The Role of Building Density (Housing Typology) in Urban Neighborhood Livability; Ekbatan Town, Tehran (High-Density Urban Fabric) and Fardis Village Town (Low-Density Urban Fabric)

Document Type : Scientific-Research

Authors

salime ebadi ghajari ¹

Mehrnaz Molavi ²

Mazaher Molaei ³

¹ Phd Candidate in Urban Planning, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

² Assistant Professor in Urban Planning, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

³ Master of Regional Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2026.87526.1410

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction: Livability, as one of the key indicators in assessing urban environmental quality, is influenced by physical, social, and service-related characteristics. Ekbatan Town (high-rise model) and Fardis Village Town (villa-style model) are two prominent examples of distinct residential patterns in Iran. A comparative study of these two can shed new light on the relationship between density and livability.
Methodology: This research aims to investigate and compare livability levels in two distinct urban housing typologies, identify factors influencing residents' satisfaction, and analyze the role of density in shaping the livability experience. The study adopts a qualitative approach, utilizing semi-structured interviews. Sampling was conducted purposively, selecting long-term residents, and data analysis was conducted using content analysis method with MAXQDA software.
Findings: Findings revealed that in Ekbatan Town, despite high building and population density, access to services, public transportation, and security contributed to higher satisfaction levels, particularly among younger residents. In contrast, in Fardis Town, tranquility, safety, and extensive green spaces were the most significant livability factors, providing greater satisfaction for older age groups. Differences in social participation were also observed, with minimal participation in Ekbatan and relatively limited engagement in Fardis.
Results: The study demonstrated livability is not solely dependent on density, but is shaped by a combination of physical, service-related, and social factors. In high-density areas, access to services and transportation plays a key role, whereas in low-density areas, tranquility, safety, and sense of belonging become more significant. Findings highlight the need for differentiated urban planning policies tailored to various age groups and housing typologies.

Keywords: Livability, building density, housing type, Ekbatan town, Dehkedeh town


Extended abstract
1.Introduction
Livability, as one of key indicators in assessing urban environmental quality, is influenced by physical, social, and service-related characteristics. Differences in density and housing patterns have various consequences for livability dimensions, such as access to green and open spaces, walkability, social security, level of neighborhood participation, and residents’ service needs. Ekbatan Town (High-Density Urban Fabric) and Fardis Village Town (Low-Density Urban Fabric) are two prominent examples of distinct residential patterns in Iran. A comparative study of these two can shed new light on relationship between density and livability. The aim of this research is comparing livability level in two different housing types, identifying components affecting residents’ satisfaction, and analyzing the role of density in shaping livability experience.

2. Method
The research is applied in terms of objective and descriptive-survey in terms of methodology. Data collection was conducted through documentary studies and field surveys. Initially, the categories and indicators related to urban livability were extracted using documentary research. To gain a deep understanding of residents’ lived experiences, semi-structured interviews were used as data collection tool. The study’s statistical population included residents of two studied neighborhoods. Purposive sampling was employed to select participants, individuals with longer residence experience in neighborhoods and adequate awareness of livability. The interview process in each neighborhood continued until reaching theoretical saturation and repetition of experiences; a total of 20 interviews were conducted (10 in Ekbatan Town and 10 in Fardis Village Town). Each interview lasted approximately 40 minutes, and collected data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and MAXQDA software.

3. Results
The experience of livability in Ekbatan and Fardis Towns is not limited to differences in building and population density. While Ekbatan Town with high-rise pattern and Firdis Village Town with villa pattern appear physically different, significant differences in their livability stem from a more complex interaction of factors. In Ekbatan Town, despite high building and population density, a set of qualitative environmental factors has led to a considerable level of residential satisfaction among residents. The presence of high-quality green spaces, pedestrian access to welfare and service facilities, and efficient public transportation system have acted as moderating factors, reducing potential negative effects of high density. Young residents, particularly educated groups, perceive high density not as a nuisance, but as an opportunity for “desirable anonymity” and freedom of action in public spaces, indicating new patterns of social relations in dense environments. The livability experience in Ekbatan represents “smart density”, where environmental design quality and service integration mitigates the negative effects of high density. The livability experience in Fardis Village is accompanied by unique features that meet middle-aged and elderly group’s needs. In low-density environments like Fardis Village, specific social relations are observed, based on conscious choice and privacy preservation. Extensive green spaces and private gardens provide opportunities for light physical activities and connection with nature, which are important for mental and physical health. These features, along with appropriate access to local services, have created a livability pattern that provides a good quality of life for residents. The Fardis Village experience shows, low density leads to residential

