Content uploaded by Jack Nasar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jack Nasar on Sep 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.1177/0739456X03256224 ARTICLENasarDoes Neotraditional Development Build Community?
Does Neotraditional Development
Build Community?
Jack L. Nasar
F
ollowing the founding of Seaside, Florida, in 1983, a movement in planning, archi
-
tecture, and real estate has spread in the United States to build towns and suburbs
in ways common prior to World War II. Many planners and architects searching for an
alternative to the auto-dependent North American suburb have rediscovered town
planning principles from the past and adapted them to the present. This alternative to
post–World War II suburbs has come to be known as neotraditional town planning.
The term neotraditional development (NTD) encompasses various development con-
cepts that have characteristics such as pedestrian orientation, higher residential densi-
ties than typical suburbs, and the accommodation of retail and office uses (Calthorpe
1993; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992; Fulton 1992; MacBurnie 1992). The ideal
neotraditional town would be a self-contained, tightly clustered, walkable village, pat-
terned on the American small town of pre–World War II. It would have a mixed-use
core of residential, commercial, and civic uses within a quarter mile (five-minute walk)
from most houses, as well as street patterns that allow drivers and pedestrians a variety
of path options that encourage people to walk from place to place, higher densities
than a typical suburb, a distinct (traditional or regional) architectural character, and
the encouragement of street life through such features as narrower streets, front
porches, and public open space (Audirac and Shermyen 1994; Christoforidis 1994;
Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992; Lerner-Lam et al. 1992; Sutro 1990). Some architects
have criticized the aesthetic character of such developments as nostalgic to a way of life
that many never experienced. Their focus on nostalgic imagery overlooks its intended
social goals. Advocates of neotraditional development claim that these forms of devel
-
opment replace the isolation of the suburbs with a sense of community (Bookout
1992a).
Sense of community refers to the feeling an individual has about belonging to a group.
Individuals can have a sense of community in relation to a geographically defined terri
-
tory such as their neighborhood or in relation to an aspatial or extended-space com
-
munity such as a professional group (Lyon 1987). Researchers refer to the first as a com
-
munity of place and the second as a community of interest (McMillan and Chavis 1986). The
concerns of critics and planners often deal with community of place—the strength of
attachment individuals feel to their communities or neighborhoods. It is a
58
Journal of Planning Education and Research 23:58-68
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X03256224
© 2003 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Abstract
Neotraditional development has captured
the attention of planners, architects, and
developers. The various kinds of develop
-
ment under this label claim to replace the
traditional auto-dependent suburb with
pedestrian-oriented mixed-use develop-
ment that builds sense of community. The
present study tests two claims of neotra-
ditional plans. In a community having a
traditional suburb and nearby a tradi-
tional small-town center, on which
neotraditional development is modeled,
interviewers surveyed 120 residents—60
from each area. The analyses compared
measures of sense of community, auto use,
and reasons the residents chose to live in
each area. The results support the claim
that higher density mixed-use develop
-
ments have lower auto use, but they failed
to show that this form of development or
the reduced use of autos translates into in
-
creased sense of community.
Keywords: Neotraditional development; sense
of community; traditional sub
-
urbs; auto use
Jack L. Nasar, a professor of city and
regional planning at The Ohio State Univer
-
sity, is editor of the Journal of Planning Liter
-
ature. Recent books include The Evaluative
Image of the City and Design by Competition:
Making Design Competitions Work.
psychological construct experienced as an abstract concept in
the human mind (cf. Cochrun 1994; Nasar and Julian 1994).
Why does it matter? For residents and neighborhoods, the
sense of community of place represents an indication of the
strength of social ties and personal networks among neigh
-
bors. These networks and ties represent a form of social capi
-
tal, which can offer emotional aid, social support, companion
-
ship, and services that support a household and the
neighborhood (Wellman and Wortley 1990). Design profes
-
sionals and others critique the traditional suburb as isolating
individuals and lacking community and social support. They
offer new forms of development to overcome these assumed
problems and to bring residents together.
