Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/taylor-francis/residential-preferences-based-on-life-stage-groups-of-residents-and-F2MFycvqXd
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Copyright
- © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and Architectural Society of China.
- ISSN
- 1347-2852
- eISSN
- 1346-7581
- DOI
- 10.1080/13467581.2022.2052299
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2052299 Residential preferences based on life stage groups of residents and factors related to types of intentions to continue living in or relocating from super-high-rise condominiums a b Ryoji Tokunaga and Masako Murota a b Business Planning and Development Division, Yachiyo Engineering Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan; ProfessorFaculty of Environmental Studies, Tokyo City University, Yokohama, Japan ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 29 July 2021 This study aims to determine the residential preference characteristics of super-high-rise Accepted 18 February 2022 condominium residents in Kawasaki, Japan, and their intentions to continue living in the super- high-rise condominiums or relocating based on their life stage groups, of which there are eight KEYWORDS types. We analysed the factors related to their intentions to stay or relocate. We determined the Super-high-rise reasons and motivations behind the selection of their current homes in high-rise buildings, and condominium; residential found that more residents chose their homes because of their preference for redevelopment preference; life stage; areas to high-rise condominiums. Approximately 70% of the residents intended to continue resident’s consciousness; relocation living in their current homes for more than 20 years, while 18% of them intended to continue living in the same area following relocation, because of the attractiveness of the area. After establishing the types of relocation and analysing the influencing factors, it was found that the important influencing factors were the age group, space of the residential area, emphasis on the townscape and topicality, and emphasis on commercial facilities. Particularly in the younger generation, there were various reasons for relocation depending on the emphasis of the local environment. 1. Introduction oriented and community-oriented categories. In In recent years, there has been active construction of Tanaka’s research in 1991, he pointed out that resi- super-high-rise condominiums – that is, over 200 m in dents of super-high-rise condominiums placed the height – in the United States of America, the United highest priority on urban life and the lowest priority Arab Emirates, China, Korea, and Southeast Asian on community. Our research (Tokunaga et al. 2019) in countries. In Japan, the number of super-high-rise con- 2019 established that residents of super-high-rise con- dominiums has been increasing rapidly since 2000, not dominiums intended to continue to live there, estab- only in large city centres but also in suburban areas. lishing active neighbourhood and community Super-high-rise condominiums have become popu- relationships through their children. Nearly 30 years lar in Japan as they are convenient and offer various have passed since Tanaka’s research, and with the floor plans, large-scale open spaces, and common facil- increase in popularity of super-high-rise housings, we ities. However, few studies have examined the charac- think that residents’ characteristics may have changed. teristics of super-high-rise condominium residents and In a work similar to this study, Ohtani (Otani et al. 2009) their residential intentions. conducted research on the characteristics of residents Several studies on high-rise buildings have focused regarding housing relocation focusing on residential on relationship between courtyard design and social choice in super-high-rise condominiums in Osaka, indi- interaction (Huang 2006), and relationships between cating that residents were diverse and their reasons for social capital, architectural elements, roads, and pedes- choosing their home included convenience and trian accessibility (Mahdavinejad, Sadraie, and Sadraie security. 2014). Regarding research on residents of super-high- Regarding research on residential relocation focus- rise housings, Lee (Lee 2011) conducted empirical stu- ing on life stages, Mulder and Hooimeijer (Mulder and dies related to the health and quality of life in South Hooimeijer 1999) demonstrated that life course could Korea. In Japan, Tanaka (Tanaka 1991) compared resi- explain relocation behaviour, and education career, dents of super-high-rise, high-rise, and middle-rise the labour career, family career and housing career buildings, classifying residents into urban life- could affect relocation behaviour. Clark (Clark 2013) CONTACT Masako Murota murota@tcu.ac.jp Business Planning and Development Division, Yachiyo Engineering Co. Ltd, 5-20-8, Asakusabashi, Taito-ku, Tokyo 111-8648, Japan In this research, residential buildings that exceed 60 m in height (approximately 20 floors or more) are defined as super-high-rise condominiums based on Article 20 of the Building Standards Act in Japan. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and Architectural Society of China. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA analysed the relationships between life events and are for sale; 3) the housing units are mainly for families; residential moves, revealing that life events such as 4) the nearest stations are all within 300 m from the marriage, the birth of children, employment/unem- condominiums; and 5) the targets of this survey are ployment, and divorce were the driving forces of mobi- nine super-high-rise condominiums of 24–59 floors (a lity behaviour. Tanaka (Tanaka and Yuzawa 2010) total of 4,881 units), constructed between 2007 and conducted a study relating to residents’ intentions to 2014. relocate to a city centre or a suburb, indicating that residents’ intentions and relocation satisfaction dif- 2.2. Survey method and life stages of residents fered depending on their age and place of residence. This study focuses on the characteristics of residen- For this study, we conducted questionnaire and inter- tial preferences based on residents’ life stages – such view surveys (Table 3). We distributed the question- as age, marital status, and whether they have children naire to 4,828 units, receiving 1,252 responses – that is, or not – and analyses their intention to continue to live a response rate of 25.9%. Moreover, we extracted only in super-high-rise condominiums or to relocate else- the responses of homeowners, using 1,142 responses where. The objective of this study is to determine the for our analysis. following four parameters based on the life stages of Referring to a former study (Nakamichi, Kiriyama, residents: 1) the characteristics of the residents’ former and Hanaoka 2019), we classified the life stages of homes, 2) the residential preferences and characteris- residents based on their family composition and tics of the residents’ current homes, 3) the intentions of their age (Table 4). The classification standards residents to continue living in super-high-rise condo- were as follows: 1) The ages of residents were clas- miniums or to relocate, and 4) the factors relating to sified into four categories – under 44, 45–64, 65–74, the types of intentions of residents to stay or relocate – 2 and 75 years and above ; 2) the families were cate- such as the residents’ life stages, number of floors, size gorised into three groups – a single-person, a cou- of the house, or residents’ residential preferences. ple, and a nuclear family (consisting of a married couple and their children); 3) the nuclear-family households were classified into two groups based 2. Methods: Target area and methodology on the presence of children in pre-school (including 2.1. Target area and investigated super-high-rise infants); and 4) residents aged 65–74 and 75 and condominiums above were designated as the elderly group, and because these households typically had two mem- In the Tokyo metropolitan area, super-high-rise con- bers, they were not classified based on the number dominiums have generally been constructed in three of household members. Consequently, we classified areas: city centres, bay areas, and near suburban rail- the life stages of residents into eight categories. We way stations. Condominiums in city centres include aimed to clarify the characteristics of residents in investment homes, while suburban condominiums each life stage in super-high-rise condominiums by are mostly family residences and the bay area condo- analysing their intention to continue living there or miniums occupy the middle ground. We aimed to relocating based on their life stage. Finally, we con- establish the residential relocation intentions of aver- sidered new roles resulting from the growth of age families; therefore, the target area of this study was super-high-rise condominiums. selected as the third category. In this area located in Kawasaki City, super-high-rise condominiums were developed based on 17 redevelopment plans – as 2.3. General attributes and characteristics of part of the local government’s area master plan – respondents including public facility construction plans (since 2005). Table 5 lists the number and composition ratios of the Figure 1 illustrates a map of this area, and Tables 1 respondents categorised into life stage groups both at and 2 provide a summary of it and an overview of its the time of moving in to super-high-rise condomi- super-high-rise condominiums, respectively. The area niums and at present. At the time of moving in, 47% offers convenience as a suburban area because it of all respondents were from young households, 28% includes six railway lines – central Tokyo can be of whom were young couples. However, based on their reached in approximately 20 min by rapid rail – ensur- current life stages, 54% of all respondents were from ing easy access to commercial and medical facilities. middle-aged households, 32% of whom were from The super-high-rise condominiums in this area have middle-aged parent-child households . The above the following characteristics. 1) They are located in trends suggest that the residents who moved into redeveloped areas at factory sites; 2) all condominiums the condominiums matured and had children. In Japan, there are many cases where women aged in their early 40s give birth to children; therefore, in this study, we classified the age groups as under 45 and over 45 years. Moreover, people aged 65 years or more are defined as elderly in Japan. JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 3 Figure 1. Target area. Table 1. Summary of target area. of the young households moved from apartments Distance from central Tokyo (Tokyo station) 15 km (leased); 2) the ratios of middle-aged households relo- Number of large-scale commercial facilities 6 (2 opened in 2010) cated from condominiums (owned), apartments Number of large-scale commercial facilities 6 Number of general hospitals 3 (leased), and detached houses (owned) were approxi- Number of super high-rise condominiums 15 mately 33%, 27%, and 20%, respectively; 3) (January, 2021) Approximately 50% of the early elderly households and approximately 66% of the late elderly households moved from detached houses (owned). 3. Characteristics of residential preference In terms of the distances from their former homes, and relocation approximately 44% and 30% of all residents moved from houses within 5 km and more than 10 km away, respec- 3.1. Characteristics of former homes tively. Focusing on the residents’ life stages, the results We obtained information regarding the former homes indicated the following: 1) Approximately 20% and 45% of residents and the distances between their current of young households moved from houses within 1 km and former homes, and classified them based on their and within 5 km, respectively; 2) Regarding the middle- life stages at the time of moving in, as shown in Tables aged households, approximately 50% moved from areas 6 and 7, respectively. Based on their life stages, the 1–10 km away; 3) A high ratio (45%) of late elderly house- results indicated the following: 1) Approximately 70% holds moved from areas more than 10 km away. According to the national censuses in 2005 and 2015 in Japan, the populations in the area where the investigated condominiums are located (Shin– Maruko–Higashi 3, Naka–maruko, Kosugicho 3) increased by 4,385 people (increase rate: 244%) aged in their 20s or younger, 7,057 people (315%) aged in their 30s and 40s, 2,233 people (194%) aged in their 50s and 60s, and 710 people (157%) aged in their 70s and more. The population growth rates of people in their 30s and 40s were high, and we recognise that the age groups of the respondents in the questionnaire survey roughly agree with the actual resident compositions. 4 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Table 2. Overview of super-high-rise condominiums. Bldg. Year of completion Total units Number of stories Height (m) Floor area per unit (m ) Sale/rent Distance from the nearest station (m) A 2007 389 24 82.0 63.7–92.2 Sale 50 B 2008 542 45 156.6 45.6–110.3 Sale 280 C 2008 542 45 155.1 45.6–107.4 Sale 180 D 2008 689 49 160.0 58.4–122.8 Sale 270 E 2008 794 59 197.6 46.2–128.5 Sale 130 F 2008 643 47 160.7 46.2–148.8 Sale 170 G 2012 326 39 149.7 45.0–99.3 Sale 80 H 2013 506 38 141.7 39.8–112.5 Sale 30 I 2014 450 45 159.0 46.3–101.6 Sale 260 Table 3. Outline of the survey. 1. Questionnaire survey Implementation period: 6–20 October 2017 Method: Distribution of questionnaire by posting and collection by mail service Distribution number: 4,828 Response number (rate): 1,252 (25.9%) Analysis number:1,142 (Respondents of owner) 2. Interview survey Implementation period: 2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15 November, 1 December 2019 Number of people surveyed: 16 Survey target: Owners of super high-rise condominiums Survey contents General attributes Age, family composition, year of residence, age of children Characteristics of former houses Former house type, distance between current and former house Residential preference and housing Reason for moving in, reason for choosing current house, floor area, floor level characteristics Intention to continue to live in or move out Estimated total number of years of living in current house, future intentions to continue living or move out Table 4. Classification of residents’ life stages. Young household 1) Young single household (<45 years old) 2) Young couple household (<45) 3) Parent-child household with preschooler (Young parent-child household) Middle-aged household 4) Middle-aged single household (≥45, <65) Life stages 5) Middle-aged couple household (≥45, <65) 6) Parent-child household with elementary school student or older (Middle-aged parent-child household) Elderly household 7) Early elderly household (≥65, <75) 8) Late elderly household (≥75) Table 5. Respondents’ life stages. When moving in Current n % n % Young household Single 49 4.3% 22 1.9% Couple 319 28.3% 83 7.3% Parent-child 165 14.6% 207 18.3% Subtotal (533) (47.3%) (312) (27.6%) Middle-aged household Single 57 5.1% 62 5.5% Couple 191 16.9% 194 17.2% Parent-child 261 23.2% 357 31.6% Subtotal (509) (45.2%) (613) (54.2%) Elderly household Early elderly 61 5.4% 146 12.9% Late elderly 24 2.1% 59 5.2% Subtotal (85) (7.5%) (205) (18.1%) Total 1,127 100% 1,130 100% n: number of respondents, %: composition ratio JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 5 Table 6. Former house types. Condominium Apartment Detached house Detached house Dormitory/company- (Life stages when moving in) (owned) (leased) (owned) (leased) owned housing Other Total (n) Young Single 18.4% 57.1% 16.3% 0.0% 6.1% 2.0% 100% (49) household Couple 11.6% 69.9% 7.8% 1.9% 7.8% 0.9% 100% (319) Parent-child 10.9% 66.1% 2.4% 1.2% 19.4% 0.0% 100% (165) Subtotal 12.0% 67.5% 6.9% 1.5% 11.3% 0.8% 100% (533) Middle-aged Single 35.1% 38.6% 19.3% 1.8% 5.3% 0.0% 100% (57) household Couple 31.9% 23.0% 27.2% 2.1% 15.2% 0.5% 100% (191) Parent-child 33.6% 28.2% 15.4% 4.2% 18.5% 0.0% 100% (259) Subtotal 33.1% 27.4% 20.3% 3.2% 15.8% 0.2% 100% (507) Elderly Early elderly 45.9% 4.9% 49.