Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The kindered community: using a child's perspective to improve urban planning and evaluate neighborhood friendliness
(USC Thesis Other)
The kindered community: using a child's perspective to improve urban planning and evaluate neighborhood friendliness
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE KINDERED COMMUNITY:
USING A CHILD’S PERSPECTIVE TO IMPROVE URBAN PLANNING AND
EVALUATE NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLINESS
by
Elizabeth Gearin
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT)
December 2008
Copyright 2008 Elizabeth Gearin
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to those who made this endeavor possible. My advisor David Sloane and his
wife, Beverlie Conant Sloane welcomed me to graduate school and USC. David taught
me the critical thinking vital to bringing an idea to fruition and cheerfully supervised my
work through the messiness of real life – relocations, children. Niraj Verma
enthusiastically supported my foray into epistemology and nurtured the concept of
kindering, about which some of this research is based. Jennifer Wolch shared a passion
for nature and developed my research abilities. The USC Center for Sustainable Cities
provided financial support from the National Sciences Foundation for interdisciplinary
work that ultimately informed this dissertation. Dowell Myers served as an exemplary
academic model and helped to refine my writing skills. June Muranaka expertly
navigated the paperwork process, vital since so much of my work was from a distance.
My husband and my children waited patiently.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ II
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... VII
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... X
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Why Plan for Children? .................................................................................................. 4
Where Children Stand Today ......................................................................................... 9
Suburbs – Good for Families, Good for Youth? ........................................................... 12
The Green Book – An Illustration by Omission ........................................................... 14
Organization .................................................................................................................. 16
Results ........................................................................................................................... 18
PART I – CHILDREN AND PLANNING ....................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 2: KINDERING ............................................................................................. 21
Kindering: What Can Children Teach Planners and Planning Theorists? .................... 21
Power and Knowledge in Planning ............................................................................... 22
Evolving Epistemologies in Planning: Beyond Gendering to Kindering ..................... 25
Kindered Planning ........................................................................................................ 28
Worship youthfulness, not youth .................................................................................. 29
Enthusiasm .................................................................................................................... 30
Iconography .................................................................................................................. 32
Third Places .................................................................................................................. 33
Wayfinding ................................................................................................................... 36
A Step Forward ............................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3: THE MYTH AND REALITY OF PLANNING FOR CHILDREN ......... 40
Idealized Childhood ...................................................................................................... 40
Idealized Child .............................................................................................................. 44
The Healthy Child – Go Outdoors, Young Man ........................................................... 44
The Moral Child – Far From the Madding Crowds ...................................................... 45
The Patriotic Child – Americanizing Children ............................................................. 46
The Myth of Planning for Children .............................................................................. 48
Urban Parks ................................................................................................................... 49
Playgrounds .................................................................................................................. 51
Suburbs ......................................................................................................................... 53
Neighborhood Unit Suburbs ......................................................................................... 54
Post War Suburbs .......................................................................................................... 56
iv
New Communities ........................................................................................................ 57
New Urbanist Nostalgia ................................................................................................ 60
Suburban Isolation ........................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER 4: YOUTH PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW ................................................ 63
Involving Children in Planning ..................................................................................... 63
Examples of Attempts to Physically Involve Children in Planning ............................. 65
Examples of Kindering ................................................................................................. 69
Implications of Involving Children in Planning for Planners and Policymakers ......... 71
PART II – EVALUATING COMMUNITIES FOR CHILD-FRIENDLINESS .............. 74
CHAPTER 5: METHODS ................................................................................................ 76
Methodology Overview ................................................................................................ 76
What Youth Want ......................................................................................................... 77
Planning Theory and Indicators .................................................................................... 81
Current Indicator Use in Planning ................................................................................ 83
Audit of Community Assessment Projects ................................................................... 85
Addressing a Gap in the Research ................................................................................ 92
The Child-Friendly Model – How Well do Communities Serve their Youth? ............. 93
From What Youth Want to Child-Friendly Community Indicators ............................. 94
Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 103
Definitions and Limitations ........................................................................................ 105
CHAPTER 6: CASE STUDY – KENTLANDS ............................................................. 115
Kentlands History ....................................................................................................... 115
Indicators Applied to Kentlands ................................................................................. 122
Mobility ................................................................................................................... 122
Destination .............................................................................................................. 122
Sense of belonging .................................................................................................. 123
Health ...................................................................................................................... 125
Safety ...................................................................................................................... 131
Kentlands – Pleasantville ............................................................................................ 133
CHAPTER 7: CASE STUDY – LAKE ANNE VILLAGE, RESTON .......................... 139
Lake Anne Village History ......................................................................................... 139
Indicators Applied to Lake Anne ................................................................................ 150
Mobility ................................................................................................................... 150
Destination .............................................................................................................. 152
Sense of belonging .................................................................................................. 154
Health ...................................................................................................................... 157
Safety ...................................................................................................................... 163
Lake Anne – Everyday Living in a Natural Setting .................................................... 164
CHAPTER 8: CASE STUDY – LYON VILLAGE ....................................................... 170
v
Lyon Village History .................................................................................................. 170
Indicators applied to Lyon Village ............................................................................. 179
Mobility ................................................................................................................... 179
Destination .............................................................................................................. 180
Sense of belonging .................................................................................................. 181
Health. ..................................................................................................................... 184
Safety ...................................................................................................................... 189
Lyon Village – Classic Suburb turns Trendy Walking Neighborhood ....................... 200
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 205
General Observations .................................................................................................. 208
Kindered Communities ............................................................................................... 210
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 213
APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF INDICATORS IN PLANNING ..................................... 241
APPENDIX II: CATALOGUE OF ASSESSMENT MODELS .................................... 247
Overall Assessment Comparison ................................................................................ 248
Neighborhood Assessments ........................................................................................ 251
Youth Assessments ..................................................................................................... 255
General Assessments .................................................................................................. 260
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Current indicators for the state of the child in the United States ........................ 12
Table 2. Summary table of indicators. ............................................................................ 102
Table 3. Kentlands Household Poverty. Maryland, Montgomery County, Census
Tract 7008.06, Block Group 1. ....................................................................................... 128
Table 4. Kentlands Family Household Composition. Maryland, Montgomery
County, Census Tract 7008.06, Block Group 1 (excluding Blocks 1000-
1018,1023-1026,1043-1044, 1052-1111, 1123-1124, 1134, 1139, 1142-1149,
1160, 1166-1209, 1987-1999). ...................................................................................... 130
Table 5. Kentlands Demographic Indicators (Montgomery County and Maryland).
www.aecf.org. ................................................................................................................. 133
Table 6. Poverty data for Lake Anne Household Poverty .Virginia, Fairfax
County, Census Tract 4821, Block Group 2. ................................................................. 160
Table 7 Lake Anne Family Household Composition. Virginia, Fairfax County,
Census Tract 4821, Block Group 2. ................................................................................ 162
Table 8. Reston Demographic Indicators (Fairfax County and Virginia),
www.aecf.org. ................................................................................................................. 164
Table 9. Lyon Village Household Poverty. Virginia, Arlington County, Census
Tract 1015. ...................................................................................................................... 187
Table 10. Lyon Village Family Household Composition. Virginia, Arlington
County, Census Tract 1015, Block Group 1 (excluding Blocks 1000-1005, 1011-
1012), Block Group 2 (all), Block Group 3 (excluding Blocks 3011, 3018), Block
Group 4 (excluding Blocks 4000-4002). ....................................................................... 189
Table 11. Parks Size in Lyon Village (Arlington, VA). ................................................. 192
Table 12. Lyon Village Demographic Indicators (Arlington County and Virginia).
Source: www.aecf.org ..................................................................................................... 199
Table 13. Summary Case Study Comparison. ................................................................ 205
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Current indicator programs by target population and geography. ..................... 93
Figure 2. Map of Lyon Village Civic Association. (“Arlington County, VA, Lyon
Village Civic Association”, Arlington County GIS Mapping Center, November
2007,
“http://gis.arlingtonva.us/Maps/Standard_Maps/Civic_Associations/Civic_Maps/
Lyon_Village.pdf.) .......................................................................................................... 109
Figure 3. Map of U.S. Census 2000 Tract 1015 (red) with block groups (black)
and blocks (green). Lyon Village Civic Association area superimposed in blue.
(Adapted from “Arlington County, Virginia, 2000 Census Boundaries, Tract,
Block Group, and Block Levels”, Arlington County GIS Mapping Center, July
2007,
http://gis.arlingtonva.us/Maps/Standard_Maps/Administrative_Maps/Census_200
0.pdf.) .............................................................................................................................. 110
Figure 4. Map of a portion of U.S. Census 2000 Tract 4821 Block Group 2 for
the Lake Anne District, Reston, Virginia. Blue area indicates tract 4821 block
group 2, which is also the study area. Map adapted from U.S. Census Bureau,
http://factfinder.census.gov/, Reference Maps, 2000 Census Tracts and Blocks,
downloaded October 2008. ............................................................................................. 111
Figure 5. Map of Kentlands, Gaithersburg, MD. Blue area indicates study area.
Areas A and B are considered part of Kentlands, but are part of an excluded
census block. They are thus excluded from demographic analysis, but are
otherwise included in study area. Areas C and D are considered part of Kentlands,
but are separated from Kentlands proper, and are thus excluded from the study
area. ................................................................................................................................. 112
Figure 6. Map of a portion of U.S. Census 2000 Tract 7008.06 for Gaithersburg
Maryland, including census blocks. Blue area indicates study area, and comprises
all of block Group 1 except blocks 1000-1018,1023-1026,1043-1044, 1052-1111,
1123-1124, 1134, 1139, 1142-1149, 1160, 1166-1209, 1987-1999. Map adapted
from U.S. Census Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov/, Reference Maps, 2000
Census Tracts and Blocks, downloaded October 2008. .................................................. 113
Figure 7. Street scenes of the Kentlands community in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
(Gause 2002, 122, 124). .................................................................................................. 116
Figure 8. Friendliness Indicators for Kentlands, VA. Legend: (B-Bench, Flag-
Flag, House-Birdhouse, K-Basketball Hoop, L-Playground, P-Porch, S-Swing,
Tree-Garden) (Data by author presented using Google Earth Professional). ................. 124
viii
Figure 9. Selected businesses in Kentlands, MD. (Legend R-Restaurant, F-Fast
Food, C- Convenience Store, G-Grocery, B-Bakery). (Data by author presented
using Google Earth Professional). .................................................................................. 131
Figure 10. Map of Kentlands area. Adapted from “City of Gaithersburg,
Kentlands/Lakeland’s Locator Map. ............................................................................... 137
Figure 11. Scenes from the Lake Anne Village Community, Reston, Virginia.
(Gause 2002, 186, 185). .................................................................................................. 140
Figure 12. Lake Anne Sidewalk Coverage. .................................................................... 151
Figure 13. Lake Anne Trail Map. Source: www.reston.org/maps, © 2003 Reston
Association. ..................................................................................................................... 152
Figure 14. Overhead image of Lake Anne Plaza, Reston, VA. (Google Earth
Professional). .................................................................................................................. 154
Figure 15. Overhead view of Hook Road Recreational Area adjacent to the
intersection of Hook Road and Fairway Drive in Reston, VA. (Google Earth
Professional). .................................................................................................................. 154
Figure 16. Friendliness Indicators for Lake Anne District, Reston, VA. Legend
(B-Bench, D-Baseball Diamond, Flag-Flag, G-Community Garden, House-
Birdhouse, K-Basketball, S-Playground, T-Tennis Court, W-Public Pool, Y-Yard
Art). (Data by author presented using Google Earth Professional). ............................... 156
Figure 17. Selected businesses in the Lake Anne Area of Reston, VA.
(R=Restaurant, F=Fast Food, C=Convenience Store, G=Grocery). (Data from
Yahoo Yellow Pages, presented using Google Earth Professional). .............................. 157
Figure 18. Green space adjacent to Lake Anne area. (Google Earth Professional). ....... 163
Figure 19. Photo of author’s daughter playing on climbable sculptures in Lake
Anne Plaza. (Photo by author). ....................................................................................... 168
Figure 20. Cruit Land Tract, Wilson Boulevard looking north, August 1923
(Virginia Room, Arlington County Public Library). ...................................................... 174
Figure 21. Arlington County Streets, Subdivisions and House Numbers by W. F.
