a detached house:

I think that kids need places to play and I think that apartment buildings don’t have that. Um, they don’t have a backyard, they don’t have fresh air. Interview 19

Parents were hesitant to use balconies for play because of safety concerns, and as such communal play spaces onsite were prized. Only one family mentioned having good access to a park “basically just for our building” (Interview 10). Others yearned for more communal space with embellishments such as garden beds and BBQs:

Even just having a barbeque … and like a little cubby house at the back of a unit block … that makes the space useable for everyone … then, you know, young children don’t get pent up in a box every day. Interview 17

It doesn’t have to be a play set, it can even be things like … bike tracks or … maybe little garden beds or things they can go and do some gardening … things that would be more interactive for kids. Interview 4

4.4. Living Locally?

Higher-density residential environments provide opportunities to live in a more localised way, where travel is minimised and private car use is reduced (Kent et al. 2023). While this paper does not seek to deduce whether or not these families in density engaged in practices that are more sustainable (such as the use of public transport), of interest are the experiences and sensibilities of parents living more locally in higher-density areas.

Some parents expressed an appreciation for easy, walkable, access to shops, parks and libraries that would otherwise have been more difficult to visit in a suburban environment:

It’s close to all the parks and all the fun activities that kids want to go to. Close to the rivers … it allows us to be really more active, you know, get out or go to the public library, or go to the riverside and ride our bikes or scooters. Interview 9

Several facilities were listed as lacking or under-provided in the case study area. Schools were perceived as at capacity:

There’s three different schools that are one and a half kilometres walking distance each … they’re all overcrowded. Interview 10

Playgrounds were deemed to be too crowded; and the absence of an adequate and accessible local swimming pool, while a new aquatic centre was being built, was raised by several families, particularly in the context of Parramatta’s notoriously hot summers. This sense of over-use and crowding provoked trips further afield, for example to regional play spaces and pools, and these trips were inevitably by private car. Although they noted that public transport was available, parents were generally deterred from using it, echoing previous work (McCarthy et al. 2019, 2017) citing problems with accessibility and safety:

Using public transport, the only problem is, um more than two strollers are not allowed in the bus … sometimes you would have to miss the bus and take the next one. Interview 14

Others cited aversions to taking children who can be noisy and unpredictable on public transport, which echoed concerns about raising children in the relatively public eye that density evokes, including concerns around the noise and general disruption that children can bring to an enclosed train carriage or bus.

4.5. Neighbourhoods in Transition

City of Parramatta’s higher-density housing reflects a rapid process of urban activation initiated by the rezoning of commercial land to residential uses and the up-zoning of existing lower-density areas. Parramatta is therefore an area in transition, and this state of flux impacted parents in density in two ways.

First, many parents described a lag in the provision of infrastructure. As mentioned above, schools, public swimming pools and parks were all either crowded or in a state of rejuvenation to cope with increased demand.

Second, the construction of apartment buildings has dragged on, as construction in a developer-driven planning system tends to do, reflecting the highs and lows of the housing market. The legacy is an area of perpetual hive of building activity. For families living in “Parramatta under transition”, this creates an environment of instability, with residents forced to endure the negative externalities of construction such as dust, noise, and dangerous footpaths. These material outputs of the densification process make parenting in density not only unappealing; it makes the parenting task more difficult. Participants described how the noise interrupts day time sleep, and the constant dust forces windows closed. The walkability of the immediate neighbourhood environment is also compromised. The clutter of parked construction vehicles makes streets feel narrower, placing constraints on street car parking for visiting family and friends, and damaging the footpath itself. One parent describes the footpaths in her street, broken up by construction zones:

Our street has a few sections where the sidewalk just disappears … It's tricky, when we have the stroller out. Interview 10

The result is that parents deem the route to not be safe; or visitors opt to invite rather than drop in; and as such the default for trips becomes the private car.

4.6. Time Out

Privacy and separation in the context of living closer to others in density was often raised as a concern. Confirming the findings of previous studies (particularly Kerr et al. 2018) parents spoke about their concerns that the noise their children make may impact neighbours in a negative way:

It’s very restricted if it is the apartment, kids cannot play, you know. My daughter likes skipping and all, she can’t do because … if she does that the floor below us gets disturbed. Interview 8

The desire to shelter neighbours from small children’s noise might be, in part, addressed by structural fixes such as better acoustic insulation, however it is also a cultural interpretation of what is appropriate in an apartment setting. In response, parents indicated they felt more comfortable living next to families with young children, because there was a mutual understanding that children are, quite simply, noisy:

Almost everyone in this building has a small child. So we don’t feel so concerned about, if she’s crying or making noise, it’s [not] going to bother anyone, because we’re all used to it. Interview 10

4.7. Time to Move On … .

When asked, all participants indicated a desire to relocate to a detached dwelling within the next five years:

[we want to move] for the kids. Yeah, so that they can move around and play. Interview 4

