WALEAM AND WWICATION OF THE NEIGEBORBND UNIT FORMULA THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M.U.P. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY III MAI. H. mama 1973 1 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT EVALUATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT FORMULA BY Kamal H. Sabbour During the past few decades, society has been ex- periencing the growing impact of technological achieve- ments. Some of its effects have been felt in our percep- tion of physical distance and increased awareness of the value of time. While the impact of these achievements has been experienced in all aspects of our lives, the ”Neighborhood Unit Formula," introduced almost half a century ago, is still accepted _3 li- This formula was mostly applied to building new communities while the need for its application to older areas was more urgent. The "Neighborhood Unit Formula” was introduced by Clarence A. Perry as part of the Regional Plan of New York. It defined the physical relationships between families and the services and facilities they need. However, its basic guidelines were heavily criticized because of its social ramifications. Others contend that the formula is simply a proposal for the arrangement of the physical environment intended to provide measures of safety and convenience to urban populations. As a result, it became fashionable to Kamal H. Sabbour draw circles stipulating that activity patterns would be confined within these areas. This, however, can rarely be the case, which underlines the need for a realistic ap- praisal of the formula's principles and standards. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this research was directed toward evaluating the "Neighborhood Unit Formula," and accomplished in two phases: (1) Investigate the types of activity patterns which occur within the residential environment. Once this is accomplished, the various design princi- ples, standards and spatial arrangements can be evaluated. (2) Based on this evaluation, problems Can be identi- fied and modifications or alternative solutions can be recommended. The resulting analysis and evaluation indicate various problems due to the limitations imposed on its size, capacity and design arrangements. Also illustrated are its non-conformity to household activity patterns as well as its rigidity which prevents possible adaptation or modification. Accordingly, an alternative solution is pre- sented. The guidelines proposed for this alternative solu- tion attempt to achieve two objectives. One is to avoid the problems inherent in Perry's design. The other is to allow for maximum flexibility if any changes or alterations become necessary. EVALUATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT FORMULA BY Kamal H. Sabbour A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of -MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1973 C)? ‘1) \‘d C35 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to give special recognition to Profes- sor Charles W. Barr for his guidance, and many hours spent consulting on the research problem and data analysis. Sin- cere thanks are also due to Professor Sanford Farness and Mr. Effat Mansour for their constructive criticism during the preparation of this thesis. The instruction and seasoned advice I received from my dear friend Dr. Mohamed Al-Awady were invaluable aids in investigating the research problem. Finally my gratitude is due to my brother Emad, whose encouragement was a significant contribution to the completion of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Examination of Basic Assumptions . . . . . 8 III. DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Household Classification . . . . . . . . . 14 Description of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Income—Occupation Matrix . . . . . . . . . 18 Income Classification . . . . . . . . . . 18 Occupation Classification . . . . . . . . 20 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 ShOpping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Bus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 iii IV. EVALUATION Physical Proximity Walking Distance Concept Density Considerations Design Arrangements . Design Core Implementation V. ANALYSIS, MODIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis Modifications . . . Recommendations Classification of Services and Facilities Primary and Secondary Services and Facilities Classification of Activity Patterns Design Considerations BIBLIOGRAPHY . iv 41 51 S3 54 SS 55 S7 59 59 61 61 61 62 62 63 6S Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Income-Occupation Matrix Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Service Areas 5 vice Areas Service Areas Service Areas Service Areas Service Areas Service Areas Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: Distance: for for for for for for for LIST OF TABLES Page . . . 19 Subgroup I-A . . 22 Subgroup I-B . 23 Subgroup I-C 24 Subgroup I-D . 25 Subgroup II-A 26 Subgroup II-B . 27 Subgroup II-C . 28 Subgroup II-D 29 Subgroup III-B . . 3O Subgroup III-C . . 31 Subgroup III-D . . . 32 Subgroup IV-C . 33 Subgroup IV—D . . 34 Library 43 Shopping Center . 44 Elementary School 45 Junior High School . . . . . 46 High School . . 47 Church 48 Park . . . 49 22. 23. Service Areas for Bus Service Accessibility Standards vi SO 51 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the past few decades, society has been ex- periencing the growing impact of technological achievements. The introduction and availability of the automobile, for example, radically affected the concept of physical dis- tance and increased people's awareness of the value of time. Modern appliances and storage facilities changed shopping habits, reduced the importance of the corner grocery store and increased that of the supermarket. The wide use of mass media and electronic equipment not only changed the function, operation and sc0pe of services of various facilities but also Opened up new avenues of com- munication and understanding between the urban population. While the impact of these technological achieve- ments has been felt in all aspects of our lives, many changes and alterations have been experienced in the urban environment. Yet, the "Neighborhood Unit Formula" as an urban design concept introduced almost half a century ago, is still accepted as is. The "Neighborhood Unit Formula" is a design concept often proposed in general planning reviews as a method for reorganizing the residential areas. The formula states principles and standards for the spatial relationships of dwellings, schools, shopping centers, churches, libraries and similar elements of the physical environment. Since its inception, the formula became widely ac- cepted but variously and inconsistently used. At times, it deals with areas having common physical, social or cul- tural characteristics and at others, it refers to human activities and relationships that may occur among the residents of these areas. Because of these inconsistent interpretations, planners were always reluctant to effec- tively utilize its principles and standards to solve the problems of physical disorder in well established urban communities. As a result, the formula was mostly applied to building new urban environments while the need for its application to older areas was more urgent. Such limited use did not afford planners the opportunity to examine its principles and standards as a general planning tool capable of organizing the urban form, new and old alike. Although planners are always in need for planning tools to help build a viable and organized urban environ- ment, there is also a need for examining the capabilities and limitations of these tools before shaping this environ- ment for decades to come. This process of examination, however, was difficult to perform due to the lack of needed information which can adequately describe the complex interaction between people and physical facilities that takes place within the urban environment. Fortunately, this information became available from surveys conducted by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in the Lansing-East Lansing Metropolitan Area.1 Accordingly, the primary purpose of this research will be directed toward evaluating the "Neighborhood Unit Formula." This will be accomplished by testing its prin- ciples and standards, thus developing a notion as to how they actually work in real life. Study Approach The approach presented in this study will be as follows: (1) Examination of the basic assumptions stated by the "Neighborhood Unit Formula." (2) Testing its principles and standards. To accom- plish this, a hypothetical model will be deveIOped. (3) Evaluation of the formula's principles and stan- dards by comparison with the derived findings. Based on this comparison, guidelines for modifica- tions will be recommended. 1Tri-Cocnty Regional Planning Commission, Format and DeScription of Data in Card or Tape Form (Lansing, MiCH., ($67). CHAPTER II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The idea of people living together in a geographic area has long intrigued man. Since early civilizations communities were built in a sufficiently condensed form to afford the needed facilities in a minimum space. The divi- sion of large communities into small sections, or "neigh- borhoods," goes back to ancient cities of the Middle East and Europe. Distinct districts were evident in ancient Rome where the temple, the public bath and the market place were common features. The church was a profound influence on European cities. Such an idea was recorded by Lewis Mumford as follows: The division of the town into quarters, each with its church or churches, often with a local provision market, always with its own local water supply, a well or a fountain. Often as in Venice the neighborhood unit would be identified with the parish and got its name from the parish church: a division that remains to this day.1 Along with the industrial revolution came the mass migra- tion from rural areas to urban communities. Older sections of cities turned into overcrowded slums unsuitable for 1Lewis Mumford, The City in History (New York: Har- court, Brace and World,_Inc.,’196l), p.‘3IO. 4 5 human habitation. Such situations became the concern of a new planning movement in an attempt to eliminate these un- desirable conditions and improve the quality of urban life. Among the leaders of this movement was Ebenezer Howard, who introduced the "Garden City" concept.1 The concept deals with totally new communities of 30,000 pe0ple. Each community was divided into wards of 5,000 peOple. The ward was bounded by radial boulevards and circular avenues described as: Six magnificent boulevards--each 120 feet wide-- traverse the city from center to circumference, dividing it into six equal parts or wards.2 Each ward was served by a centrally located school, open spaces, and other services alongside its boundaries.3 The implementation of Howard's idea took place in two communities--Letchworth and Welwyn--built near London. Shortly thereafter, its influence became evident in France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Russia and the United States. The growing concern which followed has been wit- nessed and documented.‘ Many theories have been introduced and different approaches to account for the new challenge have been implemented. These theories are evident not only in the areas of transportation and housing, but also in 1Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., MLF‘Paperback Edition, I96ST. 21bid., pp. 51-52. 31bid., p. 53. civic design and land use, to name a few. Another pioneer that got involved in this planning movement was Clarence A. Perry. As part of the Regional Plan of New York, he introduced a new concept called the "Neighborhood Unit Formula."1 The "Neighborhood Unit Formula" deals with the ar- rangement of family life communities. As defined by Perry, the unit was described as an area which embraces all public facilities needed by its inhabitants. Each unit provides housing for 5,000 people. The area is bounded on all sides by arterial streets, provided by a system of small parks and recreation spaces, served by an elementary school, a library, local assembly area and other institutions suitably grouped about a central core with one or more shOpping districts laid out in the circumference, preferably at traffic junctions, and a special street system to facilitate internal circulation and to discourage through traffic. Through these physical arrangements, service; and facilities would be located within convenient and safe walking distance of the area residents. In addition to providing safety and convenience measures to the area :esidents, the design concept intended 1Clarence A. Perry, Neighborhood and Community Plan- ning, Vol. VII of the Regional Survey of New York andets EnV1rons (New York: Regional Plan of New York and Its En- virons, 1929). Also, Clarence A. Perry, Housing for the Machine Age (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1839). to recognize a fundamental limitation concerning the size of an area and the number of people who could effectively get together and actively participate in matters that affect them individually or collectively. As a result, civic interest and responsibility, particularly toward maintaining a sound and wholesome urban environment, would be achieved. These premises were based on the assumption that the proper arrangement of schools, retail stores, open spaces, streets, and dwellings would provide a family with better living conditions.1 In addition to introducing some design principles to achieve physical order within the residential environment, the concept attempted to achieve the following objectives:2 1. Create a safe and pleasant residential environment where a child can easily and safely walk to school, shepping facilities are within reach of housewives, and playgrounds are available for children and adults. 2. Reduce the residential environment to proportions similar to the rural or semi-urban communities, 1Perry, Housinggfor the Machine Age, pp. 17-18. 2Arthur B. Gallion and Simon Eisner, The Urban Pat- tern (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 250-264; Peter H- Mann, An Approach to Urban Sociology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,’1964), p. 17; Jehn Tetlow et al., Towns and Traffic (London: Faber and Faber, 1965). where people can find friendliness, relaxation, convenience, and safety, as well as Opportunities for self expression and citizenship on a manageable scale.1 3. Encourage the association among neighbors by gener— ating social relations through face-to-face inter- action. 