Journal of Planning History 2009 Lloyd Lawhon 111 32

http://jph.sagepub.
com/
Journal of Planning History
http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1538513208327072
2009 8: 111 originally published online 3 February 2009 Journal of Planning History
Larry Lloyd Lawhon
The Neighborhood Unit: Physical Design or Physical Determinism?
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for American City and Regional Planning History

can be found at: Journal of Planning History Additional services and information for
http://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jph.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Feb 3, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Apr 16, 2009 Version of Record >>

at CRAI-Universitat de Barcelona on September 3, 2014 jph.sagepub.com Downloaded from at CRAI-Universitat de Barcelona on September 3, 2014 jph.sagepub.com Downloaded from
The Neighborhood Unit: Physical
Design or Physical Determinism?
Larry Lloyd Lawhon
Kansas State University
This paper traces the institutional, social, and physical design forces that shaped
the ideology of Clarence A. Perry and influenced his development of the neighbor-
hood unit concept. Officially introduced in 1929 as a part of the published
Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, the neighborhood unit, as conceived
by Perry, has strongly influenced local planning and subdivision design since its
inception. In addition, this paper investigates controversy surrounding attitudes
toward the neighborhood unit and the purported determinism and reformist
intents of the concept. It investigates the wide-spread influence of the model on
residential design, investigates current attitudes of usefulness of the model, and
considers New Urbanism as an opportune tweaking of the design elements of the
neighborhood unit. It concludes that the neighborhood unit, while having social
influences in residential life, is more accurately termed a physical design model
that weaves neighborhood layout and opportunities for interaction.
Keywords: Neighborhood Unit, Clarence Perry, Radburn, Forest Hills Gardens,
New Urbanism
T
he neighborhood unit was defined and promoted through a mono-
graph in the 1929 Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs.
The monograph, written by Clarence Arthur Perry, was titled, The
Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life
Community.
1
Evidence suggests that the concept was introduced as early
as 1923 at a joint meeting of the National Community Center Association
and the American Sociological Society in Washington, D.C., though for-
mal publication would not occur until 1929.
2
The neighborhood unit, as
conceptualized by Perry, was a product of a variety of institutional, social,
and physical design forces of the era. In particular, Perrys employment
with the Russell Sage Foundation, chief financial backer of the Regional
Plan, was crucial to the development and promotion of his idea.
3
The Sage
Foundation envisioned Perrys concept as a blueprint for residential
neighborhoods of the future.
4
However, Perrys concept for the family-life
JOURNAL OF PLANNING HISTORY, Vol. 8, No. 2, May 2009 111-132
DOI: 10.1177/1538513208327072
2009 SAGE Publications
at CRAI-Universitat de Barcelona on September 3, 2014 jph.sagepub.com Downloaded from
112 JOURNAL OF PLANNING HISTORY / May 2009
community, while enjoying widespread application, has been criticized as
a device of social engineering. In contrast, a review of the literature sug-
gests that the neighborhood unit, rather than being a socially determinis-
tic endeavor, is more appropriately described as a physical design tool
that provides neighborhood residents opportunities to interact with those
within the neighborhood boundaries. The neighborhood unit fulfills this
mission by establishing physical standards that encourage interaction,
reducing the impact of the automobile on safety of residents, and provid-
ing for schools, open space, and institutional and commercial uses. This
article investigates the background of the neighborhood unit and its his-
torical significance and the controversy surrounding its utilization, gives
an assessment of its broad application, evaluates its influence on the
design parameters of New Urbanism, and considers its current usefulness
as a residential design model.
The Neighborhood Unit
The neighborhood unit represented the ideal residential neighborhood
as a physically defined unit, with school, churches, and recreational areas
at its center. Moreover, the design allowed residents to walk no more than
a quarter-mile to reach these features and nearby commercial areasall
without having to cross a major arterial street. Indeed, streets that permit-
ted through traffic were discouraged, and arterial streets were relegated to
the perimeter, thus enabling pedestrians to move freely within the neigh-
borhood without interference from vehicular traffic. Additionally, interior
curvilinear streets accentuated the neighborhood units break with the
traditional urban grid system. The architect of the neighborhood unit,
Perry (Figure 1), proposed that the 160-acre neighborhood be developed
at 10 units per acre, producing sufficient population to support an elemen-
tary school (approximately 5,000-9,000 residents). He recommended fur-
ther that 10 percent of the neighborhood land area be set aside for parks
and open space for the enjoyment of the residents. Perrys concept also
promoted a school with an adjacent major play area, a community center
with various institutional uses, and churches. All of these elements empha-
sized the physical nature of the concept. Accordingly, the neighborhood
unit has widely served as the primary design concept for new residential
neighborhoods, as a substantial volume of American residential construc-
tion since the 1920s indicates.
5
Banerjee and Baer acknowledge that for
more than fifty years . . . the neighborhood unit has been virtually the sole
basis for formally organizing residential space.
6
Application of the neigh-
borhood unit was widespread, and planning theorists . . . picked up the
idea of the neighborhood as the basic building block of a city.
7
Furthermore,
the neighborhood unit was promoted at President Hoovers 1931 National
Lawhon / THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT 113
Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, and this afforded it
considerable exposure. The American Public Health Association also pro-
moted the concept through its 1948 handbook, Planning the Neighborhood.
Likewise, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) bestowed on the neighbor-
hood unit considerable favor by incorporating Perrys concept into its
guidelines for new FHA-approved developments. Although Perry is widely
known for the concept of the neighborhood unit, some suggest he may not
have been the originator of the idea.
8
Ultimately, however, without dimin-
ishing the influence of Ebenezer Howard and others, clearly Perrys writ-
ings and presentations gave the neighborhood unit its name and helped
crystallize the actual form and substance of this residential planning
scheme.