Most felt that a house would provide more space and privacy, as well as reduce other identified inconveniences such as noise and strata involvement. Referencing the interminable pull of the need to raise children “right”, parents expressed concern that their child will experience a different and diminished upbringing as a result of living in an apartment. Parents who themselves had grown up in a home with access to a backyard were particularly determined for their child to experience the same:

I think we feel that we would be denying our child something if we raised her in an apartment setting. Interview 19

The decision and desire were often contextualised by reference to the housing market, which is the case study city of Sydney is notoriously constrained. But, perhaps reflective of the fact that participants’ earned marginally more income than average, most parents outlined a plan of sacrifices intended to ensure they could leave apartment dwelling behind. On reflecting on their decision to move out of an apartment in Parramatta to a house in a suburb further from Sydney’s central core, one parent stated:

My husband works nearby so it’s easy to stay here … (but) we can’t afford to buy a big house nearby, so that’s why we bought a big house far away. Interview 5

This participant is describing the classic trade-off between commute time and space, which would be filled with the things unable to be stored in an apartment and the activities parents felt defined good parenting. While some of these activities could be done in the parks and places in an apartment’s neighbourhood, the sense was that private space associated with a house was preferable.

5. Discussion

This article explores potential disruptions to parenting in density in a growing city where densification is necessary to maintain liveability. Our explicit intent is to reflect on the likelihood that families will choose to live and remain in apartments in cities where lower-density housing options have traditionally played host to practices of parenting.

Familial concerns about density are fed by cultural expectations and social narratives that find confirmation in structural inadequacies invoked by density’s design, distribution and production. This is a complex interplay of properties of agency – including embodied desires for space and privacy, as well as aspirations to good parenting and autonomy – with very real structural deficiencies, which make parenting in density difficult and unattractive as a long-term living arrangement. This study’s participants described apartments that were too small and difficult to access, compromising the family’s ability to accumulate and store the perceived material prerequisites of childhood. They lamented the lack indoor and outdoor spaces for play, detracting from parental aspirations to raise children who can be independent, but safe, particularly in the outdoors. These parents’ apartments were noisy, and open to the perpetual visual and aural scrutiny of neighbours, who were perceived as too close for comfort. In cities that have pursued densification through the development of higher-density precincts, newer apartment blocks are likely to be positioned amidst a building site, complicating the exquisite but vulnerable experience of bringing home a newborn, and shaping the first memories, experiences and appreciations of toddlers.

While parents’ experiences of higher-density living are defined by complexity, at its core, the outcome reflects the classic interplay between social, economic and built structures; and individual agency. These experiences cannot be explained by the actions of individuals alone, even though the ethical, visceral, moral and culturally inculcated drive to parent in a particular way is evident. Nor can they be dismissed as entirely structural and defined by housing design, its supply and its distribution relative to infrastructure.

Neither structure nor agency has primacy in the outcome of parental reticence towards density, and as such its understanding demands a way to recognise structure and agency as an inter-dependent duality. Many socio-cultural theories recognise this dualism of structure and agency. Most notably is the notion of structuration developed by Anthony Giddens (1984), and that of reflexive sociology proposed by Pierre Bourdieu. The general ontology of these theories emphasises absolute conflation, which hinders explorations of the specific properties and powers of structures and agents, respectively, and how they influence each other. Of particular relevance to this study is that the separability of elements of structure and agent is required to engender appreciation of the temporal inconsistencies that shape the social reality of parenting in proximity.

In seeking to understand the potential of temporality in socio-structural ordering, we are drawn to the central notion of morphogenesis (Archer 1995), because it allows for structure and agency to be separated such that elements of temporality can be considered. Our proposal, which is unique in research on this topic to date, is that elements of temporality thwart attempts to position density as a viable preference for families in Australian contexts.

Parenting through density’s construction is the first problematic aspect of temporality identified by this study’s participants through their descriptions of noise, dust and broken footpaths. Perhaps this is a relatively minor barrier, too specific to warrant consideration. It is by no means exclusive to the experience of living in density, with less intense urban forms also generating disruption through construction. Indeed, it is tempting to assume that time will solve the issues associated with parenting around a construction site. In time, the building sites that have hosted the formative years of these particular children’s lives will settle, and the disruption will be replaced with some resemblance of completion. While the impact is seemingly temporary to the development industry and the planning process, to the timeline of childhood its experience is a lifetime. This notion highlights that the timeframes of transition in large systems such as cities and the complex lives they house, are notoriously out of sync, not only with each other, but with the urgency of the problems urban development seeks to address. As Archer writes “nations can fall, polities be deposed and economies bankrupted, while efforts are being made to change the very factors responsible” (2010, p. 232). In other words, the problems of private car dependency, inequality of access to housing, and unsustainability of lower-density urban form can roll on, even though we are seeking to embrace densification. If we do not synchronise our efforts to change with the scale of the problem, we will always fall short.

