Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable

neighborhood development
Ayyoob Sharifi ∗
Global Carbon Project—Tsukuba International Office, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8506, Ibaraki Prefecture,
Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Since the early 20th century various planning movements have been developed. It would be useful to
Received 24 July 2015 trace the evolution of these movements to see how their underlying principles have changed and how
Received in revised form 6 September 2015 successful they have been in addressing the requirements of sustainable development. Literature on five
Accepted 8 September 2015
selected movements is reviewed. These are, namely, Garden City, Neighborhood Unit, Modernism, Neo-
Available online 10 September 2015
traditionalism, and Eco-urbanism. Results show that evolution of neighborhood planning is characterized
by the progressive inclusion of different dimensions of the sustainability concept. However, there are still
Keywords:
many difficulties in terms of translating the rhetoric into action.
Neighborhood planning
Garden City © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Neighborhood Unit
Modernism
Neo-traditional planning
New Urbanism
Eco-urbanism
Eco-city
Sustainable neighborhood development

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methods and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Evolution of approaches to neighborhood planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The Garden City movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Background and underlying principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Implementation and criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Neighborhood Unit movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Background and underlying principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Implementation and criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. The Modernism movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Background and underlying principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Implementation and criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. The Neo-traditional movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.1. Background and underlying principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. Implementation and criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Eco-urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.1. Background and underlying principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.2. Implementation and criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 29 850 2672/+81 90 6614 2920; fax: +81 29 850 2960.
E-mail addresses: sharifigeomatic@gmail.com, sharifi.ayyoob@nies.go.jp

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.002
2210-6707/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16

4. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction This retrospective analysis makes it possible to understand

successes and failures of each movement, highlight problems
Since antiquity, human settlements have been spatially divided impeding achievement of the main goals of neighborhood plan-
into districts and neighborhoods (Friedmann, 2010; Smith, 2010), ning, and understand major issues that need to be considered in the
which signifies the importance of neighborhoods in the fabric of future. Previous planning movements have been criticized for not
the city. As a basic planning unit, neighborhood has always been of recognizing planning cultures that preceded them (Talen, 2005).
particular interest to planners and urban visionaries (Rohe, 2009). This analysis can be useful for contemporary and future movements
Since the early 20th century, various theories and models have been to learn lessons from the past that can facilitate achieving more sus-
developed with the purpose of creating better and more livable tainable neighborhood development. This study is also important
neighborhoods. Emergence of the concept of sustainable develop- because estimates show that almost all future population growth
ment and the emphasis it places on the local level has led to a will occur in urban areas of developing countries (UNDESA, 2012).
renewed interest in developing new initiatives for neighborhood This includes countries such as China and India, where many devel-
planning (Farr, 2008; Rohe, 2009; Wheeler, 2004). Interest in pur- opments under the rubric of “Eco-urbanism” are already underway.
suing sustainability goals through planning at the neighborhood These developments can learn from successes and failures of pre-
level has been burgeoning in the recent years and sustainability vious movements and be directed into more sustainable pathways
principles are increasingly used to guide neighborhood develop- to avoid lock-in into non-sustainable patterns.
ment (Luederitz, Lang, & Von Wehrden, 2013). Throughout the In the following section the methods and materials used for the
world, numerous initiatives have been launched to pursue sus- purpose of this study are explained. Section 3 explains the evolution
tainability through appropriate planning at the neighborhood level of the selected approaches to neighborhood planning. In Section 4,
(Farr, 2008; Komeily & Srinivasan, 2015; Sharifi & Murayama, the research questions are discussed in light of the findings of the
2013). study. Section 5 concludes the study and provides some suggestions
While sustainability and sustainable neighborhood develop- for future research.
ment are relatively new concepts, neighborhood planning, as a
discipline and profession, is rather well-established and has been 2. Methods and materials
practiced since the early 20th century. Sustainable neighborhood
initiatives can be regarded as a continuation of urban planning This section elaborates on the definition of sustainability
and design trends which have sought to develop livable and adopted for this research, describes the process of selecting papers
environment-friendly neighborhoods from the early 20th century for review, and explains the rationale for focusing on the five
onwards, starting with Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Movement selected movements.
(Farr, 2008). This paper provides a historical presentation of major The concept of sustainable development has been frequently
planning and design movements that have led to the neighbor- used and spread over the past three decades after it was empha-
hood sustainability paradigm, as is explained in Section 2. This sized in the Brundtland report. Although there is still no single,
includes discussion on the transformation of underlying principles universally accepted definition of sustainability, as a common
of neighborhood planning since the emergence of the concept of thread, most definitions emphasize the importance of integrat-
sustainability. ing social, economic, environmental, and institutional dimensions
Literature on major neighborhood planning movements since (Boyoko, Cooper, Davey, & Wootton, 2006; Sharifi & Murayama,
the early 20th century is reviewed in this paper. These movements 2013; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). Social criteria are intended
are, namely, Garden City, Neighborhood Unit, Modernism, Neo- to, among other things, improve livability of communities and
traditional Planning, and Eco-urbanism. Other movements exist enhance intra-generational equity of the development through
that, based on their origin and underlying principles, are catego- responding to the needs of a diverse range of community groups.
rized as subsets of the selected movements. Despite abundance of Economic criteria aim to enhance self-sufficiency and economic
research on these movements, previous work has mainly focused wellbeing of the development through creating jobs and attract-
on single movements and there is a lack of work that investi- ing investment (Beatley & Brower, 1993; Berke & Conroy, 2000).
gates and compares different movements. An exception is the Environmental criteria bring attention to ecological constraints and
work by Rohe (2009). However, his work has limited focus on enhance inter-generational equity of development by encouraging
Neo-traditional movements and does not include Eco-urban move- smart use of resources and mitigating climate change (reducing
ments. This article intends to fill this void in the literature on greenhouse gas emissions) (Beatley & Brower, 1993; Georgiadou
neighborhood planning through dealing with the following main & Hacking, 2011; Gibson, 2006; Kennedy, Cuddihy, & Engel-Yan,
questions: 2007; Scrase & Sheate, 2002; Wheeler, 2004). They are also con-
ducive to resilience and adaptation to climate change and have
interlinkages with equity issues (Gibson, 2006; Gleeson, 2012;
• How have the values and guiding principles of neighborhood Mueller & Dooling, 2011). Institutional criteria intend to ensure
planning changed over time? that various stakeholders are engaged in the planning process and
• Is there overlap and cross-fertilization between different move- institutional support exists for implementing projects (Mulligan,
ments? Guthrie, Stigge, & Tuzzolo, 2011; Wheeler, 2004). Institutional
• Have neighborhood planning movements been able to realize criteria improve acceptability and viability of developments. Var-
their promises and has over one century of research and practice ious criteria for assessing sustainability exists in the literature
on neighborhood planning led to the development of neighbor- (Wheeler, 2004). As this paper does not aim to provide a com-
hoods that are acceptable from the point of view of sustainability? prehensive review of the literature on sustainability assessment,
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16 3

Table 1
Some major planning movements since the early 20th century.

Movement name Emergence Focus Application in several Example Ref.

countries

Garden city 1900s Holistic Yes Howard (1985) and Ward (2005)
Neighborhood Unit 1920s Holistic Yes Lawhon (2009) and Perry (1929)
Radiant city 1920s Holistic Yes Corbusier (1930) and Fishman (1977)
Boadacre city 1930s Holistic Yes Wright (1932)
Urban renewal 1940s Holistic No, mainly in the US Wheeler (2004)
Community action 1960s Holistic, especial focus on No, mainly in the US Rohe (2009)
citizen involvement
Community economic development 1960s Holistic, special focus on No, mainly in the US Rohe (2009)
economy
Advocacy planning 1960s Holistic, special focus on No, mainly in the US Checkoway (1994) and Clavel (1994)
justice and equit
Planned unit development 1960s Mainly physical No, mainly in the US Rohe (2009)
Equity planning 1970s Holistic, special focus on No, mainly in the US Metzger (1996)
equity
Traditional neighborhood development 1980s Holistic Yes Duany et al. (2000) and Rohe (2009)
Transit-oriented development 1990s Holistic, especial focus on Yes Rohe (2009)
transit
New urbanism 1990s Holistic Yes Wheeler (2004)
Smart growth 1990s Holistic Yes Duany et al. (2010)
Eco-cities 1980s Holistic Yes Register (2006)
Eco-town 2000s Holistic Yes Warwick (2015)
Eco-district, Eco-quartiers 2000s Holistic Yes Ecodistricts (2015) and EcoQuartiers (2015)

it would be beyond its scope to investigate presence of all sus-
tainability criteria in the different planning movements. Instead,
several major criteria are drawn from the literature (see Table 3)
to examine evolutionary progress of planning movements towards
inclusion of sustainability criteria. To avoid possible misunder-
standings, it should be mentioned that concept of sustainability was
not yet developed when the first three movements were emerged.
However, as will be discussed later, some criteria related to sus-
tainability have been present in the agenda of these movements.
Criteria presented in Table 3 are categorized into five groups. The
first four category correspond to the four sustainability dimensions
mentioned above. The “design” category includes cross-cutting
criteria related to different dimensions of sustainability. For a
more detailed list of neighborhood sustainability criteria see
(GBCA, 2013; BREEAM, 2012; LEED, 2015; Meter, 1999; Sharifi &
Murayama, 2015). After explaining evolution of the movements in
Section 3, the degree of inclusion of these sustainability criteria in
the underlying principles of the selected movements is presented
in Table 3 of Section 4.
Since the early 20th century many planning theories have
emerged. Some of these planning theories have been presented
in Table 1 (also see Fig. 1). Two main criteria were considered
when selecting planning movements for further analysis. First, it
was intended to focus on those movements that address various
planning aspects and have physical planning as the main element.
The second criterion was to select influential movements that

