Reconciling the Link between New Urbanism and Community
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Session:Social Equity, Gentrification, and New Urbanism (March 13, 8:45am)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reconciling the Link between New Urbanism and Community
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Session:Social Equity, Gentrification, and New Urbanism (March 13, 8:45am) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abstract: The link between town planning and the idea of community is rife with difficulty, particularly when community is defined on the basis of social relationships. This paper begins by presenting a summary of these difficulties, including a discussion of how community eludes a territorial basis, exists for multiple purposes, and is sometimes seen as socially repressive. A reconciliation between design and community is proposed by redefining community as an articulation of the common good, rather than community defined on the basis of social relationships and social structure. Specifically, the common good can be viewed, in the context of town planning, as embodying three principles: social diversity, accessibility and neighborhood identity. Each of these notions of the common good has a clear, direct link to design elements articulated in New Urbanism. On the basis of these ideals, I argue that community defined as common good can be legitimately engendered through design.
* Paper presented at the conference "The New Urbanism: Is Design a Catalyst for Community", sponsored by The Seaside Institute and the Congress for the New Urbanism, Seaside, FL. January 14-16, 2000.
The link between town planning and the idea of community is rife with difficulty (Talen, 2000). Community is a complex notion that eludes a territorial basis, that exists at multiple levels and for multiple purposes, and that is sometimes seen as socially repressive. The obstacles are both theoretical as well as empirical. In addition to theoretical incongruities, empirical research does not support a clear connection between physical design and the notion of community as defined by social science, especially when the influence of systemic and socioeconomic variables are taken into account. Yet, despite these obstacles, there are specific ways in which community — or, at least, some interpretation of it — and design can be united together, and this is my focus. The successful linkage depends on, I argue, how community and how design are conceptualized1. In the end, the much-maligned idea that neighborhoods can be designed to foster community may be simply a matter of definitional refinement and a conceptual reworking of how the connection is organized. This paper begins with a summary of the problems inherent in trying to negotiate a link between design — specifically town planning — and the notion of community as typically defined by social scientists. Although I spend some effort on delineating these problems, my main goal is to attempt a resolution of the issue - specifically in terms of how New Urbanism, as town planning, can be applied to the goal of strengthening community. My proposal for reconciliation is based on a redefinition of community as an articulation of the common good, rather than community defined on the basis of social relationships and social structure. The Problem with Community in Town PlanningThere is nothing new about the idea that towns and neighborhoods can be physically designed to foster community, and, conversely, that the attempt to do so is insupportable and socially menacing. For New Urbanists, the desire to foster community may be innocently based on the realization that town planning ideals have deeper meaning and significance than just interesting architecture and good site design. What is "new" about New Urbanism is the idea that social and environmental problems need to be resolved in tandem (Barnett, 2000). Yet if this deeper meaning extends to the idea that certain positive social bonds can be formed on the basis of town design, there are distinct problems that arise (Talen, 1999)2. The first problem with linking community, conventionally defined on the basis of social relationships, with town planning is that the idea of community is not always viewed as a positive phenomenon. A key paradox confronting attempts to "build" community through physically-oriented policies and planning proposals is that, at least at the neighborhood level, such community building efforts have been historically linked to efforts to promote social homogeneity and exclusion (Silver, 1985). Scholars have admonished the neighborhood unit concept and other attempts to socially engineer particular types of "balanced" communities (Banerjee and Baer, 1984). Similarly, the effect of perceived threats to property values, evident in NIMBYism, has been shown to be a strong factor in generating a locality-based sense of community (Panzetta 1971). Harvey likened the quest for community as "surveillance bordering on overt social repression" (1997, p. 69). Focusing on the creation of a sense of community, can, in short, breed social exclusion and cultural elitism, or so the critics have said. Philosophical attacks on the quest for community are supported by the weight of social science research on the subject. This research can be organized into three interrelated categories: investigation of the multiple meanings of community, analysis of the multiple levels of community, and empirical