The second aspect of temporality disrupting the practice of parenting in density is that while this study’s participants appreciated some of the accessibility aspects of living in higher density, they also indicated a universal ambition to transition out of density towards a larger home as children age. Parenting in density for these families is temporary, yet for the potential of density to be realised, our cities need these parents to remain. Again, this drawback to density reflects a lack of synchronisation, albeit on a stretched time scale. It indicates that density in Australia is not yet structurally appropriate to meet parenting aspirations through the course of childhood.

Our key finding, therefore, is that parenting in density in the case-study city is temporary; temporarily appropriate and temporarily under-construction, with surrounding infrastructure temporarily inadequate to cope with an increasingly diverse population. We now turn to consider and conceptualise, what is the impact of the transitory nature of parenting in density on broader sustainability, and liveability aspirations of cities?

In addition to creating convivial and well serviced neighbourhoods, one of the key contributions of residential densification to sustainability aspirations is that higher density is generally associated with less distance between uses and well serviced public transport infrastructure. This enables less private car ownership and use. Once families move out of density, they are no longer able to take advantage of the decreased distances and access to infrastructure that enables more localised lifestyles, including less travel and travel by more sustainable transport modes. The impact, however, is potentially more complex and concerning than a simple shift in day-to-day travel for the family. Once again, we are drawn to considerations of temporality to explore this phenomenon.

We have demonstrated that density is unappealing when it is experienced in the context of an urban area under transition. The relative impact of living amongst construction is augmented by the intense temporalities of childhood, where a two-year building project equals a lifetime of noise, dust, broken footpaths and heavy machinery for a toddler growing up in these conditions. This short-term experience is sub-optimal for child health in the formative years (Kalache and Kickbusch 1997). Yet it also has longer term impacts on children’s lives, shaping their likely uptake of more sustainable ways of living. The imposition of ongoing construction in early experiences of parenting and childhood feeds collective decisions to avoid density as a place to raise a family, retreat to the privacy of a backyard rather than a local park; and steer away from walking local footpaths. In other words, it turns families off at a particularly important time when customs, habits and sensibilities are being shaped and cemented. It provides the optimal environment for children to be socialised into a life lived in sprawling suburbs, defined by long distances between uses and diminished skills of living in proximity to others and to key destinations. While one day children might yearn for and appreciate the independence afforded by better access to public transport, their default will be an appreciation of car dependent travel in a way that endures beyond the initial experience.

Second is the cultural interpretation of density’s shortcomings that infers density becomes less appropriate for parenting as children grow up. While this has been identified in the literature as a risk to successful densification in cities (for example, Opit et al. 2020), the impacts of this phenomenon on specific familial practices have not been considered explicitly. We do know that a lack of stability in childhood has impacts on the geographies of parenting and childhood that stretch beyond the period of change (Weinberger and Goetzke 2010). This augmented impact reflects the complexities defining the inherent sustainability of the practices of parents, including cultures of parenting, access to and choices around schooling, commitments to extra-curricular activities, and the footprint of existing networks of family and friends (Green 1997, Jarvis et al. 2001). To move a child outside of their neighbourhood of upbringing mid-schooling, stretches this geography, as parents seek to retain some sense of continuity for the child by remaining more attached to existing activities and networks than they otherwise might in their lives as adults. Friendships already established now require travel, and if the choice is made to remain at the existing school, the journey to school is also stretched, likely requiring a private car. The activity sphere of the child then remains defined by the school boundary; their social and extra-curricular activities anchored to a neighbourhood that is likely some distance from their new home. These factors have been observed in the context of residential relocation more generally (see Goodsell 2013), yet for children the impact is magnified because childhood is when ideas, skills and expectations related to travel are established.

6. Conclusion

This paper opened with the proposal that to realise the goals of sustainability, liveability and affordability associated with residential density, families need to comfortably call density home. In essence, the ability for density to support families is a classic case of the interplay between structures and cultural appreciations, yet parents have shared stories demonstrating that this interplay can be unpicked, and indeed it must be to enable exploration of the element of temporality and the inconsistencies in the timings of parenting with those of the structural environment.

For parents to choose density, we need to plan, structure and provide built environments that are responsive to the timelines of the parenting project. This means respecting the lives of people living through construction, and lowering the expectations seemingly baked into the planning system for people to endure the noise and dust of urban development for extended periods of time. It also means designing, distributing and creating density that supports families to raise children through the ages and stages of parenting.

In many ways, these conclusions echo the findings of previous research – we need to plan, cite and design density better for families. By drawing attention to the importance of temporality and staging, the call for action becomes more urgent. This understanding can be extended to develop a focus on parenting in density through the life course.

Disclosure Statement

This paper reflects work done by the Centre for Population Health, Western Sydney Local Health District, who, in partnership with Parramatta City Council, have developed a series of publications and guidelines to support healthy higher density living.