Residential developments in small-town America: assessment and regulations
© The Author(s) 2017
Received: 14 April 2017
Accepted: 19 September 2017
Published: 29 September 2017
This study is part of a comprehensive process in the City of New Bern, North Carolina aimed at drafting a subdivision regulatory framework that promotes sustainable residential developments with a heightened sense of community and vitality. The aim is to develop an objective assessment tool for new subdivision plans. Issues considered in this assessment include intra-and-inter-neighborhood connectivity, walkways, open spaces, the environment, and home architecture. The study highlights the transition from the traditional, open-grid street network and porch-fitted homes to modern suburbs with disconnected streets and garage-dominated homes. It draws on five planning and design criteria (accessibility, walkability, community, sustainability, and variety) to develop a performance-based rating system for development proposals. The rating system allows planners and architects to assign points and identify failings and changes required to encourage the development of well-planned residential subdivisions that complement the small-town appeal of traditional American urban centers.
KeywordsSubdivision regulations Residential developments Suburban retrofitting Walkability Community planning Small-town America
A unique sense of small town urbanity is one of the most desirable aspects of life in New Bern, North Carolina. The city (City of New Bern, http://www.newbern-nc.org), Swiss Bear (http://www.swissbear.org), the historic preservation commission, and other organizations have worked long and hard to protect New Bern’s charm and character (New Bern Historical Society, http://www.newbernhistorical.org). The aim has not been to create a repository for historic architectural styles, but to encourage the development of a livable city that maintains its past and integrates new developments. Like other US cities, New Bern has its share of new suburban developments that depart radically from their traditional counterparts. The latter are more car-oriented, and many lack the small-town charm and architectural refinements typical of traditional neighborhoods.
This study is part of a comprehensive process aimed at drafting a subdivision regulatory framework that not only thwarts poorly planned developments, but also encourages well-planned ones with a sense of sociability and physical quality that complements New Bern’s small-town appeal. The objective of this process is not to propose ‘True Urbanism’ popularized by Jacobs (1961), Alexander (1977), Krier (1979), Carmona et al. (2003), Carmona and Tiesdell (2007) or the international making cities livable conference (Crowhurst and Crowhurst 1995; IMCL 46th 2008). The study certainly benefits from the extensive literature associated with these prolific urbanists and other popular planning movements such as the ‘urban villages’ (Aldous 1992; Neal 2003) and the ‘new urbanism’ (Katz 1994; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1991, 2000). However, this study approach to developing better suburbs is primarily configured as an adjunct to existing Euclidean zoning context typical of most American towns. Extended discussions with various community groups and conversations with New Bern residents indicated that a mixed-use or transit-oriented development proposal for New Bern suburbs would be an exercise in futility; it would only add up to the list of previous studies shelved in the city’s archives with little or no hope for implementation. Hence, the pragmatic focus on the planning and design elements that can be implemented and would improve development practices in the city.
The paper is mainly divided into three parts. The first part provides a historical context for American urban development and alludes to the forces that transpired a major shift in the American town from the mixed-use compact urban grid to the sprawled curvilinear suburbs that were exclusively zoned in separate residential, commercial, office, and industrial enclaves. The second part contrasts two clusters of New Bern neighborhoods; one cluster incorporates three traditional districts with homes primarily built before the 1940s; the other cluster incorporates two constellations of newer subdivisions built in the 1980s and beyond. The purpose is to highlight the transition from the traditional open-grid street layout and porch-fitted homes typical of traditional neighborhoods to the modern suburb with closed curvilinear street networks and garage-dominated homes. The third part of the paper outlines the five planning and design criteria (accessibility, walkability, community, sustainability, and variety) utilized to develop a performance-based assessment tool and rating system for new subdivision plans. The rating system allows planners to assign points and identify failings and changes required to satisfy sustainable growth provisions. It has been used experimentally to evaluate new subdivision applications in New Bern. Results and feedback from stakeholders have been very encouraging and the system will continue to be refined pending its final adoption in the New Bern’s zoning.
