THE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROACH

4

INTRODUCTION

In a planning context, where the main regulatory framework defined by governments is generally modified at a slow rhythm and with a generic approach (Turner, 1972; Werlin, 2000), more specific and local solutions are being required to guarantee a fast and effective improvement of the quality of life of citizens, and a more efficient use of natural resources.

Increasingly sustainable ideas are focusing on the need to work from a local perspective; reducing the scale of production, of consumption, of energy generation, and of democracy (Schumacher, 1973; UNCED, 1992; Register, 2002). The suggestion of working from the small scale is supported by the idea that natural resources and social dynamics could be managed in direct relation with their local contexts (Mumford, 1954). Recent ideological movements such as ‘Compact Cities’, ‘Smart Growth’ and ‘The New Urbanism’ have declared that, by promoting the development of compact, walkable, mixed land use and energy efficient human settlements, it is possible to promote a more efficient use of urban infrastructure, whilst improving human health and the conservation of natural resources (Congress for The New Urbanism, 2001; Alexander & Tomalty, 2002; UNHABITAT, 2009). At the same time, sustainable upgrading to existing neighbourhoods can also promote the increase of local resilience; providing urban systems with a more stable structure to face future economic and environmental changes (Hopkins, 2008).

The direct relation between neighbourhoods and communities requires consider social dynamics when planning for the local scale. On the one hand, planning for built environments that promote human encounters could invigorate resident’s sense of community (Mumford, 1954; Lynch, 1981). Whilst on the other hand, recognising citizens as active generators of change in their neighbourhoods could help to promote the development of more vibrant communities, and ultimately promote the development of successful urban areas (Beske, 2007; Rudlin and Falk, 2009).

Community development guided by the principles of sustainable neighbourhoods could be an interesting strategy to reinforce the dynamics of urban life. Planning at the local scale supports the development of more vibrant and efficient cities, promoting social interactions while reducing urban demands and pressures over natural resources (Peterman, 2000; Choguill, 2008).

5

6 NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING THEORIES

Planning for neighbourhood-scale has been presented as a conceptual response to social and liveable problems accumulating in large urban environments since Ebenezer Howard’s ‘Garden Cities’ in 1898¬. Similar approaches have been use for the construction of “industrial towns” during the modern era; promoting walkable settlements, and diversity of uses and residents. Pullman town in Chicago and Bournville town planned by Cadbury in the UK are some examples of these (Schubert, 2000).

The concept of planning for ‘neighbourhood units’ has been related with Drummond’s analysis of Daniel Burnham’s 1912 Chicago Plan (Schubert, 2000), and also with the 1928 Sunnyside City Garden project promoted by RPAA and conceived by Stein and Wright in Queens (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). Though authors seems to agree that Clearence Perry’s ‘superblock’ principle developed for the 1929 New York Plan (see Figure 1) was the first successful approach able to relate the size, infrastructure and social configuration of neighbourhoods with pedestrianisation and sense of community concepts (Schubert, 2000; Choguill, 2008).

Figure 1 - Clarence Perry’s neighbourhood Unit. Regional Plan of New York, 1929 Source: McDonald, Noreen C. (2010) ‘School Sitting’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:2, 184 - 198

More recently ‘The Charter of the New Urbanism’ has responded to the effects of sprawl by promoting the restoration of urban centres and mix-use neighbourhoods (see Figure 2), referencing Perry’s planning ideas as a way to reactivate urban dynamics; relating physical design with social engineering (Schubert, 2000).

Figure 2 - Traditional Neighbourhood Development vs. Suburban Sprawl

The rise of environmental awareness and the re-valuation of communal dynamics have emerged as new factors promoting the redevelopment of neighbourhood units under sustainable principles (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). Nowadays international organisations such as the United Nations (UN) throughout ‘UN-HABITAT’ and ‘Local Agenda 21’, the European Renewable Energy Council, and independent movements such as ‘Eco Cities’ and ‘Transition Towns’, seem to agree that in order to generate more liveable and energy efficiency human settlements, local solutions should be implemented considering technical innovations and community involvement (UN, 1992; EREC, 2005; Hopkins, 2008; Downton, 2009).