4. Stimulate local loyalties, attachment and feelings of identity and community spirit. One of the most pleasant memories old-timers have is of the friendly community spirit that used to be strong years ago. This plan aims to confirm and recreate that con- genial feeling in modern garb, through the organization of the town into "neighborhood units" of 1,500 families (5,000 people) each. By living in a compact community en- vironment, children will develop a sense of security and belonging, while adults will feel themselves closely inte- grated into a personal social unit. Examination of Basic Assumptions The ”neighborhood unit formula" was welcomed by planners because it introduced a new method for rearranging the residential environment according to new guidelines-- 1James Dahir, The Neighborhood Unit Plan (New York. Russell Sage Foundation, 194 ), p. . different from the traditional gridiron pattern. It defined the physical relationships between families and the services and facilities they need. More important, it established a manageable unit of urban design with which planners can deal. In brief, Perry‘s proposal can be described as an urban design concept intended to introduce principles of physical order to the residential environment. This objec- tive has been clearly stated by Gallion and Eisner in The Urban Pattern. The neighborhood unit is not some sociological phenome- non, it embraces no particular theories of social sciences. It is simply a physical environment in which a mother knows that her child will have no traffic streets to cross on his way to school, a school which is within easy walking distance from home. It is an environment in which the housewife may have an easy walk to a shopping center where she may obtain daily household goods, and the man of the hosue may find convenient transportation to and from his work. It is an environment in which a well-equipped playground is located near to home where the children may play in safety with their friends.1 Simply stated, therefore, the concept refers to a service area and population sharing shops, playgrounds, and a centrally located school, a library and a local assembly area, arranged within walking distance to individual house- holds. It was assumed, however, that these principles and standards will be enjoyed by the urban population. So it was 1ssumed that a walking distance of one-fourth or 1Gallion and Eisner, op. cit., p. 251. 10 one-third of a mile from a school or shops would be conve- nient for children and adults, and a particular arrangement of services and facilities would confine local activities within these service areas. All these design arrangements emphasize the impor- tance of the walking distance. As a result, it became fashionable to draw circles at certain distances apart stipulating that peOple within these areas have only these distances to walk to their destinations. Furthermore, it was assumed that the given services and facilities as well as activity patterns are not subject to change. This, however, can rarely be the case, which underlines the need for a realistic and detailed appraisal of these principles and standards. These guidelines, however, were opposed by social planners. They heavily criticized Perry's formula because of its social ramifications.1 They submitted that: 1. It is a dogmatic and inadequate formula impediment to the democratization of cities. 2. It tends to divide the city into social, physical and political cells which have no basis in present or future community life, discouraging and prevent- ing the representation of small areas. 1Reginald R. Isaacs, "The Neighborhood Theory: An Analysis of Its Adequacy,” Journal of the American Insti- tute of Planners (Spring 1948), p. 15. 11 3. It would create isolated communities in which unde- sirable social exclusiveness between urban residents might lead to social snobbishness. 4. It discourages the imitation of better living condi- tions which more intensive contact between the dif- ferent sections would produce. 5. It would drain the leadership from one area to an- other, thus denying the deprived areas the talents of their influential and knowledgeable potential leaders. In addition, several studies have challenged Perry's basic assumptions concerning the division of the city into smaller units with better physical arrangements to estab- lish more stable family life, enhance neighborly face-to- face relations or stimulate the formation of social con- 1 These studies concluded that physi- tacts and friendship. cal distances as such are no longer considered sufficient to account for the formation and perpetuation of social contacts, especially of the more enduring sort. This can be observed in many instances of physically compact units where residents, though physically close, do not establish any relationships with one another. If these relations exist, it must be rooted in shared ideas and beliefs. 1Leo Kuper, ed., Blue Print for Living Together (London: Cresset, 1953), pp. 86-90. Also, Herbert J. Gans, "Planning and Social Life," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVII (May 1961), 134-140. 12 Barring this, neighborly relations will either fail to be established or, if established, they will be temporary, un- reliable and ineffectual. It was also argued that the "neighborhood unit formula" has tried to affect social relations by reducing the physical distance or the functional distance between neighbors. The physical distance may be reduced by improv- ing accessibility through better means of transportation or by smaller geometric distances. Functional distances may be reduced by better site planning and building ar- rangements. Evidence of these distances on social rela- tions, however, is inconclusive. Even under special condi- tions where the physical or functional distances are manipulated, their impact on face-to-face interaction or social relations among neighbors is uncertain but rather it may increase hostility and interpersonal friction.1 Accordingly, the reduction of distance, physical or func- tional, to increase visual and personal contacts among neighbors may not necessarily be followed by sociable con— tacts among them. Other studies also argued that the "neighborhood" describes a community bound together by common social and economic characteristics and cultural traits. The forma- tion of these communities, therefore, does not evolve from 1Theodore Caplow, et al., The Urban Ambience (New Jersey: Bedminster, 1964), pp. 166-170. 13 simple physical arrangements. Additionally, social, economic or cultural character- istics always overlap from one part of the city to the other. Accordingly, these characteristics cannot be con- fined within physical boundaries. These issues, in turn, lead to a considerable concern about the undesirable effects on the social fabric of urban p0pulation if the concept is implemented. These issues, however, were not but mere speculation for two main reasons. One is the lack of testing grounds, particularly in well established urban communities, to justify these accusations. Second is the absence of con- clusive evidence that can clearly describe the effect of distances, physical or functiona, on the formation of social interaction. CHAPTER III DESIGN CRITERIA Introduction As is the case with any urban design, evaluation of Perry's proposal requires an analysis of the activity pat- terns which occur within the residential environment. These activities, however, are performed by households with differing needs most suited to their particular social, economic and cultural characteristics. These characteris- tics initiate different values, each with its sets of sen- sory inputs creating a series of different worlds. Accord- ingly, an investigation into the types of activity patterns which occur within the residential environment is not only needed but is a necessity. Once accomplished, the various design principles, standards and spatial arrangements can be evaluated, and modifications can be recommended. Household Classification Home-related activities may be defined as those movements performed by a family to fulfill its domestic needs. These activities stem from the way a household lives. Its way of life, however, is influenced by many 14 15 constraints.1 Some originate from its social, economic and cultural characteristics. Households choose where to live because their income allows them to do so. Age, sex, size and other social characteristics of a family determine the types of activities performed by its members and influence its decision to locate near services or facilities. Race, language, education, ethnicity and similar cultural charac- teristics shape the family's habits, customs and values determining its association with others in work or at home. Among these constraints, the income level and occupa- tion of the household head were selected as indices to identify the various activity patterns. These were selected for the following reasons: 1) Income and occupation can provide convenient bases for comparison between households. They can serve as major indices for evaluating the social role a household head performs in society. Learning the specific attributes of these two factors, this role can be identified. 2) Income and occupation can provide observable cri- teria for rating households. Both can be transformed into consumptive units indicating certain behavior or life style which can describe different interests and values. 1Herbert J. Gans, People and Plans, Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions (New York: Basic Books, Inc., I968), pp. 44-47. 3) 4) 5) 16 Income and occupation are highly correlated with the education attained by the household head. Education, in turn, suggests the type of associates he can come in contact with. In addition, education can describe the type of friends or neighbors the family would like to have and the suitable playmates or classmates for its children. Income and occupation of the household head can de- scribe the contribution he makes for the community welfare and hints at the degree of his authority over others. Such aspects confer prestige on peOple and recognize more accurately their skills at work. In addition, both factors illustrate his potential and success which can describe his present and future role he may perform in the society. Income and education can clearly indicate the life cycle stage of the household head. For example, two persons belonging to the same occupation can have different income levels due to additional ex- perience. More experience, in turn, indicates addi- tional years at work. Similarly, occupation repre- sents the accumulation of knowledge during a certain number of years spent in education. Accordingly, income and education can indicate the life cycle stage of the household head and, therefore, the probable social composition of the family. 17 6) Income and occupation always refer to precise defi- nitions and represent recognizable units easily per- ceived by the majority of people. 7) Income and occupational data can be collected easily and objectively without any bias due to personal interest or value judgment. 8) Income and occupational data represent a relatively stable information holding the same meaning for longer periods of time. Therefore, any re-evaluation, adjustment or additional information can be easily pursued. It should be noted, however, that a household classifica- tion based on these two dimensions separately may lead to questionable results. This is due to some misleading ex- pressions about household characteristics. A particular group of households, for example, may have similar norms or values, yet economic constraints may limit their choice of residential location. Similarly, some households may have the same income level but their race, ethnicity or educa— tional attainment may limit their endurance to continue living in an area or establish neighborly relations with other residents. Based on these considerations, 3 combina- tion of income-occupation classification would help des-.lse households that would live together voluntarily more accu- rately. Therefore, classify urban households into groups that can afford living together in a residential area as 18 well as establish more enduring neighborly relationships. Description of Data The data utilized in this study are part of the Home Opinion Surveys performed by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in the Tri-County area. The data include the following information: ‘1. The income level and occupation of the household head. 2. The estimated distances from a given list of ser- vices and facilities. 3. The expressed level of satisfaction from this dis- tance given as very satisfied, fairly satisfied, fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Income-Occupation Matrix a. Income Classification The income levels included in the survey were di- vided into nine categories ranging from incomeless house- holds to those with $25,000 or more annual income. How- ever, for the purpose of this study families were classi- fied into four income levels shown in Table 1. These are: 1. Low Income (group A) under $5,000/yr. II. Lower Middle (group B) $5,000 to $9,999/yr. III. Upper Middle (group C) $10,000 to 14,999/yr. IV. Upper Income (group D) $15,000/yr and over. 19 .mucovcoamou mmH.~ .onaam Hopes wo.v no vm.o om nn.o~ mad co.“ NH vm.~ um wn.o mm.o an Hm.m Ho.uH omH mm.m~ om.N mm um.m mv vHN o0 mo.o n wn.o m vm.v om mm.vH moH >H macho HHH macho HH macho H macho :owumfismom mucoucommou newumaamom mucoccoamon :ofiumasmom mucovcommou cowumazmom mucoucommou mo acounom mo .02 mo ucoonom Mo .02 .mm pcoouom mo .02 .mo ucoonom mo .02 o>opp pea ooo.msw mmm.va.ooo.on sms.m»-ooo.mw mas.vw-ooo.oa o msouu o msouu m macho < macho meHuom 0:0 «.mm I- I- ~.H om.~ m.~ co.“ m.- hm.o now 0.00 0.0 0m.~ I- II 0.v~ on." m.Hm Hm.o xumm n.HH ~.m Nn.m m.H o0.~ n.v~ 0v.H «.m0 m~.H zonasu m.vm 0.0 00.“ 0.o 00.0 H.a o~.~ «.00 cm.“ floonom cm“: 5.50 0.0 o0.o 0.o 00.0 0.0 u0.~ m.~m 00.H Hoonom saw: season v.00 I- I- I- I- 0.0 oo.~ H.He mo.H Hoonom xnapcosofim n.v v.~ mv.H 5.0 mo.H o.- -.~ 0.v0 mv.H noucoo mcwmmczm u.- ~.H mo.~ H.n mm.~ H.mH w~.~ m.vm mm.“ known“; ucoonom unmouom moawz ucoouom mafia: accused mega: ucoouom moHfl: uflgwomm no wwfiwmmm uocpo onmepmmmwo 060Mmfiuwmmflo 000Mmfiuem 00meprm :owuomwmfipw xuo> Afinwmm xfiuflmm xuo> mo common 000 0:0 0.00 I- I- 5.0 00.00 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0o0 5.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0000 5.0 5.0 00.0 0.0 05.0 0.0 00.0 5.00 00.0 000300 0.00 I- I- 0.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 000:00 :00: 0.00 I- I- 0.0 00.~ 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0oo000 :00: 000030 0.00 I- I: 5.0 00.0 0.0 50.0 0.00 00.0 000200 0000005000 .. 5.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 00.0 000:00 0:099020 0.00 0.0 oo.~ 0.0 00.0 5.00 40.0 0.00 00.0 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000: 0000000 0000: 0000000 00002 0:00000 00002 0000000 no MM0MMMW 00:00 000000000000 000000000000 000000000 000000000 :0000000000 000> 000000 000000 000> mo 000000 mIH msomumzm "muz000 000 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000 0.00 0.0 00.0 -- -- 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0000 0.0 0.0 00.0 -- -- 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 0.00 0.0 00.0 -- -- 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 000: 0.00 -- -- -- -- 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 000: 000000 0.00 0.0 00.0 -- -- 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 0000000000 -- 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 0~.0 000000 00000000 0.0 0.0 00.0 -- -- 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000: 0000000 0000: 0000000 0000: 0000000 00002 00000000 00 “M0MMMM 00000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000 000000000 000> 000000 000000 x00> 000000000000 mo 000000 0-0 Abomomsm "muzuom mam -- -- -- n.w oo.¢ m.w oo.v «.mm om.~ non n.m -- -- m.m oo.~ u.o~ o~.H 5.00 oH.H xuam o.m~ -- -- m.m oo.~ h.cH ow.~ o.om m¢.H gousgu n.mm -- -- n.» oo.m n.0H om.~ n.He eo.~ doogum an“: o.m~ -- -- m.m oo.m 5.0“ mg.“ o.om oN.H Hoogow an“: uofinaa m.” -- -- 5.0H om.~ o.m~ oe.o o.om na.o Hoosum xuaucoaoam -- 5.0H oo.H o.m~ um.~ -- -- n.mm no.~ nausea mawmgonm -- -- -- n.m oo.H o.m~ Fe.” 5.00 on.“ thunwg xuwawomm no ouw>hmm unouuom ugooumm mafia: pcoouom mafia: «acumen mod“: vacuum; mafia: we wake Macao voHMmfiummmfio vomewummmfia vomewuam vomewumm xuo> xfinfimm xauwwm xyo> :ofiuomMmfiumm Mo ooumoa QuH Abomumam "muzaom mam o.mo -- -- H.¢ oo.o H.q om.~ m.o~ HH.H non o.mH -- -- o.v oo.H o.- mn.~ 0.0m mm.o xumm o.» . o.~ oo.ofl o.v ow.~ o.~m m~.~ o.em mm.H nuuanu o.~m o.~ oo.n o.m oo.m o.vH 5H.N o.om mo.~ Hoogom gmfim o.¢m o.~ oo.~ o.N oo.n o.e~ oo.n o.m~ um.fl Moogom swam Hoflcsn o.~q -- -- -- -- o.oH mm.H o.~e w~.o Hoozom xumucoamfim -- -+ -- o.~ oo.m o.o~ oo.~ o.~n ow.o Howaou mawmgoam o.~ -- -- o.o mm.m o.v~ mm.H o.wo om.H mehnflq ucouuom acmonom mafia: uaoohom mafia: ucoonom mom“: uaouuom mmfiwz NWHHflomu no wwflwmmm “mayo ucfiMwawmmflo noflwmfipmmmfio uofimmwumm cofimmfipmm cofiuuammflumm - 90> Aanfimm xahwmm xuo> mo oouwoo nom mam a.m H.N oo.m ~.m 5H.m ~.m~ mN.¢ o.o~ mu.~ new e.» h.m ¢¢.~ m.m um.o n.- on.~ m.o~ om.H xumm o.m -- -- v.~ om.v m.m~ vm.~ n.05 Nv.H guusso ~.- m.~ 00.? ~.m om.N o.¢H mo.¢ ~.mm ha.H floonom nmfiz m.m~ m.m mm.~ w.~ on.~ H.0H om.m o.vm mo.~ Hoogum gmfim “awash «.mH m.o oo.q a.~ mv.m ~.~H Hm.~ n.no -.~ Hooaom mamucoEO~m m.o ¢.~ vo.~ e.» va.m c.5H mo.m n.05 «H.~ Monaco wcflmmogm m.HH ¢.~ om.¢ w.¢ ~m.¢ ”.mH no.m m.~o nm.~ xumunwg acouuom ucmopom moaflz pamonom moflfiz ucouuom mafia: unconvm mafia: xuwflfiomm no “MHMMMM Hague uofiMmflummmfio wofiMmfluammwo voflmeumm vofiMmfipmm xum> xHuwmm xflnfimm xuo> :ofiuumewumm \mo acumen m-HH Abomumbm “muzuom mam 0.5 m.H mn.n nflv em.» n.vH vm.v w.~n mm.~ now v.o~ n.o ov.~ 5.0 no.0 v.HH n~.~ w.vo mm.~ xumm n.~ m.o om.o ~.v mm.v o.~H ov.~ o.~m ma.H nousno o.o~ o.v nn.m 5.0 om.~ w.- mv.n m.mm mv.~ Hoonow an“: H.H~ H.m v~.m H.m vu.m w.m~ ~v.n m.vm no.~ fioonum cm“: newcsm v.m~ H.~ mo.H H.~ mo.~ N.w m~.H N.wo mN.H Hoonow Anmpcoemam m.“ ~.v o~.m n.v mn.v o.mH om.~ 0.05 um.” um _ou wcfimmocm s.m o.m vm.v n.m vv.m m.- mm.~ ~.oo mm.~ xnmuan «coupon pcounom moawz unmouom mod“: uncouma moHMz pcoonom mafia: xufiflfiuwm go wwfiwmmw Es gamma: 2mm“... 3mm“... 3%.... smmmm uuHH abomumam "muzuom 0:0 0.0 0.0 00.0 5.~ 00.0 H.m~ mm.v 5.~5 «0.0 now «.0 0.0 mm.H 0.5 00.0 o.- 0H.H 0.00 Hm.o xumm 0.0 0.0 oo.H 0.0 00.0 v.<~ ~5.n 0.05 vm.~ cognac 5.50 0.5 00.0 m.~ 50.0 m.o~ Hm.N n.~m 05." “00:00 :00: 0.00 5.0 00.0 0.0 cc.” «.0 mv.N 0.00 00.“ Hoonum :00: Meagan ~.m~ 0.0 00.~ u- n- 0.0 Hm.H 0.05 Ho.~ Hoonum xumucosu~m -- 5.H om.m m.~ cc.” ~.o~ 00.o 0.m5 om.H “00:00 mafimmocm N.v 0.0 00.0 5.~ 00.0 v.- 05.~ «.00 m0.H 5n0uawa vacuum“ acounom mom“: uzouuom mafia: unauuom mofiwz acouuom mafia: xuflfifluwm no wwflwmmm Hague voMMmMHMmmwo vofiMmMHmmmfio vmflmmwumm woMMmfiuwm 5no> 509000 5Huwwm xno> newuommmwumm mo ooumoo ouHH anomumam "muz000 000 0.0 0.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 0.5 00.0 5.05 50.0 000 0.00 «.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 0.05 50.0 x000 0.0 -- -- 0.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 0.00 -- -- 0.0 00.0 0.0 05.0 0.00 00.0 000000 :00: 0.00 0.0 00.N 0.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 0.00 50.0 000000 000: 000000 0.0m -- -- -- -- 0.0 00.0 5.00 00.0 000000 5000000000 0.0 -- -- 0.0 00.0 0.00 0N.» 0.00 00.0 000000 00000000 0.0 «.0 00.0 5.0 50.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 05.~ 5000000 xu000owm no oU0>uom mo 0959 accoumm ucouuom 00002 ucounom 0000: accouom 0000: unmonom 0000: 00:00 000000000000 000000000000 000000000 000000000 5ho> 500000 50000» 500> :00000000000 .Imo 000000 m-000 maomombm "muz000 000 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 00.0 5.00 00.0 5.00 05.0 000 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0000 0.0 -- -- 0.0 00.5 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 0.00 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 5.00 00.0 5.00 50.0 000000 0000 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 5.00 00.0 000000 0000 000000 0.00 0.0 00.0 -- -- 0.5 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 0000000000 0.0 0.0 05.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 00.0 000000 00000000 0.00 -- -- 0.0 05.0 0.00 00.0 5.00 05.0 0000000 acoouom 0:00000 00002 0:00000 00002 0:00000 00002 +c0uu0m 00002 00000000 no WN0MMMM 00000 0000MWWM0000 000mewmwm00 00MWMMMM0 000mwww00 000ww0wwwwmm 0-000 Abomomzm "muz0om 03m 0.0 m.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 o.~0 00.0 0.00 NN.~ now o.o0 m.m ow.o m.~ om.m m.~0 00.0 m.mn No.0 x000 0.0 0.0 oo.m 0.0 00.0 0.0 nn.~ 0.00 00.0 :00sno «.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 mm.~ 0.00 00.0 Hoonom :00: ~.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 oo.~ m.~0 ov.~ 0.00 00.0 Hoonum :00: 0°0==n 0.00 -- -- 0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 00.0 000000 0000000000 -- 0.0 00.0 0.5 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 000000 00000000 «.0 m.~ ow.m m.~ o~.n n.00 00.N m.un 00.0 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000: 0000000 0000: 0000000 00002 0000000 0000: 00000000 00 “M0MMMM 00:00 00000000000o 000000000000 000000000 000mm0uwm 000000 . 000000 000> 000000 000000 x00> mo 000009 QuHHH maomumbm "muzH ”macho cowummaouo n.mn n.m co.” -- -- h.n co.” m.mm wv.o oofi>uom mam «.mH -- -- -- -- m.H~ mm.n ~.m~ om.» non o.m~ h.» oq.o -- -- n.m ov.o o.mo mg.“ gum; B.m -- -- 5.» ON." H.HH mm.m m.Hw vfi.~ cousgu m.w~ -- -- n.m o~.~ m.v~ oo.~ o.mo no.~ Hoocom gm“: ~.- -- -- -- -- w.v~ mH.~ o.no oo.~ Hoogom gm“: uoficsw ~.- -- -- -- -- h.» oo.v H.vn Hm.o Hoocom xuaucosmfim -- -- -- h.m oo.m m.v~ mh.v m.Hm mH.H Houcou mcfigmonm -- -- -- 5.” co.” ~.- hm.” H.¢h mm.