9
Figure 2: Clarence Arthur Perry (Blackstone Studios)
Source: Courtesy of the Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, NY, October, 2008.
Principles of the Neighborhood Unit
Perry organized the neighborhood unit around several physically ori-
ented ideals (see Figure 2):
Center the school in the neighborhood so that a childs walk to school was only about
one-quarter of a mile and no more than one-half mile and could be achieved without
crossing a major arterial street. Size the neighborhood to sufficiently support a
school, between 5,000 to 9,000 residents, approximately 160 acres at a density of
ten units per acre. Implement a wider use of the school facilities for neighborhood
meetings and activities, constructing a large play area around the building for use by
the entire community.
Place arterial streets along the perimeter so that they define and distinguish the place
of the neighborhood and by design eliminate unwanted through-traffic from the
neighborhood. In this way, major arterials define the neighborhood, rather than
divide it through its heart.
Design internal streets using a hierarchy that easily distinguishes local streets from
arterial streets, using curvilinear street design for both safety and aesthetic pur-
poses. Streets, by design, would discourage unwanted through traffic and enhance
the safety of pedestrians.
Restrict local shopping areas to the perimeter or perhaps to the main entrance of the
neighborhood, thus excluding nonlocal traffic destined for these commercial uses
that might intrude on the neighborhood.
Dedicate at least 10 percent of the neighborhood land area to parks and open space,
creating places for play and community interaction.
10
While these principles focus on the physical nature of the concept, they
have social implications as well. These social implications, whether intended
or unintended, spawned the controversial dimension of the neighborhood
unit. To understand the social agenda of Perry as it relates to development
of the neighborhood scheme, we need to understand the institutional, social,
and physical design influences on Perry and how, through him, they shaped
the physical and social dimensions of the neighborhood unit.
Influences That Shaped Perrys Neighborhood Unit
The Russell Sage Foundation
The first and foremost of these influences was Perrys close association
with the Russell Sage Foundation, which employed Perry for most of his
working life.
11
Through the Russell Sage Foundation, Perry came into
contact with key individuals interested in city planning and the various
social concerns that confronted American society in the early 1900s.
12
He
drew from these contacts the inspiration to ameliorate social problems
through planning and community design. When railroad magnate Russell
Sage died in 1906, his estate established the Russell Sage Foundation as
an institution for the improvement of social and living conditions in the
United States of America.
13
Created in 1907, with an endowment of $10
million, the Sage Foundation set about the business of improving living
conditions in American cities. The Foundation funded numerous planning
research projects aimed at improving conditions in the built environment,
Figure 2: Clarence Perrys Neighborhood Unit
Source: C. A. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life Community.
Monograph one, Neighborhood and Community Planning, Regional Plan of New York and Its
Environs (New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1929). Page 88. Used
with permission of the Regional Plan Association, New York.
including the Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs, in which
Perrys monograph was published. Initially, serving as a high school prin-
cipal in Puerto Rico between 1904 and 1905, Perry met Leonard P. Ayers
who at that time was the general superintendent of schools in Puerto Rico.
Ayers later became associated with the Sage Foundation, and through his
invitation, Perry joined the staff of the Sage Foundation in 1909 to study
the possibilities of utilizing school buildings more fully for recreation and
other community activities.
14
Shortly after Perry joined the organization,
the foundation began to develop a suburban community that would
exemplify some of the possibilities of intelligent town planning, with the
hope of encouraging similar ventures elsewhere.
15
The site was a 200-acre
plot of land in Forest Hills, Queens Borough of New York. The Sage
Foundation established the Sage Foundation Homes Company to develop
this site as a suburban neighborhood on the theme of the garden cities
of England. Landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., was chosen
to design the layout and to plan the streets, and Grosvenor Atterbury was
selected as architect for the project. Forest Hills Gardens, as it was named,
was designed with two wide streets curving through the neighborhood to
carry through traffic so that other streets could be used exclusively for
local traffic (Figure 3). The widths of the tree-lined streets derived from
their use: wide thoroughfares for through traffic and more narrow local
streets for residential circulation. Perry later applied his interest in phys-
ical design to Forest Hills and revised the site plan to remove through
streets, which he believed brought additional traffic into the neighbor-
hood (Figure 4). A local shopping area was designed at the main entrance
to the neighborhood whose architecture established the architectural har-
mony of the community. An elementary school, church, and later com-
munity house were located at the center of the community. The Sage
Foundation hoped that its design would serve as a model for future
residential neighborhoods.
Perrys involvement with Forest Hills Gardens came not from taking
part in the initial design process but through his firsthand experience as
a resident of the neighborhood. Indeed, it served as a laboratory for his
design interests; he lived there from 1912 until his death in 1944. The
Russell Sage Foundation also provided Perry the opportunity to collabo-
rate with Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, Lewis Mumford, Catherine Bauer,
and Raymond Unwin, the most prominent individuals associated with
community design during the 1920s.
Writing of Sociologist Cooley
Perry also was influenced by the writing of sociologist Charles Horton
Cooley, who believed the individual was shaped by society and that soci-
ety was subsequently a product of the good or bad actions of individuals.
As such, much of the theoretical basis for the neighborhood unit may be
attributed to Cooley.
16
Cooleys principal contribution to the sociology of
the neighborhood was his theory of primary groups, which play an
important role in shaping the personality and moral perceptions of the
individual.
17
In his book Social Organization, Cooley discussed what he
referred to as primary groups, including the family, the play group, and the
neighborhood.
18
According to Cooley, the individuals social relationships,
as influenced by primary groups, are the product of social interaction with
those groups. Perry took from Cooleys writings the importance of the
neighborhood as an incubator for associational interaction. Cooleys study
(page 23) of primary groups suggested that intimate associations are fun-
damental in forming the social nature and ideals of the individual. Perry
incorporated this idea into the physical form of the neighborhood unit and
purposefully provided opportunities for social interaction.
