Urban Green Spaces and Collective Housing: Spatial Patterns and Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Residential Development

Abstract

The current state of knowledge in landscape architecture of urban green spaces in Slovakia significantly falls behind advancements in urban planning and architecture. This gap underscores the growing need for well-planned, designed, and integrated green spaces in creating sustainable and livable urban environments. Urban green spaces serve as an essential component of residential areas. They provide important ecosystem services and significant environmental benefits, such as reducing the urban heat island effect, enhancing air quality, promoting biodiversity, and managing stormwater. These natural processes are vital in mitigating the impacts of climate change and improving the resilience of urban areas. Through a review of the green space and housing estate relationship, this article emphasizes the need for integrated green spaces strategies in the planning and designing of housing estates. By analyzing the mutual relationship between green spaces and housing estates, the article highlights how green spaces enhance the physical environment and play a crucial role in the social and economic attributes of residential areas and the well-being of urban residents.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the integration of urban green spaces into housing developments has gained increasing attention due to the issues posed by the rapid urbanization of cities combined with growing populations [1]. This occurs not only in urban areas, but also at the neighborhood level. These issues are increasingly aggravated by perceptions towards urban society characters, who are considered individualistic and ignorant to their residential environment [2]. Cities are the most dramatic manifestations of human activities on the surface of the earth; these consequential impacts originate from population increase or high private motor vehicle dependency [3]. Green areas in residences affect the overall quality of life [4]; therefore, diminishing green areas in cities, due to unplanned urbanization, led people to search for new residential areas where they can have contact with green spaces and can satisfy their social and cultural needs [5]. However, the creation of green spaces, particularly in developing countries, is ignored because of the pressures for space, resources, and development, even though urban green spaces create ecological cities where the built and the natural environment can be linked [6]. The convergence of housing and green infrastructure is not merely an aesthetic consideration but a critical component of sustainable urban development. Green infrastructure and nature-based solutions are important planning approaches, as well as design documents and implementation tools in urban areas and landscapes [7]. The concept of green infrastructure (GI) in the urban context emphasizes the quality and quantity of urban and peri-urban green spaces and natural areas [8]. The use of pro-ecological solutions (green roofs, fountains, or ponds) and the planting of additional woody plant in residential areas can boost urban resilience, and their implementation should be included in any strategies and documents for the transformation into sustainable cities [9]. Many studies have examined the recreational importance of large green spaces, parks, and forests; the greenery encountered in our everyday surroundings, particularly in areas near our residences, has not been extensively researched [10]. Residential greenery is rarely studied, is regularly overlooked by planners, and often receives step-motherly treatment from architects and housing companies [11]; for this reason, landscape architecture has remained largely unexamined in urban history [12].

Residential neighborhoods are vital parts of cities, accommodating various activity patterns that reflect the daily life of residents. Each residential neighborhood is characterized by housing typologies and urban patterns, which have been formed and transformed over time [13]. The term “housing estate” refers to a functionally and spatially self-contained residential unit built within the same timeframe, usually on undeveloped land at the urban periphery. Characterized by its separation from the city’s historical structure, strict functional segregation, and solitary urban structure the housing estate reflects the principles set out in the Athens Charter [14]. The development of residential complexes in Slovakia was also referred to as “comprehensive housing construction”, highlighting their intended operational independence [15].

1.1. Historical Background

The concept of housing estates is closely connected to urban developments after World War II; most significantly, in the residential developments of former socialistic countries [16]. However, their origins are rooted in the interwar period of functionalism, which prioritized providing affordable housing for all. This concept emerged much earlier in history. The oldest known social housing complex is “Fuggerei”, a row of small houses built in 1521 by the merchant Jakob Fugger in Augsburg [17].