Fig. 1. The evolving agenda and key figures of the studied movements (inspired by Fig. 1.8 of Wheeler (2004)).
4 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
have been practiced in several countries. Therefore movements
such as “Community Action Program”, “Community Economic
Development”, and “Equity Planning” which are more focused on
socio-economic aspects of neighborhood planning and have mainly
been practiced in American cities are excluded from the study. For
further information on these and other movements see (Gillette,
2010; Metzger, 1996; Rohe, 2009; Wheeler, 2004). Although the
large scale at which some Eco-urban projects have been practiced
may make “Eco-urbanism” seem incomparable to the other move-
ments, there are at least three reasons making this comparison
justifiable. First, many of the subsets of this movement, such as
American EcoDistricts, English Eco-towns, and French ÉcoQuartiers
are comprised of one or more urban blocks which is similar to
the size of an urban neighborhood. Second, projects such as Chi-
nese Eco-cities, which are operated at larger scales, conceptualize
themselves as being comprised of a number of eco-neighborhoods.
As a case in point, Tianjin Eco-city emphasizes the important role
of “eco-neighborhood” as the basic building block of an eco-city
(Tianjin, 2015). The third reason is that Eco-urban neighborhoods
have a wider scope than the previous movements, making it worth-
while to investigate them in a separate section.
The overarching names for these movements have been chosen
based on the previous literature (e.g. see: Furuseth, 1997; Holden
& Li, 2014; Rohe, 2009; Wheeler, 2004). Movements considered
to be subsets of the selected movements exhibit various similari-
ties, in terms of temporal context and underlying principles, to the
other subsets of the respective major movements. Another point
worth mentioning is that some of the movements such as Neo-
traditionalism and Eco-urbanism have been practiced on a variety
of scales from the block to the city. However, arguments of this
study are mainly drawn from studies that cover several blocks or
neighborhoods.
The following electronic databases were searched to
identify potentially relevant studies: ISI Web of Knowledge
(title/keywords/abstract), ScienceDirect (title/keywords/abstract),
and Google Scholar (the first 200 hits). Search terms were the
names of the major selected movements and their related move-
ments (e.g. smart growth, eco-district, etc.). These searches yielded
over 1000 matches, excluding duplicates. The abstracts of these
papers were checked to determine their suitability for inclusion
in the study. Papers not relevant to the review questions were
excluded during this screening process. The eligible papers were
reviewed in detail and data related to the above mentioned
questions was extracted. In addition, eligible studies cited in the
bibliography section of the selected papers were added to the
review database. More than 500 studies were eligible for use in
this study. However, given the space limit of a journal article,
only a selected number of the most relevant studies have been
referenced. It is acknowledged that this review does not cover
all related publications. However, it has been tried to include the
most relevant ones.
In the next section, evolution of neighborhood planning is
traced to see how the vision of neighborhood as a planning unit
has been transformed over time and identify problems impeding
achievement of main goals of the major neighborhood planning
movements.
3. Evolution of approaches to neighborhood planning
3.1. The Garden City movement
3.1.1. Background and underlying principles
In the first half of the 20th century urban planning was greatly
influenced by the utopian and radical ideas of a group of urban
visionaries. Ebenezer Howard is widely known as the person who
started this new wave of utopian thinking. His utopian vision of a
planned community has been a consistent object of attention ever
since, and has influenced later scholars such as Lewis Mumford,
Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and Patrick Geddes (Hirt, 2007). It has
also inspired development of movements such as Neighborhood
Unit and Modernism that were developed later (Domhardt, 2012;
Ward, 2005).
Problems associated with urban overcrowding, following the
industrial revolution, made Howard think of a way of combining
the advantages of town and country living (Daniels, 2009; Howard,
1985). His vision, which was considered to be an amalgam of the
best features of city and countryside, was a constellation of inter-
connected, self-contained new towns, surrounded by a greenbelt
and placed around a large main city (Bergman, 2011; Howard, 1985;
Wheeler, 2004). Each of these circular new towns was divided into
six wards, each designed to accommodate up to 5000 people who
were working there as well (Howard, 1985). Howard’s proposal
to divide the Garden City into several wards can be considered
as one of the earliest efforts to introduce the idea of neighbor-
hood to the planning context (Minnery, Knight, Byrne, & Spencer,
2009). As illustrated in Fig. 2, each ward has identifiable physical
boundaries.
Transportation network in the Garden City would be character-
ized by radial roads, and winding routes. Each Garden City would be
connected to the metropolis by rail. Land uses would be separated,
and residents would live in detached dwellings located in large
tracts of land. The overall density would be low. The employment
and shopping activities would be located along the central avenues,
“and ownership patterns, would become essentially cooperative
rather than private” (Wheeler, 2004, p.187). One significant issue
mentioned in Howard’s proposal is the composition of the popu-
lation. He envisioned a community that accommodates a socially
mixed population (Hirt, 2007) that cooperatively manages the city’s
affairs, actively participates in civic activities and is committed to
the common benefit (Gillette, 2010).
3.1.2. Implementation and criticism
Proven tenacious, Howard’s vision of planned communities was
widely practiced; particularly in England, where it was institution-
alized through the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909, the New
Towns Act of 1946, and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947
(Gillette, 2010). Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker were among the
first to implement the Garden City concept in Letchworth. Howard,
himself, contributed to the development of two pilot garden cities
in the suburban areas of London: Letchworth and Welwyn. Gar-
den City was also used as a basis for building several British and
Swedish New Towns and three American Greenbelt Communities
in the 1930s (Wheeler, 2004). It has also inspired other urban
developments around the globe (Bigon, 2013; Rego, 2014; Ward,
2005). The concept was disseminated in Canada by Thomas Adams
(Letchworth manager) after his move to the country in 1914 (Grant,
2014). Several French and German new towns were built following
the Garden City concept (Ward, 2005). The Japanese Garden City
movement (den’en toshi) was also heavily influenced by Howard’s
concept (Low, 2013). Dominated by residential and, to some extent,
commercial components, planned communities proved not to be
self-sustaining, and production function, as an integral component,
was rarely integrated. Emergence of the concept of sustainable
development resulted in a decline in the dominance of the Garden
City concept. It can, however, be argued that an adapted version
of the original idea, featuring diverse, mixed-use, mixed-income,
and partly self-sufficient communities has been retained and is
still advocated and practiced (Talen, 2005). As a case in point, in
2013 Town and Country Planning Association in the UK published
a guidebook to be used by councils for creating a new generation
of Garden Cities (TCPA, 2013).
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
Fig. 2. Configuration of a typical ward in Garden City (Howard, 1985).
Main features of Howard’s Garden City such as ample green
space, single-family residential units, and street patterns have
recurred in the plans proposed by his successors. These aspects
are still dominant in the conventional pattern of suburban devel-
opment (Filion & Hammond, 2003), which is widely blamed for
suburban sprawl, unfettered urban growth, and egregious impacts
on resources and environment. In terms of social reform, although
Howard’s purpose was to create communities that cater for the
needs of various social groups, in reality Garden City experiments
failed to address the needs of the working poor and equitable devel-
opment was traded off for soliciting market support (Fainstein,
2000; Gillette, 2010; Talen, 2005). Greenbelt, as a central element
of Howard’s concept, was also often overlooked because of the high
costs associated with the acquisition of the land required for this
purpose (Gillette, 2010). Garden cities have also increased specu-
lative practices in suburbs (Gillette, 2010).
3.2. The Neighborhood Unit movement
3.2.1. Background and underlying principles
Howard’s idea became an inspiration for his disciples from var-
ious disciplines. In 1923, Clarence Perry, inspired by his previous
involvement in the community-based social activities and influ-
enced by the preceding concepts such as the Garden City and
Settlement House Movement, offered the Neighborhood Unit as an
instrument for addressing social problems such as alienation, youth
delinquency and lack of civic participation through enhancing the
physical design of the community (Brody, 2009; Lawhon, 2009;
Rohe, 2009). As an influential concept in the history of urban plan-
ning and design, Neighborhood Unit has played an important role
in the evolution of neighborhood planning movements (Gillette,
2010; Mehaffy, Porta, & Romice, 2014; Wheeler, 2004).
Each Neighborhood Unit in Perry’s plan would be of around
65 ha in size that provides housing area for a population of 5000 to
5
10,000 people. Elementary school and public facilities, and places of
worship would be located at the center, and shops at the edge of the
unit (Forsyth & Crewe, 2009; Perry, 1929). The Neighborhood Unit
would be surrounded by arterial roads, and the curvilinear internal
roads would be designed so that the through-traffic is discouraged
and a safe pedestrian environment is guaranteed (Banister, 2012;
Perry, 1929). The proposed design allows residents to walk no more
