Sharifi2016 PDF

Accepted Manuscript
Title: From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for

sustainable neighborhood development
Author: Ayyoob Sharifi
PII: S2210-6707(15)30028-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.002
Reference: SCS 321
To appear in:
Received date: 24-7-2015

Revised date: 6-9-2015
Accepted date: 8-9-2015
Please cite this article as: Sharifi, A.,From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest
for sustainable neighborhood development, Sustainable Cities and Society (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.002
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights
- Literature on five major neighborhood planning movements has been reviewed.
- Urbanization and climate change have affected the evolution of neighborhood
t
ip
planning.
cr
- There is a mismatch between rhetoric and reality of neighborhood planning.
us
- Neighborhood planning movements have been influenced by market mechanisms.
- Planning needs a paradigmatic shift from physical determinism to pluralism.

an
M
From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development
e d
Ayyoob Sharifisharifigeomatic@gmail.com
pt
ce
Global Carbon Project - Tsukuba International Office, National Institute for Environmental Studies,
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture 305-8506, Japan
Ac
Tel: +81-29-850-2672, Fax: +81-29-850-2960, Mobile: +81-90-6614-2920
Abstract
Since the early 20th century various planning movements have been developed. It would be
useful to trace the evolution of these movements to see how their underlying principles
have changed and how successful they have been in addressing the requirements of
Page 1 of 41
sustainable development. Literature on five selected movements is reviewed. These are,
namely, Garden City, Neighborhood Unit, Modernism, Neo-traditionalism, and Eco-
urbanism. Results show that evolution of neighborhood planning is characterized by the
progressive inclusion of different dimensions of the sustainability concept. However, there
are still many difficulties in terms of translating the rhetoric into action.
t
ip
Keywords
Neighborhood Planning; Garden City; Neighborhood Unit; Modernism; Neo-traditional
Planning; New Urbanism; Eco-urbanism; Eco-city; Sustainable Neighborhood
cr
Development
us
1. Introduction
Since antiquity, human settlements have been spatially divided into districts and
neighborhoods (Friedmann, 2010; Smith, 2010), which signifies the importance of
an
neighborhoods in the fabric of the city. As a basic planning unit, neighborhood has always
been of particular interest to planners and urban visionaries (Rohe, 2009). Since the early
20th century, various theories and models have been developed with the purpose of creating
better and more livable neighborhoods. Emergence of the concept of sustainable
M
development and the emphasis it places on the local level has led to a renewed interest in
developing new initiatives for neighborhood planning (Farr, 2008;Rohe, 2009;Wheeler,
2004). Interest in pursuing sustainability goals through planning at the neighborhood level
has been burgeoning in the recent years and sustainability principles are increasingly used
d
to guide neighborhood development (Luederitz, Lang, & Von Wehrden, 2013). Throughout
the world, numerous initiatives have been launched to pursue sustainability through
e
appropriate planning at the neighborhood level (Farr, 2008; Komeily & Srinivasan, 2015;
Sharifi & Murayama, 2013).
pt
While sustainability and sustainable neighborhood development are relatively new

concepts, neighborhood planning, as a discipline and profession, is rather well-established
ce
and has been practiced since the early 20th century. Sustainable neighborhood initiatives
can be regarded as a continuation of urban planning and design trends which have sought to
develop livable and environmentally-friendly neighborhoods from the early 20th century
Ac
onwards, starting with Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Movement (Farr, 2008). This paper
provides a historical presentation of major planning and design movements that have led to
the neighborhood sustainability paradigm, as is explained in Section 2. This includes
discussion on the transformation of underlying principles of neighborhood planning since
the emergence of the concept of sustainability.
Literature on major neighborhood planning movements since the early 20th century is
reviewed in this paper. These movements are, namely, Garden City, Neighborhood Unit,
Modernism, Neo-traditional Planning, and Eco-urbanism. Other movements exist that,
based on their origin and underlying principles, are categorized as subsets of the selected
Page 2 of 41
movements. Despite abundance of research on these movements, previous work has mainly
focused on single movements and there is a lack of work that investigates and compares
different movements. An exception is the work by Rohe (2009). However, his work has
limited focus on Neo-traditional movements and does not include Eco-urban movements.
This article intends to fill this void in the literature on neighborhood planning through
dealing with the following main questions:
t
ip
- How have the values and guiding principles of neighborhood planning changed over
time?
cr
- Is there overlap and cross-fertilization between different movements?
- Have neighborhood planning movements been able to realize their promises and has
over one century of research and practice on neighborhood planning led to the
us
development of neighborhoods that are acceptable from the point of view of
sustainability?
This retrospective analysis makes it possible to understand successes and failures of each
an
movement, highlight problems impeding achievement of the main goals of neighborhood
planning, and understand major issues that need to be considered in the future. Previous
planning movements have been criticized for not recognizing planning cultures that
M
preceded them (Talen, 2005). This analysis can be useful for contemporary and future
movements to learn lessons from the past that can facilitate achieving more sustainable
neighborhood development. This study is also important because estimates show that
almost all future population growth will occur in urban areas of developing countries
d
(UNDESA, 2012). This includes countries such as China and India, where many
developments under the rubric of “Eco-urbanism” are already underway. These
e
developments can learn from successes and failures of previous movements and be directed
into more sustainable pathways to avoid lock-in into non-sustainable patterns.
pt
In the following section the methods and materials used for the purpose of this study are
explained. Section three explains the evolution of the selected approaches to neighborhood
planning. In Section four the research questions are discussed in light of the findings of the
ce
study. Section five concludes the study and provides some suggestions for future research.
2. Methods and materials

Ac
This section elaborates on the definition of sustainability adopted for this research,
describes the process of selecting papers for review, and explains the rationale for focusing
on the five selected movements.
The concept of sustainable development has been frequently used and spread over the past
three decades after it was emphasized in the Brundtland report. Although there is still no
single, universally accepted definition of sustainability, as a common thread, most
definitions emphasize the importance of integrating social, economic, environmental, and
institutional dimensions (Boyoko, Cooper, Davey, & Wootton, 2006; Sharifi & Murayama,
2013; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). Social criteria are intended to, among other things,
Page 3 of 41
improve livability of communities and enhance intra-generational equity of the
development through responding to the needs of a diverse range of community groups.
Economic criteria aim to enhance self-sufficiency and economic wellbeing of the
development through creating jobs and attracting investment (Beatley & Brower, 1993;
Berke & Conroy, 2000). Environmental criteria bring attention to ecological constraints and
enhance inter-generational equity of development by encouraging smart use of resources
t
ip
and mitigating climate change (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) (Beatley & Brower,
1993; Georgiadou & Hacking, 2011; Gibson, 2006; Kennedy, Cuddihy, & Engel-Yan,
2007; Scrase & Sheate, 2002; Wheeler, 2004). They are also conducive to resilience and
cr
adaptation to climate change and have interlinkages with equity issues (Gibson, 2006;
Gleeson, 2012; Mueller & Dooling, 2011). Institutional criteria intend to ensure that
various stakeholders are engaged in the planning process and institutional support exists for
us
implementing projects (Mulligan, Guthrie, Stigge, & Tuzzolo, 2011; Wheeler, 2004).
Institutional criteria improve acceptability and viability of developments. Various criteria
for assessing sustainability exists in the literature (Wheeler, 2004). As this paper does not
aim to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on sustainability assessment, it
an
would be beyond its scope to investigate presence of all sustainability criteria in the
different planning movements. Instead, several major criteria are drawn from the literature
(see Table 3) to examine evolutionary progress of planning movements towards inclusion
M
of sustainability criteria. To avoid possible misunderstandings, it should be mentioned that
concept of sustainability was not yet developed when the first three movements were
emerged. However, as will be discussed later, some criteria related to sustainability have
been present in the agenda of these movements. Criteria presented in Table 3 are
d
categorized into five groups. The first four category correspond to the four sustainability
dimensions mentioned above. The “design” category includes cross-cutting criteria related
e
to different dimensions of sustainability. For a more detailed list of neighborhood

sustainability criteria see (Australia, 2013; BREEAM, 2012; LEED, 2015; Meter,
pt
Coalition, & Center, 1999; Sharifi & Murayama, 2015). After explaining evolution of the
movements in Section 3, the degree of inclusion of these sustainability criteria in the
underlying principles of the selected movements is presented in Table 3 of Section 4.
ce
Since the early 20th century many planning theories have emerged. Some of these planning
theories have been presented in Table 1 (also see Fig. 1). Two main criteria were
Ac
considered when selecting planning movements for further analysis. First, it was intended
to focus on those movements that address various planning aspects and have physical
planning as the main element. The second criterion was to select influential movements that
have been practiced in several countries. Therefore movements such as “Community
Action Program”, “Community Economic Development”, and “Equity Planning” which are
more focused on socio-economic aspects of neighborhood planning and have mainly been
practiced in American cities are excluded from the study. For further information on these
and other movements see (Gillette, 2010; Metzger, 1996; Rohe, 2009; Wheeler, 2004).
Although the large scale at which some Eco-urban projects have been practiced may make
“Eco-urbanism” seem incomparable to the other movements, there are at least three reasons
making this comparison justifiable. First, many of the subsets of this movement, such as
Page 4 of 41
American EcoDistricts, English Eco-towns, and French ÉcoQuartiers are comprised of one
or more urban blocks which is similar to the size of an urban neighborhood. Second,
projects such as Chinese Eco-cities, which are operated at larger scales, conceptualize
themselves as being comprised of a number of eco-neighborhoods. As a case in point,
Tianjin Eco-city emphasizes the important role of “eco-neighborhood” as the basic building
block of an eco-city (Tianjin, 2015). The third reason is that Eco-urban neighborhoods have
t
ip
a wider scope than the previous movements, making it worthwhile to investigate them in a
separate section.
cr
The overarching names for these movements have been chosen based on the previous
literature (e.g. see: Furuseth, 1997; Holden & Li, 2014; Rohe, 2009; Wheeler, 2004).
Movements considered to be subsets of the selected movements exhibit various similarities,
us
in terms of temporal context and underlying principles, to the other subsets of the
respective major movements. Another point worth mentioning is that some of the
movements such as Neo-traditionalism and Eco-urbanism have been practiced on a variety
of scales from the block to the city. However, arguments of this study are mainly drawn
an
from studies that cover several blocks or neighborhoods.
The following electronic databases were searched to identify potentially relevant studies:
ISI Web of Knowledge (title/keywords/abstract), ScienceDirect (title/keywords/abstract),
M
and Google Scholar (the first 200 hits). Search terms were the names of the major selected
movements and their related movements (e.g. smart growth, eco-district, etc.). These
searches yielded over 1000 matches, excluding duplicates. The abstracts of these papers
were checked to determine their suitability for inclusion in the study. Papers not relevant to
d
the review questions were excluded during this screening process. The eligible papers were
reviewed in detail and data related to the above mentioned questions was extracted. In
e
addition, eligible studies cited in the bibliography section of the selected papers were added
to the review database. More than 500 studies were eligible for use in this study. However,
pt
given the space limit of a journal article, only a selected number of the most relevant
studies have been referenced. It is acknowledged that this review does not cover all related
publications. However, it has been tried to include the most relevant ones.
ce
In the next section evolution of neighborhood planning is traced to see how the vision of
Ac
neighborhood as a planning unit has been transformed over time and identify problems
impeding achievement of main goals of the major neighborhood planning movements.
3. Evolution of approaches to neighborhood planning
3.1. The Garden City movement
3.1.1. Background and underlying principles

