This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]

On: 28 July 2013, At: 11:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer
Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood

Planning
a b
William M. Rohe
a
Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
b
Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Published online: 28 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: William M. Rohe (2009) From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 75:2, 209-230, DOI: 10.1080/01944360902751077

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360902751077

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 209

209

From Local to Global

One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning

William M. Rohe
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Problem: Over the past 100 years, city he year 1909 has special significance for neighborhood planning in
planners have used neighborhood planning
to address a variety of vexing social problems
such as community disintegration, economic
marginalization, and environmental degra-
T America, as it does for the broader planning profession. That was the
year the Russell Sage Foundation developed New York’s Forest Hills
Gardens, which provided the inspiration for Clarence Perry, a resident of the
dation. To date, there has been no compre- Gardens, to develop the neighborhood planning unit (NPU) concept he
hensive review and critique of these planning presented to the profession several years later (C. A. Perry, 1929). Since that
initiatives and how they have influenced the time, the idea of planning at the neighborhood scale has been widely accepted
profession. in the American planning profession, though not always practiced (Gillette,
Purpose: This article traces the history of 1983; Rohe & Gates, 1985).1
neighborhood planning in the United States
Over the last 100 years, the powerful and compelling concept of neigh-
to learn from past experience and to identify
its contributions to the planning profession. borhood has been the basis of several planning initiatives. Those initiatives
Methods: I review the literature on the
sought to create and or preserve urban neighborhoods to counter what many
various forms of neighborhood planning,
which I define as planning initiatives that
focus on altering the physical environment community-based organizations. Municipal Keywords: neighborhood planning,
of one or more neighborhoods in pursuit of neighborhood planning provided a mecha- planning history, community planning,
larger social objectives. nism for ongoing citizen involvement. The neighborhood revitalization, community
Results and conclusions: Each of the six most recent forms of neighborhood planning development
forms of neighborhood planning discussed create neighborhoods that encourage walking, Research support: None.
in this article has made important contri- use of mass transit, social interaction, and a
About the author:
butions to the planning profession. Perry’s sense of community.
William M. Rohe ([email protected]) is the
neighborhood unit formula provided plan- Takeaway for practice: Neighborhood Cary C. Boshamer distinguished professor
ners with a template for good neighborhood planning programs have made a number of of city and regional planning, and director
design and introduced the idea that neigh- important contributions to the planning of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies
borhood design could affect the sense of profession, including focusing attention on at the University of North Carolina (UNC)
community. Urban renewal taught the how neighborhood design influences urban at Chapel Hill. He is coauthor of several
profession about the limits of physical livability and social behaviors, institutional- books, including Planning with Neighbor-
solutions to social problems, the precious izing citizen participation in plan making, hoods (UNC Press, 1985) and Chasing the
nature of neighborhood social networks and and going beyond physical development to American Dream: New Perspectives on
the importance of involving citizens. The address social, economic, political, and en- Affordable Homeownership (Cornell Uni-
community action programs created a new vironmental issues. Neighborhood planning versity Press, 2007), and has authored or
norm for citizen participation and showed is currently more important than ever, as it coauthored more than 50 journal articles.
its limits, as well as introducing truly now addresses global issues such as energy
comprehensive redevelopment planning. conservation and greenhouse gas emissions Journal of the American Planning Association,
Community economic development showed in addition to its historic focus on social Vol. 75, No. 2, Spring 2009
that some planning and implementation equity issues such as poverty and social DOI 10.1080/01944360902751077
activities can be successfully delegated to alienation. © American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 210

210 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

see as the impersonality, insecurity, and lack of control borhood planning efforts have been anything but modest.
associated with urban living. Neighborhood planning Rather, they have sought to tackle some of the biggest
initiatives have sought to help transfer the more intimate problems facing our towns, cities, nation, and even world,
social relations found in small towns to big cities, thereby by planning at the neighborhood scale: alienation, crime,
creating healthier individuals and a healthier society poverty, political apathy and perceptions of powerlessness,
(Ahlbrandt & Cunningham, 1979; Lyon, 1987; Warren, economic marginalization, and environmental degradation.
1978). “In the neighborhood, if anywhere, it is necessary Using this definition, I discuss six forms of neighbor-
to recover the sense of intimacy and innerness that has been hood planning in this article: (1) the neighborhood planning
disrupted by the increased scale of the city and the speed of unit (NPU); (2) urban renewal; (3) community action; (4)
transportation” (Mumford, 1954, p. 269). municipal neighborhood planning; (5) community economic
Neighborhoods are also where people live and spend development planning; and (6) traditional neighborhood
most of their time. They are the places that urban residents design (TND) and related constructs.3 I begin my analysis
know best and are most concerned with, for what happens of each form of neighborhood planning with a brief de-
in their neighborhoods affects their quality of life and, at scription of the societal context and perceived problems
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

least for homeowners, their economic fortunes (Logan & that led to its development. I then describe the neigh-
Molotch, 1987). Thus, planners and other public officials borhood planning program and its accomplishments and
have come to see the neighborhood as an important shortcomings. Finally, I discuss the influence that each of
geographic and social unit for organizing planning efforts. these forms of neighborhood planning had on the practice
This article traces the history and evolution of neigh- of city planning in the United States.
borhood planning in the United States over the last 100
years. As will be seen, each form of neighborhood planning
was influenced both by the broader social context and by
The Neighborhood Planning Unit
the accomplishments and limitations of earlier forms of
neighborhood planning. This article also argues that planners In the early 20th century, many large American cities
have learned a variety of important lessons from the various were experiencing the effects of a general lack of compre-
forms of neighborhood planning practiced over the last hensive planning, public regulation of private development,
100 years, and that many of those lessons transcend the and public investment in open space and other amenities.
practice of neighborhood planning to influence the Years of unplanned and piecemeal development meant that
broader practice of city planning in the United States. many cities had become crowded and congested, offering
little in the way of public recreation space other than the
city sidewalks and streets. Cities were also suffering from
a variety of social problems, which many social reformers
Defining Neighborhood Planning
believed were related to these physical problems, including
At the most basic level, neighborhood planning involves social isolation and alienation, a lack of informal social
public, nonprofit, and private planning efforts that focus control leading to youth delinquency, and lack of civic
on the physical character of one or more neighborhoods, participation (Cooley, 1902). In 1923, Clarence Perry
however they may be defined at the local level. I define presented his “neighborhood unit formula” as a means of
neighborhood planning to include both the design of new addressing these pressing social problems (Gillette, 1983).
neighborhoods and the redevelopment or revitalization of Perry’s formula was a synthesis of several ideas and
older ones. Definitions for neighborhoods vary considerably, experiences. As an employee of the Russell Sage Founda-
but have in common the basic idea that they are subareas tion, he was involved in furthering the community center
of towns and cities whose physical or social characteristics movement, which sought to open up public schools for
distinguish them from one another.2 neighborhood cultural, recreational, and social activities
The objectives of neighborhood planning efforts, to create a greater sense of local community. Thus, it is not
however, typically go beyond achieving good physical design surprising that local schools played a prominent role in
or improving aesthetics to include larger social objectives Perry’s neighborhood unit formula. Each neighborhood,
such as creating healthy social communities, empowering Perry thought, should be large enough to house a population
neighborhood residents, developing neighborhood econo- sufficient to support its own elementary school, and children
mies, or preserving environmental quality, and are achieved should be able to walk there. This meant that each neigh-
by altering the physical environment in ways that influence borhood should extend a half mile in radius around its
social and political processes. Thus, the objectives of neigh- elementary school.
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 211

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 211

Perry’s concept (see Figure 1) was also influenced by He synthesized these influences and defined an ideal
the ideas of the prominent planners of his day. In Ebenezer neighborhood that would “embrace all the public facilities
Howard’s garden cities, for example, each ward contained and conditions required by the average family for its com-
approximately 5,000 people and its own elementary school, fort and proper development within the vicinity of its
and Clarence Stein and Henry Wright used neighborhoods dwelling” (C. A. Perry, 1929, p. 50). The neighborhood
as a basic unit of organization in several of their planned unit formula contained six principles (C. A. Perry, 1929):
communities, including Sunnyside Gardens on Long Island.
Most importantly, however, Perry’s concept was influenced 1. Each neighborhood should be large enough to
by his experience as a resident of Forest Hills Gardens in support an elementary school.
Queens, New York (C. A. Perry, 1939). He derived many 2. Neighborhood boundaries should be composed of
of the neighborhood unit principles from what he saw as arterial streets to discourage cut-through traffic.
the strengths and weaknesses of that community’s design. 3. Each neighborhood should have a central gathering
Forest Hills Gardens had its own elementary school, which place and small scattered parks.
he liked, but he felt the area designed for civic functions 4. Schools and other institutions serving the neigh-
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

should be separated from businesses and located in the borhood should be located at the center of the
center of the neighborhood rather than on the periphery. neighborhood.

Figure 1. Schematic of a neighborhood unit for modest dwellings.

Source: C. A. Perry (1929, p. 36).

