Regional Research Institute Publications and Regional Research Institute Working Papers

1997 Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism Emily Talen

Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/rri_pubs Part of the Regional Economics Commons

Digital Commons Citation Talen, Emily, "Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism" (1997). Regional Research Institute Publications and Working Papers. 181. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/rri_pubs/181

This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Regional Research Institute at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Regional Research Institute Publications and Working Papers by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Urban Studies,Vol. 36, No. 8, 1361± 1379, 1999

Senseo fCommunityandNeighbourhoodForm: AnAssessmentoftheSocialDoctrineof NewUrbanism

Emily Talen

[Paper® rst received,April 1997;in ®nal form, March1998]

Summary. New urbanism ,an umbrella term which encompasses `neotraditionaldevelopment’ as well as `traditional neighbourhood design’,lives byan unswervingbelief inth eability of the built environmentto create a`sense of community’.Thepurpose of this paper is to assess whether thesocial doctrineofnew urbanism can besuccessfully supported or atleast integrated with thesocial science literaturewhich deals with thequestion ofcommunity formation.Towards this goal, thepaper ®rst delineates thesocial doctrineof new urbanism,andthen discusses the conceptual frameworksandempirical ®ndings that either support or contradict theidea that a sense ofcommunity will follow thephysical form ofcities andneighbourhoodsgenerally andnew urbanist principles speci® cally. After layingthis groundwork,theremainder of thepaper presents an assessm entof whether areconciliation between research anddoctrinemay be possible, inligh tof variousapparentcontradictionsbetween thesocial claimsof new urbanists andtheresults of research bysocial scientists. It is concluded that new urbanists need to clarify themeaningofsense ofcommunity asitpertainstophysical design.Further, itismaintainedthat while someresearch supports theidea that residentinteractionandsense of community are related to environmental factors, theeffectuation of this goal is usually only achieved via some intermediate variable. This latter pointleaves open thequestion ofwhetheranynumberofother design creedscouldp roduce thesameresult via adifferentdesign philosophy. Theneed for further research is stressed;this shouldb efocused on investigatingtheissuemore directly.

According to the social doctrine of new munity’,groundedin the idea that private urbanism,astrong, close-knit community is communication networks aresim ply no sub- acherishedAmericanicon which can be stitute for realneighbo urhoods, and thata regenerated by rebuilding citiesaccord ing to reformulated philosophy about how webuild new design principles(K atz1994). New communities will overcomeour currentcivic urbanism,an umbrella termencom passing de® cits, build socialcapital and revive a `neotraditionaldevelo pment’ and `traditional community spirit which is currently lost. neighbourhooddesign’ is aplanningmove- Accordingly, new urbanistsasse rt that the ment which is gaining increasing popularity. 1 main defectof standardsuburbandevelop- Its promoters stressthe conviction that the ment is not aesthetic or even environmental, built environment cancrea tea`senseof com- but is its insidioussocial effect(D uany and

EmilyTalen is in theSchool of Social Sciencesand Bruton Centerfor DevelopmentStudies, Universityof Texasat Dallas, 2601 N.FloydR oad, Richardson,Texas75083-0 688, USA.Fax:(972) 883-273 5. E-mail:etalen@u tdallas.edu.

0042-0980Print/1360-063XOn-line/ 99/081361-19 Ó 1999 TheEditors ofUrbanStudies 1362 EMILY TALEN

Plater-Zyberk, 1992). The reformist trend, ning. More insidiously, it could meanthat they claim,hasgone too farto eradicatethe the social cohesiongoals of new urbanism ills of urbanism(resulting in suburban aresim ply an excuseby developers to sprawl), and the planningprofession must squeezemore development out of lessland work to extractthe community-forming ele- (seeB ookout, 1992). ments out of urbanismand reinstatethem in The need to confront the social doctrine new towndevelopment. of new urbanismis also criticalbecausethe The purpose of this paper is to investigate social claimsof its promoters arenot mod- the empirical and theoretical basis that is est. Leon Krierasserts that the small-town behind the attempt to promote social inter- philosophy inherentin traditionalneighbour- action and senseof community through the hood design is not simply anarchitectural physicaldesign of communities.The key paradigm,but ªasocial synthesisºw hich research question addressedis: Can the will ultimately give way to acompletely social doctrineof new urbanismbe success- reconstituted civic realm(K rier, 1991, fully supported or atleast integr ated with p.119). Aspostulated, the effectof the local the social sciencelite rature which dealsw ith environment on human behaviour is pre- the questionof community formation? To sumed to be enormous. For many planners answerthis question, we®rst delineatethe and community activists, theseclaim sare social doctrineof new urbanism,and then axiomatic:im proved design creates discuss the conceptual frameworks and improvedbehaviour. empirical®ndings that either support or con- Thereare other pertinent reasonswhy tradict the ideathat asenseof community urban scholarsshould question, and actively will follow the physicalform of citiesand analyse,the social doctrineof new urban- neighbourhoods generally and new urbanist ism.First, whateverits intuitiveappeal, the principlesspeci® cally. Afterlaying this use of the Americansm all townasa model groundwork, the remainder of the paper pre- for local community is not auniversally sents an assessment of whether areconcili- held ideal. Itis often criticised by academics ation betweenrese archand doctrinemay be asfosteri ng sharp social fragmentationand possible,in light of variousapparent contra- eÂlitism (Suttles, 1975), or satirisedin Amer- dictionsbetweenthe social claimsof new ican literature (for example, by Sinclair urbanistsand the results of research by Lewis and John O’Hara).S econdly,past social scientists. attempts physically to build asenseof com- Atthe outset of such an investigation, it munity, such asthe much-admired design of must be acknowledgedthat new urbanists Pullman, Illinois, or JamesRouse’ snew areplagued by asheerlack of evidence. townof Columbia, Maryland, have failed in Our currentunderstanding of the relation- their social prescription, largely on the basis ship betweentow ndesign and senseof of having expected too much from the community is largely without empirical physicalenvironment (Brooks, 1974; Ten- basis, and is therefore de® cient. Further, nenbaum,1990). Finally,currenttrends what evidenceis there that residents toward extremeprivatisation (i.e. gated want, or areeven willing to considercom- communities) and the increasing social munitarian valuesata timewhen many fragmentationof society areoutgrow ths of a sociologists discard the notion of com- long-standing trend in which non-territorial munity asª idealistic, utopian and backward- formsof association may in factbe lookingº(Puddifoot, 1995, p.358)? The preferred. Thus the new urbanistcommunity lack of such abasis leavesopen the possi- vision may run counterto the `natural’ bility that new urbanismis nothing more tendency of Americansocial life (seeBerry, than intellectual pro® t-making in top-down 1976; Audirac et al.,1992). Thesefactor s planningfashion,whereby human subjects amount to substantial hurdles for the social aresacri® c ed on the altarof utopian plan- agenda of new urbanism. THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1363

