journal of planning history 2009 lloyd lawhon 111 32

8/10/2019 Journal of Planning History 2009 Lloyd Lawhon 111 32

1/23

http://jph.sagepub.com/Journal of PlanningHistory

http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1538513208327072

2009 8: 111 originally published online 3 February 2009Journal of Planning HistoryLarry 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 HistoryAdditional services and information for

http://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jph.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 3, 2009OnlineFirst Version of Record -Apr 16, 2009Version of Record>>

at CRAI-Universitat de Barcelona on September 3, 2014jph.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CRAI-Universitat de Barcelona on September 3, 2014jph.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sacrph.org/http://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jph.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jph.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/02/03/1538513208327072.full.pdfhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/02/03/1538513208327072.full.pdfhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.full.pdfhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.full.pdfhttp://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/02/03/1538513208327072.full.pdfhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.full.pdfhttp://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jph.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sacrph.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/content/8/2/111http://jph.sagepub.com/


2/23


3/23

112 JOURNAL OF PLANNING HISTORY / May 2009

community, while enjoying widespread application, has been criticized asa 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 toolthat provides neighborhood residents opportunities to interact with thosewithin the neighborhood boundaries. The neighborhood unit fulfills thismission 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. Thisarticle investigates the background of the neighborhood unit and its his-torical significance and the controversy surrounding its utilization, givesan assessment of its broad application, evaluates its influence on the

design parameters of New Urbanism, and considers its current usefulnessas a residential design model.

The Neighborhood Unit

The neighborhood unit represented the ideal residential neighborhoodas a physically defined unit, with school, churches, and recreational areasat its center. Moreover, the design allowed residents to walk no more thana 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 tothe perimeter, thus enabling pedestrians to move freely within the neigh-borhood without interference from vehicular traffic. Additionally, interiorcurvilinear streets accentuated the neighborhood units break with thetraditional urban grid system. The architect of the neighborhood unit,Perry (Figure 1), proposed that the 160-acre neighborhood be developedat 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 parksand open space for the enjoyment of the residents. Perrys concept alsopromoted a school with an adjacent major play area, a community centerwith various institutional uses, and churches. All of these elements empha-sized the physical nature of the concept. Accordingly, the neighborhoodunit has widely served as the primary design concept for new residentialneighborhoods, as a substantial volume of American residential construc-tion since the 1920s indicates.5Banerjee and Baer acknowledge that formore than fifty years . . . the neighborhood unit has been virtually the solebasis for formally organizing residential space.6Application of the neigh-

borhood unit was widespread, and planning theorists . . . picked up theidea of the neighborhood as the basic building block of a city.7Furthermore,the neighborhood unit was promoted at President Hoovers 1931 National

at CRAI-Universitat de Barcelona on September 3, 2014jph.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/


4/23

Lawhon / THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT 113

Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, and this afforded itconsiderable 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 itsguidelines for new FHA-approved developments. Although Perry is widelyknown for the concept of the neighborhood unit, some suggest he may nothave been the originator of the idea.8Ultimately, however, without dimin-ishing the influence of Ebenezer Howard and others, clearly Perrys writ-

ings and presentations gave the neighborhood unit its name and helpedcrystallize the actual form and substance of this residential planningscheme.9

Figure 2: Clarence Arthur Perry (Blackstone Studios)Source:Courtesy of the Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, NY, October, 2008.

http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/http://jph.sagepub.com/


5/23


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 aboutone-quarter of a mile and no more than one-half mile and could be achieved withoutcrossing a major arterial street. Size the neighborhood to sufficiently support aschool, between 5,000 to 9,000 residents, approximately 160 acres at a density often units per acre. Implement a wider use of the school facilities for neighborhoodmeetings and activities, constructing a large play area around the building for use bythe entire community.

Place arterial streets along the perimeter so that they define and distinguish the placeof the neighborhood and by design eliminate unwanted through-traffic from theneighborhood. In this way, major arterials define the neighborhood, rather thandivide it through its heart.