 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 212

212 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

5. Local shops should be located at the periphery of concerned over the incursion of Blacks into formerly all-
the neighborhood. White neighborhoods (Isaacs, 1948a). Isaacs and others
6. The internal neighborhood street system should be also criticized the neighborhood unit formula for ignoring
designed to discourage through traffic. the needs of the elderly and single adults (Isaacs, 1948b;
Riemer, 1950). Here again, Mumford (1954) countered
Although Perry was mostly concerned with the applica- that providing a range of housing types and densities in
tion of his neighborhood unit formula to newly constructed neighborhoods would result in a “representative sample of
areas, he did suggest that it could be applied to “central the whole” (p. 267).
deteriorated sections, large enough and sufficiently blighted In spite of these criticisms, the neighborhood unit
to warrant reconstruction” (C. A. Perry, 1939, p. 96). He formula found widespread acceptance in the planning pro-
originally advocated using eminent domain to assemble fession and has profoundly affected the practice of planning
large parcels for redevelopment using the neighborhood in the United States. Before its introduction, planners were
unit formula, but later suggested that property owners focused on large-scale city beautification and transportation
work with local government to pool land, develop a master projects (Scott, 1969). The neighborhood unit formula
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

plan, and then receive a share of the newly planned area helped turn the attention of planners to the planning and
commensurate with their original contribution. design of residential communities. It also helped planners
Nonetheless, Perry’s idea of large-scale clearance to think about the design of those communities in a compre-
create new areas devoid of urban problems was adopted by hensive and integrated fashion. As Mumford (1954) noted,
others, including influential planner Harland Bartholomew,
and Herbert Nelson, executive director of the National . . . the result of [the neighborhood unit formula] was
Association of Real Estate Boards (Gillette, 1983). Nelson, to change the basic unit of planning from the city-
in particular, used the neighborhood unit idea to argue for block or the avenue, to the more complex unit of the
large-scale redevelopment schemes planned and managed by neighborhood, a change that demanded a reapportion-
semipublic corporations with the power of eminent domain ment of space for avenues and access streets, for public
and funding from the federal government. Thus, there is a building and open areas and domestic dwellings: in
link between neighborhood unit planning and urban short, a new generalized urban pattern. (p. 260)
renewal programs introduced at the federal level in 1949.
One major criticism of the neighborhood unit formula The influence of the neighborhood unit formula is also
is that it is essentially an anti-urban, romantic notion that evident in many large new communities developed in the
inappropriately tries to recreate small town life in urban United States. Early examples of its application can be seen
areas. Critics argued that fostering local interaction by in the planning of Radburn, NJ, Richmond, VA, and other
providing neighborhood-scale facilities undermined the towns (Birch, 1980; Silver, 1985). Many of the suburban
diversity, excitement, transience, and breadth of oppor- communities developed after World War II, such as
tunity that originally drew people to cities (Dahir, 1947; Levittown, NY, and Levittown, NJ, also relied on the
Isaacs, 1948a, 1948b), and that ready access to the many neighborhood unit formula (Gans, 1967), as did Columbia,
special interest groups in cities worked against local activities. MD (Hallman, 1984). A 1969 study of the use of the
Lewis Mumford (1954), however, countered that “even neighborhood unit among planners found that 80% of
though a large part of an adult’s life may be spent far practicing planners used the neighborhood unit concept in
beyond his own domestic precincts, [that] does not lessen practice (Solow, Ham, & Donnelly, 1969). It is safe to say
the importance of neighborhood functions” (p. 266). that even today many planners and developers continue to
Another major criticism of the neighborhood unit rely, at least in part, on principles first codified by Perry in
formula is that it has been used to discriminate against his neighborhood unit formula.
Black, low-income, and non-family households. Clarence Many of the principles of the neighborhood unit formula
Perry (1929) did, in fact, advocate for neighborhood social have also found their way into modern subdivision regula-
homogeneity,4 as he felt it would “facilitate living together tions. It is now commonplace, for example, for such regula-
and make possible the enjoyment of many benefits not tions to require land be set aside for local recreation, and to
otherwise obtainable” (p. 110) Influential planner and encourage street designs that discourage cut-through traffic.
Harvard professor Reginald Isaacs believed that the neigh- These were key principles of the neighborhood unit formula.
borhood concept became popular in the 1930s and 1940s Finally, the neighborhood unit formula introduced to
because it coincided with the first major Black migration the planning profession the idea that the physical design of
since the Civil War, when real estate interests first became communities could play an important role in addressing
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 213

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 213

social problems. Before its introduction, planners largely Title I of the Federal Housing Act of 1949 was the
had confined their attention to physical problems, such as culmination of seven years of often bitter controversy
traffic congestion and improving aesthetics through urban among housing activists, downtown boosters, large devel-
design, but Perry suggested that planners could and should opers, and others over the specifics of a federal program to
address urban social problems including lack of community, support urban renewal. It is not surprising, then, that when
lack of civic involvement, and even teenage delinquency. finally passed, that act contained conflicting goals. It sought
This idea has carried through to many of the other forms to improve living conditions for the poor while also aiming
of neighborhood planning discussed below. to help cities compete with their suburbs. The problem, as
Teaford (2000) noted was that “[a] lackluster expanse of
moderate- and low-income housing would not win a city
a reputation for renewed vitality. Such projects did not stir
Urban Renewal
the souls of chamber of commerce presidents or enhance
The outmigration of population and business from revenues for downtown department stores” (p. 446).
central cities to suburban communities that began as a The urban renewal program offered cities financial
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

trickle prior to World War II turned into a torrent as support for land assembly, clearance, site preparation, and
soldiers returned from the war. Much of the housing and sale or lease based on a redevelopment plan for the area
public infrastructure in central cities was dilapidated, while (Foard & Fefferman, 1966). It offered $1 billion in loans
developers were offering modern, new, single-family homes to cover a variety of short- and long-term costs such as land
in the suburbs with favorable financing thanks to the acquisition, and $500 million in grants to help cover up to
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans’ two thirds of project losses.
Administration (VA) mortgage programs. Over the 25-year life of the urban renewal program,
The flight to the suburbs exacerbated a variety of Congress made various alterations in response to criticisms
simmering urban problems including racial segregation, and concerns, so that the urban renewal program of 1973
concentrated poverty, unemployment, severely dilapidated was very different than the one originally passed in 1949.
housing, crime, and municipal financial stress. The lack of Its transformation began with the Housing Act of 1954, in
demand for central-city housing often led to inadequate which Congress responded to early criticism of the program
maintenance and to the abandonment of homes and by authorizing the use of federal funds for the rehabilitation
commercial properties. Moreover, the oldest and most of housing and neighborhoods rather than just their clear-
dilapidated real estate often surrounded central business ance, and providing a special allocation of public housing
districts (CBDs), restricting their growth and undermining units for families displaced by urban renewal projects. The
their attractiveness. Consequently, redeveloping the margins same law was also the first to allow projects that involved
of CBDs became a major objective for housing advocates, commercial development and redevelopment.
public officials, and downtown business interests. Perry’s Of particular importance to the planning profession,
neighborhood unit formula provided a model for how the 1954 Act also required cities to have a “workable
these areas could be replanned. But how would the land be program for community improvement” before federal
acquired and paid for? redevelopment funds would be provided. The workable
As early as 1941, several states, including Illinois, program required cities to: (a) adopt housing and building
Michigan, and New York, passed legislation designed to codes; (b) develop comprehensive plans; (c) conduct neigh-
give their cities the powers needed to overcome obstacles to borhood analyses; (d) develop an effective administrative
central-city redevelopment, including the difficulty of capacity for local planning; (e) provide assistance to displaced
assembling large parcels of land and lack of funds. These households; (f) provide a means of financing the workable
laws delegated state powers of eminent domain to cities for program; and (g) involve and gain the support of citizens
the purpose of acquiring blighted property for redevelop- in designing urban revitalization projects (Rhyne, 1960).
ment. By the time the 1949 Housing Act passed, authoriz- Moreover, Section 701 of the 1954 Housing Act authorized
ing the federal urban renewal program, a total of 27 states federal grants to assist cities in developing their workable
and the District of Columbia had adopted such redevel- programs. The Housing Act of 1956 further authorized the
opment legislation (Gillette, 1983). Moreover, there was use of federal project funds for relocation assistance. Other
widespread support for the idea that piecemeal revitalization important program modifications were made in 1966 and
was too slow, if not totally infeasible, and that only large- 1967 when, for the first time, housing projects were specif-
scale clearance projects had the potential to substantially ically required to provide for low- and moderate-income
alter the fate of America’s cities. families, and the goals of the program were more clearly
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 214

214 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

focused on meeting the housing and employment needs to begin with, or quickly became so. Others simply moved
of low-income families (Sanders, 1980). to other largely Black neighborhoods or to transitional
Between 1949 and 1973, when the program was neighborhoods.
terminated by the Nixon Administration, the urban renewal The design of the new development in urban renewal
program supported close to 2,800 locally designed projects areas was also criticized as impersonal and oversized (Alonso,
in over 1,000 communities across the country (Sanders, 1966; Montgomery, 1966). Because urban renewal coin-
1980). Together those projects involved 98,000 acres of cided with the modernist architecture movement, the design
land and displaced closed to 300,000 families and an of many urban renewal projects relied on superblocks,
additional 150,000 individuals. high-rise buildings with uniform, often monotonous,
Many critics have failed to acknowledge that urban building facades, and surrounded by open space. Figure 2
renewal had multiple program goals, evolved over time, and shows examples of such buildings in Chicago. Moreover,
was implemented differently in different cities. The most in many cities the redevelopment of large, cleared sites was
disenchanted and vocal critics of the program were housing delayed, sometimes for many years, compromising the
advocates who had hoped it would produce significantly integrity of local urban systems (Teaford, 2000; Wilson
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

more high quality housing for low- and moderate-income 1966).