In the first half of the 20th century urban planning was greatly influenced by the utopian and
Page 5 of 41
radical ideas of a group of urban visionaries. Ebenezer Howard is widely known as the
person who started this new wave of utopian thinking. His utopian vision of a planned
community has been a consistent object of attention ever since, and has influenced later
scholars such as Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and Patrick Geddes (Hirt,
2007). It has also inspired development of movements such as Neighborhood Unit and
Modernism that were developed later (Domhardt, 2012; Ward, 2005).
t
ip
Problems associated with urban overcrowding, following the industrial revolution, made
Howard think of a way of combining the advantages of town and country living (Daniels,
cr
2009; Howard, 1985). His vision, which was considered to be an amalgam of the best
features of city and countryside, was a constellation of inter-connected, self-contained new
towns, surrounded by a greenbelt and placed around a large main city (Bergman, 2011;
us
Howard, 1985; Wheeler, 2004). Each of these circular new towns was divided into six
wards, each designed to accommodate up to 5,000 people who were working there as well
(Howard, 1985). Howard’s proposal to divide the Garden City into several wards can be
considered as one of the earliest efforts to introduce the idea of neighborhood to the
an
planning context (Minnery, Knight, Byrne, & Spencer, 2009). As illustrated in Fig. 2, each
ward has identifiable physical boundaries.
M
Transportation network in the Garden City would be characterized by radial roads, and
winding routes. Each Garden City would be connected to the metropolis by rail. Land uses
would be separated, and residents would live in detached dwellings located in large tracts
of land. The overall density would be low. The employment and shopping activities would
d
be located along the central avenues, “and ownership patterns, would become essentially
cooperative rather than private” (Wheeler, 2004, p.187). One significant issue mentioned in
e
Howard’s proposal is the composition of the population. He envisioned a community that

accommodates a socially mixed population (Hirt, 2007) that cooperatively manages the
pt
city’s affairs, actively participates in civic activities and is committed to the common
benefit (Gillette, 2010).
ce
3.1.2. Implementation and criticism

Proven tenacious, Howard’s vision of planned communities was widely practiced;
particularly in England, where it was institutionalized through the Housing and Town
Ac
Planning Act of 1909, the New Towns Act of 1946, and the Town and Country Planning
Act of 1947 (Gillette, 2010). Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker were among the first to
implement the Garden City concept in Letchworth. Howard, himself, contributed to the
development of two pilot garden cities in the suburban areas of London: Letchworth and
Welwyn. Garden City was also used as a basis for building several British and Swedish
New Towns and three American Greenbelt Communities in the 1930s (Wheeler, 2004). It
has also inspired other urban developments around the globe (Bigon, 2013; Rego, 2014;
Ward, 2005). The concept was disseminated in Canada by Thomas Adams (Letchworth
manager) after his move to the country in 1914 (Grant, 2014). Several French and German
new towns were built following the Garden City concept (Ward, 2005). The Japanese
Page 6 of 41
Garden City movement (den’en toshi) was also heavily influenced by Howard’s concept
(Low, 2013). Dominated by residential and, to some extent, commercial components,
planned communities proved not to be self-sustaining, and production function, as an
integral component, was rarely integrated. Emergence of the concept of sustainable
development resulted in a decline in the dominance of the Garden City concept. It can,
however, be argued that an adapted version of the original idea, featuring diverse, mixed-
t
ip
use, mixed-income, and partly self-sufficient communities has been retained and is still
advocated and practiced (Talen, 2005). As a case in point, in 2013 Town and Country
Planning Association in the UK published a guidebook to be used by councils for creating a
cr
new generation of Garden Cities (TCPA, 2013).
Main features of Howard’s Garden City such as ample green space, single-family
residential units, and street patterns have recurred in the plans proposed by his successors.
us
These aspects are still dominant in the conventional pattern of suburban development
(Filion & Hammond, 2003), which is widely blamed for suburban sprawl, unfettered urban
growth, and egregious impacts on resources and environment. In terms of social reform,
although Howard’s purpose was to create communities that cater for the needs of various
an
social groups, in reality Garden City experiments failed to address the needs of the working
poor and equitable development was traded off for soliciting market support (Fainstein,
2000; Gillette, 2010; Talen, 2005). Greenbelt, as a central element of Howard’s concept,
M
was also often overlooked because of the high costs associated with the acquisition of the
land required for this purpose (Gillette, 2010). Garden cities have also increased speculative
practices in suburbs (Gillette, 2010).
d
3.2. The Neighborhood Unit movement

e

pt
Howard’s idea became an inspiration for his disciples from various disciplines. In 1923,
Clarence Perry, inspired by his previous involvement in the community-based social
ce
activities and influenced by the preceding concepts such as the Garden City and Settlement
House Movement, offered the Neighborhood Unit as an instrument for addressing social
problems such as alienation, youth delinquency and lack of civic participation through
enhancing the physical design of the community (Brody, 2009; Lawhon, 2009; Rohe,
Ac
2009). As an influential concept in the history of urban planning and design, Neighborhood
Unit has played an important role in the evolution of neighborhood planning movements
(Gillette, 2010; Mehaffy, Porta, & Romice, 2014; Wheeler, 2004).
Each Neighborhood Unit in Perry’s plan would be of around 65 ha in size that provides
housing area for a population of 5,000 to 10,000 people. Elementary school and public
facilities, and places of worship would be located at the center, and shops at the edge of the
unit (Forsyth & Crewe, 2009; Perry, 1929). The Neighborhood Unit would be surrounded
by arterial roads, and the curvilinear internal roads would be designed so that the through-
traffic is discouraged and a safe pedestrian environment is guaranteed (Banister, 2012;
Page 7 of 41
Perry, 1929). The proposed design allows residents to walk no more than 400 m (without
crossing arterial roads) to reach civic facilities and commercial areas (Perry, 1929). The
basic components of Clarence Perry’s proposal for Neighborhood Unit are shown in Fig. 3.
Perry believed that the social and physical spheres of his proposed plan would foster
neighborly interactions, provide opportunities for face-to-face contacts, and enhance sense
of community among the residents (Lawhon, 2009).
t
ip
cr
Clarence Perry’s ideas were realized in Radburn. This Neighborhood Unit was designed
collaboratively by Clarence Perry, Henry Wright, and Clarence Stein (1928) (Lawhon,
us
2009). Due to economic downturn after 1929 the initial aims of creating an economically
and ethnically diverse neighborhood were never realized (Lawhon, 2009). Banister (2012,
p.2) describes Radburn as follows: “Closely related to garden cities, this (Radburn) layout
is characterized by cul-de-sacs and super blocks free of traffic, where cars and pedestrians
an
are separated from each other, and public facilities and shops are located on pedestrian
networks and embedded in open space”. Mehaffy et al. (2014) argue that Perry’s decision
to create exclusive residential zones (super blocks) for separating the environment for
vehicles and pedestrians has promoted functional segregation and rigid zoning. Perry’s idea
M
of super block has also been reflected in the works of Modern architects such as Le
Corbusier (Mehaffy et al., 2014). Features such as super blocks and cul-de-sacs have later
been criticized by figures such as Jane Jacobs for reducing walkability of the neighborhood,
d
thereby reducing chances of social encounters and increasing car dependency of residents
(Jacobs, 1961). Critics also argue that the street system proposed by Perry limits the
e
viability of creating an integrated and cost-effective transit service and has negative
implications for the ability to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions (Mehaffy et al.,
pt
2014).
Mehaffy et al. (2014, p.204) questions viability of concentrating facilities and amenities
ce
within the neighborhood and argues that, not only such concentration would not be capable
of meeting the needs of modern lifestyle, but also compartmentalized distribution of
facilities impedes "open and integrated relationship between neighborhoods”.
Ac
Neighborhood Unit has been criticized for advocating social homogeneity, which might be
used to discriminate against some groups in the society (Gillette, 2010; Lawhon, 2009;
Rohe, 2009; Silver, 1985; Talen, 2005). It has also been denounced for having a physical
deterministic approach that mainly utilizes physical measures to define neighborhood
(Mehaffy et al., 2014), and considers physical design sufficient for bringing about social
reform (Gillette, 2010; Silver, 1985). Critics argue that social goals of Neighborhood Unit
have been subordinated to physical ones (Gillette, 2010). In addition, likewise Garden City,
Neighborhood Units failed to achieve their goal of self-sufficiency (Gillette, 2010).
Furthermore, Perry’s idea to separate work and living areas is regarded as a principle that
gave rise to the widespread suburban development in the US in the years following World
Page 8 of 41
War II (Brody, 2009; Silver, 1985). In terms of performance of neighborhoods designed
according to Neighborhood Unit principles, empirical evidence suggests that, relative to old
areas with traditional urban patterns, these neighborhoods have not been successful in
enhancing social interaction, inclusiveness, walking behavior and health conditions of
residents (Mehaffy et al., 2014).
t
ip
Nevertheless, the Neighborhood Unit theory has played a major role in building on the
earlier efforts. It has been, and still is, used as a good model of neighborhood design by
many planners around the world (Lawhon, 2009; Mehaffy et al., 2014). As new movements
cr
emerged and societal needs changed, Neighborhood Unit transformed to adapt to the new
conditions (Farr, 2008). However, this adaptation did not always result in desirable urbanist
ideas (Talen, 2005). Neighborhood Unit has also been used to guide some of the succeeding
us
movements such as New Urbanism (Brody, 2009; Farr, 2008; Gillette, 2010). Therefore, it
is fair to say that it has made a significant contribution to the evolution of neighborhood
planning.
3.3. The Modernism movement an
M
Modernism is used to describe a number of visionary plans proposed by planners and
architects in the inter-war period of the 1920s and 1930s. It was a rational planning
paradigm, instigated by technological advances that revolutionized construction and
transportation industries. There is an obvious resemblance between Modernism and Garden
d
City in terms of the circumstances that led to their emergence and the goals that they were
pursuing. Here, too, the main purposes were to reunite humans with nature and restore the
e
symbiotic relationship between the two, liberate humans from highly crowded urban areas
(Basiago, 1996; Fishman, 1977), and tackle widespread problems such as obsolescence,
pt
muddle, unhealthiness, social injustice, and lack of aesthetically pleasing and human spaces
(Fishman, 1977). Therefore, it can be regarded as a planning as well as social movement. In
ce
reality, however, Modernism has led to urban forms starkly different from those envisioned
in the Garden City and Neighborhood Unit movements.
Key figures of Modernism, such as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright believed that
these problems can be addressed by a well-designed urban form. As the most influential
Ac
figure of Modernism, Le Corbusier established the main principles of the “Modernist” city
in the 1920s in France (Watson, 2009). In the 1960s through 1970s, these ideas became
common planning and design solutions (Grant, 2006) and they are still shaping planning in
many places such as China, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Neighborhood, as promoted by the Modernism movement, was composed of high-rise