NTD represents the latest in a series of suburban planning
concepts—such as Perry’s ([1929] 1974) neighborhood unit,
the Garden City (Howard [1898] 1947), superblocks, (Stein
1957), greenbelt towns (Stein 1957), and planned unit devel
-
opment (Bookout 1992b)—aimed in part at enhancing sense
of community. NTD stands apart from these earlier concepts in
its match to real estate and market demands. NDTs have
become a market success. Delsohn (1994) reports more than
100 towns covering more than 100,000 acres planned and built
according to neotraditionalist ideas. Although this represents
a fraction of new development, communities and developers
continue to embrace various aspects of NTD. Advocates of this
idea argue that it will guide suburban development in the
United States into the future (Calthorpe 1993; Duany and
Plater-Zyberk 1992; Krieger and Lennertz 1991; Knack 1989).
They criticize the traditional suburb as serving the automobile
at the expense of the pedestrian. They see it as consuming land
with detached single-family homes on large lots and leaving
most destinations so far away, residents must drive. In the
United States, total vehicle miles increased by 41 percent
between 1983 and 1990 (U.S. Department of Transportation
1991), and U.S. citizens make roughly 86 percent of their trips
by car. Reliance on autos makes the United States a leading
consumer of fossil fuels. NTD advocates claim that NTDs can
reduce auto use, thus reducing congestion, energy use, and
pollution. The one study that directly tested this hypothesis
about auto use found little effect of land use on travel behavior
(Crane and Crepeau 1998). NTD advocates also claim that the
reliance on autos detracts from the sense of community that
would occur if residents walked more.
Research suggests that suburban residents may have a
greater sense of community than the critics allow. One
national survey found that two-thirds of Americans socialize
with neighbors and that 50 percent of Americans spend an eve
-
ning with neighbors several times a month (Rubenstein 1993).
A study of 680 residents in eighty-one neighborhoods in
Nashville, Tennessee, also found high levels of neighboring.
Campbell and Lee (1992) surveyed wholly residential blocks—
single-family houses, excluding blocks with nonresidential
uses, apartments, and condos—in Nashville. The results
revealed that the suburban residents knew on average fifteen
neighbors by name and regularly spent time with half of them.
Planners need to test the assumed benefits of NTD. Recall
that advocates of new urbanism claim that NTD reduces auto
use and increases sense of community (Calthorpe 1993; Duany
and Plater-Zyberk 1992; Krieger and Lennertz 1991). There
-
fore, it makes sense to ask the following questions:
1. Do residents of a neighborhood with a neotraditional char
-
acter show lower levels of auto use than residents of a tradi
-
tional suburb?
2. Do they have a higher sense of community than residents
of a traditional suburb? If so, did residents choose the
neotraditional area in pursuit of community, or did the
physical arrangements build the sense of community?
䉴 The Neighborhood Tested
The present research used a small traditional town (similar
to those on which NTD is modeled) as a stand-in for an NTD.
Westerville, Ohio, founded in 1858, was a small rural town
prior to becoming a suburb for Columbus, Ohio. Just as
Westerville touches the suburban fringe of Columbus, many
neotraditional neighborhoods are built on the suburban
fringe of larger cities. Westerville experienced high growth
and development after World War II. Figures 1 and 2 show the
percentage of housing built before 1940 and between 1985
and 1990, respectively. Before World War II, Westerville had a
central mixed-use urban core, similar to neotraditional devel
-
opment. The core appears in the top left corner of Figure 1 as
the darker areas on either side of North State Street, left of cen
-
ter. About 23 percent of the housing units were built before
1940, and 44 percent were built between the 1940s and 1970s.
Westerville also has a larger area of newer traditional suburban
development that started to develop in the 1960s but had most
of its development after 1980. In Figure 2, the darker area on
the right shows the intense area of new development between
1985 and 1990.
Elmer and Way (1991) developed a Geographical Informa
-
tion Systems (GIS) map that depicts, for any location in
Westerville, the number of different land uses within a quarter
mile of that location. The map was used to select the two
research areas—one with low land-use diversity and the other
with high land-use diversity. The low land-use diversity area
had only housing or housing plus park space within a quarter
mile of any location, and the high land-use diversity area had
Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? 䉳 59
four different uses—residential (single or multifamily), mixed
urban/commercial, institutional (schools), and recreation
(parks)—within a quarter mile of any location. The rest of this
article refers to the low land-use diversity area as SUBURB and
the high land-use diversity area as traditional development
(TD). Each area consisted primarily of
single-family units, but the TD area (simi
-
lar to NTDs) had more multifamily units.