19
Settlement House Movement
A third influence on Perrys ideology was the settlement house move-
ment, which Jane Addams in Chicago had principally adapted from
Toynbee Hall in England.
20
Reformist by design, the settlement house
Figure 3: General Plan for Forest Hills Gardens, Which Served as a Working Laboratory for Perry
Source: C. A. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life
Community. Monograph one, Neighborhood and Community Planning, Regional Plan of New York
and Its Environs (New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1929). Page
90. Used with permission of the Regional Plan Association, New York.
movement provided opportunities for interaction and community improve-
ment, hoping to provide the mechanics for fully integrating immigrants
into American society. By 1910, settlement houses numbered 400 in the
United States, and their primary role was to provide a recognizable meeting
place at which social interaction could take place to aid in overcoming an
individuals anonymity in urban cities.
21
One of the chief accomplish-
ments of this movement was a systematic upgrading of urban environ-
ments through the development of parks and playgrounds. Perrys interest
in expanded opportunities for school and recreational areas and the value
of open space and parks in the neighborhood came from his contacts with
the settlement house movement. Parks and open spaces were important
components of the neighborhood unit.
Community Center Movement
Another influence that continued for more than a decade was Perrys
involvement in the community center movement. Perry became involved
Figure 4: Perrys Recommended Revisions to Forest Hills Gardens, Designed to Discourage Through
Traffic, Illustrate His Interest in Physical Design
Source: C. A. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life
Community. Monograph one, Neighborhood and Community Planning, Regional Plan of New York
and Its Environs (New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1929). Page
90. Used with permission of the Regional Plan Association, New York.
in community center activities soon after joining the Russell Sage
Foundation staff and was instrumental in establishing the 1911 National
Conference on Community Centers and the New York Council of
Community Centers. The community center movement likely had its
roots in the settlement house movement; indeed, both were interested in
the extension of personal associations through healthy and constructive
activities. The community center movement differed from the settlement
house movement, however, by extending its reach from urban center
neighborhoods to all neighborhoods, including newly formed residential
areas outside the central core. Its aim was to organize the normal neigh-
borhoods public and private activity in the fields of recreation, general
culture, and adult education.
22
Recognizing the opportunity to use the
school plant for other activities in addition to childhood education, Perry
promoted the use of the school for community center activities. Likely,
this was an important factor in Perrys decision to place the school at the
center of the neighborhood. By serving as a community center after school
hours, the school provided an outlet for community residents to engage in
social, political, and physical activities. This would, in Perrys opinion, lead
to a greater sense of community. A centrally located neighborhood
community center could further opportunities for social interaction, social
activism, and serve as a source of community identification; thus, a formal
community center building became one of the fundamental elements of
Perrys concept. Furthermore, he helped to secure legislation in New York
to allow schools to be used for community purposes after school hours.
Garden Cities Movement
The garden cities movement of Ebenezer Howard also provided Perry
with substantive design ideas for the neighborhood unit. Presented ini-
tially in To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, published in 1898
and refined by chief designer Raymond Unwin, the garden city movement
sparked Perrys desire for a pleasant, gardenlike environment. The garden
city provided amenities not commonly found in urban centers. In particu-
lar, the design and construction of the English garden city of Letchworth
in 1903 became a cornerstone for future neighborhood design. Like archi-
tects and community planners Henry Wright and Clarence Stein, Perry
acknowledged the value of a garden environment as an element of com-
munity design and joined with it curvilinear and cul-de-sac street design.
Wright and Stein further refined the theory of street hierarchy and used
it in their plan for Radburn, New Jersey. Perry would collaborate with
Wright and Stein on the plan for Radburn, one of the premier applications
of the neighborhood unit (Figure 5).
23
An outcome of the Perry-Wright-Stein
collaboration was a system of internal streets in Radburn that discouraged
through traffic and minimized the influence of the automobile on life in
the neighborhood. At the same time, the system enhanced the setting
the flowing street plan, the fuller use of tree-lined streets and public open
spaces, and the new romantic architecture, as described by Lewis
Mumford.
24
Additionally, Olmsted and Vauxs design of Riverside, Illinois,
and Howards subsequent garden cities movement, embodied these towns
with qualities desired in residential design in the United States. These
qualities were shared by Perry.
Figure 5: Plan of Radburn, New Jersey, Application of the Neighborhood Unit
Source: The Radburn Association. Used with permission of David Bostock, manager, September 3,
2008.
As a result of these influences, Perry was motivated to create a scheme
for the neighborhood that would combine qualities from each. Thus, he
strove to encourage both peer and intergenerational interaction among
residents of the neighborhood, and by placing the school, major open space,
institutional uses, and community facilities at the center of the neighbor-
hood, he advanced opportunities for social interaction and created an iden-
tity for the neighborhood. The neighborhood was defined physically by
major arterials, which formed its boundaries. To Perry, the neighborhood
was more than just a place to liveit was a unit, an integral part of the
city as a whole, a place with an identity, a place for a family-life commu-
nity. The neighborhood had a social sphere, according to Perry, where
face-to-face contacts were an important facet of neighborliness. The neigh-
borhood also had a physical sphere where, by design, layout fostered neigh-
borhood identity and provided an adequate physical constituency for
schools, parks, community centers, and shopping. These features provided
opportunities for neighborhood interaction, and by choice, residents could
interact and form coalitions for political action or other purposes.
Perrys ideology was shaped by these institutional, social, and physical
design forces, and the neighborhood unit reflected these forces. His expe-
riences at Forest Hills Gardens and his collaboration with Wright, Stein,
Unwin
25
and others provided him with an appropriate foundation on
which to develop his idea.