The Social Doctrineof NewU rbanism Newurbani stsattem pt to build asenseof community, broadlyde® ned, via two The essenceof new urbanistdesign theory is avenues: integrating private residential space the creation of a senseof community . Social with surrounding public space;and careful goals have, in fact,been the keystoneof design and placement of public space.T he community design theory in the works speci®c design elements which work to build of suchnotablesasC larencePerry, with his senseof community arein one form or highly regarded neighbourhood unit concept anotherdelineated in works by Duany and (Perry, 1929), asw ell asthe development Plater-Zyberk ( Towns and Town-Making ideasof new townplannerssuch asC larence Principles,1991); Calthorpe( The Next Stein (1957) and JamesR ouse (1978).Many American Metropolis ,1993) and Langdon ( A of theseidea ls have beenresurrectedbased BetterP lace to Live ,1994), among others. on an acuteapprec iation of pre-modern While thesedesigne rsare not always in urban formsand their (presumed) mastery at agreement about the philosophicalbasis of embodying an understanding of human their proposals(for example,Calthorpe’sdis- nature (Krier, 1984; Hayden, 1984; Whyte, dain for the ª®ction ofsmall-townAmericaº, 1988; Calthorpe,1989, 1993; Katz,1994; 1991, p.57), most of the design elements Langdon, 1994). used to promote senseof community It must be recognised that the new urban- arere markably similar. The elements are ists’ notion of`senseof community’ concate- discussed in turn below. natesa numberof different meanings of the termw hich have been separated out in Architecture and site design. Social interac- the urban sociology, environment-behaviour tion is promoted by designing residencesin and community psychology literatures. For such away that residents areencour aged to the purpose of delineating the social goals get out oftheir houses and out into the public ofnew urbanism,the umbrella term`se nse of sphere.This requiresa shrinkage of private community’ isused inthis section (the multi- space:houses aretypical ly positioned close dimensionality of the conceptis discussed in to the street,lots and setbacks aresm all, and asubsequent section). houses have porches facing the street. While many ofthe components ofsenseof Porchesgeneratepedestr ian traf®c by pro- community do not necessarily pertain to ter- jecting the humanpresencew ithin the house ritorialcommunities,new urbanists have to those passing by on the street(D uany and translated the buildingof senseof com- Plater-Zyberk, 1992). Individuality in hous- munity into aspeci® cdesign manifesto ing design, within certain parameters,is (Audirac and Shermyen, 1994). Amuch- encouraged inorder toavoid the proliferation cited article(althou gh not by urban design- of `cookiecutter’neighbourhoods. ers)entitle dªSocial support and the physical environmentº(F leming et al.,1985) purports Density and scale. Urban development is amodel which providesthe theoretical basis structured according to the `naturallogic’ of necessary for new urbanists to makethis neighbourhood scale,w ith aclearly de® ned translation.Itassertsthat environmental vari- centreand edge (Duany and Plater-Zyberk, ablesa ffectthe frequency and quality of 1994). Senseof community and neighbourli- social contacts, and that this in turn creates nessare e ngendered by having small-scale, group formation and social support.Group well-de®ned neighbourhoodswith clear formation isenhancedby: passive social con- boundariesand aclearcentre .When smaller tact(creat ing settingswhich support such scalesare juxta posedwith increased residen- contact); proximity (facilitating closenessby tial density,face-to-faceinteraction is further arranging spacea ppropriately);and appropri- promoted. Personalspace is, in asense, atespa ce(prope rly designing and placing sacri®ced in order to increasethe density of shared spaces). acquaintanceship, and this concentration 1364 EMILY TALEN nurturesa ªvigorouscommunity spiritº bonds of authentic community areform edº (Langdon, 1994, p.xiii). Atthe community (Audirac and Shermyen, 1994, p.163). The level, towncentreshave arelatively high mixture of residential and commercialland density in order to promote commercial usescreate samultipurpose spacein which viability and therefore arevivedpublic lingeringis encouraged, creating asetting for realm.This new `realm’translatesinto an ªrepetitive chanceencoun tersºw hich, in increased senseof community. turn, builds and strengthens community bonds (Achimore, 1993, p.34). Amixture of Streets. Streetshave an overt social purpose. housing types, too, encouragesrandom per- They areto be thought of aspublic spaceÐ sonal contactbetweenpeople of different much more than voids between buildingsÐ social classes.Communities becomemore and therefore must be madeto accommodate nearly complete and integrated and, asa the pedestrian (Calthorpe, 1993). Streets are result, senseof community is established. designedto encouragestreet life, sinceany increasein pedestrianactivityis thought to Implicit Assumptions strengthencommunity bonds and promote senseof place. Streets areto be aplace Tonewurbanists, the ability of the physical wherepedest rians feelsafe,so that residents design characteristicsspeci® ed above to areencour aged to use streets(sidew alks), improve social interaction and therefore therebystrengthening the chancefor social senseof community is indisputable. Putting encounter. people closertogethe r, getting them out on the streetsand mingling in shoppingareas Public space. Public spaceprovide savenue closeto their placeof residenceseem intu- for chanceencoun ters, which servesto itively obvious methods for gaining resident strengthencommunity bonds. Neighbour- cohesion. Theseideas, furthermore, arenot hood gathering placesgive `heart’to the ªcloudedin theory and rhetoricº(B ressi, community (Langdon,1994), and serveas a 1994, p.xxv). The social doctine of new counter-pressure to community fragmen- urbanismseemsto have been derived tation which results whencommunication is through an artful, anecdotalprocessof docu- privatised. Public spacesin the form ofparks menting the perceived correlation between and civic centres also servea ssymbols of design elements and social engagement (see, civic pride and senseof placew hichpromote for example,the approachof Davis cited in the notion ofcommunity. Ifpublic spacesare Langdon,1988). However, all design apleasureto inhabit,they will be used, and prescription is based on atheoretical their usefulnessas prom oters of senseof framework which is based on asetof community will ¯ourish. Senseof placeis assumptions, whether or not this is explicitly createdsimply by paying attention to sense acknowledged. of spacethrough proper design and place- First and foremost, the social prescription ment of public space(D uany and Plater- of new urbanismis based on spatial deter- Zyberk, 1992). minismÐthat resident interaction and sense of community arecultiva ted via the organis- Mixed land uses. The relationship between ing powerof space.It must be presumed mixed land uses, social interaction and sense therefore that residents put ahigh spatial cost of community was® rst articulated by Jane onrelationships which arenot proximalÐi.e. Jacobs (1961).When placeof residenceis that timeand energy costs incurred by cross- juxtaposed with placesto work, shop or ing spacehave ahigh degreeof distance recreate, social integration of different decay (seeL ee,1970). incomes,races or agesis encouraged since The relianceon environmental factorsin people will tend to walk more and drive less. generating social contactand senseof com- With this kind of social integration,ªthe munity suggeststhat new urbanistdoctrine THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1365 has much in common with the `Chicago toin¯uence social behaviour. Secondly,there school’ of sociology. In this tradition, social arestudies which have identi® ed speci®c contactis maintained byenvironmental char- environmental factorswhich arepositive ly acteristicsand ecologicalexplan ations, correlated with someaspectsof senseof including housing type, density and land-use community. mix (Park et al.,1925). In extremeform,the The underlying mechanism involvedinthe ecologicaltraditio ninvolves translation betweenform and behaviour has been investigated predominantly within the Skinnerian-like assumptions holding that contextof micro-environmental factors or the physicaland demographicfeatur esof site layout (asopposed to overallneighbour- the neighborhood operateasenviro nmen- hood form).It has been shownin numerous tal contingenciesw hich may constrain, studies that architectural design plays arole foster, cause,or eliminate certaintypes of in fostering or inhibiting resident interaction. social behavior (Haggerty, 1982, p. 359). While this work focuseson the micro- Newurbani smm ay be connected more environment of houses and even interior speci®cally with asub-category of human spaces,the notion that, for example, housing ecologyknownas`envir onmental soci- type affectssocial interaction generally sup- ology’,which has its roots in the theoretical ports new urbanistdoctrine.G ans’ (1962) model of Talcott Parsons(Krasner,1980), study of Boston’sWestE nd found that the and which concerns the impact of spatial structuralfeatur esofbuildingsÐwindow and organisation on socialinteraction (see door placementÐare a factor in resident Gutman, 1972). interaction. Awell-knownstudy byFestinger Newurbani stscan also beseen asaligning et al. (1950) offriendship patterns in married themselvesw ith the sociologicaltraditi on student housing found that friendships were that assertsthat senseof community is vital determined by the physicalarrangement of to human functioning (Sarason,1974). Stud- houses and the accesspaths betweenthem . iesby Glynn (1981) and Goudy (1990),for Extensiveresearch by Michelson(1970, example, have found that the concepthas a 1977) has demonstratedthe salienceofarchi- universalde® nition and appeal, and that tecturaldesign in promoting or inhibiting community attachment is associated with social interaction. Hefound that the spatial mental health (O’Brien et al.,1994), conclu- proximity of residents, based onthe position- sions which provideatheoreticalbasis for ing of doors, determined interaction patterns. the social doctrineof new urbanism. Fleming et al. (1985) found thatcommon areasand other shared features had astrong impact on socialcontact, and Yancey (1971) Urban Formand the Social Lifeof documented the effectof the design of public Neighbourhoods housing (i.e. Pruitt-Igoe) on the formation of Onthe faceof it, alarge number of studies social relationships. Astudy by Amick and which have sought to determine speci®c fac- Kviz (1975) found that social interaction was tors associated with senseof community greatly improved in public housing consist- (de® ned in termsofsocial interaction asw ell ing of low-risebuildin gs with high site asits variousaffective dimensions)appear to coverage(as opposed to high-risebuildin gs have aconnection with new urbanism.This with low sitecove rage). section discussesthese ® ndings. Thereare Somefactorswhich have been found to twointerrelated aspectsof this supportive increaseresiden tinteraction may be relationship. First, there arestudies which indirectly linked to the design ideologyof substantiate the ideathat physicalfactors can new urbanism.This linkage is based on the act as a mechanism to promote residentinter- view that the factors involvedhave, to some action. Thesestudies constitute averi® cation extent, an environmental basis. For example, of the processby which design criteriawork increasedneighbouring has been found to 1366 EMILY TALEN result from feelings of safety(N ewman, Arelatedstudy of levels of satisfaction with 1972), from greaterutilisation of public the built environment found that, in the US, space(L evine, 1986) and from greateruse of distancefrom the centralcity (i.e. increas- local facilities for shopping(Riger et al., ingly suburban) wasnega tively associated 1981). Eachof thesefac tors maybe pro- with satisfaction variablesconcerned with moted via the form of urbanareas,and thus community services,soc ial patternsand psy- new urbanistsm ay makesom eclaimto pro- chologicalw ell-being (Rothblattand Garr, moting residentinteraction by emphasising 1986). Age of neighbourhoodwaspositive ly thesefactor svia the elements oftheir design. associated with thesevariab les. The authors In particular, the scaleof neo-traditional conclude (p. 98) that development, the prominence ofpublic space the olderresidential areasw ith their tree- and the emphasis on mixed land usesm ay lined streets,traditional housing appear- be seenas contrib uting to increased ance,and varied agepopula tion structure neighbouring. createthe imageand feeling of continuity Other factorsarenot asdirectl ytied to in an eraof rapid change and great form or environment, although somelinkage household mobility in the United States. may be asserted. Forexample, senseof com- munity has beenlinked to social controlof While community may be perceived as the neighbourhood(Chavis and Wanders- `liberated’ and thus placeless,the role of man, 1990) and to public ownershipof neighbourhood or placeof residencecontin- neighbourhoodfacilities(A tlasand Dreier, ues to hold weight asa factor in building 1993). It could be argued that the strong social relationships (Glynn, 1986), and this emphasis on design quality,the high import- supportsthe theory behind newurbanism.In anceattache dto buildingcodes and the his study of socialcohesionin aChicago emphasis on providing local neighbourhood neighbourhood,Suttles (1968) maintained facilitiesproduc easenseof control over the that it is the senseof `turf’Ðthe bounded environment. It has also been found that neighbourhood itself which residents identify residents who arem ore politically active are withÐthat createssocial cohesion.Anexten- also more likely to have astrong senseof sive study of neighbourhoodsin Pittsburgh community (Davidson and Cotter, 1986). (Ahlbrandt, 1984) showed that the use of The casecould be madethat new urbanist neighbourhood facilities(for shopping, wor- development attracts politically active ship or recreation) waslinked to higherlev- residents, luredto such development out of elsof resident interaction. Empirical research concernfor the environment, for example. has shownthat neighbourhoodis an import- In termsof linking environmental vari- ant factor in determining with whom resi- ablessuch astow ndesign or architectureto dents interact(G reenbaum,1982, 1985), and senseof community more directly, existing this maybe based on the spatial boundaries research has been scant. Astudy of Seaside, of neighbourhoods (McMillan and Chavis, Florida, by Plasa nd Lewis (1996) is arare 1986; Ahlbrantand Cunningham,1979). attempttoassessthe ability ofneo-traditional Since new urbanismrelies on well-bounded design to induce senseof community. The communities composed of compact, physi- authorsconclude from their residentinter- cally delineated neighbourhoods, the viewsthat sense of community variablesÐ research in this areagenerally supportsthe membership, need ful® lment, shared social doctrineof new urbanism.Further, emotional connections and loyaltyÐappear althoughthe enclosedspacew ithin which to be related to towndesign, architecture and residents are`force d’ to interactmay create urban planning,althoughnot inacausalway. relatively `weak’social ties, high levels of More than 70 per cent of the respondents theseties have been found to increasethe cited senseof community asan important occurrenceof strong social af®liation reason why they chose to residein Seaside. (Granovetter, 1973; Greenbaum,1982). The THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1367 view that senseof community is afunction af®liation with ahomogeneous, like-minded of the quantityof social contact(the `contact social group and avoid heterogeneoussocial hypothesis’;seeD oolittle and MacDonald, interaction. This essentially constitutesa 1978) is consistent with an approachto rejection ofthe importanceofneighbourhood buildingcommunity via promotion of in satisfying af® liation needs. Lang (1994) neighbourhood-levelinteraction. tracedthe evolution of the demiseof the neighbourhood throughBritish new town development and found that althoughearly The Role of Non-environmental Factors new towns werede signed around the neigh- Amajor emphasis among urban scholarshas bourhoodunit concept(for example, Harlow, been on the notion of the community `lost’. England),laternew towns such asM ilton This debate focuseson: the loss of senseof Keynes, England, abandoned the idea community through the loss of local neigh- ªbecauseneither people’slifestylesnor their bourhoodsocial interaction; and the loss of a senseof af®liation coincidedwith neighbour- territorially based notion of community and hood boundariesº(L ang, 1994, p.268). its replacement with placelesscom munities Much of community research tiesin with of interest. While new urbanistsm ay pro- the non-placesense of community paradigm. mote senseof community by increasing resi- In the non-placeargum ent, residentinterac- dent interaction, itisthis second aspectof the tion and senseof community arem ore a social dimension ofurban neighbourhood life factor of homogeneity thanlocale. Campbell which, tosomedegree,undermines the social and Lee(1992) found acomplex picture of doctrineof new urbanism. social interaction, maintainingthat socioeco- While most researchersw ould agreethat nomicsta tus, ageand gender werethe most physicalspaceplays somerole in the forma- importantfactorsin determining resident tion (or dissolution) of senseof community interaction. Someresearchershave docu- generally, many have argued that the role of mented the importanceof stagein the life- physicalspacein the creation of community cycleand labour forceparticipation as is largely overplayed. Following Webber’s determinants of social interaction (Haggerty, essayon ªcommunity without propinquityº 1982). Gans (1962) suggested early on that (1963),asw ell asthe writings of Fischer community is formed on the basis of social (1972) and Wellman(see,for example, Well- classand commonality ofvalues, not propin- man and Leighton,1979), many sociologists quity. More recently, (1972) he maintained rejectthe Wirthian (1938) view that the size, that environmental featuresofthe neighbour- density and heterogeneity of urban areas hood have no direct or invariant conse- have adeterministic effecton social organis- quencesfor ways of life. Astudy by ation. Instead,they supportaparadigm Verbrugge and Taylor (1980) concluded that which acceptsa `community liberated’ the accessibility of residents to eachother model of social relationships(Wellman and had little impact on socialties, ascom pared Leighton, 1979). In this view,community is to their social and demographiccharac teris- `liberated’ from the con® nements of local tics, the number of residents in the area space,and relationships areform ed from the (size),or their subjective feelingsabout their entire metropolitan region via complexsocial environment. In astudy of Rochester, NY, networks. Social lives, therefore, are Hunter (1975) found that residents main- spatially diffuse (Flanagan, 1993). tained astrong senseof community on the The importanceof non-spatial factorsin basis of shared values, despite the loss of buildingsocial relationships appearsto be neighbourhood functionality (i.e. decline in widely accepted (Glynn, 1986). Burkhart’s the use of facilities). (1981) study of Columbia, MD,gave strong Basedon the homogeneity of suburban supportto the importanceof the `community populations, someresearchershave claimed of interest’,in which residents activelyseek that suburbanlife fostersastrong sense of 1368 EMILY TALEN community, a®nding which runs counterto munity (Panzetta,1971). These® ndings are the claimthat suburban patterns aredecid- consistent with the ®ndings of Plasand edly anti-community (Mumford, 1961; Lewis (1996),aswell asH aggerty(1982), Schaefferand Sclar, 1975; Schneider, 1979). who found that placeattachm ent wasrelate d Gans’ classicstudy of Levittown(1967) to the prestigeof the area,and not necess- found alarge number of localised, cohesive arily to social contactwhich may have been social networks. Many subsequent studies enhancedthrough environmental factors. have found high levels of neighbouring in suburban areas(Fisch er,1976), which appearsto have agreat deal to do with the NewU rbanismand Social Science:C an classand life-cyclesim ilaritiesam ong their They BeReconciled? residents (Kasardaand Janowitz, 1974). Fur- From the literature summarisedabove, the ther, surveysindicatethat dissatisfaction following observations canbe maderegard - with suburban regionsis related to rapid ing the relationship betweennew urbanist growth and high density (Baldassareand form and the building of senseof Wilson, 1995), not alost senseof com- community: munity. Whether or not suburban residents have asenseof community in spite of what is (1) Thereis no existingempiricalevidence perceived to be an anti-socialdesign, or of adirect link betweenneighbo urhood based on suburbandesign, or asa result of form and senseof community, per se. selfselecti on (i.e. individuals with greater However, increased neighbouring has af®liation needs move to the suburbs), is a been associated with certain environ- matterof dispute (seeB aldassareand Fis- mental characteristicswhich arealso cher, 1975). associated with new urbanism(for exam- In addition to social networking and ple, the utilisation of public space).The homogeneity, other non-territorialfactors questionof whether or not the prescrip- have been linked to sense of community. tive form of new urbanismis exclusively One potent variablew hich surfacesrepeat - relevant, or whether or not any number edly inthe quest todetermine whyand where of alternative neighbourhoodforms senseof community is found is length of could have the sameeffect,is still open residence(K asardaand Janowitz, 1974; to debate. Glynn, 1981; Buckner, 1988; Chavis et al., (2) While it has been demonstrated that 1986). Conversely, residentialtransiencehas architectural form and site layout can been linked to areasw ith low social inte- increasethe frequency of residentinter- gration (Rossi, 1980). Presenceorabsenceof action, residentinteraction is only one children, in turn associated with residents’ factor in the buildingof asenseof com- degree of autonomy(Keller, 1968) and cou- munity. Many other factorseither inhibit ples’ joint work status (Kingston and Nock, this interaction (for example, resident 1992), have also been implicated. Home- heterogeneity),or acta sanecessary ownershiphas been found to be an important prerequisite for interaction to occur (for part of fostering senseof community, since, example, residenthomogeneity). the argument goes, residents who have more (3) Although arelationship betweenform ®nancial commitment to their neighbour- and interaction exists, its importanceasa hoods will have astrongersenseof com- variableis seriously undermined by two munity (Davidson and Cotter, 1986; issuesw hich speak to both the need for McMillan and Chavis,1986). The effectof and the effectof neighbourhood form perceived threat to property values,evident built according to new urbanist design in `NIMBYism’,or other `crisescom monal- criteria. First, the trend towards `com- ity’ have been shownto be strong factors in munity liberated’,in which an individ- generating alocality-basedsenseof com- ual’ssenseof community is an THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1369

