The study examined spatial bridging ties that develop between members of a subdivision, and the relationship of such ties to different aspects of the built environment. We suggest that spatial bridging ties are important to the development of social capital within a community, as they help to overcome a tendency for ties to be spatially proximate (the propinquity effect). Using ego-based network data, we examined the formation of spatial bridging ties within a new urbanist subdivision (NUS) and also identified specific design features of the NUS that were associated with such ties. We found an association between spatial bridging ties and the use of mixed-use amenities, suggesting that mixed-use amenities (e.g., local shops and restaurants) may be facilitating spatial bridging ties between residents in NUS communities. The results also provide some evidence of a positive relationship between spatial bridging ties and social capital.
AllenT.FustfeldA. (1975). Research laboratory architecture and the structuring of communications. R&D Management, 5, 153-164.
2.
ArayaR.DunstanR.PlayleR.ThomasH.PalmerS.LewisG. (2006). Perceptions of social capital and the built environment and mental health. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 3072-3083.
3.
AthanasiouR.YoshiokaG. (1973). The spatial character of friendship formation. Environment & Behavior, 5, 43-65.
4.
AudiracI. (1999). Stated preference for pedestrian proximity: An assessment of new urbanist sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 53-66.
5.
AxhausenK.FreiA. (2007). Contacts in a shrunken world (Abreitsbericht Verkehrs und Raumplanung, 440, IVH). Zurich, Switzerland: ETH.
6.
BradnerE.MarkG. (2002). Why distance matters: Effects of cooperation, persuasion, and deception. CSCW 2002 Conference Proceedings: ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 226-235). New York, NY: ACM Press.
7.
BressiT. (1994). Planning the American dream. In KatzP. (Ed.), The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community (pp. xxv-xlii). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8.
BridgesW. P.VillemezW. J. (1986). Informal hiring and income in the labor market. American Sociological Review, 51, 574-582.
9.
BriggsX. (2003, January). Bridging networks, social capital, and racial segregation in America. John F. Kennedy School of Government (Faculty Research Working Papers). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
10.
BrownB. B.BurtonJ. R.SweaneyA. (1998). Neighbors, households, and front porches: New urbanist community tool or mere nostalgia?Environment & Behavior, 30, 579-600.
11.
BrownB. B.CropperV. L. (2001). New urban and standard suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67, 402-419.
12.
BrownD. W.KonradA. M. (2001). Granovetter was right: The importance of weak ties to a contemporary job search. Group & Organization Management, 26, 434-462.
13.
BucknerJ. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771-791.
14.
CabreraJ. F. (2013a). New urbanism and selection bias in the formation of social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 23, 376-394.
15.
CabreraJ. F. (2013b). Can new urbanism create diverse communities?Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4), 427-441. doi: 10.1177/0739456X13500309
16.
CalthorpeP. (1994). The region. In KatzP (Ed.), The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community (pp. xi-xvi). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
17.
CarrascoJ.HoganB.WellmanB.MillerE. (2008). Agency in social activity interactions: The role of social networks in time and space. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Eociale Geographie, 99, 562-583.
18.
Congress for the New Urbanism. (2000). Charter of the new urbanism. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 20, 339-341.
19.
ConnaughtonS. L.DalyJ. A. (2004). Identification with leader: A comparison of perceptions of identification among geographically dispersed and co-located teams. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9, 89-103.
20.
ContiN.DoreianP. (2010). Social network engineering and race in a police academy: A longitudinal analysis. Social Networks, 32, 30-43.
21.
CrawfordA. (2006). Fixing broken promises? Neighborhood wardens and social capital. Urban Studies, 43, 957-976.
22.
DayK. (2003). New urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 83-95.
23.
DijstM. (2006). ICT and social networks: Towards a situational perspective on the interaction between corporeal and connected presence. In KitamuraR.YoshiiT.YamamotoT. (Eds.), The expanding sphere of travel behavior research: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research (pp. 45-76). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
24.
DoreianP.ContiN. (2012). Social context, spatial structure and social network structure. Social Networks, 34, 32-46.
25.
DuanyA.Plater-ZyberkE. (1994). The neighborhood, the district, and the corridor. In KatzP. (Ed.), The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community (pp. x-xix). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
DuanyA.Plater-ZyberkE.SpeckJ. (2000). Suburban nation. The decline of the American dream. New York, NY: North Park Press.
27.
EntwisleB.FaustK.RindfussR.KanedaT. (2007). Networks and contexts: Variation in the structure of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1495-1533.
28.
FeldS. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 47, 1015-1035.
29.
FestingerL.SchachterS.BackK. (1950). Social processes in informal groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
FriedkinN. (1982). Information flow through strong and weak ties in intraorganizational social networks. Social Networks, 3, 273-285.
31.
GittellR.VidalA. (1998). Community organizing. Social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
33.
GrantJ. L.PerrottK. (2009). Producing diversity in a new urbanism community: Policy and practice. Town Planning Review, 80, 267-289.
34.
GreenbaumS. (1982). Bridging ties at the neighborhood level. Social Networks, 4, 367-384.
35.
HippJ.PerrinA. (2009). Micro-structure in micro-neighborhoods: A new social distance measure, and its effect on individual and aggregated perceptions of crime and disorder. Social Networks, 32, 148-159.
36.
KaboF.HwangY.LevensteinM.Owen-SmithJ. (2015). Shared paths to the lab: A sociospatial network analysis of collaboration. Environment & Behavior, 47(1), 57-84. doi: 10.1177/0013916513493909
37.
KatzP. (1994). The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38.
KimJ.KaplanR. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment & Behavior, 36, 313-340.
39.
KrackhardtD. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In NohriaN.EcclesR. G. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 216-239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Express.
40.
LazarfeldP.MartonR. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In BergerM.MaclverR. M. (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 118-166). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
41.
LeydenK. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546-1551.
42.
LinN.EnselW. M.VaughnJ. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46, 393-405.
43.
LundH. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 301-312.
44.
LundH. (2003). Testing the claims of new urbanism: Local access, pedestrian travel and neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 414-429.
45.
MarsdenP. V.HurlbertJ. S. (1988). Social resources and mobility outcomes: A replication and extension. Social Forces, 66, 1038-1059.
46.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
47.
MokD.WellmanB. (2007). Did distance matter before the Internet? Interpersonal contact and support in the 1970s. Social Networks, 29, 430-461.
48.
MokD.WellmanB.CarrascoJ. (2010). Does distance still matter in the age of the Internet?Urban Studies, 46, 2743-2783.
49.
NasarJ. (1997). Neo-traditional development, auto-dependency and sense of community. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 39-43). Edmonk, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.
50.
NasarJ. (2003). Does neotraditional development build community?Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 58-68.
51.
PattisonP.RobinsG. (2002). Neighborhood-based models for social networks. Sociological Methodology, 32(1), 301-337.
52.
PlasJ.LewisS. (1996). Environmental factors and sense of community in a planned town. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109-143.
53.
PodobnikB. (2002). New urbanism and the generation of social capital: Evidence from Orenco Station. National Civic Review, 91, 245-255.
54.
PreciadoP.SnijdersT.BurkW.StattinH.KerrM. (2012). Does proximity matter? Distance dependence of adolescent friendships. Social Networks, 34, 18-31.
55.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
56.
RodriguezD. A.KhattakA. J.EvensonK. R. (2006). Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 43-54.
57.
SailerK.McCullohI. (2012). Social networks and spatial configuration—How office layouts drive social interaction. Social Networks, 34, 47-58.
58.
SailerK.PennA. (2009). Spatially and transpatiality in workplace environments. In KochD.MarcusL.SteenJ. (Eds.), 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Royal Institute of Technology KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, 95, 1-11.
59.
SchaeferD. (2012). Youth co-offending networks: An investigation of social and spatial effects. Social Networks, 34, 141-149.
60.
SchweinbergerM.SnijdersT. (2003). Settings in social networks: A measurement model. Sociological Methodology, 33(1), 307-341.
61.
TakhteyevY.GruzdA.WellmanB. (2012). Geography of twitter networks. Social Networks, 34, 73-81.
62.
TalenE. (1999). Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Studies, 36, 1361-1379.
63.
TalenE. (2005). Land use zoning and human diversity: Exploring the connection. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131, 214-232.
64.
TalenE. (2010). Affordability in new urbanist development: Principle, practice, and strategy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 489-510.
65.
TsaiM. (2006). Sociable resources and close relationships: Intimate relatives and friends in Taiwan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 151-169.
66.
TuC. C.EppliM. J. (1999). An empirical examination of traditional neighborhood development. Real Estate Economics, 29, 485-501.
67.
TuC. C.EppliM. J. (2001). Valuing new urbanism: The case of Kentlands. Real Estate Economics, 27, 425-451.
68.
VerbruggeL. (1983). A research note on adult friendship contact: A dyadic perspective. Social Forces, 62, 78-83.
69.
WattsD.StrogatzS. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.
70.
WellmanB. (1996). Are personal communities local? A dumptarian reconsideration. Social Networks, 18, 347-354.
71.
WilkersonA.CarlsonN. E.YenI. H.MichaelY. L. (2012). Neighborhood physical features and relationships with neighbors: Does positive physical environment increase neighborliness?Environment & Behavior, 44, 595-615.
72.
Wilson-DoengesG. (2001). Push and pull forces away from front porch use. Environment & Behavior, 33, 264-278.
73.
WinemanJ.KaboF.DavisG. (2009). Spatial and social networks in organizational innovation. Environment & Behavior, 41, 427-442.
74.
WongL.PattisonP.RobinsG. (2006). A spatial model for social networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 360, 99-120.
75.
WoodL.FrankL.Giles-CortiB. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1381-1390.
76.
WoolcockM. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151-208.
77.
YuanY.GayG. (2006). Homophily of network ties and bonding and bridging social capital in computer-mediated distribution teams. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 1062-1084.
78.
ZierschA.BaumF.MacDougallC.PutlandC. (2005). Neighbourhood life and social capital: The implications for health. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 71-86.