The concept of social housing emerged in the Netherlands as early as 1901, when non-political organizations were established with the primary goal of improving living conditions, particularly for the working class. Prior to WWI, between 1916 and 1925, these organizations constructed nearly 100,000 high-quality dwellings. However, the onset of the war introduced significant disruption, and bombings left many of these homes damaged or destroyed [18]. In the postwar period, Germany addressed its housing crisis by drawing directly on prewar expertise. In the western regions, the majority of multi-family housing complexes—ranging from small to large-scale estates—were constructed with the support of state-funded organizations. These estates were built and managed primarily by so-called “non-profit housing cooperatives” [19]. Russian cities were the focus of one of the most ambitious experiments in 20th century urban planning—a centrally organized socialist state directed a delayed yet rapid urbanization process. This process involved the nationalization of a substantial portion of the existing urban housing stock and the near-complete monopolization of new urban construction [20]. The first modern housing estates emerged in England at the onset of the Industrial Revolution. These residential areas were constructed near factories, and, thus, their character was exclusively working class—a trend that soon spread rapidly in the United States as well. While these housing structures varied in form, they predominantly consisted of standardized, multi-story row houses [16]. In many European countries, modernist and functionalist ideas strongly influenced urban development, and Belgium was no exception. The construction of large housing estates in Brussels began in the mid-20th century. However, unlike other nations, Belgium’s development was shaped primarily by a general housing policy that emphasized homeownership, with limited investment and inadequate legislation [21]. By 2000, new types of housing began to emerge, yet these were increasingly unaffordable, promoting several families to relocate to reduce housing costs. This rising unaffordability led to a demand for alternative housing solutions, raising a critical question for Brussels (a city facing inherited 20th-century challenges): how can people continue to live in urban areas? [22]. The importance of urban green spaces in residential zones has generally increased worldwide since the post-war period, with urban planners and landscape architects continually adapting to cultural, economic, and spatial needs. The British “garden city” movement, which predated WWII but saw a resurgence after the war, emphasized the integration of green belts and parks within urban zones [23]. In contrast, many Eastern European countries focused on high-density housing with green zones, often minimal, incorporated into mass housing estates. Known as “socialist realism” in urban planning, the design approach was characterized by a commitment to providing essential green areas in the form of public parks and landscaped courtyards [24].

Housing estates constructed in the latter half of the 20th century in Slovakia became important subjects of study in the fields of landscape and garden architecture, particularly due to their prevalence in both large- and medium-sized cities. With the development of new prefabricated housing concentrated in estates zones, a new green system emerged, known as the “green space of housing estates” [25]. Housing estates of varying sizes and standards were developed; however, on average, the quality of the exterior spaces surrounding residential buildings was low. This was largely due to pressures from legislative regulations and standards governing comprehensive housing developments [26]. The intensive construction of large-scale housing estates continued until 1989, even though some architects began to push back against prevailing standards, proposing innovative solutions. They emphasized traditional urban forms, such as streets and squares, as well as the use of diverse materials and landscape architectural details. Through this design, they aimed to bring nature “closer to the windows of urban residents” in a more accessible and relatable way [27]. As a reflection of the Athens Charter (1993), the theory advocating for an increased proportion of green spaces began to take hold, along with the composition of green areas in inter-block spaces in a naturalistic landscape style [28].

1.2. Benefits of Urban Green Spaces

Urban green open spaces are valuable environmental resources often associated with positive influences on living conditions and property value [29], and they are considered as one of the sustainability indicators for maintaining the well-being in residential communities [30]. The need for green spaces has been present at city level since ancient times; it can be said that greenery has a strategic importance in the contemporary urban fabric [31]. Ecosystem services offered by greenery can protect the public health of residents as well as support the environmental integrity of urban areas, such as housing communities [6]. As summer air temperatures continue to increase due to climate change, urban areas will be the most affected since urban building structures and materials intensify the heat island effect. Urban green areas can play an important role in the process of developing adaptation strategies due to their climatic ecosystem services. Most residents would support an increase in different types of urban greenery in their residential areas, based on the research of Henseke and Breuste [32]. Residents visit parks no more often than once a week but benefit daily from residential greenery passively or actively [33]; therefore, well-designed and accessible residential green spaces are needed. Authors Oosterbroek, Kraker, Huynen, and Martens indicate that the placement of greenery is more critical than its sheer quantity, and that thoughtful urban planning can mitigate the trade-offs between health benefits and environmental burdens [34]. New findings revealed that urban spaces positively impact mental health through three primary mechanisms: improved air quality, support for outdoor activities, and enhanced social cohesion. The research indicates that the mental health benefits of green spaces vary according to factors such as age, gender, and the level of urban development [35]. Many empirical studies assessing the economic benefits of urban green space have continually documented that green space tends to increase both the value and sale price of nearby residential properties [36]. Promoting an integrated approach to greenery in new residential complexes ensures the balance between development and environmental preservation [37].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Framework of Our Study and Study Area

Building on the existing spatial typology of housing estates in Slovakia, this study seeks to develop a theoretical framework for categorizing green open spaces based on their spatial characteristics. Establishing a typology for urban residential green spaces highlights the integration of green areas within the spatial configurations of residential buildings. By acknowledging the diverse spatial forms, densities, and design variations present within Slovak residential zones, this approach aims to systematically classify green spaces as essential, functional components of the spatial fabric in housing estates.

The analyzed study areas, evaluated in terms of housing typology and accessibility, primarily included residential zones in the cities of Šaľa and Nitra (see Figure 1), with a particular focus on the Chrenová housing estate where we have conducted a field survey. Chrenová is characterized by a mix of high-rise and low-rise residential buildings, green spaces, and transportation networks integrated into an expanding transit system. The predominant construction typology features an open structure. In terms of population density, Chrenová is classified as a high-density area.

2.2. Spatial Characteristics of Housing Estates in Slovakia

Housing estates in Slovakia demonstrate distinct spatial characteristics shaped by historical, socio-political, and environmental factors. Predominantly constructed during the socialist era, these estates were initially developed to meet pressing urbanization needs and provide affordable housing solutions through state-led planning initiatives. Some studies, such as those examining MFREs in Poland, employ Geographic Informational Systems (GIS) to assess spatial characteristics, allowing for better planning and improvements based on residents’ needs [38], but have limited capacities for representing choice and priority among the conflicting objectives for sustainable urban planning [39]. Housing estates, designed over time, range from low-density single-family homes to more densely populated apartment blocks. The resulting configuration of green spaces—whether public parks, courtyards, or semi-public gardens—varies according to these design shifts and has notable environmental implications. The spatial arrangement and accessibility of these spaces, the type and height of surrounding buildings, the quantity and character of greenery, and many more characteristics influence the quality of the environment [40].

In urban areas like Bratislava, Slovakia, housing estates have struggled with the integration of green spaces amidst increasing urbanization. These green spaces, which provide crucial ecosystem services, are often constrained by the compact, multi-story residential developments. Research has shown that despite these challenges, urban green spaces still play an essential role in adapting to climate change [41]. The key features of the city Nitra housing estates include large-scale residential blocks, surrounded by areas that are undergoing rapid suburbanization [42]. These estates typically exhibit a mix of high-rise and low-rise residential buildings, green spaces, and roads that connect to expanding transportation networks. Chrenová housing estate is currently one of the largest districts in the city of Nitra and, at the same time, one of the most prominent post-war residential complexes in Slovakia [43].

The CIDEP project aimed to create a catalog of the typical forms of residential structures for urban development applicable in Vienna and Bratislava. The project was initiated and led by the cities of Vienna and Bratislava and was developed by experts in urban planning and architecture from both cities. The process involved extensive international research on completed projects from the last twenty years. From these, projects representative of individual types of residential structures were selected. The selection criteria prioritized the project’s future potential and sustainability for various situations.

To compare individual examples and evaluate them various indicators were used, such as the density of floor areas, the number of apartments per hectare, and the degree of the built-up area. The CIDEP project focused on the basic “building blocks” of the urban structure, but due to the diversity and variety in urban planning practice, the research had to be limited to specific completed projects, often smaller than 1 hectare.

Based on the CIDEP document and prior analysis, several dominant types of residential structures can be identified and further detailed within the catalog that are commonly utilized in Slovakia (see Figure 2).

• Point Buildings: Independently standing, arranged structures with multi-directional orientation. Options for multiple housing units to use a single vertical circulation system within building.
• Row Houses: economic building form, row houses allow for cross-ventilation in units due to their narrow building volumes.
• Ridge Development: houses oriented toward the interior of the complex, featuring an internal courtyard (patio) within an enclosed development.
• Open Structures: development along the property boundary with buildings of varying types and tract depths.
• Open Courtyard: u-shaped development surrounding a shared exterior space.
• Block Development: buildings forming a continuous whole, typical for inner-city development [44].

