Article Index
Measuring the Response towards Neighborhood Intensification and Rediversification
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
All Pages

Much of the residential development since the middle of the 20th Century has been built in a suburban sprawl pattern.  This pattern of development is widely criticized as being environmentally unsustainable for the consumption of land, energy and other resources required to sustain it (Rees and Roseland 1991; Van Vliet 1994).  Broadly speaking, the sprawl pattern is characterized by the segregation of deemed incompatible land uses (i.e., residential, industrial, institutional, and commercial) and a low concentration of these activities (e.g. low residential densities).  For these and other reasons, writers like Jane Jacobs described such sprawl as lacking the necessary characteristics of “exuberant diversity” (Jacobs 1961).  If these low density, homogeneous residential neighbourhoods are environmentally and fiscally problematic, a simple solution would be to construct neighbourhoods that are more efficient with respect to land use such that appropriate land uses are mixed together and residential and commercial activities are sufficiently concentrated.

One key response to suburban sprawl has been the rise of the New Urbanism movement since the early 1990’s, led initially by a group of planners and architects (e.g., Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992; Calthorpe 1993).  This movement has resurrected principles of “traditional urbanism” of the early 20th Century (the pre-car era in North America) with a view to mimicking these vibrant streetscapes (e.g., see Figure 1).