Sunderman Landscape Architect and Certified Land Surveyor, 1931 (Virginia
Room, Arlington County Public Library). The study area is outlined in red. ................ 175
Figure 22. Lyon Village Sidewalk Coverage .................................................................. 180
Figure 23. Lyon Village Friendliness Indicators ............................................................ 183
ix
Figure 24. Lyon Village (Arlington, VA) Summary of 2006 (partial year) Part 1
Criminal Offenses, by location and type. (Arlington County GIS Mapping
Center)............................................................................................................................. 191
Figure 25. Green Space in Lyon Village (Arlington, VA). ............................................ 192
Figure 26. Overhead view of Lyon Village Park at 1800 North Highland Street,
Arlington, VA. (Google Earth Professional). ................................................................. 193
Figure 27. Street-level View of Lyon Village Park at 1800 North Highland Street,
Arlington, VA. (Photo by author). .................................................................................. 194
Figure 28. Overhead view of Lyon Village greened median at the intersection of
North Byron Street and North Franklin Road in Arlington, VA. (Google Earth
Professional). .................................................................................................................. 195
Figure 29. Overhead View of Greened Perimeter of Traffic Circle at Key
Boulevard and Highland Street in Lyon Village, Arlington, VA. (Google Earth
Professional). .................................................................................................................. 196
Figure 30. Street-Level view of Greened Perimeter of traffic circle (shown in
Figure 29) at Key Boulevard and Highland Street in Lyon Village, Arlington, VA.
Shown looking north at intersection of Franklin Road and North Highland Street.
(Photo by author).. .......................................................................................................... 197
Figure 31. Overhead image of Key Elementary School at 2300 Key Blvd,
Arlington, VA. ................................................................................................................ 198
Figure 32. Street-level view of Clarendon Metro Station at the corner of Wilson
Boulevard and South Highland Street, Arlington, VA. Photo taken looking
southwest. (Photo by author). ......................................................................................... 203
Figure 33. Street-level view of Lyon Village Dog Park. Photo taken looking east
across intersection of 13th Street North and North Herndon Street, Arlington,
VA. (Photo by author)..................................................................................................... 204
x
ABSTRACT
Children have been largely ignored in urban planning. Examination of this field in the
United States yields a complex subhistory of planning for families and children,
including both purposeful, explicit planning for children, and de facto planning that as a
by-product limited children’s environment. Much of this was undertaken to address other
goals, such as promoting desirable activity among poor and immigrant residents. Despite
the evolution of suburban development, these communities have not always represented
the healthiest or happiest environments for their youthful residents.
Children have specific but unmet environmental needs. For example, suburbs designed to
improve domestic life by separating it from the perceived ills of the city limit the range of
youth under 16; as does transportation planning that subordinates pedestrian-oriented and
public transit relative to automobile transit; and land use planning that segregates
business, retail and residential uses. Youth seek independent mobility, opportunities to
interact with peers, and spaces for solitude.
Youth seek much from the planning field, but also have much to offer. Kindering, or
taking a child’s perspective, provides a venue for expanding the scope of planning and
other knowledge. Children offer a unique and relatively untapped perspective on the
world that can illuminate and inform land use and open space planning, and community
development. This opportunity to explore another source of information meshes with
trends in the field of planning to broaden the sources and scope of knowledge.
xi
In addition to uncovering new sources of knowledge, planners need to step back from
dated evaluation methods that focus on ways in which communities are deficient and
instead consider ways in which they meet the diverse needs of our community. A child-
friendly community indicator model designed and piloted in three iconic Washington
D.C. neighborhoods suggests some possible proactive strategies interested communities
can incorporate into their efforts to become more youth-friendly, as well as the outline for
a successful suburban development.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Why do we care if a place is friendly for children? Children have intrinsic value, of
course, and they offer promise as future productive members of society. However there is
a third reason to care whether children are comfortable in a given neighborhood or
community. It is because increasingly, their parents care. And it is these parents,
especially the creative class, whom cities and towns are trying to attract and maintain for
their economic and cultural growth.
Communities routinely tout their assets. There is a long history of boosterism, sometimes
exaggerated, sometimes verifiable. In particular, cities and towns traditionally use their
family-friendly reputation as a selling point for their community. Employers and
employees look to the local quality of life, including cost of living, quality of schools,
cultural institutions, environmental amenities, crime rates, and so on. But how do we
know if a place is friendly for children, nurturing family life to allow children to become
healthy, engaged, and able adults?
Although youth are significant users of town space, little rigorous consideration of what
constitutes their needs, and whether these needs are met, has been undertaken (Woolley
et al). We have few standardized methods to measure the child-friendliness of a
community or neighborhood. The planning profession routinely leaves children out. Yet,
research shows quality of life preferences of youth are strongly tied to the physical
environment. Planners have a broad opportunity to meet the needs of this population and
2
facilitate development of child-friendly areas, spurring economic development and
creating desirable communities.
Scholars raise questions about the current development paradigm. Anti-sprawl critics
worry that suburbs, in particular, designed to improve domestic life by separating it from
the perceived ills of the city isolate mothers and children; and transportation planning that
subordinates pedestrians and public transit relative to automobiles limits the range of
youth under 16, are producing places that restrain children and limit their growth. This
segregated suburban lifestyle in turn contrasts with the near-universal wishes and needs
of children, to, in addition to avoiding hunger and violence, access a variety of play
environments, including places to socialize with friends, places that provide a sense of
belonging and identity, and places that afford solitude (Matthews and Limb 1999).
The suburbs were designed as an antidote to the depraved environment of the city. “It’s
still to an amazing degree the cultural assumption that this green, open environment is a
better place to raise children.” (Robert Fishman).
1
In popular culture, people move to
suburbs for children. But do we know if these spaces are good for children? Do we, as a
culture and as planners, actually plan for children? Historically, have we?
1
in Mansnerus 2003.
3
Examination of urban planning in the United States yields a complex history of planning
for specific subpopulations. Planning for children, in particular, has included both
purposeful, explicit policies directed at children, and de facto planning that affected
children’s environments. Yet much of this planning for children was undertaken to
address other goals, including promoting desirable activity among the poor and
immigrants. Such efforts spanned the complete range of planning, from the physical
environment, as in the development of playgrounds; to the social, as in policies to
separate the children of low-income, immigrant families from their parents. In essence,
these efforts of planning for children and families sought to create a particular type of
child, or character, and paralleled similar efforts to create a particular type of American
citizen.
Planning for this idealized child shaped the suburbs. Today’s suburban development
represents more than a century’s worth of social reform, land use planning, and political
efforts to foster development of the idealized, Americanized family. Societal institutions
and physical spaces evolved to support the changing concept of children and the valued
family unit. Increasingly restrictive housing styles and play opportunities were
encouraged at the same time that unsupervised urban activity was discouraged and even
penalized. Well-to-do families fled the city for the purported benefits of the countryside,
and were followed by the middle class once new affordable housing was constructed.
Land use planning reflected the political and popular culture and, while exclusive with
regard to race, was undertaken with the family in mind. Since planners and developers,
4
reformers and policymakers continued to focus on the essentialized child, their efforts
culminated in a physical and social isolation of children and youth that persists today.
The purpose of this dissertation is to consider the role of children in planning, from their
early involvement in justification for development of the suburbs, to their current
enforced invisibility. This includes the restricted voice they have been afforded in
planning and policy-making, as well as the value of taking their perspective in order to
gain new knowledge, a viewpoint I term kindering. This also includes challenging the
underlying assumption that what benefits communities in general will also benefit
children in these communities (Bartlett 2001, 64). To that end, I develop and apply an
indicator-based model of community-friendliness to three case study sites in Washington,
D.C.
Why Plan for Children?
Children need special consideration. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
enumerates several ways in which children are special. The first is their intrinsic value as
individuals. This conception corresponds perfectly with post-Aries analyses of the history
of childhood which acknowledge that children have generally always been cherished,
despite historically shortened life spans and limited life expectancies coloring parental
emotion and investment. This sentiment is not an idle one limited to prosperous western
nations, either. It is nearly global.
5
As an illustration of the increasingly recognized value of the child, consider the evolving
pro-child stance of the United Nations. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (adopted by UN General Assembly Dec 10, 1948) asserted the right to security of
person, to freedom from torture and other cruel and unusual treatment, and to privacy,
allowing that motherhood and childhood have a right to special protection. Ten years
later, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (adopted by UN GA 20 November 1959)
expanded on the earlier declaration, noting that “the child, by reason of his physical and
mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal
protection, before as well as after birth;” and declared “mankind owes to the child the
best it has to give…” In 1989 the International Convention on the Rights of the Child
(December 12, 1989) operationalized this global interpretation of the value of children.
The Convention represented both the first binding treaty regarding children’s rights, and
greatly amplified the earlier issues and covenants. Language was more specific and
directed: “Reaffirming that children's rights require special protection and call for
continuous improvement of the situation of children all over the world, as well as for
their development and education in conditions of peace and security.” Those 192 nations
and states that have ratified the Convention (Somalia and the United States are the only
member nations who have not done so) commit to undertaking “all appropriate legislation
and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the Convention.”
(Article 4, Convention on the Rights of the Child).
In addition to their intrinsic value, children are valuable to the community. They
represent the future. With the exception of the Shakers, virtually every community
6
includes individuals of varying ages. While most reserve specific benefits for those who
have become adults and found their contributing place in society, most also acknowledge
the value of all their members, from youth to older adults. Because children represent the
future, the collective hope is that they will grow into healthy, productive, contributing
members of their communities. Not just the family but the community as a whole
benefits from the development of individual children. Because they depend on others for
their voice, children draw attention to the community level (Chawla 2002). Even diverse,
divisive communities usually agree on at least one thing – their faith in the future of and
their desire to provide for their children. Their ability to fulfill their potential tomorrow
is linked to their opportunities today.
From a human development perspective, children are not static. The childhood years are
formative, and society has a specific responsibility to enhance the well-being and
development of youth. Children are rapidly evolving and their life trajectories intersect
with the very opportunities and limitations they face. “To look into some aspects of the
future, we do not need projects by supercomputers. Much of the next millennium can be
seen in how we care for our children today. Tomorrow’s world may be influenced by
science and technology, but more than anything it is already taking shape in the bodies
and minds of our children.” (Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, Unicef web
pages). Any investment in children today yields dividends in the future. Not just the
family but the community as a whole impacts and benefits from the development of
individual children.
7
Children are also, in comparison to adults, more vulnerable to disease and illness
(Chawla 2002). They are unevenly impacted by poverty and ill health. Children and
youth are more likely to fall ill, and more likely to die from any illness they contract.
They are more susceptible from the outset due to poor nutrition, related to inadequate
food supply as much as inadequate food cooking facilities. While adults can eat rather
infrequently, children require frequent small meals. The smaller or younger the child, the
more often he or she must be fed. Moreover, the compounded stresses of poverty –
exhausting workloads, disruption of evictions or frequent moves, inadequate nutrition,
exposure to environmental hazards, and limited safe playing opportunities – all take a toll
directly on children, and indirectly through their parents (Bartlett 2001).
In addition to their physical health, children’s mental health is influenced by their
surroundings. As they grow emotionally, youth develop a sense of competence, or
efficacy over themselves and their environment (Chawla and Heft 2002). Jean Piaget,
details this cognitive development of youth and how as a child ages, his or her spatial
needs change. In the earliest stage (0-4 years), the sensorimotor stage, children need
physical contact with elements of their environment in order to learn and develop a sense
of self-image. Their main physical space is typically the home and perhaps the preschool.
These youngest children learn relational space through proximity, order and continuity.
This world necessarily expands to include the neighborhood and primary school in stage
2 (ages 4-7), where children develop intuitive representations and understanding of point-
of-view. In stage 3 (ages about 7-11), the concrete operations stage, children continue to
need supervised opportunities to explore and learn from their larger community. Their
8
world expands again, and they develop self-identity through social interdependence.
Physical safety remains critical as children develop comfort in their community. As the
urban environment, in particular, becomes increasingly chaotic, children and youth
suffered from a decreased sense of security (Gutenschwager 1995).The 4th stage (age 11
and up) is characterized by exploring beyond the local neighborhood to the larger urban
world, and discovering ways to understand and manage the chaos of the world through
direct experience within it. For their optimal mental and emotional development, children
and youth need safe communities that encourage increasingly independent exploration
(Piaget 1929).
Finally, from a planning standpoint, children are important because they represent
diversity. Planners have begun to embrace difference, from taking a woman’s
perspective, or gendering, to considering multiple histories (Sandercock 1998). Extending
the source of planning knowledge beyond race, class and gender to age is a logical
conclusion. Children are so dissimilar to adults in their size and development, for
example, and suffer physical and temporal restraints, that their mere experience of the
world yields unique information. Children see the world differently than adults, and it is
this different viewpoint that can provide knowledge. This source of information, derived
from taking a child or youth’s perspective, underlies the idea of kindering. The simple act
of defining and labeling this source of information underscore its emergent value to
planners, who have, for the last couple of decades, stressed the need to expand sources of
knowledge and broaden understanding. Kindering affords the field both new knowledge
and increased diversity.
9
Where Children Stand Today
And yet, despite the value of children and the importance of their healthy development,
current policies and programs often fail them. For example, eleven million people in the
United States (including 600,000 children) live in households that experience hunger.