functional buildings, abundant open space, superblocks with internal pedestrian networks,
and modern, high-speed public transportation (Wheeler, 2004). This makes it distinguished
from neighborhoods proposed in Garden City and Neighborhood Unit, where more
attention was paid to the human scale, high-rise buildings were not emphasized, and there
Page 9 of 41
was a limit to the city size in terms of area and population.
According to Le Corbusier, planners should control the society through ideal city forms that
are organized, have no slums, are divided into functional zones, and equipped with modern
transit network (Watson, 2009). In so doing, the physical determinism fallacy of earlier
movements was repeated in an even more extreme form. Here, there was also a clear
t
ip
emphasis on technological determinism. Following this philosophy, the modernist urban
environment was created without soliciting the opinion of people for whom the city would
be built. As will be explained later, some of these mistakes have again been repeated in the
cr
newly built eco-cities which are claimed to be sustainable.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Frank Lloyd Wright proposed a more radical idea about
us
the modern city. Influenced by his love of nature, Wright advocated for replacing large
cities with very low density settlements dispersed in space (Hirt, 2007; Wright, 1932). In
his plan for the “Broadacre City”, Wright proposed that the availability of land and cheap
energy, car ownership, and extensive networks of highways could be utilized for
an
accommodating people in large tracts of land, and the dispersion of homes and occupations
(Watson, 2009; Wright, 1932). Wright believed that this is the only urban form that could
give humans back their lost freedom and reunite them with nature. His ideas can be
M
regarded as highly influential in the promotion of suburban development in the United
States and elsewhere, which has led to numerous problems still challenging planners.
d

e
Modernism had profound impacts on neighborhood planning. The Modernist city was
composed of disintegrated subdivisions (neighborhoods) in the form of superblocks, where
pt
high-rise buildings were surrounded by abundant open space and streets were designed with
vehicles in mind. This resulted in creation of quite streets and non-active frontages (Filion
& Hammond, 2003), deteriorated the social conditions, and intensified the problem of
ce
social segregation. Modernist tenets were applied to both suburban subdivisions and
downtown renewal plans (Gillette, 2010; Hirt, 2009). Viewing physical design as a panacea
for various convoluted urban problems and failing to notice other underlying forces and
social processes, these renewal plans have proved largely unsuccessful (Harvey, 1997;
Ac
Rohe, 2009), and resulted in unsuccessful plans exemplified by Frank Lloyd Wright's
Broadacre City. In many cases urban renewal plans resulted in displacement of poor people
that the plan initially intended to support (Gillette, 2010). Modernism failed to learn from
the historical precedents and, indeed, it tried to create new and functioning environments by
breaking with the past. Except for “socialist or social democratic countries”, Modernist
ideas were rarely completely practiced in the real world and were in some cases demolished
(Rohe, 2009), thereby resulting in the loss of various types of resources (Wheeler, 2004). It
should, however, be mentioned that some of the recently built eco-cities built in Asia
exhibit various similarities to the principles of Modernism. This will be further discussed in
Section 3.5.
10
Page 10 of 41
The Modernism movement has been subject of sustained scholarly criticism for its adverse
impacts on both humans and environment. Arguing that it has not advanced urbanistic
principles, Talen (2005) categorizes Modernism as an “anti-urbanistic” movement. Urban
historian, Lewis Mumford (cited in Basiago (1996, p.143)) denounced Modernism for its
failure to make “a synthesis of nature, the machine, and human activities and purposes”.
t
ip
This failure has caused serious damages to the nature (Basiago, 1996). Modernism has also
been reprimanded by activists such as Jane Jacobs and New Urbanists for subordinating
human scale, civic activities, and community attractiveness to practices based on advanced
cr
functional and technical performance (Gillette, 2010; Silver, 2006).
A drawback, particularly germane to neighborhood sustainability, is the rigidity of zoning
us
in the Modernism proposals that segregates land uses, significantly increases the
automobile dependency, and thereby has adverse impacts on environment and the livability
of the developments. Seeking a way to address these shortcomings a new movement
frequently called “Neo-traditional Planning” emerged in the early years of the 1980s. This
will be further discussed in the following section.an
3.4. The Neo-traditional movements
M
Despite all frequent efforts to build self-contained, inclusive communities with job-housing
d
balance, the landscape of cities in the latter half of the 20th century was highly
suburbanized. There were still a variety of unresolved problems such as failing inner-city
e
neighborhoods with declining housing stocks and deteriorating business districts, regional
stagnation, sprawl, poverty and inequality, crime, social segregation, community instability,
pt
traffic congestion, and pollution (Al-Hindi & Staddon, 1997; Deitrick & Ellis, 2004;
Gillette, 2010; Grant, 2006; Irazábal, 2012; Rohe, 2009; Sohmer & Lang, 2000; Trudeau &
ce
Malloy, 2011). In response, in the early 1980s planners started to develop Neo-
traditionalism as a form of postmodern urbanism. Efforts to develop Neo-traditional
planning were mainly initiated in the US where figures such as Duany and Plater-Zyberk,
and Calthorpe were trying to emulate traditional American neighborhoods, before
Ac
automobile ascendancy and the dominance of suburbanization, that were characterized by

walkability, human scale, compactness, active centers and identifiable boundaries (Basiago,
1996; Gillette, 2010; Nasar, 2003; Silver, 2006).
Over the past three decades, different names such as Traditional Neighborhood
Development, Transit-Oriented Development, New Urbanism, and Smart Growth have
been used to describe programs that have focused on Neo-traditional principles (Furuseth,
1997). New Urbanism is perhaps the most well-known name across the planning
community. It began to become widely used after the Congress for New Urbanism was
founded in 1993 (Grant, 2009; Trudeau, 2013a).
11
Page 11 of 41
As a common strategy, all Neo-traditionalist approaches have sought to solve urban and
neighborhood problems and bring about social change through physical design. Mixed use,
mix of housing type, housing-job proximity, public transportation, minimized automobile
dependence, human-scaled and attractive streetscape and tree-lined streets, walkable
environment, interconnected and pedestrian-oriented streets, clear edges, identifiable civic
centers, adequate open space, distinctive architectural character and aesthetic qualities,
t
ip
compact form, and medium-high density are the design principles common to all Neo-
traditional approaches (Beatley & Brower, 1993; CNU, 2013; MacLeod, 2013; Nasar,
2003; Talen, 2005; Wheeler, 2004).
cr
Traditional Neighborhood Development and Transit-Oriented Development are two other
outstanding forms of Neo-traditional development. It can be said that they are
us
complementary and their combination constitutes New Urbanism (Rutheiser, 1997).
Traditional Neighborhood Development was mainly developed by Duany and Plater-
Zyberk. They have been influenced by earlier planners such as Clarence Perry, Raymond
Unwin, John Nolen, and Christopher Alexander. Their design philosophy which was first
an
applied to Seaside, Florida, has widely diffused over the past three decades. The basic
constituting elements of this approach are “the neighborhood, the district, and the corridor”
(Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2000, p.261).
M
Transit-Oriented Development is mainly developed by Peter Calthorpe which was more
influenced by Ebenezer Howard and Lewis Mumford (Rutheiser, 1997). Calthorpe suggests
that pedestrians should be located within 10-minute walk distance of a transit station
(Basiago, 1996). He emphasizes controlling sprawl, need for infill and brownfield
d
development, high density around transit nodes, and incorporation of sidewalks and civic
spaces for promotion of social encounters (Basiago, 1996). So, what makes him
e
distinguished from Duany and Plater-Zyberk is that he pays more attention to the
conservation of natural land (Rutheiser, 1997). This, in turn, has major implications for
pt
managing regional growth (Basiago, 1996).
Since the mid-1990s Smart Growth has been widely considered as a strategy for dealing
ce
with the problems associated with sprawl and insatiable growth of built environment
(Downs, 2005; Tregoning, Agyeman, & Shenot, 2002). To promote environmental
stewardship, address the problems caused by urban sprawl, and enhance the conservation of
Ac
environmental resources, Smart Growth advocates fostering development in areas where

infrastructure already exists and revitalizing downtown areas and existing neighborhoods;
limiting the outward expansion of urban areas and encouraging compact development;
improving social equity and fulfilling the housing needs of people from various income
groups; providing various transport choices and encouraging the use of public transit;
creating mixed-use, walkable communities; improving urban aesthetics; encouraging
citizen participation and collaboration between various stakeholders; and improving the
transparency and fairness of decision-making for urban development (Berlin, 2002; Downs,
2005; EPA, 2012; Tregoning et al., 2002). From this description, it is clear that the scope of
Smart Growth goes beyond the neighborhood boundaries to also include regional planning
(Dierwechter, 2014). In reality, however, Smart Growth has attained little political support
12
Page 12 of 41
for achieving its goals. For example, in Maryland where the movement has been advocated
for a long time, significant urban expansion has occurred within the past three decades
(Sexton et al., 2013).
As in the earlier movements, the Neo-traditional neighborhood is defined by edges and a

well-defined center. However, there is less emphasis on a fixed size. Neo-traditional
t
ip
neighborhood movement is more focused on the catchment area of daily needs and the
placement of facilities within walkable distances. Instead of carving out the neighborhood
from the urban fabric, it has tried to establish a seamless integration across various scales.
cr
In his theory of transect (Fig. 4), Duany (2002, p.255) argues that a continuum from
neighborhood to rural environment is needed to create an integrated landscape, where “all
the component elements reinforce each other”. This is reflected in Duany Plater-Zyberk’s
us
update of Perry’s neighborhood unit. As illustrated in Fig. 5, measures such as modifying
and diversifying land use composition, replacing the surrounding highways with
boulevards, designing internal streets for pedestrian use and aligning them with those of the
abutting neighborhoods are taken to reflect the transformations in the traffic volume and
an
enhance the integration with the surrounding neighborhoods (Farr, 2008).
M
Neo-traditional principles have been used to design many neighborhoods and their market
penetration has been good (Nasar, 2003). These neighborhoods have, to a certain extent,
d
been successful in incorporating environmental concerns into development plans (Berke et