2.3. Review of Publications Theorizing Residential Greenery

Green space accessibility is widely acknowledged as a crucial aspect of a livable environment and human well-being [45]. In China, residential areas with higher housing prices tend to offer better quality and more abundant residential quarter green spaces. As a result, disparities in RQGS access among residents of varying socio-economic status may impact the equity of urban green space accessibility [46]. Recent research shows that private, shared, and neighborhood green spaces are relevant at the very beginning of relocation decision-making processes, when individuals form their moving intentions [47]. In post-socialist Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, income has become the most critical factor influencing where people may reside in a city. The research from Budapest, Hungary shows that the advantage of wealthier people in terms of urban green space provision is not so pronounced, which is the outcome of a multi-layered historical urban development [48]. On a separate matter, new findings suggest the necessity of providing residential nature and activity spaces, encompassing both sound and vision, to promote healthy aging in Chinese residential contexts [49].

The vast green spaces separating residential blocks (Abstandsgrun) commonly found in Vienna’s municipal housing (Wiener Gemeindebau) have a huge spatial potential for gardening, along with a forgotten tradition of self-organization [50]. The Czech manual “DO ZÁHRAD!”, in translation “Into the Gardens!”, provides information on various aspects of urban gardens, ranging from their significance and benefits to typology, planning, and management. It is intended for a wide audience, including individuals, groups, government agencies, and political representatives. The manual emphasizes the need to develop urban gardens in Prague as part of blue–green infrastructure while promoting the creation of a sustainable environment. Urban (allotment) gardens have not been sufficiently explored and there is a need to update this topic through bottom-up initiatives [51]. Allotment gardens have played a significant role in Czech and Slovak society for decades, building upon a rich history of gardening [52].

The importance of a landscape–ecological approach in green space planning is emphasized in many studies, which include optimizing the geometry of green spaces and creating networks of green areas. There is a highlighted need for effective green planning processes that consider residents’ needs and actively involve them in the decision-making process. The significance of green infrastructure on buildings, such as green roofs and facades, is up for discussion [53]. Green roofs have been established for over 100 years globally and currently they are one of the key elements in urban greening. In Malaysia, most green roofs are installed in high rise residential buildings and act as a place for social purposes. Generally, it can be concluded that maintenance practice plays a critical role in sustaining intensive green roofs in high-rise residential buildings [54]. Regarding the economic sphere, a recent study analyzed the impact of green roofs on property value. The results showed that residents living in apartment buildings with rooftop gardens had more a positive attitude towards rooftop gardens and appreciated their aesthetic and environmental qualities. The study also found that apartments with rooftop gardens tend to be more expensive than those without, suggesting that rooftop gardens can add value to a property [55].

2.4. Other Case Studies Reflecting on Topic of Urban Green Spaces

2.4.1. Green Space Exploration in Alegeria

In examining the distribution and types of vegetation across various residential units in Algeria, authors T. Aeolu and Keddah analyze the relationship between plot size, house type (detached, semi-detached, and attached), and the presence of greenery (see Figure 3). The findings indicate that most green spaces are situated along property walls, with their size typically remaining consistent regardless of plot dimensions. The authors highlight a significant gap: while there are regulations governing building constructions, there are no specific guidelines for the design of outdoor spaces, including green areas. In conclusion, the study points out that open spaces, including greenery, are governed solely by the personal choices and preferences of residents. There are no regulatory guidelines specifying the arrangement of open spaces or the proportion of greenery, allowing residents unrestricted freedom without normative guidance [56].

2.4.2. Open Green Spaces in High-Rise Residential Developments in Israel

Recent research in Israel investigates the urban morphology of open green spaces within high-rise residential complexes (HRHCs). The authors examine how the configuration of green spaces within these complexes shapes residents’ experiences and contributes to the creation of new urban landscapes. Special attention is given to the spaces between buildings employing a combination of morphological and qualitative analyses to understand the use and perception of these areas. By introducing a green–gray Nolli map (see Figure 4), authors provide a detailed representation of the distribution of built and unbuilt areas within these complexes. While this research offers a new direction for scrutinizing contemporary urban forms, it only takes a first step in examining the vast potential and possibilities offered by HRHC open green spaces [57].