than 400 m (without crossing arterial roads) to reach civic facili-
ties and commercial areas (Perry, 1929). The basic components of
Clarence Perry’s proposal for Neighborhood Unit are shown in Fig. 3.
Perry believed that the social and physical spheres of his proposed
plan would foster neighborly interactions, provide opportunities
for face-to-face contacts, and enhance sense of community among
the residents (Lawhon, 2009).
3.2.2. Implementation and criticism
Clarence Perry’s ideas were realized in Radburn. This Neighbor-
hood Unit was designed collaboratively by Clarence Perry, Henry
Wright, and Clarence Stein (Lawhon, 2009). Due to economic down-
turn after 1929 the initial aims of creating an economically and
ethnically diverse neighborhood were never realized (Lawhon,
2009). Banister (2012, p. 2) describes Radburn as follows: “Closely
related to garden cities, this (Radburn) layout is characterized by
cul-de-sacs and super blocks free of traffic, where cars and pedestri-
ans are separated from each other, and public facilities and shops
are located on pedestrian networks and embedded in open space”.
Mehaffy et al. (2014) argue that Perry’s decision to create exclusive
residential zones (super blocks) for separating the environment for
vehicles and pedestrians has promoted functional segregation and
rigid zoning. Perry’s idea of super block has also been reflected
in the works of Modern architects such as Le Corbusier (Mehaffy
et al., 2014). Features such as super blocks and cul-de-sacs have
later been criticized by figures such as Jane Jacobs for reducing
walkability of the neighborhood, thereby reducing chances of social
6 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
Fig. 3. The basic components of Clarence Perry’s Neighborhood Unit (Perry, 1929).
encounters and increasing car dependency of residents (Jacobs,
1961). Critics also argue that the street system proposed by Perry
limits the viability of creating an integrated and cost-effective tran-
sit service and has negative implications for the ability to reduce
transportation-related GHG emissions (Mehaffy et al., 2014).
Mehaffy et al. (2014, p. 204) questions viability of concentrating
facilities and amenities within the neighborhood and argues that,
not only such concentration would not be capable of meeting the
needs of modern lifestyle, but also compartmentalized distribution
of facilities impedes “open and integrated relationship between
neighborhoods”.
Neighborhood Unit has been criticized for advocating social
homogeneity, which might be used to discriminate against some
groups in the society (Gillette, 2010; Lawhon, 2009; Rohe, 2009;
Silver, 1985; Talen, 2005). It has also been denounced for hav-
ing a physical deterministic approach that mainly utilizes physical
measures to define neighborhood (Mehaffy et al., 2014), and con-
siders physical design sufficient for bringing about social reform
(Gillette, 2010; Silver, 1985). Critics argue that social goals of Neigh-
borhood Unit have been subordinated to physical ones (Gillette,
2010). In addition, likewise Garden City, Neighborhood Units failed
to achieve their goal of self-sufficiency (Gillette, 2010). Further-
more, Perry’s idea to separate work and living areas is regarded as
a principle that gave rise to the widespread suburban development
in the US in the years following World War II (Brody, 2009; Silver,
1985). In terms of performance of neighborhoods designed accord-
ing to Neighborhood Unit principles, empirical evidence suggests
that, relative to old areas with traditional urban patterns, these
neighborhoods have not been successful in enhancing social inter-
action, inclusiveness, walking behavior and health conditions of
residents (Mehaffy et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, the Neighborhood Unit theory has played a major
role in building on the earlier efforts. It has been, and still is, used
as a good model of neighborhood design by many planners around
the world (Lawhon, 2009; Mehaffy et al., 2014). As new movements
emerged and societal needs changed, Neighborhood Unit trans-
formed to adapt to the new conditions (Farr, 2008). However, this
adaptation did not always result in desirable urbanist ideas (Talen,
2005). Neighborhood Unit has also been used to guide some of the
succeeding movements such as New Urbanism (Brody, 2009; Farr,
2008; Gillette, 2010). Therefore, it is fair to say that it has made a
significant contribution to the evolution of neighborhood planning.
3.3. The Modernism movement
3.3.1. Background and underlying principles
Modernism is used to describe a number of visionary plans
proposed by planners and architects in the inter-war period of
the 1920s and 1930s. It was a rational planning paradigm, insti-
gated by technological advances that revolutionized construction
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
and transportation industries. There is an obvious resemblance
between Modernism and Garden City in terms of the circum-
stances that led to their emergence and the goals that they were
pursuing. Here, too, the main purposes were to reunite humans
with nature and restore the symbiotic relationship between the
two, liberate humans from highly crowded urban areas (Basiago,
1996; Fishman, 1977), and tackle widespread problems such as
obsolescence, muddle, unhealthiness, social injustice, and lack of
aesthetically pleasing and human spaces (Fishman, 1977). There-
fore, it can be regarded as a planning as well as social movement.
In reality, however, Modernism has led to urban forms starkly dif-
ferent from those envisioned in the Garden City and Neighborhood
Unit movements.
Key figures of Modernism, such as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd
Wright believed that these problems can be addressed by a well-
designed urban form. As the most influential figure of Modernism,
Le Corbusier established the main principles of the “Modernist” city
in the 1920s in France (Watson, 2009). In the 1960s through 1970s,
these ideas became common planning and design solutions (Grant,
2006) and they are still shaping planning in many places such as
China, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Neighborhood, as promoted by the Modernism movement,
was composed of high-rise functional buildings, abundant open
space, superblocks with internal pedestrian networks, and mod-
ern, high-speed public transportation (Wheeler, 2004). This makes
it distinguished from neighborhoods proposed in Garden City and
Neighborhood Unit, where more attention was paid to the human
scale, high-rise buildings were not emphasized, and there was a
limit to the city size in terms of area and population.
According to Le Corbusier, planners should control the soci-
ety through ideal city forms that are organized, have no slums,
are divided into functional zones, and equipped with modern
transit network (Watson, 2009). In so doing, the physical deter-
minism fallacy of earlier movements was repeated in an even more
extreme form. Here, there was also a clear emphasis on technolog-
ical determinism. Following this philosophy, the modernist urban
environment was created without soliciting the opinion of peo-
ple for whom the city would be built. As will be explained later,
some of these mistakes have again been repeated in the newly built
eco-cities which are claimed to be sustainable.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Frank Lloyd Wright proposed a
more radical idea about the modern city. Influenced by his love
of nature, Wright advocated for replacing large cities with very
low density settlements dispersed in space (Hirt, 2007; Wright,
1932). In his plan for the “Broadacre City”, Wright proposed that the
availability of land and cheap energy, car ownership, and extensive
networks of highways could be utilized for accommodating people
in large tracts of land, and the dispersion of homes and occupa-
tions (Watson, 2009; Wright, 1932). Wright believed that this is
the only urban form that could give humans back their lost free-
dom and reunite them with nature. His ideas can be regarded as
highly influential in the promotion of suburban development in the
United States and elsewhere, which has led to numerous problems
still challenging planners.
3.3.2. Implementation and criticism
Modernism had profound impacts on neighborhood planning.
The Modernist city was composed of disintegrated subdivisions
(neighborhoods) in the form of superblocks, where high-rise build-
ings were surrounded by abundant open space and streets were
designed with vehicles in mind. This resulted in creation of quite
streets and non-active frontages (Filion & Hammond, 2003), dete-
riorated the social conditions, and intensified the problem of social
segregation. Modernist tenets were applied to both suburban sub-
divisions and downtown renewal plans (Gillette, 2010; Hirt, 2009).
Viewing physical design as a panacea for various convoluted urban
7
problems and failing to notice other underlying forces and social
processes, these renewal plans have proved largely unsuccessful
(Harvey, 1997; Rohe, 2009), and resulted in unsuccessful plans
exemplified by Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City. In many
cases urban renewal plans resulted in displacement of poor peo-
ple that the plan initially intended to support (Gillette, 2010).
Modernism failed to learn from the historical precedents and,
indeed, it tried to create new and functioning environments by
breaking with the past. Except for “socialist or social democratic
countries”, Modernist ideas were rarely completely practiced in
the real world and were in some cases demolished (Rohe, 2009),
thereby resulting in the loss of various types of resources (Wheeler,
2004). It should, however, be mentioned that some of the recently
built eco-cities built in Asia exhibit various similarities to the
principles of Modernism. This will be further discussed in Sec-
tion 3.5.
The Modernism movement has been subject of sustained
scholarly criticism for its adverse impacts on both humans and
environment. Arguing that it has not advanced urbanistic princi-
ples, Talen (2005) categorizes Modernism as an “anti-urbanistic”
movement. Urban historian, Lewis Mumford (cited in Basiago,
1996, p. 143) denounced Modernism for its failure to make “a syn-
thesis of nature, the machine, and human activities and purposes”.
This failure has caused serious damages to the nature (Basiago,
1996). Modernism has also been reprimanded by activists such