Design internal streets using a hierarchy that easily distinguishes local streets fromarterial streets, using curvilinear street design for both safety and aesthetic pur-poses. Streets, by design, would discourage unwanted through traffic and enhancethe safety of pedestrians.

Restrict local shopping areas to the perimeter or perhaps to the main entrance of theneighborhood, thus excluding nonlocal traffic destined for these commercial usesthat 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, theyhave social implications as well. These social implications, whether intendedor unintended, spawned the controversial dimension of the neighborhoodunit. To understand the social agenda of Perry as it relates to developmentof the neighborhood scheme, we need to understand the institutional, social,and physical design influences on Perry and how, through him, they shapedthe 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 associationwith the Russell Sage Foundation, which employed Perry for most of hisworking life.11 Through the Russell Sage Foundation, Perry came intocontact with key individuals interested in city planning and the varioussocial concerns that confronted American society in the early 1900s.12Hedrew from these contacts the inspiration to ameliorate social problemsthrough planning and community design. When railroad magnate RussellSage died in 1906, his estate established the Russell Sage Foundation asan institution for the improvement of social and living conditions in the



6/23


7/23


including the Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs, in whichPerrys monograph was published. Initially, serving as a high school prin-cipal in Puerto Rico between 1904 and 1905, Perry met Leonard P. Ayerswho at that time was the general superintendent of schools in Puerto Rico.

Ayers later became associated with the Sage Foundation, and through hisinvitation, Perry joined the staff of the Sage Foundation in 1909 to studythe possibilities of utilizing school buildings more fully for recreation andother community activities.14Shortly after Perry joined the organization,the foundation began to develop a suburban community that wouldexemplify some of the possibilities of intelligent town planning, with thehope of encouraging similar ventures elsewhere.15The site was a 200-acreplot of land in Forest Hills, Queens Borough of New York. The Sage

Foundation established the Sage Foundation Homes Company to developthis site as a suburban neighborhood on the theme of the garden citiesof England. Landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., was chosento design the layout and to plan the streets, and Grosvenor Atterbury wasselected as architect for the project. Forest Hills Gardens, as it was named,was designed with two wide streets curving through the neighborhood tocarry through traffic so that other streets could be used exclusively forlocal traffic (Figure 3). The widths of the tree-lined streets derived fromtheir use: wide thoroughfares for through traffic and more narrow localstreets for residential circulation. Perry later applied his interest in phys-ical design to Forest Hills and revised the site plan to remove throughstreets, which he believed brought additional traffic into the neighbor-hood (Figure 4). A local shopping area was designed at the main entranceto 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 SageFoundation hoped that its design would serve as a model for futureresidential neighborhoods.

Perrys involvement with Forest Hills Gardens came not from taking

part in the initial design process but through his firsthand experience asa resident of the neighborhood. Indeed, it served as a laboratory for hisdesign interests; he lived there from 1912 until his death in 1944. TheRussell 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 withcommunity design during the 1920s.

Writing of Sociologist Cooley

Perry also was influenced by the writing of sociologist Charles HortonCooley, who believed the individual was shaped by society and that soci-ety was subsequently a product of the good or bad actions of individuals.



8/23


As such, much of the theoretical basis for the neighborhood unit may beattributed to Cooley.16Cooleys principal contribution to the sociology ofthe neighborhood was his theory of primary groups, which play animportant role in shaping the personality and moral perceptions of theindividual.17 In his book Social Organization, Cooley discussed what hereferred to as primary groups, including the family, the play group, and theneighborhood.18According 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 theneighborhood 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. Perryincorporated this idea into the physical form of the neighborhood unit andpurposefully 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 fromToynbee 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 PerrySource: C. A. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-LifeCommunity. Monograph one,Neighborhood and Community Planning,Regional Plan of New Yorkand Its Environs (New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1929). Page90. Used with permission of the Regional Plan Association, New York.