research on the link between environment and behavior. Holding to standard definitions of design and community, these areas of social science research constitute barriers to the successful integration of design and community. The first social science issue to consider is that the notion of community is highly complex. It is usually defined based on two aspects, a social component, consisting of various types of social interaction, and an affective component, involving a whole range of psychological and emotional responses. Research on each of these dimensions is voluminous. During the past 30 years, researchers have built upon each other’s conceptions of the varied meanings involved, such that our understanding of the social life of communities and neighborhoods is now fully multi-dimensional. The social interaction component consists of social networks and the emotional support that can exist among neighbors. Such activity ranges from strong social relationships, for example when there is an exchange of help or goods, to weak social ties, involving casual greetings. Unger and Wandersman (1985) define social interaction as social networking within neighborhoods as well as social activities such as " borrowing or lending tools, informal visiting, and asking for help in an emergency" (p. 141). Social networking refers to a person's overall connectedness within the neighborhood. Wellman (1981) describes these networks as linkages, patterns of ties, or even flows of resources between individuals. In addition to social networking, social interaction can consist of other types of relationships, such as personal/emotional support, instrumental support (involving short term obligations), or informational support, which involves "interpersonal influence" (Fischer et. al., 1977; Unger and Wandersman, 1985). Social interaction in these various forms must be distinguished from the affective component of community. This component considers the psychological aspects of community, beyond overt social interaction (although in many ways tied to it). McMillan and Chavis (1986) integrated the work of a number of different social researchers and developed a comprehensive definition and theory of sense of community, which, they said, could apply equally to territorial or non-territorial communities. The main components of this definition include membership, or a sense of belonging and identification; influence, a bi-directional concept in which residents are both influenced by and have influence on the social norms of a neighborhood; need fulfillment, having to do with the degree to which neighborhoods are able to meet the social needs of residents, including a positive sense of other residents; and shared emotional connection, involving the spiritual bond between residents that can be engendered through community events or the honoring of residents for particular deeds. This brief summary of what is meant by community in social scientific terms immediately raises the question of what aspects of interaction and sense of community should or should not be the focus of town planning. Arguably, the ability of New Urbanists to have a hand in fashioning interpersonal influence or shared emotional connection through principled town planning is remote. And is it even desirable? Perhaps more daunting than the complexity of community, New Urbanists must come to terms with the fact that social research has consistently revealed the existence of place-less communities and the notion that community can be — and has been — "liberated" from any specific physical context (Wellman and Leighton 1979). The community of place has been supplanted to a large extent by the community of interest or "portable personal communities" which are detached from any specific locale (Crump, 1977). Liberation is not used here as a pejorative term. In fact, the non-territorial community paradigm dominates social science literature. Following Webber’s essay on "communities without propinquity" (1963), as well as the writings of Fischer (1976) and Wellman (1979), sociologists reject the Wirthian view that the size, density and heterogeneity of urban areas have a deterministic effect on social organization (Wirth, 1938). Relationships are formed from the entire metropolitan region via complex social networks, and social lives, therefore, are spatially diffuse (Flanagan 1993). A host of empirical research supports these views. Sense of community is strongly associated with length of residence (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Glynn 1981; Buckner 1988; Chavis et. al. 1986), presence or absence of children (Keller 1968), and couples’ joint work status (Kingston and Nock 1992). Gans (1962) found that community is formed on the basis of social class and commonality of values. Campbell and Lee (1992) determined that socioeconomic status, age and gender were the most important factors in determining resident interaction. Researchers have documented the importance of stage in the life cycle and labor force participation as determinants of social interaction (Haggerty 1982). Hunter (1975) found a strong sense of community on the basis of shared values, despite the loss of neighborhood functionality (i.e., decline in the use of facilities). If community has mainly to do with the class and life-cycle similarities among residents (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974), it is not particularly surprising that high levels of neighboring and community have been found in sprawl development that typifies the "anti-community" model of town planning (Fischer 1976). After all, suburban areas are highly segregated by class, race, and life-cycle (Jargowsky 1997), and, if sense of community is largely fostered by such similarities, the prevalence of strong communities in suburban areas is highly likely. What about research that links environment and behavior? That physical environments have an effect on human behavior is not in dispute. What is questionable is the degree to which that effect comes close to any particular dimension of community. Here New Urbanists need to consider three issues. First, most of the research documenting the effect of environment on neighborhood social structure deals with its effect on neighboring and social interaction, not on the psychological sense of community. For example, various studies have shown that the use of neighborhood facilities (for shopping, worship or recreation) is linked to higher levels of resident interaction (Ahlbrandt and Cunningham, 1984). The way in which a street is designed can promote (or inhibit) an active, diverse street life and therefore stimulate social interaction (Appleyard, 1981; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987). While interaction can potentially lead to the development of some aspect of community, the evidence stops short of linking physical design to any deeper social structures. Second, much of the research in the environmental behavior tradition has focused on site design as opposed to the layout of whole neighborhoods and towns. Extensive research by Michelson (1970, 1977) demonstrated that the spatial proximity of residents, based on the positioning of doors, determined interaction patterns. Fleming et. al. (1985) found that common areas and other shared features had a strong impact on social contact. Finally, most research identifies the importance of indirect effects and interaction variables, and these complexities seriously impede any direct link between design and community. In terms of indirect effects, increased neighboring has been found to result from feelings of safety (Newman 1972) which are in turn based on environmental design factors. On the other hand, if the effect of environment on behavior varies by age, gender, presence of children, or stage in the life cycle, it is likely that there are interaction effects in the independent variables (see Franck, 1984). Thus if it is documented that an increase in neighboring results from greater utilization of public space (Levine 1986), or from greater use of local facilities for shopping (Riger et. al. 1981), the effect may vary according to a third variable such as age. In other words, if utilization of public space and shopping facilities are promoted via the physical form of urban areas, this may occur only for certain socioeconomic groups. Community via Design: An Arduous ProcessFor New Urbanists, the community-design problem can be summarized as follows:
If "community" and "design" are conventionally defined, getting from New Urbanism to Sense of Community is a pretty arduous process. The process is conceptualized in figure 1. Specific site designs, such as better and more accessible public space, may promote some aspect of social interaction, and social interaction may eventually lead to some dimension of sense of community. Along the way, there are likely to be interaction effects with other variables. There may also be indirect effects, whereby site design may lead to feelings of, for example, security, which may in turn lead to increases in certain types of social interaction. -----
----- What we are left with, the best that we can confidently say, is that certain types of physical designs promote certain types of social behaviors and responses for certain kinds of people, sometimes. Clearly, the community-design link is tenuous when community is conventionally defined, i.e., within the confines of social science. In practical terms, this means that the attempt to link town planning to community introduces a series of liabilities that proponents of New Urbanism, if they adhere to this view, will necessarily have to absorb. Focusing on slippery issues like community, as customarily defined, plays into the hands of critics bent on finding reasons to mistrust New Urbanism. The community debate also has a way of obfuscating other issues. For example, rather than focusing on whether suburban development is poorly planned, contributes to racial inequality, or results in degradation of the environment are issues that are being sublimated to considerations of suburban social viability3. A Proposed ReconciliationNew Urbanist narrative is guilty of sometimes making cavalier associations between design and community. On the other hand, social science research, with its weighty empirical basis, is likely to be lost on normative planners. Indeed one approach would be to admit irreconcilable differences and continue to push a rhetorical version of community devoid of an empiricism that is heavy-handed and totally uninspiring. Yet for those of us who agree with the principles of New Urbanism and at the same time believe in the legitimacy of social science and empirical research, a reconciliation must be attempted. In this section, I offer a conceptual framework for restructuring, and therefore reconciling, the link between design and community. The reconciliation is accomplished by first presenting a broader range of