as Jane Jacobs and New Urbanists for subordinating human scale,
civic activities, and community attractiveness to practices based
on advanced functional and technical performance (Gillette, 2010;
Silver, 2006).
A drawback, particularly germane to neighborhood sustaina-
bility, is the rigidity of zoning in the Modernism proposals
that segregates land uses, significantly increases the automobile
dependency, and thereby has adverse impacts on environment and
the livability of the developments. Seeking a way to address these
shortcomings a new movement frequently called “Neo-traditional
Planning” emerged in the early years of the 1980s. This will be
further discussed in the following section.
3.4. The Neo-traditional movements
3.4.1. Background and underlying principles
Despite all frequent efforts to build self-contained, inclusive
communities with job-housing balance, the landscape of cities
in the latter half of the 20th century was highly suburbanized.
There were still a variety of unresolved problems such as failing
inner-city neighborhoods with declining housing stocks and deteri-
orating business districts, regional stagnation, sprawl, poverty and
inequality, crime, social segregation, community instability, traf-
fic congestion, and pollution (Al-Hindi & Staddon, 1997; Deitrick &
Ellis, 2004; Gillette, 2010; Grant, 2006; Irazábal, 2012; Rohe, 2009;
Sohmer & Lang, 2000; Trudeau & Malloy, 2011). In response, in the
early 1980s planners started to develop Neo-traditionalism as a
form of postmodern urbanism. Efforts to develop Neo-traditional
planning were mainly initiated in the US where figures such as
Duany and Plater-Zyberk, and Calthorpe were trying to emulate tra-
ditional American neighborhoods, before automobile ascendancy
and the dominance of suburbanization, that were characterized by
walkability, human scale, compactness, active centers and identifi-
able boundaries (Basiago, 1996; Gillette, 2010; Nasar, 2003; Silver,
2006).
Over the past three decades, different names such as Traditional
Neighborhood Development, Transit-Oriented Development, New
Urbanism, and Smart Growth have been used to describe programs
that have focused on Neo-traditional principles (Furuseth, 1997).
New Urbanism is perhaps the most well-known name across the
planning community. It began to become widely used after the
8 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
Congress for New Urbanism was founded in 1993 (Grant, 2009;
Trudeau, 2013a).
As a common strategy, all Neo-traditionalist approaches have
sought to solve urban and neighborhood problems and bring about
social change through physical design. Mixed use, mix of hous-
ing type, housing-job proximity, public transportation, minimized
automobile dependence, human-scaled and attractive streetscape
and tree-lined streets, walkable environment, interconnected and
pedestrian-oriented streets, clear edges, identifiable civic cen-
ters, adequate open space, distinctive architectural character and
aesthetic qualities, compact form, and medium-high density are
the design principles common to all Neo-traditional approaches
(Beatley & Brower, 1993; CNU, 2013; MacLeod, 2013; Nasar, 2003;
Talen, 2005; Wheeler, 2004).
Traditional Neighborhood Development and Transit-Oriented
Development are two other outstanding forms of Neo-traditional
development. It can be said that they are complementary and
their combination constitutes New Urbanism (Rutheiser, 1997).
Traditional Neighborhood Development was mainly developed by
Duany and Plater-Zyberk. They have been influenced by earlier
planners such as Clarence Perry, Raymond Unwin, John Nolen, and
Christopher Alexander. Their design philosophy which was first
applied to Seaside, Florida, has widely diffused over the past three
decades. The basic constituting elements of this approach are “the
neighborhood, the district, and the corridor” (Duany, Plater-Zyberk,
& Speck, 2000, p. 261).
Transit-Oriented Development is mainly developed by Peter
Calthorpe which was more influenced by Ebenezer Howard and
Lewis Mumford (Rutheiser, 1997). Calthorpe suggests that pede-
strians should be located within 10-min walk distance of a transit
station (Basiago, 1996). He emphasizes controlling sprawl, need
for infill and brownfield development, high density around transit
nodes, and incorporation of sidewalks and civic spaces for pro-
motion of social encounters (Basiago, 1996). So, what makes him
distinguished from Duany and Plater-Zyberk is that he pays more
attention to the conservation of natural land (Rutheiser, 1997).
This, in turn, has major implications for managing regional growth
(Basiago, 1996).
Since the mid-1990s Smart Growth has been widely con-
sidered as a strategy for dealing with the problems associated
with sprawl and insatiable growth of built environment (Downs,
2005; Tregoning, Agyeman, & Shenot, 2002). To promote envi-
ronmental stewardship, address the problems caused by urban
sprawl, and enhance the conservation of environmental resources,
Smart Growth advocates fostering development in areas where
infrastructure already exists and revitalizing downtown areas and
existing neighborhoods; limiting the outward expansion of urban
areas and encouraging compact development; improving social
equity and fulfilling the housing needs of people from various
income groups; providing various transport choices and encour-
aging the use of public transit; creating mixed-use, walkable
communities; improving urban aesthetics; encouraging citizen
participation and collaboration between various stakeholders;
and improving the transparency and fairness of decision-making
for urban development (Berlin, 2002; Downs, 2005; EPA, 2012;
Tregoning et al., 2002). From this description, it is clear that the
scope of Smart Growth goes beyond the neighborhood boundaries
to also include regional planning (Dierwechter, 2014). In reality,
however, Smart Growth has attained little political support for
achieving its goals. For example, in Maryland where the movement
has been advocated for a long time, significant urban expansion has
occurred within the past three decades (Sexton et al., 2013).
As in the earlier movements, the Neo-traditional neighborhood
is defined by edges and a well-defined center. However, there is
less emphasis on a fixed size. Neo-traditional neighborhood move-
ment is more focused on the catchment area of daily needs and the
placement of facilities within walkable distances. Instead of carving
out the neighborhood from the urban fabric, it has tried to establish
a seamless integration across various scales. In his theory of tran-
sect (Fig. 4), Duany (2002, p. 255) argues that a continuum from
neighborhood to rural environment is needed to create an inte-
grated landscape, where “all the component elements reinforce
each other”. This is reflected in Duany Plater-Zyberk’s update of
Perry’s neighborhood unit. As illustrated in Fig. 5, measures such
as modifying and diversifying land use composition, replacing the
surrounding highways with boulevards, designing internal streets
for pedestrian use and aligning them with those of the abutting
neighborhoods are taken to reflect the transformations in the traffic
volume and enhance the integration with the surrounding neigh-
borhoods (Farr, 2008).
3.4.2. Implementation and criticism
Neo-traditional principles have been used to design many
neighborhoods and their market penetration has been good (Nasar,
2003). These neighborhoods have, to a certain extent, been suc-
cessful in incorporating environmental concerns into development
plans (Berke et al., 2003), improving aesthetic qualities (Grant,
2007; Sohmer & Lang, 2000; Trudeau & Malloy, 2011), increas-
ing density (Gordon & Vipond, 2005), fostering occasional walking,
and substituting walking and biking for driving trips and thereby
reducing the Vehicle Miles Traveled (Khattak & Rodriguez, 2005;
Lund, 2003; Nasar, 2003; Rodríguez, Khattak, & Evenson, 2006). It
should, however, be mentioned that some studies have not found
any evidence indicating the success of these movements in reduc-
ing Vehicle Miles Traveled (Crane, 1996; Dill, 2006; Greenwald,
2003). Also, although longitudinal study by Podobnik (2011) indi-
cated improvements over time, there is evidence suggesting that
improvements in aspects such as density, walkability and travel
behavior have not been significantly effective in enhancing envi-
ronmental consciousness and sustainability of communities. This is
explained by the “self-selection” effect, meaning that usually these
neighborhoods are inhabited by those who are already environ-
mentally conscious and prefer to live in sustainable neighborhoods
(Al-Hindi & Staddon, 1997; Cabrera & Najarian, 2013; Dill, 2006).
Likewise its precedents, Neo-traditional movement has tended
not to take account of the past urbanistic ideals (Irazábal, 2012;
Silver, 2006), thereby missing the chance to learn from their
mistakes and successes. Neo-traditional movement has not been
considerably effective in enhancing diversity and reducing the
socio-economic segregation in American cities (Al-Hindi, 2001;
Dill, 2006), and in some places has resulted in gentrification and
displacement (Bohl, 2000; Day, 2003; Fagan & Trudeau, 2014;
Fainstein, 2000; Gillette, 2010; Grant, 2006, 2007; Silver, 2006;
Trudeau, 2013a; Trudeau & Kaplan, 2015). This drawback can be
explained by the fact that stringent interpretation of the pro-
posed design principles and architectural qualities can be very
costly (Bohl, 2000; Garde, 2006; Johnson & Talen, 2008; Sohmer
& Lang, 2000; Tu & Eppli, 2001) and developers have concerns
over the return on their investment. Trudeau and Malloy (2011)
demonstrate that projects built on infill and brownfield sites are
exceptions in this regard.
Regarding the goal of integration into the existing urban fab-
ric and physical integration across various scales, it is argued that
Neo-traditional developments have fell short of this aspiration
(Bohl, 2000; Sohmer & Lang, 2000). Contradictory evidence as to
whether Neo-traditional movement has contributed to control-
ling sprawl is reported in the literature. Some scholars argue that
after an early focus on greenfield development the number of infill
and brownfield developments has increased (Day, 2003; Moore,
2010; Trudeau & Malloy, 2011). Through the HOPE VI and Home
Ownership Zone (HOZ) initiatives, Congress for New Urbanism has
benefited from the institutional support of the US Department of
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16 9

Fig. 4. The transect proposed by Duany.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to revitalize a number of
distressed inner-city neighborhoods across the US (Bohl, 2000; Day,
2003).
Although the risk of physical determinism is acknowledged in
the preamble to the Charter for New Urbanism, in reality New
Urbanism projects have tended to adopt an approach that promotes
identical and generalizable physical solutions to treat problems of
communities with diverse social, cultural, and economic charac-
teristics (Day, 2003). Findings on sense of community and social
interaction in Neo-traditional neighborhoods are divergent (Nasar,
2003). While some studies show improved social relations and
neighboring behaviors (Brown & Cropper, 2001; Fagan & Trudeau,
2014; Lund, 2002, 2003; Podobnik, 2011), others dispute the exist-
ence of such improvements (Cabrera & Najarian, 2013; Chaskin &
Joseph, 2011; Lund, 2003; Nasar, 2003). Regarding citizen involve-
ment, Irazábal (2012) found that this has not received due attention
and in many cases residents have not been involved. In terms of job-
housing proximity and employment opportunities, studies show

Fig. 5. Duany Plater-Zyberk’s version of Neighborhood Unit.

10 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
that little success has been achieved and only a very limited amount
of light industrial land use is integrated into the developments
(Grant & Bohdanow, 2008; Trudeau & Malloy, 2011). The crucial role
of institutional support is another important issue that has not been
duly considered. Rutheiser (1997) warns that for Neo-traditional
movement to be successful in achieving its goals, it should also
consider the role of political forces that steer development.
In terms of creating diverse neighborhoods, mixed results
have been reported in the literature. One the one hand, some
studies demonstrate that Neo-traditional neighborhoods are non-
affordable (Al-Hindi & Staddon, 1997; Cabrera & Najarian, 2013;
Tu & Eppli, 1999), lack economic activities, are largely homoge-
neous, and can hardly be regarded as plural (Gillette, 2010; Grant,
2007; Hirt, 2009). This can be explained by the importance of mar-
ket forces and the reliance of planners on affluent clientele and
private developers seeking enhanced design to finance their visions
(Fainstein, 2000; Gillette, 2010; Grant, 2007; Sohmer & Lang, 2000).
On the other hand, there are studies indicating that New Urban-
ist projects have made considerable achievements in enhancing
income diversity and providing affordable housing (Deitrick & Ellis,
2004; Johnson & Talen, 2008; Trudeau & Kaplan, 2015). Many of
these neighborhoods are supported by HOPE VI and HOZ initia-
tives (Johnson & Talen, 2008; Trudeau & Kaplan, 2015). However, a
recent study by Trudeau and Kaplan (2015) demonstrates that there
are still many other unfunded neighborhoods that feature income
diversity. A wide range of variation exists within the New Urban-
ism movement (Deitrick & Ellis, 2004; Trudeau, 2013b; Trudeau
& Kaplan, 2015) and characteristics of one type do not necessarily
apply to the others (Trudeau & Kaplan, 2015). More Neo-traditional
neighborhoods need to be studied to be able to gain a better under-
standing of their successes and failures.
3.5. Eco-urbanism
3.5.1. Background and underlying principles
Since the turn of the century, there has been a global diffu-
sion of initiatives that attempt to integrate sustainability principles
into neighborhood development. The origin of this initiatives dates
back to the early 1980s when the sustainability concept was
emerged and Richard Register proposed eco-cities that take into
account the ecological carrying capacity of the city’s bioregion
(Register, 2006; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015; Yigitcanlar & Lee,
2014). Eco-urban initiatives draw upon the concepts of urban
metabolism and sustainability and therefore have a wider scope
compared to the previous movements (Holden & Li, 2014; Tsolakis
& Anthopoulos, 2015). As an overarching term, Eco-urbanism refers
to various movements developed to, in addition to dealing with
traditional challenges of urbanization that were described in pre-
vious sections, address the challenges posed by climate change and
resource constraint (Joss, Cowley, & Tomozeiu, 2013a). A grow-
ing body of literature exists on a multitude of initiatives such
as eco-city, eco-town, eco-district, éco-quartier, eco-garden city,
ubiquitous city, green city, resilient city etc. (Caprotti, 2014b; de
Jong, Joss, Schraven, Zhan, & Weijnen, 2015; Holden & Li, 2014;
Joss et al., 2013a; Suzuki, Dastur, Moffatt, Yabuki, & Maruyama,
2010; Yigitcanlar & Lee, 2014). Eco-urban developments may vary
in terms of size, spatial and socio-political context, and develop-
ment type (Joss et al., 2013a).
Many features which Eco-urbanism is sought to have are the
ones which have been advocated by precedent movements. A key
distinguishing feature of Eco-urbanism is incorporation of green
and/or ubiquitous technologies such as smart grid, water treat-
ment systems, solid waste management systems, solar technology,
net-zero energy buildings, real-time transportation information, e-
working etc. into the projects (Joss & Molella, 2013b; Yigitcanlar &
Lee, 2014). Fig. 6 shows Masdar City as an example of Eco-urban
Fig. 6. Incorporation of green technologies into Masdar City.
projects. As can be seen clean technologies such as solar pan-
els and evaporative cooling tower are integrated into the project.
Carbon discourse is dominant in all Eco-urban movements. Focus
on low-carbon cities gained a better momentum following the
Kyoto Protocol in 1997 that recognizes the vital role that cities
can play in reducing energy consumption and its associated GHG
emissions (Joss et al., 2013a). In addition to echoing principles of
minimal ecological footprint and living in harmony with nature
(Pow & Neo, 2015; Yu, 2014), some Eco-urban movements empha-
size building self-contained communities that have clear business
plans and strategies for economic sustainability (Pow & Neo, 2015).
An example is the major focus on local agriculture and com-
munity gardening (Premalatha, Tauseef, Abbasi, & Abbasi, 2013).
Eco-urban projects also function as centers of excellence and living
labs for knowledge production, education, and testing innovative
green technologies that, if successful, can be later rolled out at a
larger scale and be shared with other projects through the existing
networks established for this purpose (Cugurullo, 2013; Joss et al.,
2013a; Joss & Molella, 2013b; Premalatha et al., 2013).
3.5.2. Implementation and criticism
Regarding the development type, four different types of Eco-
urban projects have been mentioned in the literature: Greenfield
(e.g. Dongtan, China); brownfield or infill (e.g. MediaCity, UK); built
on reclaimed land (e.g. Caofeidian, China); and urban retrofit (e.g.
SALT district, US) (Beal, 2015; Datta, 2012; Joss et al., 2013a; Joss &
Molella, 2013b). Study by Joss et al. (2013a) showed that most of
eco-city developments around the world are either infill or urban
retrofit (Joss et al., 2013a). Similar results have been found in a
survey of 97 pilot projects certified under Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-
ND), showing that over 50% of the projects have been developed on
brownfield sites (Sharifi & Murayama, 2014). This is a significant
improvement compared to previous movements which were often
practiced on greenfield sites. Avoiding development on greenfields
is important for protecting valuable natural features that provide
citizens with ecosystem services (see the references provided for
defining sustainability). Only in Asia a considerable percentage of
eco-city programs have been developed on greenfields. This reflects
the rapid rate of urbanization in countries such as China and India
which results in increased demand for completely new develop-
ments. In Asia, Japan seems to be an exception. Unlike China and
South Korea, many of the Eco-urban projects in Japan can be catego-
rized as brownfield or urban regeneration (Low, 2013). Dominance
of greenfield development in developing countries such as China,
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
where the majority of future urban growth will occur, raises con-
cerns about reiteration of mistakes that led to suburbanization in
countries such as the US.
There is evidence showing bi-lateral governmental corporations
on eco-cities, involving countries such as Germany, France, Japan,
India, and China (Joss et al., 2013a). This has facilitated global
knowledge transfer that was not a central feature of the previous
movements.
While previous movements were mainly practiced in Europe
and North America, Eco-urban projects can be found across the
globe. A recent study shows that there are over 200 eco-city projects
in China alone (Pow & Neo, 2015). The concept of Eco-urbanism has
been developed and realized differently in China (Low, 2013). Com-
pared to Eco-urban projects developed in other parts of the world,
Chinese ones are larger and more focused on technological aspects
(Caprotti, 2014a; Chang & Sheppard, 2013; Holden & Li, 2014; Pow
& Neo, 2015). These projects are funded and promoted by the cen-
tral government and local authorities with the purpose of reducing
GHG emissions, enhancing regional competitiveness and interna-
tional positioning of cities, and regulating rampant urbanization
(Joss & Molella, 2013b; Pow & Neo, 2015; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos,
2015; Yu, 2014). Joss and Molella (2013b) argue that, although
Chinese government sees eco-city development as a tool to avoid
externalities of urbanization and building redundant and unsus-
tainable infrastructure that will create lock-in effects, externalities
of urbanization have already influenced eco-cities. In his descrip-
tion of Tianjin Eco-city, Caprotti (2014a) explains how high-rise
residential towers are separated by wide streets that are flanked by
protected cycling and pedestrian routes. This signifies the lack of
human scale and is reminiscent of the principles advocated by Mod-
ernism. A major weak point of Chinese eco-cities is that the central
government attempts to create a unified planning system for eco-
cities across the country. As a result, limited bottom-up activities
have been undertaken and local specificities are not addressed as a
result of this blue-print planning approach (Joss & Molella, 2013b).
Eco-urban projects in South Korea bear similarities to Chi-
nese ones, but have an even more emphasis on information and
communication technology and eco-technology (Yigitcanlar & Lee,
2014). Japanese Eco-Towns have sought to, among other things,
revitalize economy, improve material recycling, enhance public
participation, promote environmental consciousness, and improve
social justice in cities (Low, 2013; Van Berkel, Fujita, Hashimoto, &
Geng, 2009). Eco-urbanism has also been practiced in other Asian
countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, and UAE (Cugurullo, 2013;
Datta, 2012; Joss et al., 2013a).
Eco-urbanism has also been practiced in other parts of the world.
French ÉcoQuartiers (EcoQuartiers, 2015), eco-districts promoted
by German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) (DGNB, 2015), and
eco-cities developed in Swedish cities such as Malmö (Ecocities,
2015) are some examples of these projects. In addition to programs
promoted by individual European countries, European Union (EU)
has also funded eco-city programs in several European cities (Joss
et al., 2013a; Sharifi & Murayama, 2013).
In the US, Eco-urbanism has been developed as an evolution
of Neo-traditionalist movements. In addition to echoing principles
of Neo-traditionalism, it encourages incorporation of principles
related to smart use of resources, health and well-being, univer-
sal design, local agriculture, green and blue infrastructure, heat
island reduction, urban retrofit, and infill and brownfield devel-
opment into neighborhood (re)development plans (Ecodistricts,
2015; LEED, 2015). As an example, the EcoDistricts initiative was
launched in Portland, Oregon and after experimenting with five
pilot EcoDistricts it is now targeting neighborhoods in eight more
North American cities (Ecodistricts, 2015). LEED-ND has perhaps
had the most notable influence on promoting Eco-urbanism in
the US. It has been used as a guide for developing sustainable
11
neighborhoods in the US and abroad. Despite making improve-
ments in terms of density, mixed use, and car dependence, LEED-ND
certified projects have not been very successful in meeting criteria
on other issues such as inclusiveness and green infrastructure. This
is explained by the influence of market forces (Sharifi & Murayama,
2014). Eco-urbanism has also been, to a more limited extent, imple-
mented in Africa, Latin America, and Australia (Joss et al., 2013a).
Literature on these practices is still scarce.
One important point that differentiates Eco-urbanism from its
preceding movements is its attempt to develop assessment toolk-
its for performance verification and monitoring. This has been
done for cases such as Masdar, Tianjin (Caprotti, 2014a), Portland
EcoDistricts (Ecodistricts, 2015), Japanese sustainable develop-
ments (CASBEE-UD, 2012), and LEED-ND certified developments
(LEED, 2015). Appropriate implementation of these tools is needed
to verify compliance with the targets set at the beginning of the
project.
Some Eco-urban projects have been criticized for prioritizing
economy at the expense of other dimensions of sustainability. Some
governments see building Eco-urban projects as a “symbolic invest-
ment” necessary for enhancing the economic competitiveness of
the city (Beal, 2015). This has resulted in more emphasis on eco-
nomic aspects. In Masdar City, for instance, focus is mainly on
economic aspects of sustainability at the expense of social dimen-
sions. Issues such as inclusiveness and attachment have not been
well considered and this brings up concerns about collapse of the
project in case of economic crisis (Cugurullo, 2013). Failure in pro-
viding a balanced account of sustainability dimensions has also
been reported for English Eco-towns (Warwick, 2015), and Indian
eco-cities (Datta, 2012).
A recurring criticism is that while Eco-urban projects purport to
be inclusive and reduce intra-urban disparities, the reality on the
ground does not prove this (Sharifi & Murayama, 2012; Sharifi &
Murayama, 2014). Some authors have even raised concerns about
speculative activities (Pow & Neo, 2015). Yu (2014) argues that
despite allocating 10% of the units in Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-
city to affordable housing, as a pre-requirement, the renter should
be working inside the eco-city. Only high-tech companies exist
inside the eco-city, meaning that those hired are high-skill work-
ers with reasonable salaries enough to afford ordinary housing.
Caprotti (2014b) questions social success of eco-cities and describes
them as islands of wealth in an ocean of poverty. Similarly, Caofei-
dian eco-city is described as an island of wealth disconnected from
its hinterland (Joss & Molella, 2013b). Influence of market mecha-
nisms is a major reason for non-inclusiveness of Eco-urban projects
(Beal, 2015).
Likewise its precedents, Eco-urbanism has shown over-reliance
on physical design and technological development for bringing
about social change (Holden & Li, 2014; Joss & Molella, 2013b).
This raises concerns about under-estimating the role that can be
played by people. Unless social change and technological devel-
opment are viewed as mutually reinforcing, Eco-urbanism has
little chance of creating sustainable neighborhoods (Joss & Molella,
2013b). Without social change, rebound effects may offset bene-
fits of technological developments and, as reported for eco-cities
in China, residents may adopt extravagant lifestyles different from
what envisioned by planners (Yu, 2014).
Eco-urbanist projects have not been very successful in meet-
ing targets set at the outset of the project (Holden & Li, 2014;
Sharifi & Murayama, 2014). In addition to influence of market
forces that was described above, this can be attributed to the
fact that some of the targets are not realistic. Premalatha et al.
(2013) explains that developers of Masdar City have realized that
achieving the ambitious goal of zero carbon society would require
massive upfront investment by developers, coupled with environ-
mentally conscious residents willing to uptake an environmental
12 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16

