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
Problem: Over the past 100 years, city
planners have used neighborhood planning
to address a variety of vexing social problems
such as community disintegration, economic
marginalization, and environmental degradation. To date, there has been no comprehensive review and critique of these planning
initiatives and how they have influenced the
profession.
Purpose: This article traces the history of
neighborhood planning in the United States
to learn from past experience and to identify
its contributions to the planning profession.
Methods: I review the literature on the
various forms of neighborhood planning,
which I define as planning initiatives that
focus on altering the physical environment
of one or more neighborhoods in pursuit of
larger social objectives.
Results and conclusions: Each of the six
forms of neighborhood planning discussed
in this article has made important contributions to the planning profession. Perry’s
neighborhood unit formula provided planners with a template for good neighborhood
design and introduced the idea that neighborhood design could affect the sense of
community. Urban renewal taught the
profession about the limits of physical
solutions to social problems, the precious
nature of neighborhood social networks and
the importance of involving citizens. The
community action programs created a new
norm for citizen participation and showed
its limits, as well as introducing truly
comprehensive redevelopment planning.
Community economic development showed
that some planning and implementation
activities can be successfully delegated to
T
he year 1909 has special significance for neighborhood planning in
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
Gardens, to develop the neighborhood planning unit (NPU) concept he
presented to the profession several years later (C. A. Perry, 1929). Since that
time, the idea of planning at the neighborhood scale has been widely accepted
in the American planning profession, though not always practiced (Gillette,
1983; Rohe & Gates, 1985).1
Over the last 100 years, the powerful and compelling concept of neighborhood has been the basis of several planning initiatives. Those initiatives
sought to create and or preserve urban neighborhoods to counter what many
community-based organizations. Municipal
neighborhood planning provided a mechanism for ongoing citizen involvement. The
most recent forms of neighborhood planning
create neighborhoods that encourage walking,
use of mass transit, social interaction, and a
sense of community.
Takeaway for practice: Neighborhood
planning programs have made a number of
important contributions to the planning
profession, including focusing attention on
how neighborhood design influences urban
livability and social behaviors, institutionalizing citizen participation in plan making,
and going beyond physical development to
address social, economic, political, and environmental issues. Neighborhood planning
is currently more important than ever, as it
now addresses global issues such as energy
conservation and greenhouse gas emissions
in addition to its historic focus on social
equity issues such as poverty and social
alienation.
Keywords: neighborhood planning,
planning history, community planning,
neighborhood revitalization, community
development
Research support: None.
About the author:
William M. Rohe ([email protected]) is the
Cary C. Boshamer distinguished professor
of city and regional planning, and director
of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies
at the University of North Carolina (UNC)
at Chapel Hill. He is coauthor of several
books, including Planning with Neighborhoods (UNC Press, 1985) and Chasing the
American Dream: New Perspectives on
Affordable Homeownership (Cornell University Press, 2007), and has authored or
coauthored more than 50 journal articles.
Journal of the American Planning Association,
Vol. 75, No. 2, Spring 2009
DOI 10.1080/01944360902751077
© 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
associated with urban living. Neighborhood planning
initiatives have sought to help transfer the more intimate
social relations found in small towns to big cities, thereby
creating healthier individuals and a healthier society
(Ahlbrandt & Cunningham, 1979; Lyon, 1987; Warren,
1978). “In the neighborhood, if anywhere, it is necessary
to recover the sense of intimacy and innerness that has been
disrupted by the increased scale of the city and the speed of
transportation” (Mumford, 1954, p. 269).
Neighborhoods are also where people live and spend
most of their time. They are the places that urban residents
know best and are most concerned with, for what happens
in their neighborhoods affects their quality of life and, at
least for homeowners, their economic fortunes (Logan &
Molotch, 1987). Thus, planners and other public officials
have come to see the neighborhood as an important
geographic and social unit for organizing planning efforts.
This article traces the history and evolution of neighborhood 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 accomplishments and limitations of earlier forms of
neighborhood planning. This article also argues that planners
have learned a variety of important lessons from the various
forms of neighborhood planning practiced over the last
100 years, and that many of those lessons transcend the
practice of neighborhood planning to influence the
broader practice of city planning in the United States.
Defining Neighborhood Planning
At the most basic level, neighborhood planning involves
public, nonprofit, and private planning efforts that focus
on the physical character of one or more neighborhoods,
however they may be defined at the local level. I define
neighborhood planning to include both the design of new
neighborhoods and the redevelopment or revitalization of
older ones. Definitions for neighborhoods vary considerably,
but have in common the basic idea that they are subareas
of towns and cities whose physical or social characteristics
distinguish them from one another.2
The objectives of neighborhood planning efforts,
however, typically go beyond achieving good physical design
or improving aesthetics to include larger social objectives
such as creating healthy social communities, empowering
neighborhood residents, developing neighborhood economies, or preserving environmental quality, and are achieved
by altering the physical environment in ways that influence
social and political processes. Thus, the objectives of neigh-
borhood planning efforts have been anything but modest.
Rather, they have sought to tackle some of the biggest
problems facing our towns, cities, nation, and even world,
by planning at the neighborhood scale: alienation, crime,
poverty, political apathy and perceptions of powerlessness,
economic marginalization, and environmental degradation.
Using this definition, I discuss six forms of neighborhood planning in this article: (1) the neighborhood planning
unit (NPU); (2) urban renewal; (3) community action; (4)
municipal neighborhood planning; (5) community economic
development planning; and (6) traditional neighborhood
design (TND) and related constructs.3 I begin my analysis
of each form of neighborhood planning with a brief description of the societal context and perceived problems
that led to its development. I then describe the neighborhood planning program and its accomplishments and
shortcomings. Finally, I discuss the influence that each of
these forms of neighborhood planning had on the practice
of city planning in the United States.
The Neighborhood Planning Unit
In the early 20th century, many large American cities
were experiencing the effects of a general lack of comprehensive planning, public regulation of private development,
and public investment in open space and other amenities.
Years of unplanned and piecemeal development meant that
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
believed were related to these physical problems, including
social isolation and alienation, a lack of informal social
control leading to youth delinquency, and lack of civic
participation (Cooley, 1902). In 1923, Clarence Perry
presented his “neighborhood unit formula” as a means of
addressing these pressing social problems (Gillette, 1983).
Perry’s formula was a synthesis of several ideas and
experiences. As an employee of the Russell Sage Foundation, he was involved in furthering the community center
movement, which sought to open up public schools for
neighborhood cultural, recreational, and social activities
to create a greater sense of local community. Thus, it is not
surprising that local schools played a prominent role in
Perry’s neighborhood unit formula. Each neighborhood,
Perry thought, should be large enough to house a population
sufficient to support its own elementary school, and children
should be able to walk there. This meant that each neighborhood should extend a half mile in radius around its
elementary school.
75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian
3/10/09
4:51 PM
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
Perry’s concept (see Figure 1) was also influenced by
the ideas of the prominent planners of his day. In Ebenezer
Howard’s garden cities, for example, each ward contained
approximately 5,000 people and its own elementary school,
and Clarence Stein and Henry Wright used neighborhoods
as a basic unit of organization in several of their planned
communities, including Sunnyside Gardens on Long Island.
Most importantly, however, Perry’s concept was influenced
by his experience as a resident of Forest Hills Gardens in
Queens, New York (C. A. Perry, 1939). He derived many
of the neighborhood unit principles from what he saw as
the strengths and weaknesses of that community’s design.
Forest Hills Gardens had its own elementary school, which
he liked, but he felt the area designed for civic functions
should be separated from businesses and located in the
center of the neighborhood rather than on the periphery.
Figure 1. Schematic of a neighborhood unit for modest dwellings.
Source: C. A. Perry (1929, p. 36).
Page 211
211
He synthesized these influences and defined an ideal
neighborhood that would “embrace all the public facilities
and conditions required by the average family for its comfort and proper development within the vicinity of its
dwelling” (C. A. Perry, 1929, p. 50). The neighborhood
unit formula contained six principles (C. A. Perry, 1929):
1. Each neighborhood should be large enough to
support an elementary school.
2. Neighborhood boundaries should be composed of
arterial streets to discourage cut-through traffic.
3. Each neighborhood should have a central gathering
place and small scattered parks.
4. Schools and other institutions serving the neighborhood should be located at the center of the
neighborhood.
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
the neighborhood.
6. The internal neighborhood street system should be
designed to discourage through traffic.
Although Perry was mostly concerned with the application of his neighborhood unit formula to newly constructed
areas, he did suggest that it could be applied to “central
deteriorated sections, large enough and sufficiently blighted
to warrant reconstruction” (C. A. Perry, 1939, p. 96). He
originally advocated using eminent domain to assemble
large parcels for redevelopment using the neighborhood
unit formula, but later suggested that property owners
work with local government to pool land, develop a master
plan, and then receive a share of the newly planned area
commensurate with their original contribution.