They skip meals or go without food for an entire day. An additional 12 million children
(out of 25 million Americans) are at risk of hunger. They have low-quality diets and
depend upon emergency food (USDA Economic Research Service 2006). These figures
represent an upward trend, despite more working adults and increased emergency food
services. In 2002, 4.2 million households had to skip or reduce their meals (Economic
Research Service 2000). Approximately 40 percent of those households who sought
emergency food had at least one working adult in the household (America’s Second
Harvest 2001). Many of those needing emergency food assistance are typically families
with children. In 2004, children made up nearly 40 percent of emergency food clients
(Center on Hunger and Poverty 2004). Again, the trend is upward. The impending 2008
recession suggests this upward trend is likely to continue. In 2006 the U.S. Conference of
Mayors reported that about half (48 percent) of those needing emergency food assistance
were families with children; and 37 percent of those needing assistance were employed
(Hunger and Homelessness Survey 2006). The long-term effects of hunger extend beyond
malnutrition. Preschool and school-aged children who suffer from hunger have higher
levels of chronic illnesses, anxiety, depression, and behavioral issues than well-fed
children (Pediatrics 2002).
10
Poverty, too, correlates with other household characteristics and development issues. The
2000 United States Census found that children under 18 constituted the largest group
living in poverty (annual household income at or below $17,463) (Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities online, U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Child poverty in particular has
increased by 1.4 million since 2000. In 2004, one out of every 6 American children was
‘poor’ (CDF 2005). Poverty is also correlated with housing stability. Approximately 2.3
million people are homeless for some period each year, including 1 million children (Burt
and Aron 1999). Families make up 40 percent of the United States’ homeless population
(CDF 2005). Moreover, children in very poor families, those with annual household
income at or below $15,000 were 22 percent more likely to be abused or neglected than
children living in families with household income at or above $30,000 (CDF 2005).
Even relative to other populations, children in the U.S. suffer. For example, the rate of
poverty has declined among the elderly, but increased among children (Morrison, 1990).
And policies reflect an increase in the power of child-free households. Over the past 40
years the United States has reduced benefits to families with children while at the same
time expanding benefits (like social security) for individuals. Children are basically
invisible. In 1998, 15 percent of families with children were poor, versus 4 percent of
families without children. From 1974-1998 the median income of households without
children increased four times greater than the median income of households with children
(Hewlett and West 2001). In 1999, a family with two or more children eligible for EITC
received $3,816 in tax breaks, while a high income family with three children taking
deductions saved $4,056 (Folbre 2001). The irony of this is not lost. “…the future living
11
standards of today’s voters depend on the future earning capacity and productivity of
today’s children” (Morrison in Child Friendly Cities 1991).
Abuse and a culture of violence also represent real threats to a significant portion of
United States youth. In 2004, 3 million children were abused or neglected in the United
States and received protective service agency assessments. That same year, 1,500
children in the United States died from child abuse or neglect. More than 80 percent of
those killed were younger than 4 years old (USDHHS 2006). This abuse results in more
than physical and emotional damage. Children who live in violent homes exhibit more
aggressive and delinquent behavior than children who live in nonviolent homes (National
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information 2001). Each day in the United
States, 181 children are arrested for violent offences (CDF 2006). At least 2,225 child
offenders in the United States have been sentenced to life in prison (Human Rights Watch
2006). From 1979 – 2003, approximately 100,000 children and teens were killed from
gun violence; 2,827 in 2003 alone (CDF 2006).
Physical and mental health care for children also suffers from significant gaps. In 2002,
17 percent of babies were born to mothers who did not receive any prenatal care. That
same year, only 77.5 percent of two-year olds in the United States were fully immunized,
and more than 9 million children did not have any health care insurance (CDF 2004). One
estimate is that up to 80 percent of children who need mental health services do not
receive them (American Academy of Pediatrics 2001).
12
State of the Child, United States
Poverty
In 2000 children under 18 constituted the largest group living in poverty.
In 2004, one out of every 6 children was ‘poor’.
An estimated 1 million children are homeless for some period each year.
Health
In 2002, 17% of babies were born to mothers who did not receive prenatal care.
In 2002, only 77.5% of two-year olds were fully immunized.
In 2002, 9 million children did not have any health insurance.
In 2003, 2,827 children and teens died from gun violence.
In 2004, 1500 children in died from abuse or neglect.
Each day, 181 children are arrested for violent crimes.
More than 2200 child offenders have been sentenced to life in prison.
Table 1. Current indicators for the state of the child in the United States
Suburbs – Good for Families, Good for Youth?
In terms of basic needs, such as food and health, it appears we fall short. But do we do
better in providing nurturing, safe communities? Many suburban developments were
designed with the goal of creating an environment that fostered a romanticized,
Americanized nuclear family. This conclusion is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3,
History of the Idealized Child. Over time, planners have come to circumscribe the world
of children and youth. The resultant youth world is distinctly separate from the larger
adult-oriented world, and planning designs perpetuate this discrete world of schools,
13
youth centers, playgrounds, and traffic-free cul de sacs. These restricted destinations
constrict the world of youth. Public spaces are increasingly privatized, where youth
compete for access and use. This conception of children is limited and potentially
dangerous for children, whose needs are largely ignored in the planning and design of the
larger community. Youth participation as a concept is growing, as discussed in Chapter
4, Youth Participation. Yet specific venues for youth to contribute to local policy making
and planning are virtually nonexistent.
This prevalent community design both segregates youth from larger society, and as a
consequence makes it difficult for youth to understand community and devise a
contributing role for themselves. Rather, it requires their participation in a secondary
children’s world – separate but equal. It is the ‘islanding of childhood’ (Adams and Van
Slyck in Fass 187-194, referring to German sociologists Helga and Hartmut Zeiher). In
part because of our increasing separation of society (parsed out work, family life, and
social activities), youth are disenfranchised from the broader society in which they might
engage. They are spatially banned from larger social and cultural realms, and temporally
limited with participation alternately eschewed and mandated by schedule, for school,
extracurricular activities, curfews (Males 2000). In summary, the physical design of
today’s communities, which historically sought to create and elevate the American
family, including ideal child behavior, subjugates families and children to the suburban
paradigm. It separates children from one another and from the larger [sub]urban fabric.
14
The Green Book – An Illustration by Omission
What do planners think about this? While reviews of the last two versions of The Practice
of Local Government Planning, the classic reference, indicate an increase in the number
of the mentions of children between the second and third editions, the great majority of
references in both volumes are implied or tangential. Children are simply overlooked.
The second edition, published 1988 and a common and readily available reference for
practicing planners, features 38 references to children. (The first edition was published in
1979). Fully one quarter of these classify children as in some way substantially less than
adult, from the danger environmental pollution zones pose to the health of sensitive
populations including ‘school-age children, hospital patients, park visitors, and residents
of retirement homes’ (135) to the threat that ‘children, domestic dogs, and pollens from
domestic plants’ pose to nearby agricultural lands (272). Discussions mention the
dependence of children on others, along with the poor, unemployed, handicapped or
elderly (330), and lacking a voice in the process of planning ‘children and mentally
handicapped individuals generally cannot speak for themselves’ (331). Other references
note physical planning needs of ‘children and single parents, handicapped people, or
whatever’ (358) and unmet housing needs in particular of the ‘elderly, handicapped, and
female-headed households with kids’ (382). Children are not seen as adding value to the
community, but as one of several high needs groups to plan for, rather than with.
Children as invisible or silent community members, such as a sidebar biography about a
practicing planner with three children (11), and a photograph of children playing in the
15
yard of a Levittown home (43), make up another quarter of the references. Other
references consider social issues, including increasing numbers of homeless children
(344), and the link between weakened social controls and juvenile delinquency (351).
The most proactive reference is Clarence Perry’s neighborhood unit recommendation for
schools within walking distance of homes (38).
The third and most current edition, published 2000, improves upon the earlier edition
with more (48) and more relevant references, including 12 in the new Population
Analysis chapter. This discussion presents concrete examples of the role children and
youth play within the larger population, including population pyramids that illustrate
population by age groups. Children are accorded a consideration equal to other age
groups, including adults (61-86). Another ten references focus on design issues, from
limited transit options in sprawling areas, especially for ‘children, elderly and
handicapped’ (208) to arguments for walkable neighborhoods where ‘children can play
safely’ (215). The remaining 25 references are implied, and often do not mention youth
directly, such as Jane Jacobs’ informal supervision of eyes on the street (271).
There are also two striking omissions. In the Transportation Planning chapter, a sidebar
discusses the issues inner-city women face, including dependence on public transit,
potentially dangerous travel routes, and joblessness, yet never mentions children, either
with regard to physical logistics (maneuvering a stroller on a crowded bus) or timing
(public transit to get to day care, a job, school pick-up). More egregiously, the Building
Consensus chapter features a photograph of a youth designing a neighborhood, captioned
“Involving kids in the planning process helps create a new generation of civic-minded
16
adults” (428) but never expands upon this nor mentions youth participation anywhere
within the chapter text. Both present natural places to discuss the importance of children
within the larger community and the inherent value of children, yet neither makes this
point.
Organization
In Part I, I propose a new epistemology. Kindering, or taking a child’s perspective, allows
planners and others to gain new knowledge in order to better inform planning and policy-
making. Recent efforts to include children in planning programs and processes are
reviewed, in part to illustrate how kindering transcends these perfunctory attempts to
simply include children in participation. Kindering strives instead to see how children see
their environment. This viewpoint in turn illuminates how this environment, the world
according to children, can be improved upon.
In relationship to kindering, I examine the history of planning for children as a way to
develop a picture of how the suburbs came to dominate our land use milieu. As children
became increasing priceless, suitable living environments were sought. More critically,
children became a venue for fostering a certain kind of American citizen. Suburban
development provided the landscape for both a safe childhood, and a patriotic one. These
developments have changed over time. Suburbs created in the 1950s and 1960s are very
different today. Some are geographically close to urban areas, densely populated, and
feature mixed land uses; others are segregated from urban areas, less densely populated,
and with separate land uses. Most have more traffic than their early incarnations or
17
suburban predecessors. Children living in these places today enjoy far fewer freedoms
than did early residents At the same time, opportunities for youth participation, or
inclusion, have evolved, but only at a superficial level.
In Part II, I propose a method to include children in planning, and improve the practice of
community development. To determine whether the inherently restrictive environment of
suburban neighborhoods nurtures youth, I created a model to assess child-friendliness. I
review the child geography and child development literature to understand the elements
youth consistently seek in their communities. Then I borrow from successful indicator-
based evaluation models in North America to create a model that reflects how children
and youth experience their neighborhoods. This model is applied to three iconic
Washington, D.C. suburbs in Chapters 6 (Kentlands), 7 (Lake Anne Village, Reston) and
8 (Lyon Village, Arlington County Virginia).
A model to assess child-friendliness addresses several planning concerns. Cities and
towns traditionally use their family-friendly reputation as a selling point for their
community. Recent research indicates that current economic growth hot-spots are
dominated by a family-oriented lifestyle, not the popular creative class (Kotkin 2003).
Realtors identify “What makes a neighborhood kid friendly?” as good local public
schools, safety, the intangible sense of community, and diversity (Kahlenberg 2004).
Jurisdictions want to identify child or family-oriented communities and measure their
progress toward creating or maintaining these.
18
Second, while many jurisdictions already include guidelines to increase child-
friendliness, often proxied as participation in their plans and policies, these efforts are
seldom implemented. A model that is based on the explicit needs of youth sidesteps the
racist and gendered construction of the family as patriarchal, white, middle-class with
two children. Moreover, currently minimal efforts have been made to gauge these efforts
at youth participation. Although youth are significant users of town space, little rigorous
consideration of what constitutes their needs, and whether these needs are met, has been
undertaken (Woolley et al). Third, quality of life preferences of youth are strongly tied to
the physical environment. Planners have a broad opportunity to meet the needs of this
population and facilitate development of child-friendly areas, spurring economic
development and creating desirable communities.
Results
Application of the model shows that these iconic suburban developments do not fully
meet the needs of youth. On the one hand, they satisfy some basic needs identified by
youth. Not coincidentally, these basic needs represent priorities identified by adults, and
codified by local, regional and federal policy. Children and youth in these communities
are relatively healthy, with access to medical care, clean air and water, and ample quality
food. These areas are also safe from general crime and threats of violence. Youth seek
mobility, and all three developments also facilitate this via walkable design, sidewalks,
and footpaths.
19
On the other hand, other criteria equally important to youth are not nearly so well-met by
current policies and planning. These include the availability of destinations accessible by
youth, and providing opportunities for youth to participate in their community. None of
the three communities provides a formal venue for youth participation. While all are
well-situated with respect to easy access to schools, stores, libraries and parks, only one
is geographically bound within the region to provide an increasingly diverse range of
destinations for children and youth as they age. Youth in Lyon Village can walk to 2
different commercial corridors and gather in independent coffee shops, bookstores, and
restaurants. They can also walk to a Metro stop, exponentially increasing their range.
Through this dissertation I will use these three case studies to illuminate the invisibility of
this vulnerable population, and to highlight ways in which to improve planning practice
and scholarship. Taking a child’s perspective, or kindering, may broaden design
standards and zoning principles, increase inclusivity, and improve neighborhood
cohesion to ensure that our future – our children – are an integral element of our
communities.
