Content uploaded by Robert Gifford
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Gifford on Apr 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Invited Review Paper
Robert Gifford
Invited Paper: Received 24 October 2006; accepted 28 January 2007
Abstract: A full account of architectural science must include empirical findings about the social and psychological influences that buildings have
on their occupants. Tall residential buildings can have a myriad of such effects. is review summarizes the results of research on the influences
of high-rise buildings on residents’ experiences of the building, satisfaction, preferences, social behavior, crime and fear of crime, children, men-
tal health and suicide. Most conclusions are tempered by moderating factors, including residential socioeconomic status, neighborhood quality,
parenting, gender, stage of life, indoor density, and the ability to choose a housing form. However, moderators aside, the literature suggests that
high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more imper-
sonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account
for some suicides.
Keywords: Tall buildings, Research methods, Residential satisfaction, Mental health, Stress, Crime and security, Social relations, Prosocial behavior,
Suicide, Children
“ere is every reason to believe that [the] hi-rise...apartment
dwelling has adverse effects on mental and social health.” (Cap-
pon, 1972, p. 194).
“...[B]lank condemnation of high-rise dwellings that does not
consider specific contexts should be questioned...residents [in
my study] showed a high degree of satisfaction at all floor levels”
(Kim, 1997, p. iv).
A Brief Historical Background
Natural and Social Science Approaches to Architecture
The ancient Egyptians probably were the first to apply
scientific knowledge to the construction of buildings; in any
case, their amazing structures are the best-understood ancient
large buildings. Not only did their architects use geometry
and astronomy to plan the pyramids, but also they had to
understand and apply much natural-science knowledge about
the properties of materials to design the huge yet precisely con-
structed tombs that include intricate rooms and passageways.
So sophisticated were their calculations that the Great Pyramid
not only remains the largest stone building in the world after
4,000 years, but also was built so accurately that the opposite
corners of its foundation, some 324 meters apart, are only 2
cm different in elevation.
Later, the architects of the great gothic cathedrals of Europe so
well understood advanced principles of construction that modern
engineers sometimes marvel at, or are even baffled by, their ar-
chitectural feats. Finally, of course, modern architectural science
is full of advances that ancient and medieval architects probably
could not imagine, given modern materials, computers and con-
struction technology. All these have been amply documented in
this journal for years.
However, in parallel with these natural science accomplish-
ments, social scientists interested in architecture have also been
toiling away, but until recently, they have done so beyond the
formal mandate of the Architectural Science Review. Now the time
has come to bring some of the insights of the interdisciplinary
social sciences into ASR, to complete the domain embodied by
the phrase “architectural science.”
As documented by several authors (e.g., Gifford, 2002; G. T.
Moore, 1984, 1987) social science approaches to architecture
can be dated to the middle 1960s, although less rigorously sci-
ence-oriented understandings of human-building interactions
must be traced back as far as the ancient Egyptians. Doubtless,
for example, the construction and mere existence of the pyramids
had far-reaching social effects in Egyptian society. e study of
harmonious proportions (for example, of temples) with psycho-
logical implications (the perception of beauty) can be traced to
Pythagoras and his school 2500 years ago (Murray & Kovacs,
1972), and one may easily imagine that equally profound social
effects were associated with the subsequent design, construction,
and use of Greek temples, Roman baths, gothic cathedrals, early
industrial factories, and the first high-rise buildings, constructed
in the late 19th century.
e Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Department of Psychology and School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8S 2H1, Canada
Tel: 1 250 721 7532; Fax: 1 250 721 8929; Email
rgifford@uvic.ca
© 2007 University of Sydney. All rights reserved.
www.arch.usyd.edu.au/asr
Architectural Science Review
Volume 50.1, pp xx-xx
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
2
Modern, formal study of the social and psychological effects of
architecture may be attributed to the Chicago school (e.g., Park,
1925), whose members studied the social ecology of cities, which
led to a number of sociological studies of housing and community
(e.g., Chapin, 1938; Isaacs, 1948; McClenahan, 1945). Research
began to focus on the more personal or psychological scale with
several seminal studies in the 1950s on housing in relation to social
behavior and mental health (e.g., Campelman, 1951; Chapin,
1951; Festinger, Schachter & Back, 1950; Kennedy, 1950; Wal-
lace, 1956; Wilner, Walkley & Tayback, 1956).
e field then organized itself in the 1960s, moving from iso-
lated studies to conferences on what was then called architectural
psychology at the University of Utah (1961 and 1966), books like
Robert Sommer’s Personal space: e behavioral basis of design (1967),
special issues of journals, like that in the Journal of Social Issues
(October, 1966), the Environmental Design Research Association
(first conference, 1969, co-founded by the current editor of this
journal), journals (Environment and Behavior, begun in 1969), and
interest from sociologists (e.g., Michelson, 1970).
In short, architectural science must be a social science as well as
a physical and technical science. In this regard, this paper focuses
on the psychological, behavioral and interpersonal influences of
high-rise buildings.
A Brief History of High-Rise Buildings
If the minimal definition of a high-rise is a building taller than
three storeys, then the history of high rises may be traced back to
the pyramids of Egypt (about 48 storeys in height) and the Tower
of Babel. Genesis 11 in the Christian Bible briefly tells the story
of the Tower of Babel. According to the account, before the tower
was complete God decided that if humans could complete such a
tower, they could accomplish anything. at was not acceptable,
so God caused confusion among the people by cursing them with
multiple languages (everyone had spoken the same language until
then, and their tower-building success was attributed to this).
en the people were dispersed, and apparently the tower was
deconstructed soon afterward. Some modern critics of high-rise
buildings may believe that God had the right idea about the hu-
man conceit involved in building tall buildings.
People did not build tall structures again until the late 1600s,
apart from a few Roman apartment buildings of six or seven storeys
and Europe’s gothic cathedrals. Seventeenth-century Paris had
thousands of houses five to seven storeys tall (Laurens, 1954). Tall
buildings with iron skeletons began to be constructed in the 1860s
(Sundstrom, 1986); in 1885, a ten-storey building was constructed
in Chicago by William Le Baron Jenney (Yeung, 1977), followed
by Sullivan’s Wainwright Building five years later. e rest is his-
tory; millions now live in high-rise buildings.
us, given the age of our species, living more than a few storeys
up is a very recent phenomenon. is tempts one to conclude that
high rises are unnatural, and some would argue that what is un-
natural must be, in some way, harmful. (Of course, the same has
been said about plastics, electricity, automobiles and other recent
inventions.) Nevertheless, the question remains a fair one: are
high-rise buildings a net benefit or cost to their residents?
e Issue: Are High Rises Bad or Good for
People?
What is Bad About em? What is Good?
High rises have been accused of causing many unpleasant out-
comes. Among those examined in this paper are fear, dissatisfaction,
stress, behavior problems, suicide, poor social relations, reduced
helpfulness, and hindered child development. Early studies and
reviews concluded that high-rises are, on balance, not beneficial
for residents (e.g., Angrist, 1974; Cappon, 1972; Conway, 1977).
At the societal level, they are accused of burdening existing services
and infrastructure, worsening traffic problems, and damaging the
character of neighbourhoods (Broyer, 2002).
High-rise residences evoke at least six fears. e first is that the
residents themselves, a loved one, or a neighbour will fall or jump
from a high window. Whenever this tragedy occurs, it receives
much media attention, perhaps because the nightmare has come
true for someone. Second, perhaps paradoxically, some residents
fear that they may be trapped inside during a fire; it usually takes
longer to reach the street from a high-rise dwelling than from
dwellings of a few storeys. ird, residents in places with active
tectonic plates worry about the entire building falling because of
an earthquake. Fourth, in the post-McVey, post-911 era, residents
cannot help harbouring at least a slight fear that their building
might be attacked. Fifth, the sheer number of people who reside
in One Big Residence means that, in a sense, strangers share your
dwelling, at least the semi-public areas of it. is fear of strangers
leads to fear of crime, a felt lack of social support and the absence
of community in the midst of many. Anonymous interaction in
visually screened areas within high rises creates the objective pos-
sibility of crime. is is more likely when outsiders can enter the
building. e very fact that many high-rises have entrances with
keys and guards proves that this fear exists, even if no strangers
manage to enter. Sixth, the sheer number of people in one build-
ing may increase the fear of becoming ill from communicable
diseases generated by others. Air- and touch-borne flus and colds,
for example, spread more easily when many people share hallway
air, door handles and elevator buttons.
Perhaps none of these fears is realistic. Perhaps they simply are
salient because so many people live so close together, and com-
municate their fears verbally or nonverbally. Perhaps, on a base
rate or per capita basis, no more negative outcomes occur among
high-rise residents than among residents of any other form of
housing. On the other hand, perhaps, there truly are more nega-
tive outcomes, but they are caused by factors other than housing
form. ese extra-architectural moderators of negative outcomes
are considered later. First, this question might be rhetorically posed:
Why is it that so few writers (Jacobs, 1961, is a notable exception)
hypothesize that high-rise buildings will lead to positive outcomes
for those who live in them?
What might be good about high rises? Tall thin buildings have
smaller footprints than the equivalent number of low-rise housing
units, and therefore may occupy less land area (but not necessar-
ily, depending on siting). is, in principle, leaves more room for
parks and green space (Broyer, 2002), although this open space has
3Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
often become a dangerous no-man’s land controlled by undesirable
elements. High rises offer great views (at least to upper-level resi-
dents, unless their view is blocked by other high rises), and relative
urban privacy. eir usual central urban location is an advantage
for those who desire it. Many services and transportation options
are likely to be near, and the large number of nearby neighbours
affords greater potential choice of friends and acquaintances for
social support (Churchman, 1999). ose who live in their upper
reaches experience less noise from outside the building, and may
breathe cleaner air. For some residents, high population density
at the building level (not the dwelling level) may promote more
and better social interaction. Controlled entrances reduce crime
and the fear of crime. Compared to the single-family resident,
high-rise residents are free of yard and maintenance work, although
part of the rent or condominium fees must go to pay others to
do that work.