Nonetheless, Perry’s idea of large-scale clearance to
create new areas devoid of urban problems was adopted by
others, including influential planner Harland Bartholomew,
and Herbert Nelson, executive director of the National
Association of Real Estate Boards (Gillette, 1983). Nelson,
in particular, used the neighborhood unit idea to argue for
large-scale redevelopment schemes planned and managed by
semipublic corporations with the power of eminent domain
and funding from the federal government. Thus, there is a
link between neighborhood unit planning and urban
renewal programs introduced at the federal level in 1949.
One major criticism of the neighborhood unit formula
is that it is essentially an anti-urban, romantic notion that
inappropriately tries to recreate small town life in urban
areas. Critics argued that fostering local interaction by
providing neighborhood-scale facilities undermined the
diversity, excitement, transience, and breadth of opportunity that originally drew people to cities (Dahir, 1947;
Isaacs, 1948a, 1948b), and that ready access to the many
special interest groups in cities worked against local activities.
Lewis Mumford (1954), however, countered that “even
though a large part of an adult’s life may be spent far
beyond his own domestic precincts, [that] does not lessen
the importance of neighborhood functions” (p. 266).
Another major criticism of the neighborhood unit
formula is that it has been used to discriminate against
Black, low-income, and non-family households. Clarence
Perry (1929) did, in fact, advocate for neighborhood social
homogeneity,4 as he felt it would “facilitate living together
and make possible the enjoyment of many benefits not
otherwise obtainable” (p. 110) Influential planner and
Harvard professor Reginald Isaacs believed that the neighborhood concept became popular in the 1930s and 1940s
because it coincided with the first major Black migration
since the Civil War, when real estate interests first became
concerned over the incursion of Blacks into formerly allWhite neighborhoods (Isaacs, 1948a). Isaacs and others
also criticized the neighborhood unit formula for ignoring
the needs of the elderly and single adults (Isaacs, 1948b;
Riemer, 1950). Here again, Mumford (1954) countered
that providing a range of housing types and densities in
neighborhoods would result in a “representative sample of
the whole” (p. 267).
In spite of these criticisms, the neighborhood unit
formula found widespread acceptance in the planning profession and has profoundly affected the practice of planning
in the United States. Before its introduction, planners were
focused on large-scale city beautification and transportation
projects (Scott, 1969). The neighborhood unit formula
helped turn the attention of planners to the planning and
design of residential communities. It also helped planners
think about the design of those communities in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. As Mumford (1954) noted,
. . . the result of [the neighborhood unit formula] was
to change the basic unit of planning from the cityblock or the avenue, to the more complex unit of the
neighborhood, a change that demanded a reapportionment of space for avenues and access streets, for public
building and open areas and domestic dwellings: in
short, a new generalized urban pattern. (p. 260)
The influence of the neighborhood unit formula is also
evident in many large new communities developed in the
United States. Early examples of its application can be seen
in the planning of Radburn, NJ, Richmond, VA, and other
towns (Birch, 1980; Silver, 1985). Many of the suburban
communities developed after World War II, such as
Levittown, NY, and Levittown, NJ, also relied on the
neighborhood unit formula (Gans, 1967), as did Columbia,
MD (Hallman, 1984). A 1969 study of the use of the
neighborhood unit among planners found that 80% of
practicing planners used the neighborhood unit concept in
practice (Solow, Ham, & Donnelly, 1969). It is safe to say
that even today many planners and developers continue to
rely, at least in part, on principles first codified by Perry in
his neighborhood unit formula.
Many of the principles of the neighborhood unit formula
have also found their way into modern subdivision regulations. It is now commonplace, for example, for such regulations to require land be set aside for local recreation, and to
encourage street designs that discourage cut-through traffic.
These were key principles of the neighborhood unit formula.
Finally, the neighborhood unit formula introduced to
the planning profession the idea that the physical design of
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
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
social problems. Before its introduction, planners largely
had confined their attention to physical problems, such as
traffic congestion and improving aesthetics through urban
design, but Perry suggested that planners could and should
address urban social problems including lack of community,
lack of civic involvement, and even teenage delinquency.
This idea has carried through to many of the other forms
of neighborhood planning discussed below.
Urban Renewal
The outmigration of population and business from
central cities to suburban communities that began as a
trickle prior to World War II turned into a torrent as
soldiers returned from the war. Much of the housing and
public infrastructure in central cities was dilapidated, while
developers were offering modern, new, single-family homes
in the suburbs with favorable financing thanks to the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans’
Administration (VA) mortgage programs.
The flight to the suburbs exacerbated a variety of
simmering urban problems including racial segregation,
concentrated poverty, unemployment, severely dilapidated
housing, crime, and municipal financial stress. The lack of
demand for central-city housing often led to inadequate
maintenance and to the abandonment of homes and
commercial properties. Moreover, the oldest and most
dilapidated real estate often surrounded central business
districts (CBDs), restricting their growth and undermining
their attractiveness. Consequently, redeveloping the margins
of CBDs became a major objective for housing advocates,
public officials, and downtown business interests. Perry’s
neighborhood unit formula provided a model for how
these areas could be replanned. But how would the land be
acquired and paid for?
As early as 1941, several states, including Illinois,
Michigan, and New York, passed legislation designed to
give their cities the powers needed to overcome obstacles to
central-city redevelopment, including the difficulty of
assembling large parcels of land and lack of funds. These
laws delegated state powers of eminent domain to cities for
the purpose of acquiring blighted property for redevelopment. By the time the 1949 Housing Act passed, authorizing the federal urban renewal program, a total of 27 states
and the District of Columbia had adopted such redevelopment legislation (Gillette, 1983). Moreover, there was
widespread support for the idea that piecemeal revitalization
was too slow, if not totally infeasible, and that only largescale clearance projects had the potential to substantially
alter the fate of America’s cities.
Page 213
213
Title I of the Federal Housing Act of 1949 was the
culmination of seven years of often bitter controversy
among housing activists, downtown boosters, large developers, and others over the specifics of a federal program to
support urban renewal. It is not surprising, then, that when
finally passed, that act contained conflicting goals. It sought
to improve living conditions for the poor while also aiming
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
the souls of chamber of commerce presidents or enhance
revenues for downtown department stores” (p. 446).
The urban renewal program offered cities financial
support for land assembly, clearance, site preparation, and
sale or lease based on a redevelopment plan for the area
(Foard & Fefferman, 1966). It offered $1 billion in loans
to cover a variety of short- and long-term costs such as land
acquisition, and $500 million in grants to help cover up to
two thirds of project losses.
Over the 25-year life of the urban renewal program,
Congress made various alterations in response to criticisms
and concerns, so that the urban renewal program of 1973
was very different than the one originally passed in 1949.
Its transformation began with the Housing Act of 1954, in
which Congress responded to early criticism of the program
by authorizing the use of federal funds for the rehabilitation
of housing and neighborhoods rather than just their clearance, and providing a special allocation of public housing
units for families displaced by urban renewal projects. The
same law was also the first to allow projects that involved
commercial development and redevelopment.
Of particular importance to the planning profession,
the 1954 Act also required cities to have a “workable
program for community improvement” before federal
redevelopment funds would be provided. The workable
program required cities to: (a) adopt housing and building
codes; (b) develop comprehensive plans; (c) conduct neighborhood analyses; (d) develop an effective administrative
capacity for local planning; (e) provide assistance to displaced
households; (f) provide a means of financing the workable
program; and (g) involve and gain the support of citizens
in designing urban revitalization projects (Rhyne, 1960).
Moreover, Section 701 of the 1954 Housing Act authorized
federal grants to assist cities in developing their workable
programs. The Housing Act of 1956 further authorized the
use of federal project funds for relocation assistance. Other
important program modifications were made in 1966 and
1967 when, for the first time, housing projects were specifically required to provide for low- and moderate-income
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
of low-income families (Sanders, 1980).
Between 1949 and 1973, when the program was
terminated by the Nixon Administration, the urban renewal
program supported close to 2,800 locally designed projects
in over 1,000 communities across the country (Sanders,
1980). Together those projects involved 98,000 acres of
land and displaced closed to 300,000 families and an
additional 150,000 individuals.
Many critics have failed to acknowledge that urban
renewal had multiple program goals, evolved over time, and
was implemented differently in different cities. The most
disenchanted and vocal critics of the program were housing
advocates who had hoped it would produce significantly
more high quality housing for low- and moderate-income
households rather than leading, as it did, to a significant net
loss of affordable housing in many individual communities
and overall. By some accounts, four units of low-income
housing were demolished for every one unit built (Halpern,
1995). Given that local urban renewal plans were typically
prepared by redevelopment commissions dominated by
local business interests, it is not surprising that many of the
projects razed low-income housing and replaced it with
middle- or upper middle-income housing, commercial
development, or civic infrastructure such as coliseums, athletic stadiums, or concert halls. The program modifications
made in 1967, however, helped refocus the program on the
needs of lower-income families (Sanders, 1980). “From
1968 through 1973, the clear statement of national goals
reduced local discretion and shifted the choice process
toward federal objectives” (p. 112).