satisfaction, when accompanied by smart design of public and semi-public spaces and correctly addresses the specific needs of residents’ age groups. Unlike high-density environments, social relations in this pattern are higher quality and depth, leading to creation of informal support networks at neighborhood level. These findings emphasize the importance of adapting residential environmental design to demographic characteristics of residents. Ultimately, it can be acknowledged that in Ekbatan, despite high building and population density, access to services, public transportation, and security have increased the level of resident satisfaction, especially among younger groups. In Fardis Village, peace, security, and green spaces have been the most important livability factors, providing greater satisfaction for older age groups. A difference in level of social participation was also observed; participation was very low in Ekbatan Town, while it was relative and limited in Fardis Village.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The results indicate the necessity of adopting different policies in urban planning for various age groups and residential patterns. The choice of housing type and location is not solely dependent on density, but is influenced by factors such as age, income, household size, education, and social needs. Enhancing livability in diverse fabrics requires executive interventions tailored to social and physical characteristics of each neighborhood. In high-density cities, policymakers should focus on strengthening public transportation, creating vibrant and diverse public spaces, developing cultural and sports centers, and improving quality of local services to meet young and active population needs. Conversely, in low-density cities, executive priorities should be on preserving environmental tranquility, increasing neighborhood security through strengthening local management and resident participation, and maintaining and developing green and open spaces. Additionally, creating effective mechanisms for citizen participation in local decision-making can strengthen the sense of social belonging and contribute to livability sustainability. Thus, implementing flexible and place-based policies will be the key for improving quality of life in different residential types. Focus on diversity of each group’s needs, creating flexibility in urban planning and designing residential environments based on specific conditions of each local community can pave the way for achieving more humane, sustainable, and livable cities.

Keywords

Livability

Building Density

Housing typology

Ekbatan Town

Fardis Village Town

Subjects

• urban planinnin

---

References

1.   آروین، م.، فرهادی­خواه، ح.، پوراحمد، ا.، و منیری، ا. (1397). ارزیابی شاخص­های زیست‏پذیری شهری بر اساس ادراک ساکنان (نمونه موردی: شهر اهواز). دانش شهرسازی، 2 (2)، 17-1.

2.   خزاعی­نژاد، ف.، بیگی، س.، و گلیان وثوقی، ع. (1400). ارزیابی نقش میانجی هویت در مفهوم زیست­پذیری با استفاده از مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری (مطالعه موردی: بخش مرکزی شهر بجنورد). مجله جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 8 (2)، 159-143.

3.   ساسان­پور، ف.، تولایی، س.، و جعفری اسدآبادی، ح. (1394). سنجش و ارزیابی زیست‏پذیری شهری در مناطق بیست‌ودو گانه کلانشهر تهران.  فصلنامه برنامه­ریزی منطقه­ای، 5، 42-27.

4.   قنبری، م.، شکوهی، م.، رهنما، م.، و خوارزمی، ا. (1400). تحلیلی بر زیست‏پذیری شهری با تأکید بر شاخص مسکن (مطالعه موردی: کلان‌شهر مشهد). مجله جغرافیا و توسعة فضای شهری، 8 (1)، 121-101.

5.   مهره­کش، ر.، و صابری، ح. (1401). شناسایی شاخص­های مؤثر در زیست­پذیری محلات شهری (مطالعه موردی: محلات مناطق 1، 5 و 8 شهرداری اصفهان). مجله جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 9 (2)، 16-1.

·      AARP. (2023). AARP Livability Index. https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/methods-sources.

·      Akbari, N., Moayedfar, R., & Mirzaie Khondabi, F. (2018). Analyzing Livability in the Distressed Areas of Isfahan City with an Emphasis on City Development Strategy. Journal of Urban Economics and Management, 6 (21), 37 – 54.

·      Akter Satu, SH., & Chiu, R. (2017). Livability in dense residential neighbourhoods of Dhaka.  Housing Studies, 1-23.

·      Allen, N. (2016). Quality of Urban Life and Intensification: Understanding Housing Choices, Trade-Offs, and the Role of Urban Amenities. The University of Auckland. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Design.

·      Australian Urban Observatory (AUO). (2023). Liveability Indicator. https://auo.org.au/portal/metadata/urban-liveability-index.

·      Baig, F., Ahmad Rana, I., & Hussain Talpur, M.A. (2019). Determining Factors Influencing Residents’ Satisfaction Regarding Urban Livability in Pakistan. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 2, 91–110.

·      Bo, F., Danlin, Y., & Yaojun, ZH. (2019). The Livable Urban Landscape: GIS and Remote Sensing Extracted Land Use Assessment for Urban Livability in Changchun Proper, China. Land Use Policy, 87 (104048), Elsevier Ltd, 1-12.

·      Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2023). The Global Livability Index 2023, Optimism amid instability. www.eiu.com.

·      Ghasemi, K., Hamzenejad, M., & Meshkini, A. (2018). The spatial analysis of the livability of 22 districts of Tehran Metropolis using multi-criteria decision making approaches. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, Elsevier Ltd, 382- 404.