Figures 3 and 4 show land-use maps of
each area, and Figures 5 and 6 show pho
-
tos of each area. As you can see, TD has a
greater housing density, mix of uses,
smaller lots, and houses closer to one
another and the street than does
SUBURB. TD has more public open
space in parks and a university campus
not present in SUBURB. Unlike many
suburbs, SUBURB has sidewalks along
some streets.
Figures 7 and 8 map the multiple-unit
and single-unit detached housing in each
area. You can see that TD has a higher
percentage of units in structures with ten
units or more (Figure 7) and that
SUBURB has a higher percentage of one-
unit detached housing (Figure 8). In
sum, for purposes of comparison,
Westerville has neighboring devel-
opments similar to both a neotraditional
development and a traditional suburb.
䉴
Instrument
The survey obtained information
about (1) sense of community, (2) auto
use, (3) the reasons the respondent chose
the neighborhood, and (4) the demo
-
graphics of the respondents (the appen
-
dix displays the full instrument). For
sense of community, the study used the
15-item version of the Nasar and Julian
(1994) Neighborhood Sense of Commu
-
nity (NSOC) scale. For each item on this
Likert-type scale, respondents report
their level of agreement (strongly agree,
agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree)
with it. The scale has several items (2, 5, 7,
8, 9, and 11) that directly assess the sup-
port of social capital. For example, it asks
for the respondent’s level of agreement with the following: “If I
had an emergency, even people I do not know in this neighbor-
hood would be willing to help.” In the present study, the 15-
item NSOC scale proved reliable across the ninety-one respon-
dents (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90).
60 Nasar
Figure 1. Percentage of housing units built before 1940 (shades go from 0 to 1.9 percent = lightest to
62.2 percent = darkest). Traditional development (TD, left) has a higher percentage of the
older units than does SUBURB (right).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
Figure 2. Percentage of housing units built between 1985 and 1990 (shades go from 0 to 4.5 percent =
lightest to 58.6 to 74.5 percent = darkest). SUBURB has a higher percentage of the newer
units than does traditional development (TD).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
The auto use scale is a variation on a
scale in Appleyard’s (1981) neighbor
-
hood survey. In the present study, the
respondents were asked, “In the last
month you have lived here, how often do
you use your automobile to go to the fol
-
lowing places?” For each of six destina
-
tions listed separately (neighborhood
park, grocery store, any other shopping
area, visit friends, library, and post
office), respondents could check the fol
-
lowing: never (1), a few times (2), sometimes
(3), most of the time (4), and all of the time (5).
To find out why respondents chose
their neighborhood, the survey asked the
following: “Please describe the reasons
why you chose to live here.” This scale was
included to test whether respondents in
each area had chosen to live there for dif
-
ferent reasons. In particular, if the results
showed a difference in sense of commu-
nity or auto use across the areas, it would
help to know whether respondents had
chosen those areas to get that quality or
whether they chose the areas for similar
reasons.
䉴
Procedure
Interviewers were obtained from 120
adults (60 from each area) in the summer
on weekday afternoons between 1
P. M.
and 6
P. M. and weekends between 10 A.M.
and 2 P. M . For the sample, sixty street
intersections were selected at random in
each district. Then, from each intersec
-
tion, a direction and a house were
selected at random. For homes having no
one in, the interviewer checked the
houses adjacent to it and across the street
for an occupied house. To get sixty
respondents in SUBURB, the interviewer
approached 104 homes in that area. Of
those, 26.9 percent had no one home.
From the remaining 76 homes, 78.9 per
-
cent took part in the study. To get sixty
respondents in TD, the interviewer
approached 98 homes in that area. Of
those, 24.5 percent had no one home.
Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? 䉳 61
Figure 3. Land-use and bus route map of the SUBURB area of Westerville, Ohio. Gr = grocery, ES = ele-
mentary school, MS = middle school, HS = high school, dotted lines = bus routes.
Figure 4. Land-use and bus route map of the traditional development (TD) area in
Westerville, Ohio. Gr = grocery, ES = elementary school, MS = middle school, HS
= high school, PO = post office, dotted lines = bus routes.
From the remaining 74 homes, 81.1 per
-
cent took part in the study. The
nonresponse rate of about 20 percent
may raise concerns about whether the
samples reflect their populations, but as
people dropped out prior to knowing the
survey content, the nonresponses should
not affect the comparisons across the two
areas.
Table 1 shows the demographic pro
-
file of respondents in each area. As you can
see, the samples had similar distributions
of respondents by gender, age, number of
children, education, and marital status.
The sample from each area consisted
primarily of married, college-educated
couples with children and with a median
income in the range of $65,000 to
$100,000. Although SUBURB appears to
have a slightly higher percentage of males
than does TD, tests of differences for
each demographic category revealed no
significant differences between TD and
SUBURB.
Responses to questions on sense of
community, auto use, and the reasons for
choosing to live in the area might affect
one another. To mitigate and test for such
effects, the survey plan had some respon
-
dents complete only the NSOC scale, oth
-
ers complete only the auto use and rea
-
sons for moving scales, and others
complete all three scales—NSOC, auto
use, and reasons for moving. For the third
group, the order of scales was varied, so
that some people received the NSOC
scale first and then, 7 to 10 days later,
received the auto use and reasons for
moving scales; others received the auto
use and reasons for moving scales first
and then, 7 to 10 days later, received the
NSOC scale. All respondents received the
questions about their demographic
characteristics.
Each area had a similar number of
respondents to each set of questions. Of
the ninety-one respondents answering
the NSOC questions, 51.6 percent lived
in SUBURB and 48.4 percent lived in TD. Of the eighty-three
respondents answering the auto use and reasons for moving
questions, 50.6 percent lived in SUBURB and 49.4 percent
lived in TD.
62 Nasar
Figure 5. SUBURB has one use, larger lots, and houses further from one another and the street.
Figure 6. Traditional development (TD) area has mixed use, smaller lots, and houses close to one
another and the street.
Each area also had a similar number of respondents com
-
pleting each form. The form with the NSOC scale had eigh
-
teen respondents from SUBURB and nineteen from TD, the
form asking about auto use and reasons for moving had thir
-
teen respondents from SUBURB and sixteen from TD, and the
form asking all three sets of questions had twenty-nine respon
-
dents from SUBURB and twenty-five from TD. The test showed
no significant differences in response
related to the survey form or the question
order.
䉴
Results
Why did residents choose their neigh
-
borhood? Most people in each area cited
quiet, safety, and schools. Respondents
from TD and SUBURB did not differ in
the importance they assigned sense of
community or auto dependency in pick
-
ing their neighborhood. Table 2 ranks by
the frequency cited the reasons respon
-
dents gave for choosing to live where they
did. Of the seventeen reasons given, only
two achieved significant differences across
the two neighborhoods: historic area and
nature/recreation. A significantly higher
proportion of TD (20.0 percent) than
SUBURB respondents (1.67 percent)
reported “historic area” as a reason they
chose the area, and a significantly higher
proportion of SUBURB (21.67 percent)
than TD respondents (1.67 percent)
reported nature and recreation as a rea-
son they chose the area. The desire for
sociability did not differ significantly
across the two areas. Similar percentages
of the SUBURB and TD respondents
cited “friendliness,” and a similar per
-
centage of the SUBURB and TD respon
-
dents cited “similar to others” as a reason.
Respondents in each area reported
similar demographic characteristics and
similar reasons for selecting their neigh
-
borhood. If differences emerge in auto
use or sense of community across the
neighborhoods, those differences more
likely relate to the physical arrangements
than to attributes of the residents.