Many urban renewal programs were also criticized for
destroying viable communities, displacing residents and
businesses without adequate compensation, and reinforcing
racial segregation (Fried, 1963; Fried & Gleicher, 1961;
Gans, 1962; Hartman, 1964; Jacobs, 1961). Gans’ (1962)
influential book, The Urban Villagers, vividly portrayed a
tightly knit community in the West End of Boston and its
destruction by an urban renewal project. Moreover, Hartman found that those who were displaced from the West
End experienced increases in housing costs, substandard
housing, and overcrowding. For his part, Fried found that
some displaced West End residents “grieved for a lost
home” and were predisposed to depression (p. 167).
Since a disproportionate number of urban renewal
projects targeted majority-Black neighborhoods, the program
was also accused of facilitating “Negro removal.” Fifty-eight
percent of the almost 300,000 families displaced by urban
renewal programs were Black (Sanders, 1980). Moreover,
Black households were particularly likely to be re-housed
in public housing developments that were either segregated
to begin with, or quickly became so. Others simply moved
to other largely Black neighborhoods or to transitional
neighborhoods.
The design of the new development in urban renewal
areas was also criticized as impersonal and oversized (Alonso,
1966; Montgomery, 1966). Because urban renewal coincided with the modernist architecture movement, the design
of many urban renewal projects relied on superblocks,
high-rise buildings with uniform, often monotonous,
building facades, and surrounded by open space. Figure 2
shows examples of such buildings in Chicago. Moreover,
in many cities the redevelopment of large, cleared sites was
delayed, sometimes for many years, compromising the
integrity of local urban systems (Teaford, 2000; Wilson
1966).
Urban renewal has also been criticized for overemphasizing the role of physical redevelopment in solving
central-city problems. Some argued that it was naïve to
believe that simply improving the housing conditions of
low-income households would substantially alter their
behavior or prospects (Abrams, 1966; von Hoffman,
2000). Abrams, for example, argued that urban renewal
put “the cart before the horse” (p. 581). Cities, he argued,
should begin by addressing problems such as poor quality
schools and crime in order to create demand for city living.
Notwithstanding these criticisms, the urban renewal
program can be credited with a number of positive accomplishments in selected central cities. For example, it
provided a means for some cities to rationalize areas containing plots of land devoted to disparate uses and address
traffic problems. Some cities cleared their worse slums.
Some built new civic infrastructure including schools,
cultural venues such as New York’s Lincoln Center, and
civic centers such as Boston’s Government Center. Some
developed middle-class housing, diversifying their citizenry
and bolstering their tax revenues (Abrams, 1966).
The urban renewal program had profound impacts on
the planning profession (Fishman, 2000; Teaford, 2000).
On the positive side, modifications to the urban renewal
program that were part of the Housing Act of 1954 supported city planning agencies in communities throughout
the country. The provision requiring all urban renewal
grantees to have workable programs spurred many communities to prepare their first comprehensive plans, and
Section 701 grants funded the rapid growth of many city
planning departments. The urban renewal program also
demonstrated that federal support for neighborhood revitalization must balance allowing local discretion with
providing clear federal objectives, like those created for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
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
Figure 2. July 1, 1954, photo of Chicago Housing Authority apartments built to replace slums.
Source: TIME & LIFE Pictures/Getty Images.
215
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
objectives, many localities used federal largess in ways that
did not directly benefit low-income households.
On the negative side, planners’ participation in urban
renewal projects that destroyed communities, displaced
thousands of low-income residents, and disrupted the
urban fabric of many cities is the planning profession’s
equivalent of original sin. Even 30 to 40 years later, many
central-city residents have vivid memories of these projects.
The urban renewal program undermined trust in the
planning profession so badly that we are still trying to win
it back.
Urban renewal also taught the profession several
valuable lessons. It taught us that physical solutions to urban
problems are limited and incomplete. Making communities
look nice does not alter the underlying problems that led
to their decline. It also taught us that local social relations
and networks matter greatly to people and should be given
great weight in revitalization planning. Social networks are
particularly important in low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods. It taught us that total clearance should be
a last resort, considered only when rehabilitation is not
feasible. Finally, it taught us that planners do not have all
the answers, but should listen to and work with local
residents in neighborhood rehabilitation projects.
Community Action
By the early 1960s, it was clear that the urban renewal
program was not going to solve the problems of central
cities. People and jobs continued to leave cities, leaving
behind Black ghettos and rising central-city unemployment
rates, particularly among young African-American males.
During this time of communist expansion around the
world, Soviet and other communist countries were quick
to point out that America, the flagship of world capitalism,
was clearly failing a substantial proportion of its population,
even in a time of general prosperity. As the decade progressed, race riots in many American cities underlined this
failure.
The Community Action Program (CAP) and the Model
Cities Program (collectively referred to as community action
programs) were designed to address the problems of centralcity neighborhoods by addressing the shortcomings of
urban renewal and of traditional social service programs.
First, they sought to involve citizens in the design and
implementation of neighborhood improvement programs.
This focus on involving citizens can be traced back to
Clifford Shaw, who created the Chicago Area Project at the
Illinois Institute for Juvenile Research in the early 1930s,
and one of his protégés, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky (1971)
argued that “it is the most common human reaction that
successful attainment of objectives is much more meaningful to those who have achieved the objective through their
own efforts” (p. 174). Civil rights organizing in the 1950s
and 1960s also inspired the emphasis on community
organizing and citizen involvement in community action
programs (O’Connor, 1999).
The community action programs also avoided the
urban renewal program’s overemphasis on bricks and
mortar, seeking instead to foster the development of truly
comprehensive revitalization plans and programs that
addressed social, political, economic, and physical development issues in targeted communities. They were designed
to coordinate federal assistance for the poor at the local
level in order to have maximum impact. As Lemann (1994)
notes, “antipoverty programs are a confusing morass, run
by competing Byzantine bureaucracies. Rather than being
operated categorically . . . these programs should, on a
local level, be housed under one roof and reorganized so
that all the problems of poor people are addressed together
systematically” (p. 37).
Finally, some advocates of community action programs
hoped they would shake up traditional institutions serving
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
to work for the poor, the local status quo would have to be
shaken up” (O’Conner, 1999, p. 101). In practice, this often
meant the creation of new neighborhood-based institutions
with responsibility for planning and implementing programs
to reduce poverty.5
CAP was authorized by the Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964, which created a new Office of Economic
Opportunity and provided federal funding to local community action agencies (CAAs) to coordinate the social,
educational, housing, and employment programs intended
to assist people living in poverty (Office of Economic
Opportunity, 1965). The CAAs had great flexibility in
deciding how to spend program funds, although they were
required to devote some funds to several national programs,
including Head Start, Upward Bound, and Legal Aid. By
September 1965 more than 500 CAAs had been funded
across the country. Support totaled $237 million in 1965
and $628 million in 1966.
Unlike other aid to cities, the CAP funds did not pass
through city governments but were provided directly to the
CAAs, intentionally making them largely independent (see
Figure 3). This did not sit well with many big city mayors,
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
trolling local expenditures of federal funds. The program
also required the “maximum feasible participation of the
members of groups and areas to be served” (Office of
Economic Opportunity, 1965, p. 3). This meant that a
substantial share of CAA governing board members were
representatives of social service agencies; local labor, religious,
and minority organizations; and neighborhood residents.
The CAP also called for “a permanent increase in the
capacity of individuals, groups and communities . . . to
deal effectively with their own problems so that they need
no further assistance” (Office of Economic Opportunity,
1965, p. 4). This led many CAAs to support community
organizing efforts based on Alinsky’s confrontational
approach (Rohe & Gates, 1985). Once organized, communities often attacked local government, which further
217
undermined local political support for the program. In
response, Congress passed an amendment granting cities
the right to take over the CAAs, and over time more of the
funds were allocated to the national programs, rather than
local ones. In 1971, President Nixon abolished the Office
of Economic Opportunity, cut many of its programs, and
transferred what was left to the Community Services
Administration.
The Model Cities Program incorporated the basic
principles of community action, but its creators tried to
avoid the conflict engendered by the CAP program. Labor
leader Walther Reuther is credited with the original idea,
proposing a “massive investment in six demonstration sites
for a comprehensive plan for rebuilding, economic revitalization, 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
Johnson referred the idea to a newly created task force
charged with recommending new initiatives to address urban
poverty. Their recommendations became the basis for the
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act
of 1966. This act authorized the newly created Department
of Housing and Urban Development to provide technical
assistance and grants to communities for neighborhood
revitalization programs. Rather than a small, highly targeted
demonstration program, however, Congress divided the
funds among many communities across the country,
reducing the amount any single city received.