al., 2003), improving aesthetic qualities (Grant, 2007; Sohmer & Lang, 2000; Trudeau &
e
Malloy, 2011), increasing density (Gordon & Vipond, 2005), fostering occasional walking,
and substituting walking and biking for driving trips and thereby reducing the Vehicle
pt
Miles Traveled (Khattak & Rodriguez, 2005; Lund, 2003; Nasar, 2003; Rodríguez,
Khattak, & Evenson, 2006). It should, however, be mentioned that some studies have not
found any evidence indicating the success of these movements in reducing Vehicle Miles
ce
Traveled (Crane, 1996; Dill, 2006; Greenwald, 2003). Also, although longitudinal study by
Podobnik (2011) indicated improvements over time, there is evidence suggesting that
improvements in aspects such as density, walkability and travel behavior have not been
significantly effective in enhancing environmental consciousness and sustainability of
Ac
communities. This is explained by the “self-selection” effect, meaning that usually these
neighborhoods are inhabited by those who are already environmentally conscious and
prefer to live in sustainable neighborhoods (Al-Hindi & Staddon, 1997; Cabrera &
Najarian, 2013; Dill, 2006).
Likewise its precedents, Neo-traditional movement has tended not to take account of the
past urbanistic ideals (Irazábal, 2012; Silver, 2006), thereby missing the chance to learn
from their mistakes and successes. Neo-traditional movement has not been considerably
effective in enhancing diversity and reducing the socio-economic segregation in American
cities (Al-Hindi, 2001; Dill, 2006), and in some places has resulted in gentrification and
13
Page 13 of 41
displacement (Bohl, 2000; Day, 2003; Fagan & Trudeau, 2014; Fainstein, 2000; Gillette,
2010; Grant, 2006; Grant, 2007; Silver, 2006; Trudeau, 2013a; Trudeau & Kaplan, 2015).
This drawback can be explained by the fact that stringent interpretation of the proposed
design principles and architectural qualities can be very costly (Bohl, 2000; Garde, 2006;
Johnson & Talen, 2008; Sohmer & Lang, 2000; Tu & Eppli, 2001) and developers have
concerns over the return on their investment. Trudeau and Malloy (2011) demonstrate that
t
ip
projects built on infill and brownfield sites are exceptions in this regard.
Regarding the goal of integration into the existing urban fabric and physical integration
cr
across various scales, it is argued that Neo-traditional developments have fell short of this
aspiration (Bohl, 2000; Sohmer & Lang, 2000). Contradictory evidence as to whether Neo-
traditional movement has contributed to controlling sprawl is reported in the literature.
us
Some scholars argue that after an early focus on greenfield development the number of
infill and brownfield developments has increased (Day, 2003; Moore, 2010; Trudeau &
Malloy, 2011). Through the HOPE VI and Home Ownership Zone (HOZ) initiatives,
Congress for New Urbanism has benefited from the institutional support of the US
an
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to revitalize a number of
distressed inner-city neighborhoods across the US (Bohl, 2000; Day, 2003).
M
Although the risk of physical determinism is acknowledged in the preamble to the Charter
for New Urbanism, in reality New Urbanism projects have tended to adopt an approach that
promotes identical and generalizable physical solutions to treat problems of communities
with diverse social, cultural, and economic characteristics (Day, 2003). Findings on sense
d
of community and social interaction in Neo-traditional neighborhoods are divergent (Nasar,

2003). While some studies show improved social relations and neighboring behaviors
e
(Brown & Cropper, 2001; Fagan & Trudeau, 2014; Lund, 2002, 2003; Podobnik, 2011),
others dispute the existence of such improvements (Cabrera & Najarian, 2013; Chaskin &
pt
Joseph, 2011; Lund, 2003; Nasar, 2003). Regarding citizen involvement, Irazábal (2012)
found that this has not received due attention and in many cases residents have not been
involved. In terms of job-housing proximity and employment opportunities, studies show
ce
that little success has been achieved and only a very limited amount of light industrial land
use is integrated into the developments (Grant & Bohdanow, 2008; Trudeau & Malloy,
2011). The crucial role of institutional support is another important issue that has not been
Ac
duly considered. Rutheiser (1997) warns that for Neo-traditional movement to be successful
in achieving its goals, it should also consider the role of political forces that steer
development.
In terms of creating diverse neighborhoods, mixed results have been reported in the
literature. One the one hand, some studies demonstrate that Neo-traditional neighborhoods
are non-affordable (Al-Hindi & Staddon, 1997; Cabrera & Najarian, 2013; Tu & Eppli,
1999), lack economic activities, are largely homogeneous, and can hardly be regarded as
plural (Gillette, 2010; Grant, 2007; Hirt, 2009). This can be explained by the importance of
market forces and the reliance of planners on affluent clientele and private developers
seeking enhanced design to finance their visions (Fainstein, 2000; Gillette, 2010; Grant,
14
Page 14 of 41
2007; Sohmer & Lang, 2000). On the other hand, there are studies indicating that New
Urbanist projects have made considerable achievements in enhancing income diversity and
providing affordable housing (Deitrick & Ellis, 2004; Johnson & Talen, 2008; Trudeau &
Kaplan, 2015). Many of these neighborhoods are supported by HOPE VI and HOZ
initiatives (Johnson & Talen, 2008; Trudeau & Kaplan, 2015). However, a recent study by
Trudeau and Kaplan (2015) demonstrates that there are still many other unfunded
t
ip
neighborhoods that feature income diversity. A wide range of variation exists within the
New Urbanism movement (Deitrick & Ellis, 2004; Trudeau, 2013b; Trudeau & Kaplan,
2015) and characteristics of one type do not necessarily apply to the others (Trudeau &
cr
Kaplan, 2015). More Neo-traditional neighborhoods need to be studied to be able to gain a
better understanding of their successes and failures.
us
3.5. Eco-urbanism

an
Since the turn of the century, there has been a global diffusion of initiatives that attempt to
integrate sustainability principles into neighborhood development. The origin of this
initiatives dates back to the early 1980’s when the sustainability concept was emerged and
M
Richard Register proposed eco-cities that take into account the ecological carrying capacity
of the city’s bioregion (Register, 2006; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015; Yigitcanlar & Lee,
2014). Eco-urban initiatives draw upon the concepts of urban metabolism and sustainability
and therefore have a wider scope compared to the previous movements (Holden & Li,
d
2014; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015). As an overarching term, Eco-urbanism refers to

various movements developed to, in addition to dealing with traditional challenges of
e
urbanization that were described in previous sections, address the challenges posed by
climate change and resource constraint (Joss, Cowley, & Tomozeiu, 2013). A growing
pt
body of literature exists on a multitude of initiatives such as eco-city, eco-town, eco-

district, éco-quartier, eco-garden city, ubiquitous city, green city, resilient city etc.
ce
(Caprotti, 2014b; de Jong, Joss, Schraven, Zhan, & Weijnen, 2015; Holden & Li, 2014;
Joss et al., 2013; Suzuki, Dastur, Moffatt, Yabuki, & Maruyama, 2010; Yigitcanlar & Lee,
2014). Eco-urban developments may vary in terms of size, spatial and socio-political
context, and development type (Joss et al., 2013).
Ac
Many features which Eco-urbanism is sought to have are the ones which have been
advocated by precedent movements. A key distinguishing feature of Eco-urbanism is
incorporation of green and/or ubiquitous technologies such as smart grid, water treatment
systems, solid waste management systems, solar technology, net-zero energy buildings,
real-time transportation information, e-working etc. into the projects (Joss & Molella, 2013;
Yigitcanlar & Lee, 2014). Fig. 6 shows Masdar City as an example of Eco-urban projects.
As can be seen clean technologies such as solar panels and evaporative cooling tower are
integrated into the project. Carbon discourse is dominant in all Eco-urban movements.
Focus on low-carbon cities gained a better momentum following the Kyoto Protocol in
15
Page 15 of 41
1997 that recognizes the vital role that cities can play in reducing energy consumption and
its associated GHG emissions (Joss et al., 2013). In addition to echoing principles of
minimal ecological footprint and living in harmony with nature (Pow & Neo, 2015; Yu,
2014), some Eco-urban movements emphasize building self-contained communities that
have clear business plans and strategies for economic sustainability (Pow & Neo, 2015). An
example is the major focus on local agriculture and community gardening (Premalatha,
t
ip
Tauseef, Abbasi, & Abbasi, 2013). Eco-urban projects also function as centers of
excellence and living labs for knowledge production, education, and testing innovative
green technologies that, if successful, can be later rolled out at a larger scale and be shared
cr
with other projects through the existing networks established for this purpose (Cugurullo,
2013; Joss et al., 2013; Joss & Molella, 2013; Premalatha et al., 2013).
us
an
Regarding the development type, four different types of Eco-urban projects have been
mentioned in the literature: Greenfield (e.g. Dongtan, China); brownfield or infill (e.g.
MediaCity, UK); built on reclaimed land (e.g. Caofeidian, China); and urban retrofit (e.g.
SALT district, US) (Beal, 2015; Datta, 2012; Joss et al., 2013; Joss & Molella, 2013).
M
Study by Joss et al. (2013) showed that most of eco-city developments around the world are
either infill or urban retrofit (Joss et al., 2013). Similar results have been found in a survey
of 97 pilot projects certified under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for
Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), showing that over 50% of the projects have been
d
developed on brownfield sites (Sharifi & Murayama, 2014). This is a significant

improvement compared to previous movements which were often practiced on greenfield
e
sites. Avoiding development on greenfields is important for protecting valuable natural

features that provide citizens with ecosystem services (see the references provided for
pt
defining sustainability). Only in Asia a considerable percentage of eco-city programs have

been developed on greenfields. This reflects the rapid rate of urbanization in countries such
ce
as China and India which results in increased demand for completely new developments. In
Asia, Japan seems to be an exception. Unlike China and South Korea, many of the Eco-
urban projects in Japan can be categorized as brownfield or urban regeneration (Low,
2013). Dominance of greenfield development in developing countries such as China, where
Ac
the majority of future urban growth will occur, raises concerns about reiteration of mistakes
that led to suburbanization in countries such as the US.
There is evidence showing bi-lateral governmental corporations on eco-cities, involving

countries such as Germany, France, Japan, India, and China (Joss et al., 2013). This has
facilitated global knowledge transfer that was not a central feature of the previous
movements.
While previous movements were mainly practiced in Europe and North America, Eco-
urban projects can be found across the globe. A recent study shows that there are over 200
eco-city projects in China alone (Pow & Neo, 2015). The concept of Eco-urbanism has
16
Page 16 of 41
been developed and realized differently in China (Low, 2013). Compared to Eco-urban
projects developed in other parts of the world, Chinese ones are larger and more focused on
technological aspects (Caprotti, 2014a; Chang & Sheppard, 2013; Holden & Li, 2014; Pow
& Neo, 2015). These projects are funded and promoted by the central government and local
authorities with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, enhancing regional
competitiveness and international positioning of cities, and regulating rampant urbanization
t
ip
(Joss & Molella, 2013; Pow & Neo, 2015; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015; Yu, 2014). Joss
and Molella (2013) argue that, although Chinese government sees eco-city development as
a tool to avoid externalities of urbanization and building redundant and unsustainable
cr
infrastructure that will create lock-in effects, externalities of urbanization have already
influenced eco-cities. In his description of Tianjin Eco-city, Caprotti (2014a) explains how
high-rise residential towers are separated by wide streets that are flanked by protected
us
cycling and pedestrian routes. This signifies the lack of human scale and is reminiscent of
the principles advocated by Modernism. A major weak point of Chinese eco-cities is that
the central government attempts to create a unified planning system for eco-cities across the
country. As a result, limited bottom-up activities have been undertaken and local
an
specificities are not addressed as a result of this blue-print planning approach (Joss &
Molella, 2013).
M
Eco-urban projects in South Korea bear similarities to Chinese ones, but have an even more
emphasis on information and communication technology and eco-technology (Yigitcanlar
& Lee, 2014). Japanese Eco-Towns have sought to, among other things, revitalize
economy, improve material recycling, enhance public participation, promote environmental
d
consciousness, and improve social justice in cities (Low, 2013; Van Berkel, Fujita,
Hashimoto, & Geng, 2009). Eco-urbanism has also been practiced in other Asian countries
e
including Indonesia, Vietnam, and UAE (Cugurullo, 2013; Datta, 2012; Joss et al., 2013).
pt
Eco-urbanism has also been practiced in other parts of the world. French ÉcoQuartiers
(EcoQuartiers, 2015), eco-districts promoted by German Sustainable Building Council
(DGNB) (DGNB, 2015), and eco-cities developed in Swedish cities such as Malmö
ce
(Ecocities, 2015) are some examples of these projects. In addition to programs promoted by
individual European countries, European Union (EU) has also funded eco-city programs in
several European cities (Joss et al., 2013; Sharifi & Murayama, 2013).
Ac
In the US, Eco-urbanism has been developed as an evolution of Neo-traditionalist