3. Results of Our Research

The analysis of the spatial arrangement of green spaces in Slovak residential areas was based on the existing typology of housing structures in Slovakia and the catalog of typical housing forms from the CIDEP. This research focused on identifying the dominant types of urban development, including detached houses, row houses, point buildings, and block developments. Subsequently, the configuration of green spaces was analyzed in relation to the type of development, identifying commonly known urban green spaces, such as parks, community gardens, or residential front gardens. An important aspect of this study was the evaluation of the accessibility and spatial arrangement of green spaces, considering the impact of surrounding buildings, such as their type and height. This study was supported by an extensive review of the relevant literature and case studies on the issue of green spaces in residential zones, both in Slovakia and internationally, including countries such as the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, and Israel.

3.1. Accessibility

Based on the analyzed forms of residential complexes, we determined that the accessibility of green spaces is a critical factor while sorting the green spaces. The level of accessibility of these green spaces varies significantly depending on the typology of the housing structures, influencing how effectively they serve their intended purpose. Each housing typology integrates access to greenery uniquely (see Figure 5); this is shaped by whether the spaces are private, semi-public, or public.

Point buildings are typically surrounded by shared open areas, accessible to the wider community. While they provide some green areas for residents, they often lack private or semi-private options. According to the CIDEP catalog, these types of structures lack high-quality open spaces, with public outdoor areas limited to setback zones only.

Row houses, depending on other factors, are either semi-public or semi-private. In many cases they provide private access to green spaces, such as individual backyards or small front gardens, allowing residents the direct and exclusive use of the green space, but, also, they typically consist of public shared spaces.

Ridge developments are oriented around an internal courtyard or patio, providing a shared green space accessible only to residents within the complex, fostering a semi-public environment.

Open structures along property boundaries often create accessible green spaces open to the public. These open layouts increase connectivity with the surrounding urban landscape, making green spaces available for residents and the public. Interruptions in the building layout can impact the quality of internal outdoor spaces, affecting both privacy and tranquility.

Open courtyard designs feature a U-shaped layout surrounding a communal outdoor space. This semi-public green space is accessible to residents, encouraging social interaction while maintaining some privacy.

Block developments, common in dense urban areas, usually feature publicly accessible green spaces, but they can also function as private spaces, particularly when designed with enclosed courtyards or restricted access points that limit entry to residents only. In such configurations, these developments provide a private or semi-private green space maintaining a shared outdoor environment within the complex.

3.2. Density

From low to high density, each typology requires different green space configurations to optimize comfort, privacy, and community interaction. Density in housing developments plays a crucial role in shaping the built environment, directly impacting residents’ access to green spaces. In low-density developments, such as row houses or point buildings, there is ample space per unit, allowing for more individualized green areas. Moderate-density housing, such as ridge developments and open courtyards, cluster units around a common green area. High-density housing, including block developments and open structures, often arises in urban areas where land is limited and maximizing the unit count is the priority. These developments require the efficient use of space, with green areas typically designed to be shared among many residents.

3.3. New Findings and Recommendations for Residential Green Space

As a result of the spatial arrangement analysis of green spaces in Slovak residential areas, and with regard to the existing typology of housing structures and the catalog of typical forms of housing developments from the CIDEP project, we identified six types of green residential spaces which are closely related and interconnected in terms of accessibility and density. In the following table (see

Table 1. This table summarizes the results of the green space analysis and the recommendations based on the analysis of the existing typology of housing structures in Slovakia. Author: Zuzana Vinczeová.

Type of Development	Accessibility	Density	Recommendations
Point buildings	public	low	Green roofs, green facades, and public parks
Row houses	semi-public/semi-private	low	Individual gardens, small front gardens, public shared space, and community gardens
Ridge development	semi-public	moderate	Linear parks, community gardens, green slopes, and green roofs
Open structures	public	high	Green spaces accessible for residents and for the public and parks
Open courtyard	semi-public	moderate	Community gardens, pocket parks, green facades, and green roofs
Block development	private/semi-private	high	Shared inner green space for residents only (community garden and pocket park)

) they will be presented and categorized by accessibility and density, with subsequent solutions and recommendations.