Did TD residents report less use of
their autos than did SUBURB residents? As predicted by advo
-
cates of neotraditional development, the results showed less
use of autos in the TD area. Table 3 shows the mean scores and
test statistics for use of automobiles for trips to each of the six
destinations. Three destinations—grocery, other shopping,
and library—had significantly lower auto use scores for the TD
than the SUBURB. For grocery store, 100 percent of the
Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? 䉳 63
Figure 7. Percentage of housing units in structures with ten or more units (shades go from 0 to 1.9 per
-
cent = lightest to 61.9 percent = darkest). Traditional development (TD) has a higher per
-
centage of such structures than does SUBURB.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
Figure 8. Percentage of housing units that are one unit, detached (shades go from 0.1 to 24.1 percent =
lightest to 93.1 to 100 percent = darkest). SUBURB has a higher percentage of such units
than does traditional development (TD).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
SUBURB group reported using their cars all of the time as
compared to 85.4 percent for the TD group. For other shop
-
ping, 90 percent of the SUBURB group as compared to 63.4
percent of the TD group reported using their autos all of the
time. For library trips, 90 percent of the SUBURB group as
compared to 59.4 percent of the TD group reported using
their cars all of the time. The SUBURB group reported using
their autos more for visiting friends, but this difference only
achieved marginal significance. Trips to the post office and
trips to the park did not achieve a statistically significant differ
-
ence across the two areas. For the combined mean from all
kinds of trips (shown at the bottom of the table), TD residents
reported a significantly lower use of autos than SUBURB resi
-
dents. Similar differences emerged for tests of the sample that
completed only the auto-dependency questions (F = 6.502, df =
1, p < .05) and the sample that completed both the auto-
dependency and the sense of community scales (F = 5.781, df =
1, p < .05). In sum, the TD mixed-use area, with shorter dis
-
tances between various uses, had lower use of autos than did its
neighboring traditional suburb.
Given the difference in auto use, neotraditionalists would
predict a greater sense of community in the TD than in the
64 Nasar
Table 1.
Reported demographic characteristics
of respondents (in percentages).
Traditional
SUBURB Development (TD)
(n = 60) (n = 60)
Gender
Male 55.0 46.7
Female 45.5 53.3
Age
18-34 10.0 15.0
35-54 43.3 48.3
55+ 46.7 36.7
Marital status
Married 83.3 70.0
Single 6.7 13.3
Divorced 3.3 11.7
Widowed 5.0 5.0
No answer 1.7 0.00
Number of children
0 63.3 53.3
1 16.7 25.0
2+ 18.3 21.7
No answer 1.67 0.0
Education
High school 5.0 8.3
Some college 26.7 16.7
College graduate 43.3 46.7
Some graduate school 11.7 6.7
Graduate degree 13.3 21.7
Income
$20,000-$30,000 1.7 8.33
$30,001-$45,000 8.3 5.0
$45,001-$65,000 15.0 23.3
$65,001-$100,000 40.0 31.7
$100,000-$150,000 16.7 11.7
$150,001 or more 3.3 0.0
No answer 15.0 20.0
Table 2.
Reasons why respondents chose to live
where they did (in percentages).
Traditional
SUBURB Development (TD)
(n = 42) (n = 41)
Quiet 40.00 Safety 33.33
Safety 38.33 Quiet 30.00
Schools 28.33 Schools 28.33
Quality of house 26.67 Friendliness 21.67
Friendliness 25.00 Historic area 20.00
a
Nature/recreation 21.67
a
Quality of house 18.33
Regional attraction 21.67 Regional attraction 15.00
Close to job 11.67 Close to job 15.00
Close to shopping 11.67 Affordable housing 13.33
Family ties 10.00 Family ties 13.33
Similar to others 10.00 Similar to others 13.33
Other 10.00 Cultural attraction 13.33
Previously owned 5.00 Close to shopping 11.67
Affordable housing 3.33 Previously owned 6.67
Churches 3.33 Churches 6.67
Cultural attraction 3.33 Other 6.67
Historic area 1.67
a
Nature/recreation 1.67
a
Note: Percentages in each area exceed 100 because each respondent
gave several reasons.
a. Historic area (χ
2
= 10.44, df =1,p < .05) and nature/recreation
(χ
2
= 11.64, df = 1, p < .05) differed across the two areas.
Table 3.
Respondents’ use of autos to go to six destinations.
Traditional
Destination Development
SUBURB (TD)
(n = 42) (n = 41) F Statistics
Grocery 5.00 4.86 F = 6.129, df = 1, p < .05
Other shopping 4.97 4.31 F = 16.61, df = 1, p < .001
Library 4.59 3.62 F = 6.854, df = 1, p < .05
Visiting friends 4.65 4.31 F = 2.735, df = 1, p = .10
Post office 5.00 4.80
Park 2.85 3.17
Combined
a
4.97 4.31 F = 6.150, df = 1, p < .05
Note: Scale ranges from 1 = never,2=a few times,3=sometimes,4=
most of the time, 5 = all of the time.
a. Mean across trips to all six kinds of destinations.
SUBURB. The present study tested this
several ways. It tested the full sample of
ninety-one respondents who answered
the sense of community scale alone or in
combination with other scales, tested the
respondents who received the sense of
community scale only, and tested the
respondents who received all three
scales—sense of community, auto use,
and reasons for moving. In each case, no
significant difference emerged (F =
2.114, df =1,p = .15; F = 1.920, df =1,p =
.18; F = 2.168, df =1,p = .14). The two areas
had similar scores for sense of commu
-
nity. On the 5-point scale, the scores (TD
= 3.7, SUBURB = 3.6) indicate a moder
-
ately strong sense of community in each
area.
䉴 Conclusions
The results for the traditional neigh-
borhood offer partial support for the
claims of NTD advocates. For an outer-
belt community, the results indicated less
use of autos for the TD than the
SUBURB. Groceries, mini-marts, the
library, and neighborhood friends were
closer in TD than in SUBURB, and this
may have helped produce the decrease in
auto use to those destinations. However,
the two areas differ in some ways that may
account for part of the differences. As
shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11, TD had
fewer cars per household and than did
SUBURB and, in a couple of areas, a
higher percentage of workers age sixteen
years and older who commuted to work
by public transportation (U.S. Census
Bureau 1990). Figures 3 and 4 showed
better bus service through the TD area
than in or around SUBURB.
The more condensed pattern of development and reduced
use of auto did not yield a higher sense of community: resi
-
dents in TD and SUBURB showed no difference in sense of
community. This finding agrees with other findings that subur
-
ban residents neighbor with one another regularly (Campbell
and Lee 1992), and it suggests that the traditional suburb is not
the cold place described by its critics.
Will the present findings apply to neotraditional develop
-
ments? The findings suggest that some residents might
respond to mixed-use higher density development with less
reliance on the auto. People living closer to destinations might
be more likely walk to them or, with the better bus service, use
the bus, but while increased walking may have salutary effects
on health and energy use, it may have no effect on sense of
Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? 䉳 65
Figure 9. Percentage of occupied units with three or more autos (shading goes from 4.9 to 11.3 percent =
lightest to 44.0 to 46.8 percent = darkest). SUBURB had a higher percentage of such units
than did traditional development (TD).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
Figure 10. Percentages of occupied units with no autos (shading goes from 0 percent = lightest to 22.3
percent = darkest). Traditional development (TD) had a higher percentage of occupied
units with no autos than did SUBURB.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
community. One might think that homebuyers in new
neotraditionalist developments marketed to buyers interested
in such developments might respond differently from the TD
residents. But one study in Salt Lake City, Utah, suggests other-
wise. As in the present study, Brown and Cropper (2001) found
similar levels of sense of community for residents in a standard
suburban subdivision and residents in a new neotraditional
development. Another study contradicts the Westerville and
Salt Lake City findings. In Portland, Oregon, Lund (2002)
found a higher sense of community in a traditional neighbor
-
hood than in a modern-style suburb. As Brower’s (1996) com
-
prehensive study of neighborhoods found, different kinds of
neighborhoods attract different kinds of people. Perhaps the
mix of individual and physical attributes in the different areas
studied accounts for the contradictory findings.
