Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine which design amenities were considered important to residents selecting rehabilitated neighborhoods. Two types of neighborhoods were selected, each representing a different redevelopment method: the Individual Rehabilitated Neighborhood and the Redevelopment Corporation Neighborhood. A mail questionnaire containing 22 design items was sent to 600 households. A t–test was performed on the responses to determine significance. The Redevelopment Corporation Neighborhood residents were more interior design oriented, while the Individual Rehabilitated Neighborhood residents were more exterior and community design oriented. This led to the conclusion that residents select a neighborhood based on the person–environment fit.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abu–Lughod

(1960). A survey of center city residents. In Foote

(Ed.), Housing choices and housing constraints New York : McGraw–Hill.

Becker

F.D.

(1977). Housing messages Staudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchensen and Ross, Inc.

Bell

(1958). Social Choice, Lifestyle and Suburban residence. In Dabriner

W. M.

(Ed.), The suburban community New York : Putnam.

Clay

P.L.

(1980). The rediscovery of city neighborhoods: Reinvestment by long–time residents and newcomers. In Laska

and Spain

(Eds.), Back to the city: Issues in neighborhood renovation Elmsford, NY : Pergamon.

Dahman

D.C.

(1986). Draft Version of the 1984 U.S. Bureau of the Census’ Geographical Mobility Report. In Growth is Shifting to Cities, Census Bureau Report Say (1986, April 13), New York Times.

Gale

D.E.

(1980). Neighborhood resettlement; Washington, D.C. In Laska

and Spain

(Eds.), Back to the city: Issues in neighborhood renovation Elmsford, NY : Pergamon.

Hinshaw

M.L.

and Allott

K.J.

(1973). Environmental prefences of future housing consumers. In Pynoos

, Schafer

and Hartman

(Eds.), Housing urban america Chicago : Aldine Publishing.

(1983). An investigation of the relationship between visual preference and ratio variables in enclosed urban spaces: An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Unpublished dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg.

Lipton

G.S.

(1977). Evidence of central city revival. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 45, 136–147.

10.

Michelson

(1977). Environmental choice. human behavior and residential satisfaction New York : Oxford University Press.

11.

Miller

F.D.

(1980). Neighborhood satisfaction among urban dwellers. Journal of Social Issues. 36, 101117.

12.

Rapaport

(1980). Environmental preference, habitate selection and urban housing. Journal of Social Issues. 36, 118–134.

13.

Tobin

G.A.

and Judd

D.R.

(1982). Moving the suburbs to the city: Neighborhood revitalization and the ‘amenities bundle.’ Social Science Quarterly 63, 771–779.

14.

U.S. Bureau of Census. (1984). Current population reports–geographical mobility: March 1982–March 1983 Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office.

15.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1984). The President's National Urban Policy Report Washington : Government Printing Office.

16.

Williams

(1985). Owning places and buying time: class, culture and stalled gentrification. Urban Life 14, 251–273.

17.

Wilson

R.L.

(1963). Liveability of the city: Attitudes and urban development. In Chapin

and Weiss

(Eds.), Urban growth in a regional cluster of cities New York : Wiley.

18.

Wirth

(1938). Urbanism: A way of life. American Journal of Society 40, 1–24.

19.

Zelon

(1968). Does suburbia make a difference? In Fava

(Ed.), Urbanism in world perspective New York : Oxford University Press.

Design Values of Differing Urban Resident Groups

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References