The Model Cities Program provided grants to selected
cities in two stages: first, to cover most of the costs of
developing plans, and second, to implement those plans.
At the local level the program was managed by newly created
Model City Agencies (MCA), over which city governments
had considerable control. Local governments were required
to involve citizens in developing the plans and programs,
but also retained final approval power over all such plans
and programs. Model City Agencies were also given the
unenviable task of coordinating other federal agencies’
spending in Model City areas, though other federal agencies
largely ignored this provision (Marris & Rein, 1982). Federal program allocations included $12 million for planning
grants in 1967 and 1968, and $500 million for implementation grants in 1969. By the time the program was folded
into the CDBG program in 1974, 145 individual Model
Cities programs had been funded.
The CAP and Model Cities programs provided hundreds of thousands of inner-city residents with job training,
improved education, additional recreation opportunities,
and other services (Marris & Rein, 1982; “Model Cities’
impact on better communities,” 1973). Both addressed
poverty innovatively. CAP, for example, introduced the
Head Start program for early childhood education and
focused the attention of welfare agencies on job training and
job placement rather than just on income support. Model
Cities introduced model schools and multi-service centers,
among other innovations (“Model Cities’ impact on better
communities,” 1973). Both programs also contributed to
developing many strong neighborhood associations and
effective community leaders (Hallman, 1984; Morris &
Rein, 1982).
Because the expectations for these programs were
unrealistic, their accomplishments fell short. Neither made
significant headway creating accessible jobs or reducing
racial discrimination, two fundamental causes of central-city
poverty. Low-skill jobs continued to move to suburbs during
the 1960s, and lack of transportation and discriminatory
real estate and employment practices made these jobs
largely inaccessible to central-city residents. Proposals for an
inner-city job creation program were dismissed as unnecessary, since the economy was doing well overall (O’Connor,
1999). Thus, many of those completing community action
job training programs could not find work.
The citizen involvement provisions also caused considerable controversy in some cities. Several of the early CAP
programs funded local organizations, including street gangs
like the Blackstone Rangers in Chicago, who mismanaged
or misappropriated the monies (Lemann, 1994). Critics
also questioned whether community board members had
the technical knowledge, information, or experience to
develop persuasive positions and alter the local balance of
power. Arnstein (1969), for example, found that only 15
of the 75 Model Cities programs that she studied had “a
significant degree of power sharing with residents” (p. 222).
As mentioned earlier, many local government officials were
also incensed that they did not have control over funds
under the CAP program.
The goal of the community action programs was to
reduce poverty nationwide, yet CAP and Model Cities each
had less than $1 billion to distribute, CAP among more
than 1,000 CAAs, and MCP among 150 Model Cities
(Marris & Rein, 1982). According to O’Connor (1999)
these programs were “too limited in scope and funding to
alter the political inequities or combat the structural economic shifts that continued to segregate poor places as the
‘other America’” (p. 108).
In spite of the controversy surrounding resident involvement in the community action programs, the principle
that citizens should be given an opportunity to participate
in the development of plans gained widespread acceptance,
a fact now reflected both in federal legislation and in local
planning efforts. Of course there has been great variation
in the nature and degree of that involvement, but citizen
participation is now firmly established in the planning
profession. It is not a question of whether citizens will be
involved, but how. The CAP program also introduced one
of the most important principles of contemporary community development: that building local community capacity
makes residents more effective at addressing their own
problems (Chaskin, 2001).
The community action programs also led the planning
profession to recognize that neighborhood revitalization
plans must go well beyond a narrow focus on physical
redevelopment to include comprehensive strategies for social,
economic, and political development. A comprehensive
neighborhood revitalization strategy must address issues
such as inadequate education, crime, unemployment, and
lack of political influence. The community action programs
embraced the holistic concept of community development
75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian
3/10/09
4:51 PM
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
over the narrower concept of neighborhood revitalization
with its emphasis on physical development.
Community action programs, however, also had a
major negative impact on the profession. Critics used them
to argue against place-based, federally supported programs
for addressing central-city poverty and its related problems.
As Halpern (1995) noted,
Within a few years of its initiation community action
came to be identified, rightly or wrongly, with a larger
social movement that repudiated mainstream society,
and demanded a degree of local political hegemony
that had never been demanded before. This allowed its
modest aspirations and programs to become isolated
and tainted, and therefore to be dismissed by a larger
society all too ready to dismiss them. (p. 124)
Since their demise in the early 1970s, the community
action programs have been cited by critics as evidence that
place-based public intervention cannot alter the fortunes of
central-city neighborhoods.
Community Economic Development
Although the community action programs quickly
backed away from the idea of community control, many
in the Black community came to believe that local selfdetermination was required to effectively address community
problems. The more radical voices called for the creation of
separate cities or, at the very least, separate neighborhood
government (Altshuler, 1970; Hallman, 1984; Kotler,
1969), but these proposals were not taken seriously by
mainstream society. The more practical voices called for
the creation of community-controlled organizations to bring
economic investment back to central-city neighborhoods.
As mentioned earlier, the community action programs had
devoted inadequate attention to bringing economic activity
and jobs to central-city neighborhoods.
Thus, in the late 1960s a number of community
development corporations (CDCs) were created in communities across the country (S. E. Perry, 1987). A CDC
is a nonprofit organization, controlled by a board with
substantial community representation and focused on the
physical and economic betterment of a neighborhood or
subsection of a city. In some instances existing social
advocacy groups spun off CDCs, while in other instances
advocacy groups (like the Southeast Community Organization in Baltimore) metamorphosed into CDCs. As CDCs
caught on in Black areas, they also spread to neighborhoods
composed of other racial and ethnic groups.
Page 219
219
Proponents of CDCs argue that they have several
advantages over earlier approaches to neighborhood improvement (Rohe, 1998). First, since a CDC is a locally
focused, community-controlled organization, it has a
deeper understanding of the unique problems facing its
community and can develop more effective strategies.
Second, unlike programs run by single-purpose municipal
departments or agencies, a CDC can adopt a comprehensive
approach to community development that includes physical,
social, and economic development. Third, a CDC can
expand the capacity of the neighborhood it serves, including
developing local leadership, technical skills among residents,
and linkages with political and economic leaders in the
larger community. Fourth, a CDC is in a better position
than a local government to garner the support of local and
national foundations, since foundations are reluctant to
fund programs for local governments, who have their own
sources of funds. Finally, a CDC may be more effective
than a public agency, since it is less bureaucratic.
Early support for CDCs came from several sources.
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 innercity neighborhoods. The Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration
Corporation in Brooklyn, NY (see Figure 4), and the
Hough Area Development Corporation in Cleveland were
two of the prominent CDCs that received SIP support.
SIP and its successor, Title VI of the Community Services
Act of 1974, provided support to over 40 first-generation
CDCs. The Ford Foundation also provided funding to
many of the early CDCs and encouraged other foundations
to follow its lead. By 1989, 165 foundations provided over
$65 million to CDCs (Council on Community Based
Development, 1991).
The passage of the act creating the CDBG program
in 1974 provided another source of funding for CDCs,
consolidating numerous competitive, categorical grant
programs into a single, noncompetitive block grant that
municipalities could use to support projects and activities
that either benefited low- and moderate-income persons,
prevented or eliminated slums or blight, or met other urgent
community needs. Moreover, municipalities were allowed
to pass CDBG funding through to CDCs to support their
community development activities. In more recent years, the
federal government support for CDCs has included setasides for nonprofits in both the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit and the HOME Investment Partnership programs.
The number of CDCs grew rapidly during the 1970s.
By the end of the decade approximately 700 CDCs had
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
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
grant requests to major foundations, which they found
difficult to evaluate. This led to the development of intermediary organizations whose mission it is to assess the
capacities of CDCs, to assist them in developing their
capacities, and to provide financial assistance to support
them. In 1980, for example, the Ford Foundation and six
major corporate donors created the Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (LISC) to help “nonprofit community development organizations transform distressed neighborhoods
into healthy and sustainable communities of choice and
opportunity” (LISC, n.d.). LISC provides carefully selected
CDCs with loans, grants, and equity investments; technical
assistance; and policy support at the local, state, and
national levels. Other important national intermediaries
offering similar types of support include the Enterprise
Foundation, Housing Partnership Network, and NeighborWorks America. A variety of regional and state-level
organizations also provide support to CDCs.
By the early 1990s, the number of CDC’s had increased
to over 2,000 (National Congress for Community Economic
Development [NCCED], 1995), with many cities having
several, sometimes with overlapping service areas. Some
CDC’s specialized in one aspect of community revitalization,
such as the expansion of affordable housing opportunities,
depending on the availability of external funding sources.