All this, so far, reflects conventional wisdom and speculation,
a list of complaints and benefits one might hear anywhere. How
many of the negative and positive claims are supported by research?
e answer is complex and incomplete, but research does provide
some partial answers. e height of a building presumably has
few, if any, direct causal effects. Ultimately, as one early research
team concluded, different buildings probably have different
advantages and disadvantages for different residents (Sinnett,
Sachson & Eddy, 1972). e task of the architectural social sci-
entist is to discover which buildings are salutogenic or pathogenic
for which people. Furthermore, the outcomes of living in a high
rise depend in part on various non-building factors, including
characteristics and qualities of the residents themselves, and the
surrounding physical context. ese factors moderate the relation
between living in a high rise and the outcomes of living in one.
e Importance of Moderating Factors in
Understanding the Impacts of Housing
High-rise buildings can be associated with negative outcomes
without causing those outcomes. At least eight factors that are
independent of high-rise architecture per se may moderate residents’
outcomes. Moderators are factors or variables that are associated
with differences in outcomes, but not in a causal sense. In contra-
distinction, mediating factors or variables are part of a causal link
between the environment and the outcome (Evans & Lepore, 1997).
e moderators may be broadly grouped into two categories, those
associated with residents (their personal characteristics and social
relations) and context (the environmental and neighborhood) .
ese factors are presumed to influence outcomes for residents in
conjunction with building height.
Four such moderating factors are residents’ economic status, the
amount of choice among residences a resident has, the building’s
location within the urban fabric, and population density. We might
expect that if high-rise residents (a) are not poor and (b) choose
to live in a high rise when they have other housing options and
(c) the high rise is located in a good neighborhood, and (d) its
dwelling-unit population density is low, they may well escape most
negative outcomes and experience many of the positive outcomes.
is appears to be the case, for example, with the high rises on the
edge of Central Park in Manhattan, which are expensive, usually
spacious, and in a highly desirable neighborhood.
Consider how one of these moderators, building location, af-
fects the relation between high-rise living and exposure to crime.
Research shows that building location plays a role in a resident’s
exposure to crime that is independent of building form (Luedtke
and associates, 1970; Molumby, 1976). For example, crime seems
to be more frequent when buildings are placed near easy escape
routes (Brill, 1972) or on corners (Brantingham & Brantingham,
1975). Lighting, street activity, and the crime rate of the larger
neighborhood also affect crime rates separately from building form
(Reppetto, 1974).
Four further possible moderators of a resident’s outcomes of
living in a high-rise building include life-cycle stage, gender, cul-
ture and dwelling design. at is, high-rise living may in general
be more suitable for some stages of life than others, one gender
more than the other, some cultures more than others may, and in
some arrangements of space within the unit or within the building
more than in others.
us, high rises may have positive or negative effects on those
who live in them, depending not on building height alone (the
defining characteristic of high rises), but on at least eight other
moderating factors. Each of these will be discussed later, where
evidence exists.
Typical Research Methods
Understanding how the effects of high-rise living are studied
is important. Five general methodological approaches have been
used. First, in the simplest and least rigorous design, an outcome
measure (e.g., satisfaction or helping behavior) is examined in a
case study of a single high rise or solely in high-rise buildings (e.g.,
Korte & Huismans, 1983; Williamson, 1981). Second, slightly
better research designs compare high rises with low rises, but fail
to consider possible moderating factors (e.g., Oda, Taniguchi, Wen
& Higurashi, 1989; Zalot & Adams-Webber, 1977). ird, more
sophisticated research designs compare numerous high rises with
numerous low rises, and consider at least some potential moderators,
perhaps in a more sophisticated correlational or quasi-experimental
design (e.g., Edwards, Booth & Edwards, 1982; Gillis, 1977). e
more buildings in the sample, the better chance that variations in
the construction, design, age, neighborhood, or level of maintenance
among the high rises and among the low rises, that is, variations
that are not themselves of immediate interest, will not affect the
results.
Fourth, and closer to the ideal, is the research design that
compares many high rises with many low rises and considers
many potential moderators, but also involves (a) random or es-
sentially random1 assignment of residents to buildings and (b)
investigator control of key variables. Some studies have been able
to approximate random assignment because of some naturally
occurring social process (e.g., Fanning, 1967; D. McCarthy
& Saegert, 1978; Wilcox & Holahan, 1976), but architecture
researchers virtually never have control over key or independent
variables.
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
4
In a fifth research design that can be very useful, but also has
disadvantages, researchers assess the progress of a group of resi-
dents over time, in a longitudinal design. is approach may be
used with any of the four previous designs, which is one reason
it can be less or more ideal. Longitudinal designs also have the
advantage of assessing changes in the same group of residents, but
disadvantages, too, such as not always being able to ensure that
any observed changes in the residents are caused by factors other
than the building.
Probably no study of high rises has been conducted meets all
the requirements of a true experiment, and therefore no absolutely
certain causal conclusions may be drawn. Many studies have short-
comings and a few have been models of ideal research. Complaints
about the adequacy of high-rise housing research have been aired
for the last 35 years (e.g., Cappon, 1972; Evans, Wells & Moch,
1998; van Vliet, 1983). However, researchers are not entirely to
blame. To carry out a study of housing that meets standard criteria
for scientific hypothesis testing is very difficult; often researchers are
forced to use non-optimal research designs. On the other hand,
when numerous imperfect studies reach similar conclusions, that
conclusion has the weight of replication behind it. Alternatively,
when different methods are employed (“triangulation of methods”)
and similar results are found, conclusions based on those results
may be taken more seriously. is review occasionally will note
which grade of research design a study employed, as a reminder
that even published research does not always (in fact, can not)
meet the most rigorous standards.
e Evidence: Findings, Conclusions and
Interpretations
Experiencing the Dwelling
Before residents are satisfied or not with a dwelling, they perceive
or experience its features or qualities. For example, a study of dormi-
tories found that residents of higher floors experienced their rooms,
which were all the same size, as larger (Schiffenbauer, Brown, Perry,
Shulak & Zanzola, 1977). A similar investigation in another college
dormitory complex found different experiences for men and women:
the women found higher rooms more spacious, but the men found
higher rooms less spacious (Mandel, Baron & Fisher, 1980).
Few studies have examined even such an obvious topic as
the ways in which high-rises are perceived. However, one study
examined how silhouette drawings of high-rises were related to
pleasure and psychological arousal in viewers (Heath, Smith &
Lim, 2000). Visual complexity was the strongest predictor of
pleasure and arousal. Surely, however, there is much more to
the experiencing of a dwelling than this. Presumably, high-rise
buildings influence residents’ moods, thinking, imagination,
spatial cognition and perceptions other than the apparent size of
their unit and their visual complexity. Unfortunately, these are
unanswered questions.
Residential Satisfaction and Preferences in High-Rise
Buildings
Satisfaction or (the lack of it) obviously is an important outcome
of living in one’s dwelling, although subsequent sections will show
that it is not the only consideration. All else being equal, are resi-
dents of high rises more satisfied with their dwellings than residents
of low-rise dwellings? Of course, neither all high-rise residents nor
all low-rise residents are satisfied. Among high-rise residents, for
example, presumably most wealthy denizens of tall expensive apart-
ment buildings in desirable locations are quite pleased with their
high rises, and we know that many residents are miserably unhappy
with their broken-down ghetto high-rise dwellings. Nevertheless, is
there a difference, on average, or in particular contexts?
A number of studies report broad satisfaction with high-rise
apartments. For example, Jephcott (1971, p. 48) reported that 90
% of the Glasgow residents in her study of multi-storey buildings
were satisfied. Over 75 % of Singapore high-rise public housing
residents were satisfied, according to Yeh and Tan (1975, p. 226).
ree studies have been conducted in Israel. One found two-thirds
of high rise residents were satisfied, although over 40 % intended to
move anyway (Ginsberg & Churchman, 1984); another found that
85% of the women interviewed were satisfied with the building,
yet half were interested in moving, and only half of them would
choose a high-rise again (Landau, 1999). e third reported that
general satisfaction was high, but only a few wished to move away
(Broyer, 2002). e latter study reported that willingness to reside
in tall buildings increased with floor level. A study of eight high
rises in major U.S. cities found a high level of satisfaction among
residents at all floor levels (Kim, 1997).
Sceptics might point to a well-known social psychological
principle, cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), in discounting
these results. Once a choice is made (where to live, for example),
if residents are not pleased after living there for some time, it may
be easier for them to change their mind (decide it is a good place
to live) than to change their residence (move), as a way to reduce
the discomfort of living in a place they do not like.
Furthermore, some of the studies just cited investigated only
high rises; it may be that residents of nearby low-rise or single-fam-
ily residences more (or less) satisfied, but without a comparison,
we cannot know. For example, Kim’s (1997) study showed that
residents of lower floors were no less satisfied than residents of
upper floors, which is interesting in itself, but without a compa-
rable group of low-rise residents, to conclude that high rises are
more or less satisfactory than low rises to their residents would
be incorrect.
Six studies that included buildings of different heights suggest
that satisfaction is lower in high rises. In the first (in chronological
order), British flat-dwellers were less satisfied than house-dwellers,
and complained more about privacy, isolation, loneliness, and noise
(N. C. Moore, 1975). e second investigated satisfaction in low-
versus high-rise college dormitories (Holahan & Wilcox, 1979). It
1 In true experimental studies (often conducted in laboratories), partici
pants are assigned to different conditions truly randomly, by using a table
of random numbers or some equivalent method. e term “essentially
random” as used in this paper means that a housing authority assigns
each resident to a unit in a building or buildings based on availability,
that is, when some previous resident leaves. us, the assignment to a
unit (“condition”) is “essentially” random, but not as purely random as
when laboratory methods are used.
5Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
had the scientific advantage of essentially random assignment1 to
rooms, based on how the university placed students in dorm rooms.
Residential satisfaction in low-rise dormitories (2 to 5 storeys) was
much greater than that in 10- and 13-storey high-rise dormitories,
although this relation was moderated by the students’ level of social
competence. at is, in the low-rise dormitories, more socially com-
petent students were significantly more satisfied with the dormitory
than were less socially competent students, whereas in the high-rise
dormitories residential satisfaction did not significantly vary with
social competence. e third study was a nationwide survey of 23
urban centers in Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing, 1979).
In general, housing satisfaction was quite high (about 9 on an
11-point scale). However, housing tenure moderated satisfaction:
among owners, satisfaction was highest for residents of detached
houses, followed by low-rises (6 or fewer storeys) and high-rises.
