IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Transit, Density, and Residential Satisfaction

Listed author(s):
  • Shaw, John G.
Registered author(s):

    Planners and others have proposed developing high-density residential nodes around transit stations to reduce auto dependence and encourage transit use. Such nodes, the argument goes, would provide more patrons for the transit system, more shoppers for nearby stores, and more of a community for the residents. However, such high-density housing runs counter to the assumed American preference for low-density, detached homes. This study investigates the relationship between residential density and housing satisfaction. It also examines the extent to which other factors, such as proximity of the residential development to transit and respondent background variables, influence this relationship. Data were collected through the presentation of computer-simulated slides to respondents in two urban areas in California. Slides of residential developments of various densities were overlaid on slides of four different settings, two settings next to transit stations and two next to freeway interchanges. Respondents indicated levels of satisfaction with each slide, selected slides they most and least liked, identified housing and neighborhood attributes and other factors associated with their selections, and provided information on their travel behavior and socioeconomic and demographic variables. High-density housing was strongly disliked by a large majority of respondents. However, this reaction was affected by various design features. Housing near transit was generally preferred to housing near freeways. Familiarity with and proximity to sites used in the study did not influence satisfaction ratings. Certain respondent variables did influence the satisfaction-density relationship, including age, income, and presence or absence of children. These results suggest that the desire for single-family detached housing is still quite strong, although not absolute. The concluding section discusses some reasons for this, including cultural norms that confer status and social position on owners of a single-family house with a yard and federal policies that support purchases of single-family detached housing, particularly in suburban areas. Planners and others concerned with increasing residential densities around transit stations should recognize these factors in their planning efforts. Recommendations stemming from this work include utilizing what has been learned about reducing perceived densities while maintaining relatively high objective densities, and identifying and designing high-density living for selected submarkets, such as younger residents, lower-income residents, and households without children.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by University of California Transportation Center in its series University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers with number qt5xs0r6vz.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 01 Jan 1994
    Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt5xs0r6vz
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    109 McLaughlin Hall, Mail Code 1720, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720

    Phone: 510-642-3585
    Fax: 510-643-3955
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. P B McLeod, 1984. "The Demand for Local Amenity: An Hedonic Price Analysis," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 16(3), pages 389-400, March.
    2. P B McLeod, 1984. "The demand for local amenity: an hedonic price analysis," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 16(3), pages 389-400, March.
    3. Amos Hawley, 1972. "Population density and the city," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 9(4), pages 521-529, November.
    4. D E Dowall & J B Juhasz, 1978. "Trade-off Surveys in Planning: Theory and Application," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 10(2), pages 125-136, February.
    5. Douglas B. Diamond JR, 1980. "Income and Residential Location: Muth Revisited," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 17(1), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    7. D E Dowall & J B Juhasz, 1978. "Trade-off surveys in planning: theory and application," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 10(2), pages 125-136, February.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    9. Duncan Maclennan, 1977. "Some Thoughts on the Nature and Purpose of House Price Studies," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 14(1), pages 59-71, February.
    10. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    11. J. Doling, 1976. "The Family Life Cycle and Housing Choice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 13(1), pages 55-58, February.
    12. Dewees, D. N., 1976. "The effect of a subway on residential property values in Toronto," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 357-369, October.
    13. Quigley, John M., 2006. "Urban Economics," Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series qt0jr0p2tk, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
    14. K. K. Lancaster, 2010. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1385, David K. Levine.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt5xs0r6vz. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.