extra-spatial phenomenon, appearsto be senseof community (or someaspectsof its atodds with the quest for aterritorially de® nition) and neighbourhood form only oc- bound patternof neighbourhoodinterac- curs if certain threshold effectsarein evi- tion advocated in new urbanist design dence.T his may not sit well with new theory. In essence,netw ork-based social urbanists, particularly the realpossibility that attachment involvesadifferent patternof residenthomogeneity, not the more socially localismfrom that which is sought in a desirablegoal ofheterogeneity,isaprerequi- new urbanist community. If neighbour- site for form to have an effecton social life. hood social life is based on social networking ratherthan on placefactor s, The Varied Meanings of `Sense of Com- the ability of environmental design munity’ to promote senseof community is put into question. Secondly,asenseof The determination of whether or not new community has been shownto exist in urbanismcansuccee din reaching its social seemingly anti-communitarianneigh- goals maybe dependent upon how `senseof bourhoodsÐi.e. low-density suburban community’ is speci®c ally de® ned. One po- areasc haracterisedby an emphasis on tential liabilityof new urbanism,in fact,m ay privatespaceand the minimisation of be that its socialobjectives appear to em- public space.T his puts into questionthe bracethe notions of residentinteraction and need for neighbourhood form which the various components of senseof com- is explicitly designedto promote munity (including senseof place)sim ul- neighbouring and asenseof community. taneously. Theseare distinc tconcepts with distinctmeanings,eachw ith its ownmethod Basedon thesem ajor ®ndings, it would be of effectuation. Someaspectof senseof dif® cult to conclude that new urbanists’ community may be promotedvia resident claimsto foster asenseof community via interaction, such asthroug hthe creation of a neighbourhoodform aresubstan tiated by so- venue for chanceenc ounter, but this ap- cialscienc eresearch. However, in the re- proachdoes not necessarily promote other mainder of this paperit is argued that new concepts such asplaceattach ment orsenseof urbanismc an makesteps toward reconciling place. What must be recognisedis thatthe itself with existing researchbypositioning its interrelationshipsbetweenreside nts and claimsin one of twoways. First, new urban- the effectof their environments involve dif- ismstands abetter chanceof legitimacy if it ferent meanings:for example, bonding, avoids language like `senseof community’ attachment, sentiment (Fried,1986). Differ- without fully understanding its varied mean- ent meaningsmay require,or may be contin- ings. Thus the variousde® nitions involvedin gent upon, different environmental contexts. senseof community must be dissected Toilluminate this issue, it is possibleto to revealthat newurbanism servesto evaluatenew urbanistdoctrinewith respect strengthen one aspectof the social life of to theseva ried meanings. The social aspects neighbourhoodsÐnam ely, residentinterac- of urban areas(usuall ywithin the context of tion. This also servesto ground theoretically neighbourhoods)m aybe divided into two the importanceof certain environmentally categories:level of neighbouring, and the based variables,such asthe importanceof psychologicalsense of community. Research public facilities, while atthe sametimeleav- on neighbouring often consistsof quantitat- ing room for non-environmental factors ive measuresof local social interaction. Such which, perhaps, strengthen other (although activityis overt, and ranges from strong so- related) components of senseof community. cialrelatio nships (for example, exchangeof Secondly, it is argued that new urbanism help and goods) to weaksocial ties(for must cometo termswith its role asan inter- example, casualgreeti ngs). Researchon the mediate variable, whereby the link between psychologicalsense of community is con- 1370 EMILY TALEN cerned with measuring the affective compo- would be dif® cult to refute that atleast the nents of neighbourhood social life. Typolo- concept of increased neighbouring, in a gies used to measuresense of community quantitative sense,is promoted. (see,for example, Skjaeveland et al., 1996; Tomove beyond the level ofneighbouring Riger and Lavrakas, 1981), asw ell asthose towards an affective notion of community is concerned with de® ning senseof community more dif® cult, unless senseof community (for example, McMillan and Chavis, 1986), canbe directlytied tovariation in quantityof offer the following distinctions: social interaction (seeW eenig et al., 1990; Rigerand Lavrakas, 1981). In fact,the exact Ðshared emotional connection (based on nature of the connection betweenpublic interaction asw ell asshared events, and space,reside nt interaction and sense of com- tied into the psychological aspectsofsense munity is theoretically de® cient. Itis dif® cult of community asoppose dto other to saywhere, speci®ca lly, resident interac- affective notions); tion leadsÐi.e. to what degree the speci®c Ðneighbourhood or place attachment , predi- affective aspectsof senseof community are catedon social bonding,physicalrooted- promoted. ness, the use of physicalfacilitiesand The connection betweennew urbanist attraction to neighbourhood; form and the affective dimensions ofsenseof Ðmembership ,involving boundaries, community becomesm ore and more unten- emotional safety, a`right’ to belong, per- able asthe complexity of meaning involved sonal investment and acommon symbol is evaluated. Atfacevalue, for example, a system; shared emotional connection would appear to Ð in¯ uence,which has to do with group be alikely target of neighbourhood form conformity; sinceit relieson resident interaction. The Ðreinforcement ,whereby mutual needs are problem,of course,is that suchconnections met, but also involvingthe degree towhich rely on acertainquality of interaction, not residents regard eachother in apositive necessarily on quantity. Anemotional con- way (without, necessarily, social interac- nection requiresthe sharingof events, and tion); and the ful® lling of a`spiritualbond’ .While the Ðsenseof place ,which has more to do with mixing of land usesand the provision of the environmental cognition of residents public spacesare belie ved to foster such a than with neighbourhood social life, per connection by providing an interaction se. venue, the translation is not straightforward, The key differentiating element to be usedin and itbecomesdif® cult to argue for anything understanding the potential(i.e. hypothe- more than aweakle vel of effect.T hus social sised) relationship betweennew urbanism interaction and sense of community are and the variousdimensions of neighbour- linked in someway, but it may not be atthe hood social life is the emphasis in new level intendedby new urbanists. Astudy by urbanismon public space:w hat aspectsof a Haggerty(1982) revealed that, when senseof community areprom oted by empha- sociodemographiccharac teristicsarecon- sising the role of public spaceand, by exten- trolled for, environmental factors arereleva nt sion, public life?F rom the researchresults in determining social interaction, but only at surveyed, the only aspectof the social life of the level of super® cial, impersonalinterac - neighbourhoods which is supported with tion. It is unclearwhether or not super® cial somedegree of con® dence is residentinter- contactis the kind of interaction which action or neighbouring. Interaction is pro- would belikely to foster senseof community moted by providing more venues for social (such asa shared emotional connection) as contact. The quality of this interaction may de® ned by new urbanists. be limited to brief encountersw hich lead Eachof the affectivedimensions of sense only to weaksoc ial ties, but nonethelessit of community canbe evaluated similarly. THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1371