Controversy Surrounding the Neighborhood Unit
Although the neighborhood unit has enjoyed widespread application, it
has historically been steeped in controversy. One criticism is the exclusion-
ary effects resulting in neighborhoods based on the neighborhood unit.
Silver states that the neighborhood unit clearly determined social outcomes
and was applied exclusion, building on the beliefs of the time that homog-
enous neighborhoods were in the best interest of neighborhood resi-
dents.
26
This belief was also endorsed by the institutional
frameworkrealtors, lenders, and underwritersthat made new develop-
ment possible. Banerjee and Baer restate criticism voiced in the 1940s
that Perrys concept was perceived as socially divisive,
that it encouraged and fomented the very segregation that society has increasingly
rejected; that it emphasized the physical environment as the prime determinant of
residential quality of life when, in fact, the social environment was more salient; that
it was an increasingly obsolete contrivance geared to the needs of yesterdays rural
migrant in need of a sheltered villagelike existence . . . .
27
Gillette, in defense of Perry, states that Perry spent most of his life seek-
ing to improve social life and that his concept was not intended to be a
socially divisive neighborhood scheme.
28
Banerjee and Baer offer an explanation of why the application of the
neighborhood unit was seen as socially divisive.
29
They contend that
although the neighborhood unit concept is an oft-told tale among envi-
ronmental designers . . . , the story is not complete.
30
Rather than being
an application of physical design to meet social ends, the concept is a
three-dimensional expression of some underlying cultural and intellec-
tual beliefs that pervaded American reformist thinking at the turn of the
Century.
31
The three dimensions of the concept include context values
(historical setting), manifest values (ideas important to designers), and
tacit values (how these were ideas were internalized), which arguably are
equivalent to what this article has identified as the institutional, social,
and physical design forces that influenced Perry. Close examination of
these dimensions shows we need a second look at the neighborhood unit
as an example of physical determinism.
Context Values
According to Banerjee and Baer, contextual values relate to the reformist
ideals of the late 1800s and early 1900s aimed at saving citizens from the
moral and social decay of the city.
32
Among the reformers influencing the
contextual values of the time were Jane Addams (settlement house worker),
Robert Park (sociologist), and Charles Horton Cooley (sociologist).
33
Manifest Values
The second dimension, manifest values, is that embodied in the princi-
ples of the Neighborhood Unit Concept.
34
These are the values held by
planners and design professionals relating to the physical manifestation of
the concept. For example, according to Banerjee and Baer, these manifest
values were made possible through the political acceptance of the school,
not only as a central facet of community life but also in its role as a facility
for social, cultural, recreational, and political activities after school hours.
Indeed, Perry was instrumental in pursuing legislation in New York that
allowed the public after-hours use of school facilities. Also, the hostile envi-
ronment on the street created by the increased use of the automobile fueled
manifest values. Specifically, it has been noted by Dahir that in 1929, auto-
mobiles killed more than one child per day on the streets of New York City.
Therefore, separation of pedestrians and vehicular traffic gained momen-
tum fairly quickly as a desirable design element in the neighborhood.
35
Tacit Values
The third facet of the neighborhood unit concept, as described by
Banerjee and Baer, is the tacit values of the time. These included the
social and economic values that derived from endorsement of the neigh-
borhood unit by economic, business, real estate, and finance groups. As
proposed by Perry, the neighborhood unit was to serve as a schema for the
family-life community. Of central importance were the family and the
school, and although Perry suggested multifamily dwellings in his design
schemes, emphasis on the family environment and the necessity of ade-
quate financial means to move to a new neighborhood insured the homo-
geneity and similarity of economic backgrounds of residents. Social
diversity or its lack was thus problematic from the outset of his concept.
Radburn, one of the first applications of the concept, intended a diverse
income and ethnic resident base, but the economic downturn after 1929
curtailed the full development of the community, and a diverse resident
base was never realized.
36
Real estate groups, lenders, and the FHA soon
adopted guidelines that discouraged ethnic diversity in new develop-
ments. Likewise, the affordability of housing in new neighborhoods and
exclusionary practices by these institutional groups soon resulted in the
perpetuation of homogeneous, like-income neighborhoods. Tacit values,
according to Banerjee and Baer, are borne of the neighborhood units wide
acceptance and endorsement by real estate, business, and home financing
groups, resulting in neighborhoods alike in race, income, and aesthetic
values.
37
Sociologist Herbert Gans argues that the social homogeneity of
residential areas based on the neighborhood unit was the chief reason for
the success of these neighborhoods and that physical determinism was
not a chief determining factor in how successful neighborhoods actually
were in forming cohesive, stable units.
38
Physical Determinism
Critics have also questioned whether the neighborhood unit is a physical
design concept or a concept generating desired social outcomes. Central to
the controversy is the theory of physical determinismthe belief that
human behavior is determined by the nature of the geographic
environment.
39
City planning, evolving from social reform in the late
1800s and early 1900s, was rightly concerned with beneficial actions that
positively affect citizens. Social reformers, responding to the intolerable
urban conditions wrought by the industrial revolution, sought to improve
housing conditions, improve living conditions, reduce anonymity of city
life, and integrate immigrants into American culture. Sociologists, archi-
tects, engineers, housers, settlement house and community center work-
ersall were motivated to improve urban conditions and to end the
congestion, squalor, and blight prevalent in many parts of the American
city. Decentrists promoted one solutionMove the affected out of the
city into more pleasant surroundings. Planning in the reform sense thus
involved choosing appropriate future courses of action that would benefit
society, resulting in changes to the built environment, hopefully for the
betterment of citizens. Creating good neighborhood environments appears
to be consistent with these beliefs. Since Perry was a part of many of the
reform institutions of the early 1900s, he was undoubtedly influenced by
his association with these institutions. That Perry intended to use his con-
cept to engineer behavior has been hotly debated. Physical determinism
implies that the design influences residents behavior according to some
pattern desired by the designer. Although the neighborhood unit likely was
influenced by social and institutional issues of the early 1900s, it seems
unlikely that a specific pattern of behavior was a chief aim of the concept.
