Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Green Communities and Neighborhood Planning

Global concerns over climate change and the associated search for greener urban lifestyles have created new challenges for urban planning theory and practice, most notably in the field of neighborhood planning. The neighborhood is the territorial scale at which people develop specific behaviors and attitudes in domains of crucial environmental relevance such as housing, transportation, and consumption. Thus, if urban planning is to contribute to urban environmental sustainability, it is expected to do so by acting on the physical environment at the neighborhood level. This endeavor lies at the heart of contemporary green communities, with several recent groundbreaking planning models seeking to show the way forward. To avoid the limitations of physical determinism, however, these models of neighborhood planning must acknowledge that achieving behavioral sustainability cannot exclusively rest on top-down alterations of the built environment but requires involving local residents in the “greening” of their communities.

The Neighborhood as a Social Fact

Recognition of the neighborhood as an appropriate geographical unit for urban planning may be traced back to the first half of the 20th century. In the 1920s, urban planners slowly began to acknowledge that the neighborhood scale would provide a compelling complement to citywide, comprehensive planning by offering a window into the social organization of urban society. First, the neighborhood is the spatial container in which citizens spend most of their time, and with which they are most concerned. Second, planning at the neighborhood level allows taking into account the physical, social, and economic distinctiveness of communities whose specificity goes unnoticed in comprehensive planning.

This interest for the neighborhood as a “social fact”—as prominent American planner Lewis Mumford once put it—very much conditioned the various models and practices of neighborhood planning from the 1920s onward. It was hoped then, and to a large extent it still is today, that social problems may be tackled through adequate neighborhood design. Good physical design, according to this perspective, should not be rated for its architectural, infrastructural/technological, and aesthetic standards alone but, most crucially, for its ability to attain social objectives by influencing people's choices and behaviors in socially efficient ways. By applying appropriate standards of physical planning, the argument goes, one can act on society through the physical environment to produce desired social, economic, and environmental outcomes. As a consequence, every model of neighborhood development devised throughout the history of neighborhood planning represented a reaction to the social context and urban conditions of the time. A famous example is the “neighborhood unit formula” presented by Clarence Perry in 1923. Perry's formula, which has remained one of the most influential endorsements of neighborhood planning, intended to fight the problems of social anomy and urban criminality that were crippling U.S. cities. Through the design of self-sufficient neighborhoods promoting the use of common facilities, neighborhood units were expected to foster a spirit of community and neighborliness. Another influential urban planner, Patrick Abercrombie, played a somewhat similar role in the 1940s in the United Kingdom by establishing the neighborhood as the basic planning unit. For the first time, planners on both sides of the Atlantic were urged to take into consideration the design of residential communities in a comprehensive, integrated fashion.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading