This paper traces the institutional, social, and physical design forces that shaped the ideology of Clarence A. Perry and influenced his development of the “neighborhood unit” concept. Officially introduced in 1929 as a part of the published Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, the neighborhood unit, as conceived by Perry, has strongly influenced local planning and subdivision design since its inception. In addition, this paper investigates controversy surrounding attitudes toward the neighborhood unit and the purported “determinism” and reformist intents of the concept. It investigates the wide-spread influence of the model on residential design, investigates current attitudes of usefulness of the model, and considers New Urbanism as an opportune tweaking of the design elements of the neighborhood unit. It concludes that the neighborhood unit, while having social influences in residential life, is more accurately termed a physical design model that weaves neighborhood layout and opportunities for interaction.

Since the 1970s, development impact fees have emerged as a way to pass the cost of new infrastructure to the development community. Although development impact fees intend to transfer the burden of infrastructure provision to the developer, it is widely believed that the homebuyer ultimately absorbs the cost through inflated housing and land prices. This article examines the planning practice implications of development impact fees on housing and land prices. The review of the literature suggests that impact fees contribute to housing price infation in communities where there are no reasonable housing substitutes and that tax burden and infrastructure enhancements are capitalized into the price of home and land.

The application of distance learning to urban planning holds promise for reaching a broader planning education audience. While technology can bridge the gap between the classroomand the remote learner, the distance learner may be denied the opportunity of face-to-face communication, collaboration and inter-action when the traditional classroom experience is abandoned. This may not be in the best interest of students nor the clients assisted in the planning process. This article investigates the concern that technology-enhanced distance learning will reduce student experiences in communicating with others, collaborating on projects, and interacting with students, faculty and clients—group processes typically experienced in the classroom setting. It concludes that the pursuit of distance learning may not be in the best interest of the profession if it cuts short essential student experiences.

No abstract

No abstract