Membership, for example, requirescertai n- sists of variousaffective dimensionsÐfor roles which cannot be garnered on the basis example, degree of rootedness, satisfaction, of neighbourhoodform and anincreasein control,symbolism,social contentment or social interaction (based on our currentlevel beauty.It has been tiedto such diverse qual- of understanding).It may appear that the ities associalisation of the self(P roshansky conceptof membership plays arole in con- et al.,1983), or involvement in local social necting public spaceto senseof community organisations, depending on which particular sincepublic spaces,it hasbeen argued,pro- type of attachment is involved(Fischer, vide asetting for social interaction, social 1977). It is also related to the notion of interaction stimulates afeeling of member- `we-ness’(Nisbet, 1969; Sarason,1974) in ship, and membership is the basisof an which social support networks within com- engenderedsense of community (Jacobs, munities aretied to asenseof belonging, 1961; Glynn, 1981; Riger et al., 1981; which in turn is linked to mental well-being. Cochrun,1994). This equationis not dif® cult Clearly,it could be debatedthat placeentails to accept.However, if the full range of the amuch broadermeaning than that envisioned meaning ofmembership and its role in build- by new urbanists, and that the affective ing senseof community areaddres sed, the dimensions involvedarebased on personal hypothesised relationship becomescloude d. outlook asopposed to environmental effect. Speci®ca lly, membership,asone de® nition Again, ascom plexity of meaning increases, of senseof community, involvesafeeling the link betweenneighb ourhoodform and that one has investedpart of oneself to social objective becomesm ore obscure. becomeamember and therefore has aright Sense of place would also seema likely to belong (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). Itis component of new urbanist social doctrine, not immediately apparenthow the kind of but, asin placeattach ment, the termhas interaction taking placein public spaces more to do with individualised meaning than leads tothis feeling.Similarly, de® ning sense with speci®c environmental characteristics. of community in termsof membership Thus the creation of senseof placemay not involvesnotions such asbounda riesand a be relatedto areasand their activitiesor to common symbol system(archi tectural, for types of behaviours engenderedby different example), which could be tied to new urban- types ofneighbourhood (Daviesand Herbert, ism’semphasis on neighbourhoodenviron- 1993). Instead,senseof placeis relatedtothe ment and form.Yetother aspectsof concept of image congruity, or the ®t membershipÐa senseof belonging and betweenm eaningsattached to aphysical emotional safetyÐare not speci®cally tied to placeand aperson’sself-image(H ull, 1992). local residentinteraction, nor arethey tangi- In this regard,senseof placew ould seemto bly tied to aspeci®c kind of form (i.e. the have very little to do with residentinterac- form prescribed by new urbanists). In the tion. Meaningsmaybe attributed to placesin end, it could be argued that theseaspec ts different ways by different people,and thus have more to do with resident homogeneity they areindivid ually, asopposed to environ- or length of residence,tha nwith either resi- mentally,constructed. If senseof placeis dent interaction or neighbourhood form. entirelyaproductof individualised meaning, It would seemthatnew urbanismw ould this leaveslittle room for amore physically fairbetter if aligned with the affective com- determined senseof place. It may be that ponentshaving to do speci®cally with the environmentalcognition (for example, men- notion of placeattach ment. Yet, again, tal mapping or environmental awareness),a the multi-dimensionality of the conceptof relatednotion, rather than asenseof placeis placeattachm ent leavesopen the questionof promotedbynewurbanist form,but the issue whetheror not form or residentinteraction has not been explored. canbe successfully tied to aresident’s Finally, there is also the predicament that attachment to place. Placeattachment con- the social goals ofnew urbanism run counter 1372 EMILY TALEN to somemeanings of senseof community. of threat of endangerment, researchershave Speci®ca lly, the notion of boundaries, which uncovered acorrelation betweenneighb our- arean integralpart of membership,could be hood safety and preferencefor neighbouring problematicon newurbanists’term ssince (Doolittle and MacDonald, 1978). By pro- they canbe interpreted asyieldin gto an moting stronglycontrolled neighbourhoods exclusionary mindset. Similarly, the notions with high levels of residentparticipation, of membership and in¯ue nceinvolve acer- safetyis increasedand, via thesefactor s, the tain kind of conformity which may not, at level of neighbouring. This is asigni® cantly leastphiloso phically, be embraced by new different approach from effectuating the goal urbanists’atte mpts to promote individuality of buildingsenseof community via public/ and heterogeneity. private spaceintegra tion. One of the most importantvariablesin the promotion of senseof community is resident The ImportanceofIntermediate Variables homogeneity, and new urbanismm ay simply It may be the casethat alink betweenresi- be attracting residents with certainsimilar dent interaction,senseof community (its characteristics. Researchersha ve concluded affective components)and the neighbour- that senseof community dependson social hood environment is formedvia anumber of support (Weenig et al.,1990) that this sup- intervening variables. In other words, the port is engenderedthrough social interaction translation betweenenviro nment and behav- and that social interaction isinturn increased iour may not be direct, but towndesign may by homogeneity (Keane,1991). This could neverthelessha ve acatalytic effect.Town lend supportto new urbanism’seffectuation design may not build senseof community by of social goals, wereit not for the factthat deterministically bringingpeople togetheron new urbanismis based on the idea that town the basis of streetlayout and the provisionof design canc reatese nse of community via public spaces,but it may stimulate other increasing af® liative behaviour for ahetero- factorswhich work to build senseof com- geneous asoppose dto ahomogeneous popu- munity. The danger in this to new urbanism lation. This is amorally commendablegoal, is that if its design philosophy createsother but itmust berecognised that there is little to conditions which in turn createsense of com- support its premise. And in fact,socia land munity, itmay be that the sameresults could economichom ogeneity arepreval ent charac- be achieved from any number of other town teristicsof actual (asoppose dto theoretical) design principles. new urbanistdevelopment (Plas and Lewis, For example, neighbourhoodresearch has 1996). Basedon new urbanist rhetoric, the illuminated twointerrelated factorswhich homogeneity associated with new urbanism appear toeffectsocial bonding (tied toneigh- (atle astin new developments such asSea- bourhood attachment, one dimension of side, Florida) could put the buildingof sense senseof community): threat ofendangerment of community (asde® ned by new urbanists) and organisationaldependence. Crenshaw atrisk. Theirony, however, is that increasing and StJohn (1989) coined the phrase `organ- homogeneity may provide asocial arena isationally dependent community’ to charac- which is more conducive to physicaldeter- teriseneighbo urhoodswith high social minism.The following conclusions, pre- cohesion resulting from the collective inter- sented by John Dyckman over 35 yearsago, estsof their residents. Innew urbanistdevel- may still hold true: opment, the basis of communality may be a strong senseof townidentitybroughton by Wherea population is socially, culturally, the conspicuousnessof neotraditionaltown and economically very homogeneous, and design. Ineffect,residents may have `bought of uniformfamily condition, physical in’ to the design ideologyof new urbanism, proximity and physicalarrangements may and seekto protectitand promote it. Interms stronglyin¯uence interpersonalpatterns of THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1373