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% (61) household Late elderly 29.2% 4.2% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% (24) Subtotal 41.2% 4.7% 54.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% (85) Total 23.7% 44.7% 16.7% 2.2% 12.3% 0.4% 100% (1,133) Table 7. Distance between current and former houses of residents. (Life stages when moving in) Under 1 km 1–5 km 5–10 km 10–20 km 20–30 km 30 km or more Total (n) Young household Single 26.1% 23.9% 13.0% 21.7% 10.9% 4.3% 100% (46) Couple 17.3% 27.1% 24.8% 17.6% 9.5% 3.6% 100% (306) Parent-child 23.6% 20.4% 22.9% 15.3% 14.0% 3.8% 100% (157) Subtotal 20.0% 24.8% 23.2% 17.3% 11.0% 3.7% 100% (509) Middle-aged household Single 22.6% 30.2% 18.9% 15.1% 7.5% 5.7% 100% (53) Couple 13.6% 28.2% 18.6% 13.0% 11.9% 14.7% 100% (177) Parent-child 17.1% 25.8% 22.1% 12.9% 12.5% 9.6% 100% (240) Subtotal 16.4% 27.2% 20.4% 13.2% 11.7% 11.1% 100% (470) Elderly household Early elderly 15.3% 28.8% 16.9% 15.3% 10.2% 13.6% 100% (59) Late elderly 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 25.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100% (20) Subtotal 16.5% 26.6% 16.5% 17.7% 10.1% 12.7% 100% (79) Total 18.1% 26.0% 21.5% 15.5% 11.2% 7.7% 100% (1,058) In summary, a majority of young households moved Regarding the important factors influencing the from condominiums (lease), and a slightly higher ratio choice of their current houses (multiple answers), almost relocated from areas within 1 km. A high ratio of all residents emphasised on traffic convenience. elderly households relocated from detached houses Moreover, they emphasised on good commercial and (owned), and a slightly higher ratio of late elderly public facilities, a good urban environment based on households relocated from more distant areas. redevelopment projects, interest in super-high-rise con- dominiums, availability of medical and welfare facilities, and effectiveness of the townscape. Examining the data based on the life stages of the residents, the following 3.2. Reasons for residents selecting super-high- important parameters affected their residential choices: rise condominiums 1) Young single households: “interest in super-high-rise Regarding the preference of residents for super- condominiums (22%)”; “effectiveness of the townscape high-rise condominiums, we obtained their reasons (18%)”; 2) young couples and young parent-child house- for residential relocation and important factors holds: “ease to work as a dual-income family (26%, influencing their residential choices based on their 27%)” – however, the latter did not emphasise on “inter- life stages at the time of moving in, as shown in est in super-high-rise condominiums (10%)”; 3) middle- Tables 8 and 9. aged single and couple households: “interest in super- The most common reasons for relocating to their high-rise condominiums (28%, 32%)”, “daily living facil- current houses were as follows: 1) Young single house- ities such as commercial facilities (51%, 42%)”, and ‘med- holds: “for independence from their parents (20%)”; 2) ical and welfare facilities (19%, 21%); and 4) elderly young couple households: “for marriage (45%)”; 3) households emphasised on “interest in super-high-rise young parent-child households: “for the birth of a condominiums”, and daily living facilities, particularly child (24%)”; and 4) elderly households: ‘to live near medical and welfare facilities. their children (25%, 33%). Moreover, focusing on These results suggest that middle-aged and elderly “other reasons” in the interview survey, young and households moved into their current homes to parent-child households relocated “to improve the con- improve the convenience of daily life, such as com- venience of commuting or attending school” and “to merce and medical care. In contrast, both young cou- change from rental houses to owned houses”, whereas ples and young parent-child households chose middle-aged couples and elderly households reasoned convenient locations as they focused on the ease of working following marriage or the birth of children. their relocation “to ease the maintenance of housing”. 6 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Table 8. Residents’ reasons for moving in. Because of For For the For For the indepen- For job For the To provide For living For living a death in the For birth of necessity of schooling of dence of the change/job indepen-dence care for together with near family Nothing (Life stages when moving in) marriage child a child’s room child-ren child trans-fer of parents family parents parents /divorce specific Other Total (n) Young household Single 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 20.4% 2.0% 0.0% 8.2% 2.0% 30.6% 28.6% 100% (49) Couple 45.3% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1.6% 0.9% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 25.2% 18.2% 100% (318) Parent-child 0.0% 23.8% 13.4% 11.6% 0.0% 4.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.6% 21.3% 21.3% 100% (164) Subtotal 27.3% 7.3% 5.8% 3.8% 0.2% 3.8% 3.0% 0.8% 0.0% 3.0% 0.4% 24.5% 20.2% 100% (531) Middle-aged Single 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 12.5% 3.6% 3.6% 1.8% 10.7% 8.9% 23.2% 33.9% 100% (501) household Couple 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 15.3% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1% 8.5% 0.0% 21.2% 44.4% 100% (189) Parent-child 3.1% 0.0% 10.5% 18.0% 0.4% 9.4% 0.4% 0.4% 2.0% 3.9% 2.7% 14.5% 34.8% 100% (256) Subtotal 2.8% 0.0% 5.4% 9.2% 2.2% 12.0% 0.6% 1.2% 1.6% 6.4% 2.4% 18.0% 38.3% 100% (256) Elderly Early elderly 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 25.4% 5.1% 18.6% 45.8% 100% (59) household Late elderly 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 37.5% 100% (24) Subtotal 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 2.4% 27.7% 6.0% 15.7% 43.4% 100% (83) Total 14.3% 3.5% 5.3% 5.9% 1.2% 7.2% 1.8% 0.9% 0.9% 6.4% 1.7% 21.0% 30.0% 100% (1,115) JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 7 Table 9. Important factors influencing the choice of current houses (multiple answers). Availability of Interest in super Availability of many Ease to work as Effectiveness Availability of Availability of Goodness of Valid Good traffic many commercial high-rise medical and welfare a dual- income of the many public Topicality many parks and educational answer (Life stages when moving in) convenience facilities condominium facilities family townscape facilities of town open spaces environment Other (n) Young household Single 91.8% 30.6% 22.4% 6.1% 2.0% 18.4% 10.2% 10.2% 8.2% 4.1% 20.4% (49) Couple 96.9% 28.3% 21.4% 9.1% 26.1% 13.5% 10.1% 9.1% 1.9% 2.2% 12.9% (318) Parent-child 96.4% 34.5% 10.3% 10.9% 27.3% 19.4% 10.9% 8.5% 8.5% 10.3% 12.1% (165) Subtotal 96.2% 30.5% 18.0% 9.4% 24.2% 15.8% 10.3% 9.0% 4.5% 4.9% 13.3% (532) Middle-aged Single 94.7% 50.9% 28.1% 19.3% 0.0% 10.5% 12.3% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% (57) household Couple 97.9% 42.4% 31.9% 20.9% 6.3% 9.9% 12.6% 4.7% 2.6% 0.5% 13.6% (191) Parent-child 96.5% 40.8% 23.5% 18.1% 10.4% 16.5% 15.0% 9.6% 4.6% 3.8% 16.9% (260) Subtotal 96.9% 42.5% 27.2% 19.3% 7.7% 13.4% 13.8% 7.1% 3.3% 2.2% 15.2% (508) Elderly Early elderly 95.1% 60.7% 34.4% 41.0% 1.6% 9.8% 14.8% 13.1% 1.6% 0.0% 13.1% (61) household Late elderly 91.7% 50.0% 29.2% 37.5% 0.0% 12.5% 8.3% 8.3% 12.5% 0.0% 16.7% (24) Subtotal 94.1% 57.6% 32.9% 40.0% 1.2% 10.6% 12.9% 11.8% 4.7% 0.0% 14.1% (85) Total 96.3% 38.2% 23.4% 16.2% 14.9% 14.5% 12.2% 8.6% 4.1% 3.4% 14.5% (1,133) 8 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Table 10. Number of cases based on the floor area of each house. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (Life stages when moving in) Under 50 m 50–60 m 60–70 m 70–80 m 80–90 m 90–100 m 100 m or more Total (n) Young household Single 14.6% 35.4% 20.8% 22.9% 4.2% 2.1% 0.0% 100% (48) Couple 1.9% 5.0% 18.3% 43.5% 20.8% 8.8% 1.6% 100% (317) Parent-child 0.0% 1.2% 11.6% 45.1% 20.7% 17.7% 3.7% 100% (164) Subtotal 2.5% 6.6% 16.4% 42.2% 19.3% 11.0% 2.1% 100% (529) Middle-aged household Single 12.5% 19.6% 26.8% 23.2% 12.5% 3.6% 1.8% 100% (56) Couple 0.5% 4.2% 7.9% 36.8% 35.3% 12.1% 3.2% 100% (190) Parent-child 0.0% 2.7% 7.4% 31.3% 33.2% 20.7% 4.7% 100% (256) Subtotal 1.6% 5.2% 9.8% 32.5% 31.7% 15.5% 3.8% 100% (502) Elderly household Early elderly 0.0% 6.6% 9.8% 37.7% 23.0% 18.0% 4.9% 100% (61) Late elderly 8.7% 13.0% 4.3% 39.1% 17.4% 13.0% 4.3% 100% (23) Subtotal 2.4% 8.3% 8.3% 38.1% 21.4% 16.7% 4.8% 100% (84) Total 2.1% 6.1% 12.8% 37.6% 25.0% 13.5% 3.0% 100% (1,115) Table 11. Number of cases based on the floor level of each house. (Life stages when moving in) Less than 10 floors 11–20 floors 21–30 floors 31–40 floors 41 floors or above Total(n) Young household Single 22.9% 25.0% 12.5% 31.3% 8.3% 100% (48) Couple 18.4% 24.4% 23.2% 22.9% 11.1% 100% (315) Parent-child 22.7% 31.3% 20.2% 16.6% 9.2% 100% (163) Subtotal 20.2% 26.6% 21.3% 21.7% 10.3% 100% (526) Middle-aged household Single 8.9% 32.1% 23.2% 17.9% 17.9% 100% (56) Couple 15.7% 20.4% 27.2% 24.6% 12.0% 100% (191) Parent-child 20.7% 27.3% 21.1% 17.6% 13.3% 100% (256) Subtotal 17.5% 25.2% 23.7% 20.3% 13.3% 100% (503) Elderly household Early elderly 18.0% 19.7% 27.9% 23.0% 11.5% 100% (61) Late elderly 16.7% 45.8% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 100% (24) Subtotal 17.6% 27.1% 23.5% 20.0% 11.8% 100% (85) Total 18.8% 26.1% 22.5% 20.9% 11.8% 100% (1,114) 3.3. Characteristics of current houses of residents 3.4. Total number of years that residents intend to live in current houses Regarding the characteristics of their current houses, Tables 10 and 11 list the number of cases We determined the number of years that residents based on the floor area and floor level of each intended to continue living in super-high-rise condomi- house, respectively. niums and the duration for which they had already lived Regarding the floor area, approximately 80% of all in their current houses; Table 12 lists the total number of years as a sum of the number of intended and past years. residents live in over 70 m , the average floor area of Approximately 32% of young single households have these condominiums being above those of the condo- the intention of living in super-high-rise condominiums miniums (owned) in Kawasaki . Analysing the data for less than 10 years, with a small proportion (10%) based on the life stages of residents at the time of having the intention to live in their current homes per- moving in, approximately 90% of single households manently. However, middle-aged and elderly house- were found to live in over 50 m and over 40% of holds have the intention to live in their current homes young parent-child households were found to live in 2 for 10 years or more. Approximately 21% of middle- over 80 m areas, their floor areas being sufficient to aged households and 43% of elderly households have accommodate their changing lifestyles. Regarding the the intention of living there permanently; therefore, the floor level, a large proportion (18%) of middle-aged ratio of households with the intention to continue living st single households have homes on the 41 floor or in their current homes increases with increasing age. higher, a small proportion (26%) of young parent- st child households have homes from the 31 floor onwards, and a large proportion (63%) of the late 3.5. Future intentions of residents to stay or th elderly households have homes lower than the 20 relocate floor. These results suggest that a large proportion of Regarding the future intentions of residents to stay or middle-aged and early elderly households live at high relocate, we categorised their intentions into three elevations because they relocate owing to their inter- groups: “intention to continue living in their current est in super-high-rise condominiums. 4 2 According to the Basic Plan for Living Life in 2011 in Japan, for single households: 1) the minimum standard floor area is 20 m , 2) the recommended 2 2 2 standard floor area in urban areas is 40 m ; for two-person households: the figures are 1) 30 m , and 2) 55 m ; for three-person households: the figures 2 2 2 2 are 1) 40 m , and 2) 75 m ; and for four-person households: the figures are 1) 50 m , and 2) 95 m , respectively. Moreover, according to the Housing and Land Statistics Survey in Japan, the average floor area in condominiums (owned) in target area (Kawasaki City) is 74.01 m . JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 9 Table 12. Estimated total numbers of years of living in the current houses. Under 5– 10– 20– Not (Current Life stages) 5 years 10 years 20 years 30 years 30 years or more Permanent sure Total(n) Young household Single 0.0% 31.8% 36.4% 4.5% 0.0% 13.6% 13.6% 100% (22) Couple 1.2% 9.9% 27.2% 17.3% 8.6% 8.6% 27.2% 100% (81) Parent- 0.5% 9.2% 25.1% 14.0% 17.4% 10.6% 23.2% 100% (207) child Subtotal 0.6% 11.0% 26.5% 14.2% 13.9% 10.3% 23.5% 100% (310) Middle–aged Single 0.0% 1.6% 22.6% 22.6% 17.7% 21.0% 14.5% 100% (611) household Couple 0.0% 6.2% 23.7% 16.0% 9.8% 20.6% 23.7% 100% (194) Parent- 0.0% 4.5% 29.6% 12.4% 9.9% 21.1% 22.5% 100% (355) child Subtotal 0.0% 4.7% 27.0% 14.6% 10.6% 20.9% 22.1% 100% (310) Elderly household Early 0.0% 3.4% 22.8% 14.5% 2.1% 40.0% 17.2% 100% (145) elderly Late elderly 0.0% 1.8% 21.1% 12.3% 1.8% 49.1% 14.0% 100% (57) Subtotal 0.0% 3.0% 22.3% 13.9% 2.0% 42.6% 16.3% 100% (202) Total 0.2% 6.1% 26.0% 14.3% 10.0% 21.9% 21.5% 100% (1,123) condominium (Type 1)”, “intention to continue living in to gain independence from their parents, and the same area where they are currently living (Type 2)”, 30% moving for no particular reason. They and “intention to relocate”. Moreover, we classified the emphasised on the effectiveness and topicality “intention to relocate” into three sub-groups: relocating of the townscape and their interest in super- “to a convenient place (Type 3)”, “to places with a good high-rise condominiums as reasons behind residential environment (Type 4)”, and “to facilities and their residential preferences. Approximately housing for the elderly (Type 5)”, as listed in Table 13. 