These trends led several large foundations to seek ways to
“create synergy among strands of development activity—such
as housing, economic development, human services provision, organizing—in ways that the combination of activities
would build upon one another and lead to changes ‘greater
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
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
The resulting comprehensive community initiatives
(CCIs) sought to bring together nonprofit organizations
in selected neighborhoods to develop strategic plans for
comprehensive community development. The process of
developing those plans was seen as an opportunity for the
participating organizations to involve local residents and
strengthen their ties to the local community. CCIs also
sought to link these collaborative efforts with the local
public and private resources needed to implement the
plans once developed. Early examples of CCIs include
the Neighborhoods and Family Initiative, launched by
the Ford Foundation in 1990, which supported CCIs in
Detroit, Hartford, Memphis, and Milwaukee, and the
Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program
initiated by the Surdna Foundation with support from
other foundations and corporations (Donovan, 1997).
The CDC approach to neighborhood planning has
been more enduring than most other forms of neighborhood
planning. After 40 years, the number of CDCs continues
to grow and their collective capacity continues to expand.
A recent study found over 4,600 CDCs located in every
state and in most major cities in the United States (NCCED,
2005). Between 1998 and 2005, the same study found
these organizations to have produced a yearly average of
approximately 86,000 affordable housing units and 8.75
million square feet of commercial and industrial space. In
total, this study concluded that U.S. CDCs have produced
over 1.25 million affordable housing units and 126 million
square feet of commercial and industrial space and created
774,000 jobs, as well as providing residents of low-wealth
neighborhoods with a variety of services including community organizing and advocacy, homeownership counseling,
and budget and credit counseling (NCCED, 2005). A
recent Urban Institute study also found strong evidence that
several of the strongest CDCs had substantially increased
property values in their target areas, indicating overall
community betterment (Galster, Levy, Sawyer, Temkin,
& Walker, 2005). Thus, it is clear that the CDC model
of neighborhood planning has been at least somewhat successful, attracting new capital to low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods through CDC partnerships with private
sector banks and development companies, foundations,
and government agencies.
Nonetheless, critics point out that most CDCs are
quite small and lack the capacity to undertake the kind of
large-scale, comprehensive improvement programs needed
to turn declining neighborhoods around (Keating, Rasey,
& Krumholz, 1990; Stoecker, 1997; Twelvetrees, 1989).
The median number of staff CDCs had in 2004 was 10,
even though a majority of CDCs served more than one
neighborhood, and some served entire cities or counties
Page 221
221
(NCCED, 2005). Moreover, many low-income areas have
no CDCs at all, while more fortunate neighborhoods are
served (Vidal, 1992). Many CDCs have also gone out of
business, due to both contextual and organizational factors
(Rohe & Bratt, 2003; Rohe, Bratt, & Biswas, 2002). The
intermediary organizations such as LISC and NeighborWorks America have sought to address this by expanding
their training and technical assistance activities, but support for CDC development and economic development
activities still fall well short of what is needed.
Some have criticized CDCs for overemphasizing
development instead of community organizing and advocacy
(Stoecker, 1997). CDCs embrace “(s)upply-side approaches
of attracting capital . . . over demand-side approaches and
political action” (Stoecker, 1997, p. 5). In response, CDCs
are now more likely to seek activities for which there is
both public and private support, such as the production of
affordable housing, rather allowing their communities to
define their priorities. Thus some claim that many CDCs
have lost contact with their local communities (Goetz &
Sidney, 1994; Rohe & Bratt, 2003) as they emphasize
development projects over neighborhood planning and
organizing, if the latter are done at all. Stoecker (1997) has
proposed that community-controlled, neighborhood-based
organizations be responsible for community organizing and
neighborhood planning, while high-capacity, multilocal
CDCs take on development projects that come out of the
local efforts.
CDCs have also been criticized for addressing local
problems rather than the forces that produce those problems.
Stoecker (1997), for example, suggests that CDCs divert
our attention from larger structural problems, suggesting
that, “[t]he media celebrate a single small initiative in a sea
of decay which is at serious risk of failure because the CDC
cannot keep up with the overall pace of capitalist disinvestment” (p. 7). Yet, CDCs came together to form national
advocacy organizations (including the Center for Community Change, National People’s Action, and the National
Center for Community Economic Development). These
groups lobbied for the Community Reinvestment Act, a
structural reform that curtailed redlining and resulted in
billions of dollars of investment in central-city and minority
neighborhoods.
The community economic development approach to
neighborhood planning has had several impacts on the
planning profession. Possibly most important is that in
many instances it shifted the responsibility for developing
comprehensive neighborhood plans from municipal planning departments to neighborhood-based CDCs. These
CDCs also now administer some city programs, such as
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
CDCs and intermediary organizations.
The delegation of planning and implementation
responsibilities has also meant that municipal planning
agencies have had to assume new oversight roles. Local
government planning agencies are often responsible for
recommending which CDC projects will receive locally
controlled funds, and for monitoring the expenditures of
those funds to make sure they comply with federal and
local requirements. This has become an important activity
in many municipal planning offices and requires a somewhat
different set of skills than traditionally taught in planning
schools.
Municipally Sponsored
Neighborhood Planning
The urban riots, civil rights and antiwar protests, and
growing mistrust of authority during the tumultuous 1960s
set the stage for neighborhood planning sponsored by
municipal governments. During the late 1960s and 1970s,
cities across the country sponsored neighborhood planning
programs to provide residents more influence in the planning and development of their own neighborhoods (Berry,
Portney, & Thomson, 1993; Hallman, 1984; Rafter, 1980;
Rohe & Gates, 1985; Silver, 1985). Borrowing the notion
from federally supported community action programs,
local officials sought better ways of communicating, if not
sharing power, with citizens in diverse urban neighborhoods
(Hallman, 1984).
At that time, municipal planning departments were
largely focused on developing citywide, comprehensive
land use plans. Those plans were designed to guide new
growth, but often overlooked existing neighborhoods
except to propose them as sites for new or expanded roads,
or new unwanted land uses. A variety of critics pointed out
that traditional comprehensive planning ignored the needs
of existing neighborhoods along with their social diversity,
excluded citizens from meaningful participation, favored
citywide interests (often commercial in nature), and emphasized neighborhood physical development at the expense of
social and political development (Altschuler, 1965; Branch,
1972; Friedmann, 1971).
Municipal neighborhood planning programs aim to
get citizen-run, neighborhood organizations to review and
comment on publicly or privately developed plans before
they come up for city council approval; develop their own
neighborhood plans; and/or engage in self-help activities
such as neighborhood cleanup or community crime prevention programs. Figure 5 is an example of a neighborhood
land use plan that was produced by a partnership of several
neighborhood associations and the City of San Antonio
Planning Department. Neighborhood planning programs
have several advantages over more traditional forms of
citizen participation such as city-wide advisory groups
(Rohe, 1985). First, neighborhood planning programs
provide citizens an opportunity to address what happens
near their homes. Not only is this what they care most
about, but it is what they are most familiar with, giving
them more to contribute. Second, municipal neighborhood
planning programs encourage continuous citizen involvement, rather than the more typical episodic reaction to
perceived neighborhood threats, and thus may increase
the sophistication of the citizens and groups participating.
Finally, municipal neighborhood planning programs let
local neighborhood groups set their own agendas rather
than simply responding to those of municipal planners
or private developers (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
Since they are homegrown, however, the structures of
municipal neighborhood planning programs differ from
program to program. Some are established by city charter
amendment, others by city council resolution, executive
order, or informal agreement. Some programs involve
existing neighborhood groups in planning activities, while
others create new councils or planning units to represent
neighborhood interests. Some assemble representatives from
the neighborhood groups to address city-wide concerns.
Finally, municipal support varies greatly. Almost all localities
provide the participating community groups with information and technical assistance to help them fulfill their
duties, but some also provide financial support for staff,
space, and other needs (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
Although some have questioned the degree to which
municipal neighborhood planning programs lead to real
community change, evaluations of these programs have
documented a number of positive outcomes. In general,
researchers have found that participating neighborhood
groups exert considerable influence over decisions that
affect their local areas (Berry et al., 1993; Rohe & Gates,
1985; Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995; Sirianni, 2007).
According to Berry et al., “We were told repeatedly by
administrators and neighborhood participants alike that
the neighborhoods generally got what they wanted on many
issues affecting their local area” (p. 177). In particular,
neighborhood groups participating in the planning process
have been able to improve the physical condition of neighborhood housing, public infrastructure, and recreation
facilities (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
Research has also found that municipal neighborhood
planning programs facilitate face-to-face interaction among
neighborhood residents and contributed significantly to
a sense of community and enhanced sense of place (Berry
et al., 1993; Checkoway, 1985; Schneekloth & Shibley,
75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian
3/10/09
4:51 PM
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
Figure 5. Land use plan for midtown neighborhoods in San Antonio.
Source: City of San Antonio Planning Department (2000).