af®liative behavior. But wheresocial, cul- be strong enough to leverage amassive tural, economic, and familial differences rethinking of Americanlifesty le. Somehave aregreat, thesew ill outweigh physical- claimedthat itis amyth that neighbourhoods spatialfactors in af®liative behavior provide asense of stabilityand orientation, (Dyckman, 1961, p.103). and that fewneighb ourhoods areanythin g more than ªtemporary staging groundsfor Af¯uence may be an intermediatefa ctor as the upward and outward mobility of their well. Since new urbanistdevelopment is, to residentsº(G oering and Rogowsky, 1978, date, dominatedby af¯uence, it is possible p.83). If this is the case,it is not surprising that this status rather than towndesign cre- that Audirac and Smith (1992) found that atesan economically based senseof only aminority of residents in Florida were community. Residentsofnew urban develop- willing to trade privateoutdoor spacefor ments may view their communities asc om- communal space.N ewurbani st ideology modities,and thus the commitment to them challenges longstanding suburbanideals, two may be based on economicrationa lity as centuriesin the making, which arestill wide- opposedto asociallybased senseof com- spread.Sharpe and Wallock(1994, p.17) munity. In this way, senseof community, contendthat fundamental attitudesunderl y- speci®cally the notion of membership, ing the suburban way of life arestill becomesa functionofthe particularqualiti es dominant: ªfemalesubord ination,class of the residents who areattract edby the strati® cation and racialsegre gation, all assetsof the community, rather than the wrapped up in apastoralmythologyºde® ne design attributesof the community itself. the suburban way of life. Certainfactors may be said to have a This tiesinto what Langdon (1994) threshold effectin the creation of one or identi® ed asa potentialthreat to the strength more aspectsof senseof community. In a of need for community: the existenceof sur- statisticalana lysis, for example, selected plus wealth which enables the buildingof variablesmay have to achieveacertain level sprawling, land-consumptive development. before correlation betweenvaria bles is dis- The robust community life presumedto be cerned.By this approach, itcould behypoth- engendered by traditional pre-modern forms esisedthat certain resident characteristics wasto someextent dictatedbyscarcity. Lack must be in evidence(i.e. reachaspeci®c ofmoney and carsm eant arelianceonneigh- level or threshold) before the tenets of new bourhood-levelconsumption and recreation. urbanism(high public/private spaceinte- If the economydoes not require an ef®c ient, gration)could be shownto be positively compact, more thrifty form of livingÐw hich correlated with senseof community. In view may have the advantageof promoting some of the social scienceresearch on community aspectsof senseof communityÐw ill genera- formation, residentcharacteristicssuch as tions of suburbanites ®nd other usesfor gender (women) and presenceof young chil- surplus wealth which do not requirelarge dren may have such an effect.This hypoth- houses on large lots? esisdoes not necessarily undermine the What is particularly provocative about the social agenda of new urbanism;however, it social prescription of new urbanismis that it does have somebearingon the particular appearsto be atodds with what af¯uent circumstances(i.e. other than neighbourhood individuals deemim portantin their local form)under which social life canbe effected. communities. That is, the goal of ageo- graphically constrained range of interaction runs counterto what is currently enjoyedby The Needfor Community more af¯uent members of society.Ahlbrandt Thereis apossibility that new urbanists have (1984) found that residents with the highest miscalculated the strengthof need for gain- range of economicchoice wereless attach ed ing senseof community, aneedwhich must to their neighbourhoods, in part becauseof 1374 EMILY TALEN the wider geographical range of contact Aslong asnew urbanistsstre ssthe import- available to them.Fried (1986, p.350) also anceof the interrelationship between neigh- found that neighbourhoodªdiminishesin bourhood form,residentinteraction and importancew ith increasing social positionº. senseof communityÐthat neighbouring More speci®cally, high-incomegroups deem activity(social interaction) engenderedby the proximity of goods and servicesand public/private spaceintegra tion has an effect interaction with neighbours ase ssentialto a on abroadlyde®ned psychological senseof much lowerdegree thanlow-and moderate- communityÐthe social claimsof new urban- incomegroups.Newurbanismm aythus con- ists will be untenable. More defensible is the stitute asocial experiment in which the presumption thatnew urbanismincrea ses af¯uenc eof the community liberated is cut social interaction and that this interaction in off by an enforced residential propinquity, turn createsatleast w eaksocial ties. Moving under the bold assumption that the spatial beyond this implies assumptions about the liberation of community is not necessarily quality ofinteraction involved,requiring that what af¯uent residents require.T he com- public/private spaceintegra tion take on a plexity of this issue is reinforcedby the fact deeper level of effectw hich is, atleast that the marketfor new urbanistdevelopment currently, without basis. is, to date, predominantly af¯uent. The social claimsof new urbanistsare weakenedby the factthat senseof com- munity, speci®cally ashared emotional con- Conclusion nection,have been found to exist and even The theoretical and empiricalsupport for the thrive under avarietyof conditions, someof notion that sense of community (particularly which appear to be adverseto new urbanist its affective dimensions)canbe createdvia design ideology(for example, within dis- physicaldesign factorsis ambiguous atbest. persed,auto-oriented suburban environ- Newurbani smis supported by the factthat ments). Basedon existingresearch, it is not research demonstratesa link between resi- implausiblethat senseof community is indif- dent interaction and environment, and there- ferent to physicalsurroundings, or that non- fore the correlation betweenpublic/ private territorial and non-architecturalsolutions spaceintegra tion and residentinteraction is offer better hope for buildingasenseof sustained. But to move beyond interaction community. If, for example, length of resi- towards the affective dimensions of senseof denceis akey variablein the formation of community isproblematicsince the effectua- senseof community, how cannew urbanist tion of asense of community in thesete rms development hope to createa senseof is usually only achieved via someintermedi- community under theseterm s? atevariab le(for example, resident homo- One wayout of this dilemmawould be for geneity,af¯uence) .This leavesopen the new urbaniststo tone downtheir social aspi- questionof whether or not any number of rations and declarethat they aresim ply meet- other design creedscould producethe same ing the humanrequirements of physical result via adifferent design philosophy. design, rather than actively creating certain Thereis aneed, then, for furtherresearch. behaviours. Physical design need not create Speci®ca lly, much more research should be senseof community, but rather, it can focusedon investigating the issue more increaseits probability (i.e. `environmental directly: where, when and under whatcondi- probablism’;seeBe ll et al.,1990). Spatial tions cansense of community be linkedto arrangement is therefore amedium rather the physicaldesign of communities?Con- than avariablew ith its owneffect.Creating trollingfor intermediate variables and deal- an environment wheredesired formsof ing with the existenceof endogeneity would behaviour (i.e. social interaction and senseof be critically importantmethodological community) are possible may be alaudable concerns in such aninvestigation. enough reason to build towns according to THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1375 new urbanist principles. Newurbanis ts must could restquite simply on the basis of the acknowledge that environmental effects quality of its design and not on its social depend on particularsocial situations, that goals. And while design guidelines could be the relationship betweenenvironment and based onamore exactunders tanding ofwhat behaviour is complex, and that the city of the basis of senseof community is, few gemeinschaft and the city of gesellschaft can would advocate that design guidelines be exist side by side. They must also concede empirically generated (this, asH ubbard, the possibility that new urbanismdoes not 1992, points out, wasthe downfall of the createsense of community, but rather attracts Modern movement). Further,even if the individuals with acertain predisposition for social doctrine ofnew urbanismis untenable, social interaction and the need for local the strength of its intuitiveappeal cannot go community attachment (i.e. the issue of unnoticed. Anecdotalaccoun ts attestto this, endogeneity). such asPindell ’sfascinating documentation Furtherresearch directed atclarif ying the (1995) of whatpeople look for in acom- relationship betweentow ndesign and sense munity, or Kunstler’s(1993 ) renditionof the ofcommunity could be facilitated byabetter appealof past urban forms. Newurbanism de® nition of what newurbanismneeds to may well succeedon the basis of gut-level succeed asa community. Speci® cally, there inclination, or by somelarger appealwhich must be abetterunderstanding of what it has not been tapped by academicians. It is takes for the new urbanistvision of`senseof hoped, however, that further empirical inves- community’ to be ful® lled, whether casual tigation will bring the relationship between neighbouring is suf® cient or whether deep towndesign and senseof community into a social bonding,membership,in¯uence, inte- clearerlight. gration and attachment to placeare requir ed. This boils downto the degree of sentiment Note involved, vis-a-vis the provision of second- ary associations with instrumental goals. In 1. New urbanism and its social ideals have been the latter case,the new urbanist neighbour- widely embraced: HUDrecently instituteda multibillion-dollar housing programme hood could build community on the basisof which funds public housing projects strongly its capacity asa servicecentre .Perhaps,as in¯uenced by new urbanist principles. New somehave stated, there has been an overem- urbanism has been featured on the covers of phasis on the neighbourhood aslocalefor Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and social interaction, and not on neighbourhood the Atlantic Monthly ,capturingthe imagin- aslocale for the deliveryof urban services ation of the American public ªlike no urban planning movement in decadesº(F ulton, (Wekerle,1985). Newurbani sm’sfocus on a 1996, p. 1). shared ecology(mixed land uses)and sub- sequentrejection of functional separation (seeJe ncks, 1992) may in factprom ote References organicsolidarity (asD urkheim promoted), ACHIM ORE,A.(1993) Putting the community back and astrong senseof community. The dan- into community retail, Urban Land, August, ger, however, is that the philosophy of new pp. 33±38. AHLBRANDT , R. S., JR (1984) Neighborhoods, urbanismcould bereducedto little more than People, and Community .New York: Plenum amarketingstrategy. Designingfor sense of Press. community could becomeahollow promise AHLBRANDT , R. S. and CUNN INGH AM,J.V.(1979) under the promulgationthat ªcommunity ANew Public Policy for Neighborhood sellsº(D uany and Plater-Zyberk, 1992, Preservation .New York: Praeger. p.47). The resulting `community’ could fall ALTMAN , I. and W ANDE RSMAN,A.(Eds) (1987) Neighborhood and Community Environments. farshort of asociallybonded,socially Human Behavior and Environment: Advances integrated environment. in Theory and Research .New York: Plenum In the end, the successof new urbanism Press. 1376 EMILY TALEN