9/23


movement provided opportunities for interaction and community improve-ment, hoping to provide the mechanics for fully integrating immigrantsinto American society. By 1910, settlement houses numbered 400 in theUnited States, and their primary role was to provide a recognizable meetingplace at which social interaction could take place to aid in overcoming anindividuals 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 interestin expanded opportunities for school and recreational areas and the valueof open space and parks in the neighborhood came from his contacts withthe settlement house movement. Parks and open spaces were importantcomponents of the neighborhood unit.

Community Center Movement

Another influence that continued for more than a decade was Perrysinvolvement in the community center movement. Perry became involved

Figure 4: Perrys Recommended Revisions to Forest Hills Gardens, Designed to Discourage ThroughTraffic, Illustrate His Interest in Physical Design

Source: C. A. Perry, The Neighborhood Unit, a Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-LifeCommunity. Monograph one,Neighborhood and Community Planning,Regional Plan of New Yorkand Its Environs (New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1929). Page90. Used with permission of the Regional Plan Association, New York.



10/23


in community center activities soon after joining the Russell SageFoundation staff and was instrumental in establishing the 1911 NationalConference on Community Centers and the New York Council ofCommunity Centers. The community center movement likely had itsroots in the settlement house movement; indeed, both were interested inthe extension of personal associations through healthy and constructiveactivities. The community center movement differed from the settlementhouse movement, however, by extending its reach from urban centerneighborhoods to all neighborhoods, including newly formed residentialareas outside the central core. Its aim was to organize the normal neigh-borhoods public and private activity in the fields of recreation, generalculture, and adult education.22 Recognizing the opportunity to use the

school plant for other activities in addition to childhood education, Perrypromoted the use of the school for community center activities. Likely,this was an important factor in Perrys decision to place the school at thecenter of the neighborhood. By serving as a community center after schoolhours, the school provided an outlet for community residents to engage insocial, political, and physical activities. This would, in Perrys opinion, leadto a greater sense of community. A centrally located neighborhoodcommunity center could further opportunities for social interaction, socialactivism, and serve as a source of community identification; thus, a formalcommunity center building became one of the fundamental elements ofPerrys concept. Furthermore, he helped to secure legislation in New Yorkto allow schools to be used for community purposes after school hours.

Garden Cities Movement

The garden cities movement of Ebenezer Howard also provided Perrywith substantive design ideas for the neighborhood unit. Presented ini-tially in To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, published in 1898and refined by chief designer Raymond Unwin, the garden city movement

sparked Perrys desire for a pleasant, gardenlike environment. The gardencity provided amenities not commonly found in urban centers. In particu-lar, the design and construction of the English garden city of Letchworthin 1903 became a cornerstone for future neighborhood design. Like archi-tects and community planners Henry Wright and Clarence Stein, Perryacknowledged 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 usedit 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).23An outcome of the Perry-Wright-Steincollaboration was a system of internal streets in Radburn that discouragedthrough traffic and minimized the influence of the automobile on life in



11/23


the neighborhood. At the same time, the system enhanced the settingthe flowing street plan, the fuller use of tree-lined streets and public openspaces, and the new romantic architecture, as described by Lewis

Mumford.24Additionally, 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. Thesequalities were shared by Perry.

Figure 5: Plan of Radburn, New Jersey, Application of the Neighborhood UnitSource:The Radburn Association. Used with permission of David Bostock, manager, September 3,2008.



12/23


As a result of these influences, Perry was motivated to create a schemefor the neighborhood that would combine qualities from each. Thus, hestrove to encourage both peer and intergenerational interaction amongresidents 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 bymajor arterials, which formed its boundaries. To Perry, the neighborhoodwas more than just a place to liveit was a unit, an integral part of thecity 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, whereface-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 forschools, parks, community centers, and shopping. These features providedopportunities for neighborhood interaction, and by choice, residents couldinteract and form coalitions for political action or other purposes.