Page 223
223
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
in Seattle found that it substantially reduced conflict among
neighborhood groups, and between those groups and the
city (Sirianni, 2007). Finally, research has found that these
programs contribute to the political knowledge and leadership skills of those involved and act as a springboard for
neighborhood residents interested in running for citywide
political office (Berry et al., 1993; Rohe & Gates, 1985).
The main concern about these programs is that
although participation rates in neighborhood planning
programs are greater than for more traditional forms of
citizen participation, they still typically involve fewer than
5% of neighborhood residents (Berry et al., 1993), meaning
they may not accurately represent their communities (Rohe
& Gates, 1985; Sirianni, 2007). Moreover, as is true for
other forms of voluntary participation, higher income
people and homeowners are more likely than others to
participate. Thus, such organizations can be dominated by
homeowners who develop plans and advocate for projects
that are not in the best interest of the renters in their areas
(Goetz & Sidney 1994; Rohe & Bratt, 2003).
Municipal neighborhood planning programs have
affected the planning profession in several important ways.
They have focused the attention of planners on existing
residential neighborhoods and on the smaller issues of
concern to residents of those neighborhoods. Managing
new growth is important, but working to maintain or
improve the quality of life in existing residential areas is
of equal importance. Municipal neighborhood planning
programs have provided the profession with a mechanism
for addressing the needs and concerns of residents in the
full range of neighborhood types.
Municipal neighborhood planning programs also have
distinct advantages over more conventional citizen participation techniques such as public meetings and hearings. They
offer citizens the opportunity to initiate plans, rather than
simply react to those developed by others, and they allow
continuous involvement, enhancing citizens’ capacities for
genuine influence in decisions that impact their neighborhoods. They also facilitate neighborhood social interaction
and the development of social capital (Rohe, 2004; Rohe
& Gates, 1985).
Planned Unit Development, Traditional
Neighborhood Development, and
Transit-Oriented Development
While the neighborhood unit concept underlies many
central-city revitalization initiatives of the latter half of the
20th century, it has also played an important role in planning
for new communities. Several themes echo those Perry first
introduced: neighborhood design for local recreation
opportunities, taming the automobile, and fostering local
social interaction. But it is also fair to say that the modern
neighborhood design ideal differs in important ways from
Perry’s original neighborhood planning unit.
Critics found many shortcomings in postwar suburban
development (Jacobs, 1961; Mumford, 1961). They blamed
suburban development (characterized by low densities and
large homogeneous areas of housing, retail, and office uses)
for a variety of problems including long commute trips;
traffic congestion; lack of opportunity for recreation and
walking; air and water pollution; high infrastructure costs;
social homogeneity; and the loss of community (Bookout,
1992a; Calthorpe, 2003, Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Shearer,
1992; Mandelker, 2007; So, Mosena, & Bangs, 1973).
Others criticized it for boring design and for destroying
natural habitat (Arendt, 1996; Bookout, 1992c).
In response, planners first introduced the planned unit
development (PUD) concept in the 1960s. A PUD is “a
land development project comprehensively planned as an
entity via a unitary site plan which permits flexibility in
building siting, mixtures of housing types and land uses,
usable open spaces and the preservation of significant
natural features” (So et al., 1973, p. 2). Thus a PUD is
both a development type and a legal process for development
approval (Mandelker, 2007). Compared to traditional
zoning and subdivision regulations, PUDs allow developers
more freedom to integrate residential, commercial, and
office land uses; to incorporate mixed housing types and
sizes; and to cluster development on portions of the property
while leaving other areas in their natural states. Moreover,
the proposals go through a review process in which planning
board members and public officials apply general standards
rather than requiring compliance with rigid and highly
specific development regulations.
Although PUDs were a step in the right direction,
critics argue that typical PUD designs have fallen short in
several important respects. Many PUDs use wide, curvilinear,
and cul-de-sac street patterns that raise costs unnecessarily
and inhibit connectivity and sense of community. Many
lack pedestrian amenities. It is common for PUD commercial development to take the form of small strip malls on
the periphery of the development, and for house designs to
be visually dominated by garages rather than more convivial
front porches (Berman, 1996; Bookout, 1992c, 1992d;
Duany et al., 1992).
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
developed in the 1980s in reaction to the perceived shortcomings of PUDs (Bookout, 1992e), with Seaside, FL, by
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
Atlantic Monthly article about this development, with its
small lots, narrow streets, and front porches, “kicked off a
barrage of media hype on neo-traditional planning ideas”
(Bookout, 1992a, p. 21).
TND derives its inspiration from pre–World War II
development patterns and incorporates the following
essential attributes:
225
1. Mixed uses including a range of housing types and
costs, retail shops, schools, and workplaces;
2. Moderate- to high-density development including
small single-family lots, multifamily developments,
and multistory buildings;
3. A mixed-use community core within one quarter
mile of all residents;
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
amenities;
5. Single-family houses close to the street with unified
setbacks and front porches;
6. Automobile parking and garages in the rear of the
units, reached via rear service drives;
7. Common open spaces distributed throughout the
neighborhood;
8. Common architectural and landscaping standards
based on the climate and culture of the area; and
9. Convenient access to mass transit (Berman, 1996;
Bookout, 1992a; Duany et al., 1992).
Figure 6 shows the plan for Aldea de Santa Fe, a TND
neighborhood designed by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company currently under construction in Santa Fe, NM. TND
communities were originally created using PUD approval
processes, but more recently some municipalities have
adopted special TND ordinances following a model ordinance proposed by Duany et al. (1992). These ordinances
typically focus on building form and placement, rather
than on their intended uses (see Talen, this issue).
Transit-oriented development, or TOD, is a close
cousin of TND (Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001; Porter, 1997).
It also embodies the principles of mixed use, higher density,
and walkability. The major difference between the two
concepts is that TOD is built around transit stops and is
less concerned with a unified architectural style. According
to Calthorpe, “the problem is to introduce the needs of the
pedestrian and transit into the auto-dominated regions of
our metropolitan areas, not to return to a fiction of smalltown America . . .” (quoted in Bookout, 1992b, p. 10).
Although some were initially skeptical about whether
Americans would embrace TND and TOD, both seem to
have caught on. According to the Congress for the New
Urbanism, an advocacy group founded in 1993, more than
210 TND developments have been constructed, or are
under construction, in the United States (Congress for the
New Urbanism, 2008). Recent consumer preference surveys
show substantial support for community designs that
incorporate the attributes of TNDs and TODs listed
above. The price per square foot of properties in mixed-use
neighborhoods like TNDs and TODs has been found to
be between 40 and 100% above that of properties in conventional subdivisions (Ewing, Bartholomew, Winkelman,
Walters, & Chen, 2008).
Research has also provided support for some of the
claimed benefits of TNDs. For example, a meta-analysis
of studies on car usage among households that live in
developments with relatively high densities, mixed uses,
and interconnected streets found that they drive about
33% less than those who live in low-density, exclusively
residential, cul-de-sac neighborhoods (Ewing et al., 2008).
Others have found that those who live in TNDs interact
more with their neighbors and engage in more outdoor
activities than do those who live in traditional developments
(Brown & Cropper, 2001).
TND does, however, have its critics. Its major proponents, like Duany and Calthorpe, have been criticized as
physical determinists who claim that TND affects social
behaviors, such as local social interaction, without providing
supporting evidence (Berman, 1996). They have also been
taken to task for undervaluing the convenience of driving
rather than walking, and using the internet rather than
chatting with neighbors. Nonetheless, TND does allow what
many consider to be healthy behaviors, such as walking
and engaging in face-to-face interaction (Frank & Engelke,
2001; Frumkin, Frank, & Jackson, 2004).
Although the research on TND and TOD is still sparse
and often based on a small number of case studies, it has
not supported several claims made by proponents. For
example, studies have found that TND residents do not
report a greater sense of community than do residents of
traditional subdivisions (Brown & Cropper, 2001; Nasar,
2003). Another study found that ease of access to shops
and offices, mixing of housing types, and pedestrian access
to daily needs in several early TND neighborhoods fell
short of these characteristics in the traditional neighborhoods
they emulated (Southworth, 1997).
Because TND requires large amounts of land, it is
often located on the periphery of existing urban areas.
Consequently critics also fault TND for being anti-urban
(Southworth, 1997), arguing that TND provides people
with sanitized versions of urbanity that “exclude much of
what it takes to make a metropolitan region work” (p. 43)
as well as failing to provide housing for lower-income
residents. If this logic is correct, TND may be attracting
households who might otherwise choose to live in centralcity neighborhoods.
Finally, the TND principles have been criticized for
being overly prescriptive. The emphasis on grid street
patterns, for example, may not be appropriate for a site that
is hilly or has other constraining characteristics. The emphasis
on a fixed, unified design scheme also has been criticized
for preventing occupants from expressing their needs and
tastes, and inhibiting change over time (Southworth, 1997).