Among renters, satisfaction was highest in the high-rises, but the
other housing forms were very close behind, and so the differences
among renters may not be important.
Fourth, a New York study also had the scientific advantage of
essentially random assignment to high-rise (14-storey) versus low-
rise (3-storey) buildings (Saegert, 1979). In these public housing
projects, families were assigned to buildings of either type as vacan-
cies arose, creating naturalistic random assignment to conditions.
As would be expected from this, the families in the two building
types did not differ on any of several demographic variables, except
that families in 3-storey buildings had more children. Residents
of the high-rise buildings reported greater feelings of alienation
and less satisfaction with their building. Nevertheless, citing other
studies, Saegert speculated that these differences may not have been
the result of the building form per se, but of social factors such as
mistrust, heterogeneity, and unfamiliarity among residents that
themselves are encouraged by the high-rise building form.
If turnover and degree of place attachment are indicators of sat-
isfaction then, according to a fifth study, done in moderate-income
subsidized housing, high rises are less satisfactory than row houses
and walk-ups: turnover was greater and attachment was lower in
the high rises (Franck, 1983). e sixth study (Rohe, 1985-86)
found that the taller the building, the lower the residents’ satisfac-
tion, after statistically controlling for several possible influences
(stage in the life cycle, education and income).
Against these general trends, certain demographic groups are
more likely to be satisfied with life in a high rise. For example, a
study in New York of residents who lived in three middle-income
high-rise sites located in a good neighborhood showed high levels
of satisfaction with the city, housing development, and apartment
(Mackintosh, 1982). e most satisfied residents were those who
lived in the newest development that embodied features illustrat-
ing the latest in design theory. e two demographic groups that
were most attracted to urban high-rise living were families with
employed women and people who had grown up in apartments.
Mackintosh concluded that well-designed middle-income high-
rises could provide a satisfying housing option and have a positive
impact on family dynamics.
A Chicago study suggests that young mobile singles and childless
couples prefer high-rise living to suburbia (Wekerle & Hall, 1972).
Singles may want to spend more time working on their social lives
than on suburban activities like gardening or mowing the lawn;
married couples may be willing to mow the lawn to provide a play
area for their children; freed from the time-consuming courtship
phase, they have more time for gardening. us, an important
moderator may be whether residents have children who live at
home. at high-rise dwellers with small children are dissatisfied
is one of the most consistent trends in the literature (e.g., Gittus,
1976; van Vliet--, 1983). Up to 87 % of parents were unhappy
with play facilities in one study, and in an Australian study 60%
of parents believed that the high rise was having a detrimental
effect on their children (Conway & Adams, 1977). ese are
merely samples of many other studies that have reached similar
conclusions, although one large-scale survey in Britain reported
a relatively modest 39 % dissatisfaction rate among households
with children all under 5 years of age (Conway & Adams, 1977).
However, such figures should be contrasted with the rate of dis-
satisfaction of parents with other forms of housing; it is possible
that parents of younger children are equally unhappy with other
housing forms.
Another group that some experts (e.g., Newman, 1975) believe
to be well suited to high-rise living is the elderly. At this stage
in the life cycle, gardening may be tiresome or beyond one’s
physical abilities; in many communities elderly persons may
feel safer within a large building than alone in a single-family
dwelling. Studies of the elderly in high rises versus low rises have
produced mixed results. A nationwide U.S. study of the elderly
found that residents of low buildings liked their housing more
than residents of taller buildings, although the magnitude of
this effect was quite small (Lawton, Nahemow & Teaff, 1975).
A much smaller study of elderly persons who were randomly
assigned to high- and low-rises reported a small difference in
morale that favoured high rises over low rises (Duffy & Willson,
1984). A study in India found quite widespread dissatisfaction
with high-rise living among the elderly, although no comparison
was made with other housing forms (Dasgupta, Bhattacharyya
& Asaduzzaman, 1992).
e lack of differences in satisfaction among the elderly may be
caused in part by a tendency on the part of many elderly persons
to report satisfaction no matter what their situation (Nahemow,
Lawton & Howell, 1977). However, when more pointed questions
are asked, some differences emerge. For example, in one study low-
rise residents were happy with their closeness to nature, whereas
high-rise residents were happy with the social life in their building
(Devlin, 1980). is suggests that a key strategy for maximizing
satisfaction may lie in matching resident characteristics and prefer-
ences to buildings, where this is possible (Gifford, 1999).
Devlin (1980) also found that low-rise residents offered more
positive reasons for liking their residence than high-rise residents
did, and the high-rise residents offered more negative comments
than the low-rise residents did. is suggests that despite the lack
of differences in response to overall or generic questions about
residential satisfaction, elderly persons actually are more satisfied
with low-rise buildings. Of course other factors, such as fear of
going outside, the quality of social relations, and management
factors can also affect residential satisfaction.
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
6
All the above studies focus on residents. Only a few studies of
tall buildings have examined the satisfaction and preferences of
non-residents. Despite the dearth of studies, this is an important
topic: more people have to look at high-rises than live in any given
building. Old brick, complex modern, and “plain” high rises were
shown to viewers, who were asked for their preferences (Stamps,
1991). Contrary to the researcher’s expectations, the modern high-
rises were preferred over the other two types.
Strain, Crowding and Mental Health in
High-Rises versus Other Types of Housing
Strain--the effect on a person of overexposure to stressors--has
many determinants. Whether high rises contribute to, or ameliorate,
strain probably cannot be answered in a definitive manner because
of the numerous social and physical factors that may play a role.
For example, teens who live in public housing high rises report
experiencing high degrees of exposure to violence and concerns for
their personal safety (Sweatt, Harding, Knight-Lynn, Rasheed &
Carter, 2002), but obviously this is connected with socioeconomic
conditions as much or more than with housing form.
Some studies report neutral or even positive results. A study
that compared the optimism of residents in a controversial
public-housing high-rise with base rates of optimism in the
general population found that they were no less optimistic than
most people (Greenberg, 1997), suggesting at minimum that
difficult high-rise housing does not necessarily crush the hu-
man spirit. Another reported that slum-dwellers who moved
into apartments showed slight improvements in mental health
(Wilner, Walkley, Pinkerton & Tayback, 1962). is result may
be anomalous because the apartments had an unusual design that
included children’s play areas on every floor. A third compared
three groups of 25 London families each living in high rises,
low rises, and single-family dwellings (Richman, 1974). No
significant difference in the number of mothers with psychiatric
disturbance was found.
Nevertheless, the evidence, on balance, suggests that high rises do
cause strain or mental health difficulties, at least for some residents.
More typically, studies report some form of strain associated with
high-rise living. In a study with essentially random assignment,
British military families in walk-ups (3-4 storeys) had about three
times the rate of neurosis as those who lived in detached houses
(Fanning, 1967). A study that compared walk-ups and houses found
trends in the same direction, but not significant differences (N.C.
Moore, 1974, 1975). Moore’s residents may have differed in age
and gender, so these unexamined moderator variables may have
artificially minimized the differences (Ineichen, 1979). Walk-ups
seem to act as a stressor for residents with neurotic tendencies:
those who lived in walk-ups were more likely to develop psychiatric
illnesses than those without neurotic tendencies, whereas residents
of houses who had neurotic tendencies were no more likely than
residents of houses who were without neurotic tendencies to develop
psychiatric illnesses (N.C. Moore, 1976).
Another moderator is resident kinship. Emotional strain among
Hong Kong residents who dwelt in very high densities depended
more on dwelling density and whether residents of a given unit were
members of the same family than on building height (Mitchell,
1971). However, Mitchell’s study did find greater emotional strain
among people living in multiple-family units who also resided
on higher floors. erefore, kinship did moderate the effect of
building height on strain.
Parenthetically, building height might seem to be inextricably
interwoven with population density. However, this is not necessarily
so: redevelopment in Hong Kong produced taller buildings, yet
provided not only more space per person inside the new dwelling,
but also more space per person in terms of outside or neighborhood
density (Yeung, 1977). us, building height and dwelling density
should always be considered independently when investigating
resident outcomes.
Population density is related to, but not isomorphic with, crowd-
ing, the psychological sense of overload from too many proximate
others. High indoor density has been associated with many negative
outcomes, including the strain of crowding (Gifford, 2002, chapter
8). A study of working-class and lower-middle class residents of
high rises and low rises in the Bronx found that high-rise residents
felt more crowded and reported a lower sense of control and less
social support than low-rise residents (McCarthy & Saegert, 1978).
is occurred even though the groups were not different in various
demographic measures, except that residents of the low rises had
slightly larger families but also one extra bedroom, so dwelling
density probably was about equal.
Crowding may vary with floor level within high rises; in another
study, those who lived on higher floors felt less crowded than
those who lived on lower floors (Schiffenbauer, 1979). However,
a separate study reported that crowding did not vary with floor
level (Schiffenbauer, Brown, Perry, Shulak & Zanzola, 1977). In
Parisian high-rises, residents reported being more crowded, so that
relationships within the building were worse, the building and
dwelling felt too densely populated, acoustic isolation was poor,
and residents believed there were too many dwellings on each floor
(Bordas-Astudillo, Moch & Hermand, 2003).
Mixed results, not only concerning crowding, but in other out-
comes to be considered in this paper, may be the result of uneven
outcomes in different parts or levels of high-rise buildings.
More serious mental health problems have tenuously been
related to building height. In an English study, mothers who
lived in flats reported more depressive symptoms than those who
lived in houses (Richman, 1974). Rates of mental illness rose with
floor level in an English study (Goodman, 1974). Psychological
symptoms were more often present in high rises (Hannay, 1979).
When residents moved out of high-rise dwellings, they reported
fewer symptoms of depression (Littlewood & Tinker, 1981). In
India, a study of 100 elderly male residents suggested that the
residents failed to cope with the stress produced by living in
high-rise buildings (Dasgupta & Bhattacharyya, 1992). Among
the negative influences cited by the authors were noise, gloomy
and depressing conditions, inadequate size, lack of security and
lack of a friendly atmosphere.
e emotional health of 271 elderly African-Americans who
lived in high rises in Nashville were compared with that of 373
7Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
elderly African-Americans who lived in low-rise neighbourhoods
in the same city. e high-rise residents showed a higher incidence
of depression, schizophrenia and phobias than the community
residents (Husaini, Moore & Castor, 1991; Husaini, Castor, Whit-
ten-Stovall, Moore et al., 1990). Unfortunately, the high-rise group
was poorer, less educated, less likely to be married, reported more
medical problems and had fewer social contacts, so conclusions
are difficult to draw from this study. e same is true of other
studies. Bagley (1974) and Hannay (1981) reported that residents
of lower floors in high-rises had more mental symptoms or signs
of neuroticism, but residents of the higher and lower floors were
different in other ways, such as age and life cycle stage, which may
have accounted for the differences.
