Two Types of Planning in Neighborhoods

Abstract

This paper distinguishes between &dquo;subarea planning&dquo; in which central planning agencies deconcentrate facilities or functions to subareas, and &dquo;neighborhood planning&dquo; in which community residents and organizations develop plans and programs for themselves This distinction is overdue and not trivial, for little of the growing discussion of neighborhoods carefully discriminates among alternative meanings Yet each type of planning has different ends, and much of what passes today as neighborhood planning is actually subarea planning in disguise. This paper draws on a review of research and practice on planning in neighborhoods concerned with housing rehabilitation, economic development, physical improvement, and social services It analyzes each type of planning, its objectives and methods, major participants and obstacles, and impacts and factors influencing practice It concludes that these are distinct movements important to separate, each motivated by distinct ends and values, each implying distinct roles for planners, planning, and planning education and research

Framing Space and Time in the City: Urban Policy and the Politics of Spatial and Temporal Scale

“…There has been a shift in focus from the citywide scale, which was the concern of comprehensive planning, to the scale of the small area or neighborhood (Dear, 1986, 1989; Filion, 1996; McGuirk, 1994; Winter & Brooke, 1993). However, as the neighborhood planning literature suggests, there is diverse array of approaches to planning at this scale (Checkoway, 1984; Jones, 1990; Peterman, 2000). This dual movement toward participatory policy‐making and neighborhood planning constitutes a significant change with important implications for urban politics.…”

The Interweaving of Community Intervention Approaches

“…The survey by Checkoway (1984) of extant planning endeavors describes a pattern of extensive citizen participation in planning endeavors of municipal departments and of private neighborhood planning organizations. This injects an important element of the locality development approach into the picture.…”

Neighborhood Needs and Organizational Resources: New Lessons from Detroit

“…advocated change at the neighborhood level. They vary in their origins and objectives, activities and accomplishments, internal characteristics and external relationships, but together they demonstrate that neighborhoods can take initiative and help themselves (Checkoway, 1984(Checkoway, , 1985a(Checkoway, , 1985b. In many areas, however, resources are scarce, knowledge is limited, and people are unsure how to proceed.…”