Perrys ideology was shaped by these institutional, social, and physicaldesign forces, and the neighborhood unit reflected these forces. His expe-riences at Forest Hills Gardens and his collaboration with Wright, Stein,Unwin25 and others provided him with an appropriate foundation onwhich to develop his idea.

Controversy Surrounding the Neighborhood Unit

Although the neighborhood unit has enjoyed widespread application, ithas 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 outcomesand 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 institutionalframeworkrealtors, lenders, and underwritersthat made new develop-ment possible. Banerjee and Baer restate criticism voiced in the 1940sthat Perrys concept was perceived as socially divisive,

that it encouraged and fomented the very segregation that society has increasinglyrejected; that it emphasized the physical environment as the prime determinant ofresidential quality of life when, in fact, the social environment was more salient; thatit was an increasingly obsolete contrivance geared to the needs of yesterdays ruralmigrant 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 asocially divisive neighborhood scheme.28



13/23


Banerjee and Baer offer an explanation of why the application of theneighborhood unit was seen as socially divisive.29 They contend thatalthough the neighborhood unit concept is an oft-told tale among envi-ronmental designers . . . , the story is not complete.30Rather than beingan application of physical design to meet social ends, the concept is athree-dimensional expression of some underlying cultural and intellec-tual beliefs that pervaded American reformist thinking at the turn of theCentury.31The three dimensions of the concept include context values(historical setting), manifest values (ideas important to designers), andtacit values (how these were ideas were internalized), which arguably areequivalent 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 unitas an example of physical determinism.

Context Values

According to Banerjee and Baer, contextual values relate to the reformistideals of the late 1800s and early 1900s aimed at saving citizens from themoral and social decay of the city.32Among the reformers influencing thecontextual 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.34These are the values held byplanners and design professionals relating to the physical manifestation ofthe concept. For example, according to Banerjee and Baer, these manifestvalues 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 thatallowed the public after-hours use of school facilities. Also, the hostile envi-ronment on the street created by the increased use of the automobile fueledmanifest 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 byBanerjee and Baer, is the tacit values of the time. These included the



14/23


social and economic values that derived from endorsement of the neigh-borhood unit by economic, business, real estate, and finance groups. Asproposed by Perry, the neighborhood unit was to serve as a schema for thefamily-life community. Of central importance were the family and theschool, and although Perry suggested multifamily dwellings in his designschemes, 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. Socialdiversity or its lack was thus problematic from the outset of his concept.Radburn, one of the first applications of the concept, intended a diverseincome and ethnic resident base, but the economic downturn after 1929curtailed the full development of the community, and a diverse resident

base was never realized.36

Real estate groups, lenders, and the FHA soonadopted guidelines that discouraged ethnic diversity in new develop-ments. Likewise, the affordability of housing in new neighborhoods andexclusionary practices by these institutional groups soon resulted in theperpetuation of homogeneous, like-income neighborhoods. Tacit values,according to Banerjee and Baer, are borne of the neighborhood units wideacceptance and endorsement by real estate, business, and home financinggroups, resulting in neighborhoods alike in race, income, and aestheticvalues.37Sociologist Herbert Gans argues that the social homogeneity ofresidential areas based on the neighborhood unit was the chief reason forthe success of these neighborhoods and that physical determinism wasnot a chief determining factor in how successful neighborhoods actuallywere in forming cohesive, stable units.38

Physical Determinism

Critics have also questioned whether the neighborhood unit is a physicaldesign concept or a concept generating desired social outcomes. Central tothe controversy is the theory of physical determinismthe belief that

human behavior is determined by the nature of the geographicenvironment.39 City planning, evolving from social reform in the late1800s and early 1900s, was rightly concerned with beneficial actions thatpositively affect citizens. Social reformers, responding to the intolerableurban conditions wrought by the industrial revolution, sought to improvehousing conditions, improve living conditions, reduce anonymity of citylife, 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 thecongestion, squalor, and blight prevalent in many parts of the American

city. Decentrists promoted one solutionMove the affected out of thecity into more pleasant surroundings. Planning in the reform sense thusinvolved choosing appropriate future courses of action that would benefit