The present study did not explore differences in response
related to personal attributes, but theory and research also sug
-
gest that gender and presence of children may affect neighbor
-
ing and social support (Campbell and Lee 1992; Keller 1968;
Wellman and Wortley 1990). Personal attributes such as these
might also affect use of the auto. Thus, the present findings
may well interact with social conditions to produce differences
in auto use and similarities in sense of community. In addition,
individual physical features, such as climate, topography, lot
size, house size, street width, block length, block form, traffic,
and front porches, may affect sense of community.
In light of the hundreds of
neotraditional developments around the
country and the contradictory findings
on their effects, planners need better
information on their performance.
Where communities want neotraditional
development, developers will often com
-
ply for the higher densities and return on
the land. Due to the impracticality of con
-
trolled studies on each physical and social
attribute, broader studies comparing a
variety of NTD-type developments with a
variety of traditional suburbs may help
clarify the costs and benefits of various
features. In the absence of broader stud
-
ies, planning researchers should monitor
new neotraditional developments to
gauge their performance. A large num
-
ber of case studies can become part of a
meta-analysis that evaluates the various
aspects of development. The combina-
tion of case study information and broad
studies can improve the knowledge base for planning the
next generation of development. It can guide planners in what
features to seek or avoid for specific populations. With such
information, planners can act on the basis of fact rather than
publicity.
䉴
Appendix
Survey instrument.
Neighborhood Questionnaire
The following statements refer to the neighborhood in
which you live. Please indicate the degree to which you
agree or disagree with each statement (SA = strongly agree,
A = agree,N=neutral,D=disagree, SD = strongly
disagree):
1. I am quite similar to most people who live here.
SA A N D SD
2. If I feel like talking, I can generally find someone in this
neighborhood to talk to right away.
SA A N D SD
3. I don’t care whether this neighborhood does well.
SA A N D SD
4. The police in this neighborhood are generally friendly.
SA A N D SD
66 Nasar
Figure 11. Percentage of workers sixteen years and older who commute to work by public transportation
(darker shades mean higher percentage commuting). Traditional development (TD) had a
higher percentage of public transport commuters than did SUBURB.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990).
5. People here know they can get help from others in the
neighborhood, if they are in trouble.
SA A N D SD
6. My friends in this neighborhood are part of my every
-
day activities.
SA A N D SD
7. If I am upset about something personal, there is no one
in this neighborhood who I can turn to.
SA A N D SD
8. I have no friends in this neighborhood on whom I can
depend.
SA A N D SD
9. If there were a serious problem in this neighborhood,
the people here could get together and solve it.
SA A N D SD
10. If someone does something good for this neighbor
-
hood, that makes me feel good.
SA A N D SD
11. If I had an emergency, even people I do not know in this
neighborhood would be willing to help.
SA A N D SD
12. What is good for this neighborhood is good for me.
SA A N D SD
13. Being a member of this neighborhood is like being a
member of a group of friends.
SA A N D SD
14. We have neighborhood leaders here that you can trust.
SA A N D SD
15. There are people in this neighborhood, other than my
family, who really care about me.
SA A N D SD
Please describe the reasons why you chose to live here
(three items minimum, ten items maximum).
1. ___________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________
4. ___________________________________________
5. ___________________________________________
6. ___________________________________________
7. ___________________________________________
8. ___________________________________________
9. ___________________________________________
10. ___________________________________________
In the last month you have lived here, how often do you
use your automobile to go to the following places?
A Few Some- Most of All of
- Never Times times the Time the Time
1. Neighborhood park 1 2 3 4 5
2. Grocery store 1 2 3 4 5
3. Other shopping area 1 2 3 4 5
4. Visit friends 1 2 3 4 5
5. Library 1 2 3 4 5
6. Post office 1 2 3 4 5
Demographic Questions
Sex
(1) Male
(2) Female
Age
(1) 18-34
(2) 35-64
(3) 65+
Joint household income
(1) Under $20,000
(2) $20,001-$30,000
(3) $30,001-$45,000
(4) $45,001-$65,000
(5) $65,001-$100,000
(6) $100,001-$150,000
(7) $150,001 or more
Education level
(1) Attended high school but did not graduate
(2) Graduated high school
(3) Attended college but did not graduate
(4) Graduated college
(5) Attended graduate school
(6) Graduate degree
How many children are in your household?