·      Haarhoff, E., Beattie, L., and Dupuis, A. (2016). Does higher density housing enhance liveability? Case studies of housing intensification in Auckland. Cogent Social Sciences, 2 (1), 1-16.

·      Higgs, C., Badland, H., Simons, K., Knibbs, L. D., & Giles-Corti, B. (2019). The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice. International Journal of Health Geographics, 18(1), 1-25.

·      Jodder, P. K., Hossain, M. Z., & Thill, J. C. (2025). Urban Livability in a Rapidly Urbanizing Mid-Size City: Lessons for Planning in the Global South. Sustainability, 17(4), 1504, 1-32.

·      Kovacs-Györi, A., Ristea, A., Havas, C., Mehaffy, M., Hochmair, H., Resch, B., Juhasz, L., Lehner, A., Ramasubramanian, L., & Blaschke, T. (2020). Opportunities and Challenges of Geospatial Analysis for Promoting Urban Livability in the Era of Big Data and Machine Learning. International Journal of Geo-Information, 9 (725), 1-20.

·      Lee, K.Y. (2021). Factors Influencing Urban Livability in Seoul, Korea: Urban Environmental Satisfaction and Neighborhood Relations. Social Sciences, 10 (138), 1-14.

·      Liang, L., Deng, X., Wang, P., Wang, Z., & Wang, L. (2020). Assessment of the impact of climate change on cities livability in China. Science of the Total Environment, 726 (138339), Elsevier B.V, 1-11.

·      Liu, D., Zhang, CH., and Yu, H. (2019). Comprehensive evaluation of urban livability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1345 (032051), 1-11.

·      Louro A., da Costa, N.M., & da Costa, E.M. (2021). From Livable Communities to Livable Metropolis: Challenges for Urban Mobility in Lisbon Metropolitan Area (Portugal). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (3525), 1-22.

·      Mahanta, A., & Borgohain, P. (2022). Urban livability and contextual uncertainties: An assessment of livability through the lens of urban dwellers in Guwahati, India. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 6 (1), 1-25.

·      Martino, N., GIRLING, C., & LU, Y. (2021). Urban form and livability: socioeconomic and built environment indicators. Buildings and Cities, 2 (1), 220–243.

·      Mushtaha, E., Alsyouf, I., Al Labadi, L., Hamad, R., Khatib, N., & Al Mutawa, M. (2020). Application of AHP and a mathematical index to estimate livability in tourist districts: The case of Al Qasba in Sharjah. ScienceDirect, Higher Education Press, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9, Elsevier B.V, 872- 889.

·      Pan, L., Yang, F., Lu, F., Qin, SH., Yan, H., & Peng, R. (2020). Multi-Agent Simulation of Safe Livability and Sustainable Development in Cities. Sustainability, 12 (2070), 1-15.

·      Rafee Majid, M, Pampanga, D.G., Zaman, M., Ruslik, N., Medugu, I.N., and Amer, M.S. (2020). Urban Livability Indicators for Secondary Cities in Asean Region. Planning Malaysia. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, 18 (2), 261 – 272.

·      Raman, S. (2016). Designing a Liveable Compact City: Physical Forms of City and Social Life in Urban Neighbourhoods. Built Environment, 36 (1), 63-80.

·      Randhawa, A., & Kumar, A. (2017). Exploring Livability as a dimension of Smart City Mission (India). International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 4 (8), 1-10. 

·      Sheikh, W. T., & van Ameijde, J. (2022). Promoting livability through urban planning: A comprehensive framework based on the theory of human needs. Cities, 131, 103972.

·      Shi, C., Guo, N., Zeng, L., & Wu, F. (2022).  How climate change is going to affect urban livability in China. Climate Services, 26 (100284), Elsevier B.V, 1-15.

·      Thomas, J.A., Walton, D., & Lamb, S. (2011). The Influence of Simulated Home and Neighbourhood Densification on Perceived Liveability. Soc Indic Res, 104, 253–269.

·      Wang, Y., and Miao, Z. (2022). Towards the Analysis of Urban Livability in China: Spatial-Temporal Changes, Regional Types and Influencing Factors. Research Square, 1-31.

·      Yang, Y., Lewis, R., & Parker, R. (2022). How Accessibility and Transportation Options Affect Neighborhood Livability: Evidence from the 2017 Oregon Livability Survey. Planning Practice and Research, 1-24.

·      Zhan, D., Kwan, M.P., Zhang, W., Fan, J., Yu, J., & Dang, Y. (2018). Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities, 0264-2751, Elsevier Ltd, 1-10.

·      Zhu, L., Guo, Y., Zhang, C., Meng, J., Ju, L., Zhang, L., & Tang, W. (2020). Assessing Community-Level Livability Using Combined Remote Sensing and Internet-Based Big Geospatial Data. Remote sensing, 12 (4026), 1-24.