When discussing green spaces in residential zones, it is essential to balance the ecological, social, and cultural needs while considering residents’ specific preferences and needs. Many studies emphasize the importance of participatory planning, where the residents’ preferences are actively incorporated into green space design. These recommendations can be applied to Slovak residential neighborhoods; however, their implementation depends on various factors, such as accessibility, scale, and ultimately the specific needs of residents. Based on these principles, it is crucial to integrate interdisciplinary approaches into the planning process, combining environmental science, urban planning, and sociology to create green spaces that reflect local conditions and promote long-term sustainability. Such an approach not only enhances residents’ well-being but also supports biodiversity, improves microclimatic conditions, and creates aesthetically appealing environments. Therefore, designs should incorporate elements such as community gardens, multifunctional green areas, and nature-inspired landscaping that merge functionality with ecological values. However, a significant challenge lies in adapting these solutions to various types of residential zones, where spatial and financial constraints may arise, alongside the need to convince residents of the importance of green spaces.

3.4. Application on Specific Examples of Slovakian Housing Estates

Slovakian housing estates, known as “sídliská”, are a prominent feature of the urban landscape, reflecting both the socialist legacy and post-socialist transformations. These large-scale residential zones were primarily constructed during the socialist era to initially address pressing housing needs and accommodate urbanization. Green spaces were integral, with designs including courtyards, playgrounds, and communal areas intended to foster social interaction and provide recreational opportunities. These green spaces embodied the “collective dream” of socialism, promoting community well-being. However, the political shift following the fall of socialism in 1989 brought significant changes. Privatization and the transition to individual apartment ownership transformed the management and upkeep of these areas. Many green spaces were diminished or repurposed, and were often replaced by parking lots or other infrastructure developments.

The Chrenová housing estate in Nitra, as one of the largest residential complexes in Slovakia, serves as an ideal example for applying the acquired insights into the relationship between housing typology and greenery.

The management of green spaces is often a collaborative effort between local municipalities and the residents themselves. Many residents take an active role in maintaining green spaces, often organizing community clean-ups, planting flowers, and establishing small gardens. Municipalities partner with private companies or NGOs to revitalize deteriorated green spaces. Despite these efforts challenges persist, such as the pressure to convert green areas into parking lots, limited funding for maintenance, and varying levels of engagement among residents. Therefore, the need for categorizing and standardizing green spaces within residential zones is essential. Our research provides recommendations for the effective utilization and management of these areas. The following figures illustrate the potential solutions and the application of recommendations for green spaces within the Chrenová housing estate.

3.4.1. Chrenová Housing Estate in Nitra

This area features freestanding tower blocks representing point-type structures (see Figure 6) with varying orientations relative to cardinal directions. These buildings are surrounded by shared open spaces accessible to the wider community. While these structures provide some degree of access to greenery, they often lack private or semi-public spaces. According to the CIDEP methodology, such configurations fail to provide high-quality open spaces, and public outdoor areas are largely limited to setback zones. Given their public accessibility, point-type structures would benefit from the inclusion of public parks, smaller community gardens, green roofs, and green walls. In terms of density, these point-type buildings are in low-density areas, necessitating a tailored arrangement of greenery to optimize comfort and community interaction.

Open structures (see Figure 7) often create accessible green spaces that are publicly available to residents of the housing estate. They enhance connectivity with the surrounding urban landscape and make green areas accessible to a broader demographic. For open structures, we recommend incorporating green spaces accessible to both residents and the public, as well as parks, to maximize social interactions and the recreational benefits of greenery. Open structures are typically found in high-density areas, where the efficient use of space and integration with public spaces is crucial.

Open courtyards (see Figure 8) create semi-public green spaces accessible to residents, fostering social interaction while maintaining a degree of privacy. For open courtyards, we recommend incorporating community gardens, pocket parks, green roofs, and green walls, enabling the creation of an optimal, pleasant, and functional environment. These courtyards are typically located in medium-density areas, requiring a balanced arrangement of greenery that accommodates both communal and private needs.

