A sustainable urban design framework for the suburbanisation of coastal southeaster Australia

  • Jizhong ShaoEmail author
  • Zhenyu Hu
  • Baihao Li
  • Jing Luo
  • Jiaoru Xi
Sustainable Environmental Management


The suburbanisation of modern cities has forced many people in locations that are far less accessible than their prior residences, requiring motorised massive transport. Sustainable suburban development characteristics proposed to be relevant to transit-oriented development (TOD) are defined, including walking and cycling, population density, employment opportunities, urban form, open space and mixed-use land. In the study, an urban design proposal of Reedy Creek Town Centre is intended to guide the sustainable development of the outlying community as an integrated and dense urban centre based around the new rail station. Moreover, a range of residential development choices and commercial office uses supported by convenience retailing and associated services are providing for a diverse range of people having varying incomes and social interests who live and work in suburban area. This paper, which builds on the work of transit-oriented community proposal by dissecting the principles and approaches of TOD, establishes an urban design framework for suburban development to reveal the key sustainability strategies. The result concludes that transit-oriented development holds considerable promise for placing rapidly suburbanising cities on more comprehensive sustainable strategies, which give a basis to guide appropriate growth, change and development, and to prevent development inconsistency.


Urban design Sustainable development TOD Community Suburbanisation 



The authors thank all the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Author contributions

All authors contributed substantially to the ideas, concepts and work presented in this paper. All authors were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript and have approved the submitted form.