~ xumgpfiq acouuom ucounom mafia: acouuom moafi: acoohmm moawz acoonom moHfiZA/IIImmmwwomm no “Mammmm umzpo nomefiummmwo voflMmflummmfia vofiMmfipmm uoflmWflpmm xno> xflufiwm xaafiwm xuo> newwwawwwwwm un>H Abomomzm "mozH "macaw :ofiummsooo m.mv m.o oo.o ~.N o~.o 5.x mo.~ H.mn mm.o oow>uom mam m.~ -u -u -- u- o.vH nm.m “.mm ov.m non m.m m.v oo.~ H.N co.» w.NH on.~ m.mn mm.o xnmm m.w H.~ oo.m H.~ oo.n w.- mm.~ m.vn nm.~ cognac o.oH v.0 nm.v v.0 oo.v m.~H om.~ w.mo mm.~ Hoozom nu“: o.nH m.v om.v m.v om.H w.¢H ¢N.~ o.mm om.~ Hoonom gm“: newzsn o.v~ m.v om.H -- -- m.m oo.~ m.~n w~.o ogom Aampcoeofim N.N H.~ oo.m H.N oo.~ o.nH mv.H 0.05 Hv.H gopcou mzflc:.;m -- m.¢ om.o m.v ow.» 0.5“ ww.~ v.q~ o~.~ xua;:_; . ufifiwomm uo oUH>pom vacuums ucouuoa mafia: unmouom mod“: «coon»; mod“: accouza mod“: mo omxb hosue vowmmwummmfio vofiwmflummmwa to“MmHumm wowwmfluwm :oHuoa . mmwuwm xuo> xfipfiam xuuwmm xuo> mo oouwoo Q->H macaumam "mozH x sm.e Q-HHH x mm.o~ Q-HH x so.H Q-H mmwm x sm.N u->H x mm.e o-HHH x Ho.aH u-HH x w.m u-H x Hm.m m-HHH x mm.m~ m-HH x 3N.m m-H mmwmwm x sm.s 4-HH x mm.¢H <-H mum 8.... 85 8a 84 8s 8.... 85 o: o: 3.4 84 8.0 .aoa 98w 3%.: AmoHHEMToo:Mumwv oofl>uom mo w omwmwmmo oEoocH >xmmm .ma magma 44 x mo.v Q->H x em.o Q-HHH x mm.oa Q-HH x 34 a; a x em.N u->H x mw.o U-HHH x Ho.uH u-HH x 25 u; x Ho.m m-HHH x wm.mH meHH x dazm m; mwufim x vm.¢ <-HH x 3.: <-H N3. cod om.m cod omé ooé om.m oo.m om.~ oo.~ cm; 84 3.5 .909 96am $264 mmonEM nouoEme oofi>uom .mo w omwmmmmo oeoocH mmhzmu oszmOIm mom mmmm .oa manmh 4S x mo.e o->H x em.e Q-HHH x mm.OH o-HH x so.a Q-H mmwm x am.~ o->H x mm.e u-HHH x Ho.aH u-HH x ew.m u-H x Ha.m m-HHH x mm.wH m-HH x HN.m m-H mmmmmm x em.s «-HH x mm.sH <-H mum 8.0 a: 23 8.4 8.4-8.5 85 o: 2: cm; 84 8:0 doe Smwmmmm H23 nmoHflE. gmumEmwv oow>hom mo w wofioom oEoocH soozom >aamm .aa magma 46 x mo.e a->H x «0.0 o-HHH x mm.oa o-HH x so.H Q-H mwmm x sm.N u->H x mw.o u-HHH x Ho.AH o-HH x ow.m u-H x Hm.m m-HHH x wm.wfi m-HH x Hm.m m-H mmmmmz x am.s <-HH x Nm.efi <-H mam 8.0 SS gm 34 8s om.m 9; 0mm oo.N cm; 84 8.0 dog 35% H33 Amofiwev popoEmfiv oufl>pom we w Ummmmwmo oEoocH Aoozum IUH: ZOHZDW mom mxmm .wH ofinmh 47 x 88.4 m->H x 48.0 8-444 x 88.84 9-44 x 48.4 8-4 wwwm x 48.N u->4 x 88.0 u-HHH x 40.84 0.44 x 08.8 U-H x 48.8 m-HHH x 88.84 m-44 x 4N.m m-4 .mwmmmm x 48.4 <-44 x mm.44 <-H mmm 8.0 8.8 8.8 84 84 8.... 8.8 84.. 84 84 84 8.0 .808 Bmwmmwo 42,3 Amoflflev HopoEmfiw oofi>pom mo w wofioom oEoocH Aoozum 20H: mom wmmm .mH mHDMH 48 x 00.0 Q->H x v0.0 Q-HHH x mm.0H Q-HH x 40.4 0-4 mwmm x em.m u->H x mw.0 u-HHH x 40.54 u-HH x 08.8 0-4 x 40.m m-HHH x wm.0H m-HH x 4m.m m-H .mwmmwz x em.v <-HH x Nm.s4 <-H mam 00.0 om.m 00.m 0m.e 00.0 0m.m 00.m 0m.N 00.N 0m.H 00.4 0m.0 .moafl arsoam 0xv>o4 AmoHHEV hmpoEmflv oofi>pom we 0 ufiwmmwmo oEoucH IUmDIU mom mmmm .0N ofiamb 49 4 88.4 8->4 48.0 8-444 4 88.84 8-44 4 48.4 8-4 084m 4 48.8 8->4 4 88.0 8-444 4 48.44 8-44 4 08.8 8-4 4 48.8 8-444 4 88.84 8-44 4 48.8 8-4 mammflm 4 48.4 4-44 4 88.44 4-4 384 88.0 88.8 88.8 88.4 88.4 88.8 88.8 88.4 88.8 88.4 88.4 88.8 44844 o4mwmmwo 4954 4804450 4040E840 QO4>4om wo w w04uom oEoucH xmmmw .HN ofinme SO 4 88.4 8->4 4 48.0 0-444 4 88.84 0-44 4 48.4 8-4 .muwm 4 48.8 o->4 4 88.0 0-444 4 48.84 8-44 4 08.8 8-4 4 48.8 8-444 4 88.84 8-44 4 48.8 8-4 mmwmmm 4 48.4 4-44 4 88.44 4-4 404 88.0 88.8 88.8 88.4 88.4 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.4 88.4 88.8 4424 Smwmmwo 4264 4804480 HonoEm40 oo4>4om mo 4 wowoom oEouc4 mUH>mmm mam mom mmmm .NN mHan 51 Table 23. ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS (Miles) Income Low Middle High Facility Income Income Income Library 1.88 2.28 1.66 Shopping Center 1.34 1.82 1.10 Elementary School 0.95 1.13 0.84 Junior High School 1.71 2.08 1.43 High School 1.93 2.10 1.76 Church 1.27 1.59 1.64 Park 0.84 1.36 0.84 Job 1.00 2.94 2.45 Bus Service 0.38 0.68 0.49 Physical Proximity One of the basic principles of urban design is the physical relationships between its elements. These rela- tionships are normally based on physical proximity ex- pressed in terms of geometric distances. It is assumed, . as in the case of Perry's proposal, that shorter distances would allow the urban households better accessibility to services and facilities. Yet, it is always overlooked that nearness and distance, though spatial concepts, depend on more than physical space. Rather, they have a multitude of 52 social, economic and cultural dimensions as well. These aspects have been illustrated by the derived accessibility standards where a change in income level was always accompanied by a change in the median distance to the same service or facility. These significant changes may be attributable to many reasons. In the case of low-income households, for example, the tolerance to travel was limited. This is due to their economic constraints which prevent them from af- fording desirable means of tranSportation or limiting their choice to locate in close proximity to the needed services or facilities or both. Such limited tolerance to travel was also expressed by high-income households despite the absence of the eco- nomic constraints to limit their locational choice or pre- vent them from affording convenient means of transportation. Their dissatisfaction at travelling longer distances, therefore, originates from their desire to spend less time on essential daily activities in order to allocate more time to other conveniences and enjoyments they can easily afford. As for the accessibility standards expressed by middle-income households, the travel tolerance was con- siderably higher than that expressed by low or high—income households. This may be attributable to the high mobility rates which characterize this income level. Their 53 endurance to travel longer distances, therefore, is a product of their particular life style and their desire to obtain better quality services. sions: The above discussion leads to the following conclu- That design considerations should not be based on shorter geometric distances if a meaningful physical arrangement of services and facilities is to be accomplished. Rather, the social and cultural di~ mensions should be equally considered. That the socioeconomic characteristics of households have a considerable impact on the design arrange- ments and the physical relationships of its elements. Accordingly, one particular design proposal should not be recommended for urban communities. Rather, there are at least three alternative proposals most suited for the three income levels. Walking Distance Concept One of Perry's principles is to arrange services and facilities within small units of 0.25 mile radius. Such arrangement was meant to achieve two purposes. First, to locate services and facilities within a walking distance from area residents. Second, to eliminate unnecessary traffic movements, thereby introducing measures of safety to the residential environment. 54 However, the derived accessibility standards clearly indicate a considerable increase in household tolerance to travel. In all cases surveyed, these accessibility stan- dards were three to five times those recommended by Perry's proposal. These observations lead us to believe that our ac- tivity patterns are no longer based on the walking distance idea. This is due to the availability of the car, afford- ing'duaurban pOpulation with more mobility, convenience and better accessibility which conforms with our ways of life. One may conclude, therefore, that Perry's design configurations do not coincide with the activity patterns expressed by the urban households. Neither is there any assurance that the car will be ignored if services and facilities are placed within a walking distance from these households. Density Considerations One of the basic principles of land use planning involves the proper balance between residential density and the services and facilities needed to serve urban house- holds. This is evident in high density residential areas where closely Spaced services and facilities would be re- quired to serve more households. Similarly, low density residential areas are served by widely spaced services for the same number of households. 55 This rule of thumb does not coincide with Perry's recommended standards due to the difficulty involved in implementing them in large urban areas. This difficulty originates from density variations ranging from less than five to more than thirty dwelling units per acre. In such a case, the implementation of Perry's standards would be either inefficient and more expensive to operate or would impose financial burdens on local authorities. Design Arrangements The derived accessibility standards also illustrate that the distribution of services and facilities does not follow the same pattern recommended by Perry's proposal. Service areas of elementary schools, for example, do not coincide with library or church locations. This is due to the differences of activity patterns involved in each situation and the nature of service offered by each fa- cility. Grouping of these facilities in that case would generate unrelated and conflicting activities. Design Core Perhaps the most important element of Perry's design proposal is the elementary school. Its capacity determines the number of families that can live in a particular area. Boundaries are fixed so that a particular physical distance of 0.25 mile may not be exceeded. Its location was 56 selected as the focal point of other facilities such as a community center, library and churches. Such accumulated assumptions tend to over-emphasize the importance of the elementary school. Yet, it only affects a small segment of the urban pepulation. These views were clearly stated by Gans as: The elementary school which is the center of the plan- ner's neighborhood actually impinges on only a minority of the residents. Its activities only affect the com- pulsory clientele, the parents of those students who take an interest in the school and other adults who participate in the organizational activities that are centered in the school. Residents without school-age children,and those without interest in their children's schooling or in the organizational participation are little touched by it.1 Not only does this over-emphasis favor young families with young children, but it also disregards the needs of other households in various life cycles such as the unmar- ried, the childless and parents with older children. One may expect, therefore, that any changes in the social characteristics of area residents--and this more than likely will occur in the long run--will alter the basic principles of the urban design concept. It has also been known that educational institutions are vulnerable to technical and political changes. Techni- cal changes have been felt through the introduction of mass media, visual aids, group teaching and other educational techniques. Such changes have been experienced in other 1Gans, People and Plans, p. 23. 57 parts of the world such as Sweden and the Soviet Union where a complete reorganization of the physical configura- tions of the design scheme became necessary.1 Political changes are evident from the recent Su- preme Court decisions on school busing in order to achieve social and cultural integration among urban populations. If these decisions became strictly enforced, the close proximity of the elementary school would not serve the purpose intended by Perry's proposal. Implementation Although there was a considerable emphasis involving the types and locations of services and facilities recom- mended by Perry's design proposal, there was no indication of how these specific arrangements would be implemented. The services and facilities in question can be classified into three categories. Some like shopping centers are owned and Operated by private enterprise; others such as schools and libraries are owned and operated by public institu- tions; still others, such as churches, belong to semi- public organizations. The decisions to provide these services and facili- ties vary considerably. Public facilities, for example, are Sponsored by public institutions for non-profit 1”Draft Report, Theme 2: Planning and Construction of New Towns," Ekistics, XVIII (1964), 283-288. 58 purposes. The provision of such facilities is undertaken by governing bodies on a community-wide basis. Provisions of privately owned facilities, on the other hand, are based on independent decisions motivated by profit making initia- tives to minimize economic risk and insure the continuation of Operation. These decisions are undertaken independently from one another. This issue raises the question of how the priorities are determined. They also involve coordi- nating Uwatiming of deveIOpments unrelated in terms of need, function and allocation of financial resources. It Should also be noted that decisions to provide services and facilities, public or private, are determined according to the existing and expected demands for resi- dential expansions. These, in turn, vary from one Situa- tion to another. In the case of new towns, for example, decisions are undertaken on a macro scale. These, however, are rare exceptions which cannot be applied in well estab- lished urban communities. On the other hand, the provision of services and facilities in older communities or residen- tial expansions would be difficult to accomplish because they have to be coordinated with the existing pattern. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS, MODIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis It is obvious that most of the problems associated with Perry's design proposal originate from its rigidity. This rigidity is created by the limitations imposed on size, boundaries design arrangements and standards. Other problems stem from the over-emphasis allocated to the ele- mentary school by giving it the role of controlling the locations of other facilities. This over-emphasis repre- sents the risk involved when a-change in its function or operation becomes necessary. Changes of this nature re- quire a total reassessment of the design standards, and also a complete rearrangement of its spatial relationships. It was also assumed that the life styles, norms and activity patterns of urban households are similar. Accord- ingly, a single design was proposed. However, the derived accessibility standards expressed by the urban population suggest the need for different design arrangements due to the variations in their socioeconomic characteristics. In addition, other issues relating to density con— siderations and the flexibility required to accommodate for 59 60 possible social, political or technological changes were also ignored. Such problems Should be avoided whenever attempts at modifications or alternative proposals are sought. These may be arranged according to the following guidelines: 1. Maintain maximum flexibility to allow for future changes. This can be achieved by eliminating the constraints imposed on size and boundaries. Provide services and facilities as needed by each group of households according to their socioeconomic characteristics. Establish accessibility standards for the location of services and facilities. These should be based on extensive household surveys. Incorporating these accessibility standards would provide meaning- ful design guidelines for alternative prOposals. Provide for alternative means of accessibility not limited to the ”walking distance” concept. Avoid the centralization of unrelated services and facilities. This can be achieved by investigating the various activity patterns performed elsewhere by urban households. Based on this investigation, the location (fl? services and facilities can be easily determined. 61 Modifications Possible modifications Should maintain the proper- ties discussed earlier. Such modifications cannot be achieved without changing the design arrangements of ser- vices and facilities. Modifying the design standards in order to coincide with those derived would mean that three different solutions would be required for the three income groups. Also, necessary adaptation of services and facili- ties locations means the elimination of the design core. Such modifications are difficult to achieve without dis- rupting Perry's design principles and arrangements. Ac- cordingly, an alternative proposal for the design arrange- ments of residential units will be presented. Recommendations These residential units should include services and facilities selected according to the following: Classification of Services and Facilities Services and facilities fall into two different categories: local and non-local. Local facilities may be defined as those which provide services for a group of households sharing a small geographic area and seldom used by others. Non-local facilities, on the other hand, are those Shared by various residential units. These are: 62 Local Facilities--Elementary school and recreational facilities. Non-Local Facilities--Shopping center, junior high and high schools, churches and libraries. Primary and Secondary Services and Facilities Each category of services and facilities includes primary and secondary ones. Primary facilities are those which provide households with basic needs. Secondary facilities are those not directly related to basic needs. Primary Facilities-~Shopping center, schools and open space. Secondary Facilities—-Library and church. Classification of Activity Patterns Activity patterns can be classified according to the intensity, duration and frequency that a service or fa- cility is used by urban households. Intensive activities are determined by the number of people using the facility. Duration of activities are measured by the length of time a facility is being used. The frequency of activities can be determined by the number of times a facility is used in a given period. Based on these considerations, services and facili— ties are classified according to various characteristics of activity patterns. These are: 63 a. Classification by Intensity High Intensity--Schools and open space. Low Intensity--Shopping center, library and church. b. Classification by Duration Long Duration--Schools and open space. Short Duration-~Shopping center, library and church. c. Classification by Frequency High Frequency--Schools and open space. Low Frequency--Shopping center, library and church. Design Considerations The proposed design aims to incorporate several resi- dential units into a district. Services and facilities needed for each residential unit are selected from those which do not impose size, capacity or boundary constraints. They are also selected from those which provide basic needs, and which are more intensely and frequently used for long durations. Accordingly, open space is the only service or fa- cility which meets these requirements. In addition, its flexibility permits various possibilities for easy adapta- tion to future changes. Also, it facilitates the provision of different design arrangements, upgrades the physical appearance and contributes to the aesthetic quality of the residential environment. Furthermore, it provides for space needs to solve unforeseeable problems and help 64 integrate the circulation system more efficiently. Other facilities such as schools, shopping centers, libraries and churches were intentionally excluded from the local units due to the different constraints they impose on the design. However, these facilities should be included on the district level. Their locations should be selected according to the derived accessibility standards expressed by the urban population. This guideline proposed for the arrangement of residential areas can help provide different physical forms and design arrangements that coincide with the various socioeconomic characteristics of households. It can also help distribute services and facilities according to their specific needs. It can allow various densities and housing qualities for all income levels as well as provide desir- able and continuous development patterns unrestricted by Size or boundary limitations. However, it is evident that these guidelines are based on surveys for a particular metropolitan area. Ac- cordingly, they Should not be considered for other urban areas unless preceded by similar household surveys. Such information can also provide valuable knowledge about the causes and effects of changes which take place in our en- vironment, and avoid the problems that may arise in the future. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Caplow, Theodore, et al. The Urban Ambience. New Jersey: Bedminster, 1964. Dahir, James. The Neighborhood Unit Plan. New York: Russell sage Foundation, 1947. Gallion, Arthur B., and Eisner, Simon. The Urban Pattern. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1963. Sans, Herbert J. People and Plans, Essays on Urban Prob- lems and Squtions. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Faber and Faber Ltd}, MLF Paperback Edition, 1965. Kuper, Leo (ed.). Blue Print for LivingTogether. London: Cresset, 19S3T’ Mann, Peter H. An Approach to Urban Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan PauI, 1964. Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961. Perry, Clarence A. Neighborhood and Community Planning. Vol. VII of The Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs. New York: Regional Plan of New Yorkfand Its Env1rons, 1929. . Housing for the Machine Age. New York: Russell Sage Foun ation,‘l939. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. Occupation and Social Status. New York: The Free Press ofIGIencoe, Inc., 1961. Tetlow, John, et a1. Towns and Traffic. London: Faber and Faber, 1965. 6S 66 Articles and Periodicals Gans, Herbert J. "Planning and Social Life," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVIITIMay 1961). Draft Report, Theme 2: ”Planning and Construction of New Towns," Ekistics, XVIII (1964). Reports Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Format and De- scription of Data in Card or Tape Form. Lansing, Mich.: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 1967. Willi!MIIlllflffliflllfllfllllllEs