The PUD, TND, and TOD forms of neighborhood
planning have had several important impacts on the planning profession. PUD ordinances were significant in at least
two major respects. First, they allowed or even encouraged,
integration of land uses at a finer grain than was typical of
postwar development patterns. PUDs allowed single-family
75-2 09 375277 Rohe qc2:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian
3/10/09
4:51 PM
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
homes, apartments, and commercial properties to be
included in integrated development proposals. Second,
PUD ordinances represented an important break from the
traditional approach to development review. Rather than a
review process based on inflexible and highly specific zoning
and subdivision regulations, PUD ordinances introduced
the idea of a discretionary review process based on general
standards. These more discretionary approval processes allow
developers more freedom to propose innovative designs and
provide local officials more influence over the final plan.
TND and TOD forms of neighborhood planning also
helped refocus the planning profession on community
design and its potential impact on a range of social and
environmental issues. In the 1970s and 1980s, planners
emphasized tools like impact fees and transfer of development rights. The big issues that Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford,
Paul and Percival Goodman, and others had addressed, of
how we should live and how community planning supports
particular lifestyles, went out of fashion. Whether you
agree with them or not, TND and TOD advocates have
renewed a lively debate about these big issues and refocused
planners’ attention on community design. At the same
time, TND and TOD have garnered much press attention,
introducing neighborhood planning and design issues to a
wider audience.
Conclusion
Over the last 100 years, the neighborhood concept has
played an important role in American city planning. Planners
recognize that planning at the neighborhood level is an
important complement to comprehensive planning, as it
recognizes the distinctive physical and social characteristics
of those smaller geographic units. Moreover, they have
come to understand that residents become invested, both
socially and economically, in the areas surrounding their
homes. What happens in their neighborhoods affects their
lives to a much greater degree than what happens in other
parts of the city. Thus, they are more motivated to participate in planning efforts designed to preserve or improve
their neighborhoods, particularly if those planning efforts
provide them with a real opportunity to shape the future of
their neighborhoods.
Each of the six forms of neighborhood planning discussed in this article has made important contributions to
the planning profession. In the early days of the profession,
Perry’s neighborhood unit formula provided planners with
a template for good neighborhood design, elements of
which were incorporated into modern subdivision codes.
Perry also introduced the idea that neighborhood design
Page 227
227
could affect both the sense of community and the social
participation of residents. Urban renewal taught the profession about the limits of physical solutions to social
problems, the precious nature of neighborhood social
networks, and the importance of involving citizens in
revitalization planning. The community action form of
neighborhood planning created a new norm for citizen
participation in planning, while at the same time identifying
the limits of participation. It also introduced truly comprehensive redevelopment planning that went beyond a narrow
focus on physical development to include social, political, and,
to a lesser extent, economic development. The community
economic development form of neighborhood planning
has taught us that some planning and implementation
activities can be successfully delegated to community-based
organizations, which, at least in some instances, are better
able to address the unique needs of neighborhood residents.
Municipal neighborhood planning provided a mechanism
for addressing neighborhood concerns in all neighborhoods
within a city, and provided models of ongoing citizen
involvement in the development of neighborhood plans,
the review of development proposals, and the development
of self-help activities. Finally, PUD, TND, and TOD
neighborhood planning has created neighborhoods that
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
addressed local concerns. Now, it is also addressing global
concerns, particularly global climate change. We have come
to understand that although neighborhood design does not
determine social behavior, it can encourage or discourage
certain behaviors such as walking or riding mass transit,
which, in turn, impact the amount of oil we use and the
amounts of greenhouse gases we release into the atmosphere.
Thus, planners and designers can influence the way we live
and do business by creating living environments that
encourage environmentally friendly behaviors and, in
doing so, make an important contribution both to energy
conservation and to slowing global warming.
To encourage and recognize the connection between
neighborhood planning and global environmental concerns,
the U.S. Green Building Council, the Congress for the New
Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council are
developing standards for environmentally sustainable
neighborhood location and design. Similar to the Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green
building rating system, LEED for Neighborhood Development, or LEED-ND, is being designed “to promote the
location and design of neighborhoods that reduce vehicle
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
Council, 2008). It is also designed to promote energy and
water conservation. This rating system, which should be
launched in early 2009, consists of a variety of criteria
organized under four general categories: smart location
and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design, green
construction and technology, and innovation and design
process (Retzlaff, 2008).
For their part, municipalities are developing sustainable
community development codes that remove obstacles,
create incentives, and enact standards for sustainable
neighborhoods (Duerksen, 2008). Such codes remove
barriers to new forms of energy production, encourage street
and building layouts conducive to the production of solar
power, encourage the mixing of uses, allow development
densities needed to support mass transit, and ensure connections to the surrounding areas (Wheeler, 2008). Austin,
TX, has established a goal that all single-family homes will
be capable of producing as much energy as they consume
by 2015 and has also established a team to assess the role
of land use in greenhouse gas emissions and to develop
recommendations for reducing them.
The efforts described so far, however, only apply to the
development of new neighborhoods. An even bigger challenge is to find creative ways to retrofit existing neighborhoods to reduce their carbon footprints. Municipalities and
community-based organizations should collaborate to make
existing land use patterns more environmentally friendly.
Infill of small, well-designed multifamily housing developments or small commercial centers may be appropriate in
some existing neighborhoods.
The connection between neighborhood planning and
global climate change represents an important new challenge
to neighborhood planning. Yet, it should not overshadow
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
range of households. Many new multifamily housing units
are high priced condominiums or rental units. Inclusionary
housing programs or ordinances will be needed if lowerincome households are to have the opportunity to live in
those newly developed neighborhoods. Moreover, there is
still a great need for neighborhood planning programs that
address the needs of high-poverty neighborhoods across the
country. Community economic development and municipal
neighborhood planning still have important roles to play in
addressing the needs of lower-income neighborhoods, and
they need the support of federal, state, and local government,
as well as the philanthropic community, to do so.
Finally, the impacts of neighborhood planning programs
will be modest at best unless local community organizations
form metropolitan, state, and national coalitions to advocate for systemic change. Increases in the minimum wage,
stronger antidiscrimination laws, and regulations banning
predatory and irresponsible lending are needed to support
the actions being taken at the neighborhood level. Without
action at higher levels of government, the positive impacts
of neighborhood planning programs are likely to be undone.
Notes
1. This is not to say that forms of neighborhood planning were not
practiced before this time. Mumford (1954, 1961) has shown that the
planning of both classic Greek and Medieval cities was based on
neighborhood units. Rohe and Gates (1985), Silver (1985), and others
discuss forms of neighborhood planning practiced in the late 1800s such
as the settlement house movement.
2. A thorough review of the various definitions and means of defining
neighborhoods is beyond the scope of this article. For a discussion of
these issues, see Chaskin (1995), Keller (1968), and Rohe and Gates
(1985).
3. I exclude initiatives or strategies that do not include a physical
planning component and discrete planning strategies such as inclusionary
zoning or mixed-income housing that may be used to achieve goals
defined in neighborhood plans. I do not include the settlement house
movement because it began before the time period I address and because
physical planning was not one of its central concerns.
4. He also argued that planned neighborhoods were for those who could
afford them, although they might benefit lower-income families by
providing a “needed object lesson in improved housing environment
and community organization which will . . . ultimately aid the reform
of slum areas” (Perry, 1929, p. 128).
5. Two relatively small demonstration programs first implemented the
principles of citizen participation, coordination, and innovation underlying the community action approach: the Gray Areas Projects funded
by the Ford Foundation, and the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth
Crime Prevention programs proposed by the President’s Committee on
Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (Hallman, 1984; O’Connor,
1999; Rohe & Gates, 1985). The much larger CAP and MCP programs
were built upon these principles.
References
Abrams, C. (1966). Some blessings of urban renewal. In J. Q. Wilson
(Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the controversy (pp. 558–582).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ahlbrandt, R., & Cunningham, J. (1979). A new public policy for
neighborhood preservation. New York: Praeger.
Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Random House.
Alonso, W. (1966). Cities, planners, and urban renewal. In J. Q. Wilson
(Ed.). Urban renewal: The record and the controversy (pp. 437–453).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Altschuler, A. (1965). The city planning process. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Altschuler, A. (1970). Community control. New York: Pegasus.
Arendt R. (1996). Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide
to creating open space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the
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
Rohe: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning
Berman, M.A. (1996). The transportation effects of neo-traditional
development. Journal of Planning Literature, 10 (4), 347–363.
Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of
urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Birch, E. L. (1980). Radburn and the American planning movement:
The persistence of an idea. Journal of the American Planning Association,
46 (4), 424–439.
Bookout, L. W. (1992a). Neotraditional town planning: A new vision
for the suburbs? Urban Land, 51 (1), 20–26.
Bookout, L. W. (1992b). Neotraditional town planning: Cars, pedestrians, and transit. Urban Land, 51 (2), 10–15
Bookout, L. W. (1992c). Neotraditional town planning: Bucking
conventional codes and standards. Urban Land, 51 (4), 18–25.