movements. In addition to echoing principles of Neo-traditionalism, it encourages
incorporation of principles related to smart use of resources, health and well-being,
universal design, local agriculture, green and blue infrastructure, heat island reduction,
urban retrofit, and infill and brownfield development into neighborhood (re)development
plans (Ecodistricts, 2015; LEED, 2015). As an example, the EcoDistricts initiative was
launched in Portland, Oregon and after experimenting with five pilot EcoDistricts it is now
targeting neighborhoods in eight more North American cities (Ecodistricts, 2015). LEED-ND
has perhaps had the most notable influence on promoting Eco-urbanism in the US. It has been
used as a guide for developing sustainable neighborhoods in the US and abroad. Despite
17
Page 17 of 41
making improvements in terms of density, mixed use, and car dependence, LEED-ND certified
projects have not been very successful in meeting criteria on other issues such as inclusiveness
and green infrastructure. This is explained by the influence of market forces (Sharifi &
Murayama, 2014). Eco-urbanism has also been, to a more limited extent, implemented in
Africa, Latin America, and Australia (Joss et al., 2013). Literature on these practices is still
scarce.
t
ip
One important point that differentiates Eco-urbanism from its preceding movements is its
attempt to develop assessment toolkits for performance verification and monitoring. This
cr
has been done for cases such as Masdar, Tianjin (Caprotti, 2014a), Portland EcoDistricts
(Ecodistricts, 2015), Japanese sustainable developments (CASBEE-UD, 2012), and LEED-
ND certified developments (LEED, 2015). Appropriate implementation of these tools is
us
needed to verify compliance with the targets set at the beginning of the project.
Some Eco-urban projects have been criticized for prioritizing economy at the expense of
other dimensions of sustainability. Some governments see building Eco-urban projects as a
an
“symbolic investment” necessary for enhancing the economic competitiveness of the city
(Beal, 2015). This has resulted in more emphasis on economic aspects. In Masdar City, for
instance, focus is mainly on economic aspects of sustainability at the expense of social
dimensions. Issues such as inclusiveness and attachment have not been well considered and
M
this brings up concerns about collapse of the project in case of economic crisis (Cugurullo,
2013). Failure in providing a balanced account of sustainability dimensions has also been
reported for English Eco-towns (Warwick, 2015), and Indian eco-cities (Datta, 2012).
d
A recurring criticism is that while Eco-urban projects purport to be inclusive and reduce
e
intra-urban disparities, the reality on the ground does not prove this (Cugurullo, 2013;
Holden & Li, 2014; Joss & Molella, 2013; Sharifi & Murayama, 2012, 2014). Some
pt
authors have even raised concerns about speculative activities (Pow & Neo, 2015). Yu
(2014) argues that despite allocating 10% of the units in Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city to
affordable housing, as a pre-requirement, the renter should be working inside the eco-city.
ce
Only high-tech companies exist inside the eco-city, meaning that those hired are high-skill
workers with reasonable salaries enough to afford ordinary housing. Caprotti (2014b)
questions social success of eco-cities and describes them as islands of wealth in an ocean of
poverty. Similarly, Caofeidian eco-city is described as an island of wealth disconnected
Ac
from its hinterland (Joss & Molella, 2013). Influence of market mechanisms is a major
reason for non-inclusiveness of Eco-urban projects (Beal, 2015).
Likewise its precedents, Eco-urbanism has shown over-reliance on physical design and
technological development for bringing about social change (Holden & Li, 2014; Joss &
Molella, 2013). This raises concerns about under-estimating the role that can be played by
people. Unless social change and technological development are viewed as mutually
reinforcing, Eco-urbanism has little chance of creating sustainable neighborhoods (Joss &
Molella, 2013). Without social change, rebound effects may offset benefits of technological
developments and, as reported for eco-cities in China, residents may adopt extravagant
18
Page 18 of 41
lifestyles different from what envisioned by planners (Yu, 2014).
Eco-urbanist projects have not been very successful in meeting targets set at the outset of
the project (Holden & Li, 2014; Sharifi & Murayama, 2014). In addition to influence of
market forces that was described above, this can be attributed to the fact that some of the
targets are not realistic. Premalatha et al. (2013) explains that developers of Masdar City
t
ip
have realized that achieving the ambitious goal of zero carbon society would require
massive upfront investment by developers, coupled with environmentally conscious
residents willing to uptake an environmental friendly behavior. Zero waste target requires
cr
permanent reuse and recycling which entails exponential increase in the cost and energy
needed for the treatment. Therefore, they have moderated their initial aims and now
focused on low-carbon and low-waste society (Premalatha et al., 2013). Regarding the low-
us
carbon objectives, it should be mentioned that the focus has been more on emissions in the
operation phase than on life cycle emissions. Although when completed an Eco-urban
project may be low-carbon (through improvements such as modifying urban form and
incorporation of green and innovative technologies), carbon emitted during the
an
infrastructure-intensive construction process, and demolition and recycling phases should
also be taken into account and reported by the projects.
M
Finally it is argued that Eco-urbanism has achieved limited progress in being beneficial for
the broader environment beyond the boundaries of the developed neighborhoods. This, in
part, can be explained by a fragmented planning process at municipal, regional, and
national levels. For instance while Masdar tries to promote low-carbon development, its
d
neighboring energy-intensive Ferrari World theme park, and the Yas Island multi-purpose
center encourage limitless consumerism (Premalatha et al., 2013). Therefore, concerted and
e
coordinated efforts across different scales and sectors are needed to achieve sustainable
communities (Premalatha et al., 2013; Tomozeiu & Joss, 2014).
pt
4.. Discussions
ce
This article dealt with the transformation of neighborhood planning movements since the
early 20th century. For over a century planners and visionaries have developed planned
neighborhoods as remedies for problems caused by unregulated urbanization. Five major
Ac
movements were analyzed in the previous section. Table 2 summarizes the main
characteristics of these different movements. As mentioned in the Methods and materials
section, Table 3 includes several sustainability-related criteria and shows the degree of their
integration into the underlying principles of the selected movements.
Returning to the first research question raised in the introduction section of how the guiding
principles of neighborhood planning have changed, it can be said that, over time,
neighborhood planning has broadened its traditional focus on place-making and quality of
life to include different sustainability-related issues such as inclusiveness, climate
resilience, efficient resource management, and carbon management (through modifying
19
Page 19 of 41
urban form and incorporating green infrastructure). The differences among these five ways
of creating desirable neighborhoods lie in their historical origins, as well as approaches,
goals, and actions recommended. While a number of these ideas and characteristics have
been recurring in different movements, some others have emerged following the rise of
environmental and sustainability concerns at the end of the 20th century. Since then, the
underlying mechanisms that shape cities in general, and neighborhoods in particular, have
t
ip
undergone major transformations. Increasing attention has been given to the impacts of
climate change and rampant urbanization in some developing countries. Movements that
fall under the general heading of Eco-urbanism have emerged in response to these specific
cr
concerns. Eco-urbanism builds on the previous movements by, among other things, taking
advantage of green and ubiquitous technologies, developing strategies for smart and
efficient use of resources, promoting brownfield and infill development, focusing on carbon
us
footprinting and low-carbon development, paying attention to climate resilience, and
verifying performance using assessment tools.
The second question was about existence of overlap between different movements. Using
an
Tables 2 and 3 to compare the selected movements, it can be seen that these movements
share some commonalities in terms of the circumstances that led to their emergence and the
goals that they were pursuing. As discussed in Section 3, Garden City and Neighborhood
M
Unit have played an important role in the development and evolution of the movements that
emerged later. Comparison between the early movements shows that in some cases new
planning movements have dismissed the ideals of their precedents. This confirms previous
findings in the literature (Talen, 2005). However, the new movements (Neo-traditionalism
d
and Eco-urbanism) seem to have learned to avoid this mistake by capitalizing on potential
complementary benefits gained from synergies between the past planning cultures.
e
pt
The third question was whether the selected movements have been successful in achieving
their promises, and if over one century of research and practice on neighborhood planning
has resulted in creating sustainable neighborhood. Given that findings of this study are
ce
based on a limited number of cases reported in the reviewed literature, the evidence for
answering this question is inconclusive and general findings discussed below should be
treated with caution. Further research is necessary to find enough evidence for answering
Ac
this question. Future work should involve a larger number of cases from each movement
and examine whether they have met the sustainability criteria mentioned in Table 3.
This paper indicates that neighborhood planning movements have achieved limited success
in realizing their initial goals. Howard’s visionary principles of efficient, self-reliant, and
equitable communities are still among the major challenges in the way of achieving
neighborhood sustainability. Two main reasons can be put forward for mismatch between
rhetoric and reality: firstly, market influence, which has always been an impediment to full
realization of the goals; secondly, the fact that in some cases, such as Masdar City
(Premalatha et al., 2013), these goals are so unrealistic that developers have no other choice
but to revise them in the middle of the process.
20
Page 20 of 41
Building diverse and inclusive communities is an important goal that none of the
movements has been able to accomplish in a satisfactory way. The reviewed literature
indicates that planners should be aware of the risk of creating “islands of wealth” that are
not beneficial for their surrounding neighborhoods. The failure in creating equitable
communities is, in part, because it is a convoluted issue with “roots extended far beyond
t
ip
urban planning and physical design” (Ellis, 2002, p.281). More concerted efforts across
different sectors and scales are required to address this issue.
cr
A look at the genealogy of neighborhood planning in the 20th century reveals that
neighborhood planning has been mainly practiced in the form of suburban development. A
major point of difference between Eco-urbanism and other movements is that the former
us
places a great emphasis on protecting greenfields, controlling sprawl, and revitalizing inner
urban areas. This can be regarded as a change of direction toward brownfield and
incremental development.
5. Conclusion an
Planning at the neighborhood scale is recognized as essential for achieving sustainable
development. This study looked at how neighborhood panning has evolved in the context
M
of five different planning movements that have emerged since the early 20th century. These
movements are namely, Garden City, Neighborhood Unit, Modernism, Neo-traditionalism,
and Eco-urbanism. Each of the selected movements has made significant impacts on
neighborhood planning. Findings indicate that the scope of the underlying principles of
d
these movements has broadened over time. Eco-urbanism as the most recent movement has
a broader scope compared to the other movements and emphasizes the significant
e
contribution that neighborhoods can make to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Planners and policy makers should see Eco-urban development as an opportunity to create
pt
more sustainable and climate resilient neighborhoods.
A significant finding of this study was that, despite some evidence of success in achieving
ce
the goals, there is still a mismatch between rhetoric and reality of neighborhood planning.
While Eco-urbanism as the most recent movement, intends to contribute to solving
problems associated with global environmental change, historical problems such as social
Ac
equity have not yet been completely addressed. Several reasons for this gap between theory
and practice of neighborhood planning have been mentioned in the reviewed literature. A
recurrent criticism was the overreliance of planners on physical and technological
determinism. Despite differences between neighborhood planning movements in terms of
their origins, all movements have sought to revolutionize the status quo through physical
design and focus on modifications in urban form (Talen, 2005; Vanderbeek & Irazabal,
2007). All have failed to acknowledge that the process of change is not easy to control. It is
difficult to “predict the behavioral outcomes to which strict formal controls will eventually
lead” (Vanderbeek & Irazabal, 2007, p.54). Planners and policy makers should be aware of
the limits of physical and technological solutions to social problems and avoid
21
Page 21 of 41
subordinating social factors to physical and technological ones. The fact that Eco-urbanism
uses the sustainability concept as a guiding framework provides an opportunity to avoid
being caught up in the fallacy of physical and technological determinism. At the core of the
concept of sustainability is the issue of pluralism which requires a paradigm shift from
physical determinism to sustainability-based pluralism. Pluralism means not only proper
consideration of the various dimensions of sustainability, but also providing a platform for
t
ip
various stakeholders to participate in the planning and decision-making process (Bond,
Morrison-Saunders, & Howitt, 2013). To be in accordance with the sustainability concept,
neighborhood planning should move away from being prescriptive, take account of the
cr
context-specificities of different locations, and acknowledge that different social, economic,
environmental, and technological factors are mutually reinforcing and should not be
pursued in isolation.
us
Influence of market forces was another recurrent reason for limited success of planning
movements. Obtaining institutional support for implementation of plans could be a strategy
to address this issue. A success story of how New Urbanism has garnered institutional
an
support through HOPE VI and HOZ programs was mentioned in this paper. It is hoped that
planners and researchers will find further solutions for reducing the influence of market
forces.
M
This study does not claim to be representative of all movements related to neighborhood
planning. Only major planning visions (mainly in Europe and North America) were
investigated. Future work needs to be done to examine other movements that have not been
d
discussed here and to investigate the evolution of neighborhood planning in other parts of
the world. As empirical results presented in the reviewed literature are often based on a
e
limited sample of neighborhoods, there is also a need for further examination of the
empirical aspects of neighborhood development.
pt
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and
ce
criticism of the earlier version of this paper.
References
Ac
Al-Hindi, K. F. (2001). The new urbanism: Where and for whom? Investigation of an
emergent paradigm. Urban Geography, 22(3), 202-219.
Al-Hindi, K. F., & Staddon, C. (1997). The hidden histories and geographies of
neotraditional town planning: The case of Seaside, Florida. Environment and
Planning D-Society & Space, 15(3), 349-372. doi:10.1068/D150349
Australia, G. B. C. (2013). Green Star–Communities Rating Tool. Rating Tools.
Banister, D. (2012). Assessing the reality-Transport and land use planning to achieve
sustainability. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(3), 1-14.
doi:10.5198/jtlu.v5i3.388
22
Page 22 of 41
Basiago, A. D. (1996). The search for the sustainable city in 20th century urban
planning. The Environmentalist, 16, 135-155. doi:10.1007/BF01325104
Beal, V. (2015). Selective public policies: sustainability and neoliberal urban
restructuring. Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), 303-316. doi:Doi
10.1177/0956247814549153
Beatley, T., & Brower, D. J. (1993). Sustainability Comes to Main Street. Planning,
t
59(5), 16-19.
ip
Bergman, B. (2011). Visions and Urban Structures. In M. Hojer, A. Gullberg, & R.
Pettersson (Eds.), Images of the Future City (pp. 61-76): Springer.
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?
cr
Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21-33.
doi:10.1080/01944360008976081
Berke, P. R., MacDonald, J., White, N., Holmes, M., Line, D., Oury, K., & Ryznar, R.
us
(2003). Greening development to protect watersheds: does new urbanism make
a difference? Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 397-413.
Berlin, C. (2002). Sprawl Comes to the American Heartland. Focus, 46(4), 1-9.
an
Bigon, L. (2013). Garden cities in colonial Africa: a note on historiography. Planning
Perspectives, 28(3), 477-485. doi:10.1080/02665433.2013.800716
Bohl, C. C. (2000). New Urbanismand the city: Potential applications and implications
for distressed inner-city neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), 761-801.
M
doi:10.1080/10511482.2000.9521387
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Howitt, R. (2013). Sustainability assessment :
pluralism, practice and progress. New York: Routledge.
Boyoko, C., Cooper, R., Davey, C., & Wootton, A. (2006). Addressing sustainability
d
early in the urban design process. Management of Environmental Quality: An