friendly behavior. Zero waste target requires permanent reuse and
recycling which entails exponential increase in the cost and energy
needed for the treatment. Therefore, they have moderated their
initial aims and now focused on low-carbon and low-waste soci-
ety (Premalatha et al., 2013). Regarding the low-carbon objectives,
it should be mentioned that the focus has been more on emis-
sions in the operation phase than on life cycle emissions. Although
when completed an Eco-urban project may be low-carbon (through
improvements such as modifying urban form and incorporation
of green and innovative technologies), carbon emitted during the
infrastructure-intensive construction process, and demolition and
recycling phases should also be taken into account and reported by
the projects.
Finally it is argued that Eco-urbanism has achieved limited
progress in being beneficial for the broader environment beyond
the boundaries of the developed neighborhoods. This, in part, can be
explained by a fragmented planning process at municipal, regional,
and national levels. For instance while Masdar tries to promote
low-carbon development, its neighboring energy-intensive Ferrari
World theme park, and the Yas Island multi-purpose center encour-
age limitless consumerism (Premalatha et al., 2013). Therefore,
concerted and coordinated efforts across different scales and sec-
tors are needed to achieve sustainable communities (Premalatha
et al., 2013; Tomozeiu & Joss, 2014).
4. Discussions
This article dealt with the transformation of neighborhood plan-
ning movements since the early 20th century. For over a century
planners and visionaries have developed planned neighborhoods
as remedies for problems caused by unregulated urbanization.
Five major movements were analyzed in the previous section.
Table 2 summarizes the main characteristics of these different
movements. As mentioned in the Methods and materials section,
Table 3 includes several sustainability-related criteria and shows
the degree of their integration into the underlying principles of the
selected movements.
Returning to the first research question raised in Section 1
of how the guiding principles of neighborhood planning have
changed, it can be said that, over time, neighborhood planning has
broadened its traditional focus on place-making and quality of life
to include different sustainability-related issues such as inclusive-
ness, climate resilience, efficient resource management, and carbon
management (through modifying urban form and incorporating
green infrastructure). The differences among these five ways of cre-
ating desirable neighborhoods lie in their historical origins, as well
as approaches, goals, and actions recommended. While a number
of these ideas and characteristics have been recurring in differ-
ent movements, some others have emerged following the rise of
environmental and sustainability concerns at the end of the 20th
century. Since then, the underlying mechanisms that shape cities
in general, and neighborhoods in particular, have undergone major
transformations. Increasing attention has been given to the impacts
of climate change and rampant urbanization in some develop-
ing countries. Movements that fall under the general heading of
Eco-urbanism have emerged in response to these specific con-
cerns. Eco-urbanism builds on the previous movements by, among
other things, taking advantage of green and ubiquitous technolo-
gies, developing strategies for smart and efficient use of resources,
promoting brownfield and infill development, focusing on carbon
footprinting and low-carbon development, paying attention to cli-
mate resilience, and verifying performance using assessment tools.
The second question was about existence of overlap between
different movements. Using Tables 2 and 3 to compare the selected
movements, it can be seen that these movements share some
commonalities in terms of the circumstances that led to their
emergence and the goals that they were pursuing. As discussed
in Section 3, Garden City and Neighborhood Unit have played an
important role in the development and evolution of the movements
that emerged later. Comparison between the early movements
shows that in some cases new planning movements have dismissed
the ideals of their precedents. This confirms previous findings in
the literature (Talen, 2005). However, the new movements (Neo-
traditionalism and Eco-urbanism) seem to have learned to avoid
this mistake by capitalizing on potential complementary benefits
gained from synergies between the past planning cultures.
The third question was whether the selected movements have
been successful in achieving their promises, and if over one century
of research and practice on neighborhood planning has resulted in
creating sustainable neighborhood. Given that findings of this study
are based on a limited number of cases reported in the reviewed
literature, the evidence for answering this question is inconclu-
sive and general findings discussed below should be treated with
caution. Further research is necessary to find enough evidence for
answering this question. Future work should involve a larger num-
ber of cases from each movement and examine whether they have
met the sustainability criteria mentioned in Table 3.
This paper indicates that neighborhood planning movements
have achieved limited success in realizing their initial goals.
Howard’s visionary principles of efficient, self-reliant, and equi-
table communities are still among the major challenges in the way
of achieving neighborhood sustainability. Two main reasons can

Table 2
Main features of different movements.

Item Garden City Neighborhood Unit Modernism Neo-traditional Planning Eco-Urbanism

Geographical focus EU and NA EU and NA EU and NA EU and NA Global

Main inspiring condition Crowded City Crowded city Crowded City Urban Sprawl Climate change
Proposed density Low Low Very high/very low Medium-high Medium-high
Street type Curvilinear Radial/linear Rigid grid Flexible grid Hybrid
Street connectivity Low Low Low High High
Transportation Private Private Private Multi-modal Multi-modal
Promotion of integration with Yes No No Yes Yes
the broader landscape
Incorporation of ubiquitous No No No No Yes
technologies
Carbon footprinting & No No No No Yes
low-carbon development
Attention to climate resilience No No No No Yes
Involvement of international No No No No Yes
governmental or
quasi-governmental bodies
Assessment tools for No No No No Yes
performance verification
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16 13

Table 3
Degree of incorporation of sustainability related criteria in the studied movements.

Themes and criteria Garden City Neighborhood Unit Modernism Neo-traditional Eco-urbanism
√ √ √ √ √
Social Inclusive community (demographic profile,
affordability, etc.)
√ √ √ √
Community facilities and civic spaces ×
√ √
Local vernacular, culture, heritage, identity × × ×
√ √ √
Economic Housing and job proximity × ×
√ √ √
Self sufficiency × ×
√ √
Environmental Location and site selection (site sensitivity) × × ×
√
Resource management (clean and efficient × × × ×
Energy, water, materials, waste etc.)
√
Environmental protection (ecology, × × × ×
biodiversity, etc.)
√ √ √ √ √
Green space
√ √
Sustainable transportation within the × × ×
neighborhood (public transit, cycling routes,
etc.)
√
Certified sustainable buildings and × × × ×
communities
√ √
Institutional Public consultation and stakeholder × × ×
engagement
√
Sustainability education (innovation, research, × × × ×
and development)
√ √
Design Internal street Connectivity × × ×
√ √ √ √
Accessibility ×
√ √ √
Compactness × M
√ √
Mixed use × × ×
√ √
Site layout (energy efficient design) × × ×
√
Green infrastructure (photovoltaics, rainwater × × × ×
harvesting, etc.)
√
Indicates compliance. × Indicates non-compliance. M Indicates mixed evidence.

