To what extent does the evolution of 20th-century residential area planning and development reflect the profound changes that have affected society over this period? How much was this evolution shaped by successive planning models formulated over the last century? The paper reports on an analysis of the land-use patterns of four neighbourhoods developed at different times over the 20th century. Data originate from field surveys and a systematic measurement of the land uses of the study areas. Findings paint a mixed picture. They show that some societal changes (rising affluence for example) have affected neighbourhood morphology, whereas others (such as cultural diversification) have left few traces. A comparison of different land-use features identifies both the advantages and downsides of each neighbourhood's morphology. It becomes difficult in this light to perceive the evolution of neighbourhood planning as a linear progression towards improved land-use efficiency and quality of life.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AudiracI, 1999, “Stated preference for pedestrian proximity: An assessment of new urbanist sense of community”Journal of Planning Education and Research1953–66
2.
BadoeD AMillerE J, 2000, “Transportation-land-use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modelling”Transportation Research, Part D5235–263
3.
BanerjeeTBaerW C, 1984Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential Environments and Public Policy (Plenum Press, New York)
4.
BeaudryPLemieuxT, 2000, “Evolution of the female labour force participation rate in Canada, 1976–1994: A cohort analysis”, WP W-99-4E, Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development Canada, Hull, Québec
5.
BoarnetM GCraneR, 2000Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel (Oxford University Press, New York)
6.
BoarnetM GSarmientoS, 1998, “Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics”Urban Studies351155–1169
7.
BuderS, 1969, “Ebenezer Howard: The genesis of a town planning movement”Journal of the American Institute of Planners35380–398
8.
BurnettJ, 1986A Social History of Housing 1915–1985 (Methuen, London)
9.
CerveroR, 1993Transit Supportive Development in the United States: Experiences and ProspectsFederal Transit Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
10.
CerveroR, 1996, “Traditional neighborhood and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area”Transportation23373–394
11.
CerveroRGorhamR, 1995, “Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods”Journal of the American Planning Association16210–225
12.
CerveroRKockelmanK M, 1997, “Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design”Transportation Research, Part D2199–219
13.
CerveroRRadishC, 1996, “Travel choice in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighbourhoods”Transport Policy3127–141
14.
ChaykowskiR PPowellL, 1999Women and Work (McGill – Queen's University Press, Montréal, Québec)
15.
CraneR, 1996, “Cars and drivers in the new suburbs: Linking access to travel in neotraditional planning”Journal of the American Planning Association6251–65
16.
CraneR, 1998, “Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data”Transportation Research, Part D3225–238
17.
CraneR, 2000, “The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretive review”Journal of Planning Literature153–23
18.
DeckelG P, 1995, “Housing density: A neglected dimension of fiscal impact analysis”Urban Studies32935–951
19.
DonnerA W, 1991, “Recession, recovery, and redistribution: The three R's of Canadian state macro-policy in the 1980s”, in The New Era of Global Competition: State Policy and Market Power Eds DracheDGertlerM S (McGill – Queen's University Press, Montréal, Québec) pp 26–48
20.
DowlingR, 1998, “Neotraditionalism in the suburban landscape: Cultural geographies of exclusion in Vancouver, Canada”Urban Geography19105–122
21.
DowningP BGusteleyR D, 1977, “The public service costs of alternative development patterns: A review of the evidence”, in Local Services Policies and their Effect on Urban Spatial Structure Ed. DowningP B (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC) pp 63–86
22.
EwingRHaliyurPPageG W, 1994, “Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between”Transportation Research Record number 1466, 53–62
23.
FifieldM, 1989, “Transitional spaces: Design considerations for a new generation of housing”, in Suburbia Re-examined Ed. KellyB M (Greenwood Press, New York) pp 95–110
24.
FilionPBuntingT EWarrinerK, 1999, “The entrenchment of urban dispersion: Residential location patterns and preferences in the dispersed city”Urban Studies361317–1347
25.
FloridaR LFeldmanM N A, 1988, “Housing in US Fordism”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research12187–210
26.
ForsythA, 1997, “Five images of a suburb: Perspectives on a new urban development”Journal of the American Planning Association6345–60
27.
FowlerE P, 1992Building Cities that Work (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montréal, Québec)
28.
FriedmanBGordonS PPeersJ B, 1994, “Effects of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics”Transportation Research Record number 1466, 63–70
29.
FurusethO J, 1997, “Neotraditional planning: A new strategy for building neighborhoods?”Land Use Policy14210–213
30.
GehlJ, 1987Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
31.
GibbinsJ (Ed.) 1989Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age (Sage, London)
32.
GibbinsJReimerB, 1999The Politics of Postmodernity: An Introduction to Contemporary Politics and Culture (Sage, London)
33.
GiddensA, 1994Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics (Polity Press, Cambridge)
34.
GrantJ, 2002, “Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle”Journal of the American Planning Association6871–84
35.
GreenbergS WRoheW M1984, “Neighborhood design and crime: A test of two perspectives”Journal of the American Planning Association5048–61
36.
GuestA MWierzbickiS K1999, “Social ties at the neighborhood level: Two decades of GSS evidence”Urban Affairs Review3592–111
37.