3.4.2. Residential Complexes in the City of Šaľa

In the city of Šaľa, several types of residential developments were identified. For the purposes of this research, two locations were selected: one representing row housing and the other ridge housing, with both types of apartment buildings constructed during the socialist era. The first location features row housing (see Figure 9), an economically efficient form of development characterized by narrow building volumes that allow for cross-ventilation. This typology offers semi-public or semi-private spaces and, in many cases, private access to green areas, such as individual gardens or small front yards, providing direct and exclusive access to greenery. Additionally, these developments often include public shared spaces. For row housing, we recommend the inclusion of private gardens, front yards, public shared spaces, and community gardens to achieve a balance between private and communal spaces.

3.4.3. Ridge Housing Development

Ridge housing (see Figure 10) is characterized by buildings oriented towards the interior of the complex, with an inner courtyard enclosed within the development. These structures create a semi-public environment where green spaces are accessible to residents as well as the broader community, albeit with certain restrictions. For this type of development, we recommend incorporating linear parks, community gardens, green slopes, and green roofs. These features optimize space utilization while providing high-quality green areas for residents. Ridge housing is typically found in medium-density areas, where the efficient use and arrangement of greenery is essential, considering spatial limitations.

Block housing development (see Figure 11) is characterized by buildings forming a continuous whole, a typology commonly associated with urban development in city centers. Within this study, it has not yet been possible to identify a suitable example of block housing that adequately represents the typical features of this urban approach from the last century. This is primarily because block housing is less prevalent in Slovak settlements compared to other types of development. Historically, block housing is linked to traditional urban structures. However, modern architecture and urban planning have adapted and modified it to meet contemporary needs. Although block housing may appear to be a traditional concept, its modern interpretations and layouts are products of modernist thinking. In the city of Nitra, a potential model area for such development can be identified in the following figure.

The implementation of these proposals can lead to an improvement in residents’ vitality and an enhancement of the ecological value of residential areas. The key to this process is community involvement in the planning and maintenance of green spaces. Challenges include pressure to convert green areas into parking lots, limited funding, and varying levels of resident engagement. Successful implementation requires collaboration between local governments, experts, and communities. Ultimately, the application of this green space categorization to the model areas represents a step toward more systematic and efficient urban green planning in Slovakia. The following points outline the steps and possible solutions for improving the situation and effectively utilizing green spaces within residential complexes:

• Identification of building types in different sections of residential complexes;
• Proposals for new green spaces (parks, community gardens, green roofs and walls, etc.);
• Proposals for connecting green spaces and creating new pedestrian routes;
• Integration of public spaces;
• Creation of new parks and community gardens to enable residents to actively engage in the creation and maintenance of greenery;
• Development of pocket parks in smaller, underutilized spaces;
• Revitalization of existing green areas to make them more attractive and functional.

4. Discussion

Urban greenery is not merely an aesthetic element in cities, it serves numerous vital functions that significantly and undoubtedly enhance residents’ well-being. The accessibility of green spaces is one of the key factors influencing the quality of life in urban areas. Many studies have demonstrated that, from a social perspective, the quality and accessibility of green spaces are far more important than their quantity [58]. Residential open spaces tend to be small and heavily managed and are frequently undervalued and understudied as ecological amenities [59]. It is therefore essential to advocate for the better integration of green infrastructure in residential construction to achieve a balance between building density and a high level of living quality in a green and sustainable urban environment, which represents one of the main challenges for urban planning. Consequently, finding a balance between density and high livability in a green and sustainable urban environment is a major challenge for urban planning [60].

As studies highlighted that green spaces deliver crucial ecosystem services, including reducing the urban heat island effect [31], these benefits are particularly vital in the context of climate change and increasing urbanization, which place growing demands on urban systems. Despite their significance, green spaces in residential areas are often overlooked and insufficiently studied. Research tends to focus predominantly on large green areas, such as parks and forests, while smaller green spaces near residential dwellings remain underexamined [9]. This gap in the research hinders a comprehensive understanding of the role of greenery in enhancing residents’ health and well-being, as well as its contributions to the functionality of urban ecosystems.