Criticism of the neighborhood unit has been raised on the basis that one
of its central purposes was to structure residents social behavior. Therefore,
understanding how the built environment might determine behavior is
important, as is clarifying the physical determinism argument raised by
critics of the neighborhood unit. Lang suggests that environmental effects
on behavior take place along a continuum from a (1) free will approach (no
environmental effect), to a (2) possibilistic approach (environment pro-
vides possibilities for behavior, provided the person makes a choice to
participate), to a (3) probabilistic approach (dealing with probabilities that
a particular reaction will occur), to a (4) deterministic approach (a desired
behavior is determined by the design environment).
40
Patricios investi-
gated the role of determinism in Perrys neighborhood unit and condenses
Langs categorization into a continuum of three components (Figure 6).
41

At one end of the continuum is an opportunistic explanation. This
approach suggests that the design presents opportunities for interaction
and other forms of socialization; however, the design does not cause such
to occur; it merely provides the opportunity. At the other end of the con-
tinuum is a deterministic approach that suggests that design will deter-
mine social outcomes, resulting in some desired form of social progress.
Located between the opportunistic and the deterministic approaches is
the equivocal approach, which suggests that design has no effect.
Patricios reviews several sources from the available literature and con-
cludes that the neighborhood unit more closely fits the opportunistic
approach rather than the deterministic.
Further support of the theory that the neighborhood unit was a physical
design model comes from Tannenbaum, who states that Perry devoted
almost his entire monograph [Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs]
to a discussion of the physical aspects of the neighborhood. He is concerned
with convenience for the resident: convenience in shopping, convenience
in education, convenience in reaching parks and playgrounds. One gains
the impression that the fundamental raison detre of the neighborhood from
his point of view was to make life easier and more convenient for the
citizen.
42
Perry himself illustrates the physical nature of the neighbor-
hood in his redesign sketch of Forest Hills Gardens to eliminate through
traffic (see Figure 4). Schaffer offers support for the physical design side of
the argument in stating, The designers of Radburn did not believe that the
physical structure or layout of a community determined social values, but
they were convinced that the site plan was not a neutral force.
43
These
viewpoints suggest agreement with the conclusions reached by Patricios
that the neighborhood unit fits more appropriately within an opportunistic
rather than a deterministic theoretical position and as such, provides
opportunities for social interaction. How a person views that opportunity or
takes advantage of the opportunity, is up to the individual. Martinson favors
this idea and suggests that it is the personalities of the people themselves,
not their house-plan orientation to or away from the street, that almost
perfectly explain their level of neighborhood socialization.
44
Banerjee and Baer document several studies that indicate limited suc-
cess of the neighborhood unit in affecting social behavior. For example,
Burby and Weiss (1976, as cited in Banerjee and Baer) in a study of
American new towns conclude that although the physical aspects of the
neighborhood unit had influenced the design of the towns, the planned
elements of the concept played a minor role in the residents satisfaction.
In a study of planned communities, Werthman, Mandell, and Dienstfrey
(1965, as cited in Banerjee and Baer) found that respondents were quite
skeptical of the social goal of interaction among the residents as idealized
in the neighborhood concept.
45
Banerjee and Baer studied twenty-two
residential areas in the Los Angeles metropolitan area to ascertain if these
areas reflect, mirror, or explain the widely used neighborhood unit. The
authors principally investigated two dimensions of the concept: a physical
sphere and a social sphere as key components of the Perry concept.
Banerjee and Baer concluded that in comparing this sample with the ideal
neighborhood unit, this sample was not able definitively to give a physical
boundary to their neighborhoods, as suggested by the neighborhood unit
concept. However, the sample did believe the social aspects of living in a
neighborhood were very important. Furthermore, Banerjee and Baer
found that the social aspect of neighborhood life declined as income
increased, suggesting an inverse relationship between mobility and social
participation within the neighborhood.
46
Figure 6: Illustrative Continuum Explaining Environmental/Physical Effects of Neighborhood
Design on Residents, as Suggested by Patricios
Source: Figure 6 based on approaches suggested by N. N. Patricios, The Neighborhood Concept: A
Retrospective of Physical Design and Social Interaction, Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research 19 (Spring 2002).
Gans also studied the effects of social life purported by the neighbor-
hood idea.
47
He found that the social life of Levittowners (Levittown, New
Jersey) was unaffected by the neighborhood scheme. He concluded that
although a relationship exists between physical proximity and friendship
patterns, propinquity . . . is not sufficient by itself to create intensive
relationships. Friendship requires homogeneity.
48
Gans concluded that
socioeconomic and life cycle characteristics are better indicators for
assessing the development of friendships among neighbors than is a pro-
pinquity or opportunity for social interaction.
Considering these arguments, it seems that the concept has had less
effect on both physical and social outcomes than its critics suggest. Also,
as residential life becomes more adapted to an auto-centered lifestyle,
neighborhood considerations decline. Banerjee and Baer found in their
study of Los Angeles neighborhoods that affluent residents had a decid-
edly broader range of resources from which to draw their social, shopping,
and recreational needs. Thus, as the physical area open to residents wid-
ens, the neighborhood plays a less important role, both as a socially and
as a physically defined area. Freemans study of sprawl and neighborhood
ties supports this notion, demonstrating that neighborhood designs that
force people into cars and inhibit face-to-face contact somehow under-
mine social ties among neighbors.