Historical context for American urban/suburban development
The urban/suburban development changes outlined above affected big cities and small towns alike. The City of New Bern underwent through the same process; the bulk of new developments took place on the urban periphery and was mostly planned as low-density mono-zoned suburbs. Home architecture and massing went through massive reconfiguration to accommodate the car and modern life amenities. Porch-fitted homes that used to face the street started to give their back to the public realm and most living spaces were oriented to grass lined backyards. Most importantly, car garages were designed to occupy the bulk of home facades, thereby isolating living spaces from the street environment. The following part of the paper contrasts two sets of neighborhoods, the first was built before the 1940s and more or less fits with the ‘porch house’ era while the second group was built in the 1980s and beyond and is designated in this paper as ‘garage house.’ developments. The purpose is to highlight the transition from traditional open-grid street layout and porch-fitted homes to modern suburbs with closed curvilinear street networks and garage-dominated residential developments. Discussions include a preliminary assessment of environmental and physical planning implications of each pattern of development.
New Bern traditional neighborhoods (1940s and before): the porch house
Three neighborhoods were examined: The Downtown Historic District, Riverside, and Ghent. Traditional neighborhoods in New Bern boast pedestrian friendly built environments with different size homes and economic tenures allowing a healthy social mix and providing a model for sustainable urban living. They are characterized by fine grain built forms with active street/building interfaces that potentially enhance social encounters and encourage walkability (Kashef 2009, 2011; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992). The presence of landmarks such as churches and civic buildings permeate these traditional districts and help orient pedestrians and enhance the city visual identity (Lynch 1960, 1981). A large number of windows open onto public spaces (eyes on the street) engendering a heightened sense of safety and community (Jacobs 1961).
The downtown historic district
The riverside neighborhood
New Bern contemporary residential developments (1980s onwards): the garage house
Two constellations of subdivisions are used as representative of newer suburbs in New Bern; the first one includes mid-and-upscale subdivisions; the second constellation encompasses low-to-mid-scale subdivisions in northwest New Bern. Unlike the traditional neighborhoods that offered a wide range of home tenures within a walkable distance, newer suburbs are more or less divided along home values. Accessibility depends largely on the automobile and each subdivision tends to create homogenous social enclave and less articulated built environment.
Planning and design criteria
The previous examination of traditional and new subdivisions in the City of New Bern depended largely on five planning and design criteria: accessibility, walkability, community, sustainability, and variety. Design criteria were used somewhat loosely to develop an understanding of the differences between traditional neighborhoods (pre-1940s) and the new subdivisions (post-1980s). In that sense, the criteria were not totally developed a priori before examining New Bern neighborhoods. Understanding and assessment evolved simultaneously in order to develop a pragmatic performance-based approach to guide new subdivision development in New Bern. This process and the urban design criteria presented below were also informed by meetings with various stakeholders that included planners, elected officials, developers, and community representatives in the City of New Bern.
Accessibility evaluates both internal and external connectivity of a subdivision, i.e. the physical linkage between different parts of a subdivision as well as the relationship between contiguous subdivisions. As shown earlier, residents of New Bern’s traditional Neighborhoods could move from street to street and one neighborhood to another within an open-grid street network with small size blocks that assured a high level of internal and external accessibility. The grid offered a flexible street network and a clear mental map for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. The very high level of accessibility afforded by the grid may not be attainable within a new subdivision context. In addition, the sweeping character of the later curvilinear street design added a picturesque dimension that most people in New Bern seem to appreciate in suburban design and planning. It created a series of blocked or changing vistas and generally enhanced the visual image of neighborhoods (Kashef 2009, 2011; Trancik 1986; Bacon 1976). The looping nature of modern suburban streets also resulted in private and less navigable streets, thus discouraging excessive through traffic and speeding, a quality favored by New Bern residents. Local surveys generally indicated an overwhelming preference for curvilinear streets over straight ones. The latter were consistently described as conducive to speeding, unsafe for neighborhood kids playing or biking. Straight residential subdivision streets were also perceived as visually less attractive than curvilinear ones.
Unfortunately, the proliferation of dead-end streets and excessive compartmentalization of modern subdivisions exacerbated accessibility problems and created dysfunctional suburban regions. The result was not only decreased car travel along subdivision streets but also diminished walking and biking opportunities. Pedestrians or cyclists can hardly access modern subdivision different sections without having to backtrack from dead-end streets. The desire to eliminate foreign traffic and limit movement on subdivision streets created highly underutilized internal subdivision streets and unnecessary traffic problems along major arteries. The accessibility criterion advanced by this study is grounded in a balanced understanding of the merits of traditional neighborhood planning and the nuances of modern suburban development practices. Developers commonly cater to prevailing buyer preferences.
Three strategies can be used to enhance accessibility while maintaining the curvilinear street pattern. First, street connectors between neighbouring developments can be planned to facilitate low-speed travel across suburban regions. This could potentially reduce congestion along arterial roads and provide more route options when some links are blocked by traffic. Despite concerns about safety and increased car travel along suburban roads, transportation studies indicated that improved connectivity in suburban regions would provide a much needed flexibility of movement, especially for emergency vehicles. Building some redundancy in road networks is also critical to generate a rich modal split between motorized and non-motorized transportation (Crane 2000; Ewing and Cervero 2002). Various traffic calming strategies have been successfully deployed in cities across the US to slow motorized traffic and ensure pedestrians and cyclists’ safety. The use of humps, visible pedestrian crossings, road constrictions (bottle-necks), roundabouts, among other techniques have been invariably noted as effective strategies to slow cars and create safer streets for non-motorized traffic (Burden 2000). Pedestrian and cyclists would be encouraged to travel along low-speed internal suburban roads rather than venturing into high-speed regional transportation corridors. A number of empirical investigations have shown that inter-subdivision connectors increase walking and biking across development boundaries (Crane 2000; Ewing and Cervero 2002; Handy et al. 2004; Alba and Beimborn 2005).
Second, small block sizes can enhance accessibility especially for pedestrians and cyclists. A number of statistically-supported studies indicated that smaller blocks (< 1000 ft. long) and higher connectivity indices tend to generate more pedestrian movement (Krizek 2003; Cerin et al. 2007; Frank et al. 2005; Badland et al. 2008; Chin et al. 2007). The ‘connectivity index’ is commonly used to measure the directness and availability of alternative routes between different locations within the road network. It is derived by dividing the number of roadway intersections and nodes (cul-de-sacs included). A higher number indicates a well-connected street system (Ewing 1996). A link in the connectivity index is simply a stretch of road between two nodes. A node ranges from a dead-end cul-de-sac to a three- or-four-way intersection. The more links available in comparison to the number of nodes, the higher the connectivity and the potential of the street network to generate more pedestrian movement (Schmidt and Wells 2005).
Third, Hillier’s space syntax (Hillier 1996, 1999, 2002) can be used as a design framework to locate important public functions along subdivision streets. A neighborhood space syntax shows the neighborhood streets as a series of intersecting lines creating a network of links and nodes. Each street or line on the map has a different level of connectivity with the network based on the number of other streets that intersect it. Streets that generate more intersections hold higher value as elements of integration in the network. Important public functions such as parks, shops, playgrounds, etc. tend to catalyze more pedestrian movement and should be located on streets with the highest integration value in the street network (Kashef 2009, 2011).
The aim of space syntax is to optimize the spatial allocations and connections between human functions so as to produce the most effective configurations and circulation networks. The assumption is that movement through space is a key organizing element in the social functioning of human settlements. Hillier contends that socioeconomic forces shape the city primarily through the relations between movement and the structural layout of local districts. A mixed-use strategy that brings homes closer to retail cannot generate movement unless shops are selectively located on integrating lines that carry the most movement in relation to surrounding spaces (Hillier 1996).
Hillier’s work sparked the development of a large volume of research around the world that used space syntax logic to examine spatial configurations of homes, offices, neighborhoods, cities, metropolitan regions or movement networks of entire countries (Baran et al. 2008; Hillier 1999, 2002; Bafna 2003; Jiang and Claramunt 2002; Nophaket and Fujii 2004; Raford and Ragland 2003; Peponis et al. 2007).
The presence of sidewalks is commonly touted as a critical component of walkability in residential developments (Jacobs 1961; Krier 1979; Trancik 1986; Barnette 1995). Systematic observations of various suburban areas with sidewalks in New Bern did not yield sufficient evidence indicating that sidewalks on their own generate pedestrian movement. Furthermore, a host of recent empirical investigations from the public and environmental health fields, pointed to the lack of causality between neighborhood sidewalks and walkability. Most of these studies noted that the presence of sidewalks is positively correlated with walking. They generally explained such associations in terms of the market self-selection process, i.e., people who like walking commonly choose to live in places that support their way of life (Cervero and Duncan 2003; Atkinson et al. 2004; Reed et al. 2006; Oaks et al. 2007; Lovasi et al. 2008; Nagel et al. 2008).
This study argues that poor internal and external connectivity diminishes the value of sidewalks to nothing more than cosmetic or landscape elements. Space syntax considerations are also critical to the walkability potential of street networks. This study argues that accessibility is a precondition for walkability, which requires both sidewalks and destinations of interest to pedestrians. Destinations of interest would differ from one subdivision or suburban region to another; some would have parks, natural forests, observation points, or waterfronts and others could offer playgrounds, sports, recreational facilities, shops, or public libraries. In order for destinations of interest to enhance walkability, they should be located along streets with the highest integration value in the network, i.e. streets that carry most of the movement within the network (Hillier 1996, 1999, 2002; Kashef 2011).
Sustainability concerns include various environmental, social, and economic aspects (Kashef 2016). Contemporary subdivision planning and design practices seldom consider environmentally sensitive areas; land is generally divided into private lots with streets paving over wetlands, creeks, and other natural features. The loss of natural systems not only endangers wild life habitat but also deprives residents from nature-based recreational and social opportunities. Forests, creeks and wetlands could be effectively integrated with neighborhood sidewalks, bike lanes, and parks to create destinations or points of interest. This may encourage walking and biking as alternative modes of transportation, create possibilities for social interaction and hence more socially sustainable development. Therefore, increasing the percentage of open space in new subdivisions is critical to conserve natural habitat and provide recreational opportunities and public meeting places within suburban communities.
This criterion deals with ways to enrich the image of subdivisions including buildings, streets, sidewalks, and public meeting places. The New Urbanists expressed a renewed interest in traditional building practices. They contended that attention to architectural details and visual stimuli can encourage civic engagement (Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1991; Katz 1994; Dutton 2001). In this respect, traditional neighborhoods in New Bern juxtapose a successful combination of elements that create a variegated and attractive built environment. Most significant is the variety in home designs, sizes, roof slopes, colors and architectural details that make each home or group of homes stand out and present a unique image along the street or curb line. Sidewalks are well-designed with plant strips and trees that define the sidewalk space and buffer pedestrians from cars parked parallel to the street. The chance to change directions and see other streets and buildings due to small size blocks and seamless connectivity with neighboring areas enhances the experiential quality of public space. On the other hand, typical suburban subdivisions display standardized built forms. They generally adopt a cookie-cutter approach that produces less articulated built environments; streets function as conduits for car traffic with little or no social functions. This trend should be reversed; subdivision ordinances should be revised to encourage architectural variety.
Sense of community is a value that can hardly be quantified or legislated in subdivision ordinances. It can be cultivated by providing certain features and social possibilities that engender positive interaction among residents. Place attachment is another term that is commonly used in conjunction with sense of community. It is a complex and equally pertinent construct that figured in most design and planning literature as both a by-product of and contributor to the sentiment of community. Place attachment is often described as a “positive affective relationship between people and place” that occurs because of people’s satisfaction and identification with a specific place (Bonnes and Secchiaroli 1995). Identification with a place results in emotional connections with its physical attributes that people often associate with social events. Place and associated emotions and events become inseparable or interchangeable in people’s minds (Giuliani and Feldman 1993). The meaning of place here encompasses built environments as well as natural and cultural landscapes (Hidalgo and Hernandez 2001; Herzog et al. 2003).
Designers have generally maintained that certain spatial configurations, built forms, and design elements can play a significant role in promoting sense of community, safety, and place attachment (Kashef 2008). The most significant design theme arising from the design and planning literature and potentially affecting neighborhood sociability is the interface between the private and public realms (Kelbaugh 1997; Jacobs 1961; Alexander 1965, Alexander 1977; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992). It is essentially about the articulation of the outer skin of buildings or homes and disposition of buildings in space. Various studies indicate that increasing the interface between private and public realms tends to heighten the level of activity around the edges of buildings (Newman 1972; Whyte 1980; Bentley et al. 1985; Bentley 1999; Moughtin et al. 2003; Duany et al. 2003; Neal 2003).
From a residential design perspective, elements that contribute to increased private/public interface include windows of active living spaces, transitional spaces such as entryways or porches, as well as the availability and distribution of common spaces. As long as home privacy is maintained, the presence of such elements creates opportunities for walking and social interaction among inhabitants (Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992). The interaction referenced here can be characterized as passive or active. The passive social interaction falls under a category that Bill Hillier calls ‘social or spatial co-presence.’ Hillier contends that co-presence and therefore co-awareness amongst the individuals living in and passing by an area can be considered a raw material for social interaction. Whilst co-present individuals are not a community and may not know or acknowledge each other, they in fact form a social resource for communal behavior. Co-presence is a very important psychological resource in and of itself and can be brought about by design (Hillier 1996, pp. 129–214).
A preliminary rating system for subdivision applications in New Bern
The proposed performance-based rating system for subdivision applications in New Bern stems from a balanced understanding of the planning and design criteria discussed above. These criteria are not mutually exclusive. For example, improved accessibility would encourage walkability and enhance sustainability; delightful physical environments would promote walkability and encourage residents to patronize public spaces, which create possibilities for social interaction and hence increased sense of community. The criteria form the basis of the proposed design standards that New Bern developers would comply with to get development permits. The design standards are incorporated into an objective, performance-based assessment tool that allows planning staff in New Bern to assign points and identify failings and changes required to satisfy sustainable growth provisions. Ideally, developers should work out subdivision plans that reflect a comprehensive consideration of the five criteria. A more realistic expectation is that development plans would manifest differentiated emphases on these criteria. Some might score higher on architectural variety and open spaces, but lower on accessibility; others would satisfy accessibility and walkability provisions, but fall short of addressing energy-efficiency and conservation requirements. The overlap and built-in redundancy between the criteria ensures that successful developments would encompass a sufficiently reasonable mix of sustainable growth requirements. One of the major objectives of the proposed system is to provide a level of flexibility that allows developers to work out sustainable subdivision plans while achieving their economic objectives. This has been an integral consideration in devising pragmatic and potentially implementable design standards. Another important consideration is that development locations, site characteristics, economics and target market specifics, etc. would influence developers’ selective emphasis on some criteria versus others to satisfy the passing score. Each of the five planning and design criteria was deemed equally important. Hence, the total weight of 100 points was divided equally among the criteria giving each 20 points on the rating system. The passing score was generated by methodical reviews of various subdivision applications submitted over a period of 2 years to the City of New Bern. Subdivisions that satisfied the bulk of the planning and design criteria scored 70 points or more on the 100-point rating system. The subdivision rating system has been used experimentally to evaluate new subdivision applications in New Bern. Results and feedback from stakeholders have been very encouraging and the system will continue to be refined pending its final adoption in New Bern’s zoning ordinance. A preliminary checklist of planning and design provisions and corresponding scoring weights are presented below.
Accessibility: 20 pts
Connectivity with neighboring subdivisions (street and/or sidewalk connectors) Road connectors that provide access for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists qualify for 10 pts. Walking and biking connectors qualify for only 5 pts. Subdivisions that are surrounded from three sides by wetlands, conservation areas, lakes and other natural features that preclude the possibility of connectors with neighboring subdivision are exempt from this requirement.
Connectivity of subdivision blocks, connectors between cul-de-sac streets. Road connectors that provide access for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists qualify for 5 pts. Walking and biking Connectors qualify for only 3 pts. Subdivisions with a narrow frontage and a single access road to building lots are exempt from this requirement.
Flexibility of movement; small-size blocks, 600 ft. or less qualify for 5 pts. Subdivisions with a narrow frontage and a single access road to building lots are exempt from this requirement.
Walkability: 20 pts
Sidewalks on both sides of a subdivision street qualify for 10 pts. Sidewalks on one side of a subdivision street qualify for only 5 pts.
Open spaces and destinations of interest (excluding home fronts and backyards). Walking and bilking trails, lakes and promenades, parks, landscaped common areas, observation points, etc. 5% of subdivision area is a minimum requirement and qualifies for 0 pts., 10% qualifies for 5 pts., and 15% or more qualifies for 10 pts.
Community: 20 pts
Public amenities such as picnic shelters, park gazebos, playgrounds, sports fields, etc. qualify for 5 pts. These amenities are physically developed with subdivisions or an exchange value paid to help support and build public recreational facilities throughout the city.
Porches mandated by subdivision covenants qualify for 5 pts. 40% or more of homes in a proposed subdivision must be provided with porches to qualify for 5 pts. Covenants must be attached to subdivision sections and/or building lots designated for porch homes.
Entrances and active windows facing the street; garages and storage rooms are not considered active spaces. Active spaces include living rooms, bedrooms, kitchen, dining, etc. Home entrance and windows of one active space must face the street to qualify for 5 pts. This requirements must be mandated by subdivision covenants to qualify for the points.
Concealed garage doors; side, rear, or back alleyway garages qualify for 5 pts. Garage doors facing the street but recessed backward 10 ft. or more qualify for 3 pts.
Sustainability: 20 pts
Adherence to low impact development (LID) standards as defined by US EPA Office of Water 104b (3) Program (lowimpactdevelopment.org) or subdivision conservation standards qualifies for 5 pts.
Subdivision conservation designs and protection of environmentally sensitive wetlands, ponds, forests, creeks, etc. qualify for 10 pts. Must provide opportunities for residents to enjoy natural resources and integrate sidewalks with forest trails or lake promenades.
Energy-efficient and green building practices mandated by covenants qualify for 5 pts.
Variety: 20 pts
Lot width variety; a size variation index of 30% or more for lot width every 600 ft. along the same road qualifies for 10 pts.
Architectural variety; variety among contiguous properties mandated by covenants qualifies for 5 pts. This includes, but is not limited to height, roof slope and façade, and window treatments.
Continuous planting strips and trees qualify for 5 pts.
The built-in redundancy and overlap between some criteria would ensure that passing developments would help the City of New Bern change the growth trajectory from standardized and fragmented subdivisions to more integrated and sustainable urban and suburban regions.
Over 30 years of professional practice, public service, and academic experiences. Practiced architecture, urban planning and project management and led the planning, design and development of large scale urban regeneration projects. Advised several cities in North America in drafting performance zoning and urban design guidelines. Combined Architectural and planning education and practice.
This research has been facilitated in part by the information shared by Mr. Michael W. Avery, AICP, Former Planning Director at the City of New Bern and Mr. Bernard George, AICP, CZO, Planning Division Manager, City of New Bern, North Carolina, USA.
