Search

In this paper, we present a quantified, GIS-based analysis of the relationship between urban morphological patterns and racial, ethnic, and household characteristics. We want to understand how the built landscapes of American cities differ in sociological terms—for example, are some more prone to racial concentration or prevalence of particular family types? Since many built landscape types are relatively recent and rapidly growing, this analysis can inform current debates about sprawl and inequality. We examined six diverse U.S. metropolitan regions: Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, Portland, and Sacramento, joining census block data with built landscape patterns mapped in GIS through aerial imagery analysis. We find that a large portion of our six metropolitan regions consists of patterns that can be characterized as sprawl—patterns that are often manifestations of a desire for separation. This separation has significant equity implications because resources—services, amenities, schools, parks, tax base, etc.—are not evenly distributed. Further, two of our patterns (Rural Sprawl and Upscale Enclave), which are growing rapidly and most often occur on the urban fringe, have the least diverse demographics across all six metro areas. These landscapes are also by far the least dense, leading to a range of negative environmental impacts. Older built landscape types (Urban Grids, Rectangular Block Grids, and Degenerate Grids) are denser and relatively diverse. These have lower rates of occupancy in most urban areas, indicating an opportunity to house additional residents in relatively well-located, well-connected, and diverse central portions of metropolitan regions.

This paper offers a normative definition of what a neighbourhood should be. Normatively defined, a neighbourhood has identity, a place that functions as its centre, everyday facilities and services, internal and external connectivity, social diversity within it or an openness to its enabling, and a means by which residents can be involved in its affairs and speak with a collective voice. This paper argues that there are four reasons why this normative definition is a worthy goal. First, neighbourhoods that meet this normative definition do exist and are in high demand, which is evidence that more are needed. Meeting demand has become a significant problem over the last few decades, and cities struggle to find ways to sustain whatever supply they are fortunate to have. Second, normative neighbourhoods are able to foster a sense of ownership and caring. Neighbourhood tangibility forms the basis of self-governance, evident in the historical record and a century of discourse. In the absence of an explicit definition, neighbourhood is an abstraction, weakening residents' ability to control or change it. Third, normative neighbourhoods cultivate social and economic connection because they root connectivity in daily experience. From small business success to neighbourhood-based surveillance, to efforts to combat social isolation among the elderly, to increasing success among high-risk children in school, neighbourhood-based engagement is regularly cited as a factor in addressing social challenges. Fourth, the normative neighbourhood substitutes place for homogeneity as the basis of neighbourhood definition. Place, instead of class or race, forms neighbourhood consciousness and is the basis of collective identity, one capable of transcending the desire for social sameness, the fear of others, and the distrust of institutions. Social identity based solely on class, race or ethnicity has been harmful because of its exclusionary effects, so an alternative identity basis is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]