85% of them live in homes with a floor area of Approximately 27% of all residents correspond to 50 m or more. Additionally, approximately 30% Type 1, and 18% to Type 2; consequently, 45% have of them estimate living there for less than the intention to remain in the same area. Regarding 10 years, intending to relocate to comparatively the intention to relocate, Types 3, 4, and 5 account for convenient locations. Furthermore, approxi- 11%, 19%, and 12%, respectively, totalling 42%. mately 20% of them intend staying in the same Examining the current life stages of the residents, area in which they are currently living. the characteristics of their future intentions to remain (2) Young couple households (under 45 years): or relocate indicate the following: 1) A low ratio (9%) of Approximately 70% of them moved from apart- young single households are of Type 1, whereas high ments (leased), with 45% moving owing to mar- ratios are of Types 2 and 3 – that is, 23% and 32%, riage. They emphasised on convenience, such as respectively; 2) the young couple households have the ease to work as dual-income families. various intentions – that is, Type 1 (21%), Type 2 Approximately two-thirds of their homes have (21%), Type 3 (24%), and Type 4 (26%); 3) the young floor areas of 70–90 m . Regarding their period parent-child households are of Type 2 (27%) and Type of residence, 45% intend to stay for 10–30 years, 4 (31%), totalling approximately 60%; 4) high ratios of with 21% having the “intention to remain in the middle-aged single households are of Types 1 and 5 – same area”, 24% having the “intention to relo- that is, 25% each; 5) high ratios of middle-aged couple cate to a convenient place”, and 26% having the households are of Type 1, Type 4, and Type 5 – that is, “intention to relocate to places with a good 27%, 24%, and 17%, respectively; 6) middle-aged par- residential environment”. ent-child households are of Type 1 (24%), Type 2 (21%), (3) Young parent-child households (with pre- and Type 4 (17%), 45% of them having the intention to schoolers): Two-thirds of them moved from continue living in the area; and 7) the ratios of elderly apartments (leased), and decided to relocate households of Type 1 and Type 5 are particularly high. because of the birth or growth of their children, emphasising on the effectiveness of the town- scape and ease of working as dual-income 3.6. Typical characteristics of relocation based on families. Approximately half of them have residents’ life stage groups homes with floor areas of 70–80 m . Over half of them selected residential floor levels lower than We determined the most typical characteristics of resi- th the 20 floor, indicating that they tend to prefer dents’ choices of houses and relocation based on their lower residential floors compared to other life life stages, obtained from the survey results presented stage groups. Approximately 31% of them intend in Sections 3.1–3.5. to remain at their current houses for more than 20 years, whereas 27% intend to relocate within (1) Young single households (under 45 years): the same area, and 31% intend to relocate to Approximately 57% of residents moved from areas with good residential environments. apartments (leased), with 20% of them moving 10 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Table 13. Future intentions of residents to stay or relocate. Intention to relocate Intention to continue Intention to continue living in the with emphasis on with emphasis on living in the current same area where they are currently a convenient to places with a good residential facilities and housings condominium (Type 1) living (Type 2) place (Type 3) environment (Type 4) for the elderly (Factor 5) Other Houses with Houses close Other units of the condominium House in areas Houses in gardens in areas Housings for the elderly Living with to their same super high- in the same with greater quiet and with abundant with home-care services children or children or (Current Life stages) Not hope to relocate rise condominium area convenience calm areas nature provided parents parents Other Total(n) Young household Single 9.1% 9.1% 13.6% 31.8% 13.6% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 4.5% 13.6% 100% (22) Couple 21.1% 5.3% 15.8% 23.7% 13.2% 13.2% 1.3% 0.0% 2.6% 3.9% 100% (75) Parent-child 14.3% 15.3% 11.3% 10.3% 14.3% 16.3% 1.5% 2.0% 7.9% 6.9% 100% (204) Subtotal 15.6% 12.3% 12.6% 15.3% 14.0% 14.3% 1.7% 1.3% 6.3% 6.6% 100% (301) Middle-aged Single 25.4% 3.4% 8.5% 6.8% 5.1% 8.5% 25.4% 0.0% 6.8% 10.2% 100% (59) household Couple 27.3% 3.7% 5.9% 10.7% 16.6% 7.5% 16.6% 2.1% 4.3% 5.3% 100% (187) Parent-child 24.1% 7.3% 14.0% 11.0% 9.6% 7.6% 9.9% 1.7% 7.0% 7.8% 100% (344) Subtotal 25.3% 5.8% 10.8% 10.5% 11.4% 7.6% 13.6% 1.7% 6.1% 7.3% 100% (590) Elderly Early elderly 46.1% 2.8% 7.8% 6.4% 1.4% 3.5% 24.1% 0.0% 5.0% 2.8% 100% (141) household Late elderly 57.9% 1.8% 3.5% 3.5% 1.8% 1.8% 19.3% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 100% (57) Subtotal 49.5% 2.5% 6.6% 5.6% 1.5% 3.0% 22.7% 1.0% 4.5% 3.0% 100% (198) Total 27.0% 7.0% 10.6% 10.9% 10.3% 8.6% 11.9% 1.5% 5.9% 6.3% 100% (1,089) JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 11 st (4) Middle-aged single households (45–64 years): residences at floor levels from the 21 floor or Approximately 39% and 35% of them moved higher. Most of them anticipate living perma- from apartments (leased) and condominiums nently at their current homes, with one-quarter (owned), respectively. They selected their cur- of them intending to relocate to facilities and rent homes because of their interest in super- housing for the elderly. high-rise condominiums and convenience – (8) Late elderly households (75 years or more): such as commercial and medical facilities – as Approximately 70% of them moved from the reasons for their residential preferences. detached houses (owned), with approximately Approximately 70% have homes with a floor half of them moving from areas 10 km or more area of 60 m or more, which is large for single away. They decided to relocate to live closer to households. The ratio of these households living their families and emphasised on the availability of th on residential floors lower than the 10 floor is many commercial and medical facilities, with merely 10%, whereas a high ratio of them live on approximately 30% of them emphasising on st the 41 floor or higher (approximately 20%). their interest in super-high-rise condominiums as Approximately 39% of them intend to live for a reason for their residential preferences. more than 30 years or permanently in their cur- Approximately half of them selected residences th th rent houses. Approximately one-quarter intend between the 11 and 20 floors. Although only st to relocate to facilities and houses for the elderly approximately 25% live on the 31 floor or higher, owing to ageing-related concerns. they selected their homes with an emphasis on (5) Middle-aged couple households (45–64 years): super-high-rise condominiums. Approximately A number of them moved from condominiums half of them intend to live there permanently, (owned) or detached houses (owned), empha- with a large number of them recognising super- sising on having many commercial and medical high-rise condominiums to be their final home. facilities and their interest in super-high-rise condominiums as the reasons for their residen- tial preferences. They have homes with a floor 4. Discussion: Factors related to types of area of 70–90 m . Approximately 30% of them intention to stay or relocate intend to live for more than 30 years or perma- 4.1. Relationships among types of intentions to nently at their current residence. stay or relocate and characteristics of residents or (6) Middle-aged parent-child households (with ele- their houses mentary school students or older): One-third and 28% of them moved from condominiums To clarify the characteristics of their intention to stay or (owned) and apartments (leased), respectively. relocate, we obtained the relationships between the Approximately 30% decided to relocate because types of intentions and characteristics as follows: a) of a requirement for rooms for their children or residents’ life stages at present (1) – see Table 14 for their children’s schooling. Approximately 60% (1); b) the distances from their houses before moving in have homes with floor areas of 70–90 m , and (2); c) characteristics: the floor area of their current approximately 30% prefer floor levels from the house – a comparison between the recommended st 5 31 floor or higher. Approximately 21% and standard for floor area (3) and their floor level (4); d) 50% have the “intention to continue living in intention with an emphasis on their interest in super- the same local area” and in the same super- high-rise condominiums (5) – see Table 15 for (2)–(5); high-rise condominiums or same area, e) residential preference regarding living environment: respectively. effectiveness of the townscape and topicality of the (7) Early elderly households (65–74 years): town (6), the availability of commercial facilities (7), Approximately 49% and 46% of them moved and the availability of medical and welfare facilities from detached houses (owned) and condomi- (8) – see Table 16 for (6)–(8). niums (owned), respectively, 24% of whose for- In terms of the residents’ life stages at present (1), mer houses are located more than 20 km away. statistical differences can be observed between their Approximately 25% of them decided to relocate intentions to stay or relocate and their life stages at to live closer to their families and emphasised present. Based on the residual analysis, for young on the availability of many commercial and households, the ratio of Type 1 is statistically low, medical facilities as well as their interest in whereas those of Types 2, 3, and 4 are statistically super-high-rise condominiums. Over 60% have high. Moreover, for elderly households, the ratios of homes with a floor area of 70–90 m and Types 1 and 5 are statistically high. Based on the recommended standard floor area in urban areas in the Basic Plan for Living Life in 2011 in Japan, we estimated whether each household met the recommended standard for floor area, based on the floor areas of the respondents’ houses, family composition, and age groups of their children. 12 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Table 14. Relationship between residents’ life stages at present and their intentions to stay or relocate. Intention to relocate Intention to continue living in the to places with a good Intention to continue living in the same area where they are currently with emphasis on a residential environment (Type with emphasis on facilities and current condominium (Type 1) living (Type 2) convenient place (Type 3) 4) housings for the elderly (Type 5) Total Chi-square test (Current Life stages) n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % p-value (1) Young household 47 15.6% −5.31** 75 24.9% 4.10** 46 15.3% 2.93** 85 28.2% 5.03** 5 1.7% -6.50** 258 100% 0.000** Middle-aged household 149 25.3% -1.09 98 16.6% -0.62 62 10.5% -0.28 112 19.0% 0.35 80 13.6% 2.03* 501 100% Elderly household 98 49.5% 7.38** 18 9.1% -3.86** 11 5.6% -2.96** 9 4.5% -6.13** 45 22.7% 4.78** 181 100% Residual:adjusted residual *:p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01. JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 13 Table 15. Relationship between distance from former residence, characteristics of current houses, and residents’ intentions to stay or relocate with an emphasis on super-high-rise condominiums. Intention to relocate Intention to continue living Intention to continue living in to places with a good with emphasis on facilities in the current condominium the same area where they are with emphasis on a residential environment and housings for the elderly (Type 1) currently living (Type 2) convenient place (Type 3) (Type 4) (Type 5) Chi-square test n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual p-value Distance from houses before moving in (2) Under 1 km 53 19.4% - 30 16.5% - 20 17.5% - 41 20.6% - 23 18.0% - 0.861 1 km or more 220 80.6% - 152 83.5% - 94 82.5% - 158 79.4% - 105 82.0% - Total 273 100.0% - 182 100.0% - 114 100.0% - 199 100.0% - 128 100.0% - Recommended standard for floor area (3) Satisfied 236 86.4% 1.55 118 64.8% -7.65** 98 87.5% 1.20 169 88.0% 1.89 116 94.3% 3.47** 0.000** Not satisfied 37 13.6% -1.55 64 35.2% 7.55** 14 −1.2% -1.2 23 12.0% -1.89 7 5.7% -3.47** Total 273 100.0% - 182 100.0% - 112 100.0% - 192 100.0% - 123 100.0% - Floor level (4) 21 floors or more 166 56.3% - 100 52.6% - 62 52.5% - 123 60.3% - 73 55.7% - 0.562 Less than 20 floors 129 43.7% - 90 47.4% - 56 47.5% - 81 39.7% - 58 44.3% - Total 295 100.0% - 190 100.0% - 118 100.0% - 204 100.0% - 131 100.0% - Interest in super high-rise condominium (5) Emphasized 64 21.6% - 48 25.1% - 33 27.0% - 44 21.3% - 35 26.1% - 0.592 Not emphasized 232 78.4% - 143 74.9% - 89 73.0% - 163 78.7% - 99 73.9% - Total 296 100.0% - 191 100.0% - 122 100.0% - 207 100.0% - 134 100.0% - Residual: adjusted residual *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01. 14 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Table 16. Relationship of residents’ residential preference regarding living environment with their intention to stay or relocate. Intention to relocate with emphasis on facilities Intention to continue living Intention to continue living in with emphasis on a to places with a good and housings for the in the current the same area where they are convenient place (Type residential environment elderly condominium (Type 1) currently living (Type 2) 3) (Type 4) (Type 5) Chi-square test n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual n % Residual p-value Effectiveness of townscape and topicality of town (6) Emphasized 58 19.6% -0.37 53 27.7% 2.86** 27 22.1% 0.53 38 18.4% -0.79 17 12.7% -2.37* 0.016* Not emphasized 238 80.4% 0.37 138 72.3% -2.86** 95 77.9% -0.53 169 81.6% 0.79 117 87.3% 2.37* Total 296 100.0% - 191 100.0% - 122 100.0% - 207 100.0% - 134 100.0% - Availability of many commercial facilities (7) Emphasized 123 41.6% 1.38 71 37.2% −0.36 46 37.7% -0.15 59 28.5% -3.28** 65 48.5% 2.62** 0.003** Not emphasized 173 58.4% -1.38 120 62.8% 0.36 76 62.3% 0.15 148 71.5% 3.28** 69 51.5% -2.62** Total 296 100.0% - 191 100.0% - 122 100.0% - 207 100.0% - 134 100.0% - Availability of many medical and welfare facilities (8) Emphasized 63 21.3% 2.92** 22 11.5% -1.93 16 13.1% -0.96 22 10.6% -2.42* 30 22.4% 2.13* 0.001** Not emphasized 233 78.7% -2.92** 169 88.5% 1.93 106 86.9% 0.96 185 89.4% 2.42* 104 77.6% -2.13* Total 296 100.0% - 191 100.0% - 122 100.0% - 207 100.0% - 134 100.0% - Residual: adjusted residual *:p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01. JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 15 Table 17. Results of binominal logistic regression analysis of types of intentions to stay or relocate. Objective variable (1: Applicable, 0: Not applicable) Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Intention to continue living in the same area where they are Intention to relocate with emphasis on a Explanatory variable Intention to continue living in the current condominium currently living convenient place (1: Applicable, 0: Not applicable) β S.E. p-value Odds rate β S.E. p-value Odds rate β S.E. p-value Odds rate (Intercept) 0.213 °** 0.403 0.2 °.022* 0.633 0.314 °** 0.086 Young household −0.305 °.196 °.001** 0.509 °.197 °.19 °.021* 1.549 °.174 °.223 °.084 1.47 Elderly household 0.367 °.193 °** 2.544 −0.213 °.298 °.068 0.581 −0.295 °.35 °.031* 0.471 More than recommended standard for floor area 0.009 °.215 °.914 1.023 −0.478 °.201 °** 0.277 °.194 °.306 °.088 1.685 Emphasized effectiveness of townscape and topicality of town 0.004 °.2 °.959 1.01 °.136 °.216 °.116 1.404 °.058 °.256 °.569 1.157 Emphasized availability of many commercial facilities −0.005 °.168 °.947 0.989 °.02 °.196 °.831 1.043 °.047 °.226 °.669 1.102 Emphasized availability of many medical and welfare facilities 0.126 °.211 °.101 1.413 −0.113 °.277 °.263 0.733 −0.03 °.312 °.794 0.922 Percentage of correct classifications 