The author declares no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
Consent for publications
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Alba CA, Beimborn E (2005) Analysis of the effects of local street connectivity on arterial traffic. In: transportation research board annual meetingGoogle Scholar
- Aldous T (1992) Urban villages: a concept for creating mixed-use urban developments on a sustainable scale. Urban Villages Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Alexander C (1965) A city is not a tree. Architectural Forum 122:58–62Google Scholar
- Alexander C (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Arendt RG (1996) Conservation design for subdivisions: a practical guide to creating open space networks. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Atkinson JL, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Cain KL, Black JB (2004) The association of neighborhood design and recreational environments with physical activity. Am J Health Promot 19(4):304–309View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bacon E (1976) Design of cities. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Badland HM, Schofield GM, Garrett N (2008) Travel behavior and objectively measured urban design variables: associations for adults traveling to work. Health Place 14:85–95View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bafna S (2003) Space syntax: a brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environ Behav 35(1):17–29View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baran PK, Rodriguez DA, Khattak AJ (2008) Space syntax and walking in a new urbanist and suburban neighborhoods. J Urban Des 13(1):5–28View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Barnette J (1995) The fractured metropolis: improving the new city, restoring the old city, reshaping the region. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bentley I (1999) Urban transformations: power people and urban design. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Bentley I, Alcock A, Murrain P, McGlynn S, Smith G (1985) Responsive environments: a manual for designers. Architectural Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Bernick M, Cervero R (1997) Transit villages in the 21st century. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bonnes M, Secchiaroli G (1995) Environmental psychology: a psycho-social introduction. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Burden D. (2000) Streets and sidewalks, people and cars: the citizens’ guide to traffic calming. Local govt, commission center for livable communitiesGoogle Scholar
- Carmona M, Tiesdell S (2007) Urban design reader. Architectural Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Carmona M, Heath T, Oc T, Tiesdell S (2003) Public places—urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Architectural Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Cerin E, Leslieb E, Toit LD, Owen N, Frank LD (2007) Destinations that matter: associations with walking for transport. Health Place 13:713–724View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cervero R, Duncan M (2003) Walking Bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Public Health 93(9):1478–1483View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chin GK, Van Niel KP, Corti BG, Knuiman M (2007) Accessibility and connectivity in physical activity studies: the impact of missing pedestrian data. Prev Med 46:41–45View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Crane R (2000) The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review. J Plan Lit 15(1):3–23View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Crowhurst S, Crowhurst L (1995) Livable cities observed. Gondolier Press, International Making cities Livable Council, CarmelGoogle Scholar
- Cullingworth B (1997) Planning in the USA: policies, issues, and processes. Routledge, New YorkView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E (1991) Towns and town-making principles. Rizzoli, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E (1992) The second coming of the American small town. Wilson Q 16:3–51Google Scholar
- Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E (2000) Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. North Point Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E, Alminana R (2003) The new civic art: elements of town planning. Rizzoli, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Dutton J (2001) New American urbanism: re-forming the suburban metropolis. Skira, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ewing R (1996) Best development practices: doing the right thing and making money at the same time. Planners Press (http://www.planning.org)
- Ewing R, Cervero R (2002) Travel and the built environment: synthesis. J Transp Res Rec 1780:87–114View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fleming R, Baum A, Singer JE (1985) Social support and the physical environment. In: Cohen S, Syme SL (eds) Social support and health. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE (2005) Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 28(S2):117–125View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gans H (1962) The urban villagers: group and class in the life of Italian Americans. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Garreau J (1991) Edge city: life on the new frontier. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Giuliani MV, Feldman R (1993) Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context. J Environ Psychol 13:267–274View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Greed C (1993) Introducing town planning. Longman, EnglandGoogle Scholar
- Hall P (1996) Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Handy S, Paterso RG, Butle K (2004) Planning for street connectivity: getting from here to there,” planning advisory service report 515, American Planning AssociationGoogle Scholar
- Hastrup K (2004) All the world’s stage: the imaginative texture of social spaces. Space Cult 7:223View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Herzog TR, Maguire CP, Nebel MB (2003) Assessing the restorative components of environments. J Environ Psychol 23(2):159–170View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hidalgo MC, Hernandez B (2001) Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. J Environ Sociol 21:273–281Google Scholar
- Hillier B (1996) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Hillier B (1999) The hidden geometry of deformed grids. Environ Plan B 26:169–191View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hillier B (2002) A theory of the city as object: or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Des Int 7:153–179View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- International Making cities Livable Council (IMCL) (2008) 46th Annual conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico. (http://www.livablecities.org/Conferences.htm)
- Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
- James E, Vance Jr (1990) The continuing city: urban morphology in western civilization. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Jiang B, Claramunt C (2002) Integration of space syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology. Trans GIS 6(3):295–309View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kashef M (2008) Architects and planners approaches to urban form and design in the toronto region: a comparative analysis. Geoforum 39(1):414–437View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kashef M (2009) Sense of community and residential space: contextualizing new urbanism within a broader theoretical framework. Int J Archit Res 3(3):80–97Google Scholar
- Kashef M (2011) Walkability and residential suburbs: a multidisciplinary perspective. J Urban 4(1):39–56Google Scholar
- Kashef M (2016) Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries, frontiers of architectural research. Front Archit Res 5(2):239–253View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Katz P (1994) The new urbanism: toward an architecture of community. MacGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kelbaugh D (1997) Common Place: Towards Neigborhood and Regional Design. University of Washington PressGoogle Scholar
- Krier R (1979) Urban space. Rizzoli, New YorkiGoogle Scholar
- Krizek KJ (2003) Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and modeling. J Plan Educ Res 22(3):270View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lovasi GS, Moudon AV, Pearson AL, Hurviz PM, Larson EB, Siscovick DS, Berke EM, Lumley T, Psaty BM (2008) Using built environment characteristics to predict walking for exercise. Int J Health Geogr 7:10View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Luccarelli M (1995) Lewis mumford and the ecological region: the politics of planning. The Guilford Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Lynch K (1981) A theory of good city form. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- McHarg I (1969) Design with nature. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Moughtin C, Cuesta CS, Signoretta P (2003) Urban design: method and techniques. Architectural press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Mumford L (1961) The city in history, harcourt. Brace and World Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nagel CL, Carlson NE, Bosworth M, Michael YL (2008) The relation between neighborhood built environment and walking activity among older adults. Am J Epidemiol Adv Access 168(4):461–468View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- NAHB Research Center (2003) The practice of low impact development. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- Neal P (ed) (2003) Urban villages and the making of communities. Spon Press, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Newman O (1972) Defensible space. The Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nophaket N, Fujii A (2004) Syntactic and network pattern structures of city: comparison of grid and meandering street patterns in Kyojima and Honjo. J Asian Archit Build Eng 3(2):349–356View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oaks MJ, Forsyth A, Shmitz KH (2007) The effects of neighborhood density and street connectivity on walking behaviour: the twin cities walking study. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 4:16View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Parsons KC (1990) Clarence stein and the greenbelt towns: settling for less. APA J 56(2):161–183 (spring) Google Scholar
- Peponis J, Bafna S, Bajaj R, Bromberg J, Congdon C, Rashid M, Warmels S, Zhang Y, Zimring C (2007) Designing space to support knowledge work. Environ Behav 38:815–840View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Perry C (1929) The neighborhood unit, regional survey of New York and its environs, neighborhood and community planning. Monograph one. vol 7Google Scholar
- Raford N, Ragland DR (2003) Space syntax: an innovative pedestrian volume modeling tool for pedestrian safety, institute of transportation studies. UC Berkeley traffic Safety Center, UC BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Rapoport A (1977) Human aspects of urban form: towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Reed JA, Wilson DK, Ainsworth BE, Bowels H, Mixon G (2006) Perceptions of neighborhood sidewalks on walking and physical activity patterns in a south eastern community in the US. J Phys Act Health 3:242–253View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt SJ, Wells JS (2005) Transit village monitoring research: connectivity measures. Alan M Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC), RutgersGoogle Scholar
- Scott AJ, Storper M (2014) The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban theory. Int J Urban Reg Res 39(1):1–5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sies MC, Silver C (1996) Planning the twentieth-century American city. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
- SOLEC (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference) (1996) Impacts of changing land use, working paper Nov. 1996Google Scholar
- Southworth M, Ben-Joseph E (1997) Streets and the shaping of towns and cities. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Stein C (1951) Toward new towns for America. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Talen A (1999) Sense of community and neighborhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Stud 36(8):1379–1399View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Trancik R (1986) Finding lost space: theories of urban design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ward C (1993) New town, home town. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Whyte WH (1980) The social life of small urban spaces. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Williams J (2005) Designing neighborhoods for social interaction: the case of cohousing. J Urban Des 10(2):195–227View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zimmerman MJ, Waldron MC, Barbaro JR, Sorenson JR (2010) Effects of low-impact-development (LID) practices on streamflow, runoff quantity, and runoff quality in the Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts: a summary of field and modeling studies, prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts department of conservation and recreation and the U.S. environmental protection agencyGoogle Scholar