HandyS, 1992, “Regional versus local accessibility: Neotraditional development and its implications for non-work travel”Built Environment18253–267
38.
HandyS, 1996a“Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior”Transportation Research, Part D1151–165
39.
HandyS, 1996b“Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior”Journal of Planning Education and Research15183–198
40.
HillierBHansonJ, 1984The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
41.
HodgeG, 1998Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principle, Practice and Participants (ITP Nelson, Toronto, Ontario)
42.
HowardE, 1965Garden Cities of Tomorrow (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA); first published in 1898
43.
HuntAnalytics, 1999The Impact of Urban Form and Travel Accessibility on Private Vehicle UseCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 700 Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OP7
44.
JacobsJ, 1961The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Random House, New York)
45.
JoshiH, 1989, “The changing form of women's economic dependency”, in The Changing Population of Britain Ed. JoshiH (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 157–176
46.
KellyA, 1974, “For the sake of the children”, in Suburbia in Transition Eds MasottiL HHaddenJ K (New Viewpoints, New York) pp 22–27
47.
LaddH F, 1992, “Population growth, density and the costs of providing public services”Urban Studies29273–295
48.
LaneA J, 1993, “Urban morphology and urban design: A review”, OP 35, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester
49.
LeCorbusier, 1973The Athens Charter (Grossman, New York); first published in 1933
50.
McNallyM GKulkarniA, 1997, “Assessment of the land-use transportation system and travel behavior”Transportation Research Record number 1607, 105–115
51.
McNallyM GRyanS, 1993, “Comparative assessment of travel characteristics for neotraditional designs”Transportation Research Record number 1400, 67–77
52.
McQuaigL, 1995Shooting the Hippo: Death by Deficit and Other Canadian Myths (Viking, Toronto, Ontario)
53.
MelucciA, 1989Nomads of the Present (Hutchinson, London)
54.
MessengerTEwingR, 1996, “Transit-oriented development in the sunbelt”Transportation Research Record number1552, 145–153
55.
MommaasH, 1996, “Modernity, postmodernity and the crisis of social modernization: A case study in urban fragmentation”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research20196–216
56.
MoudonA V, 1992, “A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know”Journal of Planning Literature6331–349
57.
NewmanO, 1995, “Defensible space: A new physical planning tool for urban revitalization”Journal of the American Planning Association61149–155
58.
OECD, 1986Road Safety Research: A Synthesis (OECD, Paris)
59.
PerinC, 1977Everything in its Place: Social Order and Land Use in America (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
60.
PerryC, 1939Housing for the Machine Age (Russell Sage Foundation, New York)
61.
PerryC A, 1974, “The neighborhood unit: A scheme of arrangement for the family-life community”, in Neighborhood and Community Planning (Arno Press, New York) pp 21–40; first published in 1929
62.
PoultonM C, 1982, “The best pattern of residential streets”Journal of the American Planning Association48466–480
63.
QadeerM A, 1997, “Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities: The Canadian practice”Journal of the American Planning Association63481–494
64.
RayB KHalsethGJohnsonB, 1997, “The changing ‘face’ of the suburbs: Issues of ethnicity and residential change in suburban Vancouver”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research2175–99
65.
Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
66.
Roféy, 1995, “Space and community—the spatial foundations of urban neighbourhoods”Berkeley Planning Journal10107–125
67.
RyanSMcNallyM G, 1995, “Accessibility of neotraditional neighborhoods: A review of design concepts, policies, and recent literature”Transportation Research A2987–105
68.
SchafferD, 1982Garden Cities for America: The Radburn Experience (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
69.
SewellJ, 1993The Shape of the City: Toronto Struggles with Modern Planning (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario)
70.
SmithM E GTaylorK W, 1996, “Profitability crisis and the erosion of popular prosperity: The Canadian economy”Studies in Political Economy49101–130
71.
SouthworthM, 1997, “Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge”Journal of the American Planning Association6328–44
72.
SouthworthMOwensP M, 1993, “The evolving metropolis: Studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge”Journal of the American Planning Association59271–287
73.
StanfordJ, 1995, “The economics of debt and the remaking of Canada”Studies in Political Economy48113–135
74.
StatisticsCanada, 1999Profile of Census Tracts in Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and St Catharines – Niagara Catalogue 95–201-XPB, Minister of Industry, Ottawa, Ontario
75.
SteinC S, 1966Towards New Towns for America (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
76.
UntermannR K, 1984Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
77.
VischerJ, 1987, “The changing Canadian suburb”Plan Canada27(4) 130–140
78.
WangSSmithP J, 1997, “In quest of ‘forgiving’ environment: Residential planning and pedestrian safety in Edmonton, Canada”Planning Perspectives12225–250
79.
WindsorD, 1979, “A critique of the costs of sprawl”Journal of the American Planning Association45279–292
80.
WolfeC, 1987, “Streets regulating neighborhood form: A selective history”, in Public Street for Public Use Ed. MoudonA V (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York) pp 110–123
81.
YeatmanA, 1994Postmodern Revisionings of the Political (Routledge, London)