7

8 Therefore, by focusing at the local scale, planning at the neighbourhood level is increasingly being considered as an effective way to achieve urban sustainability. By improving micro-scale planning outcomes, positive cumulative consequences could be generated at the macro-city scale (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005; Choguill, 2008). Simultaneously social dynamics can be encouraged by designing places for human relations to occur. This practice would support the development of stronger communities (Peterman, 2000; Beske, 2007).

In conclusion, it is possible to recognise that efficient use of resources and future energy restrictions are new factors promoting the resurgence of an old concept - planning for neighbourhood scale. By reducing distances and involving community livelihood, the local scale is a much more energy- and socially-efficient scale for planning. Under this approach, the next section focuses on exploring advantages, particularities and implications of planning for the neighbourhood-unit.

.

BENEFITS OF PLANNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE

Originally neighbourhoods were considered in the planning field as geographic places defined according to their size (population density and accessibility), boundaries (political or physical) and identity (physical or historical) (Perry, 1929; Lynch, 1981; Pierson, 2008). More recently however, sustainable approaches have related neighbourhood design with characteristics such as: walkable, mixed land use, energy efficiency, and mix-income housing (Neal, 2003; Congress for The New Urbanism, 2001; UNHABITAT, 2009). These principles focused on reducing car dependency and promoting energy efficiency systems have arisen internationally as a response to urban sprawl, Climate Change and political effects of the ‘Kyoto Protocol’. At the national and local level though, benefits of the implementation of sustainable design principles in neighbourhoods can also be related with a more efficient use of urban infrastructure (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005; Gause, 2007), as well as an improvement of social interactions (Beske, 2007; Rudlin and Falk, 2009).

In relation to the built environment, benefits related to economic savings, improvement of health and conservation of natural resources emerge from the development of compact, walkable, mixed land use and energy efficient neighbourhoods.

In particular, density and its impact over the reduction of lot sizes, generates a significant reduction on the water infrastructure network and road requirements and costs (Schmitz ed. 2003; Engel-Yan ed al., 2005). High densities also decrease roads infrastructure requirements per inhabitant reducing development costs (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005), while offering higher real estate business possibilities.

Compact developments, and planning for mixed land uses and a connected street grid, also promotes high pedestrian accessibility, supporting active transport behaviours. By improving cycling and walking conditions, sustainable neighbourhoods encourage physical activity, while reducing traffic congestion and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions generated by the use of private vehicles.

9

Through an appropriate design of streets and open space, it is possible to promote cultural and physical activities; and stormwater for the watering of urban landscapes. Reducing impervious surfaces could also help to promote more efficient management of runoff stormwater, decreasing peak flows and allowing the irrigation of rainwater back into the natural water cycle (Water by design – Introduction on WSUD in SEQ; Engel-Yan ed al., 2005)

Urban forestry and urban agriculture reduce the intensity of urban heat islands (Capon and Blakely, 2007), while also contributing to the control of air pollution and noise (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005). Their implementation also supports local food production, generating the development of more resilient neighbourhoods (Hopkins, 2008)

In general, mixed use neighbourhoods and alternative energetic, In general, mixed use neighbourhoods and alternative energetic, envienvironmental, educational and cultural activities stimulate the ronmental, educational and cultural activities stimulate the development development of local businesses and create additional local jobs, of local businesses and create additional local jobs, and place-making and place-making design, active transportation systems and enerdesign, active transportation systems and energy efficiency techniques gy efficiency techniques increase quality of life of people, reduce increase quality of life of people, reduce dependence on financial investdependence on financial investments and significantly reduce ments and significantly reduce environmental impacts (EREC, 2005). environmental impacts (EREC, 2005).

Besides physical configurations, many authors supporting neighbourhood developments in the past have done so using social principles. Fisher established the linkage between the amount and quality of human interaction with the size of neighbourhoods (Fischer, 1984). Before him, Lewis Mumford declared that considering neighbourhoods as basic units of cities promotes feelings of belonging among residents (Mumford, 1954). Nonetheless, physical components of an urban area do correlate with social interactions amongst the urban population, and Kevin Lynch advocated this point noting that properly revitalising the built environment of a neighbourhood can invigorate people, stimulating or creating sense of community, and generating with this the development of better communities (Lynch, 1981).

