This paper investigates the potential of new urbanism (NU) to serve as a new neighborhood strategy for women. Survey and interview research examines the ways women in suburban NU neighborhoods of Minneapolis–St. Paul interact with the built environment to effect divisions of household labor and social isolation. The analysis shows that women use pedestrian-accessible mixed-use centers and neo-traditional design features (e.g., porches) to lessen the burden of domestic labor and foster social interaction. Despite these affordances, the paper argues that NU neighborhoods do not ultimately serve as resources in breaking patterns of social segregation or women’s isolation in suburbia.
AdamsJ.1993. Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place, and Public Life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2.
BjellandM.MaleyM.CowgerL.BarajasL.2006. “The Quest for Authentic Place: The Production of Suburban Alternatives in Minnesota’s St. Croix Valley.” Urban Geography27 (3): 253–70.
3.
BohlC.2000. “New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods.” Housing Policy Debate11 (4): 761–801.
4.
BondiL.RoseD.2003. “Constructing Gender, Constructing the Urban: A Review of Anglo-American Feminist Urban Geography.” Gender, Place, and Culture10 (3): 229–45.
5.
BrownB.CropperV.2001. “New Urban and Standard Suburban Subdivisions: Evaluating Psychological and Social Goals.” Journal of the American Planning Association67 (4): 402–19.
6.
CabreraJ.NajarianJ.2013. “Can New Urbanism Create Diverse Communities?”Journal of Planning Education and Research33 (4): 427–41.
7.
CalthorpeP.1993. The Next American Metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
8.
CohenL.1996. “From Town Center to Shopping Center: The Reconfiguration of Community Marketplaces in Postwar America.” American Historical Review101:1050–81.
9.
CrawfordM.2008. “Blurring the Boundaries of Public Space and Private Life.” In Everyday Urbanism, edited by ChaseJ.CrawfordM.KaliskiJ., 22–25. New York: Monacelli Press.
10.
DayK.2003. “New Urbanism and the Challenges of Designing for Diversity.” Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (1): 83–95.
11.
DillJ.2006. “Evaluating a New Urbanist Neighborhood.” Berkeley Planning Journal19:59–78.
12.
DuanyA.Plater-ZyberkE.1991. Towns and Town-Making Principles. New York: Rizzoli.
13.
EllisC.2002. “The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals.” Journal of Urban Design7 (3): 261–91.
14.
EnglandK.1993. “Suburban Pink Collar Ghettos: The Spatial Entrapment of Women?”Annals of the Association of American Geographers83 (2): 225–42.
15.
EwingR.CerveroR.2010. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of the American Planning Association76 (3): 1–30.
16.
FainsteinS.ServonL.2005. “Introduction: The Intersection of Gender and Planning.” In Gender and Planning, a Reader, edited by FainsteinS.ServonL.1–14. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
17.
Falconer Al-HindiK.StaddonC.1997. “The Hidden Histories and Geographies of Neotraditional Town Planning: The Case of Seaside, Florida.” Environment and Planning D15:349–72.
18.
FrischM.2002. “Planning as a Heterosexist Project.” Journal of Planning and Education Research21 (3): 254–66.
19.
Gibson-GrahamJ. K.1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20.
GonzálezE.LejanoR.2009. “New Urbanism and the Barrio.” Environment and Planning A41 (12): 2946–63.
21.
GonzálezE.SarmientoC.UrzuaA.LuevanoS.2012. “The Grassroots and New Urbanism: A Case from a Southern California Latino Community.” Journal of Urbanism5 (2–3): 219–319.
22.
GrantJ.2007. “Two Sides of the Same Coin? New Urbanism and Gated Communities.” Housing Policy Debate18 (3): 481–501.
23.
GrantJ.PerrotK.2009. “Producing Diversity in a New Urbanism Community: Policy and Practice.” Town Planning Review80 (3): 267–89.
24.
GreenwaldM.2003. “The Road Less Traveled: New Urbanist Inducements to Travel Mode Substitution for Nonwork Trips.” Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (1): 39–57.
25.
GunderM.2006. “Sustainability: Planning’s Saving Grace or Road to Perdition?”Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (2): 208–21.
26.
GwytherG.2005. “Paradise Planned: Community Formation and the Master Planned Estate.” Urban Policy and Research23 (1): 57–72.
27.
HaydenD.1980. “What Would a Non-sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work.” Signs5 (3): S170–87.
28.
HaydenD.2002. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. New York: Vintage Books.
29.
HirtS.2009. “Premodern, Modern, or Postmodern? Placing New Urbanism into a Historical Perspective.” Journal of Planning History8 (3): 248–73.
30.
IrazábalC.2012. “Beyond ‘Latino New Urbanism’: Advocating Ethnurbanisms.” Journal of Urbanism5 (2/3): 241–68.
31.
JarvisH.ClokeP.KantorP.2009. Cities and Gender. New York: Routledge.
32.
JohnsonJ.JohnsonM.2008. “New City Domesticity and the Tenacious Second Shift.” Journal of Family Issues29 (4): 487–515.
33.
JohnsonJ.TalenE.2008. “Affordable Housing in New Urbanist Communities: A Survey of Developers.” Housing Policy Debate19 (4): 583–613.
34.
KhattakA.RodriguezD.2005. “Travel Behavior in Neo-traditional Neighborhood Developments: A Case Study in USA.” Transportation Research Part A39 (6): 481–500.
35.
KimJ.2007. “Perceiving and Valuing Sense of Community in a New Urbanist Development: A Case Study of Kentlands.” Journal of Urban Design12 (2): 203–30.
36.
KimJ.KaplanR.2004. “Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community: New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village.” Environment and Behavior36 (3): 313–40.
37.
LundH.2003. “Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors.” Journal of the American Planning Association69 (4): 414–29.
38.
MadanipourA.2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
39.
MarcuseP.2000. “The New Urbanism: The Dangers So Far.” DISP140:4–6.
40.
MarkovichJ.HendlerS.2006. “Beyond Soccer Moms: Feminist and New Urbanist Critical Approaches to Suburbs.” Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (4): 410–27.
41.
MayoJ.EllisC.2009. “Capitalist Dynamics and New Urbanist Principles: Junctures and Disjunctures in Project Development.” Journal of Urbanism2 (3): 237–57.
42.
McDowellL.1983. “Towards an Understanding of the Gender Division of Urban Space.” Environment and Planning D1 (1): 59–72.
43.
McDowellLinda. 1999. Gender, Identity, and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
44.
Metropolitan Council. 2003. Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund: Report to Minnesota Legislature. St. Paul, MN: Metropolitan Council.
45.
MillerL.1995. “Family Togetherness and the Suburban Ideal.” Sociological Forum10 (3): 393–418.
46.
Minnesota Population Center. 2011. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. http://www.nhgis.org (accessed August 16, 2013).
47.
MooreS.2010. “‘More Toronto, Naturally’ But ‘Too Strange for Orangeville’: De-universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto.” Cities27 (2): 103–13.
48.
NealZ.NealJ.2014. “The (In)compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community.” American Journal of Community Psychology53 (1–2): 1–12.
49.
OrfieldM.LuceT.2009. Region: Planning the Future of the Twin Cities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
50.
PassellA.2012. Building the New Urbanism: Places, Professions, Profits in the American Metropolitan Landscape. New York: Routledge.
51.
PodobnikB.2002. “New Urbanism and the Generation of Social Capital: Evidence from Orenco Station.” National Civic Review91 (3): 245–55.
52.
PodobnikB.2011. “Assessing the Social and Environmental Achievements of New Urbanism: Evidence from Portland, Oregon.” Journal of Urbanism4 (2): 105–26.
53.
PrattG.2003. “Valuing Childcare: Troubles in Suburbia.” Antipode35 (3): 581– 602.
54.
RelphE.1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
55.
RodriguezD.KhattakA.EvensonK.2006. “Can New Urbanism Encourage Physical Activity? Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with Conventional Suburbs.” Journal of the American Planning Association71 (1): 43–54.
56.
SaabJ.2007. “Historical Amnesia: New Urbanism and the City of Tomorrow.” Journal of Planning History6 (3): 191–213.
SandercockL.ForsythA.1992. “A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory.” Journal of the American Planning Association58 (1): 49–59.
59.
ScheinR.2006. Landscape and Race in the United States. New York: Routledge.
60.
SibleyD.1995. Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West. London: Routledge.
61.
SpainD.2002. “What Happened to Gender Relations on the Way from Chicago to Los Angeles?”City & Community1 (2): 155–67.
62.
SugrueT.1996. Origins of the Urban Crisis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
TalenE.2008. “New Urbanism, Social Equity, and the Challenge of Post-Katrina Rebuilding in Mississippi.” Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (3): 277–93.
64.
TalenE.2010. “Affordability in New Urbanist Development: Principle, Practice, and Strategy.” Journal of Urban Affairs32 (4): 489–510.
65.
TalenE., ed. 2013. Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill.
66.
TomaltyR.HaiderM.FisherS.2011. “Comparing New Urbanist and Conventional Suburban Neighbourhoods.” Plan Canada51 (1): 21–26.
67.
TorreSusana. 1999. “Expanding the Urban Design Agenda: A Critique of the New Urbanism.” In Design and Feminism: Re-visioning Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things, RothschildJ.ChengA., 345–44. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
68.
TrudeauD.2013. “A Typology of New Urbanism Neighborhoods.” Journal of Urbanism6 (2): 113–38.
69.
TrudeauD.MalloyP.2011. “Suburbs in Disguise? Towards a Geography of the New Urbanism.” Urban Geography32 (3): 424–47.
70.
WeismanL. K.1992. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man Made Environment. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
71.
YinR.2009. Case Study Research, 4th edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