A Canadian study did employ more control over possibly con-
founding factors, and is worthy of special attention. It investigated
strain in 39 public housing projects in Calgary and Edmonton
(Gillis, 1977). e housing projects encompassed eight basic de-
sign types ranging from single detached houses to 16-storey high
rises, including 441 living units in all. Very commendably, twelve
possible moderators were considered. Strain was not a function of
building height if relations between a resident’s gender and such
building characteristics as floor level, indoor density, etc., were not
considered. (is demonstrates the crucial importance of examin-
ing moderators). Once these factors were considered, however,
statistically significant trends emerged. For example, on higher
floors, men experienced less strain, whereas women experienced
more strain. e women in this study were all mothers, so the
difference may well result from the difficulties of parenting from
on high, a problem noted in the Pruitt-Igoe studies (e.g., Yancey,
1972), or from fear of themselves or children falling (cf. Izumi,
1970), but this does limit the study’s generalizability to women
with children. Nevertheless, the Gillis (1977) study is among the
best in the literature in terms of scientific quality.
Two other moderators of high-rise strain appear to be marital
status and gender within a marriage. A variety of outcomes for
560 families who lived in (a) single-family, (b) duplex or triplex,
or (c) low- or high-rise apartments were examined (Edwards,
Booth & Edwards, 1982). Strain levels in the three housing types
were compared, and the analyses controlled for age, education and
occupational level. Residents of apartments reported more strain
symptoms and more family conflict than residents of the other two
housing forms. Husbands’ and wives’ outcomes differed: husbands
had a greater incidence of psychiatric impairment in apartments
than in the other housing forms, but wives did not. Both genders
reported more marital discord in apartments than in other hous-
ing forms. Fathers had worse relationships with their children in
apartments, including striking them more often.
However, not every study reports more strain in bigger build-
ings. For example, the mental health of wives in high rises in one
study, although not good, was better than that of wives living in
single-family dwellings (Ineichen & Hopper, 1974). In an Israeli
study (Churchman & Ginsberg, 1984), crowding did not lin-
early increase with building height (nor was it related to density
within the dwelling). More precisely, crowding was significantly
less among residents of 12-storey buildings than of either 8- or
20-storey buildings.
Two important points implicit in this study’s results should be
noted. First, the residents as a whole were a homogenous, mutually
familiar and mutually trusting group. us, social homogeneity and
relations within a building may moderate strain. is is interesting
because we are reminded that social relations may be viewed either
as an outcome or as a moderator. Researchers must try to decide,
based on other evidence, whether the social conditions preceded
or followed a given resident’s entry into a building. Second, this
study’s results should remind researchers not to overlook another
important possibility: curvilinear relations between variables. Often
the de facto assumption is that if an outcome varies with building
height, that the relation will be a linear. ese data (that crowding
increased from 8 storeys to 12 storeys and then decreased from 12
storeys to 20 storeys) demonstrate that some outcomes are related
to building height in a curvilinear, rather than a linear, manner.
Ignoring that possibility in an analysis could lead to the incorrect
conclusion that no relation at all exists.
Finally, building location may moderate the relation between
building height and mental health (P. McCarthy, Byrne, Harrison
& Keithley, 1985). Distress was (non-significantly) greater in
low-rise buildings than in houses, and greater in high rises than
low rises. However, when the results were examined in terms of
building location in desirable versus undesirable areas of town,
distress was more related to that factor than to building form.
McCarthy et al. took age, gender, health and social class into
consideration as possible moderators, and the results held up.
Incidentally, another curvilinear relation was found in this study:
distress itself was less in the under-25 and over-65 age groups than
in the 25-64 age groups.
Suicide and Tall Buildings
Do high-rise buildings contribute to suicide? One school of
thought (the substitution hypothesis) holds that individuals who
wish to dispose of themselves will find a way, regardless of the pos-
sible means. e substitution hypothesis asserts that if one means
of suicide is removed or absent, people simply will use another
means to their end. e substitution hypothesis has been most
frequently debated in the context of the gun control issue, but
can also be applied to high rises; certainly some people do commit
suicide by jumping from tall buildings.
A different view, the availability hypothesis, holds that tall
buildings, to some extent, encourage or facilitate suicides that
would not have otherwise occurred (Clarke & Lester, 1989).
Greater access to lethal means is expected to increase the overall
suicide rate. is hypothesis implies that tall buildings give some
people the notion and a means of killing themselves that would
not otherwise have occurred to them.
Suicide rates in Seattle and Vancouver were compared (Sloan et
al., 1990). e study focused on firearms, because guns are more
closely controlled in Vancouver yet overall suicide rates are very
close in the two cities, which are roughly similar in size, climate,
proximity to the ocean, and other ways. Sloan et al. found that
the rate of suicide by gun was 2.3 times greater in Seattle, but
suicide by other means was greater in Vancouver. e researchers
combined suicide by jumping and drowning, which is unfortunate
for present purposes, but the data showed that Vancouver’s rate by
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
8
these means was double that of Seattle’s. e substitution hypoth-
esis was therefore supported. When suicide methods were more
specifically compared (guns versus leaping) before and after gun
control legislation in Ontario and California (Rich et al., 1990),
a reduction in the number of gun suicides after the legislation was
offset by an increase in suicides by leaping, and once again the
substitution hypothesis received support.
However, not all studies agree. Suicide rates in the five boroughs
of New York City were examined (Marzuk et al., 1992). e five
boroughs had quite different basic rates; Manhattan’s rate, for example,
is about double that of Brooklyn’s. However, after correcting for age,
gender and method variations in suicides, the authors concluded
that all five counties had about equal rates for suicide methods that
were equally accessible, and the differences in rates were almost all
related to differential availability of methods--including falls from
heights. at is, suicides in Manhattan occur about as frequently as
in the other boroughs for methods that are equally available in all
boroughs (e.g., hanging), but Manhattan’s tall buildings added to
(rather than substituted for) its total rate. us, in contrast to the
earlier studies, Marzuk et al. (1992) conclude that the availability
hypothesis has more merit than the substitution hypothesis.
A subsequent study conducted in Singapore also supports the
availability hypothesis (Lester, 1994). From 1960 to 1976, as the
percentage of the population who lived in high-rises climbed from
9 to 51%, the per capita suicide rate by leaping increased from 1.43
to 5.71 per 100,000, a fourfold increase. Over the same period,
suicide by all other means declined from 7.17 to 5.49 per 100,000.
us, although the overall suicide rate increased by 30 %, the rate of
suicide by leaping increased many times faster, suggesting that more
tall buildings leads to more suicides by providing opportunities to
leap from them. One is tempted to speculate that dissatisfaction
with the high-rise form itself is a contributing factor.
Behavior Problems and High-Rise Housing
Are tall buildings responsible for behavior problems? Human
behavior generally results from many influences, and it is difficult
to unequivocally attribute it to any one source. us, the following
studies are merely suggestive. Children who resided in high-rise
(versus non-high-rise buildings) were reported to manifest twice as
many behavior problems, such as bedwetting and temper tantrums
(Ineichen & Hooper, 1974). Juvenile delinquency has been shown
to be predicted by living in multiple-unit (as opposed to single-unit)
dwellings, and predicted even better than by population density,
which has often been associated with social pathology (Gillis,
1974). Yet another study in the same year found no differences in
behavior problems among children who lived in high-rises, low
rises, and single-family dwellings (Richman, 1974), so the results
are not consistent. In this case, and perhaps for other outcomes
in this review, the variation in results may be explained by differ-
ences in the physical quality of the residence, regardless of housing
form. A recent study demonstrated a strong connection between
the physical condition of dwellings and behavior problems among
children (Gifford & Lacombe, 2006).
However, if children have access to green space, these problems
may be ameliorated; that is, nature may moderate the relation
between high-rise living and behavior problems. In a study of
high-rises that considered the degree of “naturalness” of views, the
more natural a girl’s view from home, the better she performed
on tasks that require self-discipline (e.g., concentration, impulse
inhibition, and delay of gratification (Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan,
2002), but this was not true for boys.
In a study that matched children in terms of gender and economic
well-being, children who lived in high-rises were significantly more
likely to have severe behavior problems than children in other forms
of housing (Richman, 1977). In another, boys (but not girls) who
lived in 14- versus 3-storey buildings were rated by their teachers
as having more behavioral problems, such as hyperactivity and
hostility (Saegert, 1982).
Crime and the Fear of Crime in High -Rise Residential
Environments
Progress in the 1950s meant “cleaning up” slums. Tall buildings
were seen as the modern, efficient solution to poverty. e most
infamous example, Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, was touted in this
manner prior to its construction (Slum surgery, 1951). It had no
“wasted” space. However, as Yancey (1972) pointed out, the lack of
semi-private space “atomized” potential community feeling among
the residents in the development’s 2762 apartments. e lack of
semi-private or defensible space was, in Yancey’s view, a prime
cause of crime and fear of crime in the complex. One might argue
that the crime rate mainly was caused by poverty. However, when
Sommer (1987) compared crime rates in two student dormitories
in California full of presumably middle-class students, the high-
rise dormitory was the site of more crime than a nearby low-rise
dormitory. e severity of crimes in the dormitories was much
less than that of the crimes in Pruitt-Igoe. Nevertheless, it may be
that, within any given income group, more crime (per capita) will
occur in high- than comparable low-rises.
Building size, in a study of over 2500 residents of moderate- and
low-income housing projects in the U.S., strongly increased fear
of crime, although it had a more modest effect on personal crime
itself (Newman & Franck, 1982). Moderators such as income,
the provision of semi-private space, location, and other design
details may have reduced the magnitude of the relations between
building size and crime, but they also might have revealed groups
for whom the relation was even stronger.
Newman’s (1975) data show that the number of felony crimes
rose with the height of the building in which the family lived for
both poor and single-parent families and for moderate-income and
two-parent families, although the rate of felonies in the former
was about double that of felonies in the latter. Crimes, according
to Newman, occur at about the same rate in low- and high-rises
inside the apartments, are somewhat more frequent on the outside
grounds of high rises and are much greater in the interior public
spaces of high rises. A plausible conclusion is that the increased
anonymity that naturally accompanies the larger number of people
in tall buildings is a key ingredient of the problem, coupled with the
existence of interior public spaces that can hide criminal activities
from the surveillance of most potential observers.
Among the poor, crime seems to be more associated with high
rises than with low rises. Dubrow and Garbarino (1989) interviewed
9Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
poor Chicago mothers who lived either in high rises or low rises.
e level of crime and fear of crime the mothers reported in the
high rises was severe; the authors convincingly drew a parallel with
wartime conditions. For example, 100 % of the 5-year old children
in the study had “direct contact” (p. 11) with shooting. Gangs,
robbery and violence were part of everyday life. In the low rises,
far fewer crime fears were expressed. One is reminded of Yancey’s
(1972) conclusion that the architecture of high rises “atomizes”
poor communities, which in turn allows or encourages criminality
and violence. Of course, poor community families may have been
“atomized” before they entered the high rise, or high rises may
merely fertilize the seeds of atomization that lay dormant until
residents moved into a high rise.
One may be surprised, then, to hear otherwise. In a study of
900 elderly residents of 42 public housing sites in 15 U.S. cit-
ies, residents of taller buildings reported less fear of crime than
residents of row houses and walk-ups (Normoyle & Foley, 1988).
e actual crime rate also was lower in sites dominated by high
rises. e authors suggest, however, that the lower crime rate
did not cause the lower fear of crime, citing other work (e.g.,
Newman & Franck, 1982) that showed, somewhat counter-
intuitively, little relation between crime rates and fear of crime.
Fear of crime was lower even when residents assessed the local
crime problem as more serious, and was unrelated to their own
history of being crime victims, two potential moderators. e
suggestion, then, is that the high-rise housing form itself is as-
sociated with reduced fear of crime, at least among the elderly
(see also Devlin, 1980).
Housing Form and Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial behavior includes actions that help others. Does
housing form affect prosocial behavior? Several studies have
compared the helpfulness of residents in high- and low-rise
buildings. Students who lived in low rises said they were more
willing to offer help and to seek help than those who lived in
high rises (Nadler, Bar-Tal & Drukman, 1982). Sense of com-
munity was investigated in low-rise and high-rise dormitories
for university students in the U.S. Midwest (Bynum & Purri,
1984). The low rises were 3- and 4- storeys and the high rises
were 6-10 storeys. Presumably students were essentially ran-
domly assigned to buildings, so the study had that advantage.
No differences were found for the reported rates of residents
being willing to help one another or “going their own way.”
Students in the high-rise dormitories reported knowing fewer
others of whom they felt they could ask a favour. Although
this difference was statistically significant, it was not large in
magnitude (54 % versus 47 % believed they could ask “most”
other residents for a favour).
Other studies have examined prosocial behavior in a more
concrete manner, by measuring behavior, as opposed to asking
opinions. For example, stamped, addressed letters without a re-
turn address were placed on hallway floors in college dormitories
that were 22-25 storeys, 4-7 storeys, or 2-4 storeys (Bickman
et al., 1973). e number of letters mailed was the measure of
prosocial behavior. Letters were mailed in inverse proportion to
building height in both studies, a significant difference in favour
of low-rise buildings.
Using a different measure of prosocial behavior, donations
of milk cartons for an art project were sought. Again, the fewest
donations per capita were received in the high rises. Interviews
of residents performed also indicated that the high-rise building
was perceived as having the least amount of resident cooperation.
e latter was also reported in a different college dormitory study
(Wilcox & Holahan, 1976), one that added that perceived social
support and involvement declined with height within buildings.
Social support also was lower among elderly African-Americans in a
high rise than among elderly African-Americans in nearby low-rises
(Husaini et al., 1990), although the two groups were dissimilar in
other ways, too, which may have had an influence.
High-Rise Housing and Social Relations
Does high-rise housing influence social interaction? Social
relations may be divided into two main domains, relationships
within a dwelling and relationships among neighbours in the
building. One review concluded that high-rise residents have poor
social relationships, both among themselves and toward outsiders
(Korte & Huismans, 1983). In one within-dwelling study in a
building in which residences were equal in floor area and sup-
plied furniture, roommates on higher floors got along with one
another better than roommates on lower floors (Schiffenbauer,
1979). However, as reported earlier, Edwards, Booth, and Edwards
(1982) concluded that high rises are associated with greater marital
discord than low rises.
What about relations among neighbours within the building?
Many years ago, Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) demonstrated
that housing form influences friendship patterns among residents.
However, theirs was not a study of high rises. An examination
of friendship patterns within a high rise showed that proximity
is a major determinant of social interaction (Bochner, Duncan,
Kennedy & Orr, 1976). Experience suggests that most social
interaction occurs among residents of the same floor; if this is so,
then buildings with many floors will include a few friends and
acquaintances for the typical resident, and many strangers from
other floors. In an Israeli study of women who lived in 8- and
20-storey buildings, 97 % knew at least someone on their own
floor, and 67 % knew everyone on their floor; in contrast, 36 %
knew over 30 % of all people living in their building (Ginsberg &
Churchman, 1985). Most women did interact with neighbours, yet
reported no problems with privacy (how men fared in the buildings
is unknown). Interview of university dormitory residents found
that the residents’ small living units believed that they facilitated
more social interaction than large, high-rise dormitories (Sinnett,
Sachson & Eddy, 1972).
In contrast, a large-scale study in Toronto found that high-rise
apartment dwellers tended to choose friends outside the building,
from school or work (Michelson, 1977). ese residents viewed
their neighbours negatively and as dissimilar to themselves,
except that they were approximate financial equals. In Hong
Kong, a high-rise, high-density city, interview results suggest
that the overall sense of residential community is low and that
where respondents had a very strong sense of neighborhood, their
interactions were often work- or school-based, with colleagues
or schoolmates living in the same area (Forrest, La Grange &
Ngai-Ming, 2002).
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
10
Studies that compare housing forms suggest that high-rise
dwellers may have more residential acquaintances than low-rise
dwellers. For example, German and Italian high-rise respondents
reported knowing about twice as many families as those in low
rises (Williamson, 1978). However, knowing more neighbours
did not translate to close relations; the German (but not Italian)
high-rise residents reported less visiting and borrowing among
their neighbours, and that their closest friends were more likely
to be colleagues at work than neighbours. Both the German and
Italian respondents said that they would like to have more friends
among their neighbours, and that they believed they would have
more friends if they lived in a smaller building.
Outdoor socializing was examined in a study of three housing
types in a low-income neighborhood: an old ghetto neighborhood
of low-rise tenement houses, a traditional high-rise housing project
and an innovative high-rise housing project, where a creative out-
door design had been added to encourage outdoor use (Holahan,
1976). e old neighborhood and the innovative project showed
higher levels of outdoor socializing than did the traditional project,
which suggests that high-rises will discourage social interaction
in their vicinity but that this can be overcome by setting aside an
area designed to encourage social interaction. Nature also seems
to facilitate social interaction. Researchers observed the presence
and location of trees and the presence and location of youth and
adults near a high-rise and a low-rise public housing develop-
ment (Coley, Kuo & Sullivan, 1997). Spaces with trees attracted
larger and more mixed groups of people than did spaces without
natural elements.
High-rise residents may have more acquaintances but fewer
friends because residents of high rises simply encounter a larger
number of people in their building than residents of low rises
(Churchman & Ginsberg, 1984). More of these people are stran-
gers, too, but one gets to know some of the strangers, over time, at
least superficially. In a study conducted in Israel, women who lived
in higher floors knew more of their neighbours, but women who
lived on lower floors had closer relations with their neighbours.
Consistent with the notion that lower levels are associated with
more friendships, garden apartment residents reported having three
times as many friends in the building as did high-rise residents
(Boyd, Morris & Peel, 1965). Similar results were reported in
another study: three-quarters of low-rise residents reported they
had made good friendships within their project, but only half of
the residents of a high rise could make the same claim (Stevenson,
Martin & O’Neil, 1967). Saegert’s (1979) study of public hous-
ing projects found poorer social relations in high-, as compared
to low-rise buildings. Zalot and Adams-Webber’s (1977) results
repeated this trend, and added that, probably as a consequence
of less-frequent interaction, high-rise dwellers tended to have
less cognitively complex impressions of their neighbours. In a
study that investigated the sense of community in high-rise and
garden apartments in public housing for the elderly, the residents
of garden apartments had a significantly greater overall sense of
community, and expressed a greater sense of membership (Zaff
& Devlin, 1988).
On the other hand, Franck (1983) found no differences in the
frequency of making acquaintances and friends in her comparison
of high rises with row housing and walk-ups. One-third of high-
rise residents in public housing estates in Hong Kong had never
socialized with their next-door or nearest neighbours, suggesting
a low rate of community interaction, but the rate was no different
in low-rise neighbourhoods (Chang, 1975).
Of course, friendship formation depends on multiple fac-
tors, which probably explains some of these inconsistencies. For
example, a study of college dormitory residents found no overall
effect of high- versus low-rise building on friendship formation,
but did discover that women made many more friends in low-rises
than did men; in the high-rises there was no gender difference
in friendship formation (Holahan & Wilcox, 1979). However,
differences between the low- and high-rises in the friendship-re-
lated attitudes were found. High-rises were experienced as lower
in involvement, support, order and organization, and student
involvement, but higher on independence, suggesting that less
social interaction and involvement is found among students in
the high-rise dormitories.
Children in High Rises
Numerous studies suggest that children have problems in high-
rises; none suggest benefits for them. Early reviews are clear. One
states flatly that “for...families with small children, the evidence
demonstrates that high-rise living is an unsuitable form of accom-
modation” (Conway & Adams, 1977, p. 595.) Another concludes
that “high-rise housing does not provide an appropriate living
environment for preschool or school-age children because too few
of the attributes of a single-family house have been accounted for...”