10

Beske comprehensively studies this idea and declares: “This concept appears to be particularly important since people who have a strong sense of community have greater feelings of safety and security, participate more in community affairs, and are more likely to vote, recycle, help others and volunteer (Schweitzer, 1996). Having a strong sense of community improves individual sense of wellbeing, in terms of increased happiness, decreased worrying, and a greater sense of self-efficacy (Davidson and Cotter 1991). Additionally, as Bachrach and Zautra (1985) found in their study of community response to the threat of a hazardous waste facility, a strong sense of community is related to a high degree of self-efficacy, and can help people deal with stressors in their community in proactive ways” (Beske, 2007, p.46). This means that neighbourhoods with a strong sense of community are more capable of organising themselves in a scenario of need - avoiding problems or reacting efficiently when they do occur (Rudlin and Falk, 2009) - resulting in a more resilient community (Hopkins, 2008). Neighbourhoods offering places or opportunities for interactions beNeighbourhoods offering places or opportunities for interactions tween residents (such as through windows facing public spaces, between residents (such as through windows facing public spaces, constant pedestrian movement and village centres), are more likely to constant pedestrian movement and village centres), are more likely support social relationships occuring, strengthening social cohesion to support social relationships occuring, strengthening social cohe(EREC, 2005) and generating safer urban environments. sion (EREC, 2005) and generating safer urban environments.

From this analysis therefore, it is possible to conclude that sustainable neighbourhoods are associated with places that promote efficient use of urban infrastructure, thereby minimising environmental impacts and providing quality human interactions, while generating economic benefits and strong communities (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). It is also expected that this characteristic will support sustainable neighbourhoods into the future, because: “the existence of a strong community can be the difference between successful and declining urban areas” (Rudlin and Falk, 2009, p.116).

11

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING: POTENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS OF BOTTOM-UP PROCESSES

This research takes cognisance that local development, particularly the neighbourhood approach, is an effective way to improve urban sustainability, and build a sense of community. As discussed in preceding paragraphs, a neighbourhood approach to community development considers issues that are local and specific to an area. Therefore in order to develop effective policies at the governmental level, considerations rewarding local knowledge and concerns must be included.

In Australia, even though up-bottom community building policies have been presented as an effective measure in building capacity between citizens to solve local problems (Murphy & Cauchi, 2002), a considerable array of issues have made it difficult for government policies to achieve their scope for neighbourhood development. Among the issues, Murphy & Cauchi have identify: the imposition of government process to communities, the incontinuity as a result in the constant change of government, the problems with governing and empowering, the distancing information to the small grassroots groups, and that the governmental language is not approachable by every member of the community (Murphy & Cauchi, 2002).

In response to these issues, initatives and projects instigated or generated by community members could emerge as an alternative path to develop more sustainable and inclusive neighbourhoods.

The difference between top-down and bottom-up planning process at the neighbourhood scale is defined by Checkoway as ’subarea planning‘ and ’neighbourhood planning‘; where ’subarea planning‘ is the process of deconcentrating central planning agency facilities and functions to subareas and ’neighbourhood where ’subarea planning‘ is the process of deconcentrating central planning agenplanning‘ occurs when community residents develop their own cy facilities and functions to subareas and ’neighbourhood planning‘ occurs when plans and programs (Checkoway, 1984). community residents develop their own plans and programs (Checkoway, 1984).

12

Checkoway further identifies that this bottom-up process can be a reaction to external pressures and generated when residents get together to redevelop their own communities (Checkoway, 1984).

These bottom-up initiatives are of significant importance because they promote community development by encouraging organisation and generation of common goals between residents. They also facilitate the saving of public time and resources by solving local problems internally between residents (Choguill, 2008). Arguably of most significance is their ability to undermine social hierarchies (Mayer, 2006), by developing projects that could pose examples of sustainable development for authorities and governments (Hopkins, 2008).

As Peterman declared:

“The creation of an independent agenda or plan, which is a process “The creation of an independent agenda or plan, which is a process of poliof political development, is what brings neighbourhood planning tical development, is what brings neighbourhood planning to be viewed as a to be viewed as a process of community development” (Peterman, process of community development” (Peterman, 2000, p.25) 2000, p.25)

This strength of community-based organisation could also be perceived as a threat by governments, raising political issues on the legitimacy of local authorities. However, “whether it is identified as subsidiarity, decentralization, empowerment or participation, some component of democratization is widely viewed as being integral to the achievement of an environmentally sustainable future”. (Davis, 2009, p.2)

13