70.30% 79.10% 87.40% Objective variable (1: Applicable, Type 4 Type 5 0: Not applicable) Explanatory variable Intention to relocate with emphasis on a good residential Intention to relocate with emphasis on facilities and environment housings for the elderly (1: Applicable, 0: Not applicable) β S.E. p-value Odds rate β S.E. p-value Odds rate (Intercept) 0.255 °** 0.167 0.404 °** 0.078 Young household 0.289 °.18 °** 1.901 −0.958 °.471 °** 0.119 Elderly household −0.682 °.383 °** 0.176 °.162 °.23 °.074 1.51 More than recommended standard for floor area 0.3 °.25 °.001** 2.238 °.358 °.411 °.02* 2.613 Emphasized effectiveness of townscape and topicality of town −0.033 °.223 °.709 0.92 −0.25 °.314 °.047* 0.536 Emphasized availability of many commercial facilities −0.196 °.195 °.039* 0.669 °.193 °.221 °.072 1.489 Emphasized availability of many medical and welfare facilities −0.058 °.277 °.568 0.853 −0.024 °.281 °.814 0.936 Percentage of correct classifications 78.00% 86.40% N. β: Standardized partial regression coefficient, S.E.: Standard error *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01 16 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Regarding the distance from their former homes (2), In terms of the Type 1 group, the statistically sig- no statistical differences are observed between the nificant factors are not belonging to young house- distance from their former homes and their intentions holds, (odds ratio [OR] = 0.509, pp = 0.001*), and to stay or relocate, including the ratio of Type 2, which belonging to elderly households (OR = 2.544, p emphasises the same area. The fact that residents < 0.000**). Regarding the Type 2 group, the statistically moved within the same neighbourhood has little significant factors are to live in houses that did not impact on their intentions to stay or relocate. meet the recommended standard for floor area Regarding the relationships between characteristics (OR = 0.277, p < 0.000**) and to belonging to young of their current houses, such as the size of the residen- households (OR = 1.549, p = 0.021*). Moreover, the tial area (3), the ratio of households preferring Type 2 is intention with an emphasis on the townscape and statistically high for those who live in houses that do topicality of the town acted as a small promoting not meet the recommended standard for floor area. factor, although not statistically significant. Regarding Concurrently, for households for which this area is the Type 3 group, not belonging to elderly households satisfied, the ratio of Type 5 is statistically high. The was a statistically significant promoting factor results indicate that households that do not meet the (OR = 0.471, p = 0.031*) while belonging to young floor area standard promote the intention of Type 2. households was a small promoting factor (p = 0.084). No statistical differences are observed between the In terms of the Type 4 group, the statistically sig- residential floor level (4), with or without intentions nificant factors belonged to young households emphasising on the interest in super-high-rise condo- (OR = 1.901, p < 0.000**), and not to elderly house- miniums (5). holds (OR = 0.176, p < 0.000**), living in houses that Regarding residential preferences for the living met the recommended standard for floor area environment, the characteristics indicate the following: (OR = 2.238, p = 0.001**), and an intentionality that 1) For residents who emphasise on the effectiveness of did not emphasise on the availability of commercial the townscape and topicality of the town (6), the ratio facilities (OR = 0.669, p = 0.039*). Regarding the Type 5 of Type 2 is statistically high, that of Type 5 is statisti- group, not belonging to young households cally low, and no difference is found in that of Type 1; (OR = 0.119, p < 0.000**), living in houses that met 2) for residents who emphasise on the availability of the recommended standard for floor area (OR = 2.613, commercial facilities (7), the ratio of Type 2 is statisti- p = 0.020*), and intentionality that did not emphasise cally high, indicating concerns for daily living among the effectiveness of the townscape and topicality of the elderly. In contrast, for residents who do not the town (OR = 0.536, p = 0.047*) were factors related emphasise on the availability of commercial facilities, to their intention to relocate with an emphasis on the ratio of Type 4 is statistically high; 3) For residents facilities and housing for the elderly. who emphasise on the availability of medical and wel- To summarise the above, residents from a young fare facilities (8), the ratios of Types 1 and 5 are statis- household with insufficient space in their house tically high. would select Type 2. Residents from a young house- hold with sufficient space in their house and with no emphasis on commercial facilities would select 4.2. Factors influencing types of intentions to stay Type 4. Residents from a young household, not or relocate based on logistic regression analysis belonging to the Type 2 or Type 4 groups, would select Type 3. Residents not from a young house- To clarify the factors of each type of intention to stay or hold with sufficient space in their house, and with relocate, we conducted binomial logistic regression no emphasis on the townscape and topicality, analysis using a Bell Curve in Excel – see Table 17. would select Type 5. Residents from an elderly Objective variables (Types 1–5) were set depending household, not belonging to the Type 5 group, on whether or not they corresponded to each type of would select Type 1. Residents from middle-aged intention, with the explanatory variables being set as households, not belonging to the Type 1 or Type the six statistically significant variables based on the 5 groups, would select Type 3. results summarised in Tables 14, 15, and 16. For com- parison of each objective variable with the same expla- natory variables, we used the forced entry method. All 5. Conclusions and discussion correlation coefficients among each variable were less than ±0.3, the highest correlation coefficient being We surveyed residents of nine super-high-rise condo- −0.305 (between young and elderly households) and miniums in a redevelopment area where such build- the maximum value of the variance inflation factor ings were concentrated and newly developed (VIF; a measure of the amount of multicollinearity in a commercial and public facilities were available in set of multiple regression variables) being less than 2. metropolitan suburbs. We clarified residential inten- Consequently, we determined that there was no con- tions and the relocation of residents of super-high- cern regarding multicollinearity. rise condominiums based on the life stage group – JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 17 focusing on age, child-rearing, couple or single-person space of the residential area, emphasis on the town- households – analysing factors of residential intention scape and topicality, and emphasis on commercial and relocation. We summarise the characteristic con- facilities. Particularly in the younger generation, there clusions and limitations below: were various reasons for relocation depending on the The former homes of nearly half of the respondents emphasis of the local environment. were located within 5 km of their current homes. The To understand the actual reason for relocation, it would local government introduced development plans to be necessary to investigate in more detail the background increase tax revenues by encouraging moves from of people who have no particular reason for relocation. other cities – however, we believe that the local gov- Although there are various reasons other than life changes ernment did not fully achieve its goal as many resi- and events, and we have identified a few through our dents moved from within the same city. interviews, the actual reasons are still unclear. Half of the respondents said that there were no triggers The findings of this study suggest that not many other than the life events and changes listed in this study. residents live in super-high-rise housings only because In particular, 66% of middle-aged couples said that they of their preference for them; however, further investi- had no reasons other than typical life changes and events. gation is required to determine whether this is a com- This suggests that the reasons for residential relocation are mon trend. Because the surveyed area is a popular area diversifying – however, we could not fully understand the where many super-high-rise housings and service facil- background and thinking of residents in cases wherein ities are concentrated, it is likely that attention was there were no clear reasons for relocation. paid to the characteristics of the area rather than the The most common reason for residents choosing their super-high-rise building themselves. Furthermore, as current housing was “transportation convenience”, with there has been considerable criticism of skyscrapers, many residents choosing their current homes because it may be difficult for residents to say that they actually they found the area attractive and convenient. Young prefer them. We have not considered this situation for households chose their current housing because of the residents, therefore, more detailed interview survey is attractive townscape and topicality, whereas elderly house- required to establish accurate actual state. holds chose their current housings for the medical and welfare facilities. Conversely, only approximately a quarter of the residents chose their current homes because they Acknowledgments were interested in super-high-rise condominiums. Although We would like to thank the people living in the condomi- skyscraper builders may believe that super-high-rise condo- niums in Musashikosugi and officers of Kawasaki city who miniums are popular, it can be concluded that residents of cooperated in the questionnaire survey and the interview super-high-rise condominiums do not necessarily prefer survey. skyscrapers – that is, owing to their preference of redeve- lopment areas, they decide to live in super-high-rise build- ings in the area. Moreover, although there are several Disclosure statement skyscrapers in redevelopment areas, redevelopment areas No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). without skyscrapers could become more popular. Regarding the intention of residents to stay in their current homes, 27% of the respondents said they Notes on contributors would continue to live in their current home, with only a small percentage of residents with the intention Ryouji Tokunaga received s master's degree in Environmental and information studies at Tokyo City to live there for less than 10 years. It was thought that University in 2020. super-high-rise condominiums would be purchased for speculative purposes; however, there were few Masako Murota is a professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at Tokyo City University. She received a doctorate purchases for speculative reasons in the surveyed area. degree from Tokyo Institute of Technology. Her main interest We also found that 18% of the respondents were in the research is the management and rehabilitation meth- willing to move to other high-rise condominiums in ods of suburban residential areas. the same area. In particular, one-quarter of young households were willing to move. This tendency to relocate without changing the area where they currently References live in is due to the attractiveness of the area. Thus far, Clark, W. A. V. 2013 . “Life Course Events and Residential relocation has been thought of as changing the area in Change: Unpacking Age Effects on the Probability of which residents live; however, we found there residents Moving.” Journal of Population Research 30 (4): 319–334. also feel the need to relocate within the same area. 12. doi:10.1007/s12546-013-9116-y. After establishing the types of relocation and ana- Huang, S. L. 2006. “A Study of Outdoor Interactional Spaces in lysing the influencing factors, it was found that the High-rise Housing.” Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 193–204. 11. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.008. important influencing factors were the age group, 18 R. TOKUNAGA AND M. MUROTA Kon, Y., N. Kawakami, M. Murota, H. Kato, and R. Tokunaga. Otani, Y., M. Ito, Y. Nakasako, and A. Seto. 2009. “A Study 2020. “A Case Study on Residents’ Reasons for Residential on Habitat Preference of Super-high-rise Choice in Super-high-rise Condominiums in Kawasaki, Condominiums Developed in Osaka city—Survey of Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting.” Habitat and Assessment of Common Space in Super- Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural System and high-rise Condominiums.” AIJ Kinki Chapter Management 53–54. 07. (in Japanese). Architectural Research Meeting 49: 72–99. 5. (in Lee, J. 2011. “Quality of Life and Semi-public Spaces in Japanese). High-rise Mixed-use Housing Complexes in South Korea.” Tanaka, T. 1991. “The Relation between the Choice of High- Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 10: rise Apartment and Dwellers’ Lifestyle.” Journal of 149–156. 5. doi:10.3130/jaabe.10.149. Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering Mahdavinejad, M. J., A. Sadraie, and G. Sadraie. 2014. “Social (Transactions of AIJ) 429 (429): 105–113. 11. (in Japanese). Sustainability of High-rise Buildings.” American Journal of doi:10.3130/aijax.429.0_105. Civil Engineering and Architecture 2 (1): 34–41. Tanaka, C., and A. Yuzawa. 2010. “A Study on Removal doi:10.12691/ajcea-2-1-4. Intention between City Centre and Suburb Consider Life Mulder, C. H., and P. Hooimeijer. 1999. Residential Relocations Stage of Household in Local City—A Case Study in in the Life Course, Population Issues, 159–186. The Springer Maebashi City.” Journal of the City Planning Institute of Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis. Japan 45 (3): 259–264. 10. (in Japanese). doi:10.11361/ doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4389-9_6 journalcpij.45.3.259. Nakamichi, K., K. Kiriyama, and S. Hanaoka. 2019. “A Study on Tokunaga, R., D. Fukuoka, R. Jimbo, and M. Murota. 2019. “A the Target Household Type of Residential Relocation to Study on Related Factors of Neighbourhood Relationships Promote Compact Cities Focusing on Life Stage Changes.” Towards Activation of Residents’ Interaction in Super-high Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan 54 (3): 680–687. -rise Condominiums.” Journal of Architecture and Planning 10. (in Japanese). doi:10.11361/journalcpij.54.680. (Transactions of AIJ) 84 (765): 2335–2343. 11. (in Japanese). A National Census. 2005. “Statistics Bureau of Japan.” Accessed doi:10.3130/aija.84.2335. 28 November 2021. Retrieved Mar. 23, 2021, from http:// Tokunaga, R., and M. Murota. 2020. “Characteristics of www.city.kawasaki.jp/170/page/0000084708.html Residence Relocation Based on Residents’ Life Stage in A National Census. 2015. “Statistics Bureau of Japan.” Accessed Super High-rise Condominiums.” AIJ Kanto Chapter 28 November 2021. Retrieved Mar. 23, 2021, from http:// Architectural Research Meeting 90: 423–426. 03. (in www.city.kawasaki.jp/170/page/0000084708.html Japanese).
Journal
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering – Taylor & Francis
Published: Mar 4, 2023
Keywords: Super-high-rise condominium; residential preference; life stage; resident’s consciousness; relocation