Existing studies highlight various aspects of the issue but often focus on specific contexts, which limits their broader applicability. For instance, research conducted in Algeria revealed that the distribution of greenery in residential areas largely depends on residents’ personal preferences, with a notable absence of regulatory guidelines for designing outdoor spaces. In Israel, studies have explored the morphology of open green spaces in high-rise residential complexes, emphasizing the need for a deeper investigation into their potential design possibilities. One study suggests that green buildings can be used for energy saving, while focusing on energy efficiency criteria and international certifications. The current lack of awareness of the broad audience of the potential of green buildings is also a factor hindering the development of the industry. This problem will not be solved without ideological, legal, and financial support from the government [61]. The concept of smart cities by Addas (2023) highlights that the planning of urban spaces for high quality of life is more important than ever. The study shows that the implementation of smart cities has improved green infrastructure and air quality and the overall sustainability of cities [62]. A very similar study focuses on sustainable urban planning models for new smart cities and the effective management of land take dynamics. The study addresses topics such as smart villages, the impact of interest rates on housing prices, the relationship between industrial land consumption and production growth, and the integration of green spaces into the urban environment to contribute to the achievement of sustainability goals [63].

Many of these studies offer different perspectives on the issue of urban green spaces, but so far no study has addressed green spaces and their spatial characteristics in depth within a typology. Our present study has tried to develop this typology and to show the importance of urban green space typification and its implementation in planning processes. The implementation of solutions for improving urban green spaces in residential zones, while bringing many benefits, faces several challenges. These challenges include ecological, social, and cultural needs, as well as the specific preferences and needs of residents. For example, with the increasing number of cars in cities, there is constant pressure to convert green spaces into parking lots, which reduces the available space for green spaces. Insufficient funding for the maintenance and revitalization of green spaces can lead to their neglect and deterioration. Different levels of resident involvement in the maintenance and creation of green spaces can affect the success of the projects. Not all residents are willing to actively participate in these activities. And lastly, space and financial constraints may exist in different types of residential zones, making it difficult to implement large-scale green space projects.

The results have shown that urban greenery can not only be segmented based on density or accessibility, but that it is extremely important not to overlook this aspect. We were unable to find a suitable example of a block development in this research, which poses a further challenge for our study. Based on the results we can conclude that open courtyards seem to offer a good balance between the density and quality of green spaces. These developments are typically located in medium-density areas, which allows for a balanced arrangement of greenery that accommodates both communal and private needs. Open courtyards are also the dominant type of development in our study areas along with open structures. Accessibility is directly influenced by the type and density of development. High density residential development, such as block developments and open structures, often occurs in urban areas where space is limited and maximizing the number of dwelling units is a priority. In these cases, green spaces are typically designed to be shared among many residents, which can lead to a reduction in green space availability. Urban planning should focus on integrating green infrastructure in residential construction to balance building density and quality of life.

In Slovakia, the study of green spaces within residential zones is particularly significant due to the distinctive characteristics of housing estates, which represent the predominant form of urban living. These extensive residential areas, primarily constructed during the socialistic era, exhibit a specific typology of housing structures and green space arrangements that warrant detailed analysis and comprehensive evaluation. This study sought to evaluate urban greenery with qualitative indicators and to highlight the importance of the topic and the need to classify this specific greenery.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

This study underscores the necessity of reevaluating the interaction between housing developments and urban residential green spaces, through a comprehensive review of the topic and the presentation of new findings and recommendations. It is crucial to advocate for the better integration of green infrastructure in residential development to achieve a balance between building density and high-quality living within a sustainable green urban environment. This represents the primary challenge for urban planning. It is highly important to emphasize that high-quality residential greenery provides numerous benefits; therefore, residential green spaces should not be undervalued or insufficiently studied, as they reflect a crucial ecological element in urbanized environments.

In further research, we want to focus on deepening the typology and creating a precise framework for the typification of urban green spaces for all the selected types of development. This current study consists mainly of the qualitative indicators of green spaces, and therefore the intention is to also evaluate the quantitative indicators of green space creation, such as vegetation structures (number of trees and shrubs), communication systems, and amenities. This study is primarily concerned with the built environment of the second half of the 20th century, but it also aims to explore contemporary work in urban green space design and thus to expand knowledge with new innovative approaches that can be implemented within the buildings under study.