households rather than leading, as it did, to a significant net Urban renewal has also been criticized for overem-
loss of affordable housing in many individual communities phasizing the role of physical redevelopment in solving
and overall. By some accounts, four units of low-income central-city problems. Some argued that it was naïve to
housing were demolished for every one unit built (Halpern, believe that simply improving the housing conditions of
1995). Given that local urban renewal plans were typically low-income households would substantially alter their
prepared by redevelopment commissions dominated by behavior or prospects (Abrams, 1966; von Hoffman,
local business interests, it is not surprising that many of the 2000). Abrams, for example, argued that urban renewal
projects razed low-income housing and replaced it with put “the cart before the horse” (p. 581). Cities, he argued,
middle- or upper middle-income housing, commercial should begin by addressing problems such as poor quality
development, or civic infrastructure such as coliseums, ath- schools and crime in order to create demand for city living.
letic stadiums, or concert halls. The program modifications Notwithstanding these criticisms, the urban renewal
made in 1967, however, helped refocus the program on the program can be credited with a number of positive ac-
needs of lower-income families (Sanders, 1980). “From complishments in selected central cities. For example, it
1968 through 1973, the clear statement of national goals provided a means for some cities to rationalize areas con-
reduced local discretion and shifted the choice process taining plots of land devoted to disparate uses and address
toward federal objectives” (p. 112). traffic problems. Some cities cleared their worse slums.
Many urban renewal programs were also criticized for Some built new civic infrastructure including schools,
destroying viable communities, displacing residents and cultural venues such as New York’s Lincoln Center, and
businesses without adequate compensation, and reinforcing civic centers such as Boston’s Government Center. Some
racial segregation (Fried, 1963; Fried & Gleicher, 1961; developed middle-class housing, diversifying their citizenry
Gans, 1962; Hartman, 1964; Jacobs, 1961). Gans’ (1962) and bolstering their tax revenues (Abrams, 1966).
influential book, The Urban Villagers, vividly portrayed a The urban renewal program had profound impacts on
tightly knit community in the West End of Boston and its the planning profession (Fishman, 2000; Teaford, 2000).
destruction by an urban renewal project. Moreover, Hart- On the positive side, modifications to the urban renewal
man found that those who were displaced from the West program that were part of the Housing Act of 1954 sup-
End experienced increases in housing costs, substandard ported city planning agencies in communities throughout
housing, and overcrowding. For his part, Fried found that the country. The provision requiring all urban renewal
some displaced West End residents “grieved for a lost grantees to have workable programs spurred many com-
home” and were predisposed to depression (p. 167). munities to prepare their first comprehensive plans, and
Since a disproportionate number of urban renewal Section 701 grants funded the rapid growth of many city
projects targeted majority-Black neighborhoods, the program planning departments. The urban renewal program also
was also accused of facilitating “Negro removal.” Fifty-eight demonstrated that federal support for neighborhood revi-
percent of the almost 300,000 families displaced by urban talization must balance allowing local discretion with
renewal programs were Black (Sanders, 1980). Moreover, providing clear federal objectives, like those created for the
Black households were particularly likely to be re-housed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
in public housing developments that were either segregated after urban renewal was terminated. The contrast between
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 215

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 215

Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Figure 2. July 1, 1954, photo of Chicago Housing Authority apartments built to replace slums.

Source: TIME & LIFE Pictures/Getty Images.

 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 216

216 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

urban renewal and CDBG showed that without such and one of his protégés, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky (1971)
objectives, many localities used federal largess in ways that argued that “it is the most common human reaction that
did not directly benefit low-income households. successful attainment of objectives is much more meaning-
On the negative side, planners’ participation in urban ful to those who have achieved the objective through their
renewal projects that destroyed communities, displaced own efforts” (p. 174). Civil rights organizing in the 1950s
thousands of low-income residents, and disrupted the and 1960s also inspired the emphasis on community
urban fabric of many cities is the planning profession’s organizing and citizen involvement in community action
equivalent of original sin. Even 30 to 40 years later, many programs (O’Connor, 1999).
central-city residents have vivid memories of these projects. The community action programs also avoided the
The urban renewal program undermined trust in the urban renewal program’s overemphasis on bricks and
planning profession so badly that we are still trying to win mortar, seeking instead to foster the development of truly
it back. comprehensive revitalization plans and programs that
Urban renewal also taught the profession several addressed social, political, economic, and physical devel-
valuable lessons. It taught us that physical solutions to urban opment issues in targeted communities. They were designed
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

problems are limited and incomplete. Making communities to coordinate federal assistance for the poor at the local
look nice does not alter the underlying problems that led level in order to have maximum impact. As Lemann (1994)
to their decline. It also taught us that local social relations notes, “antipoverty programs are a confusing morass, run
and networks matter greatly to people and should be given by competing Byzantine bureaucracies. Rather than being
great weight in revitalization planning. Social networks are operated categorically . . . these programs should, on a
particularly important in low- and moderate-income local level, be housed under one roof and reorganized so
neighborhoods. It taught us that total clearance should be that all the problems of poor people are addressed together
a last resort, considered only when rehabilitation is not systematically” (p. 37).
feasible. Finally, it taught us that planners do not have all Finally, some advocates of community action programs
the answers, but should listen to and work with local hoped they would shake up traditional institutions serving
residents in neighborhood rehabilitation projects. low-income communities, such as schools and welfare
agencies, which they believed to be ineffective either due to
lack of creativity or of a genuine concern for the plight of
the poor. Liberals felt that “if community development were
Community Action
to work for the poor, the local status quo would have to be
By the early 1960s, it was clear that the urban renewal shaken up” (O’Conner, 1999, p. 101). In practice, this often
program was not going to solve the problems of central meant the creation of new neighborhood-based institutions
cities. People and jobs continued to leave cities, leaving with responsibility for planning and implementing programs
behind Black ghettos and rising central-city unemployment to reduce poverty.5
rates, particularly among young African-American males. CAP was authorized by the Economic Opportunity
During this time of communist expansion around the Act of 1964, which created a new Office of Economic
world, Soviet and other communist countries were quick Opportunity and provided federal funding to local com-
to point out that America, the flagship of world capitalism, munity action agencies (CAAs) to coordinate the social,
was clearly failing a substantial proportion of its population, educational, housing, and employment programs intended
even in a time of general prosperity. As the decade pro- to assist people living in poverty (Office of Economic
gressed, race riots in many American cities underlined this Opportunity, 1965). The CAAs had great flexibility in
failure. deciding how to spend program funds, although they were
The Community Action Program (CAP) and the Model required to devote some funds to several national programs,
Cities Program (collectively referred to as community action including Head Start, Upward Bound, and Legal Aid. By
programs) were designed to address the problems of central- September 1965 more than 500 CAAs had been funded
city neighborhoods by addressing the shortcomings of across the country. Support totaled $237 million in 1965
urban renewal and of traditional social service programs. and $628 million in 1966.
First, they sought to involve citizens in the design and Unlike other aid to cities, the CAP funds did not pass
implementation of neighborhood improvement programs. through city governments but were provided directly to the
This focus on involving citizens can be traced back to CAAs, intentionally making them largely independent (see
Clifford Shaw, who created the Chicago Area Project at the Figure 3). This did not sit well with many big city mayors,
Illinois Institute for Juvenile Research in the early 1930s, such as Mayor Daley of Chicago, who were used to con-
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 217

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 217

trolling local expenditures of federal funds. The program undermined local political support for the program. In
also required the “maximum feasible participation of the response, Congress passed an amendment granting cities
members of groups and areas to be served” (Office of the right to take over the CAAs, and over time more of the
Economic Opportunity, 1965, p. 3). This meant that a funds were allocated to the national programs, rather than
substantial share of CAA governing board members were local ones. In 1971, President Nixon abolished the Office
representatives of social service agencies; local labor, religious, of Economic Opportunity, cut many of its programs, and
and minority organizations; and neighborhood residents. transferred what was left to the Community Services
The CAP also called for “a permanent increase in the Administration.
capacity of individuals, groups and communities . . . to The Model Cities Program incorporated the basic
deal effectively with their own problems so that they need principles of community action, but its creators tried to
no further assistance” (Office of Economic Opportunity, avoid the conflict engendered by the CAP program. Labor
1965, p. 4). This led many CAAs to support community leader Walther Reuther is credited with the original idea,
organizing efforts based on Alinsky’s confrontational proposing a “massive investment in six demonstration sites
approach (Rohe & Gates, 1985). Once organized, com- for a comprehensive plan for rebuilding, economic revital-
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

munities often attacked local government, which further ization, and service provision . . .” in a letter to President

Figure 3. Neighborhood residents at a New York City CAP meeting to elect representatives in 1965.

Source: TIME & LIFE Pictures/Getty Images.

 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 218

218 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

Lyndon Johnson (O’Connor, 1999, p. 104). President largely inaccessible to central-city residents. Proposals for an
Johnson referred the idea to a newly created task force inner-city job creation program were dismissed as unneces-
charged with recommending new initiatives to address urban sary, since the economy was doing well overall (O’Connor,
poverty. Their recommendations became the basis for the 1999). Thus, many of those completing community action
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act job training programs could not find work.
of 1966. This act authorized the newly created Department The citizen involvement provisions also caused consid-
of Housing and Urban Development to provide technical erable controversy in some cities. Several of the early CAP
assistance and grants to communities for neighborhood programs funded local organizations, including street gangs
revitalization programs. Rather than a small, highly targeted like the Blackstone Rangers in Chicago, who mismanaged
demonstration program, however, Congress divided the or misappropriated the monies (Lemann, 1994). Critics
funds among many communities across the country, also questioned whether community board members had
reducing the amount any single city received. the technical knowledge, information, or experience to
The Model Cities Program provided grants to selected develop persuasive positions and alter the local balance of
cities in two stages: first, to cover most of the costs of power. Arnstein (1969), for example, found that only 15
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

developing plans, and second, to implement those plans. of the 75 Model Cities programs that she studied had “a
At the local level the program was managed by newly created significant degree of power sharing with residents” (p. 222).
Model City Agencies (MCA), over which city governments As mentioned earlier, many local government officials were
had considerable control. Local governments were required also incensed that they did not have control over funds
to involve citizens in developing the plans and programs, under the CAP program.
but also retained final approval power over all such plans The goal of the community action programs was to
and programs. Model City Agencies were also given the reduce poverty nationwide, yet CAP and Model Cities each
unenviable task of coordinating other federal agencies’ had less than $1 billion to distribute, CAP among more
spending in Model City areas, though other federal agencies than 1,000 CAAs, and MCP among 150 Model Cities
largely ignored this provision (Marris & Rein, 1982). Fed- (Marris & Rein, 1982). According to O’Connor (1999)
eral program allocations included $12 million for planning these programs were “too limited in scope and funding to
grants in 1967 and 1968, and $500 million for implemen- alter the political inequities or combat the structural eco-
tation grants in 1969. By the time the program was folded nomic shifts that continued to segregate poor places as the
into the CDBG program in 1974, 145 individual Model ‘other America’” (p. 108).
Cities programs had been funded. In spite of the controversy surrounding resident in-
The CAP and Model Cities programs provided hun- volvement in the community action programs, the principle
dreds of thousands of inner-city residents with job training, that citizens should be given an opportunity to participate
improved education, additional recreation opportunities, in the development of plans gained widespread acceptance,
and other services (Marris & Rein, 1982; “Model Cities’ a fact now reflected both in federal legislation and in local
impact on better communities,” 1973). Both addressed planning efforts. Of course there has been great variation
poverty innovatively. CAP, for example, introduced the in the nature and degree of that involvement, but citizen
Head Start program for early childhood education and participation is now firmly established in the planning
focused the attention of welfare agencies on job training and profession. It is not a question of whether citizens will be
job placement rather than just on income support. Model involved, but how. The CAP program also introduced one
Cities introduced model schools and multi-service centers, of the most important principles of contemporary commu-
among other innovations (“Model Cities’ impact on better nity development: that building local community capacity
communities,” 1973). Both programs also contributed to makes residents more effective at addressing their own
developing many strong neighborhood associations and problems (Chaskin, 2001).
effective community leaders (Hallman, 1984; Morris & The community action programs also led the planning
Rein, 1982). profession to recognize that neighborhood revitalization
Because the expectations for these programs were plans must go well beyond a narrow focus on physical
unrealistic, their accomplishments fell short. Neither made redevelopment to include comprehensive strategies for social,
significant headway creating accessible jobs or reducing economic, and political development. A comprehensive
racial discrimination, two fundamental causes of central-city neighborhood revitalization strategy must address issues
poverty. Low-skill jobs continued to move to suburbs during such as inadequate education, crime, unemployment, and
the 1960s, and lack of transportation and discriminatory lack of political influence. The community action programs
real estate and employment practices made these jobs embraced the holistic concept of community development
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 219

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 219

over the narrower concept of neighborhood revitalization Proponents of CDCs argue that they have several
with its emphasis on physical development. advantages over earlier approaches to neighborhood im-
Community action programs, however, also had a provement (Rohe, 1998). First, since a CDC is a locally
major negative impact on the profession. Critics used them focused, community-controlled organization, it has a
to argue against place-based, federally supported programs deeper understanding of the unique problems facing its
for addressing central-city poverty and its related problems. community and can develop more effective strategies.
As Halpern (1995) noted, Second, unlike programs run by single-purpose municipal
departments or agencies, a CDC can adopt a comprehensive
Within a few years of its initiation community action approach to community development that includes physical,
came to be identified, rightly or wrongly, with a larger social, and economic development. Third, a CDC can
social movement that repudiated mainstream society, expand the capacity of the neighborhood it serves, including
and demanded a degree of local political hegemony developing local leadership, technical skills among residents,
that had never been demanded before. This allowed its and linkages with political and economic leaders in the
modest aspirations and programs to become isolated larger community. Fourth, a CDC is in a better position
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

and tainted, and therefore to be dismissed by a larger than a local government to garner the support of local and
society all too ready to dismiss them. (p. 124) national foundations, since foundations are reluctant to
fund programs for local governments, who have their own
Since their demise in the early 1970s, the community sources of funds. Finally, a CDC may be more effective
action programs have been cited by critics as evidence that than a public agency, since it is less bureaucratic.
place-based public intervention cannot alter the fortunes of Early support for CDCs came from several sources.
central-city neighborhoods. The Special Impact Program (SIP) provided several early
CDCs with grants to develop and implement their own
comprehensive development strategies, with particular focus
on programs that would bring businesses and jobs to inner-
Community Economic Development
city neighborhoods. The Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration
Although the community action programs quickly Corporation in Brooklyn, NY (see Figure 4), and the
backed away from the idea of community control, many Hough Area Development Corporation in Cleveland were
in the Black community came to believe that local self- two of the prominent CDCs that received SIP support.
determination was required to effectively address community SIP and its successor, Title VI of the Community Services
problems. The more radical voices called for the creation of Act of 1974, provided support to over 40 first-generation
separate cities or, at the very least, separate neighborhood CDCs. The Ford Foundation also provided funding to
government (Altshuler, 1970; Hallman, 1984; Kotler, many of the early CDCs and encouraged other foundations
1969), but these proposals were not taken seriously by to follow its lead. By 1989, 165 foundations provided over
mainstream society. The more practical voices called for $65 million to CDCs (Council on Community Based
the creation of community-controlled organizations to bring Development, 1991).
economic investment back to central-city neighborhoods. The passage of the act creating the CDBG program
As mentioned earlier, the community action programs had in 1974 provided another source of funding for CDCs,
devoted inadequate attention to bringing economic activity consolidating numerous competitive, categorical grant
and jobs to central-city neighborhoods. programs into a single, noncompetitive block grant that
Thus, in the late 1960s a number of community municipalities could use to support projects and activities
development corporations (CDCs) were created in com- that either benefited low- and moderate-income persons,
munities across the country (S. E. Perry, 1987). A CDC prevented or eliminated slums or blight, or met other urgent
is a nonprofit organization, controlled by a board with community needs. Moreover, municipalities were allowed
substantial community representation and focused on the to pass CDBG funding through to CDCs to support their
physical and economic betterment of a neighborhood or community development activities. In more recent years, the
subsection of a city. In some instances existing social federal government support for CDCs has included set-
advocacy groups spun off CDCs, while in other instances asides for nonprofits in both the Low Income Housing Tax
advocacy groups (like the Southeast Community Organi- Credit and the HOME Investment Partnership programs.
zation in Baltimore) metamorphosed into CDCs. As CDCs The number of CDCs grew rapidly during the 1970s.
caught on in Black areas, they also spread to neighborhoods By the end of the decade approximately 700 CDCs had
composed of other racial and ethnic groups. been created in neighborhoods across the country (S. E.
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 220

220 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Figure 4. Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation President Franklin Thomas explaining his organization’s neighborhood revitalization plan,
January 1, 1968.

Source: TIME & LIFE Pictures/Getty Images.