definitions for the two main elements, namely, design and community. In terms of the former, New Urbanists already possess a broad definition. Specifically, they stress both a process-oriented view of design (community-based, participatory design), and a range of specific design strategies. Specific design ideals flow from a broad, regionalist view to normative prescriptions for block, street and building. With this broader range of definitions at our disposal, there are two ways to approach the task of reconciling design and community. We could either hold firm on a conventional definition of community (as defined by social scientists) and see how far we can get with a link to some element of design. Or, we could take a careful look at the components that make up New Urbanist design and see what definition of community fits those elements. As I have attempted to show, the former task will not get us very far toward a reconciliation. But the second task holds more promise, largely because the idea of community can be recast to embrace a different, and in some ways broader view of community than the notion of community as social relationships and phenomena like membership, influence, need fulfillment and the like. In fact the New Urbanist view of community is very different from that of social scientists. Based on the main narratives of New Urbanism (in particular, multiple essays in Congress for the New Urbanism, 2000), community in New Urbanist terms embraces not only the idea of collaboration and "community-building", which is process oriented, but also the idea of a "common good" (see also Plater-Zyberk, 1995). This is not community in the sense of optimal social relationships, but community in the sense of common good. To the extent that this good is not sublimated to individual rights, this follows in the tradition of Bellah et. al. (1982; 1985), Etzioni (1993) and many others who have argued that personal mobility and fulfillment have unfortunately come to replace a sense of civic responsibility that we must seek to regain. Defining community on the basis of a common good is criticized because of the inherent difficulty of attempting to translate civic commitment into a utopian community structure that can succeed in contemporary society (Kantor, 1972; Mandelbaum, 1988). But if New Urbanists steer away from optimal social structure and focus instead on some specific conceptualizations of the common good, the problem is bypassed to a large extent. The result is more simple and direct: by adhering to a set of ideals for the physical design of neighborhoods, town planning can go some way toward development of at least the infrastructure that supports the common good. Having redefined design and community, the relationships between the two can be restructured. Figure 2 attempts to graphically show that when the range of definitions for both design and community are framed together, interesting relationships emerge. The diagram shows that as we move from a specific, more narrowly focused definition of design to a broader one ("A"), the interconnection between community and design changes. This connection, it seems, flows in a reverse order: the more specific the definition of design, the easier it is to link it to a broad definition of community ("B"). Therefore, if design is more specifically defined in terms of town planning principles, a connection to the ideal of community requires that community be defined in broad terms, that is, in terms of a common good. -----
----- On the other hand, if we broaden our view of design to include design as a process-oriented endeavor, then it is possible to link it to a more narrowly defined notion of community ("C"), that is, community as consisting of, and based upon, social relationships. New Urbanism promotes such relationships in several ways. First, relationships are built on social interaction that occurs through the collaborative design decision-making process. Second, the commitment to making physical improvements a public matter, emphasizing participatory design and publicly rather than privately produced plans is an approach to design that is likely to increase social interaction and collaboration. Finally, New Urbanism’s focus on the public realm means that the whole process of town planning is focused on public rather than private matters. Participatory design of a public space is much more likely to occur than is participatory design of a privately-run space, such as a shopping mall. Participatory processes are the bedrock of community-building defined in terms of enhancing social interaction and consensus-building. Linking specific ideas about design to a narrowly-focused conceptualization of community ("D") is awkward. As discussed in the previous section, the attempt to relate site planning and architectural design to a view of community as consisting of social relationships is highly problematic. Yet this is precisely the association that New Urbanists are accused of promoting, perhaps because they have not actively distanced themselves from it. The attempt to make that link has resulted in confusion and bestowed New Urbanism with an unnecessary liability. Linking design to the common good The link that connects specific ideas about design to a broad-based view of community is perhaps the most stimulating and fruitful connection shown in figure 2. This view is essentially about larger social goals, and it is precisely this relationship that is unique to New Urbanism and that conventional suburban development can not claim to foster. In effect, as we broaden our view of community, moving from social relationships to social purposes, civic responsibility, and common good, we can constrict the role of design in the procurement of this broadened community ideal. The link between design and some notion of the common good can be delineated in very specific terms. And while these terms have been postulated by proponents of New Urbanism (see, for example, Congress for the New Urbanism, 2000), it is worth restating the link within the context of reconciling community and design. New Urbanists have not always made these distinctions clear, and seem to advocate the view that design has a hand in fostering a more diverse range of community concepts. Gleaning from the essential components of New Urbanism, the relationship between design (specifically defined) and community (broadly defined) is best accomplished at the level of neighborhood. While social purposes are accomplished at all levels — from region to individual building — it is at the level of neighborhood that conceptions about the common good are most tangible and therefore most defendable. This nexus between design and community coalesces around three social goals: social diversity, accessibility, and neighborhood identity. Each of the goals is based on a definition of community that involves the promotion of a common good. I. Social diversity. A fundamental societal goal is to foster socioeconomic diversity in the living environments of the population. Two things are accomplished by diversifying the population. First, it is the only way to avoid concentrations of poverty. Certainly the idea of segregating the population has been regarded as resulting in "separate and unequal" disparities. Lack of socioeconomic diversity exacerbates the problems of geographically based services such as schools, since poor clientele become concentrated into one homogeneously disadvantaged area. If diversity is not encouraged, the result is that homogeneity is encouraged in living environments, and this idea, as far as the ideal of a common good is concerned, is insupportable. Second, social diversity promotes social interconnectedness. When diverse groups are in proximity to each other, there is no requirement for social interaction, but the situation allows the possibility of mixing divergent groups (rich and poor, white and non-white). This possibility is generally regarded as a common good. When this diversity happens in a place, diverse populations have the possibility of finding something they share in common, since they are occupants of a shared world. Link to Design. The promotion of social diversity has a clear, direct link to the tenets of New Urbanism — the mixing of housing types. The mixing of a range of housing sizes and price levels within the same neighborhood is a basic principle of the New Urbanist neighborhood design ideal, promoted through such mechanisms as backyard cottages and apartments above shops (Plater-Zyberk, 2000). II. Accessibility. Another fundamental societal notion of the common good is the provision of access to public goods and services on an equal basis. Since distance has a significant effect on the time, effort and resources that are required to obtain that public good, the ideal of equal access is based on the notion of spatial equity — that everyone have a roughly equal distance to travel to obtain a public good. The effect of distance greatly increases for those who do not own a car. Children, elderly who can no longer drive, and the poor who can not afford to own a car are much more impacted by distance than those with ready access to a car. Therefore, any study of public service distribution must take into account the frictional effect of distance and its impact on car-less populations. The notion of a spatially equitable distribution of public services and facilities necessarily implies that the public is free to use those services. Freedom of use, in turn, requires accessibility. If certain groups lack access, their freedom of use is obviously impaired. This same lack of access to privately held goods and services is equally detrimental to the idea of sustaining the common good. Link to design. Again, there is a clear, direct link between New Urbanism and the goal of accessibility. This link is provided through three interrelated mechanisms. First is the idea of compactness. Denser residential environments, organized around the "5-minute walk" necessarily means that accessibility to public goods, services and facilities is more likely to be within the reach of non-automobile users. Greater accessibility creates greater spatial and therefore social equity. Compactness also makes public transit more feasible, and public transit increases accessibility for all, regardless of automobile ownership. Second is the notion of mixed use. By creating a balanced mix of uses (e.g., housing, shopping, work, recreation) within the same neighborhood, accessibility to these uses is necessarily improved. Minimizing distances between daily activities greatly improves the ability of those without cars to participate in these activities. Without these spatial proximities, access is greatly impaired and the notion of a common good defined on the basis of equal access is as well. Finally, spatial equity is maintained by designing movement paths that can be used by all. This is embodied in the New Urbanist principle of ensuring