A MICK, D. J. and KVIZ ,F.J.(1975) Social alien- pp. 7±20. Princeton,NJ:Princeton Architec- ation in public housing, Ekistics,231, pp. 118± tural Press. 120. CALT HORPE,P.(1991) Towns for all seasons, A PPLEYARD, D. (1972) Livable Streets . Los Architectural Record ,179(6), pp. 44±45. Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress. CALT HORPE, P. (1993) The Next American A TLAS, J. and D RIER,P.(1993) From `projects’ to Metropolis:Ecology, Community, and the communities: redeeming public housing, American Dream .New York: Princeton Journal of Housing ,50(1), pp. 21±36. Architectural Press. A UDIR AC, I. and SHERMYEN,A.H.(1994) An CAMPBELL, K. E. and LEE,B.A.(1992) Sources evaluationof neotraditional design’ ssocial of personal neighborhood networks: social prescription: postmodern placebo or remedy integration, need or time, Social Forces , 70, for social malaise?, Journal of Planning Edu- pp. 1077±1100. cation and Research ,13, pp. 161±173. CANT ER,D.(1988) Action and place: an existen- A UDIR AC, I. and SMITH ,M.T.(1992) Urban form tial dialectic,in: D.C AN TER, M. KRAMPEN and and residential choice: preference for urban D. STEA (Eds) Ethnoscapes: Environment density in Florida, Journal of Architectural Perspectives ,pp. 1±17. Aldershot:Gower. Planning and Research ,9, pp. 19±32. CHAVIS, D. M. and W AN DERSMAN . A. (1990) A UDIR AC, I., SHERMYEN, A. H. and S MITH, M. T. Sense of community in the urban environment: (1992) Is the development debate of the 1990s acatalyst for participation and community to resonate as afanfare for community?, Jour- development, American Journal of Community nal of the American Planning Association , 58, Psycholog y,18, pp. 55±81. pp. 514±516. CHAVIS, D. M., H OGG E, J. H., M CM ILL AN, D. W. and W ANDE RSMAN,A.(1986) Sense of com- BALDASSARE, M. (1986) Trouble in Paradise: The SuburbanTransformation in America. munity through Brunswick’slens: a®rst New York: Columbia University Press. look, Journal of Community Psychology , 14, pp. 24±40. BALDASSARE, M. and FISCHER,C.S.(1975) COCHRUN,S.(1994) Understanding and enhanc- Suburban life: powerlessness and need for ing neighborhood sense of community, Journal af® liation, Urban Affairs Quarterly , 10, of Planning Literature ,9, pp. 92±99. pp. 314±326. CRENSHAW , E. and ST JOHN,C.(1989) The orga- BALDASSARE, M. and W ILSON,G.(1995) More nizationally dependent community: acompara- trouble in paradise?Urbanization and the tive study of neighborhood attachment, Urban decline in suburbanquality-of-life ratings, Affairs Quarterly ,24, pp. 412±434. Urban Affairs Review ,30, pp. 690±708. DAV IDSON, W. B. and COTT ER,P.R.(1986) BELL, P. A., F ISHER, J. D., BAUM , A. and G REENE , Measurement and sense of community within T. C. (1990) Environmental Psychology . Fort the sphere of city, Journal of Applied Social Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Psycholog y,16, pp. 608±619. Berry, B.J.L.(1976) The counterurbanization DAV IES, W. and HERBERT, D. (1993) Communi- process: urban America since 1970, in: B.J.L. ties within Cities .London: Pinter. ERRY B (Ed.) Urbanization and Counterurban- DOO LIT TLE, R. J. and MACDONAL D, D. (1978) ization ,pp. 17±30. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Communicationand asense ofcommunity in a Publications. metropolitan neighborhood: afactor analytic BOO KOUT ,L.(1992) Neotraditional townplan- examination, CommunicationQuarterly , 26, ning: the test of the marketplace, Urban Land, pp. 2±7. 51, pp. 12±17. DUA NY, A. and PLATER-ZYBERK, E. (1991) Tow ns BRESSI,T.W.(1994) Planning the American and Town-making Principles . New York: Dream,in: P.Katz (Ed.) The New Urbanism , Rizzoli. pp. xxv±xlii. New York: McGraw-Hill. DUA NY, A. and P LAT ER-Z YBERK,E.(1992) The BROOKS,R.O.(1974) New Towns and Commu- second coming of the American small town, nal Values.New York: Praeger. Wilson Quarterly ,16, pp. 3±51. BUCKNE R,J.C.(1988) The development of an DUA NY, A. and P LAT ER-Z YBERK,E.(1994) The instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion, neighborhood and the district, in: P.K ATZ American Journal of Community Psychology , (Ed.) The New Urbanism:Toward anArchitec- 16, pp. 771±791. ture of Community ,pp. xvii±xx. New York: BURKHAR T,L.C.(1981) Old Values in aNew McGraw Hill. Town: The Politics of Race and Class in DURKHE IM,E.(1893) [1964] The Division of Columbia, Maryland .New York: Praeger. Labor in Society .New York: Free Press. CALTHORPE,P.(1989) Pedestrian pockets: new DYCKMAN,J.W.(1961) Ofmen and mice and strategiesfor suburban growth, in: moles: notes on physical planning,environ- D. K ELBAUGH (Ed.) The Pedestrian Pocket ment, and community, Journal ofthe American Book. ANew SuburbanDesign Strategy , Institute of Planners ,27, pp. 102±104. THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1377