Perry, 1987). This expansion resulted in an explosion of Foundation, Housing Partnership Network, and Neigh-
grant requests to major foundations, which they found borWorks America. A variety of regional and state-level
difficult to evaluate. This led to the development of inter- organizations also provide support to CDCs.
mediary organizations whose mission it is to assess the By the early 1990s, the number of CDC’s had increased
capacities of CDCs, to assist them in developing their to over 2,000 (National Congress for Community Economic
capacities, and to provide financial assistance to support Development [NCCED], 1995), with many cities having
them. In 1980, for example, the Ford Foundation and six several, sometimes with overlapping service areas. Some
major corporate donors created the Local Initiatives Support CDC’s specialized in one aspect of community revitalization,
Corporation (LISC) to help “nonprofit community devel- such as the expansion of affordable housing opportunities,
opment organizations transform distressed neighborhoods depending on the availability of external funding sources.
into healthy and sustainable communities of choice and These trends led several large foundations to seek ways to
opportunity” (LISC, n.d.). LISC provides carefully selected “create synergy among strands of development activity—such
CDCs with loans, grants, and equity investments; technical as housing, economic development, human services provi-
assistance; and policy support at the local, state, and sion, organizing—in ways that the combination of activities
national levels. Other important national intermediaries would build upon one another and lead to changes ‘greater
offering similar types of support include the Enterprise than the sum of the parts’” (Chaskin, 2000, p. 1).
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 221

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 221

The resulting comprehensive community initiatives (NCCED, 2005). Moreover, many low-income areas have
(CCIs) sought to bring together nonprofit organizations no CDCs at all, while more fortunate neighborhoods are
in selected neighborhoods to develop strategic plans for served (Vidal, 1992). Many CDCs have also gone out of
comprehensive community development. The process of business, due to both contextual and organizational factors
developing those plans was seen as an opportunity for the (Rohe & Bratt, 2003; Rohe, Bratt, & Biswas, 2002). The
participating organizations to involve local residents and intermediary organizations such as LISC and Neighbor-
strengthen their ties to the local community. CCIs also Works America have sought to address this by expanding
sought to link these collaborative efforts with the local their training and technical assistance activities, but sup-
public and private resources needed to implement the port for CDC development and economic development
plans once developed. Early examples of CCIs include activities still fall well short of what is needed.
the Neighborhoods and Family Initiative, launched by Some have criticized CDCs for overemphasizing
the Ford Foundation in 1990, which supported CCIs in development instead of community organizing and advocacy
Detroit, Hartford, Memphis, and Milwaukee, and the (Stoecker, 1997). CDCs embrace “(s)upply-side approaches
Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program of attracting capital . . . over demand-side approaches and
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

initiated by the Surdna Foundation with support from political action” (Stoecker, 1997, p. 5). In response, CDCs
other foundations and corporations (Donovan, 1997). are now more likely to seek activities for which there is
The CDC approach to neighborhood planning has both public and private support, such as the production of
been more enduring than most other forms of neighborhood affordable housing, rather allowing their communities to
planning. After 40 years, the number of CDCs continues define their priorities. Thus some claim that many CDCs
to grow and their collective capacity continues to expand. have lost contact with their local communities (Goetz &
A recent study found over 4,600 CDCs located in every Sidney, 1994; Rohe & Bratt, 2003) as they emphasize
state and in most major cities in the United States (NCCED, development projects over neighborhood planning and
2005). Between 1998 and 2005, the same study found organizing, if the latter are done at all. Stoecker (1997) has
these organizations to have produced a yearly average of proposed that community-controlled, neighborhood-based
approximately 86,000 affordable housing units and 8.75 organizations be responsible for community organizing and
million square feet of commercial and industrial space. In neighborhood planning, while high-capacity, multilocal
total, this study concluded that U.S. CDCs have produced CDCs take on development projects that come out of the
over 1.25 million affordable housing units and 126 million local efforts.
square feet of commercial and industrial space and created CDCs have also been criticized for addressing local
774,000 jobs, as well as providing residents of low-wealth problems rather than the forces that produce those problems.
neighborhoods with a variety of services including commu- Stoecker (1997), for example, suggests that CDCs divert
nity organizing and advocacy, homeownership counseling, our attention from larger structural problems, suggesting
and budget and credit counseling (NCCED, 2005). A that, “[t]he media celebrate a single small initiative in a sea
recent Urban Institute study also found strong evidence that of decay which is at serious risk of failure because the CDC
several of the strongest CDCs had substantially increased cannot keep up with the overall pace of capitalist disinvest-
property values in their target areas, indicating overall ment” (p. 7). Yet, CDCs came together to form national
community betterment (Galster, Levy, Sawyer, Temkin, advocacy organizations (including the Center for Commu-
& Walker, 2005). Thus, it is clear that the CDC model nity Change, National People’s Action, and the National
of neighborhood planning has been at least somewhat suc- Center for Community Economic Development). These
cessful, attracting new capital to low- and moderate-income groups lobbied for the Community Reinvestment Act, a
neighborhoods through CDC partnerships with private structural reform that curtailed redlining and resulted in
sector banks and development companies, foundations, billions of dollars of investment in central-city and minority
and government agencies. neighborhoods.
Nonetheless, critics point out that most CDCs are The community economic development approach to
quite small and lack the capacity to undertake the kind of neighborhood planning has had several impacts on the
large-scale, comprehensive improvement programs needed planning profession. Possibly most important is that in
to turn declining neighborhoods around (Keating, Rasey, many instances it shifted the responsibility for developing
& Krumholz, 1990; Stoecker, 1997; Twelvetrees, 1989). comprehensive neighborhood plans from municipal plan-
The median number of staff CDCs had in 2004 was 10, ning departments to neighborhood-based CDCs. These
even though a majority of CDCs served more than one CDCs also now administer some city programs, such as
neighborhood, and some served entire cities or counties housing rehabilitation, in their neighborhoods. This has
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 222

222 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

moved some planning jobs from local government to Planning Department. Neighborhood planning programs
CDCs and intermediary organizations. have several advantages over more traditional forms of
The delegation of planning and implementation citizen participation such as city-wide advisory groups
responsibilities has also meant that municipal planning (Rohe, 1985). First, neighborhood planning programs
agencies have had to assume new oversight roles. Local provide citizens an opportunity to address what happens
government planning agencies are often responsible for near their homes. Not only is this what they care most
recommending which CDC projects will receive locally about, but it is what they are most familiar with, giving
controlled funds, and for monitoring the expenditures of them more to contribute. Second, municipal neighborhood
those funds to make sure they comply with federal and planning programs encourage continuous citizen involve-
local requirements. This has become an important activity ment, rather than the more typical episodic reaction to
in many municipal planning offices and requires a somewhat perceived neighborhood threats, and thus may increase
different set of skills than traditionally taught in planning the sophistication of the citizens and groups participating.
schools. Finally, municipal neighborhood planning programs let
local neighborhood groups set their own agendas rather
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Municipally Sponsored than simply responding to those of municipal planners

Neighborhood Planning or private developers (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
The urban riots, civil rights and antiwar protests, and Since they are homegrown, however, the structures of
growing mistrust of authority during the tumultuous 1960s municipal neighborhood planning programs differ from
set the stage for neighborhood planning sponsored by program to program. Some are established by city charter
municipal governments. During the late 1960s and 1970s, amendment, others by city council resolution, executive
cities across the country sponsored neighborhood planning order, or informal agreement. Some programs involve
programs to provide residents more influence in the plan- existing neighborhood groups in planning activities, while
ning and development of their own neighborhoods (Berry, others create new councils or planning units to represent
Portney, & Thomson, 1993; Hallman, 1984; Rafter, 1980; neighborhood interests. Some assemble representatives from
Rohe & Gates, 1985; Silver, 1985). Borrowing the notion the neighborhood groups to address city-wide concerns.
from federally supported community action programs, Finally, municipal support varies greatly. Almost all localities
local officials sought better ways of communicating, if not provide the participating community groups with infor-
sharing power, with citizens in diverse urban neighborhoods mation and technical assistance to help them fulfill their
(Hallman, 1984). duties, but some also provide financial support for staff,
At that time, municipal planning departments were space, and other needs (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
largely focused on developing citywide, comprehensive Although some have questioned the degree to which
land use plans. Those plans were designed to guide new municipal neighborhood planning programs lead to real
growth, but often overlooked existing neighborhoods community change, evaluations of these programs have
except to propose them as sites for new or expanded roads, documented a number of positive outcomes. In general,
or new unwanted land uses. A variety of critics pointed out researchers have found that participating neighborhood
that traditional comprehensive planning ignored the needs groups exert considerable influence over decisions that
of existing neighborhoods along with their social diversity, affect their local areas (Berry et al., 1993; Rohe & Gates,
excluded citizens from meaningful participation, favored 1985; Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995; Sirianni, 2007).
citywide interests (often commercial in nature), and empha- According to Berry et al., “We were told repeatedly by
sized neighborhood physical development at the expense of administrators and neighborhood participants alike that
social and political development (Altschuler, 1965; Branch, the neighborhoods generally got what they wanted on many
1972; Friedmann, 1971). issues affecting their local area” (p. 177). In particular,
Municipal neighborhood planning programs aim to neighborhood groups participating in the planning process
get citizen-run, neighborhood organizations to review and have been able to improve the physical condition of neigh-
comment on publicly or privately developed plans before borhood housing, public infrastructure, and recreation
they come up for city council approval; develop their own facilities (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
neighborhood plans; and/or engage in self-help activities Research has also found that municipal neighborhood
such as neighborhood cleanup or community crime preven- planning programs facilitate face-to-face interaction among
tion programs. Figure 5 is an example of a neighborhood neighborhood residents and contributed significantly to
land use plan that was produced by a partnership of several a sense of community and enhanced sense of place (Berry
neighborhood associations and the City of San Antonio et al., 1993; Checkoway, 1985; Schneekloth & Shibley,
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 223

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 223

Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Figure 5. Land use plan for midtown neighborhoods in San Antonio.

Source: City of San Antonio Planning Department (2000).