Funding information

This paper was supported by Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (51878339) and Science and Technology Development Funds of Jiangsu Construction Department (2018ZD303).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Al-Hagla KS (2009) Evaluating New Urbanism’s walkability performance: a comprehensive approach to assessment in Saifi Village, Beirut, Lebanon. Urban Des Int 14(3):139–151Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson-Palombo C, Kuby MJ (2011) The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007. J Transp Geogr 19(2):189–199Google Scholar
  3. Bae CHC (2002) Orenco Station, Portland, Oregon: a successful transit oriented development experiment? Transp Q 56(3):9–15Google Scholar
  4. Bertolini L (1999) Spatial development patterns and public transport: the application of an analytical model in The Netherlands. Plan Pract Res 14(2):199–210Google Scholar
  5. Bridger JC, Luloff AE (1999) Toward an interactional approach to sustainable community development. J Rural Stud 15(4):377–387Google Scholar
  6. Calthorpe P (1993) The next American metropolis. Remodeling OnlineGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervero R (1998) The transit metropolis: a global inquiry. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Cervero R (2007) Transit-oriented development’s ridership bonus: a product of self-selection and public policies. Environ Plan A 39(9):2068–2085Google Scholar
  9. Cervero R, Sullivan C, Tods G (2011) Marrying transit-oriented development and green urbanism. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 18(3):210–218Google Scholar
  10. Chichilnisky G (1997) What is sustainable development? Land Econ 73(4):467–491Google Scholar
  11. Childers DL, Pickett STA, Grove JM, Ogden L, Whitmer A (2014) Advancing urban sustainability theory and action: challenges and opportunities. Landsc Urban Plan 125:320–328Google Scholar
  12. Council, G.C.C (2010) Gold Coast planning scheme 2003. Council. In: G. C. C. (ed) Betascript Publishing: Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. Coupland A (1997) Reclaiming the city: mixed use development. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale A (2014) Agency: individual ‘fit’ and sustainable community development. Community Dev J 49(3):426–440Google Scholar
  15. Dannenberg AL, Rj JHF, Schieber RA, Pratt M, Kochtitzky C, Tilson HH (2003) The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: a scientific research agenda. Am J Public Health 93(9):1500–1508Google Scholar
  16. De Vos J, Acker V, Witlox F (2014) The influence of attitudes on transit-oriented development: an explorative analysis. Transp Policy 35:326–329Google Scholar
  17. Dedekorkut A, Mayere S (2009) A comparative evaluation of local compliance with state growth management mandates: the cases of Gold Coast, South East Queensland, and Miami, Florida. Book of AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  18. Delucchi M, Kurani KS (2014) How to have sustainable transportation without making people drive less or give up suburban living. J Urban Plann Dev 140(4):21Google Scholar
  19. Farajollahi G, Delavar MR (2017) Assessing accident hotspots by using volunteered geographic information. J Clean WAS 1(2):14–17Google Scholar
  20. Gainsborough JF (2002) Slow growth and urban sprawl: support for a new regional agenda? Urban Aff Rev 37(5):728–744Google Scholar
  21. Gori S, Nigro M, Petrelli M (2014) Walkability indicators for pedestrian-friendly design. Transp Res Rec 2464:38–45Google Scholar
  22. Guerra E (2014) Mexico City’s suburban land use and transit connection: the effects of the Line B Metro expansion. Transp Policy 32:105–114Google Scholar
  23. Hirt S (2007) The mixed-use trend: planning attitudes and practices in Northeast Ohio. J Archit Plann Res 24(3):224–244Google Scholar
  24. Jepson EJ (2004) The adoption of sustainable development policies and techniques in US cities—how wide, how deep, and what role for planners? J Plan Educ Res 23(3):229–241Google Scholar
  25. Kudus K, Grasian I, Madasamy S, John A (2017) Immunomodulatory effect of alginic acid from brown seaweed sargassum wightii on disease resistance in penaeus monodon. J Clean WAS 1(1):26–29Google Scholar
  26. Kupke V (2015) A multivariate study of medium density housing development and neighbourhood change within Australian cities. Pac Rim Prop Res J l:3–23Google Scholar
  27. Lund H (2006) Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use. J Am Plan Assoc 72(3):357–366Google Scholar
  28. Lung-Amam W (2014) Designing suburban futures: new models from build a better burb. J Plan Educ Res 34(4):475–477Google Scholar
  29. Mahzan AA, Ramli AS, Abduh ASM, Izhar I, Indirakumar MZMY, Salih AAM, Jahri ASA, Wei OQ (2017) Preliminary study of SG Serai Hot Spring, Hulu Langat, Malaysia. Water Conserv Management. 1(1):11–14Google Scholar
  30. Martin NJ, Rice JL, Lodhia SK (2014) Sustainable development planning: a case of public participation using online forums. Sustain Dev 22(4):265–275Google Scholar
  31. Mcmillen DP, Nald JF (1998) Suburban subcenters and employment density in Metropolitan Chicago. J Urban Econ 43(2):157–180Google Scholar
  32. Muley D, Bunker J, Ferreira L (2010) Transit oriented development users’ characteristics: the case of Kelvin Grove urban village. Rethinking sustainable development planning designing engineering and managing urban infrastructure & development. pp 119–133Google Scholar
  33. Nasri H, Bouaïcha N (2017) Blooms of toxic cyanobacteria in freshwater in Algeria. Water Conserv Manag 1(2):05–06Google Scholar
  34. Nasri A, Zhang L (2014) The analysis of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Washington, DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Transp Policy 32:172–179Google Scholar
  35. O'hare DJ (1997) Tourism and small coastal settlements: a cultural landscape approach for urban design. Oxford Brookes UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Olaru D, Curtis C (2015) Designing TOD precincts: accessibility and travel patterns. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 15(1):6–26Google Scholar
  37. Pickett STA, Boone CG, Mcgrath BP, Cadenasso ML, Childers DL, Ogden LA, Mchale M, Grove JM (2013) Ecological science and transformation to the sustainable city. Cities 32:S10–S20Google Scholar
  38. Plan, S.E.Q.R (2011) South East Queensland regional plan. Betascript PublishingGoogle Scholar
  39. Qvistrom M (2015) Putting accessibility in place: a relational reading of accessibility in policies for transit-oriented development. Geoforum 58:166–173Google Scholar
  40. Rabbinge R, Latesteijn HCV (1992) Long-term options for land use in the European community. Agric Syst 40:195–210Google Scholar
  41. Rehman R, Khan A, Rashid H, Nasir A (2017) Performance evaluation of fly ash and red brick dust for recovery of chromium from tannery wastewater by adsorption method. Earth Sci Pak 1(1):21–24Google Scholar
  42. Roe PG (2014) Analyzing place and place-making: urbanization in suburban Oslo. Int J Urban Reg Res 38(2):498–515Google Scholar
  43. Rogers R, Power A (2000) Cities for a small country. Faber And Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Roseland M (2000) Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Prog Plan 54:73–132Google Scholar
  45. Samuels I (2008) Typomorphology and urban design practice. Urban Morphol 12(1):58–62Google Scholar
  46. Schwanke D (2003) Group, U.L.I.U.D.M.-U.C.E., Mixed-use development handbook. ULIGoogle Scholar
  47. Searle G, Darchen S, Huston S (2014) Positive and negative factors for transit oriented development: case studies from Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Urban Policy Res 32(4):437–457Google Scholar
  48. Sternberg E (2000) An integrative theory of urban design. J Am Plan Assoc 66(3):265–278Google Scholar
  49. Sung H, Oh JT (2011) Transit-oriented development in a high-density city: identifying its association with transit ridership in Seoul, Korea. Cities 28(1):70–82Google Scholar
  50. Tammaru T (2001) Suburban growth and suburbanization under central planning: the case of Soviet Estonia. Urban Stud 38(8):1341–1357Google Scholar
  51. Taylor MAP, Newton PW (1985) Urban design and revitalization an Australian perspective. Urban Ecol 9(1):1–2Google Scholar
  52. Thaldiri NH, Hanafiah MM, Halim AA (2017) Effect of modified micro-sand, poly-aluminium chloride and cationic polymer on coagulation-flocculation process of landfill leachate. Environ Ecosyst Sci 1(1):17–19Google Scholar
  53. Usman M, Yasin H, Nasir DA, Mehmood W (2017) A case study of groundwater contamination due to open dumping of municipal solid waste in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Earth Sci Pak 1(2):12–13Google Scholar
  54. Vale DS (2015) Transit-oriented development, integration of land use and transport, and pedestrian accessibility: combining node-place model with pedestrian shed ratio to evaluate and classify station areas in Lisbon. J Transp Geogr 45:70–80Google Scholar
  55. Vazdani S, Sabzghabaei G, Dashti S, Cheraghi M, Alizadeh R, Hemmati A (2017) Fmea techniques used in environmental risk assessment. Environ Ecosyst Sci 1(2):16–18Google Scholar
  56. Wey WM, Chiu YH (2013) Assessing the walkability of pedestrian environment under the transit-oriented development. Habitat Int 38:106–118Google Scholar
  57. Yeang LD (2007a) Urban design compendium 1. English Partnerships/Housing Corporation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Yeang LD (2007b) Urban design compendium 2 delivering quality places. English Partnerships/Housing Corporation, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jizhong Shao
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Zhenyu Hu
    • 1
  • Baihao Li
    • 2
  • Jing Luo
    • 1
  • Jiaoru Xi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ArchitectureNanjing Tech UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Program on Chinese CitiesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations