It has been suggested that community, social cohesion and territorial ties in neighbourhoods may be characterised by three directions: the lost, the saved and the transformed. On the basis of a number of case studies in a Norwegian city, it is found that these three trends exist together, on the basis of various local interactive practices. The concept of an interaction pretext is developed to answer in a more nuanced way how various forms of social ties are developed, maintained and/or altered. By combining this concept with local activity, four community types are specified that may characterise different neighbourhoods and that may also exist in parallel at one place: the passing-by community, the tight community, the weak community, and the split community. Demonstrating the potential of a more detailed empirical approach to the community question, the paper warns against too analytically shallow suggestions about their development. By understanding how neighbourhoods develop socially in different ways, it may be possible to increase the probability of better community planning.
BergerB. (1960) Working-class Suburb: A Study of Auto Workers in Suburbia. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5.
BourdieuP. (1986) The forms of capital, in: RichardsonJ. (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp. 241–258. New York: Greenwood.
6.
CaminaM. MWoodM. J. (2009) Parallel lives: towards a greater understanding of what mixed communities can offer, Urban Studies, 46(2), pp. 259–480.
7.
CattellV. (2004) Having a laugh and mucking in together: using social capital to explore dynamics between structure and agency in the context of declining and regenerated neighbourhoods, Sociology, 38(5), pp. 945–963.
8.
CattellV.DinesN.GeslerW.CurtisS. (2008) Mingling, observing, and lingering: everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations, Health and Place, 14(3), pp. 544–561.
9.
CrowG.AllanG.SummersM. (2002) Neither busybodies nor nobodies: managing proximity and distance in neighbourly relations, Sociology, 36(1), pp. 127–144.
10.
DayR. (2008) Local environments and older people’s health: dimensions from a comparative qualitative study in Scotland, Health and Place, 14(2), pp. 299–312.
11.
DelantyG. (2003) Community. London: Routledge.
12.
DurkheimÉ. (1964) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.
13.
DybE.SolheimL. J.YtrehusS. (2004) Social Perspective on Housing. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
14.
FischerC. S. (1982) To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
FischerC. S. (2005) Book review: Bowling Alone: what’s the score?, Social Networks, 27, pp. 155–167.
16.
ForrestR.KearnsA. (2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2125–2143.
17.
GarfinkelH. (1967) Studies in Ethnometholodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18.
GehlJ. (1980) Life between Buildings. Copenhagen: Arkitektenes forlag.
19.
GehlJ. (2010) Cities for People. København: Bogværket.
20.
GehlJ.BrackF.ThorntonS. (1977) Interface between public and private territories in residential areas. Department of Architecture and Building, University of Melbourne.
21.
GiddensA. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
22.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
23.
GoffmanE. (1959) Presentation Self Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
24.
GoffmanE. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
25.
GoffmanE. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
26.
GoffmanE. (1971) Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press.
27.
GranovetterM. S. (1973) The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360–1380.
28.
HenningC.LiebergM. (1996) Strong ties or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a new perspective, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 13, pp. 3–26.
29.
HerbertS. (2008) Contemporary geographies of exclusion 1: traversing Skid Road, Progress Reports in Human Geography, 32, pp. 659–666.
30.
IsdalB. (2003) The frame around our life: research on housing and living conditions, in: CouncilN. R. (Ed.) Housing Quality in Transition. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Publishing.
31.
JacobsJ. (1961) Death and Life of American Cities. New York: Random House.
32.
KendonA. (1988) Goffman’s approach to face-to-face interaction, in: DrewP.WottonA. (Eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
KenyonE. (2000) Time, temporality and the dynamics of community, Time and Society, 9(1), pp. 21–41.
34.
LaurierE.PhiloC. (2006) Cold shoulders and napkins handed: gestures of responsibility, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS, 31, pp. 193–207.
35.
LupiT.MusterdS. (2006) The suburban ‘community question’, Urban Studies, 43(4), pp. 801–817.
36.
OldenburgR. (1999) The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlowe and Company.
37.
PhillipsD. (2006) Parallel lives? Challenging discourses of British Muslim self-segregation, Environment and Planning D, 24, pp. 25–40.
38.
PutnamR. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
39.
SchiefloeP. M. (1985) Nærmiljø i bysamfunnet [The urban community]. Oslo: Universitets forlaget.
40.
StraussA. (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
41.
ThomsenJ.EikemoT. A. (2008) Aspects of student housing satisfaction: a quantitative study, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(3), pp. 273–293.
42.
ThomsenJ.TjoraA. (2006) Changeable space as temporary home: a qualitative exploration of life in an experimental student house, Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 19(3), pp. 11–20.
43.
TjoraA. (2004) Maintaining redundancy in the coordination of medical emergencies, CHI Letters, 6(3), pp. 132–141.
44.
TjoraA. (2012) Kvalitative forskningsmetoder i praksis [Qualitative research methods in practice]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademiske.
45.
TjoraA.ScamblerG. (Eds) (2013) Café Society. New York: Palgrave.
46.
TönniesF. (1887/1963) Gemenschaft und Gesellshaft [Community and society]. New York: Harper and Row.
47.
UnstadM. (2001) Bomiljø og inkludering: en casestudie av tre bortettslag og et boligområde [Neighborhood and inclusion. a case study of tree neighborhoods]. Project Report No. 307, S. E. Thoresen as, Oslo.
ValentineG. (2008) Living with difference: reflections on geographies of encounter, Progress in Human Geography, 32, pp. 323–337.
50.
WeberM. (1922/1971) Gesemmelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre [Samfunssvitenskapen ‘objektivitet’ makt og byråkrati], pp. 157–220. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.
51.
WellmanB. (1979) Community question: intimate networks of East Yorkers, American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), pp. 1201–1231.
52.
WoodL.Giles-CortiB.BulsaraM. (2005) The pet connection: pets as a conduit for social capital?, Social Science and Medicine, 61(6), pp. 1159–1173.
53.
YorkA. M.SmithM. E.StanleyB. W.StarkB. L.. (2010) Ethnic and class clustering through the ages: a transdisciplinary approach to urban neighbourhood social pattern, Urban Studies, 48(11), pp. 2399–2415.
54.
YoungM.WillmottP. (1986) Family and kinship in east London, New Society, 76(1216), pp. 26–28.
