This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Nasar, J. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Does Neotraditional Development Build Community?

The Ohio State University

Neotraditionaldevelopment has captured the attention of planners, architects, and developers. The various kinds of development under this label claim to replace the traditional auto-dependent suburb with pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development that builds sense of community. The present study tests two claims of neotraditional plans. In a community having a traditional suburb and nearby a traditional small-town center, on which neotraditional development is modeled, interviewers surveyed 120 residents—60 from each area. The analyses compared measures of sense of community, auto use, and reasons the residents chose to live in each area. The results support the claim that higher density mixed-use developments have lower auto use, but they failed to show that this form of development or the reduced use of autos translates into in-creased sense of community.

Key Words: Neotraditional development • sense of community • traditional suburbs • auto use

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, 58-68 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X03256224


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. Hess Fronts and Backs: The Use of Streets, Yards, and Alleys in Toronto-Area New Urbanist Neighborhoods Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2008; 28(2): 196 - 212. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Pendola and S. Gen Does "Main Street" Promote Sense of Community? A Comparison of San Francisco Neighborhoods Environment and Behavior, July 1, 2008; 40(4): 545 - 574. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Ganapati Critical Appraisal of Three Ideas for Community Development in the United States Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2008; 27(4): 382 - 399. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. du Toit, E. Cerin, E. Leslie, and N. Owen Does Walking in the Neighbourhood Enhance Local Sociability? Urban Stud, August 1, 2007; 44(9): 1677 - 1695. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Skaburskis 2006 Chester Rapkin Award for the Best Article in Volume 25: "New Urbanism and Sprawl: A Toronto Case Study" Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2007; 26(3): 365 - 366. [PDF]

				Y. R. Jabareen Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2006; 26(1): 38 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Skaburskis New Urbanism and Sprawl: A Toronto Case Study Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2006; 25(3): 233 - 248. [Abstract] [PDF]