49
Although there is no clear consensus, the literature largely seems to sup-
port the notion that the neighborhood unit has been more successful (if
only marginally so) in its impact on physical design of neighborhoods than
the purported physical determinism has been on enhancing social interac-
tion, neighborhood friendships, and accelerating community participation.
Nonetheless, the design characteristics of the neighborhood unit have been
far-reaching and utilized broadly in the United States, Europe, and other
countries. Furthermore, its principles are still supported today and utilized
in many American communities, as suggested in current research.
50
A second issue raised by many critics of the neighborhood unit is
whether affecting social outcomes through neighborhood design is a
proper role for city planners. Since planning emerged from a social reform
paradigm, it is not surprising that planners and the planning community
believe social issues are important. Herbert Gans, prominent sociologist,
raised a number of issues in the 1960s related to the proper role of the
planner, physical determinism, and social outcomes associated with resi-
dential design:
1. Whether or not the planner has the power to influence patterns of social life.
2. Whether or not he [or she] should exert this power.
3. Whether some patterns of social life are more desirable than others and should,
therefore, be sought as planning goals. For example, should people be encouraged to
find their friends among neighbors, or throughout or outside their residential area?
Should they be politely distant or friendly with neighbors?
51
In answering his posed questions, Gans notes that first of all, the plan-
ner has only limited influence over social relationships.
52
The planner
may, through suggested design, subdivision regulations, and other plan-
ning tools, provide opportunities or in Gans terminology the propin-
quity for interaction. How the propinquity is applied will depend on the
demographic and social characteristics of the residents. According to
Gans, the planner has even less influence over the market than develop-
ers, banking institutions, and real estate groups. This is perhaps because
the market responds to housing demands of buyers and to the fact that
most buyers are willing to accept similarity in house type and want a fair
degree of homogeneity in their neighbors.
53
Gans concludes, My own
judgment is that no one ideal pattern of social life can beor should be-
prescribed, but that opportunity for choice should be available both with
respect to neighbor relations and friendship formation.
54
Implications for Current Practice
The neighborhood unit as initially envisioned was a response to physical
and social concerns of the 1920s or more aptly stated, a product of the
institutional, social, and physical design forces of the era. Although the
idea of a defined residential area was not untried by the late 1920s, the
neighborhood unit was a learn by doing technique. Perry, through
physical design, gave the neighborhood a discernable identity by bound-
ing it with major arterials on the perimeter, reducing pedestrian/vehicular
conflicts, providing a safe, walkable area replete with useful neighborhood
services, and providing opportunity for social engagement to further social
cohesionall honorable objectives for a socially conscience profession
such as city planning flourishing in the 1900s era of social reform. As we
have learned in retrospect, some of the unintended consequences of the
neighborhood unit raise concerns by planners regarding the desirability
of sprawling, auto-dependent residential areas and the lack of community,
civility, and diversity among neighborhood residents. Planners continue
to resolve these issues and improve neighborhood design. New Urbanists
seek an improved design that in theory promotes diversity of housing
types affordable to a wider range of incomes, makes correction for the
lack of neighborhood connectivity created by curvilinear and cul-de-sac
street patterns that hinder walkable neighborhoods, and promotes a
design model that reduces dependence on the automobile. They build on
the design strengths of the neighborhood unit.
Recent research suggests that the neighborhood unit is still fashionable
and useful to planners. Solow, Ham, and Donnelly found that about half
the [surveyed] group thought the neighborhood unit concept useful, valid,
and ideal for public policy. Nearly 80% used the concept in practice.
55

These findings were again supported by Lawhon, who found that the
neighborhood unit is used for design review in at least 56 percent of all
respondents communities and is mentioned by name or by reference in the
comprehensive plans or regulations of 13 percent of the respondent com-
munities.
56
Fifty-seven percent of those familiar with the neighborhood unit
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the neighborhood unit
is still a valid model to guide residential development design in my com-
munity and other communities.
57
Furthermore, survey results indicate
that a significant percentage of the respondents share the reformist spirit of
the past. Seventy-four percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
that planners must strive to find solutions for social disconnectivity that
some suggest is ripe in residential areas designed on the Neighborhood unit.
. . .
58
Clearly, some planners seem convinced they have an obligation to
intervene in design matters for the well-being of society. Planners were also
surveyed about the value of New Urbanism as a design tool to resolve this
purported disconnectivity. Seventy-three percent of the respondents
strongly agreed and agreed that the New Urbanism offers improvement to
the design limits of the neighborhood unit. Some respondents even noted
that New Urbanism is the neighborhood unit in a new package. Inferences
from the survey results indicate that many of those surveyed believe that
both the neighborhood unit concept and New Urbanism offer options for
community design, yet neither is the only solution planners might consider.
Other recent research has considered the connectivity issue of New
Urbanist developments as well as neighborliness, walkability, and reduced
dependence on the automobile, characteristics some claim are lacking in
neighborhoods based on the neighborhood unit.
59
Eugenie L. Birch has extensively observed the neighborhood unit and
New Urbanism as community design models.
60
She suggests that the neigh-
borhood unit and New Urbanism, sharing many commonalities, represent
the first and fifth generations of design models based on Ebenezer Howards
garden city model. Concerning the neighborhood unit, Birch indicates
that Perry argued that if cities caused anomie and dysfunctional relation-
ships because of their size, density, and heterogeneity, then smaller, less
dense, and homogenous urban cells could provide an environment that
would heighten a feeling of belonging and contribute to a sense of com-
munity. Further, the rational arrangement of the infrastructure, especially
the streets and open space, provided a physical framework for the desired
human contact.
61
She further indicates that New Urbanismwith its
compact walkable form, quarter-mile radius, diversity of uses, and open
spaceshow[s] a relationship to the ward idea [of Howard] and clear
bloodlines to Clarence Perrys program for the neighborhood unit. . . .