(Cooper Marcus & Hogue, 1976, p. 34), although the authors did
soften that by concluding that high-rise housing has both positive
and negative features for teenagers. is has not changed much
with time. Two of the more recent Israeli studies found that raising
children in high-rises, especially on the higher floors, is problematic
(Broyer, 2002; Landau, 1999). Children under 8 were not allowed
to go downstairs by themselves, but after they were allowed to go
down, parents found it difficult to supervise their play.
e problems range from fundamental child development
issues to everyday activities such as play. For example, a Japanese
investigation (Oda, Taniguchi, Wen & Higurashi, 1989) concluded
that the development of infants raised above the fifth floor in
high-rise buildings is delayed, compared to those raised below the
fifth floor. e development of numerous skills, such as dressing,
helping and appropriate urination was slower. Children who live
on higher floors also go outside to play less often (Nitta, 1980,
in Oda et al., 1989). A study in India recognized that children’s
difficulties are not solely a function of living in high rises (Oke,
Khattar, Pant & Saraswathi, 1999). As the authors put it, “e
ecological constraints of crowding, the high-rise buildings, unsafe
streets, scarce open spaces, the preoccupation with the “idiot-box,”
all seem to conspire against the urban child’s natural propensity
to play with joyous spontaneity” (p. 207).
Learning to read may be affected by the floor level on which
children live (Cohen, Glass & Singer, 1973). e researchers
measured sound levels, ability to discriminate auditory stimuli,
and reading skills in children who lived in high rises built above a
major highway in New York. Children in lower-level apartments,
11Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
which had higher sound levels from traffic, were less able to
discriminate sounds and had poorer reading skills, than children
who lived in higher floors. Apparently, where traffic noise is a
considerable factor, high rises may be good for children who live
higher up in high rises.
Children’s play clearly is affected, as parents in high rises either
keep their children indoors more often, which means close protec-
tion or over-protection in an indoor environment, or allow them
outside, many floors away, which can result in under-supervision.
One outcome is that children in high rises, on balance, spend more
time playing alone and in restricted play (Gittus, 1976). Perhaps
this is why there is evidence that high-rise raised children have
lower levels of motor ability than children reared in single-family
dwellings (Crawford & Virgin, 1971; cited in Michelson, 1977).
Another outcome is that younger children, up to 20 minutes
away from the home bathroom, have been reported to have many
“bathroom accidents” in elevators and hallways of high rises (W.
Moore, 1969).
Conclusions
e following conclusions must be tentative because the evidence
still is imperfect and incomplete, but some trends in the findings
certainly are more consistent than others.
e State of Research Itself
e original, simple question this paper set out to answer was
whether high-rise dwellings are better or worse than low-rise
dwellings for residents, apart from other factors. As noted earlier,
research into this question has suffered from the difficulties of
fulfilling many of the requirements of the scientific method. In
part, this is understandable; for example, random assignment to
housing form is often impossible, and experimenter control of
independent variables can also be very difficult. Still, there are
a number of issues, some correctable, with the research that has
been conducted so far.
First, despite earlier admonitions, one might question whether
random assignment truly is the best approach to research
design in this area. When residents are assigned randomly to
high rises and low rises (or single-family dwellings), they do
not have control over the type of dwelling they will live in.
This causes two problems. First, it differs from the usual case
in everyday life when people are able to select from a range of
housing. Such groups usually are in the military, university
dormitories, or on social assistance. Thus, immediately, there
is danger that conclusions drawn from such a study may not
generalize to most residential situations in which housing form
was not imposed from outside. The quality of housing one
selects naturally is restricted to budgetary constraints, and that
is to be expected and usually is accepted. However, housing of
various forms may be found within most budgets, from fairly
poor to quite rich.
Second, when residents select housing, they usually can at least
feel a sense of control over housing type. To lose that control in a
context where the resident is compelled to live in a housing form
chosen by lot, by bureaucrats, or by researchers, must create a sense
of loss in some residents, particularly if (a) they wanted another
form of housing and (b) were aware they might have been assigned
another form of housing. Whether this is felt equally by those
assigned to high rises or other housing forms is not known, but
it seems safe to speculate that this sense of loss defeats part of the
purpose of random assignment. us, random assignment may be
scientifically pure, but may cause unwanted side effects that have
their own influence on resident satisfaction and behavior. Where
this is the case, researchers may prefer to let residents choose their
housing form, and to deal with demographic or other differences
in the makeup of the populations in each housing type by partial
correlation or another statistical procedure for controlling variables
that are not part of the researchers’ hypotheses.
A third important problem is the relative scarcity of research
that focuses on residential high rises in the last 15 or so years. One
is forced to rely for the most part on fairly old studies. Both the
best and the worst studies are older; there seems to be no trend
toward markedly improved research methods among the relatively
few recent studies that can be found. It goes without saying that
progress cannot be made toward understanding the effects of living
in tall buildings unless research is undertaken.
Fourth, so far there have been no meta-analyses of research in
this area. Meta-analysis is a way of quantitatively combining the
results of numerous completed studies (Rosenthal, 1991) that
has become a popular and useful tool and has recently entered
the environment and behavior literature (e.g., Gifford, Hine &
Veitch, 1997). Of course, as long as the complaint above holds,
meta-analyses are useless.
Fifth, researchers (as in many other areas) appear to have paid
little attention to the possibility of significant curvilinear relations
between variables. Building height is linear, but the psychological
and behavioral effects of that most linear variable may not them-
selves be linear. For example, residents of the highest floors may feel
somehow superior, or have the best views; they often pay the most
for their residence. ose at ground level may value the easy access
to streets. ose in the middle may feel they have neither advantage,
but are merely squeezed between two more advantaged groups.
Perhaps an analysis of unit prices by floor, done across numerous
buildings, would confirm or disconfirm these speculations.
Sixth, although some researchers have conducted model studies
in which moderator variables have been considered, many still have
not. As some studies surveyed in this paper demonstrate, examina-
tion of potential moderating variables may reveal a relation that had
been hidden in analyses that failed to include moderator variables.
Some researchers have oversimplified distinctions, such as ignoring
floor level by merely comparing residents on the ground level versus
all those above ground level (Homel & Burns, 1989).
Finally, little effort has been made to construct causal models
of outcomes in high rises. One presumes that outcomes are multi-
determined and that variables influence one another in causal
chains. In this literature, no study even examined a three-variable
(A-B-C) chain of hypothesized causality, with factor B mediating
an A-C relation (cf. Evans & Lepore, 1997). Without research that
is aimed at constructing and refining models, the literature must
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
12
remain a shapeless morass of almost random bivariate relations.
Few authors have tried to construct theories or models in this area,
although a few models of housing in general have been proposed
(e.g., Rohe, 1985-86). Without theories, models, moderators or
even many studies, meta-analyses are impossible, progress is impos-
sible, and therefore understanding is impossible. Nevertheless, this
review has attempted to round up what is known, and its tentative
conclusions follow.
Experiencing the Dwelling
Very few studies have examined high-rise residents’ experience
of their dwellings. Some evidence suggests higher interiors seem
larger, but perhaps this is only true for women. However, many
other questions might be asked about how residents experience
high-rise dwelling interiors. Do they fear fires, earthquakes or
falling? Do people on lower floors experience the many floors
above them as a sort of crushing burden? Do those on top feel,
psychologically, as if they are “on top of the heap” or “on top of
the world”? What sort of imagery, symbolism or meaning do high
rises hold for residents and citizens who experience high rises as
part of their daily street life?
Satisfaction
Satisfaction or the lack of it is only one outcome of living in
a tall building, but it is a crucial one, and it depends on many
factors. The evidence as a whole leans to the general conclusion
that high rises are less satisfactory than other forms of housing.
In particular, it suggests that residents will be happier in a high
rise if they are not parents of small children, do not plan to stay
long and are socially competent. Of course, the resident’s lifestyle
should match that provided by a high rise; avid gardeners will
not be happy in a high rise unless perhaps they can fashion a
rooftop or balcony garden. Money helps: it provides the means
to choose, to live in a better quality building in a better-qual-
ity neighborhood, and monied folk have greater opportunity
to have a second home (perhaps a cottage in the woods) and
to escape the high rise for holidays. Although some evidence
suggests that socially oriented seniors and young singles prefer
high rises to low rises, the generally sociofugal nature of high
rises may mean that other categories of residents will be happier
in a high rise if they are relatively asocial.
Strain, Distress and Mental Health
Strain certainly may result from dissatisfaction, the mismatch
between needs and preferences and one’s high-rise domicile. Apart
from those causes, the evidence suggests that strain often results
from high building or dwelling density, which can (but does not
always) lead to crowding, and that these effects may vary for men
and women. Men may experience more difficulties in high rises
than women, but may be better off if they happen to live in the
upper reaches of the building. Crowding may be less (even in the
same-size unit) in the upper floors, perhaps because views are
more expansive. However, if towers are clustered, this advantage
may be lost.
Suicide
Suicide may be greater in high rises than in low rises; the issue is
whether tall building leapers would have used some other method
if they did not happen to have a high window available. at is, do
high rises cause an overall increase in suicides? e evidence is not
univocal, but suggests on balance that high rises are associated with
higher suicide rates, and may be the cause of some suicides.
Behavior Problems
Every study surveyed indicated that children who live in high
rises exhibit more behavioral problems than children who do
not. is includes studies that tried to control for some obvious
potential alternative explanations, such as socioeconomic status.
One presumes that this results from an odd combination of activ-
ity restriction within the residence and too little supervision of
activity outside it.
Crime and Fear of Crime
Fear of crime often outstrips actual crime rates. A prime reason
for some to seek high-rise living is fear of crime on the street.
However, if the building provides no adequate gate-keeping device
or person, it becomes a greater liability than would a low- rise or
single-family dwelling. is is because an unguarded high rise
has poor defensible space properties: ease of strangers roaming,
low visibility, more hiding places. us, fear of crime in high
rises, which the evidence suggests varies, may heavily depend on
whether and how well building entry is controlled.
Actual crime appears to be associated more with high rises than
low rises, based on the studies reviewed. Poverty would appear to
be a major moderator of this finding, but at least one study found
more crime, albeit petty crime, in a site where high-and low-rise
residents were of equal socioeconomic status.