15/23


society, resulting in changes to the built environment, hopefully for thebetterment of citizens. Creating good neighborhood environments appearsto be consistent with these beliefs. Since Perry was a part of many of thereform institutions of the early 1900s, he was undoubtedly influenced byhis association with these institutions. That Perry intended to use his con-cept to engineer behavior has been hotly debated. Physical determinismimplies that the design influences residents behavior according to somepattern desired by the designer. Although the neighborhood unit likely wasinfluenced by social and institutional issues of the early 1900s, it seemsunlikely 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 oneof its central purposes was to structure residents social behavior. Therefore,

understanding how the built environment might determine behavior isimportant, as is clarifying the physical determinism argument raised bycritics of the neighborhood unit. Lang suggests that environmental effectson behavior take place along a continuum from a (1) free will approach (noenvironmental effect), to a (2) possibilistic approach (environment pro-vides possibilities for behavior, provided the person makes a choice toparticipate), to a (3) probabilistic approach (dealing with probabilities thata particular reaction will occur), to a (4) deterministic approach (a desiredbehavior is determined by the design environment).40 Patricios investi-gated the role of determinism in Perrys neighborhood unit and condensesLangs categorization into a continuum of three components (Figure 6).41

At one end of the continuum is an opportunistic explanation. Thisapproach suggests that the design presents opportunities for interactionand other forms of socialization; however, the design does not cause suchto 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 isthe 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 opportunisticapproach rather than the deterministic.

Further support of the theory that the neighborhood unit was a physicaldesign model comes from Tannenbaum, who states that Perry devotedalmost his entire monograph [Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs]to a discussion of the physical aspects of the neighborhood. He is concernedwithconveniencefor the resident: convenience in shopping, conveniencein education, convenience in reaching parks and playgrounds. One gainsthe impression that the fundamental raison detre of the neighborhood from

his point of view was to make life easier and more convenient for thecitizen.42Perry himself illustrates the physical nature of the neighbor-hood in his redesign sketch of Forest Hills Gardens to eliminate through



16/23


traffic (see Figure 4). Schaffer offers support for the physical design side ofthe argument in stating, The designers of Radburn did not believe that the

physical structure or layout of a community determined social values, butthey were convinced that the site plan was not a neutral force.43Theseviewpoints suggest agreement with the conclusions reached by Patriciosthat the neighborhood unit fits more appropriately within an opportunisticrather than a deterministic theoretical position and as such, providesopportunities for social interaction. How a person views that opportunity ortakes advantage of the opportunity, is up to the individual. Martinson favorsthis idea and suggests that it is the personalities of the people themselves,not their house-plan orientation to or away from the street, that almostperfectly 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 theneighborhood unit had influenced the design of the towns, the plannedelements 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 quiteskeptical of the social goal of interaction among the residents as idealized

in the neighborhood concept.

45

Banerjee and Baer studied twenty-tworesidential areas in the Los Angeles metropolitan area to ascertain if theseareas reflect, mirror, or explain the widely used neighborhood unit. Theauthors principally investigated two dimensions of the concept: a physicalsphere and a social sphere as key components of the Perry concept.Banerjee and Baer concluded that in comparing this sample with the idealneighborhood unit, this sample was not able definitively to give a physicalboundary to their neighborhoods, as suggested by the neighborhood unitconcept. However, the sample did believe the social aspects of living in aneighborhood were very important. Furthermore, Banerjee and Baer

found that the social aspect of neighborhood life declined as incomeincreased, suggesting an inverse relationship between mobility and socialparticipation within the neighborhood.46

Figure 6: Illustrative Continuum Explaining Environmental/Physical Effects of NeighborhoodDesign on Residents, as Suggested by Patricios

Source: Figure 6 based on approaches suggested by N. N. Patricios, The Neighborhood Concept: ARetrospective of Physical Design and Social Interaction, Journal of Architectural and PlanningResearch 19 (Spring 2002).



17/23


Gans also studied the effects of social life purported by the neighbor-hood idea.47He found that the social life of Levittowners (Levittown, NewJersey) was unaffected by the neighborhood scheme. He concluded thatalthough a relationship exists between physical proximity and friendshippatterns, propinquity . . . is not sufficient by itself to create intensiverelationships. Friendship requires homogeneity.48Gans concluded thatsocioeconomic and life cycle characteristics are better indicators forassessing 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 lesseffect 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 theirstudy 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 andas a physically defined area. Freemans study of sprawl and neighborhoodties supports this notion, demonstrating that neighborhood designs thatforce 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 (ifonly marginally so) in its impact on physical design of neighborhoods thanthe 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 beenfar-reaching and utilized broadly in the United States, Europe, and othercountries. Furthermore, its principles are still supported today and utilizedin 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 aproper role for city planners. Since planning emerged from a social reformparadigm, it is not surprising that planners and the planning communitybelieve social issues are important. Herbert Gans, prominent sociologist,raised a number of issues in the 1960s related to the proper role of theplanner, 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



18/23


In answering his posed questions, Gans notes that first of all, the plan-ner has only limited influence over social relationships.52The plannermay, 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 thedemographic and social characteristics of the residents. According toGans, the planner has even less influence over the market than develop-ers, banking institutions, and real estate groups. This is perhaps becausethe market responds to housing demands of buyers and to the fact thatmost buyers are willing to accept similarity in house type and want a fairdegree of homogeneity in their neighbors.53Gans 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 withrespect to neighbor relations and friendship formation.54

Implications for Current Practice

The neighborhood unit as initially envisioned was a response to physicaland social concerns of the 1920s or more aptly stated, a product of theinstitutional, social, and physical design forces of the era. Although theidea of a defined residential area was not untried by the late 1920s, theneighborhood unit was a learn by doing technique. Perry, throughphysical design, gave the neighborhood a discernable identity by bound-ing it with major arterials on the perimeter, reducing pedestrian/vehicularconflicts, providing a safe, walkable area replete with useful neighborhoodservices, and providing opportunity for social engagement to further socialcohesionall honorable objectives for a socially conscience professionsuch as city planning flourishing in the 1900s era of social reform. As wehave learned in retrospect, some of the unintended consequences of theneighborhood unit raise concerns by planners regarding the desirabilityof sprawling, auto-dependent residential areas and the lack of community,

civility, and diversity among neighborhood residents. Planners continueto resolve these issues and improve neighborhood design. New Urbanistsseek an improved design that in theory promotes diversity of housingtypes affordable to a wider range of incomes, makes correction for thelack of neighborhood connectivity created by curvilinear and cul-de-sacstreet patterns that hinder walkable neighborhoods, and promotes adesign model that reduces dependence on the automobile. They build onthe design strengths of the neighborhood unit.

Recent research suggests that the neighborhood unit is still fashionableand useful to planners. Solow, Ham, and Donnelly found that about halfthe [surveyed] group thought the neighborhood unit concept useful, valid,and ideal for public policy. Nearly 80% used the concept in practice.55These findings were again supported by Lawhon, who found that the