FESTING ER, L., SCHACHTER, S. and BACK, K. Strawberry Hill: continuityand adaptation inan (1950) Social Pressures in Formal Groups . urban ethnic neighborhood, Ethnic Groups , 6, New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. pp. 275±292. FISCHER,C.S.(1972) Urbanism as away of life: GUTMAN, R. (1972) People and Buildings . New areview and an agenda, Sociological Methods York: Basic Books. and Research ,1(November), pp. 187±242. HAG GERTY,L.J.(1982) Differential social contact FISCHER,C.S.(1973) Onurban alienationand in urban neighborhoods: environmental vs. so- anomie: powerlessness and social isolation, ciodemographicexplanations, TheSociological American Sociological Review ,38, pp. 311±26. Quarterly,23, pp. 359±372. FISCHER,C.S.(1976) The Urban Experience . HAY DEN , D. (1984) Redesigningthe American New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Dream .New York: W.W.Norton. FISCHER,C.S.(Ed.) (1977) Networks and Places: HOCHSTEIN,M.(1994) Anew urbanist library, Social Relations in the Urban Setting . New Urban Land,53, pp. 79±81. York: The Free Press. HUBBARD,P.J.(1992) Environment-behaviour FLANA GAN,W.G.(1993) Contemporary Urban studies and city design: anew agenda for re- Sociolog y.Cambridge: Cambridge University search?, Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology , Press. 12, pp. 269±279. FLEMIN G, R., BAU M, A. and SING ER,J.E.(1985) HULL,R.B.IV.(1992) Image, congruity, place Social support and the physical environment, attachment and community design, The Journal in: S. COHE N and S. L. SYME (Eds) Social of Architectural and Planning Research , 9(3), Support and Health ,pp. 327±345. Orlando, FL: pp. 181±192. Academic Press. HUN TER,A.(1975) The loss of community: an empirical test through replication, American FRIED ,M.(1986) Theneighborhood inmetropoli- tan life: its psychological signi® cance, in: Sociological Review ,40, pp. 537±552. JACOBS, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great R. B. T AYL OR (Ed.) Urban Neighborhoods , pp. 331±363. New York: Praeger. American Cities .New York: Random House. JENCKS,C.(1992) The remorseless charm of sea- FULTON, W. (1996) The New Urbanism:Hope or side, TimesLiterary Supplement ,20November, Hype for American Communities? Cambridge, pp. 6±7. MA:Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. KASARDA, J. D. and JANO WITZ ,M.(1974) Com- G ANS, H. (1962) The Urban Villagers: Group and munity attachment in mass society, American Class in the Life of Italian Americans . New Sociological Review ,39, pp. 328±339. York: The Free Press. KATZ, P. (1994) The New Urbanism:Toward an G ANS, H. (1967) The Levittowners . New York: Architecture of Community . New York: Pantheon. McGraw Hill. G ANS,H.J.(1972) Urbanism and suburbanism as KEANE ,C.(1991) Socio-environmental determi- ways of life: are-evaluation of de® nitions, in: nants of community formation, Environment J. KRAMER (Ed.) North American Suburbs: and Behavior ,23, pp. 27±46. Politics, Diversity, and Change , pp. 31±51. KELLER, S. (1968) The Urban Neighborhood . Berkeley, CA:GlandessaryPress. New York: Random House. LYN N G ,T.J.(1981) Psychological sense of com- KIN GSTON, P. W. and NOCK,S.L.(1992) Cou- munity: Measurement and application, Human ples’ joint work status and community and Relations,34, pp. 789±818. social attachments, Social Science Quarterly , G LYN N,T.J.(1986) Neighborhood and sense of 73, pp. 862±875. community, Journal ofCommunity Psychology , KRASNER, L. (1980) Environmental Design and 14, pp. 341±352. Human Behavior .New York: Pergamon Press. G OERING,J.M.(1978) Neighborhood tipping and KRIER, L. (1984) Houses Palaces and Cities . New racial transition: Areview of social science York: StMartin’ sPress. evidence , American Instituteof Planners Jour- KRIER,L.(1991) Afterward, in: A.D UANY and E. nal,44, pp. 68±78. PLATER-Z YBERK (Eds) Townsand Town-making G OUDY ,W.J.(1990) The ideal and the actual Principles ,pp. 117±119. New York: Rizzoli. community: Evaluations from small townresi- KUN STLER,J.H.(1993) The Geographyof dents, Journal of Community Psychology , 18, Nowhere.New York: Simon &Schuster. pp. 277±288. LANG, J. (1994) Urban Design: The American G RANO VET TER,M.S.(1973) Thestrength ofweak Experience .New York: Van Nostrand Rein- ties, American Journal of Sociology , 78, hold. pp. 1360±1380. LANGDO N,P.(1988) Agood place to live, The G REENBAUM ,S.D.(1982) Bridging ties at the Atlantic Monthly ,270(3), pp. 39±60. neighborhood level, Social Networks , 4, LANGDO N, P. (1994) ABetter Place to Live: pp. 367±384. Reshaping the American Suburb . Amherst, G REENBAUM ,S.D.(1985) The preservation of MA:University of Massachusetts Press. 1378 EMILY TALEN