 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 224

224 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

1995). An analysis of the neighborhood planning program for new communities. Several themes echo those Perry first
in Seattle found that it substantially reduced conflict among introduced: neighborhood design for local recreation
neighborhood groups, and between those groups and the opportunities, taming the automobile, and fostering local
city (Sirianni, 2007). Finally, research has found that these social interaction. But it is also fair to say that the modern
programs contribute to the political knowledge and leader- neighborhood design ideal differs in important ways from
ship skills of those involved and act as a springboard for Perry’s original neighborhood planning unit.
neighborhood residents interested in running for citywide Critics found many shortcomings in postwar suburban
political office (Berry et al., 1993; Rohe & Gates, 1985). development (Jacobs, 1961; Mumford, 1961). They blamed
The main concern about these programs is that suburban development (characterized by low densities and
although participation rates in neighborhood planning large homogeneous areas of housing, retail, and office uses)
programs are greater than for more traditional forms of for a variety of problems including long commute trips;
citizen participation, they still typically involve fewer than traffic congestion; lack of opportunity for recreation and
5% of neighborhood residents (Berry et al., 1993), meaning walking; air and water pollution; high infrastructure costs;
they may not accurately represent their communities (Rohe social homogeneity; and the loss of community (Bookout,
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

& Gates, 1985; Sirianni, 2007). Moreover, as is true for 1992a; Calthorpe, 2003, Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Shearer,
other forms of voluntary participation, higher income 1992; Mandelker, 2007; So, Mosena, & Bangs, 1973).
people and homeowners are more likely than others to Others criticized it for boring design and for destroying
participate. Thus, such organizations can be dominated by natural habitat (Arendt, 1996; Bookout, 1992c).
homeowners who develop plans and advocate for projects In response, planners first introduced the planned unit
that are not in the best interest of the renters in their areas development (PUD) concept in the 1960s. A PUD is “a
(Goetz & Sidney 1994; Rohe & Bratt, 2003). land development project comprehensively planned as an
Municipal neighborhood planning programs have entity via a unitary site plan which permits flexibility in
affected the planning profession in several important ways. building siting, mixtures of housing types and land uses,
They have focused the attention of planners on existing usable open spaces and the preservation of significant
residential neighborhoods and on the smaller issues of natural features” (So et al., 1973, p. 2). Thus a PUD is
concern to residents of those neighborhoods. Managing both a development type and a legal process for development
new growth is important, but working to maintain or approval (Mandelker, 2007). Compared to traditional
improve the quality of life in existing residential areas is zoning and subdivision regulations, PUDs allow developers
of equal importance. Municipal neighborhood planning more freedom to integrate residential, commercial, and
programs have provided the profession with a mechanism office land uses; to incorporate mixed housing types and
for addressing the needs and concerns of residents in the sizes; and to cluster development on portions of the property
full range of neighborhood types. while leaving other areas in their natural states. Moreover,
Municipal neighborhood planning programs also have the proposals go through a review process in which planning
distinct advantages over more conventional citizen participa- board members and public officials apply general standards
tion techniques such as public meetings and hearings. They rather than requiring compliance with rigid and highly
offer citizens the opportunity to initiate plans, rather than specific development regulations.
simply react to those developed by others, and they allow Although PUDs were a step in the right direction,
continuous involvement, enhancing citizens’ capacities for critics argue that typical PUD designs have fallen short in
genuine influence in decisions that impact their neighbor- several important respects. Many PUDs use wide, curvilinear,
hoods. They also facilitate neighborhood social interaction and cul-de-sac street patterns that raise costs unnecessarily
and the development of social capital (Rohe, 2004; Rohe and inhibit connectivity and sense of community. Many
& Gates, 1985). lack pedestrian amenities. It is common for PUD commer-
cial development to take the form of small strip malls on
the periphery of the development, and for house designs to
Planned Unit Development, Traditional be visually dominated by garages rather than more convivial
Neighborhood Development, and front porches (Berman, 1996; Bookout, 1992c, 1992d;
Duany et al., 1992).
Transit-Oriented Development Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
While the neighborhood unit concept underlies many developed in the 1980s in reaction to the perceived short-
central-city revitalization initiatives of the latter half of the comings of PUDs (Bookout, 1992e), with Seaside, FL, by
20th century, it has also played an important role in planning Andres Duany often identified as the original model. An
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 225

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 225

Atlantic Monthly article about this development, with its 1. Mixed uses including a range of housing types and
small lots, narrow streets, and front porches, “kicked off a costs, retail shops, schools, and workplaces;
barrage of media hype on neo-traditional planning ideas” 2. Moderate- to high-density development including
(Bookout, 1992a, p. 21). small single-family lots, multifamily developments,
TND derives its inspiration from pre–World War II and multistory buildings;
development patterns and incorporates the following 3. A mixed-use community core within one quarter
essential attributes: mile of all residents;
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Figure 6. A TND plan for the Aldea de Santa Fe neighborhood in Santa Fe, NM, that mixes retail, offices, housing, schools, and parks.

Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co., image used with permission.

 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 226

226 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

4. A grid or semi-grid street system with pedestrian 33% less than those who live in low-density, exclusively
amenities; residential, cul-de-sac neighborhoods (Ewing et al., 2008).
5. Single-family houses close to the street with unified Others have found that those who live in TNDs interact
setbacks and front porches; more with their neighbors and engage in more outdoor
6. Automobile parking and garages in the rear of the activities than do those who live in traditional developments
units, reached via rear service drives; (Brown & Cropper, 2001).
7. Common open spaces distributed throughout the TND does, however, have its critics. Its major pro-
neighborhood; ponents, like Duany and Calthorpe, have been criticized as
8. Common architectural and landscaping standards physical determinists who claim that TND affects social
based on the climate and culture of the area; and behaviors, such as local social interaction, without providing
9. Convenient access to mass transit (Berman, 1996; supporting evidence (Berman, 1996). They have also been
Bookout, 1992a; Duany et al., 1992). taken to task for undervaluing the convenience of driving
rather than walking, and using the internet rather than
Figure 6 shows the plan for Aldea de Santa Fe, a TND chatting with neighbors. Nonetheless, TND does allow what
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

neighborhood designed by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Com- many consider to be healthy behaviors, such as walking
pany currently under construction in Santa Fe, NM. TND and engaging in face-to-face interaction (Frank & Engelke,
communities were originally created using PUD approval 2001; Frumkin, Frank, & Jackson, 2004).
processes, but more recently some municipalities have Although the research on TND and TOD is still sparse
adopted special TND ordinances following a model ordi- and often based on a small number of case studies, it has
nance proposed by Duany et al. (1992). These ordinances not supported several claims made by proponents. For
typically focus on building form and placement, rather example, studies have found that TND residents do not
than on their intended uses (see Talen, this issue). report a greater sense of community than do residents of
Transit-oriented development, or TOD, is a close traditional subdivisions (Brown & Cropper, 2001; Nasar,
cousin of TND (Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001; Porter, 1997). 2003). Another study found that ease of access to shops
It also embodies the principles of mixed use, higher density, and offices, mixing of housing types, and pedestrian access
and walkability. The major difference between the two to daily needs in several early TND neighborhoods fell
concepts is that TOD is built around transit stops and is short of these characteristics in the traditional neighborhoods
less concerned with a unified architectural style. According they emulated (Southworth, 1997).
to Calthorpe, “the problem is to introduce the needs of the Because TND requires large amounts of land, it is
pedestrian and transit into the auto-dominated regions of often located on the periphery of existing urban areas.
our metropolitan areas, not to return to a fiction of small- Consequently critics also fault TND for being anti-urban
town America . . .” (quoted in Bookout, 1992b, p. 10). (Southworth, 1997), arguing that TND provides people
Although some were initially skeptical about whether with sanitized versions of urbanity that “exclude much of
Americans would embrace TND and TOD, both seem to what it takes to make a metropolitan region work” (p. 43)
have caught on. According to the Congress for the New as well as failing to provide housing for lower-income
Urbanism, an advocacy group founded in 1993, more than residents. If this logic is correct, TND may be attracting
210 TND developments have been constructed, or are households who might otherwise choose to live in central-
under construction, in the United States (Congress for the city neighborhoods.
New Urbanism, 2008). Recent consumer preference surveys Finally, the TND principles have been criticized for
show substantial support for community designs that being overly prescriptive. The emphasis on grid street
incorporate the attributes of TNDs and TODs listed patterns, for example, may not be appropriate for a site that
above. The price per square foot of properties in mixed-use is hilly or has other constraining characteristics. The emphasis
neighborhoods like TNDs and TODs has been found to on a fixed, unified design scheme also has been criticized
be between 40 and 100% above that of properties in con- for preventing occupants from expressing their needs and
ventional subdivisions (Ewing, Bartholomew, Winkelman, tastes, and inhibiting change over time (Southworth, 1997).
Walters, & Chen, 2008). The PUD, TND, and TOD forms of neighborhood
Research has also provided support for some of the planning have had several important impacts on the plan-
claimed benefits of TNDs. For example, a meta-analysis ning profession. PUD ordinances were significant in at least
of studies on car usage among households that live in two major respects. First, they allowed or even encouraged,
developments with relatively high densities, mixed uses, integration of land uses at a finer grain than was typical of
and interconnected streets found that they drive about postwar development patterns. PUDs allowed single-family
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 227