62

Possibly, as Birch and others suggest, the neighborhood unit and New
Urbanism do have much in common, and New Urbanists could be tweak-
ing the design elements of the neighborhood unit to provide more con-
nectivity and more civility in neighborhood design.
Conclusion
The neighborhood unit has had a wide-reaching impact on neighborhood
design. Perry, in 1929, formally published a scheme of arrangement for the
family-life community: the neighborhood unit, a physical design model
that afforded residents the opportunity for social interaction, for the devel-
opment of friendships, and for the collaboration necessary for social and/or
political activism. The application of his idea, often criticized as physical
determinism, resulted in neighborhoods of similar races and incomes, due
more to what Banerjee and Baer describe as the tacit values of the era
that explain social and economic cohesiveness important to social interac-
tion and stability of a neighborhood. Support for the argument of the neigh-
borhood unit as a physical design model comes from several sources.
Specifically, the literature suggests that the neighborhood unit appears to
be more successful in promoting physical design of neighborhoods than it
has been in promoting some predetermined social outcome. Furthermore,
few researchers dispute that application of the concept has resulted in
homogenous neighborhoods alike in race and income. In spite of such
criticism, as a physical design model, the neighborhood unit has been
widely applied and is currently utilized in many communities.
63
Although the institutional and social forces of the early twentieth cen-
tury were significant in the development and application of the neighbor-
hood unit, these have not been as enduring as the physical component of
the concept. Indeed, the historical significance of the neighborhood unit is
far-reaching. However, on one hand, proponents of the concept emphasize
the physical aspects of the concept that offer opportunity for social engage-
ment and sense of community and that define the neighborhood. On the
other hand, opponents emphasize the purported social intent of the con-
cept and the unintended consequences of socially and economically alike
neighborhoods resulting from the neighborhood unit. In response, New
Urbanists appear to be addressing some of these consequences in their
derivation of the neighborhood unit. Given the institutional, social, and
physical design forces of the 1920s, Perrys legacy is not mistakes he may
have made but rather his foresight in identifying the physical components
critical to the neighborhood that define the neighborhood and present
residents with opportunities for social interaction still today.
Notes
1. C. A. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life Community.
Monograph one, Neighborhood and Community Planning, Regional Plan of New York and Its
Environs (New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1929), 2-140.
2. The neighborhood unit concept was first publicly presented by Perry on December 26, 1923,
at a joint meeting of the National Community Center Association and the American Sociological
Society in Washington, D.C. Perry shared the platform with Robert E. Park of concentric zone theory
fame. According to the meeting program, Perry presented an illustrated paper titled, A Community
Unit in City Planning and Development. See J. Dahir, The Neighborhood Unit Plan: Its Spread and
Acceptance (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1947); and American Sociological Society, Papers
and Proceedings, Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Society, vol. 18 (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
3. J. M. Glenn, L. Brandt, and F. E. Andrews, Russell Sage Foundation, 1907-1947, 2 vols.
(Philadelphia: Wm. F. Fell Company, 1947).
4. The Russell Sage Foundation met the entire cost of the [Regional Survey and Plan]
Committees work at a total expenditure of over $1,000,000 (Glenn, Brandt, and Andrews, Russell
Sage Foundation, 442). The foundation felt that the survey and plan would likely win greater public
support and interest if it were not identified with any existing agency. For this purpose, the founda-
tion gave the committee the status of an independent organization, not subject to supervision by the
Board of Trustees or the general director. . . . Throughout its existence, however, a majority of its
members were trustees of the Foundation (Glenn, Brandt, and Andrews, Russell Sage Foundation,
442). The foundation also decided not to print the survey and subsequent plan under the foundations
imprint but rather allowed them to be published by the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs
and to be copyrighted by the Regional Survey and Plan Committee.
5. W. Fulton, The New Urbanism: Hope or Hype for American Communities (Washington, DC:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1996).
6. T. Banerjee and W. C. Baer, Beyond the Neighborhood Unit (New York: Plenum, 1984), page 2.
7. K. Lynch, Good City Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), page 246.
8. According to James Dahir, F. J. Osborn, editor of Ebenezer Howards Garden Cities of
To-Morrow, claims that the neighborhood unit concept was part of a proposal submitted by Howard
in 1898. See also J. D. Tetlow, Sources of the Neighbourhood Idea, Journal of the Town Planning
Institute, April 1959: 113, in which the early germ of the idea can be traced to early nineteenth-
century writers Buckingham, Henry George, Kropotkin, and Ebenezer Howard. See also D. L.
Johnson, Origin of the Neighbourhood Unit, Planning Perspectives 17 (2002): 227-45.
9. L. Mumford, The Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Unit, Town Planning Review 24
(1954): 250-70; and J. Dahir, Communities for Better Living (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950).
10. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit.
11. Perry would be employed by the Russell Sage Foundation from 1909 through September 30,
1937, when he retired. He died in September 1944, and his funeral was held at the Church-in-the-
Gardens, donated by Mrs. Russell Sage, at Forest Hills Gardens.
12. Glenn, Brandt, and Andrews, Russell Sage Foundation.
13. Dahir, The Neighborhood Unit Plan.
14. Glenn, Brandt, and Andrews, Russell Sage Foundation.
15. Ibid., 49.
16. Dahir, The Neighborhood Unit Plan; and R. Lubove New Cities for Old: The Urban Reconstruction
Program of the 1930s, The Social Studies 53 (November 1962): 203-13.