L EE,T.(1970) Urban neighborhoods as asocio- Community Planning, Monograph1,pp. 2±140. spatial schema, in: H.M.P ROSHA NSKY (Ed.) New York: Arno Press. Environmental Psychology: Man and His PIND ELL, T. (1995) AGood Place to Live . New Physical Setting ,pp 349±370. New York: Holt, York: Henry Holt. Rinehartand Winston. PLAS, J. M. and L EW IS,S.E.(1996) Environmen- L EVINE,M.D.(1986) Working it out: Acom- tal factors and sense ofcommunity inaplanned munity reaction approachto crimeprevention, town, American Journal of Community Journal ofCommunity Psychology 14, pp. 378± Psycholog y,24, pp. 109±143. 390. PROSHANSKY, H. M., F ABIA N, A. K. and L YNCH, K. (1960) The Image of the City . K AMINOF F,R.(1983) Place-identity: physical Cambridge, MA:MIT.Press. world socialization of the self, Journal of M CM ILL AN, D. W. and CHA VIS,D.M.(1986) Environmental Psychology ,31(3), pp. 57±83. Sense of community: ade® nition and theory, PUDD IFOOT ,J.E.(1995) Dimensions of com- Journal of Community Psychology , 14, munity identity, Journal of Community and pp. 6±23. Applied Social Psychology ,5,pp. 357±370. M EIN IG,D.W.(Ed.). (1979) TheInterpretation of RELPH, E. (1976) Place and Placeness . London: Ordinary Landscapes .New York: Oxford Pion. University Press. RIGE R, S. and L AVRAKA S,P.J.(1981) Community M ICHELSON ,W.H.(1970) Man and His Urban ties: patterns of attachment and social interac- Environment: ASociological Approach . Read- tion inurban neighborhoods, American Journal ing, MA:Addison-Wesley. of Community Psychology ,9, pp. 55±66. M ICHELSON ,W.H.(1977) Environmental Choice, RIGE R, S., L EBAILL Y, R. and G ORDON, M. T. Human Behavior, and ResidentialSatisfaction . (1981) Community ties and urbanites’ fear of New York: Oxford University Press. crime: an ecological investigation, American M OORE,G.(1987) Environment and behavior Journal of Community Psychology , 9, research in North America: history, develop- pp. 653±665. ments, and unresolved issues, in: D.S TOK OLS ROSSI,P.H.(1980) Why Families Move . Beverly and I. ALTMAN (Eds) Handbook of Environ- Hills, CA:Sage Publications. mental Psychology, Vol. II ,pp. 1359±1410. ROTH BLATT , D. N. and GARR,D.J.(1986) Subur- New York: Wiley. bia: an international perspective on levels of M ORRIS,E.W.(1996) Community in theory and satisfaction with the physical environment, practice: aframework for intellectual renewal, Journal of Planning Education and Research , Journal of Planning Literature ,11, pp. 127± 5(2), pp. 94±106. 150. ROUSE,J.W.(1978) Building asense ofplace, in: M UMFORD, L. (1961) The City in History . Har- D. C. KLEIN (Ed.) Psychologyof the Planned mondsworth: Penguin. Community,pp. 51±57. New York: Human N ASAR,J.L.and Julian, D.A.(1995) Thepsycho- Services Press. logical sense of community in the neighbor- SARASON,S.B.(1974) The Psychological Sense hood, Journal of the American Planning of Community: Prospects for aCommunity Association ,61, pp. 178±184. Psycholog y.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. N EW MAN, O. (1972) Defensible Space . New York: SCHAEFFER, K. H. and SCLAR, E. (1975) Access Macmillan. for All.Harmondsworth: Penguin. N ISBET,R.A.(1969) The Quest for Community . SCHNEIDER ,K.R.(1979) Onthe Nature ofCities . New York: Oxford University Press. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. O’ BRIEN, D. J., HASSING ER, E. W. and DERSHEM, SHARPE, W. and W ALLOCK,L.(1994) Contextual- L.(1994) Community attachment and izing suburbia, American Quarterly , 46, depressionamong residents in tworural mid- pp. 55±61. western communities, Rural Sociology , 59, SKJAEVE LAND, O., GARLING , T. and MAELA ND, J. pp. 255±265. G.(1996) Amultidimensional measure of PANZE TTA,A.F.(1971) The concept of com- neighboring, American Journal of Community munity: The short-circuit of the mental health Psycholog y,24, pp. 413±435. movem ent, Archives of General Psychiatry , STEIN,C.S.(1957) Towards New Towns for 25pp. 291±297. America.Cambridge, MA:MITPress. PARK,R.E.,Burgess, E.W.and McKenzie, R.D. SUTTLES,G.D.(1968) The Social Order of the (1925) The City.Chicago: University of Slum:Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City . Chicago Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. PERRY,C.A.(1929) [1974] The neighborhood SUTTLES,G.D.(1972) The Social Construction of unit: aschemeof arrangement for the family- Communities .Chicago: University of Chicago life community, in: Regional Study of New Press. York and its Environs VII,Neighborhood and SUTTLES,G.D.(1975) Community design: the THESOCIALDOCTRINEOFNEWURBANISM 1379

search for participation in an urban society, in: gram s, Environment and Behavior , 22, A. H. HAWL EY and V. P. ROCK (Eds) Metro- pp. 27±54. politan American in Contemporary Perspec- W EKERLE,G.R.(1985) From refuge to service tive,pp. 235±297. New York: Halstead Press. center: neighborhoods that support women, T ENNEN BAUM,R.(1990) Hail Columbia, Sociological Focus ,18(2), pp. 79±95. Planning ,56(5), pp. 16±17. W ELLMAN ,B.(1979) The community question: T UAN , Y. (1977) Space and Place: The Perspec- the intimate networks of East Yonkers, Ameri- tive of Experience .Minneapolis: University of can Journal of Sociology ,84, pp. 1201±1231. Minnesota Press. W ELLMAN , B. and L EIGHT ON,B.(1979) Networks, U NGE R, D. G. and W AND ERSMAN,A.(1985) The neighborhoods, and communities: approaches importanceof neighbors: the social, cognitive to the study of the community question, Urban and affectivecomponents of neighboring, Affairs Quarterly ,14, pp. 363±390. American Journal of Community Psychology , W HYT E,W.H.(1988) City: Rediscovering the 13, pp. 139±170. Center.New York: Doubleday. V ERBRUGGE, L. M. and T AY LOR,R.B.(1980) W IRTH,L.(1938) Urbanism as away of life, in: Consequences of population density and size, R. SENNE TT (Ed) Classic Essays onthe Culture Urban Affairs Quarterly ,16, pp. 135±160. of Cities,pp. 143±164. New York: Appleton- W EBBER,M.(1963) Order in diversity,com- Century-Crofts. munity without propinquity, in: L.W INGO , JR YAN CEY,W.L.(1971) Architecture, interaction (Ed.) Cities and Space: The Future Use of and social control, Environment and Behavior , Urban Land,pp. 23±56. Baltimore, MD:Johns 3, pp. 3±21. Hopkins University Press. ZEHNE R,R.B.(1977) Indicators ofthe Quality of W EENIG, M. W. H., S CHMID T, T. and M IDD EN, C. Life in New Communities .Cambridge, MA: J.H.(1990) Social dimensions of neighbor- Ballinger . hoods and the effectiveness of information pro-