International Journal, 17(6), 689-706.
e
BREEAM. (2012). Homepage of BREEAM Communities. Retrieved from

http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=372, July 8, 2014.
pt
Brody, J. S. (2009). Constructing professional knowledge: The neighborhood unit

concept in the community builders handbook. (Doctor of Philosophy),
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
ce
Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New Urban and Standard Suburban
Subdivisions:Evaluating Psychological and Social Goals. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 67(4), 402-419.
doi:10.1080/01944360108976249
Ac
Cabrera, J. F., & Najarian, J. C. (2013). Can New Urbanism Create Diverse
Communities? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4), 427-441.
doi:Doi 10.1177/0739456x13500309
Caprotti, F. (2014a). Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-
Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China. Cities, 36, 10-17.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.08.005
Caprotti, F. (2014b). Eco-urbanism and the Eco-city, or, Denying the Right to the City?
Antipode, 46(5), 1285-1303. doi:10.1111/anti.12087
CASBEE-UD. (2012). Homepage of CASBEE. Retrieved from
http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm, June 12, 2013.
23
Page 23 of 41
Chang, I. C. C., & Sheppard, E. (2013). China's Eco-Cities as Variegated1Urban
Sustainability: Dongtan Eco-City and Chongming Eco-Island. Journal of Urban
Technology, 20(1), 57-75. doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.735104
Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2011). Social Interaction in Mixed-Income
Developments: Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality. Journal of
Urban Affairs, 33(2), 209-237. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00537.x
t
CNU. (2013). Charter of the new urbanism. Retrieved from
ip
http://www.cnu.org/charter, July 18, 2015.
Crane, R. (1996). Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in
Neotraditional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1),
cr
51-65. doi:10.1080/01944369608975670
Cugurullo, F. (2013). How to Build a Sandcastle: An Analysis of the Genesis and
Development of Masdar City. Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1), 23-37.
us
doi:Doi 10.1080/10630732.2012.735105
Daniels, T. L. (2009). A Trail Across Time: American Environmental Planning From
City Beautiful to Sustainability. Journal of the American Planning Association,
an
75(2), 178-192. Doi 10.1080/01944360902748206
Datta, A. (2012). India’s ecocity? Environment, urbanisation, and mobility in the
making of Lavasa. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
30(6), 982-996. doi:10.1068/c1205j
M
Day, K. (2003). New urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 83-95. doi:Doi
10.1177/0739456x03255424
de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable–
d
smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude

of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production.
e
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004
pt
Deitrick, S., & Ellis, C. (2004). New Urbanism in the Inner City: A Case Study of
Pittsburgh. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 426-442.
doi:10.1080/01944360408976392
ce
DGNB. (2015). German Sustainable Building Council.

Dierwechter, Y. (2014). The spaces that smart growth makes: sustainability,
segregation, and residential change across Greater Seattle. Urban Geography,
35(5), 691-714.
Ac
Dill, J. (2006). Evaluating a new urbanist neighborhood. Berkeley Planning Journal,

19(1), 59-78.
Domhardt, K. S. (2012). The garden city idea in the CIAM discourse on urbanism: a
path to comprehensive planning. Planning Perspectives, 27(2), 173-197.
doi:10.1080/02665433.2012.646768
Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth - why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378. doi:Doi
10.1080/01944360508976707
Duany, A. (2002). Introduction to the Special Issue: The Transect. Journal of urban
design, 7(3), 251-260.
24
Page 24 of 41
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation : the rise of sprawl
and the decline of the American Dream (1st ed.). New York: North Point Press.
Ecocities, M. (2015). Sustainable City Development.
Ecodistricts. (2015). Homepage of Ecodistricts. Retrieved from http://ecodistricts.org/,
May 5, 2015.
EcoQuartiers, L. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.territoires.gouv.fr/les-
t
ecoquartiers, April 12, 2015.
ip
Ellis, C. (2002). The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals. Journal of urban design,
7(3), 261-291. doi:10.1080/1357480022000039330
EPA. (2012). About Smart Growth. Retrieved from
cr
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_sg.htm, May 6, 2013.
Fagan, C., & Trudeau, D. (2014). Empowerment by Design? Women's use of New
Urbanist Neighborhoods in Suburbia. Journal of Planning Education and
us
Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X14539353
Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review,
35(4), 451-478. doi:Doi 10.1177/107808740003500401
Wiley.
an
Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable urbanism : urban design with nature. Hoboken, N.J.:
Filion, P., & Hammond, K. (2003). Neighbourhood land use and performance: the
evolution of neighbourhood morphology over the 20th century. Environment
M
and Planning B-Planning & Design, 30(2), 271-296. doi:Doi 10.1068/B12844
Fishman, R. (1977). Urban utopias in the twentieth century : Ebenezer Howard, Frank
Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. New York: Basic Books.
Forsyth, A., & Crewe, K. (2009). A Typology of Comprehensive Designed Communities
d
Since the Second World War. Landscape Journal, 28(1), 56-78.

Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and Place-Making in Cities: A Global Perspective.
e
Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 149–165. doi:10.1080/14649351003759573

Furuseth, O. J. (1997). Neotraditional planning: A new strategy for building
pt
neighborhoods? Land Use Policy, 14(3), 201-213.