_____________________________________
Marital status
(1) Single
(2) Married
(3) Divorced
(4) Widowed
䉴
References
Appleyard, D. 1981. Livable streets. Los Angeles: University of Cali
-
fornia Press.
Audirac, I., and A. H. Shermyen. 1994. An evaluation of neo-
traditional design’s social prescription: Postmodern placebo or
remedy for suburban malaise. Journal of Planning Education and
Research 13:161-73.
Bookout, L. W. 1992a. Neo-traditional town planning: A new vision
for the suburbs? Urban Land 51 (8): 20-26.
. 1992b. Neo-traditional town planning: Towards a blend
-
ing of design approaches. Urban Land 51 (8): 14-19.
Brower, S. 1996. Good neighborhoods: A study of in-town and suburban
residential environments. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Brown, B. B., and V. L. Cropper. 2001. New urban and standard
suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social
goals. Journal of the American Planning Association 67:402-19.
Calthorpe, P. 1993. The next American metropolis: Ecology, community
and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press.
Campbell, K. E., and B. A. Lee. 1992. Sources of personal neighbor
networks: Social integration, need, or time? Social Forces
132:419-21.
Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? 䉳 67
Christoforidis, A. 1994. New alternatives to the suburb: Neo-
traditional developments. Journal of Planning Literature 8:429-
40.
Cochrun, S. E. 1994. Understanding and enhancing neighbor
-
hood sense of community. Journal of Planning Literature 9:92-99.
Crane, R., and R. Crepeau. 1998. Does neighborhood design influ
-
ence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data.
Transportation Research D 3:225-38.
Delsohn, G. 1994. Peter’s pockets. Planning 60:18-21.
Duany, A., and E. Plater-Zyberk. 1992. The second coming of the
American small town. Wilson Quarterly 16:19-51.
Elmer, F., and D. Way. 1991. Work from the Columbus Comprehensive
Plan. Columbus, OH: Frank Elmer and Associates.
Fulton, G. 1992. Future designs for small towns in Canada. Plan
Canada 35:29-30.
Howard, E. [1898] 1947. Garden cities of tomorrow. Reprint, London:
Faber & Faber.
Keller, S. 1968. The urban neighborhood. New York: Random House.
Knack, R. E. 1989. Repent, ye sinners, repent! Planning 55:4-13.
Krieger, A., and W. Lennertz, eds. 1991. Andres Duany and Elizabeth
Plater-Zyberk: Towns and town-making principles. New York:
Rizzoli.
Langdon, P. 1988. A good place to live. Atlantic Monthly 261:39-60.
Lerner-Lam, E., S. P. Gelniker, G. W. Halbert, C. Chellman, and S.
Ryan. 1992. Neo-traditional neighborhood design and its
implications for traffic engineering. ITE Journal 62:17-25.
Lund, H. 2002. Pedestrian environments and sense of community.
Journal of Planning Education and Research 21:301-12.
Lyon, L. 1987. The community in urban society. Chicago: Dorsey.
MacBurnie, I. 1992. Reconsidering the dream: Alternative design
for sustainable development. Plan Canada 35:19-23.
McMillan, D. W., and D. M. Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A
theory and definition. American Journal of Community Psychology
14 (1): 6-23.
Nasar, J. L., and D. Julian. 1994. The psychological sense of com
-
munity in the neighborhood. Journal of the American Planning
Association 61:178-84.
Perry, C. A. [1929] 1974. The neighborhood unit. In Neighborhood
and community planning, metropolitan America. Reprint, New
York: Arno.
Rubenstein, C. 1993. The folks next door aren’t strangers after all.
The New York Times, 2 January, B5.
Stein, C. 1957. Towards new towns for America. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Sutro, S. 1990. Reinventing the village. American Planning Society
Report No. 430. Washington, DC: American Planning
Association.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 summary tape file (STF1, 100%):
Ohio, Franklin County, Westerville. Washington, DC: Department
of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1991. 1990 Nationwide Personal
Transportation Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Wellman, B., and S. Wortley. 1990. Different strokes for different
folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of
Sociology 96:558-88.
68 Nasar