be put forward for mismatch between rhetoric and reality: first,
market influence, which has always been an impediment to full
realization of the goals; second, the fact that in some cases, such as
Masdar City (Premalatha et al., 2013), these goals are so unrealis-
tic that developers have no other choice but to revise them in the
middle of the process.
Building diverse and inclusive communities is an important goal
that none of the movements has been able to accomplish in a satis-
factory way. The reviewed literature indicates that planners should
be aware of the risk of creating “islands of wealth” that are not
beneficial for their surrounding neighborhoods. The failure in cre-
ating equitable communities is, in part, because it is a convoluted
issue with “roots extended far beyond urban planning and physical
design” (Ellis, 2002, p. 281). More concerted efforts across different
sectors and scales are required to address this issue.
A look at the genealogy of neighborhood planning in the 20th
century reveals that neighborhood planning has been mainly prac-
ticed in the form of suburban development. A major point of
difference between Eco-urbanism and other movements is that the
former places a great emphasis on protecting greenfields, control-
ling sprawl, and revitalizing inner urban areas. This can be regarded
as a change of direction toward brownfield and incremental devel-
opment.
5. Conclusion
Planning at the neighborhood scale is recognized as essen-
tial for achieving sustainable development. This study looked at
how neighborhood panning has evolved in the context of five dif-
ferent planning movements that have emerged since the early
20th century. These movements are namely, Garden City, Neigh-
borhood Unit, Modernism, Neo-traditionalism, and Eco-urbanism.
Each of the selected movements has made significant impacts on
neighborhood planning. Findings indicate that the scope of the
underlying principles of these movements has broadened over
time. Eco-urbanism as the most recent movement has a broader
scope compared to the other movements and emphasizes the
significant contribution that neighborhoods can make to climate
change adaptation and mitigation. Planners and policy makers
should see Eco-urban development as an opportunity to create
more sustainable and climate resilient neighborhoods.
A significant finding of this study was that, despite some evi-
dence of success in achieving the goals, there is still a mismatch
between rhetoric and reality of neighborhood planning. While Eco-
urbanism as the most recent movement, intends to contribute to
solving problems associated with global environmental change,
historical problems such as social equity have not yet been com-
pletely addressed. Several reasons for this gap between theory and
practice of neighborhood planning have been mentioned in the
reviewed literature. A recurrent criticism was the overreliance of
planners on physical and technological determinism. Despite dif-
ferences between neighborhood planning movements in terms of
their origins, all movements have sought to revolutionize the status
quo through physical design and focus on modifications in urban
form (Talen, 2005; Vanderbeek & Irazabal, 2007). All have failed to
acknowledge that the process of change is not easy to control. It
is difficult to “predict the behavioral outcomes to which strict for-
mal controls will eventually lead” (Vanderbeek & Irazabal, 2007, p.
54). Planners and policy makers should be aware of the limits of
physical and technological solutions to social problems and avoid
subordinating social factors to physical and technological ones. The
fact that Eco-urbanism uses the sustainability concept as a guiding
framework provides an opportunity to avoid being caught up in the
fallacy of physical and technological determinism. At the core of the
concept of sustainability is the issue of pluralism which requires a
paradigm shift from physical determinism to sustainability-based
pluralism. Pluralism means not only proper consideration of the
various dimensions of sustainability, but also providing a platform
for various stakeholders to participate in the planning and decision-
making process (Bond, Morrison-Saunders, & Howitt, 2013). To be
in accordance with the sustainability concept, neighborhood plan-
ning should move away from being prescriptive, take account of
the context-specificities of different locations, and acknowledge
that different social, economic, environmental, and technological
14 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
factors are mutually reinforcing and should not be pursued in iso-
lation.
Influence of market forces was another recurrent reason for
limited success of planning movements. Obtaining institutional
support for implementation of plans could be a strategy to address
this issue. A success story of how New Urbanism has garnered
institutional support through HOPE VI and HOZ programs was men-
tioned in this paper. It is hoped that planners and researchers will
find further solutions for reducing the influence of market forces.
This study does not claim to be representative of all movements
related to neighborhood planning. Only major planning visions
(mainly in Europe and North America) were investigated. Future
work needs to be done to examine other movements that have
not been discussed here and to investigate the evolution of neigh-
borhood planning in other parts of the world. As empirical results
presented in the reviewed literature are often based on a limited
sample of neighborhoods, there is also a need for further examina-
tion of the empirical aspects of neighborhood development.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments and criticism of the earlier version of this
paper.
References
Al-Hindi, K. F. (2001). The new urbanism: Where and for whom? Investigation of
an emergent paradigm. Urban Geography, 22(3), 202–219.
Al-Hindi, K. F., & Staddon, C. (1997). The hidden histories and geographies of
neotraditional town planning: The case of Seaside. Florida. Environment and
Planning D-Society & Space, 15(3), 349–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/D150349
Banister, D. (2012). Assessing the reality—Transport and land use planning to
achieve sustainability. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(3), 1–14. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v5i3.388
Basiago, A. D. (1996). The search for the sustainable city in 20th century urban
planning. The Environmentalist, 16, 135–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF01325104
Beal, V. (2015). Selective public policies: Sustainability and neoliberal urban
restructuring. Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), 303–316. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0956247814549153
Beatley, T., & Brower, D. J. (1993). Sustainability comes to main street. Planning,
59(5), 16–19.
Bergman, B. (2011). Visions and urban structures. In M. Hojer, A. Gullberg, & R.
Pettersson (Eds.), Images of the future city: Time and space for sustainable
development (pp. 61–76). Dordrecht: Springer.
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development?
Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/01944360008976081
Berke, P. R., MacDonald, J., White, N., Holmes, M., Line, D., Oury, K., et al. (2003).
Greening development to protect watersheds: Does new urbanism make a
difference? Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 397–413.
Berlin, C. (2002). Sprawl comes to the American heartland. Focus, 46(4), 1–9.
Bigon, L. (2013). Garden cities in colonial Africa: A note on historiography. Planning
Perspectives, 28(3), 477–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2013.800716
Bohl, C. C. (2000). New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and
implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate,
11(4), 761–801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2000.9521387
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Howitt, R. (2013). Sustainability assessment:
Pluralism, practice and progress. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boyoko, C., Cooper, R., Davey, C., & Wootton, A. (2006). Addressing sustainability
early in the urban design process. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, 17(6), 689–706.
BREEAM. (2012). Homepage of BREEAM communities. Retrieved from
http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=372 (July 8, 2014).
Brody, J. S. (2009). Constructing professional knowledge: The neighborhood unit
concept in the community builders handbook. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (Doctor of Philosophy).
Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban and standard suburban
subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 67(4), 402–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01944360108976249
Cabrera, J. F., & Najarian, J. C. (2013). Can new urbanism create diverse
communities? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4), 427–441.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456x13500309
Caprotti, F. (2014a). Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the
Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, China. Cities, 36, 10–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cities.2013.08.005
Caprotti, F. (2014b). Eco-urbanism and the Eco-city, or, denying the right to the
city? Antipode, 46(5), 1285–1303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.12087
CASBEE-UD. (2012). Homepage of CASBEE. Retrieved from
http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm (June 12, 2013).
Chang, I. C. C., & Sheppard, E. (2013). China’s Eco-cities as Variegated1Urban
sustainability: Dongtan Eco-city and Chongming Eco-Island. Journal of Urban
Technology, 20(1), 57–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735104
Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2011). Social interaction in mixed-income
developments: Relational expectations and emerging reality. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 33(2), 209–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00537.x
Checkoway, B. (1994). Paul Davidoff and advocacy planning in retrospect. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 139–143.
Clavel, P. (1994). The evolution of advocacy planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 60(2), 146–149.
CNU. (2013). Charter of the new urbanism. Retrieved from
http://www.cnu.org/charter (July 18, 2015).
Corbusier, L. (1930). Radiant city: Art, architecture and engineering library.
Crane, R. (1996). Cars and drivers in the new suburbs: Linking access to travel in
neotraditional planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1),
51–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975670
Cugurullo, F. (2013). How to build a sandcastle: An analysis of the genesis and
development of Masdar city. Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1), 23–37. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735105
Daniels, T. L. (2009). A trail across time: American environmental planning from
city beautiful to sustainability. Journal of the American Planning Association,
75(2), 178–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360902748206
Datta, A. (2012). India’s ecocity? Environment, urbanisation, and mobility in the
making of Lavasa. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(6),
982–996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c1205j
Day, K. (2003). New urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0739456x03255424
de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015).
Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco-knowledge cities; making sense
of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of
Cleaner Production, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004
Deitrick, S., & Ellis, C. (2004). New urbanism in the inner city: A case study of
Pittsburgh. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 426–442. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976392
DGNB. (2015). Homepage of German Sustainable Building Council. Retrieved from.
http://www.dgnb.de/en/. Accessed 10.04.13
Dierwechter, Y. (2014). The spaces that smart growth makes: Sustainability,
segregation, and residential change across greater Seattle. Urban Geography,
35(5), 691–714.
Dill, J. (2006). Evaluating a new urbanist neighborhood. Berkeley Planning Journal,
19(1), 59–78.
Domhardt, K. S. (2012). The garden city idea in the CIAM discourse on urbanism: a
path to comprehensive planning. Planning Perspectives, 27(2), 173–197. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2012.646768
Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth—Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01944360508976707
Duany, A. (2002). Introduction to the special issue: The transect. Journal of Urban
Design, 7(3), 251–260.
Duany, A., Speck, J., & Lydon, M. (2010). The smart growth manual. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl
and the decline of the American dream (1st ed.). New York, NY: North Point Press.
Ecocities, M. (2015). Sustainable city development.
Ecodistricts. (2015). Homepage of ecodistricts. Retrieved from
http://ecodistricts.org/ (May 5, 2015).
EcoQuartiers, L. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.territoires.gouv.fr/lesecoquartiers, April 12, 2015.
Ellis, C. (2002). The new urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals. Journal of urban design,
7(3), 261–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1357480022000039330
EPA. (2012). About smart growth. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about sg.htm (May 6, 2013).
Fagan, C., & Trudeau, D. (2014). Empowerment by design? Women’s use of new
urbanist neighborhoods in suburbia. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14539353
Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review,
35(4), 451–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107808740003500401
Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Filion, P., & Hammond, K. (2003). Neighbourhood land use and performance: The
evolution of neighbourhood morphology over the 20th century. Environment
and Planning B—Planning & Design, 30(2), 271–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/
B12844
Fishman, R. (1977). Urban utopias in the twentieth century: Ebenezer Howard Frank
Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Forsyth, A., & Crewe, K. (2009). A typology of comprehensive designed
communities since the Second World War. Landscape Journal, 28(1), 56–78.
Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective.
Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 149–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14649351003759573
Furuseth, O. J. (1997). Neotraditional planning: A new strategy for building
neighborhoods? Land Use Policy, 14(3), 201–213.
 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
Garde, A. (2006). Designing and developing new urbanist projects in the United
States: Insights and implications. Journal of urban design, 11(1), 33–54. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574800500490299
GBCA. (2013). Green star – Communities rating tool. Green Building Council of
Australia. Retrieved from. http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-
communities/. Accessed 10.04.13
Georgiadou, M. C., & Hacking, T. (2011). Future-proofed design for sustainable
communities. Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, 7, 179–188.
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework
for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in
significant decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 8(3), 259–280.
Gillette, H. (2010). Civitas by design: Building better communities, from the garden