Garde, A. (2006). Designing and Developing New Urbanist Projects in the United
States: Insights and Implications. Journal of urban design, 11(1), 33-54.
ce
doi:10.1080/13574800500490299
Georgiadou, M. C., & Hacking, T. (2011). Future-Proofed Design for Sustainable
Communities. Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, 7, 179-188.
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the Pillars: Sustainability Assessment as a Framework
Ac
for Effective Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological Considerations in

Significant Decision-Making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 8(3), 259-280.
Gillette, H. (2010). Civitas by design : building better communities, from the garden
city to the new urbanism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gleeson, B. (2012). Make No Little Plans': Anatomy of Planning Ambition and
Prospect. Geographical Research, 50(3), 242-255. doi:DOI 10.1111/j.1745-
5871.2011.00728.x
25
Page 25 of 41
Gordon, D., & Vipond, S. (2005). Gross Density and New Urbanism: Comparing
Conventional and New Urbanist Suburbs in Markham, Ontario. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 71(1), 41-54. doi:10.1080/01944360508976404
Grant, J. L. (2006). Planning the good community : new urbanism in theory and
practice. London: Routledge.
Grant, J. L. (2009). Theory and Practice in Planning the Suburbs: Challenges to
t
Implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability Principles.
ip
Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1), 11-33. doi:10.1080/14649350802661683
Grant, J. L. (2007). Two sides of a coin? New urbanism and gated communities.
Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), 481-501. doi:10.1080/10511482.2007.9521608
cr
Grant, J. L. (2014). Garden City Movement Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-
Being Research (pp. 2394-2396): Springer.
Grant, J. L., & Bohdanow, S. (2008). New urbanism developments in Canada: a
us
survey. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and
Urban Sustainability, 1(2), 109-127. doi:10.1080/17549170802221435
Greenwald, M. J. (2003). The Road Less Traveled: New Urbanist Inducements to
an
Travel Mode Substitution for Nonwork Trips. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 23(1), 39-57. doi:10.1177/0739456x03256248
Harvey, D. (1997). The new urbanism and the communitarian trap. Harvard Design
Magazine, 1(3), 68-69.
M
Hirt, S. A. (2007). The Compact versus the Dispersed City: History of Planning Ideas
on Sofia's Urban Form. Journal of Planning History, 6(2), 138-165.
doi:10.1177/1538513206301327
Hirt, S. A. (2009). Premodern, Modern, Postmodern? Placing New Urbanism into a
d
Historical Perspective. Journal of Planning History, 8(3), 248-273.

doi:10.1177/1538513209338902
e
Holden, M., & Li, C. (2014). The Emergence and Spread of Eco-urban Developments
Around the World. Paper presented at the The 4th World Sustainability
pt
Forum.
Howard, E. (1985). Garden cities of to-morrow (New rev. ed.). Eastbourne: Attic Books.
Irazábal, C. (2012). Beyond ‘Latino New Urbanism’: advocating ethnurbanisms.
ce
Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban

Sustainability, 5(2-3), 241-268. doi:10.1080/17549175.2012.701817
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage
books.
Ac
Johnson, J. S., & Talen, E. (2008). Affordable housing in New Urbanist communities:
A survey of developers. Housing Policy Debate, 19(4), 583-613.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2008.9521648
Joss, S., Cowley, R., & Tomozeiu, D. (2013). Towards the ‘ubiquitous eco-city’: An
analysis of the internationalisation of eco-city policy and practice. Urban
Research & Practice, 6(1), 54-74. doi:10.1080/17535069.2012.762216
Joss, S., & Molella, A. P. (2013). The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on
Caofeidian International Eco-City (China). Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1),
115-137. doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.735411
26
Page 26 of 41
Kennedy C, Cuddihy J, & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The Changing Metabolism of cities.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11, 43–59.
Khattak, A. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional
neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481-500. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.009
Komeily, A., & Srinivasan, R. S. (2015). A need for balanced approach to neighborhood
t
sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustainable Cities
ip
and Society, 18, 32-43. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.05.004
Lawhon, L. L. (2009). The Neighborhood Unit: Physical Design or Physical
Determinism? Journal of Planning History, 8(2), 111-132.
cr
doi:10.1177/1538513208327072
LEED. (2015). Homepage of LEED-ND. Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/articles/getting-know-leed-neighborhood-development,
us
May 8, 2013.
Low, M. (2013). Eco-Cities in Japan: Past and Future. Journal of Urban Technology,
20(1), 7-22. doi:Doi 10.1080/10630732.2012.735107
an
Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., & Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A systematic review of guiding
principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 118, 40-52. doi:DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.002
Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community. Journal of
M
Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 301-312.
doi:10.1177/0739456x0202100307
Lund, H. (2003). Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian
Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors. Journal of the American Planning
d
Association, 69(4), 414-429. doi:10.1080/01944360308976328

MacLeod, G. (2013). New urbanism/smart growth in the Scottish Highlands: mobile
e
policies and post-politics in local development planning. Urban Studies, 1–26.

doi:10.1177/0042098013491164
pt
Mehaffy, M. W., Porta, S., & Romice, O. (2014). The “neighborhood unit” on trial:a case
study in the impacts of urban morphology. Journal of Urbanism: International
Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1-19.
ce
doi:10.1080/17549175.2014.908786
Meter, K., Coalition, U. E., & Center, C. R. (1999). Neighborhood Sustainability
Indicators Guidebook: How to create neighborhood sustainability indicators in
your neighborhood: Produced for the Urban Ecology Coalition (Minneapolis by
Ac
Crossroads Resource Center).

Metzger, J. T. (1996). The theory and practice of equity planning: An annotated
bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(1), 112-126.
Minnery, J., Knight, J., Byrne, J., & Spencer, J. (2009). Bounding neighbourhoods:
How do residents do it? Planning, Practice & Research, 24(4), 471-493.
Moore, S. (2010). ‘More Toronto, naturally’ but ‘too strange for Orangeville’: De-
universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto. Cities, 27(2), 103-113.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2009.10.004
Mueller, E. J., & Dooling, S. (2011). Sustainability and vulnerability: integrating
equity into plans for central city redevelopment. Journal of Urbanism:
27
Page 27 of 41
International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4(3), 201-
222. doi:10.1080/17549175.2011.633346
Mulligan, J., Guthrie, P. M., Stigge, B. J., & Tuzzolo, G. R. (2011). Tailored
sustainability assessment for urban masterplanning. Proceedings of the ICE -
Urban Design and Planning, 164(2), 61-73. doi:10.1680/udap.2011.164.2.61
Nasar, J. L. (2003). Does neotraditional development build community? Journal of
t
Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 58-68. doi:Doi
ip
10.1177/0739456x03256224
Perry, C. A. (1929). The Neighborhood Unit: A Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-
Life Community Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs. New York: Arno
cr
Press.
Podobnik, B. (2011). Assessing the social and environmental achievements of New
Urbanism: evidence from Portland, Oregon. Journal of Urbanism: International
us
Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4(2), 105-126.
doi:10.1080/17549175.2011.596271
Pow, C. P., & Neo, H. (2015). Modelling green urbanism in China. Area, 47(2), 132-
140. doi:10.1111/area.12128 an
Premalatha, M., Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2013). The promise and
the performance of the world's first two zero carbon eco-cities. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 660-669. doi:DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.011
M
Register, R. (2006). Ecocities : rebuilding cities in balance with nature (Rev. ed.).
Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers.
Rego, R. L. (2014). Brazilian Garden Cities and Suburbs: Accommodating Urban
Modernity and Foreign Ideals. Journal of Planning History, 13(4), 276-295.
d
doi:10.1177/1538513214521582
Rodríguez, D. A., Khattak, A. J., & Evenson, K. R. (2006). Can New Urbanism
e
Encourage Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with

Conventional Suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1),
pt
43-54. doi:10.1080/01944360608976723
Rohe, W. (2009). From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209-230. Doi
ce
10.1080/01944360902751077
Rutheiser, C. (1997). Beyond the radiant garden city beautiful: Notes on the New
Urbanism. City & Society, 9(1), 117-133.
Ac
Scrase, J. I., & Sheate, W. R. (2002). Integration and integrated approaches to

assessment: what do they mean for the environment? Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning, 4(4), 275-294. doi:10.1002/jepp.117
Sexton, J. O., Song, X.-P., Huang, C., Channan, S., Baker, M. E., & Townshend, J. R.
(2013). Urban growth of the Washington, DC–Baltimore, MD metropolitan
region from 1984 to 2010 by annual, Landsat-based estimates of impervious
cover. Remote Sensing of Environment, 129, 42-53.
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2012). The Potential of ‘CASBEE for Urban Development
’for Delivering Sustainable Communities: A Case Study from the ‘Koshigaya
Lake Town’ Planning Experience. In International symposium on urban
planning (pp. 703-13).
28
Page 28 of 41
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). A critical review of seven selected neighborhood
sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38,
73-87. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.006
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2014). Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action:
Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the
UK, and Japan. Building and Environment, 72, 243-258.
t
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.11.006
ip
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2015). Viability of using global standards for
neighbourhood sustainability assessment: insights from a comparative case
study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(1), 1-23.
cr
doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.866077
Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood Planning in Historical-Perspective. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 51(2), 161-174. doi:Doi
us
10.1080/01944368508976207
Silver, C. (2006). New Urbanism and Planning History: Back to the Future. Culture,
Urbanism and Planning, 179-193.
an
Smith, M. E. (2010). The archaeological study of neighborhoods and districts in
ancient cities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 29(2), 137-154. doi:DOI
10.1016/j.jaa.2010.01.001
Sohmer, R. R., & Lang, R. E. (2000). Editors' introduction - From seaside to southside:
M
New Urbanism's quest to save the inner city. Housing Policy Debate, 11(4),
751-760.
Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffatt, S., Yabuki, N., & Maruyama, H. (2010). Eco2 Cities:
Ecological cities as economic cities: World Bank Publications.
d
Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning : the conflict of cultures. New
York: Routledge.
e
TCPA. (2013). Creating Garden Cities and Suburbs Today: A Guide for Councils.
Retrieved from http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/creating-garden-cities-and-
pt
suburbs-today-a-guide-for-councils.html , August 10, 2015.

