Abstract
Different neighborhood planning concepts have evolved over a century, with the x-minute neighborhood being the most recent. Systematic investigations into the differences in their design principles are limited. This study develops an assessment framework with 11 design elements (e.g., size, density) and benchmarks the x-minute neighborhood against 18 other concepts, following a systematic review of 143 articles. The core idea of the x-minute neighborhood can be traced back to Perry's neighborhood unit concept. It shares similar characteristics with new urbanism (e.g., destinations, density) but is distinctive in its emphasis on size. The findings serve as a design repository of different concepts.
Keywords
Introduction
The time-based “x-minute neighborhood” concept, promoted through terms like 10-, 15-, or 20-minute neighborhoods, is a recent addition to planning literature (Logan et al. 2022). However, how this concept differs in design from other neighborhood planning concepts remains unclear. This paper addresses this gap as the concept gains global traction for promoting local living, aligning with shifting policy priorities, such as adapting to COVID-19 travel restrictions and advancing sustainable mobility (Frank et al. 2019).
Neighborhood planning originated with Ebenezer Howard's “garden city” concept in 1898 (Baffoe 2019). Since then, various concepts, theories, models and initiatives 1 have emerged with distinct design principles to address specific planning concerns, including the neighborhood unit, transit-oriented development, and new urbanism. By design principles, we refer to different design elements (e.g., density) and their standards (e.g., low- vs. high-density) linked to specific neighborhood types. However, no comprehensive study outlines how these principles vary across concepts—a gap this study aims to fill.
While some neighborhood planning concepts have unique design principles, others share common features that diverge or overlap (Ryan and McNally 1995). For example, the neighborhood unit is defined by its elementary school-centric 2 design, whereas transit-oriented development stands out due to its transit-centric approach (Furuseth 1997; Sharifi 2016). Concepts like livable neighborhood and urban village are local interpretations of new urbanism in Australia and the UK, respectively (Bae 2007; Hooper et al. 2020). Cities also apply differing design principles to the same concept, as seen with the neighborhood unit (Lee and Park 2018). These variations create ambiguity, necessitating a systematic characterization of concepts by their unique and shared design principles.
The “x-minute neighborhood” originated in Portland's 2012 Plan to support local living (Kamruzzaman 2022; The Portland Plan 2012). Since then, cities like Melbourne, Paris, and Singapore have started implementing it despite they lack consistency in definition and design principles (www.lta.gov.sg; www.planning.vic.gov.au). Importantly, Georgia and Zoi (2021) questioned whether “x-minute neighborhood” is genuinely distinct or merely another version of an existing concept. This debate highlights the need for a clear differentiation of its principles.
Existing reviews on neighborhood planning concepts have narrow focuses, such as isolating concepts with specific policy objectives, comparing a limited number of contested concepts, or adopting constrained temporal and geographical perspectives (Bae 2007; Rohe 2009; Sharifi 2016). For example, Rohe (2009) examines six US-originated concepts, while Sharifi (2016) explores the sustainability outcomes of different concepts. No study comprehensively characterizes neighborhood concepts based on design principles. This study systematically reviews the literature to provide a complete picture of these principles and track research trends, highlighting their practical relevance given the bi-directional links between research intensity and real-world practice (Sanchez 2017).
Based on the above discussion, the study aims to answer the following three research questions:
How has the research on neighborhood planning concepts progressed in the literature? What are the key urban design elements that define the character of a neighborhood? To what extent do the design principles vary among different types of neighborhoods, and particularly with respect to the x-minute neighborhood concept?
Research Methods
This study conducted a systematic literature review with a specific focus on research related to neighborhood planning concepts and their associated design principles. A systematic review distinguishes itself from a traditional review by adopting a replicable, scientific, and transparent process. The objectives of conducting a systematic literature review are three-fold (Brereton et al. 2007):
To provide a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of a research topic. To identify any gaps in current research and propose areas for further improvement. To summarize existing studies and lay the groundwork for new research endeavors, leading to collective insights through theoretical synthesis.
Scholars have asserted that employing a systematic literature review approach mitigates bias, reduces the impact of chance effects, and enhances the validity of data analysis (Boehm and Thomas 2013; Pickering and Byrne 2014).
To address the research questions, this study uses the PRISMA 3 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 framework to systematically identify the existing literature (Page et al. 2021). The procedure is outlined in Figure 1 and discussed in the following subsections.
Literature selection procedure[16].
Search Strategy
An extensive search procedure, comprised of three stages, was employed.
First, a comprehensive search was conducted within the major electronic databases, including Scopus, Urban Studies Abstracts, and Web of Science. The search was undertaken in February 2022. The search range was specified from 1929 to 2022 because an initial search result indicated that the first study on this topic was published in 1929 (Perry 1929). Three keywords were chosen as the search terms: “neighborhood planning,” “neighborhood concept,” and “neighborhood design.” They were used in Boolean combination to identify relevant articles, as shown below:
Scopus: Article title, Abstract, Keywords contain the term/s (“neighborhood planning” OR “neighborhood concept” OR “neighborhood design”) Web of Science: The topic contains the term/s (“neighbo*rhood planning” OR “neighbo*rhood design*” OR “neighbo*rhood concept”) Urban Studies Abstract: The search line contains the term/s (“neighbo*rhood planning” OR “neighbo*rhood design*” OR “neighbo*rhood concept”).
Truncation was used in the term neighbo*rhood and design* for the Web of Science and Urban Studies Abstracts to broaden the search to synonyms such as “neighborhood,” “neighborhood” and “design,” “designing.” Scopus auto-detects these variants. All peer-reviewed journals, conference papers, and books published in English and available online were included.
Second, reference lists of the selected publications from the previous step were checked to identify additional important literature that was not included previously.
Finally, besides those major databases, a search of government, university, non-profit, and private sector websites was performed to identify and include unpublished research on the topic.
Study Inclusion Criteria
The study used the following two inclusion criteria to ensure that all relevant articles were included to answer the research questions:
The study contains any of the following themes:
Various types of neighborhood planning concepts and their associated design principles. Comparative analysis of different types of neighborhood concepts. Historical analysis examining strengths and weaknesses of different concepts. It includes case studies in North America, South America, Europe, and Australia to ensure consistent design principles, recognizing the commonalities in developed infrastructure, transportation systems, significant economic activity, and cultural diversity within these regions. Studies focusing on Asia and Africa were excluded due to their distinct urbanization contexts and complex challenges that require more extensive research.
Studies that did not meet the above criteria were not included for further analysis.
Identification of Relevant Studies
Figure 1 illustrates the procedure applied to identify, screen, and select relevant studies. The search strategies resulted in 2202 primary studies from the three databases searched. Duplicate studies were excluded, which resulted in a reduced list of 1609 primary studies for further eligibility checks. The titles and abstracts of the selected studies were then reviewed for their eligibility, based on the study inclusion criteria (see Study Inclusion Criteria). This scoping exercise reduced the list to 295 primary studies, of which full texts were available for 286 studies. These were subject to an in-depth review resulting in 118 eligible studies. Furthermore, reference checks of previously selected studies and targeted website searches identified an additional 25 primary studies, including six on the emerging topic of “x-minute neighborhoods.” These inclusions resulted in 143 outputs in total, which were re-read, reviewed, categorized, and analyzed. A list of these 143 studies is provided in Appendix A. During the write-up phase, additional sources, such as publications, reports, and webpages related to the topic, were incorporated as supplementary literature to better analyze the topic and elaborate the overall findings. These sources, along with other references, are listed in the reference section.
Data Analysis Strategies
The study developed an assessment framework comprising 11 physical urban design elements that are most frequently used to characterize the urban form of a neighborhood, as shown in Table 1. This framework was developed through a review of the literature focusing on the links between the built environment and various urban outcomes (e.g., travel behaviour, health, and social sustainability). The identified built environment features served as the foundational elements that underpin the assessment framework. The framework was then applied to identify the variations among different neighborhood planning concepts.
Framework to Assess Neighborhood Planning Concepts.
Note: “✓” Indicates inclusion in the design principle; G&OS: green and open spaces. Illustration: Author.
The guideline provided by the American Planning Association (APA) regarding great neighborhood elements, as outlined by Talen, Menozzi, and Schaefer (2015), has played a significant role in shaping our assessment framework. Within the set of great neighborhood elements, we have chosen to focus on two specific physical components, namely “mixed-use spaces,” which we have termed “land use diversity,” and “multimodal transportation,” referred to as the “transportation system.” “Land use diversity” embodies mixed-use spaces, achieving a balance between residential and non-residential purposes. This element promotes vitality and diversity by co-locating various functions and activities in close proximity. “Transportation system,” corresponding to the idea of multimodal transportation, has been identified as a critical element in enhancing accessibility and reducing congestion. By offering a variety of transportation options and reducing reliance on single modes of travel, this element enhances connectivity within the neighborhood and beyond.
While “visually interesting features” and “memorable character” are acknowledged by the APA, research on their role in neighborhood description is limited. As a result, these are not directly considered as a part of our framework. However, it is important to highlight that “visually interesting features” can encompass elements already featured in our framework, such as “dwelling form,” “neighborhood boundary characteristic,” “development types,” “street layout and connectivity” and “accessibility to destinations (various public facilities like shopping areas, parks, gardens, open spaces, stations, public buildings etc).” These extensively researched elements are integral to our assessment framework.
The study by Park and Rogers (2015) also holds significance as it identifies three crucial components—"neighborhood size (including area and population),” “neighborhood boundary characteristics,” and “key facilities”—that collectively measure the scale of a neighborhood. Our framework includes all three components because they delineate both the spatial and functional dimensions of a neighborhood. “Neighborhood size” offers insights into population density and area, shaping community dynamics. “Neighborhood boundary characteristics” define the extent of the neighborhood, influencing its sense of identity and interactions with adjacent areas. “Key facilities” are referred as “accessibility to destinations” in our framework, reflecting functionality and access to services and needs, impacting residents’ quality of life and daily activities.
Travel behaviour research commonly employs the 3Ds or 5Ds concept to discern the influence of various physical elements on travel patterns. The original 3Ds, coined by Cervero and Kockelman (1997), are “density,” “diversity,” and “design.” Later Ewing and Cervero (2010) expanded the 3Ds concept to 5Ds by adding “destination” and “distance.” These concepts underpin our assessment framework. “Density,” “diversity (land use diversity),” and “design” are incorporated into the framework, reflecting their impact on travel patterns and urban form. “Design,” referred as “street layout and connectivity,” can enhance active transportation convenience, influencing travel choices. The presence of accessible “destination” points and manageable “distance” between them influences travel decisions, captured as “accessibility to destinations” in our framework.
The social science literature characterizes neighborhoods by their “street layout,” “pedestrian environment,” “neighborhood connectivity,” “public space provision,” and “dwelling form” (Abass and Tucker 2018; Abass, Andrews, and Tucker 2020). Our assessment framework integrates these into “street layout and connectivity,” encompassing “street layout,” “pedestrian environment,” and “neighborhood connectivity” to promote walkability and community engagement. The “accessibility to destinations” aligns with “public space provision,” enhancing community vibrancy. The “dwelling form” is also included due to its vital role in influencing residents’ quality of life and neighborhood aesthetics.
Our framework also incorporates the physical elements explored in the public health literature that can contribute to health benefits. For example, we include livable neighborhood features from Benachio et al. (2018) and Hooper et al. (2015). These features encompass components like “community design,” which directly correlates with ensuring “accessibility to destinations,” “movement networks,” similar to “street layout and connectivity,” and “public parkland,” a subcategory of “accessibility to destinations. Moreover, the findings of Esliger, Sherar, and Muhajarine (2012) on aspects like “dwelling form,” “land use diversity,” “density,” and “open space levels” are also effectively embedded within our assessment framework.
This study adopted these various physical elements from different studies, resulting in a list of 11 design elements that are likely to characterize a neighborhood.
Results
Trend/Progression of Different Neighborhood Planning Concepts Researched in the Literature
Identification of Neighborhood Planning Concepts
The review of the 143 research outputs shows that 36 different planning concepts have emerged in the literature. Instead of referring to them as concepts, various taglines were used such as theories, models, programs, initiatives, and movements. The underlying rationale for all of them is the same—they are used as tools to define, plan and express policies and regulations necessary to preserve, enhance, and build great places (Talen 2018). They include both the design of new neighborhoods and the redevelopment or revitalization of older ones. All the identified concepts from the literature are listed in Table 2 in chronological order according to their appearance in the literature, along with some background information about their emergence. Figure 2 shows the number of research studies published on each concept/topic following the same chronology.
Number of studies focused on each neighborhood planning concept/topic (chronological order following table 2) (illustration: author).
Emergence of Neighborhood Planning Concepts in the Literature in Chronological Order.
Note: Empty cells indicate missing information. Illustration: Author. Inspired by and Extended from Sharifi (2016).
It ensures that the neighbourhood meets most of a community's needs.
As shown in Figure 2, new urbanism is the most frequently studied neighborhood planning concept, followed by neo-traditional design. Other concepts that have received considerable attention include neighborhood unit and traditional neighborhood development. In contrast, concepts such as cluster development, co-housing neighborhood, and planned unit development have received relatively less attention in the literature.
Additionally, seven concepts were identified through snowballing: industrial housing, the Radburn model, new town, walkable neighborhood, sustainable neighborhood, conservation subdivision design, and fused grid neighborhood. Among these, new town, walkable neighborhood, and sustainable neighborhood have received greater focus in the literature.
It is beyond the scope of this study to thoroughly investigate the design principles of all the 36 planning concepts identified. As a result, some initial criteria were applied to refine the list:
First, concepts that relate to physical design were only considered, leaving out those focusing on other planning aspects such as socio-economic factors (e.g., urban renewal, community action program, community economic development, and municipal neighborhood planning) Second, concepts that are proposed but not practiced were not included (e.g., heterotopia neighborhood concept). Third, concepts that are used to assess the quality of a neighborhood were excluded (e.g., great neighborhood, LEED-ND neighborhood, and net zero energy (NZE) community). Fourth, three concepts were excluded due to a lack of related resources defining their design principles including transit joint development, corridor-oriented development, and pedestrian pocket. Fifth, some concepts, such as walkable neighborhood and sustainable neighborhood, although occasionally presented as standalone concepts in the literature (Lee and Moudon 2006; Moudon et al. 2006; Sharifi 2016) were not included in a thorough design analysis. This is because they often represent the end goals of many other neighborhood planning concepts. For instance, new urbanism and TOD concepts promote both walkability and sustainability.
This resulted in 23 4 concepts (shown in Figure 3). However, Figure 2 shows that three of these concepts (radiant city, broadacre city, and Makenzie’s industrial housing) appeared in only one study (Park and Rogers 2015), indicating their lack of significance in practice and research. As a result, these concepts were excluded. Finally, the new town concept was excluded due to it being not compatible for comparison because of its huge scale and size—i.e., a town rather than a neighborhood. These exclusions resulted in 18 concepts being studied for their design principles, against which the x-minute neighborhood concept is compared.
Categorization of the neighborhood planning concepts (illustration: author, based on the literature).
The included concepts are garden city, neighborhood unit, Radburn superblock, planned unit development, cluster development, compact city, neo-traditional design, traditional neighborhood development, transit-oriented development, new urbanism, smart growth, conservation subdivision design, eco urbanism, urban village, livable neighborhood, cohousing neighborhood concept, hybrid neighborhood concept, and fused grid neighborhood.
Categorization/Grouping of Different Neighborhood Planning Concepts
To enable easier comparison and deeper insights, we categorized the concepts in Table 2 into three broader ideological themes. Figure 3 presents these categories, encompassing 23 initially refined concepts, 18 of which are studied in this paper, offering a broader view of their historical development, principles, and shifts in urban planning ideologies.
Several studies have classified neighborhood planning concepts based on historical evolution. For instance, Silver (1985) identifies three phases: formative (1880–1920), maturity (1920–1960), and revision (1960s–1970s). Similarly, Ryan and McNally (1995) outline five principal trends in design and regulation: traditional gridiron (pre-1928), garden city (1928–1945), build-out (1945–1960), planned-unit development and cluster development (1960–1980) and neotraditional neighborhood design (1980–present). However, these studies overlook the ideological shifts in neighborhood planning process. This study adapts phases from Ryan and McNally (1995), regrouping them by ideology and principles.
Our review shows that neighborhood planning concepts emerged from post-1929, making the pre-1928 gridiron phase irrelevant. Additionally, while gridiron street layouts persist (discussed later), the build-out period in Ryan and McNally (1995) represents a shift in land development rather than new design concepts. Since this study focuses on concepts/models rather than programs and movements, we exclude the build-out phase. The remaining three phases from Ryan and McNally (1995) were aligned with underlying ideologies and relabeled as Antiurbanism/Decentralization Movement, Overlapped Condition, and Antisprawl Movement. These categories are referenced throughout the study.
The antiurbanism movement emerged in response to overcrowding from Industrialization. Concepts like the garden city and neighborhood unit sought to improve living conditions. The garden city concept aimed to enhance quality of life in overcrowded and polluted industrial towns, while the neighborhood unit, emerged from the garden city movement (Baffoe 2019; Brody 2016; Gillette 1983; Rohe 2009; Sharifi 2016), promoted healthier, cohesive, and well-planned communities. Initially popular in North America and the UK, it later spread to Asian cities such as Seoul and Singapore (Lee and Park 2018). Industrial housing, Radburn superblock, and modernist concepts like radiant city and broadacre city were also influenced by this movement (Mackenzie 1920; Patricios 2002; Sharifi 2016).
The antisprawl movement emerged as a response to the suburbanization caused by the antiurbanism movement. For example, the neighborhood unit concept contributed to widespread sprawl, increasing commute times, congestion, pollution, social segregation, and infrastructure cost (Gillette, 2010; Rohe 2009; Sharifi 2016). Post-WWII British new towns also faced criticism for social isolation and insecurity (Brody 2016; Homer 2000; Llewellyn 2004; Susskind 1973). To counteract these issues, the “compact city” concept emerged in 1973, promoting walkability, density, and active centers (Saaty and De Paola 2017). Subsequent concepts, including traditional neighborhood development, smart growth, transit-oriented development, and new urbanism, further reinforced antisprawl movement.
Between the antiurbanism and antisprawl movements, an overlapping condition occurred when concepts incorporated elements of both ideologies. For example, planned-unit development and cluster development addressed antiurbanism's shortcomings through legal frameworks (e.g., land use control) (Ryan and McNally 1995), while allowing suburban expansion led to sprawl.
Efforts to curb sprawl have led to the rise of the x-minute neighborhood, now adopted in cities worldwide, including Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and Singapore. However, their definitions and implementation vary. While lacking universal benchmarks Gower and Grodach (2022), the core principle remains: aligning spatial and transport planning to promote walking, cycling, and public transport. Key design features—high density, land-use diversity, active center, connected streets with pedestrian facilities, public transport, and accessibility—align with antisprawl ideologies. Thus, the x-minute neighborhood concept is firmly rooted within the antisprawl movement, both in design and ideology.
Trends of Publication on the Specific Neighborhood Planning Concepts
This study has identified publication trends of the 18 neighborhood planning concepts studied, which show that some concepts, such as the garden city, industrial city, radiant city, broadacre city, planned unit development, and cluster development, received sporadic attention from the researchers. On the contrary, the neighborhood unit concept has been a continuous focus of research since its emergence in 1929. Likewise, a group of concepts that are closely aligned with the new urbanism movement, such as neo-traditional design, traditional neighborhood development, transit-oriented development, are the most influential concepts of the 1990s and still dominate the field of research. The influence extends to the most recent concept, the x-minute neighborhood. This indicates that scholars in urban planning have not investigated all the neighborhood planning concepts equally. While some of them have been forgotten over time, the rest are still the subject of continuous scholarly debates.
Neighborhood Planning Concepts: How Distinguishable They Are
This section identifies how the selected concepts differ from each other in terms of their design principles, particularly with respect to the x-minute neighborhood. Each subsection highlights the differences in a particular design feature. The overall findings are presented in Table 3.
Differences Among the Neighborhood Planning Concepts in Their Underlying Design Principles.
Note: Empty cells: Information not available; ✓ Indicates compliance; GB: Greenbelt; A: Arterial Roads; P&PF: Park & Public Facilities; S&PF: School and Public Facilities; PSCF: Park, School, & Community Facilities; CB: Civic Building; TS: Transit Station; VS: Village Square; R: Radial roads; W: Winding streets; C: Curvilinear roads/streets; CS: Cul-de-Sac streets, G: Grid; SG: Semi-grid streets; Hybrid: Grid, Semi-grid, Cul-de-Sac; L: Looped streets; ICS: Internal street connectivity; SD: Streetscape design; P/CF: Pedestrian/cyclist facilities; PTN&S: Public transport network and services; P&P: Park and playground, G&OS: green and open spaces; Both: Infill & greenfield.
Neighborhood Size: Area and/or Population
The proponents of various concepts have suggested different neighborhood sizes, spanning from 100 acres to 1000 acres of land with populations ranging between 3000 and 5000, as illustrated in Figure 4. Howard (1985) idealized the garden city as a complete city model that would accommodate 30,000 inhabitants with 6000 acres of land within its six sections. A definite neighborhood model was not proposed, but the self-completeness of each section, called a “ward,” emphasized that it carries 5000 people within 1000 acres of land. Perry's proposed neighborhood unit model had a fixed size based on the service area of an elementary school (a-quarter to half-mile from the center), which is equivalent to 160 acres with an expected population size of 5000 (up to 9000) (Park and Rogers 2015). Stein expanded Perry's idea to a half-mile radius, equivalent to 500 acres, and placed one elementary school and one shopping center in a neighborhood center for his Radburn superblock concept (Park and Rogers 2015). He proposed three adjacent neighborhoods to create a town that supports one high school and one or two major commercial centers.
Sizes (area) of different neighborhood planning concepts (illustration: author).
Neo-traditional design approaches, including traditional neighborhood development, transit-oriented development, and urban village, follow the size of neighborhood unit theory. Duany and Plater-Zyberk agreed with a five-minute walking standard, a quarter-mile radius, for traditional neighborhood development, and Calthorpe supported a 10-minute walking time with a semi-circle shape (2000 ft radius), which is equivalent to 160 acres, for his transit-oriented development. An ideal urban village was proposed with 100 acres of land and a population of 3000–5000 (Park and Rogers 2015). On the other hand, a typical fused grid design is composed of half-mile grids, which is 160 acres, and a livable neighborhood with a 400–450 m radius, which is equivalent to 160 acres.
For the x-minute neighborhood, the size varies in different contexts, typically determined by the allocated time for walking or biking to essential destinations. Cities often adopt varying catchment levels to access diverse destinations. In Paris’ 15-minute city, for instance, three levels of sheds exist: a 5-minute walk shed (¼ of a mile from center to edge), a 15-minute walk shed (¾ of a mile from center to edge), and a 15-minute bicycle shed (3 miles from center to edge) (Duany and Steuteville 2021). Singapore has adopted two levels, a 45-minute city and 20-minute towns (Land Transport Authority 2023). Portland, similarly, incorporates three levels at distances of ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1 mile for its 20-minute neighborhood (The Portland Plan 2012). For Melbourne, the policy aims to achieve a 10-minute (20 minutes for a round trip) walking radius to destinations, which is a ½ mile radius (Kamruzzaman 2022). However, at the neighborhood level, the size could vary from a ¼-mile to a ½-mile catchment for different cities, which is approximately 125 to 500 acres.
Neighborhood Boundary
A neighborhood boundary, whether natural or human-made, plays a crucial role in defining its area. However, the purpose of adopting a boundary varies among the different neighborhood planning concepts. For example, six wards are proposed in a garden city with identifiable physical boundaries made up of six main boulevards radiating from the central park/garden, and a greenbelt to protect those wards from the chaotic expansion of the city's encroachment (Howard 1985). On the other hand, some neighborhoods, such as neighborhood unit, Radburn superblock, or fused grid neighborhood, are bounded on all sides by arterial streets, sufficiently wide to facilitate its bypassing through traffic and make the neighborhood safe and pedestrian friendly (Jin 2010; Ryan and McNally 1995). The x-minute neighborhood suggests having identifiable physical boundaries without specifying their type. However, not all concepts incorporate this design element into their principles.
Density and Land-Use Diversity
Higher density and land-use diversity were gradually added as ideologies for the development of different neighborhood concepts. For example, the early garden city was imagined as containing a low-density population with a proportionate area for individual functions. Upon reaching full capacity, a new garden city would be established nearby. The neighborhood unit concept was also flexible in regard to density (Brody 2016). Subsequently, the planned unit development and cluster development concepts gradually increased the density and diversity of the neighborhood (Ryan and McNally 1995). The recent antisprawl movement, including the compact city and all concepts with neo-traditional design approaches, relies on high density and mixed land use development principles. However, compared to the standard of a compact city, neo-traditional development generally has a lower density (Jabareen 2006). The cohousing neighborhood also includes higher density as its design principle, and the hybrid neighborhood concept offers mixed spatial interaction spaces for residential, social, and recreational functions, which increases diversity (Alhusban, Alhusban, and Al-Betawi 2019). Similarly, as one of the most recent developments, the x-minute neighborhood places a strong emphasis on both high density and land-use diversity.
Lot Layout
To control sprawl, most concepts of the antisprawl movement consider small lot sizes with some variations. Traditional neighborhood development includes small single-family size lots, multi-family developments, and multi-story buildings as their design principles; conservation subdivision design also focuses on reducing the lot size and clustering lots away from protected open spaces (Bjelland et al. 2006; Bowman et al. 2012). The x-minute neighborhood concept also places a strong emphasis on specialized housing options and diversity in dwelling forms, introducing varied lot sizes with a particular focus on smaller dimensions. However, this attempt began with planned unit development, where an integrated community, rather than individual lots, was considered as a unit for planning (Ryan and McNally 1995).
Neighborhood Centers
Different types of neighborhood centers have been proposed in the literature, including primary schools, civic buildings, and transit stations, often linked to concepts. However, while some concepts emphasize vibrant and active centers, their functions are often undefined, and some omit the idea of a center entirely. Table 3 outlines concepts that exhibit clear central features, including those with loosely defined centers. In the garden city concept, the center revolves around a central park with essential public facilities like a town hall, theatre, library, and hospital. The neighborhood unit centers on an elementary school and community hub, while Radburn neighborhoods feature central parkways with school and community rooms. A clustering of these neighborhood types forms a district that supports larger-scale facilities (e.g., high school). Neo-traditional designs place a civic center at their core, similar to village squares in the urban village concept or transit stops in transit-oriented developments. While the x-minute neighborhood prioritizes vibrant centers, their specific functions remain vague.
Street Layout and Connectivity
Table 4 illustrates how street layout and connectivity characterize different neighborhoods through their street patterns. Additional details regarding internal street connectivity, attention to streetscape design, and the availability of pedestrian/cyclist facilities can be found in Table 3. In the context of street patterns, a garden city is known for its radial roads and winding routes, designed to separate automobiles from the pedestrian environment. In a neighborhood unit, arterial streets are placed along the perimeter to define and distinguish the neighborhood. This hierarchical design extends to local streets, often curvilinear in nature, branching from the arterial streets, discouraging unwanted traffic and enhancing pedestrian safety. The Radburn concept follows the same idea of separating vehicular and pedestrian traffic through surrounding the neighborhood by main road and cul-de-sac as secondary roads used for motor vehicles. Thus, both neighborhood unit and the Radburn concept create a superblock. 5 Planned-unit development and cluster development approaches are characterized by wide, curvilinear, and cul-de-sac streets with irregular and disconnected street patterns. However, most of the concepts that incorporate the principles of antisprawl movement, including the x-minute neighborhood, focus on internal street connectivity with a pedestrian-oriented environment. Thus, a grid or semi-grid street system with pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, bicycle lanes, human-scaled and attractive streetscapes and tree-lined streets, walkable environment, etc., is considered. However, streetscape design is not a focus for designing a compact city, and the principles of applying cul-de-sac roads are found in the livable neighborhood concept. Again, a fused grid neighborhood combines the elements of two well-known and extensively used network concepts: the grid from neo-traditional design, and loops and cul-de-sacs from the Radburn superblock. On the other hand, eco-city mainly follows a hybrid street pattern.
Illustration of Street Layout Patterns of Some Well-Known Neighborhood Planning Concepts.
Transportation System
None of the antiurban approaches, i.e., garden city, neighborhood unit, Radburn concept, and other related concepts like planned unit development and cluster development, focus on public transport networks and services as a key element in their design. These concepts are mainly characterized as car-oriented (Ryan and McNally 1995). In contrast, all the concepts that follow neo-traditional design approaches are focused on public transportation systems. These approaches include compact city, traditional neighborhood development, transit-oriented development, new urbanism, livable neighborhood, urban village, including eco urbanism, fused grid neighborhood and the x-minute neighborhood. The extent and focus of public transport provisions may vary among these concepts, with transit-oriented development, for example, positioning it at the core of its planning framework. However, conservation subdivision development does not address the need to decrease automobile dependency.
Accessibility to Destination
Local level accessibility to destinations is achieved through the design and layout of urban forms and road infrastructure. Table 3 provides a quick overview of accessibility to different destinations as prescribed in various concepts.
In Howard’s garden city concept, residents could easily access local facilities and work opportunities within a reasonable commuting distance. He proposed building new towns with connecting railway systems to accommodate city growth. Both the neighborhood unit and the Radburn concept prioritize accessibility to facilities by employing the superblock model. The neighborhood unit concept emphasizes easy access to a centrally located elementary school, which should be within walking distance, typically no more than half a mile from the farthest dwelling. Local shops are also grouped together at accessible points on the periphery of the neighborhood.
In the Radburn concept, the central parkway is the most accessible feature. Houses are organized around cul-de-sac courts for motor vehicles, with pedestrian pathways connecting all houses to the parkway, ensuring that even the furthest house is just a minute’s walk away. Some parkways may also include small schools and community rooms, allowing children to walk to school without crossing roads. Small strip malls are common on the periphery of Radburn developments (Rohe 2009).
However, a higher degree of accessibility to retail shops, schools, and workplaces through multi-modal transportation and street connectivity, including sidewalks and bicycle lanes, is the main focus of all neo-traditional design concepts. Other concepts also attempt to achieve a certain level of accessibility. For example, the co-housing concept prioritizes direct access to shared facilities, such as entertainment areas, laundries, childcare, heating and cooling systems, water systems, business equipment, meeting rooms, woodworking, and craft-making areas, all interconnected through open spaces. For fused grid neighborhoods, schools, retail and community facilities, and high-density residential uses are located between the parallel arterial roads, so that residents can cross a block on foot within 5 minutes. For the x-minute neighborhood, the accessibility to destinations encompasses shopping centers, employment hubs, educational institutions, transit stations, healthcare facilities, green spaces, parks, and playgrounds (Gower and Grodach 2022).
Dwelling Form
Mixed Type
All current concepts, including all neotraditional approaches, planned unit development and the x-minute neighborhood, promote the mixture of housing types because it provides housing choice, promotes a more diverse community, caters to various stages of life, and maximizes infrastructure and land. Even the early garden city provides residents with many appropriate and affordable housing options for ordinary people. The Radburn concept also considers a mixture of housing types, including apartments, row-houses, and two-storied houses.
Clustering
Cluster development, conservation subdivision design, and cohousing neighborhood concept use a clustering approach for residential development (Bjelland et al. 2006). For example, a co-housing neighborhood is a group of houses clustered around shared open spaces and facilities that are used and operated collectively. Sitting rooms, kitchens, and front porches or balconies are positioned toward open public spaces.
Development Type
Though most of the neighborhood concepts were introduced to be established in a greenfield, transit-oriented development encourages infill and redevelopment along transit corridors within existing neighborhoods. Smart growth and cohousing neighborhood concepts also support the development of existing communities (Davies and SpringerLink 2015).
However, certain concepts, like eco-urbanism and livable neighborhood, provide options for both greenfield and infill development, as does the x-minute neighborhood.
Discussion and Conclusion
This paper presents an overview of the literature on neighborhood planning concepts. It focuses on identifying different concepts, including their progression in the literature, with an aim to distinguish the design principles associated with the most popular concepts. Thus, it provides a design benchmark for different concepts to facilitate neighborhood planning and design.
The findings from the historic neighborhood planning concepts are compared and contrasted to the most recent concept—the x-minute neighborhood—to examine how this new concept is different from or similar to the historic concepts. In doing so, three major conclusions are reached in this study, which are summarized below and discussed against the three research questions posed in the Introduction section:
Varied Attention and Progress of Different Neighborhood Planning Concepts in the Literature
To address the first research question, this study begins by identifying the prominent concepts as discussed in the literature, assuming that they correspond to their level of practice (Sanchez 2017). It then presents a summary of the progression of various neighborhood planning concepts and their publication trends since the early 20th century.
The study indicates that the level of attention given to different concepts by researchers has varied, with shifts in scholarly interest over time. Some ideas have fallen into obscurity, yet numerous others continue to be the focus of persistent academic investigation. Overall, research on the neighborhood planning concept has increased since the emergence of new urbanism, and all concepts closely aligned with it are being researched dominantly. The neighborhood unit is the most primitive concept that has been a continuous focus of research since its origin.
The findings suggest that both the neighborhood unit and new urbanism carry significant influence.
Framework for Defining Neighborhoods: A Comprehensive Compilation of Key Design Elements
In pursuit of answering the second research question, this study compiles key physical feature of a neighborhood from existing studies, resulting in a list of 11 design elements that characterize a neighborhood. They include: neighborhood size, neighborhood boundary characteristic, density, land-use diversity, lot layout, neighborhood center, street layout and connectivity, transportation system, accessibility to destination, dwelling form, and development type. These elements also serve as the foundational elements that underpin the assessment framework for comparing different neighborhood planning concepts.
A careful selection of these 11 design elements was achieved through an extensive review of existing literature. They were chosen due to their consistent significance across substantial research. Our framework distinguishes itself by combining elements from a broad spectrum of prior studies. This approach lends our framework a comprehensive perspective, considering diverse facets of neighborhood planning. Furthermore, its adaptability accommodates various contexts, enabling assessment across a wide array of neighborhood concepts.
In the process of operationalizing the framework, certain challenges emerged. One notable challenge was reconciling variations in terminologies and definitions used across different studies. To overcome this, we undertook a rigorous process of harmonization, aligning terminologies and definitions to ensure consistency within the framework.
As is the case with any research framework, there is always room for enhancement. With the evolution of new urban concepts, new elements may naturally emerge. For instance, in analysing the x-minute neighborhood concept, the significance of accessibility to healthcare services emerged as an influential factor, which might be considered for future incorporation into the framework. By continuously evolving and refining the framework, it can serve as a valuable tool for assessing and guiding neighborhood planning concepts in various urban settings.
The x-Minute Neighborhood Concept Is not an Entirely New Concept
The third research question examines how the selected 18 planning concepts differ from each other and from the x-minute neighborhood concept in terms of urban design principles. This analysis highlights how design principles have evolved over time and their association with the x-minute neighborhood concept, focusing on 11 physical elements of the evaluation framework.
The comparative analysis (Table 3) reveals that neighborhood planning has evolved from place-making to incorporate local living aspects (Sharifi 2016). Recent antisprawl concepts emphasize connectivity, accessibility, density, mixed land use, neighborhood center, pedestrian facilities, and public transportation. Over time, certain principles have become universally acceptable across all concepts, while others have been phased out and some have re-emerged later. For example, all antisprawl concepts reject the car-oriented development, advocating for reduced car dependency. The fixed-size population principle central to early antiurbanism concepts is now obsolete (Patricios 2002). Conversely, the gridiron layout, once dominant before the antiurbanism movement, was later revived by new urbanist and in the x-minute neighborhood. The fused grid concept combines gridiron and cul-de-sac principles, despite the latter being rejected in antisprawl planning.
The study also highlights the evolution of antisprawl concepts, with neo-traditional design at the forefront. Compact city, traditional neighborhood development, smart growth, transit-oriented development, and new urbanism all stem from neo-traditional principles, though new urbanism extends beyond neighborhood planning into regional planning, transportation, retail marketing, and land conservation (Furuseth 1997). Traditional neighborhood development, an early form of new urbanism (Gordon and Vipond 2005), later integrated transit-oriented principles to shape modern new urbanism (Rohe 2009; Sharifi 2016). Density is relatively high in a compact city compared to other concepts in this movement. The livable neighborhood and urban village are the local interpretations of new urbanism in Australia and the UK. Besides that, smart growth focuses more on the macro-scale, particularly the interface between policies and the economy, rather than physical design elements (Davies and SpringerLink 2015). Again, embracing new urbanism principles, the urban village concept also extends into other factors: issues of employment, the environment and sustainability (Davies and SpringerLink 2015). Though Eco-urbanism has also been portrayed as an evolution from new urbanism and urban village models (Holden, Li, and Molina 2015), its key distinguishing feature is the incorporation of green and/or ubiquitous technologies (Holden, Li, and Molina 2015; Sharifi 2016).
Other antisprawl concepts, such as conservation subdivision, promote clustered exurban development (Bjelland et al. 2006). Co-housing and hybrid neighborhoods also align with neo-traditionalism but emphasize different aspects: co-housing focuses on shared living spaces, while hybrid neighborhoods center on hybrid urban public spaces. The fused grid design balances pedestrian-friendly grids with automobile-oriented superblocks and cul-de-sacs.
Building on the comparison of antisprawl concepts, this study explores the origin and evolution of the x-minute neighborhood and how it differs from these concepts. Pinto and Akhavan (2022) suggest that the x-minute neighborhood aligns with the new urbanism principles, but key distinctions exist. While new urbanism principles apply across scales—from regional planning to streets and buildings—it lacks a precise, universally accepted metric (Furuseth 1997). In contrast, the x-minute neighborhood prioritizes a defined time-based accessibility measure, ensuring essential amenities are reachable within a set timeframe by walking, biking, or public transit. This makes it more comparable to the urban village concept, which features a fixed size, schools, a central square, and retail hubs. Additionally, new urbanism applies to both urban and suburban environments, including car-dependent areas, whereas the x-minute neighborhood requires an urban setting with relatively high population density. Certain physical elements—such as neighborhood centers, retail shops, parks, and open spaces—have been common across neighborhood concepts since the emergence of Perry's neighborhood unit, which envisioned self-contained residential areas with essential services within walking distance the neighborhood concept (Pinto and Akhavan 2022). Thus, the core idea of the x-minute neighborhood can be traced back to the neighborhood unit concept.
While this study provides a comprehensive review of design principles across neighborhood planning concepts, its reliance on case studies from North America, South America, Europe, and Australia limits coverage from other regions. The dependence on online resources may also exclude relevant printed materials. Moreover, the assessment framework used for evaluating design principles is inherently qualitative and subject to interpretation.
A notable feature of the x-minute neighborhood is its emphasis on health facilities and services, which could enhance future comparative assessments. Given the concept's newness, further research is needed to evaluate its practical adoption and identify barriers to implementation. The global variation in how the x-minute neighborhood is applied suggests there is no one-size-fits-all approach in planning the x-minute neighborhood, underscoring the need for context-specific design principles to ensure its effectiveness across diverse urban environment.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Appendix A: List of studies included for systematic review
1. Abass, Z. I., and R. Tucker. 2020. “Measuring Accessibility in low density Housing: The Role of neighbourhood design.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
2. Abass, Zainab Ibrahim, Fiona Andrews, and Richard Tucker. 2020. “Socializing in the suburbs: relationships between neighbourhood design and social interaction in low-density housing contexts.” Journal of Urban Design 25 (1):108–133. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1592663.
3. Abass, Zainab, and Richard Tucker. 2018. “White picket fences & other features of the suburban physical environment: Correlates of neighbourhood attachment in 3 Australian low-density suburbs.” Landscape & Urban Planning 170:231–240. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.004.
4. Adams, Frederick J. 1949. “The Neighborhood Concept in Theory and Application.” Land Economics 25 (1):67–88. doi: 10.2307/3144878.
5. Aiello, Antonio, Rita Grazia Ardone, and Massimiliano Scopelliti. 2010. “Neighbourhood planning improvement: Physical attributes, cognitive and affective evaluation and activities in two neighbourhoods in Rome.” Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (3):264–275. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.10.004.
6. Alhusban, S. A., A. A. Alhusban, and Y. N. AlBetawi. 2019. “Suggesting theoretical urban neighborhood design concept by adopting the changing discourse of social capital.” Journal of Enterprising Communities 13 (3):391–411. doi:10.1108/JEC-09-2018-0064.
7. Anderson, Jamie. 2015. “"Living in a communal garden” associated with well-being while reducing urban sprawl by 40%: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.” Frontiers in Public Health 3. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2015.00173.
8. August, Martine. 2016. “Revitalisation gone wrong: Mixed-income public housing redevelopment in Toronto's Don Mount Court.” Urban Studies 53 (16):3405–3422. doi:10.1177/0042098015613207.
9. Badoe, D. A., and E. J. Miller. 2000. “Transportation-land-use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 5 (4):235–263. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X.
10. Bae, Kim Kyung. 2007. “Sustainable Neighbourhood Design (SND): Critical Analysis on the Key Concepts of Global Eco-Village, Urban Village and New Urbanism Movement.” Seoul Studies 8 (1):69–83.
11. Baffoe, Gideon. 2019. “Understanding the Neighbourhood Concept and Its Evolution: A Review.” Environment and Urbanization Asia 10 (2):393–402. doi:10.1177/0975425319859115.
12. Beidler, K. J., and J. M. Morrison. 2016. “Sense of place: Inquiry and application.” Journal of Urbanism 9 (3):205–215. doi:10.1080/17549175.2015.1056210.
13. Benachio, J. F., X. Haveriku, P. D. Zaluski, H. H. Chen, and U. Dietrich. 2018. ““Slow your motions” interventions in urban spaces towards a livable neighborhood: Case study of Hamm-Nord, Germany.” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 217:843–854. doi:10.2495/SDP180711.
14. Biddulph, Michael, Bridget Franklin, and Malcolm Tait. 2003. “From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village.” Town planning review 74 (2):165–193. doi:10.3828/tpr.74.2.2.
15. Bjelland, Mark D., Michelle Maley, Lane Cowger, and LisaBeth Barajas. 2006. “The quest for authentic place: The production of suburban alternatives in Minnesota's St. Croix Valley.” Urban Geography 27 (3):253–270. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.27.3.253.
16. Boer, Rob, Yuhui Zheng, Adrian Overton, Gregory K. Ridgeway, and Deborah A. Cohen. 2007. “Neighborhood design and walking trips in ten US metropolitan areas.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32 (4):298–304. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.012.
17. Bohl, C. C. 2000. “New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods.” Housing Policy Debate 11 (4):761–801.
18. Boschmann, E. Eric, and Sylvia A. Brady. 2013. “Travel behaviors, sustainable mobility, and transit-oriented developments: a travel counts analysis of older adults in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area.” Journal of Transport Geography 33:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.09.001.
19. Bothwell, S. E., R. Gindroz, and R. E. Lang. 1998. “Restoring community through traditional neighborhood design: A case study of Diggs Town public housing.” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1):89–114.
20. Bowman, Troy, John C. Tyndall, Janette Thompson, James Kliebenstein, and Joe P. Colletti. 2012. “Multiple approaches to valuation of conservation design and low-impact development features in residential subdivisions.” J Environ Manage 104:101–113. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.006.
21. Boyd, R. R., B. L. Owens, and M. A. Lobsinger. 1987. “Neighborhood concept helps personalize quality of life.” Provider (Washington, D.C.) 13 (12):36-7.
22. Brookfield, Katherine. 2017. “Residents’ preferences for walkable neighbourhoods.” Journal of urban design. 22 (1):44–58. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234335.
23. Brussat, William K., and Svend Riemer. 1951. “The neighborhood as a function of school and childhood a critique of the use of the elementary school as the focal point in neighborhood planning.” Journal of Educational Sociology 25 (1):5–15. doi:10.2307/2263494.
24. Cabrera, Joseph F., and Jonathan C. Najarian. 2013. “Can New Urbanism Create Diverse Communities?” Journal of Planning Education & Research 33 (4):427–441. doi:10.1177/0739456X13500309.
25. Campbell, Nichole, and Daejin Kim. 2016. “Designing an Ageless Social Community: Adapting a New Urbanist Social Core to Suit Baby Boomers in Later Life.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly 30 (2):156–174. doi:10.1080/02763893.2016.1162253.
26. Cao, X., P. L. Mokhtarian, and S. L. Handy. 2006. “Neighborhood design and vehicle type choice: Evidence from Northern California.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 11 (2):133–145. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2005.10.001.
27. Cao, Xinyu. 2016. “How does neighborhood design affect life satisfaction? Evidence from Twin Cities.” Travel Behaviour and Society 5:68–76. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2015.07.001.
28. Cervero, R., and C. Radisch. 1996. “Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods.” Transport Policy 3 (3):127–141. doi:10.1016/0967-070X(96)00016-9.
29. Charmes, Eric. 2010. “Cul-de-sacs, Superblocks and Environmental Areas as Supports of Residential Territorialization.” Journal of urban design 15 (3):357–374. doi:10.1080/13574809.2010.487811.
30. Checkoway, B. 1984. “Two Types of Planning in Neighborhoods.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 3 (2):102–109. doi:10.1177/0739456X8400300209.
31. Chester, M. V., M. J. Nahlik, A. M. Fraser, M. A. Kimball, and V. M. Garikapati. 2013. “Integrating life-cycle environmental and economic assessment with transportation and land use planning.” Environmental Science and Technology 47 (21):12020–12028. doi:10.1021/es402985g.
32. Cozens, Paul Michael. 2008. “New Urbanism, Crime and the Suburbs: A Review of the Evidence.” Urban Policy and Research 26 (4):429–444. doi:10.1080/08111140802084759.
33. Crane, R. 2000. “The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretive review.” Journal of Planning Literature 15 (1):3–23. doi:10.1177/08854120022092890.
34. Crane, R., and R. Crepeau. 1998. “Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 3 (4):225–238. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00001-7.
35. Creasy, Alice 2021. “Perspectives on the 20-minute neighbourhood – progress around the world”, 09 February 2021, LGIU Blog. https://lgiu.org/perspectives-on-the-20-minute-neighbourhood-progress-around-the-world/.
36. Curtis, C., and J. Punter. 2004. “Design-led sustainable development: The liveable neighbourhoods experiment in Perth, Western Australia.” Town Planning Review 75 (1):31–66.
37. Davies, Wayne K. D., and SpringerLink. 2015. Theme cities: solutions for urban problems: Cham: Springer.
38. Deilami, Kaveh, and Md Kamruzzaman. 2017. “Modelling the urban heat island effect of smart growth policy scenarios in Brisbane.” Land Use Policy 64:38–55. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.027.
39. Engel-Yan, J., C. Kennedy, S. Saiz, and K. Pressnail. 2005. “Toward sustainable neighbourhoods: the need to consider infrastructure interactions.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32 (1):45–57. doi:10.1139/l04-116.
40. Eom, Jin Ki, and Tae-Young Heo. 2013. “Investigation of Spatial Structural Change of Trip Generation between Neo-Traditional and Conventional Neighborhoods.” Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society 15 (5):2307–2320.
41. Esliger, Dale W., Lauren B. Sherar, and Nazeem Muhajarine. 2012. “Smart cities, healthy kids: the association between neighbourhood design and children's physical activity and time spent sedentary.” Canadian journal of public health=Revue canadienne de sante publique 103 (9 Suppl 3):eS22–8.
42. Ewing, Reid, and Shima Hamidi. 2015. “Compactness versus Sprawl: A Review of Recent Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Planning Literature 30 (4):413–432. doi:10.1177/0885412215595439.
43. Farrell, S. J., T. Aubry, and D. Coulombe. 2004. “Neighborhoods and neighbors: Do they contribute to personal well-being?” Journal of Community Psychology 32 (1):9–25. doi:10.1002/jcop.10082.
44. Firestone, Stephanie. 2015. “10 Strategies for Livable Communities.” Planning 81 (11):24–24.
45. Fraker, H., D. J. Marckel, M. Tambornino, and J. E. Lambert. 1994. “Streets, parks and houses. Case study of a pedestrian neighbourhood.” Transport Policy 1 (3):160–173. doi:10.1016/0967-070X(94)90012-4.
46. Frank, L. D., J. Mayaud, A. Hong, P. Fisher, and S. Kershaw. 2019. “Unmet Demand for Walkable Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods in a Midsized Canadian Community: Market and Planning Implications.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X19831064.
47. Furuseth, O. J. 1997. “Neotraditional planning: A new strategy for building neighborhoods?” Land Use Policy 14 (3):201–213. doi:10.1016/s0264-8377(97)00002-1.
48. Georgia, Pozoukidou, and Chatziyiannaki Zoi. 2021. “15-Minute City: Decomposing the New Urban Planning Eutopia.” Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 13 (2):928. doi:10.3390/su13020928.
49. Gillette, H. 1983. “The Evolution of Neighborhood Planning: From the Progressive Era to the 1949 Housing Act.” Journal of Urban History 9 (4):421–444. doi:10.1177/009614428300900402.
50. Gillette, Howard, Jr., and H. Gillette. 2010. The Evolution of Neighborhood Planning, Civitas by Design: Building Better Communities, from the Garden City to the New Urbanism.
51. Goodman, P. 1949. “Some Remarks on Neighborhood Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 15 (2):40–43. doi:10.1080/01944364908978919.
52. Gordon, D., and S. Vipond. 2005. “Gross density and new urbanism: Comparing conventional and new urbanist suburbs in markham, ontario.” Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (1):41–54. doi:10.1080/01944360508976404.
53. Gower, Alexa, and Carl Grodach. 2022. “Planning Innovation or City Branding? Exploring How Cities Operationalise the 20-Minute Neighbourhood Concept.” Urban Policy and Research 40 (1):36–52. doi:10.1080/08111146.2021.2019701.
54. Grant, J. 1997. “Next generation neighbourhoods: Finding a focus for planning residential environments.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 6 (2):111–134.
55. Grant, J. L. 2015. “New Urbanism.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition, 809–814.
56. Gur, S. O., and Z. Enon. 1990. “Changing Sociospatial Aspects of Neighborhood - Design Implications.” Ekistics-the Problems and Science of Human Settlements 57 (342–43):138–145.
57. Hagen, Bjoern, Cara Nassar, and David Pijawka. 2017. “The Social Dimension of Sustainable Neighborhood Design: Comparing Two Neighborhoods in Freiburg, Germany.” Urban Planning 2 (4):64–80. doi:10.17645/up.v2i4.1035.
58. Handy, S., X. Cao, and P. Mokhtarian. 2005. “Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 10 (6):427–444. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002.
59. Handy, Susan. 2006. “Questioning Assumptions 1 Do New Urbanists Walk More.” Planning 72 (1):36–37.
60. Handy, Susan, James F. Sallis, Deanne Weber, Ed Maibach, and Marla Hollander. 2008. “Is Support for Traditionally Designed Communities Growing? Evidence From Two National Surveys.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (2):209–221. doi:10.1080/01944360802010418.
61. Hipp, John R., Kevin Kane, and Jae Hong Kim. 2017. “Recipes for neighborhood development: A machine learning approach toward understanding the impact of mixing in neighborhoods.” Landscape & Urban Planning 164:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.006.
62. Holden, M., C. Li, and A. Molina. 2015. “The emergence and spread of ecourban neighbourhoods around the world.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 7 (9):11418–11437. doi:10.3390/su70911418.
63. Homer, Andrew. 2000. “Creating new communities: The role of the Neighbourhood unit in post-war British planning.” Contemporary British history 14 (1):63–80. doi:10.1080/13619460008581572.
64. Hooper, P., M. Knuiman, F. Bull, E. Jones, and B. Giles-Corti. 2015a. “Are we developing walkable suburbs through urban planning policy? Identifying the mix of design requirements to optimise walking outcomes from the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ planning policy in Perth, Western Australia.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 12 (1). doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0225-1.
65. Hooper, Paula, Sarah Foster, Matthew Knuiman, and Billie Giles-Corti. 2020a. “Testing the Impact of a Planning Policy Based on New Urbanist Planning Principles on Residents’ Sense of Community and Mental Health in Perth, Western Australia.” Environment and Behavior 52 (3):305–339. doi:10.1177/0013916518798882.
66. Hooper, Paula, Sarah Foster, Matthew Knuiman, and Billie Giles-Corti. 2020b. “Testing the Impact of a Planning Policy Based on New Urbanist Planning Principles on Residents’ Sense of Community and Mental Health in Perth, Western Australia.” Environment & Behavior 52 (3):305–339. doi:10.1177/0013916518798882.
67. Hooper, Paula, Matthew Knuiman, Fiona Bull, Evan Jones, and Billie Giles-Corti. 2015b. “Are we developing walkable suburbs through urban planning policy? Identifying the mix of design requirements to optimise walking outcomes from the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ planning policy in Perth, Western Australia.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 12. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0225-1.
68. Howard, Ebenezer. 1985. Garden cities of to-morrow. New rev. ed. Eastbourne, Sussex: Eastbourne, Sussex: Attic Books.
69. Huston, Lawrence. 2003. “A Closer Look at Radburn.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (3):314–315. doi:10.1080/01944360308978023.
70. Isaac, S., S. Shubin, and G. Rabinowitz. 2020. “Cost-optimal net zero energy communities.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (6). doi:10.3390/su12062432.
71. Jin, Xiongbing. 2010. “Modelling the Influence of Neighbourhood Design on Daily Trip Patterns in Urban Neighbourhoods.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
72. Jin, Xiongbing, and Roger White. 2012. “An agent-based model of the influence of neighbourhood design on daily trip patterns.” Computers Environment and Urban Systems 36 (5):398–411. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.03.006.
73. Kallus, R., and H. Law-Yone. 1997. “Neighborhood – The metamorphosis of an idea.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 14 (2):107–125.
74. Kashef, Mohamad. 2009. “Sense of community and residential space: contextualizing new urbanism within a broader theoretical framework.” Archnet-Ijar International Journal of Architectural Research 3 (3):80–97.
75. Keck, George Fred. 1933. The Disappearing City. Institute for Economic Research.
76. Kim, K. B. 2005. “Towards sustainable neighborhood design: A sustainability evaluation framework and a case study of the Greenwich Millennium Village Project.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 22 (3):181–203.
77. Kim, Kyung-Bae, and Jea-Sun Lee. 2014. “A cross-comparative analysis of four projects towards sustainable neighbourhood design.” Urban Design International 19 (4):291–302. doi:10.1057/udi.2013.25.
78. Lathey, Vasudha, Subhrajit Guhathakurta, and Rimjhim M. Aggarwal. 2009. “The Impact of Subregional Variations in Urban Sprawl on the Prevalence of Obesity and Related Morbidity.” Journal of Planning Education & Research 29 (2):127–141. doi:10.1177/0739456X09348615.
79. Lee, Sungduck, Julia Koschinsky, and Emily Talen. 2018. “PLANNING TOOLS FOR WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS: ZONING, LAND USE, AND URBAN FORM.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 35 (1):69–88.
80. Lewis, S., E. Grande, and R. Robinson. 2023. “Boston's Walkable Neighborhood Systems: delineation and performance.” GeoJournal 88 (4):4049–4079. doi:10.1007/s10708-023-10848-z.
81. Limanond, T., and D. A. Niemeier. 2003. “Accessibility and mode-destination choice decisions: Exploring travel in three neighborhoods in Puget Sound, WA.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30 (2):219–238. doi:10.1068/b12846.
82. Llewellyn, Mark. 2004. “Producing and experiencing Harlow: neighbourhood units and narratives of New Town life 1947–53.” Planning perspectives 19 (2):155–174. doi:10.1080/0266543042000192457.
83. Lo, A. W. T., and D. Houston. 2018. “How do compact, accessible, and walkable communities promote gender equality in spatial behavior?” Journal of Transport Geography 68:42–54. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.02.009.
84. Logan, T. M., M. H. Hobbs, L. C. Conrow, N. L. Reid, R. A. Young, and M. J. Anderson. 2022. “The x-minute city: Measuring the 10, 15, 20-minute city and an evaluation of its use for sustainable urban design.” Cities 131:103924. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103924.
85. Lu, Zhongming, Frank Southworth, John Crittenden, and Ellen Dunhum-Jones. 2015. “Market potential for smart growth neighbourhoods in the USA: A latent class analysis on heterogeneous preference and choice.” Urban Studies 52 (16):3001–3017. doi:10.1177/0042098014550956.
86. Lund, Hollie. 2002. “Pedestrian environments and sense of community.” Journal of Planning Education & Research 21 (3):301. doi:10.1177/0739456X0202100307.
87. Maat, K., B. van Wee, and D. Stead. 2005. “Land use and travel behaviour: Expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (1):33–46. doi:10.1068/b31106.
88. Madrazo, Leandro. 2019. “THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD IDENTITY.” Open House International 44 (1):71–80.
89. Mason, Susan, and Elizabeth Fredericksen. 2011. “Fostering neighborhood viscosity: does design matter?” Community Development Journal 46 (1):7–26. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsp037.
90. Matthews, John W., and Geoffrey K. Turnbull. 2007. “Neighborhood street layout and property value: The interaction of accessibility and land use mix.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 35 (2):111–141. doi:10.1007/s11146-007-9035-9.
91. McCormack, G. R., C. Friedenreich, L. McLaren, M. Potestio, B. Sandalack, and I. Csizmadi. 2017. “Interactions between Neighbourhood Urban Form and Socioeconomic Status and Their Associations with Anthropometric Measurements in Canadian Adults.” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2017. doi:10.1155/2017/5042614.
92. Morrow-Jones, H. A., E. G. Irwin, and B. Roe. 2004. “Consumer preference for neotraditional neighborhood characteristics.” Housing Policy Debate 15 (1):171–202. doi:10.1080/10511482.2004.9521498.
93. Moudon, Anne Vernez, Chanam Lee, Allen D. Cheadle, Cheza Garvin, Donna Johnson, Thomas L. Schmid, Robert D. Weathers, and Lin Lin. 2006. “Operational Definitions of Walkable Neighborhood: Theoretical and Empirical Insights.” Journal of physical activity & health 3 (s1):S99-S117. doi:10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s99.
94. Mueller, Natalie, David Rojas-Rueda, Haneen Khreis, Marta Cirach, David Andrés, Joan Ballester, Xavier Bartoll, Carolyn Daher, Anna Deluca, Cynthia Echave, Carles Milà, Sandra Márquez, Joan Palou, Katherine Pérez, Cathryn Tonne, Mark Stevenson, Salvador Rueda, and Mark Nieuwenhuijsen. 2020. “Changing the urban design of cities for health: The superblock model.” Environ Int 134:105132. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105132.
95. Nasar, J. L. 2003. “Does neotraditional development build community?” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (1):58–68. doi:10.1177/0739456x03256224.
96. Oostenbach, Laura H., Karen E. Lamb, and Lukar E. Thornton. 2022. “Is having a 20-minute neighbourhood associated with eating out behaviours and takeaway home delivery? A cross-sectional analysis of ProjectPLAN.” BMC Public Health 22 (1):191-191. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-12587-1.
97. Owens, P. M. 1993. “Neighborhood form and pedestrian life: Taking a closer look.” Landscape and Urban Planning 26 (1–4):115–135. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(93)90011-2.
98. Page, M. J., J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J. M. Grimshaw, A. Hróbjartsson, M. M. Lalu, T. Li, E. W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S. McDonald, L. A. McGuinness, L. A. Stewart, J. Thomas, A. C. Tricco, V. A. Welch, P. Whiting, and D. Moher. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.” Bmj 372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.
99. Park, Yunmi. 2017. “Does new urbanist neighborhood design affect neighborhood turnover?” Land Use Policy 68:552–562. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.013.
100. Park, Yunmi, and George O. Rogers. 2015. “Neighborhood Planning Theory, Guidelines, and Research: Can Area, Population, and Boundary Guide Conceptual Framing?” Journal of Planning Literature 30 (1):18–36. doi:10.1177/0885412214549422.
101. Patricios, N. N. 2002. “Urban design principles of the original neighbourhood concepts.” Urban Morphology 6 (1):21–32.
102. Perry, Clarence Arthur. 1929. “City Planning for Neighborhood Life.” Social Forces 8 (1):98–100. doi:10.2307/2570059.
103. Pfeiffer, Deirdre, and Scott Cloutier. 2016. “Planning for Happy Neighborhoods.” Journal of the American Planning Association 82 (3):267–279. doi:10.1080/01944363.2016.1166347.
104. Pinto, Fulvia, and Mina Akhavan. 2022. “Scenarios for a Post-Pandemic City: urban planning strategies and challenges of making “Milan 15-minutes city.”” Transportation Research Procedia 60:370–377. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.048.
105. Raman, S. 2010. “Designing a liveable compact city physical forms of city and social life in urban neighbourhoods.” Built Environment 36 (1):63–80. doi:10.2148/benv.36.1.63.
106. Randall, Todd A. 2008. “Preferences of Suburban Residents in Thunder Bay, Ontario Towards Neighbourhood Intensification and Rediversification.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 17 (2):28–56.
107. Rodriguez, D. A., A. J. Khattak, and K. R. Evenson. 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. doi:10.1080/01944360608976723.
108. Rogers, George Oliver, and Sineenart Sukolratanametee. 2009. “Neighborhood design and sense of community: Comparing suburban neighborhoods in Houston Texas.” Landscape & Urban Planning 92 (3/4):325–334. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.019.
109. Rohe, William M. 2009. “From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (2):209–230. doi:10.1080/01944360902751077.
110. Ryan, S., and M. G. McNally. 1995. “Accessibility of neotraditional neighborhoods: A review of design concepts, policies, and recent literature.” Transportation Research Part A 29 (2):87–105. doi:10.1016/0965-8564(94)E0008-W.
111. Schlossberg, Marc, Deb Johnson-Shelton, Cody Evers, and Geraldine Moreno. 2015. “Refining The Grain: Using Resident-Based Walkability Audits To Better Understand Walkable Urban Form.” Journal of urbanism 8 (3):260–278.
112. Schwanen, Tim, and Patricia L. Mokhtarian. 2004. “The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type.” Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design 31 (5):759–784. doi:10.1068/b3039.
113. Sharifi, Ayyoob. 2016. “From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development.” Sustainable Cities and Society 20:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.002.
114. Shay, E., and A. J. Khattak. 2005. Automobile ownership and use in neotraditional and conventional neighborhoods. In Transportation Research Record.
115. Shelton, Taylor, and Ate Poorthuis. 2019. “The Nature of Neighborhoods: Using Big Data to Rethink the Geographies of Atlanta's Neighborhood Planning Unit System.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (5):1341–1361. doi:10.1080/24694452.2019.1571895.
116. Silver, C. 1985. “Neighborhood planning in historical perspective.” Journal of the American Planning Association 51 (2):161–174. doi:10.1080/01944368508976207.
117. Smith, Andrea, and Rachel Scarpato. 2010. “The Language of “Blight” and Easton's “Lebanese Town” Understanding a Neighborhood's Loss to Urban Renewal.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography 134 (2):127–164. doi:10.5215/pennmaghistbio.134.2.127.
118. Smith, Cameron J., and Todd A. Randall. 2008. “Measuring Residential Lot and Neighbourhood Changes in Hamilton, Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 17 (1):155–164.
119. Song, Y. 2005. “Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative study.” International Regional Science Review 28 (2):239–265. doi:10.1177/0160017604273854.
120. Song, Y., and M. Stevens. 2012. “The Economics of New Urbanism and Smart Growth: Comparing Price Gains and Costs between New Urbanist and Conventional Developments.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning.
121. Song, Yan, and Roberto G. Quercia. 2008. “How are neighbourhood design features valued across different neighbourhood types?” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 23 (4):297–316. doi:10.1007/s10901-008-9122-0.
122. Spoormans, L. G. K., D. Navas Carrillo, H. Zijlstra, and Teresa Pérez-Cano. 2019. “Planning History of a Dutch New Town: Analysing Lelystad through Its Residential Neighbourhoods.” Urban planning 4 (3):102–116. doi:10.17645/up.v4i3.2132.
123. Stafford, Lisa, and Claudia Baldwin. 2018. “Planning Walkable Neighborhoods: Are We Overlooking Diversity in Abilities and Ages?” Journal of Planning Literature 33 (1):17–30. doi:10.1177/0885412217704649.
124. Stangl, Paul. 2015. “Block size-based measures of street connectivity: A critical assessment and new approach.” Urban Design International 20 (1):44–55. doi:10.1057/udi.2013.36.
125. Stanislav, Andrew, and Jae Teuk Chin. 2019. “Evaluating livability and perceived values of sustainable neighborhood design: New Urbanism and original urban suburbs.” Sustainable Cities and Society 47. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101517.
126. Stouten, Paul. 2012. “The New Charter of Athens: Towards Sustainable Neighbourhoods?” Built Environment 38 (4):497–507. doi:10.2148/benv.38.4.497.
127. Susskind, Lawrence. 1973. “Planning for New Towns: The Gap Between Theory and Practice.” Sociological Inquiry 43 (3-4):291–310. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1973.tb00011.x.
128. Szibbo, N. A. 2016. “Assessing neighborhood livability: Evidence from LEED® for neighborhood development and new urbanist communities.” Articulo - Journal of Urban Research 14. doi:10.4000/articulo.3120.
129. Szplett, D., and L. Sale. 1997. “Some challenges in developing neotraditional neighborhood designs.” ITE Journal (Institute of Transportation Engineers) 67 (7):42–48.
130. Talen, E. 1999. “Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism.” Urban Studies 36 (8):1361–1379. doi:10.1080/0042098993033.
131. Talen, E. 2018. “In support of the unambiguous neighborhood: A proposed size typology.” Journal of Urbanism 11 (4):480–502. doi:10.1080/17549175.2018.1484794.
132. Talen, Emily. 2005. New Urbanism and American Planning: The Conflict of Cultures. Florence: Florence: Routledge.
133. Talen, Emily, and Julia Koschinsky. 2013. “The Walkable Neighborhood: A Literature Review.” Int. J. Sustain. Land Use Urban Plan. 1:42–63. doi:10.24102/ijslup.v1i1.211.
134. Talen, Emily, Sunny Menozzi, and Chloe Schaefer. 2015. “What is a “Great Neighborhood"? An Analysis of APA's Top-Rated Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 81 (2):121–141. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1067573.
135. Tewari, Shilpi, and David Beynon. 2018. “Changing neighbourhood character in Melbourne: point Cook a case study.” Journal of Urban Design 23 (3):456–464. doi:10.1080/13574809.2017.1383152.
136. Vahabzadeh Manesh, S., M. Tadi, and F. Zanni. 2011. “Integrated Sustainable Urban design: Neighbourhood design proceeded by sustainable urban morphology emergence.” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 155:631–642. doi:10.2495/SC120532.
137. Wei, Y. D., W. Xiao, M. Wen, and R. Wei. 2016. “Walkability, land use and physical activity.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (1):1–16. doi:10.3390/su8010065.
138. Wells, N. M., and Y. Yang. 2008. “Neighborhood Design and Walking. A Quasi-Experimental Longitudinal Study.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34 (4):313–319. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.019.
139. Wheeler, Stephen M. 2013. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities. London: London: Taylor and Francis.
140. Yeung, Peter. 2021. “How ‘15-minute cities’ will change the way we socialise.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201214-how-15-minute-cities-will-change-the-way-we-socialise.
141. Zakaria, R., V. Munikanan, M. I. M. Said, A. L. Saleh, C. K. Wah, and M. R. A. Shakri. 2012. “Sustainable neighbourhood elements model (SNEs model).” Advanced Science Letters 15 (1):113–116. doi:10.1166/asl.2012.4029.
142. Zhang, Q., E. H. K. Yung, and E. H. W. Chan. 2018. “Towards sustainable neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities for neighborhood planning in transitional Urban China.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 10 (2). doi:10.3390/su10020406.
143. Zhang, Yu-Hui, Yue-Jiao Gong, Ying Gao, Hua Wang, and Jun Zhang. 2020. “Parameter-Free Voronoi Neighborhood for Evolutionary Multimodal Optimization.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 24 (2):335–349. doi:10.1109/tevc.2019.2921830.