19/23


neighborhood unit is used for design review in at least 56 percent of allrespondents communities and is mentioned by name or by reference in thecomprehensive plans or regulations of 13 percent of the respondent com-munities.56Fifty-seven percent of those familiar with the neighborhood unitagreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the neighborhood unitis still a valid model to guide residential development design in my com-munity and other communities.57 Furthermore, survey results indicatethat a significant percentage of the respondents share the reformist spirit ofthe past. Seventy-four percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statementthat planners must strive to find solutions for social disconnectivity thatsome suggest is ripe in residential areas designed on the Neighborhood unit.. . .58Clearly, some planners seem convinced they have an obligation to

intervene in design matters for the well-being of society. Planners were alsosurveyed about the value of New Urbanism as a design tool to resolve thispurported disconnectivity. Seventy-three percent of the respondentsstrongly agreed and agreed that the New Urbanism offers improvement tothe design limits of the neighborhood unit. Some respondents even notedthat New Urbanism is the neighborhood unit in a new package. Inferencesfrom the survey results indicate that many of those surveyed believe thatboth the neighborhood unit concept and New Urbanism offer options forcommunity design, yet neither is the only solution planners might consider.Other recent research has considered the connectivity issue of NewUrbanist developments as well as neighborliness, walkability, and reduceddependence on the automobile, characteristics some claim are lacking inneighborhoods based on the neighborhood unit.59

Eugenie L. Birch has extensively observed the neighborhood unit andNew Urbanism as community design models.60She suggests that the neigh-borhood unit and New Urbanism, sharing many commonalities, representthe first and fifth generations of design models based on Ebenezer Howardsgarden city model. Concerning the neighborhood unit, Birch indicatesthat Perry argued that if cities caused anomie and dysfunctional relation-

ships because of their size, density, and heterogeneity, then smaller, lessdense, and homogenous urban cells could provide an environment thatwould heighten a feeling of belonging and contribute to a sense of com-munity. Further, the rational arrangement of the infrastructure, especiallythe streets and open space, provided a physical framework for the desiredhuman contact.61 She further indicates that New Urbanismwith itscompact walkable form, quarter-mile radius, diversity of uses, and openspaceshow[s] a relationship to the ward idea [of Howard] and clearbloodlines to Clarence Perrys program for the neighborhood unit. . . .62Possibly, 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.



20/23


Conclusion

The neighborhood unit has had a wide-reaching impact on neighborhooddesign. Perry, in 1929, formally published a scheme of arrangement for thefamily-life community: the neighborhood unit, a physical design modelthat afforded residents the opportunity for social interaction, for the devel-opment of friendships, and for the collaboration necessary for social and/orpolitical activism. The application of his idea, often criticized as physicaldeterminism, resulted in neighborhoods of similar races and incomes, duemore to what Banerjee and Baer describe as the tacit values of the erathat 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 tobe more successful in promoting physical design of neighborhoods than ithas been in promoting some predetermined social outcome. Furthermore,few researchers dispute that application of the concept has resulted inhomogenous neighborhoods alike in race and income. In spite of suchcriticism, as a physical design model, the neighborhood unit has beenwidely 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 ofthe concept. Indeed, the historical significance of the neighborhood unit isfar-reaching. However, on one hand, proponents of the concept emphasizethe physical aspects of the concept that offer opportunity for social engage-ment and sense of community and that define the neighborhood. On theother hand, opponents emphasize the purported social intent of the con-cept and the unintended consequences of socially and economically alikeneighborhoods resulting from the neighborhood unit. In response, NewUrbanists appear to be addressing some of these consequences in their

derivation of the neighborhood unit. Given the institutional, social, andphysical design forces of the 1920s, Perrys legacy is not mistakes he mayhave made but rather his foresight in identifying the physical componentscritical to the neighborhood that define the neighborhood and presentresidents 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



21/23


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 Perspectives17 (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 Studies53 (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; andLubove, 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 theRegional Plantraveled 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.



22/23


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 Research19, 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 Research20 (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 Research23 (2003): 58-68; J. Kim and R. Kaplan, Physical and Psychological Factors



23/23


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, inFrom 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 therespondent communities.

Larry Lloyd Lawhon is an associate professor in the Department of LandscapeArchitecture/Regional and Community Planning at Kansas State University and is amember of the American Planning Association, the American Institute of CertifiedPlanners, and the Society for American City and Regional Planning History.

journal of planning history 2009 lloyd lawhon 111 32

Documents