17. Lubove, New Cities for Old.
18. C. H. Cooley, Social Organization (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1909).
19. Ibid.
20. P. Hall, Cities of Tomorrow (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1988).
21. Ibid.
22. Dahir, The Neighborhood Unit Plan; and Lubove, New Cities for Old, page 20.
23. Mumford, The Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Unit.
24. Ibid., 260.
25. The records of the Russell Sage Foundation indicate that in the summer of 1923, members of
the Foundation Committee of the Regional Plan traveled to England to meet with Raymond Unwin
and that Unwin came to New York in the fall at the invitation of the committee for further confer-
ence (Glenn, Brandt, and Andrews, Russell Sage Foundation, page 441). It was likely that at this
time, Perry had the opportunity to meet with Unwin at the Sage Foundation Building.
26. C. Silver, Neighborhood Planning in Historical Perspective, Journal of the American
Planning Association 51, no. 2 (Spring 1985): 161-74.
27. Banerjee and Baer, Beyond the Neighborhood Unit, 3-4.
28. H. Gillette, The Evolution of Neighborhood Planning from the Progressive Era to the 1949
Housing Act, Journal of Urban History 9, no. 4 (1983): 421-44.
29. Banerjee and Baer, Beyond the Neighborhood Unit.
30. Ibid., 17.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 20.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Dahir, The Neighborhood Unit Plan, 22.
36. D. Schaffer, Garden Cities for America: The Radburn Experience (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1982).
38. H. J. Gans, People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions (New York: Basic
Books, 1968).
39. J. Lang, Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental
Design (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987), 101.
40. Ibid.
41. N. N. Patricios, The Neighborhood Concept: A Retrospective of Physical Design and Social
Interaction, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 19, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 70-90.
42. J. Tannenbaum, The Neighborhood: A Socio-Psychological Analysis, Land Economics 24
(November 1948): 361.
43. Schaffer, Garden Cities for America, 157.
44. T. Martinson, Dreamscape: The Pursuit of Happiness in Postwar Suburbia (New York: Carroll
and Graf, 2000), 167.
45. Banerjee and Baer, Beyond the Neighborhood Unit, 29. (Complete documentation for sources
utilized in note 45: Burby, R.J. III, and Weiss, S.F. New Communities U.S.A. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 1976. Werthman, C., Mandell, J.S., and Dienstfrey, T. Planning and the Purchase
Decision: Why People Buy in Planned Communities? Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
Development, University of California, 1965).
47. Gans, People and Plans.
48. Ibid., 153.
49. L. Freeman, The Effects of Sprawl on Neighborhood Social Ties: An Explanatory Analysis,
Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (Winter 2001): 69-77.
50. A.A. Solow, C.E. Ham, and E.O. Donnelly, The Concept of The Neighborhood Unit: Its
Emergence and Influence on Residential Environmental Planning and Development, Graduate
School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, 1969: 73-75; and L.L. Lawhon,
Planners Perceptions of Their Role in Socially Responsive Neighborhood Design, Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research 20 (Summer 2003): 153-63.
51. Gans, People and Plans, 153.
52. Ibid, 160.
53. Ibid, 161.
54. H. J. Gans, Planning and Social Life, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27
(May 1961): 139.
55. Solow, Ham, and Donnelly, The Concept of The Neighborhood Unit, 73. The study surveyed
258 members of the American Institute of Planners (now the American Planning Association).
56. Lawhon, Planners Perceptions of Their Role in Socially Responsive Neighborhood Design. The
survey sample was drawn from those members of the American Planning Association (APA), a subset of
APA members who have designated on their enrollment small town and rural planning as their area of
interest. This subset was selected because of limited financial resources of the researcher and the fact
that a small random sample of the APA membership was unavailable. Of those responding to the survey,
more than 50 percent were employed in communities with populations greater than 50,000.
57. Ibid., 157. Another 25 percent disagreed, whereas 1 percent strongly disagreed with the state-
ment (19 percent had no opinion).
58. Ibid., 159. Thirteen percent disagreed, and 2 percent strongly disagreed; 11 percent had no
opinion on this statement.
59. See J. L. Nasar, Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? Journal of Planning
Education and Research 23 (2003): 58-68; J. Kim and R. Kaplan, Physical and Psychological Factors
in Sense of Community: New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village, Environment and
Behavior 36 (2004): 313-40; and G. Knapp and E. Talen, New Urbanism and Smart Growth: A Few
Words from the Academy, International Regional Science Review 28 (2005):107-18.
60. E. L. Birch, Five Generations of the Garden City: Tracing Howards Legacy in Twentieth-
Century Residential Planning, in From Garden City to Green City: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard,
ed. K. C. Parsons and D. Schuyler (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 171-200.
61. Ibid, 173.
62. Ibid, 186.
63. Solow, Ham, and Donnelly found in a survey of 258 members of the American Institute of
Planners (now the American Planning Association), that about half of the 1969 AIP Conference
respondents thought the neighborhood unit concept was useful, valid, and ideal for public policy, and
nearly 80 percent used the concept in practice. (Solow, Ham, and Donnelly, The Concept of The
Neighborhood Unit: 75. Similar findings were demonstrated in a more current survey of 831 planners
with membership in the American Planning Association (Lawhon, Planners' Perceptions of Their
Role in Socially Responsive Neighborhood Design). The respondents indicated that the neighbor-
hood unit is used for design review in at least 56 percent of all respondents' communities and is
mentioned by name or by reference in the comprehensive plans or regulations of 13 percent of the
respondent communities.
Larry Lloyd Lawhon is an associate professor in the Department of Landscape
Architecture/Regional and Community Planning at Kansas State University and is a
member of the American Planning Association, the American Institute of Certified
Planners, and the Society for American City and Regional Planning History.

Journal of Planning History 2009 Lloyd Lawhon 111 32

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Planning History 2009 Lloyd Lawhon 111 32

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

http://jph.sagepub.

Society for American City and Regional Planning History

http://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Feb 3, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 16, 2009 Version of Record >>

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi