Neighbourhood unit
[2] Clarence Perry's conceptualisation of the neighbourhood unit evolved out of an earlier idea of his, to provide a planning formula for the arrangement and distribution of playgrounds in the New York region.
[1] Perry conceived of neighbourhoods in this time period as islands locked amidst a burgeoning sea of vehicular traffic, a dangerous obstacle which prevented children (and adults) from safely walking to nearby playgrounds and amenities.
Ultimately, however, it evolved to serve a much broader purpose, of providing a discernible identity for the concept of the "neighborhood", and of offering to designers a framework for disseminating the city into smaller subareas (suburbs).
"[6] William E. Drummond – a central architect in Frank Lloyd Wright's studio between 1899 and 1909 – defined the ‘Neighbourhood Unit’ within his submission to the Chicago City Club's planning competition of 1912.
[7] The competition wanted to address, "the theoretical and practical parameters, social and physical, of a micro-community in a suburban context with a focus on housing; the second concerned a community centre",[7] calling for proposals for a ‘quarter-section’ site south of central Chicago.
[7] Drummond was influenced by notable sociologist Charles Cooley, who he credited and surmised in his submission saying, ‘in the social and political organization of the city [the neighbourhood] is the smallest local unit’.
[7] While spatial elements of ‘neighbourhoods’ such as Forest Hills Gardens or Westwood Highlands are in keeping with those championed by reformers and progressive planners, these suburbs do not have common ideological origins.
Traces of the exclusion remain evident within the streetscape of neighbourhoods such as Forest Hill Gardens with signs delineating the ownership of commonly considered public space.
Isaacs believed that the overwhelming endorsement of the neighbourhood unit, as a "panacea for all urban ills", was misguided; suggesting that the mystical powers ascribed to the concept by its most enthusiastic adherents engendered a dangerously sectarian discourse surrounding its application.
[4] Isaacs's argument became a rallying point for the collective opposition of the neighbourhood unit, as planners began to question the unintended consequences of its repeated use, its socially divisive nature and its emphasis on the physical environment as the sole determinant of wellbeing.
In developed countries across the globe, the spread of urban systems which embrace obsolete or impractical uses of space in order to manifest a synthetic ‘rural’ community lifestyle is increasingly viewed as blight upon attempts to achieve sustainable metropolitan growth.
It is becoming increasingly difficult however, to mask the problems associated with the continued and ubiquitous use of variations on this model, and urban sprawl is proving to be one such problematic consequence of this usage facing many developed cities.
[14] It is becoming increasingly apparent that a rethinking of the current heteronormative approach to planning new communities on the urban fringe, or in the redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods, is required to meet density goals and forge sustainable growth.