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 227

homes, apartments, and commercial properties to be could affect both the sense of community and the social
included in integrated development proposals. Second, participation of residents. Urban renewal taught the pro-
PUD ordinances represented an important break from the fession about the limits of physical solutions to social
traditional approach to development review. Rather than a problems, the precious nature of neighborhood social
review process based on inflexible and highly specific zoning networks, and the importance of involving citizens in
and subdivision regulations, PUD ordinances introduced revitalization planning. The community action form of
the idea of a discretionary review process based on general neighborhood planning created a new norm for citizen
standards. These more discretionary approval processes allow participation in planning, while at the same time identifying
developers more freedom to propose innovative designs and the limits of participation. It also introduced truly compre-
provide local officials more influence over the final plan. hensive redevelopment planning that went beyond a narrow
TND and TOD forms of neighborhood planning also focus on physical development to include social, political, and,
helped refocus the planning profession on community to a lesser extent, economic development. The community
design and its potential impact on a range of social and economic development form of neighborhood planning
environmental issues. In the 1970s and 1980s, planners has taught us that some planning and implementation
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

emphasized tools like impact fees and transfer of develop- activities can be successfully delegated to community-based
ment rights. The big issues that Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford, organizations, which, at least in some instances, are better
Paul and Percival Goodman, and others had addressed, of able to address the unique needs of neighborhood residents.
how we should live and how community planning supports Municipal neighborhood planning provided a mechanism
particular lifestyles, went out of fashion. Whether you for addressing neighborhood concerns in all neighborhoods
agree with them or not, TND and TOD advocates have within a city, and provided models of ongoing citizen
renewed a lively debate about these big issues and refocused involvement in the development of neighborhood plans,
planners’ attention on community design. At the same the review of development proposals, and the development
time, TND and TOD have garnered much press attention, of self-help activities. Finally, PUD, TND, and TOD
introducing neighborhood planning and design issues to a neighborhood planning has created neighborhoods that
wider audience. encourage walking, the use of mass transit, social interaction,
and a sense of community.
As it turns 100, neighborhood planning in the United
States is taking on new importance. Historically, it has
Conclusion
addressed local concerns. Now, it is also addressing global
Over the last 100 years, the neighborhood concept has concerns, particularly global climate change. We have come
played an important role in American city planning. Planners to understand that although neighborhood design does not
recognize that planning at the neighborhood level is an determine social behavior, it can encourage or discourage
important complement to comprehensive planning, as it certain behaviors such as walking or riding mass transit,
recognizes the distinctive physical and social characteristics which, in turn, impact the amount of oil we use and the
of those smaller geographic units. Moreover, they have amounts of greenhouse gases we release into the atmosphere.
come to understand that residents become invested, both Thus, planners and designers can influence the way we live
socially and economically, in the areas surrounding their and do business by creating living environments that
homes. What happens in their neighborhoods affects their encourage environmentally friendly behaviors and, in
lives to a much greater degree than what happens in other doing so, make an important contribution both to energy
parts of the city. Thus, they are more motivated to partici- conservation and to slowing global warming.
pate in planning efforts designed to preserve or improve To encourage and recognize the connection between
their neighborhoods, particularly if those planning efforts neighborhood planning and global environmental concerns,
provide them with a real opportunity to shape the future of the U.S. Green Building Council, the Congress for the New
their neighborhoods. Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council are
Each of the six forms of neighborhood planning dis- developing standards for environmentally sustainable
cussed in this article has made important contributions to neighborhood location and design. Similar to the Leadership
the planning profession. In the early days of the profession, in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green
Perry’s neighborhood unit formula provided planners with building rating system, LEED for Neighborhood Devel-
a template for good neighborhood design, elements of opment, or LEED-ND, is being designed “to promote the
which were incorporated into modern subdivision codes. location and design of neighborhoods that reduce vehicle
Perry also introduced the idea that neighborhood design miles traveled and communities where jobs and services are
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 228

228 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

accessible by foot or public transit” (U.S. Green Building form metropolitan, state, and national coalitions to advo-
Council, 2008). It is also designed to promote energy and cate for systemic change. Increases in the minimum wage,
water conservation. This rating system, which should be stronger antidiscrimination laws, and regulations banning
launched in early 2009, consists of a variety of criteria predatory and irresponsible lending are needed to support
organized under four general categories: smart location the actions being taken at the neighborhood level. Without
and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design, green action at higher levels of government, the positive impacts
construction and technology, and innovation and design of neighborhood planning programs are likely to be undone.
process (Retzlaff, 2008).
For their part, municipalities are developing sustainable
community development codes that remove obstacles, Notes
create incentives, and enact standards for sustainable 1. This is not to say that forms of neighborhood planning were not
practiced before this time. Mumford (1954, 1961) has shown that the
neighborhoods (Duerksen, 2008). Such codes remove
planning of both classic Greek and Medieval cities was based on
barriers to new forms of energy production, encourage street neighborhood units. Rohe and Gates (1985), Silver (1985), and others
and building layouts conducive to the production of solar discuss forms of neighborhood planning practiced in the late 1800s such
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

power, encourage the mixing of uses, allow development as the settlement house movement.
densities needed to support mass transit, and ensure con- 2. A thorough review of the various definitions and means of defining
nections to the surrounding areas (Wheeler, 2008). Austin, neighborhoods is beyond the scope of this article. For a discussion of
these issues, see Chaskin (1995), Keller (1968), and Rohe and Gates
TX, has established a goal that all single-family homes will
(1985).
be capable of producing as much energy as they consume 3. I exclude initiatives or strategies that do not include a physical
by 2015 and has also established a team to assess the role planning component and discrete planning strategies such as inclusionary
of land use in greenhouse gas emissions and to develop zoning or mixed-income housing that may be used to achieve goals
recommendations for reducing them. defined in neighborhood plans. I do not include the settlement house
The efforts described so far, however, only apply to the movement because it began before the time period I address and because
physical planning was not one of its central concerns.
development of new neighborhoods. An even bigger chal-
4. He also argued that planned neighborhoods were for those who could
lenge is to find creative ways to retrofit existing neighbor- afford them, although they might benefit lower-income families by
hoods to reduce their carbon footprints. Municipalities and providing a “needed object lesson in improved housing environment
community-based organizations should collaborate to make and community organization which will . . . ultimately aid the reform
existing land use patterns more environmentally friendly. of slum areas” (Perry, 1929, p. 128).
Infill of small, well-designed multifamily housing develop- 5. Two relatively small demonstration programs first implemented the
principles of citizen participation, coordination, and innovation under-
ments or small commercial centers may be appropriate in lying the community action approach: the Gray Areas Projects funded
some existing neighborhoods. by the Ford Foundation, and the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth
The connection between neighborhood planning and Crime Prevention programs proposed by the President’s Committee on
global climate change represents an important new challenge Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (Hallman, 1984; O’Connor,
to neighborhood planning. Yet, it should not overshadow 1999; Rohe & Gates, 1985). The much larger CAP and MCP programs
were built upon these principles.
social equity issues that have been a traditional focus of
neighborhood planning. High-density zoning does not
necessarily result in housing that is affordable to a wide References
range of households. Many new multifamily housing units Abrams, C. (1966). Some blessings of urban renewal. In J. Q. Wilson
are high priced condominiums or rental units. Inclusionary (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the controversy (pp. 558–582).
housing programs or ordinances will be needed if lower- Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
income households are to have the opportunity to live in Ahlbrandt, R., & Cunningham, J. (1979). A new public policy for
neighborhood preservation. New York: Praeger.
those newly developed neighborhoods. Moreover, there is
Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Random House.
still a great need for neighborhood planning programs that Alonso, W. (1966). Cities, planners, and urban renewal. In J. Q. Wilson
address the needs of high-poverty neighborhoods across the (Ed.). Urban renewal: The record and the controversy (pp. 437–453).
country. Community economic development and municipal Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
neighborhood planning still have important roles to play in Altschuler, A. (1965). The city planning process. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
addressing the needs of lower-income neighborhoods, and University Press.
Altschuler, A. (1970). Community control. New York: Pegasus.
they need the support of federal, state, and local government,
Arendt R. (1996). Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide
as well as the philanthropic community, to do so. to creating open space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Finally, the impacts of neighborhood planning programs Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the
will be modest at best unless local community organizations American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216–224.
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 229

Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning 229

Berman, M.A. (1996). The transportation effects of neo-traditional Foard, A. A., & Fefferman, H. (1966). Federal urban renewal legisla-
development. Journal of Planning Literature, 10 (4), 347–363. tion. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the contro-
Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of versy (pp. 71–125). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Frank, L., & Engelke, P. (2001). The built environment and human
Birch, E. L. (1980). Radburn and the American planning movement: activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health.
The persistence of an idea. Journal of the American Planning Association, Journal of Planning Literature, 16 (2), 202–210.
46 (4), 424–439. Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The
Bookout, L. W. (1992a). Neotraditional town planning: A new vision urban condition (pp. 151–171). New York: Simon & Schuster.
for the suburbs? Urban Land, 51 (1), 20–26. Fried, M., & Gleicher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction
Bookout, L. W. (1992b). Neotraditional town planning: Cars, pedestri- in an urban slum. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 27 (4),
ans, and transit. Urban Land, 51 (2), 10–15 305–315.
Bookout, L. W. (1992c). Neotraditional town planning: Bucking Friedmann, J. (1971). The future of comprehensive urban planning: A
conventional codes and standards. Urban Land, 51 (4), 18–25. critique. Public Administration Review, 31 (3), 315–326.
Bookout, L. W. (1992d). Neotraditional town planning: The test of the Frumkin, H., Frank, L, & Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and
marketplace. Urban Land, 51 (6), 12–17. public health: Designing, planning and building for healthy communities.
Bookout, L. W. (1992e). Neotraditional town planning: Toward a Washington, DC: Island Press.
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

blending of design approaches. 51 (8), Urban Land, 14–19. Galster, G., Levy, D., Sawyer, N., Temkin, K., & Walker, C. (2005).
Branch, M. C. (1972). Continuous city planning (Planning Advisory The impacts of community development corporations on urban neighborhoods.
Service Report No. 20). Chicago: American Planning Association. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban standard and Gans, H. J. (1962). The urban villagers. New York: Free Press.
suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Gans, H. J. (1967). The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new
Journal of the American Planning Association, 67 (4), 402–419. suburban community. New York: Random House.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, Gillette, H., Jr. (1983). The evolution of neighborhood planning: From
and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. the progressive era to the 1949 housing act. Journal of Urban History,
Calthorpe, P. & Fulton, W. (2001). The regional city: Planning for the 9 (4), 421–444.
end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press. Goetz, E. G., & Sidney, M. (1994). Revenge of the property owners:
Chaskin, R. J. (1995) Defining neighborhood: History, theory and practice. Community development and the politics of property. Journal of Urban
Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Affairs, 16 (4), 319–334.
Chicago. Hallman, H. (1984). Neighborhoods: Their place in urban life. Beverly
Chaskin, R. J. (2000). Lessons learned from the implementation of the Hills, CA: Sage.
neighborhood and family initiative: A summary of findings. Chicago: The Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood
Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. initiatives to address poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia
Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional University Press.
framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Hartman, C. (1964). The housing of relocated families. Journal of the
Urban Affairs Review, 36 (3), 291–323. American Institute of Planners, 30 (4), 266–282.
Checkoway, B. (1985). Neighborhood planning organizations: Perspec- Isaacs, R. (1948a, July). Are urban neighborhoods possible? Journal of
tives and choices. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (4), 471–486. Housing, 6, 177–180.
City of San Antonio Planning Department. (2000). Midtown Isaacs, R. (1948b, August). The “neighborhood unit” is an instrument
neighborhoods plan. San Antonio, TX: Author. for segregation. Journal of Housing, 6, 215–219.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York:
Scribner Books. Random House Books.
Congress for the New Urbanism. (2008). CNU history. Retrieved Keating, W. D., Rasey, K. P., & Krumholz, N. (1990). Community
April 15, 2008, from http://www.cnu.org/history development corporations in the United States: Their role in housing
Council on Community-Based Development. (1991). Expanding and urban redevelopment. In W. Van Vliet & J. Van Weesep (Eds.),
horizons II: A research report on corporate and foundation grant support of Government and housing: Developments in seven countries (pp. 206–218).
community-based development. New York: Author. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dahir, J. (1947). The neighborhood unit plan: Its spread and acceptance. Keller, S. (1968). The urban neighborhood: A sociological perspective.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. New York: Random House.
Donovan, S. (1997). Beyond housing: The comprehensive community Kotler, M. (1969). Neighborhood government. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
revitalization program in the South Bronx. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy Lemann, N. (1994, February 13). The myth of community development.
School of Government. New York Times, pp. 27–31, 50, 54, 60.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Shearer, R. (1992). Zoning for Local Initiatives Support System. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved
traditional neighborhoods. Land Development, 5 (2), 21–26. April 7, 2008, from http://www.lisc.org/section/aboutus/mission
Duerksen, C. (2008). Saving the world through zoning. Planning, Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political
74 (1), 28–33. economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., & Chen, D. Lyon, L. (1987). The Community in urban society. Philadelphia: Temple
(2008). Growing cooler: Evidence on urban development and climate University Press.
change. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Mandelker, D. R. (2007). Planned unit developments (Planning Advisory
Fishman, R. (2000). The American metropolis at century’s end: Past Service, Report Number 545). Chicago: American Planning Association.
and future influences. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (1), 199–214.
 75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 3/10/09 4:51 PM Page 230

230 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2009, Vol. 75, No. 2

Marris, P., & Rein, M. (1982). Dilemmas of social reform: Poverty and Rohe, W. M., & Bratt, R. G. (2003). Failures, downsizings and mergers
community action in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago among community development corporations. Housing Policy Debate,
Press. 14 (1–2), 1–46.
Model Cities’ impact on better communities. Hearing before the Rohe, W. M., Bratt, R. G., & Biswas, P. (2002). Evolving challenge for
Subcommittee on Housing, Committee on Banking and Currency, community development corporations: The causes and impacts of failures,
House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 1 (1973). downsizings, and mergers. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Urban and
Montgomery, R. (1966). Improving the design process in urban Regional Studies.
renewal. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the Rohe, W. M., & Gates, L. B. (1985). Planning with neighborhoods.
controversy (pp. 454–488). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Mumford, L. (1954). The neighborhood and the neighborhood unit. Sanders, H. T. (1980). Urban renewal and the revitalized city: A recon-
Town Planning Review, 25 (1), 256–269. sideration of recent history. In D. Rosenthal (Ed.), Urban revitalization
Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, (pp. 103–126). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
and its prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and
Nasar, J. L. (2003). Does neotraditional development build community? practice of building communities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (1), 58–68. Scott, M. (1969). American city planning since 1890. Berkeley: University
National Congress for Community Economic Development. (1995). of California Press.
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:06 28 July 2013

Tying it all together: The comprehensive achievements of community-based Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood planning in historical perspective.
development organizations. Washington, DC: Author. Journal of the American Planning Association 51 (2), 161–174.
National Congress for Community Economic Development. (2005). Sirianni, C. (2007). Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic
Reaching new heights: Trends and achievements of community-based design: The case of Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association,
development organizations. Washington, DC: Author. 73 (4), 373–387.
O’Connor, A. (1999). Swimming against the tide: A brief history of So, F. S., Mosena, D. R., & Bangs, F. S., Jr. (1973). Planned unit
federal policy in poor communities. In R. F. Ferguson & W.T. Dickens development ordinances (Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 291).
(Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 77–137). Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Solow, A. A., Ham, C. C., & Donnelly, E. O. (1969). The concept of the
Office of Economic Opportunity. (1965). Community action program neighborhood unit. Pittsburgh, PA: Graduate School of Public and
guide: Vol. 1, instructions for applicants. Washington, DC: U.S. International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh.
Government Printing Office. Southworth, M. (1997). Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotradi-
Perry, C. A. (1929). A plan for New York and its environs, Volume 7. tional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning
New York: New York Regional Planning Association. Association, 63 (1), 28–44.
Perry, C. A. (1939). Housing for the machine age. New York: Russell Sage. Stoecker, R. (1997). The CDC model of urban redevelopment:
Perry, S. E. (1987). Communities on the way: Rebuilding local economies in A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19 (1), 1–22.
the United States and Canada. Albany: State University of New York Press. Teaford, J. C. (2000). Urban renewal and its aftermath. Housing Policy
Porter, D. (1997). Transit-focused development. Washington, DC: Debate, 11(2), 443–466.
National Academy Press. Twelvetrees, A. (1989). Organizing for neighbourhood development.
Rafter, D. O. (1980). Neighborhood planning. Planning, 46 (1), 23–25. Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
Retzlaff, R. C. (2008). Green building assessment systems: A framework U.S. Green Building Council. (2008). Frequently asked questions
and comparison for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, about LEED for Neighborhood Development. Retrieved February 19,
74 (4), 505–520. 2008, from http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3357
Rhyne, C. S. (1960). The workable program: A challenge for community Vidal, A. C. (1992). Rebuilding communities: A national study of
improvement. Law and Contemporary Problems 25 (4), 685–704. urban community development corporations. New York: Community
Riemer, S. (1950). Hidden dimensions of neighborhood planning, Development Research Center, New School for Social Research.
Land Economics, 26 (2), 197–201. von Hoffman, A. (2000). A study of contradictions: The origins and
Rohe, W. M. (1985). Urban planning and mental health. In A. Wanders- legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (2),
man & R. Hess (Ed.), Beyond the individual: Environmental approaches 299–326.
and prevention (pp. 79–110). New York: Hawthorne Press. Warren, R. (1978). The community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Rohe, W. M. (1998). Do community development corporations live up Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans: The
to their billing? A review and critique of the research findings. In T. first generation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74 (4):
Koebel (Ed.), Shelter and society: Theory, research and policy for non-profit 481–496.
housing (pp. 177–200). Albany: State University of New York Press. Wilson, J. Q. (1966). Planning and politics: Citizen participation in
Rohe, W. M. (2004). Building social capital through community urban renewal. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the
development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (2), controversy (pp. 407–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
158–164.