Bookout, L. W. (1992d). Neotraditional town planning: The test of the
marketplace. Urban Land, 51 (6), 12–17.
Bookout, L. W. (1992e). Neotraditional town planning: Toward a
blending of design approaches. 51 (8), Urban Land, 14–19.
Branch, M. C. (1972). Continuous city planning (Planning Advisory
Service Report No. 20). Chicago: American Planning Association.
Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban standard and
suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 67 (4), 402–419.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community,
and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Calthorpe, P. & Fulton, W. (2001). The regional city: Planning for the
end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Chaskin, R. J. (1995) Defining neighborhood: History, theory and practice.
Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of
Chicago.
Chaskin, R. J. (2000). Lessons learned from the implementation of the
neighborhood and family initiative: A summary of findings. Chicago: The
Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional
framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative.
Urban Affairs Review, 36 (3), 291–323.
Checkoway, B. (1985). Neighborhood planning organizations: Perspectives and choices. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (4), 471–486.
City of San Antonio Planning Department. (2000). Midtown
neighborhoods plan. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Scribner Books.
Congress for the New Urbanism. (2008). CNU history. Retrieved
April 15, 2008, from http://www.cnu.org/history
Council on Community-Based Development. (1991). Expanding
horizons II: A research report on corporate and foundation grant support of
community-based development. New York: Author.
Dahir, J. (1947). The neighborhood unit plan: Its spread and acceptance.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Donovan, S. (1997). Beyond housing: The comprehensive community
revitalization program in the South Bronx. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy
School of Government.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Shearer, R. (1992). Zoning for
traditional neighborhoods. Land Development, 5 (2), 21–26.
Duerksen, C. (2008). Saving the world through zoning. Planning,
74 (1), 28–33.
Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., & Chen, D.
(2008). Growing cooler: Evidence on urban development and climate
change. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Fishman, R. (2000). The American metropolis at century’s end: Past
and future influences. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (1), 199–214.
Page 229
229
Foard, A. A., & Fefferman, H. (1966). Federal urban renewal legislation. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the controversy (pp. 71–125). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frank, L., & Engelke, P. (2001). The built environment and human
activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health.
Journal of Planning Literature, 16 (2), 202–210.
Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The
urban condition (pp. 151–171). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fried, M., & Gleicher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction
in an urban slum. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 27 (4),
305–315.
Friedmann, J. (1971). The future of comprehensive urban planning: A
critique. Public Administration Review, 31 (3), 315–326.
Frumkin, H., Frank, L, & Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and
public health: Designing, planning and building for healthy communities.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Galster, G., Levy, D., Sawyer, N., Temkin, K., & Walker, C. (2005).
The impacts of community development corporations on urban neighborhoods.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Gans, H. J. (1962). The urban villagers. New York: Free Press.
Gans, H. J. (1967). The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new
suburban community. New York: Random House.
Gillette, H., Jr. (1983). The evolution of neighborhood planning: From
the progressive era to the 1949 housing act. Journal of Urban History,
9 (4), 421–444.
Goetz, E. G., & Sidney, M. (1994). Revenge of the property owners:
Community development and the politics of property. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 16 (4), 319–334.
Hallman, H. (1984). Neighborhoods: Their place in urban life. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood
initiatives to address poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hartman, C. (1964). The housing of relocated families. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 30 (4), 266–282.
Isaacs, R. (1948a, July). Are urban neighborhoods possible? Journal of
Housing, 6, 177–180.
Isaacs, R. (1948b, August). The “neighborhood unit” is an instrument
for segregation. Journal of Housing, 6, 215–219.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York:
Random House Books.
Keating, W. D., Rasey, K. P., & Krumholz, N. (1990). Community
development corporations in the United States: Their role in housing
and urban redevelopment. In W. Van Vliet & J. Van Weesep (Eds.),
Government and housing: Developments in seven countries (pp. 206–218).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Keller, S. (1968). The urban neighborhood: A sociological perspective.
New York: Random House.
Kotler, M. (1969). Neighborhood government. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Lemann, N. (1994, February 13). The myth of community development.
New York Times, pp. 27–31, 50, 54, 60.
Local Initiatives Support System. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved
April 7, 2008, from http://www.lisc.org/section/aboutus/mission
Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political
economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lyon, L. (1987). The Community in urban society. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Mandelker, D. R. (2007). Planned unit developments (Planning Advisory
Service, Report Number 545). Chicago: American Planning Association.
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
community action in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Model Cities’ impact on better communities. Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Housing, Committee on Banking and Currency,
House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 1 (1973).
Montgomery, R. (1966). Improving the design process in urban
renewal. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the
controversy (pp. 454–488). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mumford, L. (1954). The neighborhood and the neighborhood unit.
Town Planning Review, 25 (1), 256–269.
Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations,
and its prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Nasar, J. L. (2003). Does neotraditional development build community?
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (1), 58–68.
National Congress for Community Economic Development. (1995).
Tying it all together: The comprehensive achievements of community-based
development organizations. Washington, DC: Author.
National Congress for Community Economic Development. (2005).
Reaching new heights: Trends and achievements of community-based
development organizations. Washington, DC: Author.
O’Connor, A. (1999). Swimming against the tide: A brief history of
federal policy in poor communities. In R. F. Ferguson & W.T. Dickens
(Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 77–137).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Office of Economic Opportunity. (1965). Community action program
guide: Vol. 1, instructions for applicants. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Perry, C. A. (1929). A plan for New York and its environs, Volume 7.
New York: New York Regional Planning Association.
Perry, C. A. (1939). Housing for the machine age. New York: Russell Sage.
Perry, S. E. (1987). Communities on the way: Rebuilding local economies in
the United States and Canada. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Porter, D. (1997). Transit-focused development. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Rafter, D. O. (1980). Neighborhood planning. Planning, 46 (1), 23–25.
Retzlaff, R. C. (2008). Green building assessment systems: A framework
and comparison for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association,
74 (4), 505–520.
Rhyne, C. S. (1960). The workable program: A challenge for community
improvement. Law and Contemporary Problems 25 (4), 685–704.
Riemer, S. (1950). Hidden dimensions of neighborhood planning,
Land Economics, 26 (2), 197–201.
Rohe, W. M. (1985). Urban planning and mental health. In A. Wandersman & R. Hess (Ed.), Beyond the individual: Environmental approaches
and prevention (pp. 79–110). New York: Hawthorne Press.
Rohe, W. M. (1998). Do community development corporations live up
to their billing? A review and critique of the research findings. In T.
Koebel (Ed.), Shelter and society: Theory, research and policy for non-profit
housing (pp. 177–200). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rohe, W. M. (2004). Building social capital through community
development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (2),
158–164.
Rohe, W. M., & Bratt, R. G. (2003). Failures, downsizings and mergers
among community development corporations. Housing Policy Debate,
14 (1–2), 1–46.
Rohe, W. M., Bratt, R. G., & Biswas, P. (2002). Evolving challenge for
community development corporations: The causes and impacts of failures,
downsizings, and mergers. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Urban and
Regional Studies.
Rohe, W. M., & Gates, L. B. (1985). Planning with neighborhoods.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Sanders, H. T. (1980). Urban renewal and the revitalized city: A reconsideration of recent history. In D. Rosenthal (Ed.), Urban revitalization
(pp. 103–126). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and
practice of building communities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Scott, M. (1969). American city planning since 1890. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood planning in historical perspective.
Journal of the American Planning Association 51 (2), 161–174.
Sirianni, C. (2007). Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic
design: The case of Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association,
73 (4), 373–387.
So, F. S., Mosena, D. R., & Bangs, F. S., Jr. (1973). Planned unit
development ordinances (Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 291).
Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.
Solow, A. A., Ham, C. C., & Donnelly, E. O. (1969). The concept of the
neighborhood unit. Pittsburgh, PA: Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh.
Southworth, M. (1997). Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 63 (1), 28–44.
Stoecker, R. (1997). The CDC model of urban redevelopment:
A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19 (1), 1–22.
Teaford, J. C. (2000). Urban renewal and its aftermath. Housing Policy
Debate, 11(2), 443–466.
Twelvetrees, A. (1989). Organizing for neighbourhood development.
Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2008). Frequently asked questions
about LEED for Neighborhood Development. Retrieved February 19,
2008, from http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3357
Vidal, A. C. (1992). Rebuilding communities: A national study of
urban community development corporations. New York: Community
Development Research Center, New School for Social Research.
von Hoffman, A. (2000). A study of contradictions: The origins and
legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (2),
299–326.
Warren, R. (1978). The community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans: The
first generation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74 (4):
481–496.
Wilson, J. Q. (1966). Planning and politics: Citizen participation in
urban renewal. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), Urban renewal: The record and the
controversy (pp. 407–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.