city to the new urbanism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gleeson, B. (2012). Make no little plans’: Anatomy of planning ambition and
prospect. Geographical Research, 50(3), 242–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1745-5871.2011.00728.x
Gordon, D., & Vipond, S. (2005). Gross density and new urbanism: Comparing
conventional and new urbanist suburbs in Markham, Ontario. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 71(1), 41–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01944360508976404
Grant, J. L. (2006). Planning the good community: New urbanism in theory and
practice. London: Routledge.
Grant, J. L. (2009). Theory and practice in planning the suburbs: Challenges to
implementing new urbanism, smart growth, and sustainability principles.
Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1), 11–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14649350802661683
Grant, J. L. (2007). Two sides of a coin? New urbanism and gated communities.
Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), 481–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.
2007.9521608
Grant, J. L. (2014). Garden city movement. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2394–2396). Dordrecht: Springer.
Grant, J. L., & Bohdanow, S. (2008). New urbanism developments in Canada: A
survey. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban
Sustainability, 1(2), 109–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549170802221435
Greenwald, M. J. (2003). The road less traveled: New urbanist inducements to
travel mode substitution for nonwork trips. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 23(1), 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456x03256248
Harvey, D. (1997). The new urbanism and the communitarian trap. Harvard Design
Magazine, 1(3), 68–69.
Hirt, S. A. (2007). The compact versus the dispersed city: History of planning ideas
on Sofia’s urban form. Journal of Planning History, 6(2), 138–165. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1538513206301327
Hirt, S. A. (2009). Premodern, modern, postmodern? Placing new urbanism into a
historical perspective. Journal of Planning History, 8(3), 248–273. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1538513209338902
Holden, M., & Li, C. (2014). The emergence and spread of eco-urban developments
around the world. The 4th world sustainability forum. ON, Canada:
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). Available from. http://
sciforum.net/conference/wsf-4/paper/2656
Howard, E. (1985). Garden cities of tomorrow (New rev. ed.). Eastbourne: Attic
Books.
Irazábal, C. (2012). Beyond ‘latino new urbanism’: Advocating ethnurbanisms.
Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban
Sustainability, 5(2–3), 241–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2012.
701817
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage
books.
Johnson, J. S., & Talen, E. (2008). Affordable housing in new urbanist communities:
A survey of developers. Housing Policy Debate, 19(4), 583–613. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10511482.2008.9521648
Joss, S., Cowley, R., & Tomozeiu, D. (2013). Towards the ‘ubiquitous eco-city’: An
analysis of the internationalisation of eco-city policy and practice. Urban
Research & Practice, 6(1), 54–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.
762216
Joss, S., & Molella, A. P. (2013). The Eco-city as urban technology: Perspectives on
Caofeidian International Eco-City (China). Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1),
115–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735411
Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The changing metabolism of cities.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11, 43–59.
Khattak, A. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional
neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research, A:
Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.009
Komeily, A., & Srinivasan, R. S. (2015). A need for balanced approach to
neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 18, 32–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.
05.004
Lawhon, L. L. (2009). The Neighborhood Unit: Physical design or physical
determinism? Journal of Planning History, 8(2), 111–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1538513208327072
LEED. (2015). Homepage of LEED-ND. Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/articles/getting-know-leed-neighborhood-
development (May 8,
2013).
Low, M. (2013). Eco-cities in Japan: Past and future. Journal of Urban Technology,
20(1), 7–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735107
15
Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., & Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A systematic review of guiding
principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 118, 40–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.
002
Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 301–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0739456x0202100307
Lund, H. (2003). Testing the claims of new urbanism: Local access, pedestrian
travel, and neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association,
69(4), 414–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976328
MacLeod, G. (2013). New urbanism/smart growth in the Scottish Highlands:
mobile policies and post-politics in local development planning. Urban Studies,
1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098013491164
Mehaffy, M. W., Porta, S., & Romice, O. (2014). The “neighborhood unit” on trial: a
case study in the impacts of urban morphology. Journal of Urbanism:
International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1–19. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.908786
Meter, K. (1999). Neighborhood sustainability indicators guidebook: How to create
neighborhood sustainability indicators in your neighborhood. Minneapolis, MN:
Crossroads Resource Center. This report was retrieved from. http://www.pca.
state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=4797. Accessed 08.07.12
Metzger, J. T. (1996). The theory and practice of equity planning: An annotated
bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(1), 112–126.
Minnery, J., Knight, J., Byrne, J., & Spencer, J. (2009). Bounding neighbourhoods:
How do residents do it? Planning Practice & Research, 24(4), 471–493.
Moore, S. (2010). ‘More Toronto, naturally’ but ‘too strange for Orangeville’:
De-universalizing new urbanism in greater Toronto. Cities, 27(2), 103–113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.10.004
Mueller, E. J., & Dooling, S. (2011). Sustainability and vulnerability: integrating
equity into plans for central city redevelopment. Journal of Urbanism:
International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4(3), 201–222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2011.633346
Mulligan, J., Guthrie, P. M., Stigge, B. J., & Tuzzolo, G. R. (2011). Tailored
sustainability assessment for urban masterplanning. Proceedings of the
ICE—Urban Design and Planning, 164(2), 61–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/udap.
2011.164.2.61
Nasar, J. L. (2003). Does neotraditional development build community? Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0739456x03256224
Perry, C. A. (1929). The Neighborhood Unit: A scheme of arrangement for the
family-life community regional plan of New York and its environs. New York, NY:
Arno Press.
Podobnik, B. (2011). Assessing the social and environmental achievements of New
Urbanism: evidence from Portland, Oregon. Journal of Urbanism: International
Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4(2), 105–126. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/17549175.2011.596271
Pow, C. P., & Neo, H. (2015). Modelling green urbanism in China. Area, 47(2),
132–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/area.12128
Premalatha, M., Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2013). The promise and
the performance of the world’s first two zero carbon eco-cities. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 660–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.
05.011
Register, R. (2006). Ecocities: Rebuilding cities in balance with nature (Rev. ed.).
Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers.
Rego, R. L. (2014). Brazilian garden cities and suburbs: Accommodating urban
modernity and foreign ideals. Journal of Planning History, 13(4), 276–295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1538513214521582
Rodríguez, D. A., Khattak, A. J., & Evenson, K. R. (2006). Can new urbanism
encourage physical activity?: Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with
conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1),
43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976723
Rohe, W. (2009). From local to global: One hundred years of neighborhood
planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209–230. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360902751077
Rutheiser, C. (1997). Beyond the radiant garden city beautiful: Notes on the new
urbanism. City & Society, 9(1), 117–133.
Scrase, J. I., & Sheate, W. R. (2002). Integration and integrated approaches to
assessment: What do they mean for the environment? Journal of Environmental
Policy & Planning, 4(4), 275–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jepp.117
Sexton, J. O., Song, X.-P., Huang, C., Channan, S., Baker, M. E., & Townshend, J. R.
(2013). Urban growth of the Washington, DC–Baltimore, MD metropolitan
region from 1984 to 2010 by annual, Landsat-based estimates of impervious
cover. Remote Sensing of Environment, 129, 42–53.
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2012). The Potential of ‘CASBEE for urban
development’ for delivering sustainable communities: A case study from the
‘Koshigaya Lake Town’ planning experience. In International Symposium on
Urban Planning (pp. 703–713).
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). A critical review of seven selected
neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 38, 73–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.006
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2014). Neighborhood sustainability assessment in
action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the
US, the UK, and Japan. Building and Environment, 72, 243–258. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.11.006
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2015). Viability of using global standards for
neighbourhood sustainability assessment: Insights from a comparative case
16 A. Sharifi / Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016) 1–16
study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(1), 1–23. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.866077
Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood planning in historical-perspective. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 51(2), 161–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01944368508976207
Silver, C. (2006). New urbanism and planning history: Back to the future. In J.
Monclus, & M. Guardia (Eds.), Culture, urbanism and planning (pp. 179–193).
Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Smith, M. E. (2010). The archaeological study of neighborhoods and districts in
ancient cities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 29(2), 137–154. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.01.001
Sohmer, R. R., & Lang, R. E. (2000). Editors’ introduction—From seaside to
southside: New Urbanism’s quest to save the inner city. Housing Policy Debate,
11(4), 751–760.
Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffatt, S., Yabuki, N., & Maruyama, H. (2010). Eco2 Cities:
Ecological cities as economic cities. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning: The conflict of cultures. New
York, NY: Routledge.
TCPA. (2013). Creating garden cities and suburbs today: A guide for councils.
Retrieved from http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/creating-garden-cities-and-
suburbs-today-a-guide-for-councils.html (August 10,
2015).
Tianjin. (2015). Master plan of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city. Retrieved from
http://www.tianjinecocity.gov.sg/bg masterplan.htm (August 11, 2015).
Tomozeiu, D., & Joss, S. (2014). Adapting adaptation: The English eco-town
initiative as governance process. Ecology and Society, 19(2) http://dx.doi.org/
10.5751/Es-06411-190220
Tregoning, H., Agyeman, J., & Shenot, C. (2002). Sprawl. Smart growth and
sustainability. Local Environment, 7(4), 341–347.
Trudeau, D. (2013a). New urbanism as sustainable development? Geography
Compass, 7(6), 435–448.
Trudeau, D. (2013b). A typology of new urbanism neighborhoods. Journal of
Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6(2),
113–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.771695
Trudeau, D., & Kaplan, J. (2015). Is there diversity in the new urbanism? Analyzing
the demographic characteristics of new urbanist neighborhoods in the United
States. Urban Geography, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.
1069029
Trudeau, D., & Malloy, P. (2011). Suburbs in disguise? Examining the geographies
of the new urbanism. Urban Geography, 32(3), 424–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2747/0272-3638.32.3.424
Tsolakis, N., & Anthopoulos, L. (2015). Eco-cities: An integrated system dynamics
framework and a concise research taxonomy. Sustainable Cities and Society, 17,
1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.03.002
Tu, C. C., & Eppli, M. J. (1999). Valuing new urbanism: The case of Kentlands. Real
Estate Economics, 27(3), 425–451.
Tu, C. C., & Eppli, M. J. (2001). An empirical examination of traditional
neighborhood development. Real Estate Economics, 29(3), 485–501.
UNDESA. (2012). World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision. New York, NY:
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division.
Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability
indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 381–392. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00049-4
Van Berkel, R., Fujita, T., Hashimoto, S., & Geng, Y. (2009). Industrial and urban
symbiosis in Japan: Analysis of the Eco-Town program 1997–2006. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90(3), 1544–1556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2008.11.010
Vanderbeek, M., & Irazabal, C. (2007). New urbanism as a new modernist
movement: A comparative look at modernism and new urbanism. Traditional
Dwellings and Settlements Review, 19(1), 41.
Ward, S. (2005). The garden city: Past, present and future. Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Warwick, E. (2015). Policy to reality: Evaluating the evidence trajectory for English
eco-towns. Building Research and Information, 43(4), 486–498. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09613218.2015.1012821
Watson, V. (2009). ’The planned city sweeps the poor away: Urban planning and
21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72, 151–193. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.progress.2009.06.002
Wheeler, S. (2004). Planning for sustainability: Creating livable, equitable, and
ecological communities. London; New York: Routledge.
Wright, F. L. (1932). The disappearing city. New York, NY: W.F. Payson.
Yigitcanlar, T., & Lee, S. H. (2014). Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable
urban form or a branding hoax? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89,
100–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.034
Yu, L. (2014). Low carbon eco-city: New approach for Chinese urbanisation.
Habitat International, 44, 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.
05.004