that streets are engineered to provide not only for automobiles, but equally for pedestrians and bicycles. III. Neighborhood Identity. Another notion of the common good is the idea that a local place should be able to sustain some way of defining itself – that it is a valid social goal (i.e., common good) to promote the existence of places that have identity and therefore meaning for their inhabitants. In an urban setting, local identification of place coalesces with the idea of neighborhood. If a neighborhood possesses a definite identity, then the idea of commonality within that place becomes possible. This place-based commonality – not socially-based – is vital because such an identity promotes a sense of sharing of and belonging to that place. Sharing and belonging reinforce commitment and caring about place. Sharing and belonging, leading to commitment and caring, are reinforced by creating place or neighborhood identity. This is part of the common good. Link to design. Promoting neighborhood identity can be accomplished by following two principles of New Urbanism. First, the idea that neighborhoods should have a center and an edge contributes to their identity by providing a clear demarcation of boundaries. If we have spatial boundaries, then we have a better way of defining what a neighborhood is, which contributes to the establishment of its identity and meaning. Without spatial boundaries, it is much more difficult to assign identity to a given area. Second is the notion that strong emphasis should be placed on the location and design of public spaces and buildings (this contributes not only to neighborhood identity but to identity at a larger scale as well). Public gathering spaces contribute to place identity in a very palpable way. Centrally located public spaces that have been consciously designed and placed for the benefit of local residents contribute to establishing place identity — that is, after all, their main purpose. Ad hoc focal points and quasi-public spaces do a much less effective job because they are not designed for the purpose of establishing neighborhood identity. ConclusionMany will reject conceptions of the common good as liberal fallacy. After all, some may argue, it is impossible to find one set of principles that work for the good of all people. Attempting to attach normative town planning principles to normative views of community will be regarded as doubly dangerous. I think that the correct response to this view is that it is the dormancy of normative principles that is dangerous and problematic (see especially Lynch, 1985, on this point). Clear articulation of normative visions makes it possible to enter into a meaningful debate about optimal urban form and its role in procuring social goals. Hopefully, this debate will not stay unprofitably focused on the legitimacy of normative theorizing, but will progress to a discussion of which particular elements — design prescription or elements of the common good — are in dispute. In response to the question, "Is design a catalyst for community?", the answer is decidedly "yes" if community is defined on the basis of a "common good". Having established a clear link between design and key elements of the common good, the ability of New Urbanism to foster community through its designs hinges on the degree to which these three ideals are subject to change: Are there situations in which social diversity, accessibility and neighborhood identity are not or should not be held up as distinct goals? Assuming that such goals are solid, are the design principles of New Urbanism alone in their ability to engender them? The litmus test of the success of the reconciliation between design and community proposed here is whether this relationship could hold for any other type of urban pattern, such as a conventional suburban development. In truth, it is difficult to conceive of how suburban development – which lacks the necessary design requirements of mixed housing types, mixed uses, pedestrian access, compactness, and public space – could hope to accomplish the common goods identified here. The social goals identified above can, and probably often do, lead to building some aspect of community as defined by social science, that is, community based on social relationships. Much more important, in my view, is the ability to link New Urbanism to a broader conception of community. New Urbanists should accept this constraint: it’s enough to focus on and promote and cultivate and advertise elements of the common good. Community need not be defined in terms of social relationships, and once freed from this conception, a different range of possibilities open up. Most importantly, community defined as common good can be legitimately engendered through design. This is crucial because the design of a neighborhood is something that town planners can reasonably hope to effect. Too often we have focused on the economic and environmental consequences of urban form, steering away from social consequences and goals4. Perhaps this is due to the difficulty with which urban form and notions like "community" can be linked. Yet the link between design and community may not be less straightforward than environmental and economic interconnections. We should continue to strengthen the dialogue about the impact of design on community. In fact our primary concern should be how and when and through what manner of town planning we contribute to the effectuation of the common good.