Tianjin. (2015). Master plan of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city. Retrieved from
http://www.tianjinecocity.gov.sg/bg_masterplan.htm, August 11, 2015.
ce
Tomozeiu, D., & Joss, S. (2014). Adapting adaptation: the English eco-town initiative
as governance process. Ecology and Society, 19(2). Doi 10.5751/Es-06411-
190220
Ac
Tregoning, H., Agyeman, J., & Shenot, C. (2002). Sprawl, Smart Growth and
Sustainability. Local Environment, 7(4), 341-347.
Trudeau, D. (2013a). New Urbanism as Sustainable Development? Geography
Compass, 7(6), 435-448.
Trudeau, D. (2013b). A typology of New Urbanism neighborhoods. Journal of
Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability,
6(2), 113-138. doi:10.1080/17549175.2013.771695
Trudeau, D., & Kaplan, J. (2015). Is there diversity in the New Urbanism? Analyzing
the demographic characteristics of New Urbanist neighborhoods in the United
States. Urban Geography, 1-25. doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1069029
29
Page 29 of 41
Trudeau, D., & Malloy, P. (2011). Suburbs in Disguise? Examining the Geographies of
the New Urbanism. Urban Geography, 32(3), 424-447. doi:10.2747/0272-
3638.32.3.424
Tsolakis, N., & Anthopoulos, L. (2015). Eco-cities: An integrated system dynamics
framework and a concise research taxonomy. Sustainable Cities and Society,
17, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.03.002
t
Tu, C. C., & Eppli, M. J. (1999). <Valuing New Urbanism- The Case of
ip
Kentlands.pdf>.
Tu, C. C., & Eppli, M. J. (2001). An Empirical Examination of Traditional
Neighborhood Development. Real Estate Economics, 29(3), 485–501.
cr
UNDESA. (2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. New York:
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population
Division.
us
Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability
indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 381-392.
doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00049-4
an
Van Berkel, R., Fujita, T., Hashimoto, S., & Geng, Y. (2009). Industrial and urban
symbiosis in Japan: Analysis of the Eco-Town program 1997-2006. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90(3), 1544-1556. doi:DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.010
M
Vanderbeek, M., & Irazabal, C. (2007). New Urbanism as a New Modernist Movement:
A Comparative Look at Modernism and New Urbanism. Traditional Dwellings
and Settlements Review, 19(1), 41.
Ward, S. (2005). The garden city: past, present and future: Routledge.
d
Warwick, E. (2015). Policy to reality: evaluating the evidence trajectory for English
eco-towns. Building Research and Information, 43(4), 486-498. doi:Doi
e
10.1080/09613218.2015.1012821
Watson, V. (2009). 'The planned city sweeps the poor away ... ': Urban planning and
pt
21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72, 151-193. doi:DOI

10.1016/j.progress.2009.06.002
Wheeler, S. (2004). Planning for sustainability : creating livable, equitable, and
ce
ecological communities. London ; New York: Routledge.

Wright, F. L. (1932). The disappearing city. New York: W.F. Payson.
Yigitcanlar, T., & Lee, S. H. (2014). Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable
urban form or a branding hoax? Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Ac
89, 100-114. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.034

Yu, L. (2014). Low carbon eco-city: New approach for Chinese urbanisation. Habitat
International, 44, 102-110. doi:DOI 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.05.004
Figure 1 The evolving agenda and key figures of the studied movements (inspired by Figure 1.8 of
(Wheeler, 2004))
Figure 2. Configuration of a typical ward in Garden City (Howard, 1985).
30
Page 30 of 41
Figure 3 The basic components of Clarence Perry’s Neighborhood Unit (Perry, 1929)
Figure 4 The transect proposed by Duany
Figure 5 Duany Plater-Zyberk’s version of Neighborhood Unit
t
Figure 6 Incorporation of green technologies into Masdar City
ip
cr
Table 1. Some major planning movements since the early 20th century
us
Movement name Emergence Focus Application in Example Ref.
several countries
Garden City 1900s Holistic Yes (Howard, 1985; Ward,
2005)
Neighborhood Unit
Radiant City
1920s
1920s
Holistic
Holistic
an Yes
Yes
(Lloyd Lawhon, 2009;
Perry, 1929)
(Corbusier, 1930;
Fishman, 1977)
M
Boadacre City 1930s Holistic Yes (Wright, 1932)
Urban Renewal 1940s Holistic No, mainly in (Wheeler, 2004)
the US
Community Action 1960s Holistic, especial focus No, mainly in (Rohe, 2009)
on citizen involvement the US
d
Community 1960s Holistic, special focus No, mainly in (Rohe, 2009)

Economic on economy the US
e
Development
Advocacy Planning 1960s Holistic, special focus No, mainly in (Checkoway, 1994;
pt
on justice and equit the US Clavel, 1994)

Planned Unit 1960s Mainly physical No, mainly in (Rohe, 2009)
Development the US
ce
Equity Planning 1970s Holistic, special focus No, mainly in (Metzger, 1996)
on equity the US
Traditional 1980s Holistic Yes (A. Duany, Plater-
Neighborhood Zyberk, & Speck, 2000;
Development Rohe, 2009)
Ac
Transit-Oriented 1990s Holistic, especial focus Yes (Rohe, 2009)

Development on transit
New Urbanism 1990s Holistic Yes (A. M. Duany, 1997)
Smart Growth 1990s Holistic Yes (A. Duany, Speck, &
Lydon, 2010)
Eco-cities 1980s Holistic Yes (Register, 2006)
Eco-town 2000s Holistic Yes (Warwick, 2015)
Eco-district, Eco- 2000s Holistic Yes (EcoDistricts, 2015;
quartiers EcoQuartiers, 2015)
31
Page 31 of 41
Table 2. Main features of different movements
Item Garden City Neighborhood Modernism Neo-traditional Eco-Urbanism
t
Unit Planning
ip
Geographical focus EU and NA EU and NA EU and NA EU and NA Global
Main inspiring condition Crowded City Crowded City Crowded Urban Sprawl Climate change
City
cr
Proposed density Low Low Very high / Medium-high Medium-high
very low
Street type Curvilinear Radial / linear Rigid grid Flexible grid Hybrid
Street connectivity Low Low Low High High
us
Transportation Private Private Private Multi-modal Multi-modal
Promotion of integration with Yes No No Yes Yes
the broader landscape
Incorporation of ubiquitous No No No No Yes
technologies
Carbon footprinting & low-
carbon development
Attention to climate resilience
Involvement of international
No
No
No
No
No
No
an
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
governmental or quasi-
M
governmental bodies
Assessment tools for No No No No Yes
performance verification
e d
Table 3. Degree of incorporation of sustainability related criteria in the studied movements

pt
Themes and criteria

Neighborhood Unit
ce
Neo-traditional
Eco-urbanism
Garden City
Modernism
Ac
Social Inclusive community (demographic profile,

affordability, etc.)
Community facilities and civic spaces ×
Local vernacular, culture, heritage, identity × × ×
Economic Housing and job proximity × ×
Self sufficiency × ×
Environmental Location and site selection (site sensitivity) × × ×
Resource management (clean and efficient Energy, × × × ×
water, materials, waste etc.)
Environmental protection (ecology, biodiversity, etc.) × × × ×
32
Page 32 of 41
Green space
Sustainable transportation within the neighborhood × × ×
(public transit, cycling routes, etc.)
Certified sustainable buildings and communities × × × ×
Institutional Public consultation and stakeholder engagement × × ×
Sustainability education (innovation, research, and × × × ×
t
development)
ip
Design Internal street Connectivity × × ×
Accessibility ×
Compactness × M
Mixed use
cr
× × ×
Site layout (energy efficient design) × × ×
Green infrastructure (photovoltaics, rainwater × × × ×
harvesting, etc.)
us
indicates compliance × indicates non-compliance M indicates mixed evidence
an
M
e d
pt
Fig 1. The evolving agenda and key figures of the studied moveme
Click here to download high resolution image
ce
Ac
33
Page 33 of 41
Ac
ce
pt
ed
34
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
Page 34 of 41
Fig 2. Configuration of a typical ward in garden city. Source (H
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
35
Page 35 of 41
Fig 3. The basic components of Clarence Perrys neighborhood unit
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
Figure 4. The transect proposed by Duany

36
Page 36 of 41
Ac
ce
pt
ed
37
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
Page 37 of 41
Figure 5. Duany Plater-Zyberks version of Neighborhood Unit
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
38
Page 38 of 41
Figure 6. Incorporation of green technologies into Masdar City
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
39
Page 39 of 41
Ac
ce
pt
ed
40
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
Page 40 of 41
Ac
ce
pt
ed
41
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
Page 41 of 41

Sharifi2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sharifi2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

Title: From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for

Author: Ayyoob Sharifi

Received date: 24-7-2015

- Literature on five major neighborhood planning movements has been reviewed.

- Urbanization and climate change have affected the evolution of neighborhood

- Planning needs a paradigmatic shift from physical determinism to pluralism.

Tel: +81-29-850-2672, Fax: +81-29-850-2960, Mobile: +81-90-6614-2920

While sustainability and sustainable neighborhood development are relatively new

2. Methods and materials

to different dimensions of sustainability. For a more detailed list of neighborhood

3. Evolution of approaches to neighborhood planning

3.1. The Garden City movement

3.1.1. Background and underlying principles

Howard’s proposal is the composition of the population. He envisioned a community that

3.1.2. Implementation and criticism

3.2. The Neighborhood Unit movement

3.2.1. Background and underlying principles

Neighborhood, as promoted by the Modernism movement, was composed of high-rise

3.3.2. Implementation and criticism

A drawback, particularly germane to neighborhood sustainability, is the rigidity of zoning

automobile ascendancy and the dominance of suburbanization, that were characterized by

managing regional growth (Basiago, 1996).

environmental resources, Smart Growth advocates fostering development in areas where

As in the earlier movements, the Neo-traditional neighborhood is defined by edges and a

been successful in incorporating environmental concerns into development plans (Berke et

of community and social interaction in Neo-traditional neighborhoods are divergent (Nasar,

3.5.1. Background and underlying principles

2014; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015). As an overarching term, Eco-urbanism refers to

body of literature exists on a multitude of initiatives such as eco-city, eco-town, eco-

developed on brownfield sites (Sharifi & Murayama, 2014). This is a significant

sites. Avoiding development on greenfields is important for protecting valuable natural

defining sustainability). Only in Asia a considerable percentage of eco-city programs have

There is evidence showing bi-lateral governmental corporations on eco-cities, involving

In the US, Eco-urbanism has been developed as an evolution of Neo-traditionalist

more sustainable and climate resilient neighborhoods.

criticism of the earlier version of this paper.

early in the urban design process. Management of Environmental Quality: An

BREEAM. (2012). Homepage of BREEAM Communities. Retrieved from

Brody, J. S. (2009). Constructing professional knowledge: The neighborhood unit

smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude

DGNB. (2015). German Sustainable Building Council.

Dill, J. (2006). Evaluating a new urbanist neighborhood. Berkeley Planning Journal,

Since the Second World War. Landscape Journal, 28(1), 56-78.

Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 149–165. doi:10.1080/14649351003759573

neighborhoods? Land Use Policy, 14(3), 201-213.

for Effective Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological Considerations in

Historical Perspective. Journal of Planning History, 8(3), 248-273.

Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban

Association, 69(4), 414-429. doi:10.1080/01944360308976328

policies and post-politics in local development planning. Urban Studies, 1–26.

Crossroads Resource Center).

Encourage Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with

Scrase, J. I., & Sheate, W. R. (2002). Integration and integrated approaches to

suburbs-today-a-guide-for-councils.html , August 10, 2015.

21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72, 151-193. doi:DOI

ecological communities. London ; New York: Routledge.

89, 100-114. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.034

Figure 2. Configuration of a typical ward in Garden City (Howard, 1985).

Figure 4 The transect proposed by Duany

Figure 5 Duany Plater-Zyberk’s version of Neighborhood Unit

Community 1960s Holistic, special focus No, mainly in (Rohe, 2009)

on justice and equit the US Clavel, 1994)