Pro-Social Behavior
Research is unanimous in find that rates of helping others are
lower in high-rise buildings. e sociofugal nature of most high rises
supports anonymity and depersonalization of one’s neighbours, so
that living in a high rise tends to have both the advantages (such
as greater privacy and freedom from unwanted social interaction)
and disadvantages (less intimate social interaction and less caring
about anonymous others) as large cities.
Social Relations
e gist of the evidence about social relations is that residents of
high rises encounter many more other residents, know of or about
more others, but have fewer friendships in the building, per capita,
than residents of low rises. Social interaction is more difficult for
residents to regulate. is can lead to withdrawal, which can lead
to loss of community and social support.
e structure of high rises usually (but not always; see Wilner et al.,
1962; Ginsberg & Churchman, 1985) is such that one is not likely to
meet residents of other floors except in elevators and lobbies, which are
barely more personal than the street. us, one lives physically close
to many others, but in practice is limited to those on one’s floor for
the sort of encounters that might lead to friendship, such as borrow-
ing food or talking while children play. Male-female differences may
moderate friendship formation in high versus low rises.
Children in High Rises
No evidence we could find shows that high rises are good
for children. The literature includes several studies that sug-
13Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
gest high percentages of dissatisfaction among parents about
the suitability of high rises for their children. Every study of
behavioral problems finds more among children in high rises.
There is some evidence that children in lower floors of high rises,
where traffic noise is prominent, learn more slowly. Children
in high rises may develop certain practical skills more slowly,
according to Japanese studies. Long ago, Jephcott (1971) said,
“Practically no one disputes that this form of home [the high
rise] is unsatisfactory for the family with small children” (p.
130). Some have suggested that this need not be the case (e.g.,
van Vliet, 1983) but, more than 35 years later, no available
evidence contradicts her conclusion.
General Conclusions
e consequences of living in high-rise buildings are many. A few
may be caused by the building form itself, but many are moderated
by non-architectural factors. Chief among these moderating fac-
tors are socioeconomic status, building location, parenting young
children or not, gender, and stage of life. Although they have not
been studied empirically in high-rises, whether one has a choice
about housing form and indoor population density probably are
also important.
Irrefutable conclusions about the consequences of living in
high rises cannot be drawn, because true experiments are virtually
impossible in housing research and because outcomes are deter-
mined by multiple factors. Nevertheless, progress nevertheless can
be made through careful studies that use good research methods,
and by aggregating studies either qualitatively, as in this review,
or quantitatively through meta-analyses, and by more and better
theory construction and testing. Unfortunately, research on this
topic appears to have slowed considerably.
Given these caveats, the best conclusions that one may hazard
are the following. Many, but by no means all, residents are more
satisfied by low-rise than by high-rise housing. High rises are more
satisfactory for residents when they are more expensive, located
in better neighbourhoods, and residents chose to live in them.
Children are better off in low-rise housing; high rises either restrict
their outdoor activity or leave them relatively unsupervised out-
doors, which may be why children who live in high rises have, on
average, more behavior problems. Residents of high-rises probably
have fewer friendships in the buildings, and certainly help each
other less. Crime and fear of crime probably are greater in high-
rise buildings. A small proportion of suicides may be attributable
to living in high rises.
ese are tentative conclusions that require more and better
research on almost every issue raised in this paper. Given the glo-
bal growth in the number of tall residential buildings, the issue’s
importance speaks for itself.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Gary Evans and Arza Churchman for their valuable
comments on an earlier draft, to D’Arcy Reynolds for his bibliographic
assistance, and to Gary Moore for inviting this paper.
References
Angrist, S. S. (1974). Dimensions of well-being in public housing families.
Environment and Behavior, 6, 495-516.
Bagley, C. (1974). e built environment as an influence on personality
and social behavior: A spatial study. In D. Canter & T. Lee (Eds.), Psy-
chology and the built environment (pp. 156-162). London: Wiley.
Bickman, L., Teger, A., Gabriele, T., McLaughlin, C., Berger, M., &
Sunaday, E. (1973). Dormitory density and helping behavior. En-
vironment and Behavior, 5, 465-490.
Bochner, S., Duncan, R., Kennedy, E., & Orr, F. (1976). Acquaintance
links between residents of a high rise building: An application of the
“small world” method. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 277-284.
Bordas-Astudillo, F., Moch, A., & Hermand, D. (2003). e predictors
of the feeling of crowding and crampedness in large residential build-
ings. In Moser, G., Pol, E., Bernard, Y., Bonnes, M., & Corraliza,
J. A., et al. (Eds.), People, places, and sustainability (pp. 220-228).
Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.
Boyd, D., Morris, D., & Peel, T. S. (1965). Selected social characteristics
and multifamily living environment: A pilot study. Milieu, 1(5),
42-48.
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1975). e spatial pattern-
ing of burglary. Howard Journal of Penology and Crime Prevention,
14, 11-24.
Brill, W. H. (1972, May 1-3). Security in public housing: A synergistic
approach. Paper presented at the 4th National Symposium on Law
Enforcement, Science, and Technology, University of Maryland.
Broyer, G. (2002). e appropriateness of buildings over 20 storeys high for
middle-class residents. Research thesis, Technion, the Israeli Institute
of Technology.
Bynum, T. S., & Purri, D. M. (1984). Crime and architectural style: An
examination of the environmental design hypothesis. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 11, 179-196.
Campelman, G. (1951). Some sociological aspects of mixed-class neigh-
borhood planning. Sociological Review, 43, 191-200.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Commission (1979). Public priorities in
urban Canada: A survey of community concerns. Ottawa: CMHC
Cappon, D. (1972). Mental health in the hi-rise. Ekistics, 33, 192-
196.
Chang, C-T. (1975). A sociological study of neighborhoods. In S. H.
K. Yeh (Ed.), Public housing in Singapore: A multi-disciplinary study.
Singapore: Singapore University Press. (pp. 281-301).
Chapin, F. S. (1938). e effects of slum clearance and rehousing on
family and community relationships in Minneapolis. American Journal
of Sociology, 43, 744-763.
Chapin, F. S. (1951). Some housing factors related to mental hygiene.
Journal of Social Issues, 8(1, 2).
Chein, I. (1954). e environment as a determinant of behavior. Journal
of Social Psychology, 39, 115-127.
Churchman, A. (1999). Disentangling the concept of density. Journal
of Planning Literature, 13, 389-411.
Churchman, A., & Ginsberg, Y. (1984). e image and experience of
high rise housing in Israel. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4,
27-41.
Clarke, R. V., & Lester, D. (1989). Suicide: Closing the exits. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Cohen, S., Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1973). Apartment noise, auditory
discrimination, and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 9, 407-422.
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
14
Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does com-
munity grow? e social context created by nature in urban public
housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-494.
Conway, J., & Adams, B. (1977). e social effects of living off the
ground. Habitat International, 2, 595-614.
Cooper Marcus, C., & Hogue, L. (1976). Design guidelines for high-rise
housing. Journal of Architectural Research, 5, 34-49.
Dasgupta, S. K., Bhattacharyya, S., & Asaduzzaman, M. (1992). e
impact of tall buildings on elderly residents. Bangladesh Journal of
Psychology, 13, 7-15.
Devlin, A. (1980). Housing for the elderly: Cognitive considerations.
Environment and Behavior, 12, 451-466.
Dubrow, N. F., & Garbarino, J. (1989). Living in the war zone: Mothers
and young children in a public housing development. Child Welfare,
68(1), 3-20.
Duffy, M., & Willson, V. L. (1984). e role of design factors of the
residential environment in the physical and mental health of the
elderly. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 2(3), 37-45.
Edwards, J. N., Booth, A., & Edwards, P. K. (1982). Housing type, stress,
and family relations. Social Forces, 61, 241-267.
Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). Moderating and mediating proc-
esses in environment-behavior research. In G. T. Moore & R. W.
Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (vol. 4,
pp. 255-285). New York: Plenum, now Dordrecht: Springer.
Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (1998). Housing and mental
health. Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center Working Paper 98-11,
Cornell University.
Fanning, D. M. (1967). Families in flats. British Medical Journal, 18,
382-386.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S. M., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in
informal groups. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Forrest, R., La Grange, A., & Ngai-Ming, Y. (2002). Neighbourhood in
a high rise, high density city: Some observations on contemporary
Hong Kong. Sociological Review, 50, 215-240.
Franck, K. (1983). Community by design. Sociological Inquiry, 53,
289-311.
Gifford, R. (1999). e adjustment of the elderly to congregate care housing.
Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice.
Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., & Veitch, J. A. (1997). Meta-analysis for
environment-behavior research, illuminated with a study of lighting
level effects on office task performance. In G. T. Moore & R. W.
Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (vol.
4, pp. 223-253).
Gifford, R, & Lacombe, C. (2006). Housing quality and children’s so-
cioemotional health. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
21, 177-189.
Gillis, A. R. (1974). Population density and social pathology: e case
of building type, social allowance, and juvenile delinquency. Disease
and Pathology, 53, 306-314.
Gillis, A. R. (1977). High-rise housing and psychological strain. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 418-431.
Ginsberg, Y., & Churchman, A. (1984). Housing satisfaction and inten-
tion to move: eir explanatory variables. Socio-economic Planning
Sciences, 18, 425-431.
Ginsberg, Y., & Churchman, A. (1985). e pattern and meaning of
neighbor relations in high-rise housing in Israel. Human Ecology,
13, 467-484.
Gittus, E. (1976). Flats, families, and the under-fives. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Goodman, M. (1974). e enclosed environment. Royal Society Health
Journal, 4, 165-175.
Greenberg, M., (1997). High-rise public housing, optimism, and personal
and environmental health behaviors. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 21, 388-398.
Hannay, D. R. (1979). e symptom iceberg: A study of community health.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hannay, D. R. (1981). Mental health and high flats. Journal of Chronic
Diseases, 34, 431-432.
Heath, T., Smith, S. G., & Lim, B. (2000). Tall buildings and the urban
skyline: e effect of visual complexity on preferences. Environment
and Behavior, 32, 541-556.
Holahan, C. J. (1976). Environmental effects on outdoor social behavior
in a low-income urban neighborhood: A naturalistic investigation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 48-63.
Holahan, C. J., & Wilcox, B. L. (1979). Environmental satisfaction in
high-rise and low-rise residential settings: A Lewinian perspective. In
J. R. Aiello & A. Baum (Eds.), Residential crowding and design (pp.
127-140). New York: Plenum.
Homel, R., & Burns, A. (1989). Environmental quality and the well-being
of children. Social Indicators Research, 21, 133-158.
Husaini, B. A., Castor, R. S., Whitten-Stovall, R., Moore, S. T. et al.
(1990). An evaluation of a therapeutic health program for the elderly.
Journal of Health and Social Policy, 2, 67-85.
Husaini, B. A., Moore, S. T., & Castor, R. S. (1991). Social and psycho-
logical well-being of Black elderly living in high-rises for the elderly.
Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 16, 57-78.
Ineichen, B. (1979). High rise living and mental stress. Biology and
Human Affairs, 44, 81-85.
Ineichen, B., & Hooper, D. (1974). Wives’ mental health and children’s
behavior problems in contrasting residential areas. Social Science and
Medicine, 8, 369-374.
Isaacs, R. R. (1948). e neighborhood theory: An analysis of its adequacy.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 14, 15-32.
Izumi, K. (1970). Psychosocial phenomena and building design. In H.
M. Proshansky & L. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jacobs, J. (1961). e death and life of great American cities. New York:
Random House.
Jephcott, P. (1971). Homes in high flats: Some of the human problems
involved in multi-storey housing. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Kennedy, R. (1950). Sociopsychological problems of housing design. In Fes-
tinger, L., Schachter, S. M., & Back, K. (Eds.). Social pressures in informal
groups (pp. 202-220). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kim, W. (1997). Effects of dwelling floor level on factors related to residential
satisfaction and home environment in high-rise apartment buildings.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Korte, C., & Huismans, S. (1983). Sources of assistance among residents
of a Dutch high-rise development. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 11, 751-755.
Landau, G. (1999). Living patterns in high-rise buildings in Israel. Unpub-
lished research thesis, Technion, Israeli Institute of Technology.
Laurens, H. (1954). Urbanisme et architecture. Paris. Quoted in J.
Tyrwhitt, High rise apartments and urban form. Athens Center of
Ekistics, 1968, p. 1.
15Consquences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Robert Gifford
Lawton, M. P., Nahemow, L., & Teaff, J. (1975). Environmental char-
acteristics and the well-being of elderly tenants in federally assisted
housing. Journal of Gerontology, 29, 601-607.
Lester, D. (1994). Suicide by jumping in Singapore as a function of high-
rise apartment availability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 74.
Littlewood, J., & Tinker, A. (1981). Families in flats. London:
HMSO.
Luedtke and Associates (1970). Crime and the physical city. Detroit:
Unpublished report.
Mackintosh, E. (1982). High in the city. EDRA: Environmental Design
Research Association, No. 13, 424-434.
Mandel, D. R., Baron, R. M., & Fisher, J. D. (1980). Room utilization
and dimensions of density: Effects of height and view. Environment
and Behavior, 12, 308-319.
Marzuk, P. M., Leon, A. C., Tardiff, K., Morgan, E. B., Stajic, M., &
Mann, J. J. M. (1992). e effect of access to lethal methods of injury
on suicide rates. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 451-458.
McCarthy, D., & Saegert, S. (1978). Residential density, social overload,
and social withdrawal. Human Ecology, 6, 253-272.
McCarthy, P., Byrne, D., Harrison, S., & Keithley, J. (1985). Housing
type, housing location, and mental health. Social Psychiatry, 20,
125-130.
McClenahan, G. A. (1945). e communality: e urban substitute
for the traditional community. Sociology and Social Research, 30,
264-274.
Michelson, W. (1970). Man and his urban environment. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental choice, human behavior, and resi-
dential satisfaction. New York: Oxford.
Mitchell, R. E. (1971). Some social implications of high density housing.
American Sociological Review, 36, 18-29.
Molumby, T. (1976). Patterns of crime in a university housing project.
American Behavioral Scientist, 20, 247-20.
Moore, G.T. (1984). New directions for environment-behavior research
in architecture. In J.C. Snyder (Ed.), Architectural Research (pp 95-
112). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984.
Moore, G. T. (1987). Environment and behavior research in North
America: History, developments and unresolved issues. In D. Stokols
& I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 2
(pp. 1359-1410). New York: Wiley, 1987.
Moore, N. C. (1974). Psychiatric illness and living in flats. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 125, 500-507.
Moore, N. C. (1975). Social aspects of flat dwelling. Public Health
London, 89, 109-115.
Moore, N. C. (1976). e personality and mental health of flat dwellers.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 256-261.
Moore, W. (1969). e vertical ghetto. New York: Random House.
Murphy, G., & Kovacs, J. K. (1972). Historical introduction to modern
psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. (see
p. 9).
Nadler, A., Bar-Tal, D., & Drukman, O. (1982). Density does not
help: Help-giving, help-seeking and help-reciprocating of residents
of high and low student dormitories. Population and Environment,
5, 26-42.
Nahemow, L., Lawton, M. P., & Howell, S. C. (1977). Elderly people in
tall buildings: A nationwide study. In D. J. Conway (Ed.), Human
response to tall buildings (pp. 175-181). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchison, & Ross.
Newman, O. (1975). Reactions to the “defensible space” study and
some further findings. International Journal of Mental Health, 4(3),
48-70.
Newman, O., & Franck, K. A. (1982). e effects of building size on
personal crime and fear of crime. Population and Environment:
Behavioral and Social Issues, 5, 203-220.
Normoyle, J. B., & Foley, J. M. (1988). e defensible space model of
fear and elderly public housing residents. Environment and Behavior,
20, 50-74.
Oda, M., Taniguchi, K., Wen, M.-L., & Higurashi, M. (1989). Effects
of high-rise living on physical and mental development of children.
Journal of Human Ergology, 18, 231-235.
Oke, M., Khattar, A., Pant, P., & Saraswathi, T. S.(1999). A profile of
children’s play in urban India. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child
Research, 6, 207-219.
Osmond, H. (1957). Function as the basis of psychiatric ward design.
Mental Hospitals, 8, 23-30.
Park, R. (1925). e city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reppetto, T. (1974). Residential crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Rich, C. L., Young, J. G., Fowler, R. C., Wagner, J., and Black, N. A.
(1990). Guns and suicide: Possible effects of some specific legislation.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 342-346.
Richman, N. (1974). e effects of housing on pre-school children
and their mothers. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,
16, 53-58.
Richman, N. (1977). Behavior problems in pre-school children: Family
and social factors. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 523-527.
Rohe, W. (1985-86). Urban planning and mental health. Prevention in
Human Sciences, 4, 79-110.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Saegert, S. (1979). A systematic approach to high density settings: Social
and physical environmental factors. In M. R. Gurkaynak & W. A.
LeCompte (1979). Human consequences of crowding (pp. 67-82).
New York: Plenum Press.
Saegert, S. (1982). Environments and children’s mental health: Residen-
tial density and low income children. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology and health (pp. 247-271). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schiffenbauer, A. I. (1979). Designing for high-density living. In J. R.
Aiello & A. Baum (Eds.), Residential crowding and design (pp. 229-
240). New York: Plenum.
Schiffenbauer, A. I., Brown, J. E., Perry, P. L., Shulak, L. K., & Zanzola,
A. M. (1977). e relationship between density and crowding: Some
architectural modifiers. Environment and Behavior, 9, 3-14.
Sinnett, E. R., Sachson, A. D., Eddy, G. (1972). e influence of living
units on the behavior of college students. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 13, 209-214.
Sloan, J. H., Rivara, F. P., Reay, D. T., Ferris, J. A. J., & Kellermann, A.
L. (1990). Firearm regulations and rates of suicide. New England
Journal of Medicine, 322, 369-373).
Slum surgery in St. Louis. (1951). Architectural Forum, 94, 128-136.
Sommer, R. (1967). Personal space: e behavioral basis of design. Eng-
lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sommer, R. (1987). Crime and vandalism in university residence halls:
A confirmation of defensible space theory. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 7, 1-12.
Stamps, A. E. (1991). Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic
and demographic effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72(3, Pt 1),
839-844.
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 1, March 2007
16
Stevenson, A., Martin, E., & O’Neill, J. (1967). High living: A study of
family living in flats. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne
Press.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: e psychology of the physical environment
in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweatt, L., Harding, C. G., Knight-Lynn, L., Rasheed, S., & Carter, P.
(2002). Talking about the silent fear: Adolescents’ experiences of vio-
lence in an urban high-rise community. Adolescence, 37, 109-120.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature
and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63.
Van Vliet, W. (1983). Families in apartment buildings: Sad storeys for
children? Environment and Behavior, 15, 211-234.
Wallace, A. (1956). Planned privacy: What’s its importance for the
neighborhood? Journal of Housing, 13, 13-14.
Wekerle, G., & Hall, E. (1972). High rise living: Can the same design
serve young and old? Ekistics, 33, 186-191.
Wilcox, B. L., & Holahan, C. J. (1976). Social ecology of the megadorm
in university student housing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,
453-458.
Williamson, R. C. (1978). Socialization in the high-rise: A cross-national
comparison. Ekistics, 45, 122-130.
Williamson, R. C. (1981). Adjustment to the high rise: Variables in a
German sample. Environment and Behavior, 13, 289-310.
Wilner, D. M., Walkley, R. P., Pinkerton, D. C., & Tayback, M. (1962).
e housing environment and family life. Baltimore, MD: e Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Wilner, D. M., Walkley, R. P., & Tayback, M. (1956). How does the
quality of housing affect health and family adjustment? American
Journal of Public Health, 46, 736-744.
Yancey, W. (1972). Architecture, interaction, and social control: e case
of a large-scale housing project. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. H. Carson
(Eds.), Environment and the social sciences. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Yeh, S. H. K., & Tan, S. L. (1975). Satisfaction with living conditions.
In S. H. K. Yeh (Ed.), Public housing in Singapore: A multi-disciplinary
study. Singapore: Singapore University Press. (pp. 214-239)
Yeung, Y. (1977). High-rise, high-density housing: Myths and reality.
Habitat International, 2, 587-594.
Zaff, J., & Devlin, A. S. (1998). Sense of community in housing for the
elderly. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 381-397.
Zalot, G., & Adams-Webber, J. (1977). Cognitive complexity in the per-
ception of neighbors. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 281-283.