Notes:
References:Ahlbrandt, Roger.S. and JamesV. Cunningham. 1979. A New Public Policy for Neighborhood Preservation. New York: Praeger. Appleyard, Donald. 1981. Livable Streets. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. >Banerjee, Tridib and William C. Baer. 1984. Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential Environments and Public Policy. New York: Plenum Press. Barnett, Jonathan. 2000. What’s new about New Urbanism? In Congress for the New Urbanism, Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1982. The Good Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart. New York: Harper & Row. Buckner, John C. 1988. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology 16, 6: 771-791. Campbell, Karen E. and Barrett A. Lee. 1992. Sources of personal neighborhood networks: Social integration, need or time. Social Forces 70: 1077-1100. Chavis, D.M., J.H. Hogge, D. W. McMillan, and A. Wandersman. 1986. Sense of community through Brunswick’s lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology 14: 24-40. Congress for the New Urbanism. 2000. Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crump, B. 1977. The portability of urban ties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. September. Chicago. Etzioni, Amatai. 1993. The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society. New York: Touchstone Books. Fischer, Claude S. 1976. The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Fischer, Claude S., ed. 1977. Networks and Places: Social Relations in the Urban Setting. New York: The Free Press. Flanagan, William G. 1993. Contemporary Urban Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fleming, R., Baum, A. and Singer, J. E. 1985. Social support and the physical environment. In S. Cohen and S. L. Syme (eds.), Social Support and Health. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Pp. 327-345. Franck, Karen A. 1984. Exorcising the ghost of physical determinism. Environment and Behavior 16, 4: 411-435. Gans, H. 1962. Urbanism and suburbanism as ways of life: A re-evaluation of definitions. In Human Behavior and Social Processes, A. Rose, ed., pp 625-648. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Glynn, Thomas J. 1981. Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Relations 34, 7: 789-818. Haggerty, Lee J. 1982. Differential social contact in urban neighborhoods: Environmental vs. sociodemographic explanations. The Sociological Quarterly 23: 359-372. Harvey, David. 1997. The New Urbanism and the communitarian trap. Harvard Design Magazine Winter/Spring, p. 68-69. Hunter, Albert. 1975. The loss of community: An empirical test through replication. American Sociological Review 40, 5: 537-552. Jacobs, Allan and Donald Appleyard. 1987. Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association 53, 1: 112-20. Jargowsky, Paul A. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kantor, Rosabeth Moss. 1972. Commitment and Community: Communities and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kasarda, John D. and Morris Janowitz. 1974. Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review 39: 328-339. Keller, Suzanne. 1968. The Urban Neighborhood. New York: Random House. Kingston, Paul W. and Steven L. Nock. 1992. Couples’ joint work status and community and social attachments. Social Science Quarterly 73, 4: 862-875. Levine, M D. 1986. Working it out: A community reaction approach to crime prevention. Journal of Community Psychology 14: 378-390. Mandelbaum, Seymour. 1988. Open moral communities. Society 26, 1: 20-27. McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D. M. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14: 6-23. Michelson, William H. 1970. Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Michelson, William H. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Newman, Oscar. 1972. Defensible Space. New York: Macmillan. Panzetta, A. F. 1971. The concept of community: The short-circuit of the mental health movement. Archives of General Psychiatry 25: 291-297. Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth. 1995. It takes a village to raise a child. In Suburbs and Cities: Changing Patterns in Metropolitan Living, Report of the Domestic Strategy Group Meeting, Aspen, Colorado, August 20-24, 1994. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute. Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth. 2000. Chapter eleven (untitled). In Congress for the New Urbanism, Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Riger, Stephanie, Robert LeBailly and Margaret T. Gordon. 1981. Community ties and urbanites’ fear of crime: An ecological investigation. American Journal of Community Psychology 9, 6: 653-665. Silver, Christopher. 1985. Neighborhood planning in historical perspective. Journal of the American Planning Association 51, 2: 161-174. Talen, Emily. 1999. Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies 36, 8: 1361-1379. Talen, Emily. 2000. The Problem with Community in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 15, 2: 171-183. Unger, D. G., and A. Wandersman. 1985. The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology 13: 139-170. Webber, M. M. 1963. Order in diversity: Community without Propinquity. In Wingo, L., ed., Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. 23-54. Wellman, Barry. 1979. The community question: The intimate networks of East Yonkers. American Journal of Sociology 84, 5: 1201-1231. Wellman, Barry. 1981. Applying network analysis to the study of support. In B. H. Gottlieb, ed, Social Networks and Social Support. Beverly Hills: Sage. Pp. 156-198. Wellman, Barry and Barry Leighton. 1979. Networks, neighborhoods, and communities: Approaches to the study of the community question. Urban Affairs Quarterly 14, 3: 363-390. Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life, pp. 143-164. In Sennett, R, ed, Classic Essays on the Culture of Cities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Author and Copyright InformationCopyright 2001 by Author Emily Talen |