20
PART I – CHILDREN AND PLANNING
In part I of this dissertation, I argue that many scholars claim the field of planning is too
narrow. It needs to be broadened to include multiple viewpoints, new ideas, and
additional sources of knowledge. Planners have begun to successfully incorporate the
viewpoints of those with different racial backgrounds (diversity), and those of women
(gendering) into our scholarly and practical work. I propose to further broaden the field to
include the viewpoints of those differentiated by age, in this case, youth (kindering). To
planners, age is important; youth are important. Youth represent the possibility of greater
diversity and expanded inclusion. Planners need the uncensored ideas, enthusiasm, and
additional knowledge that their unique viewpoint, kindering, provides.
Historically we see that youth have been a part of planning, but only in a fragmented,
idealized way. Community development in the United States, while on one level for
families and children, serves other goals as well, including promoting patriotism and
discouraging unproductive or immoral activity among indigent or immigrant residents.
As numbers of families with children living in cities grew, child-savers imposed middle
class values on urban youth. Nature played an increasingly vital role as a positive moral
force, through the development of parks, playgrounds, and suburban housing. Yet there
has been little evaluation of this evolved planning paradigm from the perspective of
youth. A review of youth participation opportunities in planning underscores their
generally superficial nature. No current methodological approach fully includes youth in
planning.
21
CHAPTER 2: KINDERING
Kindering: What Can Children Teach Planners and Planning Theorists?
In the ideal community for children, their needs are met and their concerns addressed.
But how do we uncover those needs and concerns? I propose a venue to broaden the
scope of knowledge. Kindering, or taking a child’s perspective, builds upon calls in
planning theory to articulate new viewpoints by recognizing and exploring new voices.
Planning literature (Sandercock and Forsyth 1992; Forester 1996; Verma 1998)
highlights the search for new knowledge, including new forms of knowledge, and
emphasizes feminist discourse, communicative action, and pragmatism, respectively.
Theorists support a more inclusive and subjective knowledge (Friedmann 1987), call for
consideration of multiple viewpoints (Scharfstein 1989), and demand a forum to expand
planning’s conservativeness and approach comprehensiveness by linking difficult to
articulate sentiment and emotion with reason (Verma 1998).
“What one sees depends upon where one stands” (Thomas Hobbes in Proctor 1991, 44-
53). A child stands in a very different place, physically, emotionally, intellectually and
temporally, than an adult. Literature on children supports the concept of kindering, or
taking a child’s perspective in order to enrich planning knowledge and integrate spatial,
cognitive and entrepreneurial knowledge within mainstream planning theory. While
historically planning literature and practice focus on what planners and scholars can teach
others, and classifications of planning thought limit the scope of planning knowledge by
22
narrowly defining its sources of information and cognition, different perspectives
illuminate the world of planners.
Before discussing precisely how kindering contributes to planning theory and practice, I
first consider the importance of difference in planning and urban studies. Here I outline
traditional sources of power and knowledge in planning, including efforts to transcend
the field’s traditional conservative social science application. The concept of gendering
is briefly reviewed to illustrate the value of taking another perspective. Then kindering is
outlined as both a new epistemology that broadens the planning field, and also a new
position that recognizes age as a defining characteristic of urban life and planning. Next I
consider the scholarly literature on children and describe children’s behavioral, spatial
and cognitive traits that appear to yield valuable information for planners – the
enthusiasm of youth, cautions against overplanning, and calls to overcome cultural and
linguistic barriers. An application of kindering to planning practice illustrates the
concept’s potential.
Power and Knowledge in Planning
The narrow window through which planning knowledge is acquired is problematic
because it limits both the type and sources of new knowledge. The dominant players in
the discourse on planning have historically been almost exclusively adult white males. A
review of intellectual influences on American planning theory, diagrammed by John
Friedmann in his essay “Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview” identifies
23
only a handful of females out of more than 100 influential thinkers in the disciplines of
economics, philosophy, and politics (Friedmann in Mandelbaum et al. 1996, 12-13).
While a certain type of player has dominated planning theory, planning practice too often
also limits its focus to the physical environment, relative to other social issues. As a
field, for example, it was largely silent on racism and racial segregation, zoning and
restrictive covenants, and segregated public housing. Certain groups, including ethnic
minorities, have been ignored or excluded on the basis of gender and sexual identity, in
what might be called “systematic exclusions” (Sandercock 1998, 10-13). Other groups,
based on age, such as the elderly or children, have not been overtly excluded but their
inclusion has been based on narrow perceptions. Domination in a field by any group that
is not representative of the whole poses problems.
The hegemony of planning is especially troubling because the dominant players in the
planning discourse do more than limit the focus and range of knowledge in the present
tense. They also, perhaps unwittingly, create a framework that guides interpretation of
the planning domain. Consider, as an illustration, the sources of power and knowledge in
philosophy. Foucault argues that knowledge is structured through power, not truth.
Those in power frame certain ideas or ways of thinking as true, connoting truth when in
reality offering a limited form or interpretation of knowledge. Any history of thought is
likewise biased by this subjectivity (Foucault 1972). For example, the early
philosophers, almost exclusively male, initiated the practice of construing knowledge in
terms of dominance. They identified men – themselves – as associated with reason,
which they considered to be a desirable characteristic. Women were associated with the
24
less-desirable not-reason, instituting a self-perpetuating hierarchy. Women’s different
intellect was characterized as more emotional, passionate, and sensuous, and less
reasonable. Of course, what is reasonable varies from man to man, let alone man to
woman (Lloyd 1984, 7-17 and 50-52).
The confusion of knowledge with truth limits planning because planning is subject to not
just physical but also social issues, which are defined by social constructs, and
frameworks that include values as well as facts (Rein and Schon 1993, 145-160). In
other words, what one sees and knows depends upon their frame of reference, and may
not resonate with the dominant power structure. Perception varies with time, place,
history, culture, and language. Point of view varies with interpretation, and yet planners,
exert dominance and shape expectations with their own language, interpretations and
frames (Throgmorton 1996, 52-55).
The language of municipal zoning ordinances, like any culturally bound
discourse, is a language that both persuades and informs us about values
and attitudes…...In many communities, land-use planning and zoning have
become more environmentally and economically sophisticated, but they
have not necessarily become more socially attuned to the realities of
contemporary life. (Ritzdorf 2000, 179).
Individual voices are obscured, and the voices of inarticulate groups may be
misunderstood.
Given that relativity chips away at the universality of historically dichotomized concepts
like reason, perhaps a relativist view, rather than a rationalist view, can expand the field.
This recognition that truth depends upon where one stands could move planners beyond
25
the current narrow epistemology, in a way that acknowledges personal history, culture,
ethnicity, social, and linguistic background, even gender and age.
Evolving Epistemologies in Planning: Beyond Gendering to Kindering
Gendering represents an historical moment of shifting perceptions of planning and
planners. The concept of gendering, or taking a feminist perspective in order to discover
new knowledge, provides planning scholars and practitioners with one method for
broadening the field to include additional knowledge. This epistemology expands
planning from simply greater inclusion. Instead it represents a broadened perspective and
the integration of additional points of view. Whereas analytical and empirical knowledge
is traditionally validated, gendering argues not for a distinctive, radical feminist
epistemology, but to “expand planners’ perspective beyond scientific and technical
knowledge to other ways of knowing” (Sandercock and Forsyth 1992, 51).
The everyday social connectedness of women results in ways of knowing different from
ways of knowing attributed to men (Nast 1994). An epistemology of gendering
necessarily includes talking, listening, intuition, and creativity among ways of knowing
(Sandercock and Forsyth 1992, 32). This inclusion addresses feminists’ and others’
critiques of the rational decision-making model and its role in traditional planning theory
and practice, especially its acceptance of a single reality that excludes typically feminine
forms of knowledge such as intuition, experience, and empathy. Considering the
perspectives of women for their informative value confronts the concept of a single
26
reality, and importantly, expands planning’s equity by including another community
(MacGregor 1997).
The broadened perspective offered by gendering is particularly useful as a response to
feminist arguments that planning theory focuses on a conceptually masculine citizen.
This citizen concept addresses the concerns of a limited percent of the population,
resulting in problems for those “outsiders within” (Harding 1991, 131) and moreover, for
the field of planning. Consider the example of a pedestrianization project in Great
Britain, where transit planners sought to minimize the number of bus stops yet still serve
the greatest number of riders. The bus route was revised to back roads with bus stops
adjacent to empty parking areas and public restrooms. The majority of commuters,
women, avoided the new stops because they perceived them as less safe, and they walked
to the next proximate stops (Greed 1994, 49-50 and 181-182).
Kindering provides a necessary step forward in planning’s acceptance of and work to
meet the needs of different populations and communities. “Planning for women
inevitably means altering planning for men and may be seen as an all-inclusive approach
which effects everyone and every aspect of urban form and development, and not as a
limited, marginal little policy option for a small group in society” (Greed 1994, 176).
Not really. A truly all-inclusive approach includes all excluded groups. Just as “women
face problems of such significance in cities and societies that gender can no longer be
ignored in planning practice” (J. Leavitt 1986, 181) children and youth are systematically
disenfranchised from their communities, silenced and relegated to participating in
discrete, institutional environments.
27
Kindering expands epistemology to include the perspectives of children and youth. From
a practical level, kindering embraces the enormous range of attempts to incorporate
children into planning processes – through diaries, photographs, focus groups, surveys,
cognitive maps, youth representation on boards and committees. From a theoretical
standpoint, kindering acknowledges the value of a child’s perspective, created and
limited by the social constructs of childhood, and therefore not directly accessible by
adults.
The missing viewpoints of children and youth create a particular void. This ‘children’s
reality’ (Boyden 1997, 226) is too complicated to create without a child’s or a youth’s
perspective. An adult viewpoint inherently includes adult value judgments. For instance,
Bangladeshi child labor laws, passed partly to protect teenage female garment workers,
forced them to give up the only reliable, reputable work available to them (Boyden 1997).
At the same time, this children’s perspective is critical because children, in particular,
may not be able to articulate their impressions. Children, and older youth also do not
adhere to the bounds of socially accepted language. Language, construed to mean both
the ability to communicate and the ability to be understood, is a reflection of one’s
education, geography, and even assertiveness (Sandercock and Forsyth 1992, 51).
Rationales for the relatively recent historiographical interest in children cite efforts to
investigate this “inarticulate” group (Hawes and Hiner 1991, 2). By broadening the
dialectic to include children, planning may start to obliterate the bounds of language.
Planning can also begin to address a concern of older youth, that they are silenced and
their voices are not heard.
28
Kindered Planning
Like gendering, kindering transcends either advocacy or increased participation in efforts
to uncover children’s viewpoints. If the routine social experiences of women are
acknowledged as a valuable source of information, the same argument may be made for
children. Yet unlike gendering, kindering moves epistemology forward by
acknowledging age – both young and old – as a critical component in quality of life.
While gender is a continuous state for most, individuals spend a limited amount of time
within each of typical lifespan divisions, from infancy to adolescence to middle
adulthood. Childhood, like old age, is a temporary state. Children are different because
they exist within a temporary age-state, but living in a permanent built environment. As
part of this age limitation, they are marginalized by political and economic actors.
Planners have not historically thought in terms of temporary states, but rather focus on
relatively permanent characteristics like race, gender, class.
While childhood is given scant consideration in the field of planning, the needs of the
elderly are well-addressed. The consideration of age as a vital determinant of quality of
life is underway, albeit implicitly, for the elderly. Some scholars highlight the mass aging
of the population as a premier fiscal issue (Gruber and Wise 2002, 34). Statistics citing
that 1 of every 8 Americans are aged 65 and older, and that the fastest growing
demographic group is composed of those aged 85 and older are used to cite demand for
planners to create a built environment to meet the needs of the aging (Smith et al 2008,
Howe 1992). Similarly, surveys of this aging population which indicate a desire to work
past traditional retirement age of 65 years, both for money and for enjoyment (Quinn
29
2002, 305) spur new thinking about employment and lifestyle opportunities for older
individuals.
Similarly, the East Asian Airport Alliance, a coalition of airports including China, Japan
and Korea incorporated universal design principles to facilitate travel for their clients.
Much of the principles and implementing facilities were originally aimed at those with
physical disabilities, including tactile floor blocks, bright handrails on escalators, and
walk-through elevators. Yet the design was ultimately acknowledged to address needs of
the elderly, too – contrasting colors improve visibility, fixed handrails at entry and exit of
moving walkways, and better signage (Skinner 2008).
Age is critical. The needs of the elderly are increasingly noted and addressed in the
planning and policy literature, while children remain something of an afterthought. A
youth perspective, in particular, is vital. Children are no longer simply an extension of the
family, but in the current world deserve their own designation as a vulnerable population.
While many of the planning and policy adjustments made for the elderly apply to youth
as well, youth need more. Their voice, or perspective, also offers more.
Worship youthfulness, not youth
The limited spatial and other traits discussed in the following section illustrate some
striking differences between children and adults’ perspectives, and in so doing, highlight
applications where children’s perspectives inform planning.
30
Enthusiasm
Children’s relative freedom of expression and feeling posits a path for more appealing
and better-used space, especially natural outdoor spaces. Children’s more limited
experiences may provide a “window into another form of knowledge, which is capable,
like the forms of knowing of mystics, shamans, women, the mad…of yielding significant
information about the world” (Kennedy 1998). Psychologists and untrained observers
alike note that the “senses of youth are singularly acute” (Addams 1909, 25) and that
children are susceptible to every vivid appeal to their senses (Arnheim 1974, 165). The
relationship between children and the natural environment has been described as dialectic
(Jansson 1984, 44). Children actively engage with their respective play areas. They
touch (dirt), feel (snow), and pick (flowers). Their specific actions involve their entire
being. They immerse themselves in the selected activity -- run, stomp, roll, fall down
(Jansson 1984, 64-5).
Writers such as Edith Cobb, Vera John-Steiner, and Ernest Schachtel ‘argue that children
are more sensuous and open to the world than adults, and that adult creativity hinges on
overcoming repression and gaining access to the child within’ (Thorne 1993, 16).
In her review of the lives of artists and writers, Vera John-Steiner discovers that adult
creativity is nurtured by access to the child within (John-Steiner 1985). And the
psychologist Ernest G. Schachtel (Metamorphosis) argued that children’s sensory
experiences were both more savory and pleasurable than adults, and synaesthetic, where
31
sensory stimulation of one sensory organ leads to sensations in other sense organs (i.e., a
rich color feels warm) (Schactel 2001, 125).
Tapping into this unbridled enthusiasm and integrating children’s apparently less self-
censured experiences with planning may transcend the field’s conservative social science
application. Direct observation of children and youth in proposed park settings can help
determine planning goals for each site. Rather than limiting planning and policy decisions
to quantitative data, planning could explicitly consider the effects of development on
human emotion. Children could be surveyed for their emotional responses to different
proposed building designs or configurations; and the scale of buildings modified to avoid
depersonalization; bright colors used to facilitate cheerier atmospheres; and formal
processes that recognize and deal with emotion created. The resulting designs will be
more agreeable to both children, and their overt emotional sensibilities, as well as to
adults and their muted or subconscious preferences. Providing access to a wide range of
opportunities could provide insight to adults for a more content and balanced lifestyle.
Community spaces designed to incorporate a range of sensory stimulation, perhaps via
integration with the natural environment, may tap into adults’ dormant enthusiasm and
provide restorative effects. Some repersonalization of buildings is already taking place.
32
Public housing authorities, after years of studying the effects of mass-scale housing, are
replacing high-rise public housing with low-rise apartment clusters.
2
Iconography
Children’s artistic expression suggests improved methods for public communication and
signage. Their pictorial communication does not conform to realistic appearances in a
way that goes beyond either a lack of motor control or interest in the given subject
matter. Children’s drawings emphasize the overall qualities of things. Where visual
experience is limited, children incorporate other information, such as verbal instruction,
about for example, the shape or color of a flag or building (Arnheim 1974, 163-4). This
simple approach recognizes the inherent limitations to knowledge. It also underscores
the most salient characteristics. For example, a child draws a horse head and flies the size
of the horse’s head precisely because they are very annoying to the horse (Arnheim 1974,
195-6).
2
This reduction in density reflects middle class bias against high-rise residences, and the continuing
idealization of single-family housing in the United States. This is suggestive of the enduring power of the
idealization of the family as it courses through American planning. The reduction of public housing units
may also be convenient for a jurisdiction, as the numbers of low-income families do not decrease, only the
number of units available and affordable to them.
33
Children’s simplification of importance in graphical or pictorial representation conveys
meaning in a way that may transcend cultural, linguistic or gender barriers. The bigger,
the brighter, or the more ornate signifies importance. The commercial sector already uses
these principles in signage – consider the 3-foot high neon martini glass that identifies the
location of a bar. Planners might apply this simplification-in-representation principle to
communicate more effectively with an aging and culturally diversifying population.
Emphasize the important. Configure the red stop lights at busy intersections to be larger,
or brighter, than the green and yellow lights. Highlight the signature and date spaces on
important forms. Use variation in interior design, from painted footprints (small ones
leading to children’s recreation areas and larger ones for adults) to patterns incorporated
into wood flooring in order to designate pathways. Decorative tiles placed partway up
hallways can guide visitors in and out of buildings. Some examples of this simplification-
in-representation in practice include the varied designs at street-crossings. Orange hands
visually signal ‘don’t walk’ and bird chirping sounds aurally indicate ‘safe to walk.’
Similarly, bricked or cobbled crosswalks highlight designated walkways in a way that is
both visual and tactile. In movie theatres and airplanes, floor lighting guides to
designated exits.
Third Places
The spatial and cognitive viewpoints of children and youth call for creation of
unstructured areas, or what planners have come to call third places. Third places are
social environments outside of the home and workplace, such as coffee shops or
34
neighborhood gathering spaces. Children allocate ownership of their space differently
depending on their environment. Those in urban areas identified only a piece of
furniture, or a part of a room in their family house as theirs, whereas children in rural
areas with a broader range, identified the house, the garden, and farmyard (Lynch 1977,
24-5 and 131-4). Their sense of stewardship is unsurprisingly greater. Children also
create their own spaces. These are separate from family and the result of the child
appropriating and personalizing a place. By necessity, these spaces are outside, in
unclaimed spaces, such as under a tree or shrub, or in a clearing in the woods. One
interpretation of these hiding spaces, or the homes away from home of childhood is that
they are expressions of the emerging ego-self (Cooper Marcus 1995, 32), and are thus
related to individual cognitive development.
As well as appropriating their own personal space, children perceive quiet time as being
alone, or being private (Jansson 1984, 97-99). In other words, without even a physical
dimension of solitude, children create a forum to experience privacy. Moreover,
children’s locational creativity and spontaneity seem to thrive on unstructured
opportunities, like those provided in open space. Melbourne children were observed to
use structures in ways not originally intended, including using steps and fences for seats,
and playing games in the open areas of the streets adjacent to their homes (Lynch 1977,
100-118). While similar adult activity appears borne out of convenience – hanging out
on the front stoop, or casual football tossing in the street – youth are drawn to
unstructured spaces.
35
At the same time the observations of children suggests that ownership is linked to
responsibility as much as availability. Children’s sense of ownership, triggered by the
sense of a single piece of furniture or fragment of space as their own, suggests avenues to
foster community investment. While planners and policy makers have long encouraged
land ownership as a way to encourage a sense of investment, the observations of youth
suggest this might be achieved without legal ownership. Granting public housing
residents and other renters clearly delineated roles for limited landscape maintenance, or
opportunities to cultivate plots in community gardens, might result in an increased sense
of responsibility and thus ownership, as well as improved property conditions. Youth
and adults alike might create a decorative mural, or participate as part of a landscaping or
gardening team.
Children’s use of unstructured areas to both create areas for different activities and foster
a sense of privacy and solitude guard against overplanning and call for designing sub-
spaces, with a range of potential uses, within the larger community space. Rooms can be
divided into smaller areas using screens and partitions, and small tables and chairs used
to facilitate variation in group meeting or activity formats – clusters, lecture-style, along
walls – or appropriated by different individuals to provide a collective sense of
ownership. Access to completely undeveloped open spaces can foster a sense of freedom
and creativity. Outdoor spaces that provide a variety of usable area can be fostered, either
temporally, as in trees that provide beautiful foliage in fall, blooms and nesting habitat in
spring, and shade in summer, or physically, as in a tennis court that can be covered with a
tent or tarp for festivities. Variation in scale may accommodate smaller (younger) as well
36
as larger persons. Unpaved overflow parking areas double as public green space, and
seating included in building entryways provides casual meeting or resting space.
Wayfinding
Finally, the spatial knowledge of even very young children suggest improved wayfinding
methods for adults. One landmark study of schoolchildren found all could identify
objects from aerial photographs of their communities (1:5000 scale), despite varying
levels of socioeconomic status; and a second determined that children as young as five
years old could effectively read aerial photographs (Stea and Blaut 1973). In a third
study, children constructing maps of their communities first drew and then identified
streets and significant structures, and physically turned the map as they progressed, as
though walking through the area (Lynch 1977, 157).
The ability of even very young children to find their way using aerial photographs, at the
same time that some adults have trouble interpreting maps, suggests planners might use
aerial photographs to strengthen spatial perceptions of community. Aerials could be
paired with general plan maps and other planning documents to awaken adult’s spatial
intuition and pictorially illustrate local geography. Planners could use aerials and other
photograph-based visual aids either in place of or in combination with traditional maps to
describe potential community development changes, infrastructure options, and land use
impacts, resulting in improved community participation and subsequently improved
community decision-making. Continuing the general practice of using small physical site
models facilitates orientation with plans, and within larger developments (think shopping
37
malls); and aerial photographs of the neighborhood orient visitors within the community
as a whole, in an updated version of “You are here.”
At the same time that these historical wayfinding studies illuminate opportunities to
improve community planning, they represent a much bigger problem. The neighborhood
range of children and youth has been decreasing with each generation. Today’s children
have a much more geographically limited knowledge of their community. While studies
suggest they could navigate their environment efficiently, the environment itself is likely
to be small, and rather isolated. This is the result of several factors, including parental
concerns and planning practices.
A Step Forward
Planners strive to transcend their field’s narrow scope of knowledge and conservative
social science application. Where does information come from? This new epistemology
of kindering can work towards satisfying theorists and academics recent demands for new
sources of knowledge; in particular more inclusive knowledge representative of multiple
viewpoints. These efforts thus far include acknowledging the importance of difference
and incorporating multiple histories and voices. Venues that specifically seek the input
of traditionally excluded groups – women, racial and ethnic minorities, even the elderly –
are no longer uncommon. Kindering represents an untapped venue for broadening the
scope of whom and what we can learn from. Taking a child’s perspective acknowledges
the value in recognizing and exploring children’s voices. Yet to even begin considering
this approach as a window to a new source of knowledge, allows practitioners and
38
academics alike the benefit of increased communication with and responsiveness to
inevitably changing populations.
At the same time, kindering as a concept unites and guides the many and discrete efforts
to increase youth participation in planning and policymaking in a broadened
epistemology. Kindering represents a new form of knowledge, and thus provides a
theoretical foundation to youth planning forums, youth representation on decision-
making or advisory bodies, even surveys of youth. Kindering binds theory and practice
together in a mutually enforcing way. Practitioners work with children and youth to
uncover geographic or temporally specific information in order to plan better, and more
equitably, and theorists desire new sources and forms of knowledge. The voices and
perspectives of youth make for an environment that is better for children, as well as for
everyone. “A city that is pro-child, for example, is also a more humane place for adults.
Parks, wide sidewalks, access to nature, decent health care, safety – adults desire these
cultural attributes for themselves as much as for their children” (Louv 1990, 64). An
environment that is more physically accessible to children is also more physically
accessible to everyone with mobility impairments – those confined to wheelchairs and
walkers, as well as strollers or bicycles. And an environment that is more linguistically
accessible to children is likewise more linguistically accessible to those with limited
language proficiency – non-native English speakers, victims of stroke or other illnesses
that damage communications skills.
While parents, planners, and child savers spent much of the past century structuring
children’s lives through school, recreation, and other institutions, kindering challenges
39
this. It creates a forum of equitability that specifically includes youth. Kindering
transcends either planning for children, or allowing children a limited role in the planning
process. It acknowledges society’s reinforcement of an ‘adult-child framework’ (Thorne
1993, 27) that implies a monolithic child, and suggests a way to bridge the growing
divide between old and young. Kindering expands epistemology. It ascribes inherent
value to the way a child sees his or her environment, and seeks to incorporate this vision
into an overall community vision or plan. It provides a way to begin to address the
increasing marginalization of youth in the 20th century United States.
40
CHAPTER 3: THE MYTH AND REALITY OF PLANNING FOR CHILDREN
Children have generally not been included in planning. Instead, they have historically
been meant to adapt to the built environment as designed for adults. With the evolution of
childhood, children became more important to planners and planning, but only in a
limited class-driven way. The work of child-savers and urban planners, to foster
adherence to an ideal child and ultimately serve the needs of this idealized child, served
broader goals. This was possible in part because instead of integrating children’s issues
into planning through a participatory process, planners have in the past and continue
today to plan for a model family, situated squarely within the middle to upper-middle
class, with one or more monolithic children who embody the goals and aspirations of
middle class families. Built environments were created supposedly to serve the needs of
these children, from the early neighborhood unit-oriented developments of the 1920s to
the postwar suburbs of the 1950s, from the new communities of the 1960s to the new
urbanist developments of the 1980s. Real challenges of children, including the desire to
be a valued part of their community and opportunities to meet informally with peers, are
rarely included in those plans.
Idealized Childhood
The idea of childhood, as a distinct phase of human development, appears during the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries in the United States, with the emergence of the middle class (Demos
1970, 494-8). Both the changing economic value of children, and the greater focus on
41
childrearing among the middle and upper middle classes contributed to this new notion of
childhood.
Beginning in the 1830s, advice books and the upper-middle class focus on childrearing
recommended segregating children from adults and adult behavior within the household.
A typical Victorian nursery, for example, provided everything a child could need – child-
sized furniture and utensils, toys, and adult supervision. Children ate, played, took
lessons, and often slept in these isolated nurseries, under the watchful eyes of an
experienced nanny or nurse. Highchairs were specifically designed to limit the
unsupervised mobility of toddlers. Children ideally played inside nurseries with
designated toys, or went on supervised walks outside. As this ideal of segregated youth
permeated middle class society, these values and trends came to dominate child-rearing
practices. Children were, where possible, given their own bedrooms and play spaces, and
read their own literature. They were afforded a new, distinct place within the family and
society.
During the period from the 1870s to 1930s, the economic value of children changed
dramatically. In previous decades, many children had worked at home in piecework, with
their mothers, or outside the home in varied employment from domestic service to
industrial work. The commonplace nature of family-style employment is underscored in
an 1828 advertisement: “Families wanted -- Ten or Twelve good respectable families
consisting of four or five children each, from nine to sixteen years of age, are wanted to
work in a cotton mill, in the vicinity of Providence” (in Mintz and Kellogg 1988, 94).
The wages of children had supplemented the family budget and allowed young adult sons
42
and daughters to remain at home for longer periods than previous generations. During
this period multiple efforts to abolish child labor and mandate school, resulted in safer,
but less economically productive children. Children’s decreasing function as economic
assets began to change the concept of the family. The institution became more narrowly
defined with father as primary breadwinner. Women’s roles focused on not just
household management, but also the social and moral character-building of their children
(Mintz and Kellogg 1988, xiii-xix).
Simultaneously, refining the new definition of children was the increasing emotional
value of children. In the late 1800s, poorer families subscribed to insurance companies in
order to insure a proper burial should their child die. The payout was based on the child’s
economic value to the family had they lived. By the turn of the century, insurers adopted
the rhetoric of child-saving reformers and argued for insuring the emotional value of
children. The child had become “economically useless but emotionally priceless” (Zelizer
1994, 113-129, 209). Adoption fees underwent a parallel shift. In the 1870s, one could
pay a baby farmer ten dollars to take in an unwanted baby; by the late 1930s families
desiring a child paid up to $1,000 for an infant (2007: $15,000)
3
(Zelizer 1994, 169-170).
With this emerging sentimentality, ‘the image of childhood entered the mass media
3
Conversion using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator.
43
market’ (Higonnet 1998, 51). Artistic depictions of children made during this era were
reproduced in large enough numbers and purchased by, among others, the Pears Soap
Company and used to sell their products. Childhood had become sufficiently appealing to
sell ordinary household goods.
This idealized childhood was not afforded to everyone, however. In 1890, although only
one third of Americans lived in cities, two thirds of all immigrants did (Jackson 1985,
70). Many immigrant and migrant families were poor. In some cases one or both parents
had died. Death from diphtheria or other epidemics, or from childbirth was not
uncommon. Children were left to fend for themselves. The independent work of youth on
the streets, from selling papers to scavenging junk, was perceived as both dangerous, and,
for young girls in particular, unladylike (Nasaw 1985, 101; Sinclair 1946). In addition to
immoral behavior, declining urban living conditions linked growing numbers of
immigrants from Europe as well as migrating blacks from the south with disease and
poverty.
Such changes shifted more slowly in working class families, but the new childhood
available for the upper and middle classes became the representative standard for the
idealized child in American society. Shifts in migration, industrialization, income levels
and fertility, helped the relatively affluent middle-class embrace the concept of the
sheltered childhood (Macleod 1998, 1). In this new paradigm, other children, especially
poorer children, would repeatedly be compared unfavorably to these middle-class
standards.
44
Idealized Child
This idealized child was not just at least middle-class, but also healthy, moral, and
distinctly American. These virtues often overlapped for reformers and planners.
The Healthy Child – Go Outdoors, Young Man
The healthy child was physically strong and hearty. Eugenicists linked exercise and good
parenting to improved human outcome. Advice books of the time emphasized a
connection between physical and moral character. The natural and wild element was
seen as good, and eugenicists and other experts on youth responded to the growing sense
that manliness and wildness were linked (Nash 1967, 152). President Theodore Roosevelt
embodied the ‘strenuous endeavor’ including regular contact with nature (Nash 1967,
150, referencing Roosevelt “The Strenuous Life” in Works 15, 267, 271, 281).
Concerns that city boys were not developing into strong, masculine men led to support
for outdoor activity and education programs. The growing understanding of the role of
adolescence, in particular, underscored a need for supervised, rigorous physical activity.
The great outdoors provided a necessary outlet for sexual and other energy for the newly
discovered adolescent (Macleod 1987).The Boy Scouts of America developed in part to
foster the positive influence of nature on youth (Nash 1967, 147-8). Later, wholesome
outdoor activities including hiking, camping, and drills provided a respite for adolescent
boys from female-dominated domestic and educational institutions.
45
The Moral Child – Far From the Madding Crowds
Exposure to nature and regular physical labor were deemed so vital that child savers
relocated orphans and other young children of poor, urban immigrants to rural farms.
Organizations like the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) sent traincars of children, from
toddlers to young teens, west (O’Connor 2001), toward the frontier, and also north,
upstate, generally to the country. These transplanted youth, removed from the city and
the world in which they struggled to assimilate, and often from their families as well,
were expected to reap the benefits of physical labor in the glorious American heartland.
The country was considered healthier than the city, and the transplanted children’s birth
parents were considered neglectful at best, abusive at worst (McCamant in Fass, 2004,
195-7). Children transported this way were ideally incorporated into older American
families whose moral fitness had been determined – no kicking the can in city alleys, no
hawking newspapers in streets. By 1929 more than 250,000 children had been sent
removed from cities through these programs (O’Connor xvii).
Good American children were God-fearing, as well as hearty. Charles Loring Brace,
founder of the CAS, epitomized these values in a letter to a friend. “I should like a less
easy life, where there is more of responsibility and strong influence. For I think the firm
Christian character is made best in hard duties” (O’Connor 2001, 24). When the CAS
placed ads ascertaining demand for youth in western rural communities, they received
many responses from families offering jobs, as well as from couples looking to replace
their own children, who had died (O’Connor 2001, 101). Demand was for not just well-
mannered children, but children who espoused a certain haleness tempered with devotion
46
to God. “Each applicant or employer always called for a ‘perfect child,’ without any of
the taints of earthly depravity. The girls must be pretty, good-tempered, not given to
purloining sweetmeats, and fond of making fires at daylight, and with a constitutional
love for Sunday Schools and Bible-lessons. The boys must be well-made, of good stock,
never disposed to steal apples or pelt cattle, using language of perfect propriety, and
delighting in family-worship and prayer-meetings more than in fishing or skating parties”
(Brace’s The Dangerous Classes, 227-228, quoted in O’Connor 2001, 101). Reformers
sought to satisfy two goals: redeem children; and create the essentialized child. Even as
reformers despaired that they could not meet the demands for the perfect child, they were
constructing an image of children that would influence the original architects of planning.
The Patriotic Child – Americanizing Children
As early as the War of 1812 there was a noticeable effort to define things American,
especially an American culture, that would represent the new nation’s political and social
goals (Wright 1981, 21). This new nation celebrated its hardiness, from its newly won
independence to its undeveloped frontier. Children had a unique role to play. All
children, even immigrant orphans were increasingly expected to behave a certain way, in
47
accordance with white, Christian, middle-class values.
4
The essentialized child became
patriotic as well.
Hygiene advocates and social reformers had suggested the underlying characteristic of
Americanization lay in the new nation’s outdoors. A generation with dwindling numbers
of sturdy children needed to be replaced with one of sturdy, morally righteous children.
Science of the time linked sperm to the creation of deformed children; and advocated
sterilization of those deemed unfit (Wilkie in Fass 2004, 443-7). At the same time,
immigrant fertility outpaced that of older families of northern European descent. This
worried U. S. leaders, and led Theodore Roosevelt to complain that descendants of the
Puritans were committing ‘race suicide’ (Macleod 1998, 10).
Children were situated at the front of the Americanization movement as it evolved. As
social order thus came to be associated with white, middle-class hygiene standards, many
4
Native Americans posed a particular challenge to Americanization. They were strong and virile, but
decidedly not Christian. Policymakers focused on instilling a new set of values in Native American
children, relatively more malleable and receptive than their adult parents. From the seventeenth century
through the early part of the twentieth century, Native American children were forcibly removed from their
cultural heritage. They left behind traditional Indian societies and tribal forms of learning to struggle to
cope in educational institutions with a distinctly white and Christian approach to learning and, more
critically, to development. Traditional culture and education, including imitation, apprenticeships, and
ritual, was replaced with formalized, text-based learning. Most schools emphasized some form of Christian
religious education; and larger ones encouraged participation in extracurricular, school-vetted activities that
encourage teamwork, such as football, or theater (Coleman 1993; Macleod 1998). The Commissioner of
Indian Affairs in 1903, William A. Jones wrote that “[BIA education would] exterminate the Indian but
develop a man.” (Coleman 1993, 46).
48
reformers amended their focus on the physical environment. Living conditions were
thought to affect both the physical and moral health of children. The urban poor were
overcrowded, and unclean. They were tutored in “hygiene instruction as a mean of
converting European working-class immigrants into good Americans” (Fass 2004, 445).
The Myth of Planning for Children
Social reformers and planners desire to create and serve the essentialized child formed
the foundations for planning and policy-making focused on children. Middle- and upper-
middle class women volunteers in cities throughout the United States, engaged in
‘municipal housekeeping’ to impose order on the dirt and chaos (Spain 2001), focused on
children. “Because social diseases began by enveloping the child, the home, the
neighborhood and finally the city, the reformers had to begin with the earliest link to
protect the last” (Boyer 1983, 21). Reformers alarmed by the conditions of urban youths,
struggled to address the needs of neglected, bereft, immigrant urban children.
5
They were
not alone in their crusade to foster the idealized child and family. United States
government scope of authority over children ballooned through the abolition of child
5
Interestingly, this desire to ‘save children for the enjoyment of childhood’ was global. It existed as part of
a larger emphasis on assisting the poor and unfortunate worldwide, and was extended to children, thought
to represent the future (Cunningham 1995, p135). “The ideal we place before us is a protected childhood”
(Edward T. Devine in 1910 in Cunningham 1995, p136). Large numbers of homeless youth in London and
Paris, obviously independent from adults, led to their characterization as savages (Cunningham 1995,p146).
49
labor and the introduction of compulsory education. Private organizations, including the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (formed 1874) and the Pediatric Section
of the AMA (formed 1881). In 1909 the White House Conference on Children was
initiated, which resulted in the creation of the Children’s Bureau in 1912 (Boyer 1978).
By 1918 all states mandated compulsory elementary education (Macleod 1998, 75).
Urban Parks
Safe places to play were difficult to come by for lower-income and immigrant urban
households. City children typically played on the street, usually unsupervised by adults.
Demands to provide beneficial open space, or nature, especially for urban children were
raised during a period of general contempt for unregulated activity. Concern with the
apparently immoral behavior of lower-income, immigrant families implied a need to
control behavior, and to provide sound, moral outlets for physical expression. Urban
settlement house workers sought to divert youth from unsavory adult activities such as
drinking and gambling. Social reformers created physical spaces, such as settlement
houses, as a physical place for urban youth, often poor immigrants, to remove themselves
from the streets.
Because the city was considered a moral habitat plagued by un- or misdirected urban
leisure, a ‘menace to be subdued’ (Boyer 1978, 176-180), the reformers’ environmental
determinist approach focused on improving the physical environment, including within
the city, and highlighted the restorative and guiding benefits of nature. Jane Addams
articulated the idea that the city overstimulates the ‘senses of youth [which] are singularly
50
more acute, and ready to respond to every vivid appeal’ (Addams 1912, 25). Plans to
improve the physical environment for children’s play and increased safety coalesced
around the creation of urban parks and playgrounds.
Social reformers and others championed urban parks as a semi-supervised environment
for youth activity and implicit immigrant reform. As public outdoor spaces, they offered
informal adult oversight. City youth had too much energy and no direction. They needed
joy, and play. Early pleasure grounds and parks (1850 – 1900) encouraged vigorous
outdoor play as an antidote to long workdays in crowded conditions. Common
entertainments of the time, such as throwing horseshoes or tomahawks, were considered
too vulgar for inclusion in the refined parks (Cranz 1982). Instead, acceptable activities
included boating, horseback riding, lawn tennis, and ice skating.
Urban parks were popular in part because they brought the positively valued countryside
into the negatively valued city. They would provide recreation opportunities for an
increasingly sedentary population, and playspace for illness-prone immigrant children.
For instance, Olmsted and others advocated for Charlesbank Park, a 10-acre site along
the Charles River in Boston, based on the recreational, health, and restorative benefits of
urban green space.
We want a ground to which people may easily go after their day’s work is
done, and where they may stroll for an hour, seeing, hearing, and feeling
nothing of the bustle and jar of the streets, where they shall, in effect, find
the city put far away from them. We want the greatest possible contrast
with the streets and the shops and the rooms of the town which will be
consistent with convenience and the preservation of good order and
neatness. We want, especially, the greatest possible contrast with the
restraining and confining conditions of the town, those conditions which
51
compel us to walk circumspectly, watchfully, jealously, which compel us
to look closely upon others without sympathy. (Frederick Law Olmsted
1870, speaking at the American Social Science Association in Boston,
about guidelines for public parks in urban areas in general, and with
specific references to Boston).
Park designs increasingly incorporated features such as a sandbox, swings, a running
track, slides, and a playing field. This concept of specialized play areas for children in
protectively enclosed areas represented an extension of the child-centered places within
middle- and upper-middle class households. These dedicated play areas also served as a
model for subsequent parks, including Chicago’s small park system. It also set the
foundation for the playground movement.
Playgrounds
Social reformers lauded urban parks and latched onto the philosophy of German
kindergartens to move childcare out of the home and into a monitored environment
(Gagen 1997). The playground movement (1880s to 1900) emphasized children’s desire
for geographical areas for play, and at the same time satisfied reformers calls to rescue
youth from unsafe and immoral streets and tenements. Playground proponents argued for
parks with sandboxes and playing fields for urban children who had limited access to
yards or countryside (Draper 1996, 108). Recreation specialists believed youth,
especially immigrant youth living in morally dubious conditions, needed not just
vigorous outdoor recreation but also organized play to develop desirable social skills and
physically healthy bodies. Development of the Children’s Playground in Golden Gate
52
Park in San Francisco, for example, was, like park planning, influenced by the efforts of
social reformers to foster idealized city residents.
When enjoying these grounds, under the friendly shelter of the house,
there is no distinction between the offspring of the most lowly and the
descendants of the most wealthy and influential…It is believed, and
earnestly hoped, by the Commissioners, that many hundreds of children
will be taken up from our streets, and with the facilities now afforded them
for moral and healthful recreation, will grow up to be better men and
women. (Board of Park Commissioners, 1888, Souvenir Program, p3-4 in
Schenker 1996).
While the first playgrounds came from simple beginnings, their popularity, like that of
parks, soared. In 1885 the Massachusetts Emergency and Hygiene Association (MEHA)
created a sand pile in the yard of a chapel. In the beginning, about 15 immigrant children
came to play, several times each week, under the moral guidance of a play supervisor. In
1886 MEHA created three more sand gardens, and in 1887, seven more. MEHA called
them playgrounds and transferred maintenance and responsibility to the local schools.
Other cities – New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia – rapidly copied these
efforts to instill moral order through organized outdoor play. In 1901 the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors granted the local Board of Education $12,000 to create a
playground in a working-class community and in 1904 the city passed a $740,000 bond
issue to create additional city playgrounds (Cranz 1982). In 1906 the Playground
Association of America was founded. By 1910 playgrounds in the United States were so
well established that 55 cities offered playground programs and 113 colleges and
universities offered classes in effective playground operation (Dickason in Fass 2004,
687).
53
The political popularity of the playground movement linked to other social issues. Play
spaces were often arranged by age and gender, and, in keeping with reform goals, were
typically supervised. Moral training encouraged cooperative teamwork rather than
independent play. “Control the muscles and you control the mind and the conscience”
(Cavallo 1981, 5). This issue paralleled concerns of Progressive Era reformers to foster a
balance between the individual and the community as a whole. This concern tied in
neatly with reformer and political goals to assimilate immigrants in America.
Suburbs
Dissatisfaction with urban living conditions grew with the intensification of
industrialization. As early as the 1830s Americans expressed a growing concern that
urbanization was destroying all that is good about America. Rural philosophers and
advocates cited early Greek, Roman, and more recent literature, as well as the bible, to
disparage city living and extol the value of nature (Stilgoe 1988, 38-39, Jackson 1985,
56-58). The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor distributed a
pamphlet in 1850 that urged immigrants to move from the city to the country (Radford
1996, p30). By the turn of the twentieth century, cities were resoundingly denounced as
harmful. Women and children especially needed to be protected from the negative
influence of the urban environment. The unclean air, the animal waste, the immoral
influence of recent immigrants all posed threats to the tender character of women and
children.
54
Planners and developers created a built environment to serve the needs of the idealized
middle class. They were influenced by visionary urban designers and City Beautiful
proponents who emphasized well-ordered public buildings and the provision of urban
green space and parkland. Daniel Burnham’s 1902 plan for San Francisco incorporated
extensive shoreline parks, and his 1909 Chicago Plan proposed a vast array of regional
open space. Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities, including Letchworth, planned in 1903,
Forest Hills, NY (1913), Sunnyside Gardens, NY (1926), and Radburn, NJ (1928)
became models for residential design based on central green space (Gerckens 1988).
These idealist designers created the framework for an exurban development that fostered
healthy, moral, American lives in a natural setting. Suburbs were safe and clean. They
were emotionally as well as geographically far from the city, far from the workforce. City
experts, planners and sociologists all lauded the suburbs as the right combination of
‘small-town virtues and urban amenities in a carefully planned environment” (Wright
1981, 195).
Neighborhood Unit Suburbs
Suburbanization represented a new distinctly American ideal. Federal policies
specifically targeted ideal, middle-class families for suburban homeownership.
Immigrants who sought stability and integration found a path to respectability and
Americanization. By the 1930s the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) produced a
technical bulletin series for developers promoting the neighborhood unit – cohesive
55
building of a group of single family homes, a school and playground (Hise 1997, 33-35,
40, 66-67).
Suburban developments like Lyon Village in Arlington (Chapter 8) were designed to act
as the ultimate healthy antidote to urban family life. The widely noted ills of urban living
were countered by the supposed curative powers of country living.
6
Like the landscape of
the Garden Cities, suburbs represented a middle ground, figuratively and literally,
between the city and the country. Suburbs were designed for the idealized family. They
encouraged not just Americanization in a natural setting, but supported a particular
household structure, with an emphasis on a defined split in parental roles. The role of
fathers became more pointedly associated with financial support as they now were more
likely to work farther from home and therefore spend more time commuting and less time
enforcing moral values. The role of mothers was similarly expanded to installer and
arbiter of morals and values (Mintz and Kellogg 1988, 117).
6
The health benefits of access to green space are well documented, including a sense of escape from fast-
paced urban life and a place for solitude and contemplation among residents who often have very little
private space to themselves (Everheart 1983; Wolch, Wilson and Fehrenbach 2005); reduced stress levels
as a result of simply envisioning natural settings (Olds 1987); reduced aggression and violence for residents
of greened buildings (Kuo and Sullivan 2001); reduced severity of attention deficit disorder (ADD) for
children who play neighborhood green settings (Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan 2001); decreased mental fatigue
for public housing residents in green surroundings (Kuo 2001); positive cognitive and affective
development of children with access and exposure to nature (Nabhan and Trimble 1994; Matthews 1992)
and with animals (Shepard 1982, 7-8).
56
Lyon Village is situated just two miles outside Rosslyn, a Virginia neighborhood along
the Potomac noted in the 1920s for crime associated with drinking and gambling. Frank
Lyon followed the neighborhood unit concept in his design for Lyon Village, using major
existing thoroughfares as neighborhood boundaries. Shopping was accessible in a
commercial district on the south side of the development. A local elementary school
educated neighborhood children. The layout insulated most of the homes, allowing
limited access to the community through one major road, creating a gardenesque suburb
that still had easy transportation connections to the center city.
Post War Suburbs
Subdivisions such as Lyon Village presaged a wholesale suburbanization of America
starting in the 1940s. “In the decades after World War II…Americans reimagined their
country and what it meant to be an American” (Beauregard 2006, ix). Compared with the
war-ravaged cities in Europe, American postwar suburbs were pastoral, characterized by
prosperity and overt consumption patterns. “The legendary family of the 1950s, complete
with appliances, station wagons, backyard barbecues, and tricycles scattered on the
sidewalks represented something different.” (May 1988, 11).National identity was
intertwined with postwar military global dominance and domestic prosperity. Patriotic
Americans, immigrant and native-born alike, were expected to settle in newly created
suburbs, take on gender roles that corresponded with nuclear-family ideals, and
participate in the new American pastime of consumption.
57
The suburban lifestyle triggered a massive shift in family function. “Filiarchy” or a
displaced emphasis on children, encroached upon patriarchy in the suburbs (Mintz and
Kellogg 1988, 185). Suburban housewives were, as individuals, both physically isolated
as well as pressured to be perfect. Women who used to companionably share chores with
friends or peers in the urban neighborhood worked alone in the single-family suburban
home. Modern appliances that touted free time worked in tandem with advertisements
that extolled the virtue of a spotless home. Keeping house became an occupation.
Homeowning also demanded constant repairs and updating (Stilgoe 1988). Childcare
opportunities to instill morals and local mores had shrunk from the extended family and
community to the nuclear family. Mothers were left to navigate the increasingly
important child-rearing role alone. Instead of working and relaxing with extended family,
the lifestyle and friendships of suburban households revolves around child-rearing and
keeping up with consumption.
New Communities
Ultimately, developers graduated from building single subdivisions in the immediate
postwar period to imagining whole communities in the 1960s and 1970s. The New
Community movement addressed some criticisms of sprawling isolated development.
New master planned communities designed in a focus on access to unprogrammed nature
and space in the outdoors, and emphasized environmental preservation. New Towns in
particular were thought to provide a ‘new social start’ as well (Palen 1995, 212) in the
wake of racial and social unrest in urban areas. They also coordinated the mixed
58
residential, recreation, and commercial uses, and better integrated populations by race
and age. Most importantly, they led the way toward consciously improving the suburban
model.
Reston, Virginia, described in Chapter 7, was developed in the early 1960s as a mixed-
use community in Fairfax County, was one of the first planned towns in the United
States. Robert E. Simon Jr. preserved natural habitats and incorporated recreation and
cultural spaces with employment opportunities and housing designed to accommodate
individuals and families at various stages of their lives. Physical planning was granted
careful attention to detail. A series of Master Plans identified the land use and density of
each parcel, and Residential Planned Community (RPC) zoning permitted townhouse
development outside of the D.C. urban area. From a financial perspective, time-phased
development ensured market absorption of the dwelling units. Forty years later, Reston
has been described as a ‘prototype’ for new town projects (Lockwood 1997).
In 2004, Robert Simon and others evaluated the progress of Reston: 2 community centers
and 3 community rooms, art galleries, a museum, 26 communities of worship, 12 schools,
55 miles of paved trails, 4 lakes, 2 ponds, a 75-acre nature center, 200 garden plots, 3
picnic pavilions, 2 golf courses, 2 skating rinks, a YMCA, 84 ball fields, 58 tennis courts,
44 basketball courts, 7 volleyball courts, 70 tot lots, and 15 outdoor and 2 indoor
swimming pools. “It has more real life and vitality than a mall, but more security, safety,
and parking than the old downtowns” (Palen 1995, 202).There were more jobs than
resident workers. Ample natural beauty was preserved. And the Reston Town Center, the
59
‘downtown’ offers restaurants, shopping, movies, and an ice-skating rink/summer
pavilion surrounded by wide brick sidewalks.
Columbia, Maryland, another planned community 20 miles north of Washington, D.C.
was developed by James Rouse, starting in 1963. Several developers built houses in eight
different villages, providing architectural variation. Each village in Columbia is
comprised of about 900 homes with its own elementary school, recreational amenities,
and convenience store, as well as natural, undeveloped spaces and pathways, fostering
neighborhood cohesion. Every four villages share a middle school and small commercial
area to facilitate a sense of community. The development is racially integrated and
maintains subsidized housing units (Palen 1995, 214-5).
Irvine, California was developed in the 1960s as a master planned community of 100,000.
The Irvine family, and then its successor, the Irvine Company, owned thousands of acres
of ranch land. The Irvine Company sold 1000 acres of land to the University of California
for one dollar to begin the development of a new campus, and simultaneously began
designing a new town around the proposed campus. Following garden city tenets,
commercial and business centers were incorporated throughout the residential
development of single-family attached and detached homes. There was, however, no
downtown, nor any efforts to achieve racial or economic diversity (Palen 1995, 215-6).
60
New Urbanist Nostalgia
In recent years, developers, architects and planners have tried to recreate the older
neighborhoods and planned towns in such places as Kentlands. Kentlands, Maryland,
discussed in Chapter 6, is a new urbanist development about 25 miles north of
Washington D.C. Kentlands was designed in 1988, as part of a 5-day charrette with local
citizens and planning experts. The planning group focused on creating a community that
emphasized people, rather than cars, and incorporated aspects of popular walking
communities in the area, like Georgetown and Annapolis. In order to develop without
being subject to traditional subdivision planning and zoning restrictions, which, for
example, require large turning radii and prohibit most mixed-use properties, mixed-used
development (MXD) was added to the local zoning code for Kentlands. The development
is configured on a traditional grid of intersecting streets and a village green. Main Street
features ground-floor commercial topped by residential units. Two commercial districts
located on the periphery of the development offer neighborhood-serving commercial
services, including grocery stores, banks, restaurants, and movies. Preserved wildlife
habitat and historic buildings contribute to the development’s character. Moderately high
density units conform to new urbanist design with sidewalks, minimum setbacks, front
porches, and alleyways where electrical, telephone and cable services are located. The
range of housing types attempts to retain residents throughout their lifecycle.
61
Suburban Isolation
All of the suburban types promised an antidote to the city that nurtured families and
fostered a purportedly healthy domesticity. And yet, despite this focus on the idealized
family, the suburbs have not delivered the ideal places that were promised.
The design of many suburbs dictates car ownership. Transportation planning that
subordinates pedestrian-oriented and public transit relative to automobile transit, and land
use planning that segregates business uses from retail from residential does the same.
Without a car, there are few job opportunities and few places to visit.
The dishes are dry, the beds are made, the children fresh and scrubbed,
and woman’s work is done until lunch and nap time. It is one minute
before 11 A.M. What lilting air will Mary sing? Specifically, what is there
to do with her free time in Rolling Knolls? She can take her children out to
play. Only this, and nothing more. And where will she take them? Why –
to the front lawn, of course. There is no other place. There is no park in
Rolling Knolls or near it. There is no school- or churchyard, no
community center. The shopping center is two miles away; the bus stop,
one mile away. (Keats 1957, 50-51).
Even access to nature, for which the suburbs were originally praised, falls short. The
suburbs might have lauded nature, but they were more about family morality, as in the
example of Lyon Village (Chapter 8) than either nature or children. The change in the
designed landscape that epitomized the suburbs facilitated living in a semi-natural setting
with ready access to trees, private lawns, and fresh air. Yet suburban development has
typically provided access to only a contrived form of nature, rather than facilitating
exploration of wild places.
62
Specifically, suburban development, as it has evolved, fails to meet the needs and
demands of youth. Rather than expanding the world of youth, suburban development
curtails their home range. In the name of safety, children are confined to single-family
backyards instead of exploring city blocks or neighborhoods. Travel to friends, to school,
or extracurricular activities is often dependent on mom or dad and a trip in the car.
Suburban youth are isolated not just from one another but also from the larger
community. Their world is limited to known entities. They suffer from a lack of
opportunities to feel connected, to participate in local government and civics, and
cultivate a personal identity that is tied to a larger good. There are few opportunities to
spontaneously engage others. This socially excluded, politically powerless,
geographically limited space is precisely what youth loathe (Chawla 2002, 11 and 228-
229, Lynch 1977).
The tradition of paying little overt attention to identifying or meeting the needs of youth
was possible in part because instead of integrating children’s issues into planning through
a participatory process, planners have focused, then and now, on an idealized, middle-
class family. Planning for children has subsequently been limited to alternately fostering
and accommodating the essentialized youth of this idealized family. This shortcoming
has begun to change. Select communities of all sizes and within all geographies have
undertaken efforts to include youth in planning and policy making efforts. Most of these
efforts focus on increasing the physical participation of youth, rather than increasing the
scope to include youth perspectives, but this too, is changing.
63
CHAPTER 4: YOUTH PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW
The perspectives of children have seldom been sought by planners and policy-makers.
One reason planning has not traditionally considered the needs and demands of children
is the essentialized ideal of childhood underlying planning. As a result, planners created
only limited venues for youth participation. This situation is changing. Jurisdictions
throughout the United States have begun to incorporate youth participation. Most
emerging venues for involvement focus on providing youth or children a physical role in
the planning process, from sitting on an advisory board to creating their own plans or
plan elements. While some youth may be representative of their peers, there is no
essentialized or monolithic child that can speak for all young people. There never has
been. Moreover, these efforts toward inclusive participation, while laudable, sidestep the
challenge of ascertaining differences between how children, or youth and adults interpret
their environment. One important value of multiple youth perspectives, not typically
included in these processes, is that they may come from places other than the historic
middle-class, adultist planning hegemony. This chapter will discuss two
conceptualizations of youth participation, review a selection of planning or policy
programs that directly involve children and/or youth, and contrast these techniques with a
kindered approach.
Involving Children in Planning
Children are involved in planning in two primary ways. The first is to increase their
actual physical participation in the planning process. One useful way to conceptualize
64
the range of potential youth involvement in planning and other processes is via Roger
Hart’s Ladder of Young People’s Participation, based on Sherry Arnstein’s (1969)
original participation model. The lowest three stage of child involvement are pretty self-
explanatory and clearly limit youth involvement to as superficial level: manipulation;
decoration; and tokenism. The fourth to eighth levels represent more active participation,
including: assigned but informed, wherein the child has limited involvement but
understands the process and focus; consulted and informed, essentially structured by
adults, as in studies of children; adult-initiated, but including shared decision-making,
albeit usually only at the concept rather than the implementation phase; child-initiated
and directed; and child-initiated with shared decision making [with adults], and therefore
implied trust in adults (Arnstein 1969; Hart 1997; Mullahey et al 1999, 9-11). It is these
last five levels, in particular the last three levels that represent useful ways to involve
children in planning.
The second way of involving children in planning is to consider their viewpoint, or way
of seeing the world, and incorporate this viewpoint into planning decisions. This second
method is particularly interesting, because taking a child’s perspective, or what I have
called kindering, moves beyond merely advocating for children. It represents both
reshaping the city to make it better for children, but also using a child’s perspective to
rethink conventional approaches to planning. Applying a child’s perspective to policy
and planning better informs these fields, and transcends barriers that impact children as
well as adults, such as language and mobility. Specific spatial and other traits illustrate
the differences between adult and children’s perspectives, and highlight applications for
65
planning: children’s relative freedom of expression and feeling posits a path for more
appealing and better-used space; their artistic expression suggests improved methods for
public communication and signage; and their spatial and cognitive viewpoints call for
creation of third places, for unstructured areas, and suggest improved wayfinding
methods for adults. Kindering also addresses the issue of assuming a monolithic child,
critical in considering practical examples of participation. Kindering focuses on the
perspective, implicitly recognizing great variability with time and place, not to mention
among children. For example, in a survey of 10-14 year olds in London and nearby
Newtown, the child residents of the two communities interpreted similar features very
differently. The urban children felt streets were frighteningly unsafe; while the suburban
youth were anxious and frightened by the underpasses created to allow safe road
crossings (Children 5-16 Research Briefing 2000).
Examples of Attempts to Physically Involve Children in Planning
Several concrete examples of active attempts to increase children’s participation in the
planning process have emerged. Generally, they were pursued to: increase citizen
participation, in particular children’s participation; broaden the scope of views in order to
improve decision-making; and get children interested and involved in planning. Virtually
all of the following examples represent the medium-high levels on Hart’s Ladder. They
are mostly adult-initiated with shared decision-making. In a few cases, they are somewhat
child-initiated and developed. The child’s or youth’s involvement and scope for input is
very narrow. No concrete examples of attempting to incorporate a child’s perspective has
66
yet developed. It represents a linking of the theoretical – epistemology – with the
practical day-to-day work of planners. Although such an approach would potentially be
pursued in order to better inform planning for children and others, it has probably never
been seriously considered in the scope of a practicing planner’s work.
Costa Mesa, California’s Advisory Committee of Teens (ACT) was created in 1997.
Youth committee members ages 14-18 are appointed for 2-year terms by the Community
Agency Child Care Youth Committee. ACT provides input and advises on youth issues
to the city council staff and community. ACT also plans and sponsors community
projects each school year, such as neighborhood clean-ups and volunteer assistance at
charity events. This youth involvement was sought in keeping with the City’s premise
that a healthy community means broad citizen participation to implement physical, social
and environmental health (Gonzalez 2000).
Kramer Junior High School in the historically black Anacostia neighborhood in
Washington D.C. worked with visiting planners and university faculty to educate students
about basic planning skills, followed by application of skills to specific projects. In
1991-92 the class focused on redevelopment ideas for a neighborhood parking lot, which
they presented to the lot’s owner. Youth involvement was pursued in light of the belief
that youth views can be valuable insights for planning, and can facilitate youth
involvement (Race and Torma 1998, 16-17).
In 1995-96 the City of Lemon Grove, California worked with consultants to develop a
participatory planning venue for local 5th graders. Goals included teaching children
67
about planning and increasing their involvement in the local planning process. Over
three sessions, planners explained the concepts of planning and land use, and surveyed
students for suggestions to improve the city. The result was greater involvement by the
participating students as well as their parents in updating the City’s General Plan, and
creation of a Kids Element component to the Plan (Mullahey 1999, 17-18; Race and
Torma 1998, 24-26).
In 1991, Seattle Kids Place, a children’s lobby, organized three youth summits in order to
provide a forum for children and teens to express issues of concern. One result was the
creation of Seattle Youth Involvement Network (SYIN) to give voice for kids from
elementary to high school age and discuss education, neighborhood, and city issues.
Ultimately SYIN expanded to serve as a clearinghouse for youth programs and youth
training and volunteer opportunities, and to support youth initiatives in community
planning. SYIN also creates, implements, and evaluates youth surveys for area
comprehensive plans (Mullahey 1999, 19-23).
Ke Ala Hoku (“charting the course”) was begun in Hawaii in 1995 to use benchmarking,
or the use of specific outcomes to develop community, and gauge progress towards
desired community development. The program solicited youth to describe the Hawaii
they wanted to live in. These vision statements were categorized and analyzed, and
indicators generated. Adult and Youth Steering Committees monitor the project progress
and develop neighborhood-level indicators. Youth members are selected by their peers
statewide, and in turn convene youth meetings throughout Hawaii to develop surveys for
youth and present results, undertake youth mapping of neighborhoods, oversee grants
68
made to youth groups to encourage volunteerism. Ke Ala Hoku derives from the idea
that giving youth a greater voice results in youth to take on responsibilities and engage as
citizens collaboratively, and bring new perspective to policy-setting discussions
(Mullahey 1999, 55-59).
Toronto’s Young People’s Advisory Board was established by the City Council in 1992
via recommendation by the Toronto Planning and Development Department, as a direct
opportunity for youth aged 12-24 to learn planning and policy and to provide some
creative problem solving skills to the Council. Board membership was constructed to
represent local youth broadly, including 2 youth in care, 2 street youth, a youth worker,
and youth of various ages/grade levels, as well as representatives from the schools and
youth care organizations. Ongoing surveys of youth attitude and opinion support broad
views, foster civic participation, consider politics’ impacts on youth. In 1998 this Board
was replaced with two separate boards, the Children and Youth Committee, composed of
mostly adults involved in and concerned with issues of child well-being, and the Youth
Cabinet to directly represent the diverse youth population of the city and lobby on issues
(Mullahey 1999, 63-66).
The El Arco Iris and Youth Power group created a manual for 10-19 year olds to use to
improve their communities, step-by-step. The book uses examples from El Arco Iris
Youth and Community Arts work in South Holyoke, Massachusetts as illustrations,
including youth slide show participation with local open space committee to highlight
types of desirable and undesirable open space. The premise is that getting young people
directly involved increases understanding and team building, promotes citizenship and
69
leadership, improves environmental awareness and sense of efficacy (Urban Places
Project 2000). An early project that participating youth selected was refurbishing a
neglected playground. Donated materials, volunteer labor, and public funds were
budgeted. This comprehensive community investment has been considered a key to the
playground’s continued good condition. This physical project has provided a foundation
upon which the participating youth can reflect and built (McKeggie 2000).
Examples of Kindering
But what do children really want in their community? If they could define the issues to
address, what would they be? How would they do it? Fewer examples of kindering, or
taking a child’s perspective in order to improve knowledge were identified. Those that
come closest allow the child or youth a more comprehensive, less time- or role-delimited
involvement in the opportunity or activity. The participating youth can rightly be
considered valuable labor. Consider two examples.
The New Mexico Watershed Watch (NMWW) is a student fisheries and ecosystem
monitoring program of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Participating
schools adopt their local watersheds and teachers and students learn hands-on how to
monitor local water quality and watershed health, impacts of land use, and
interdisciplinary study. They take measurements, write reports, and make presentations
(Fleming and Schrader, no date). The holistic approach of the project allows students
opportunities to pose research questions, and see the full effect of their actions.
70
A similar long-term stewardship effort is fostered in South Bronx’s Rocking the Boat
program. Predominantly low-income urban teens get high school credit (and later can
work as paid apprentices) building wooden rowboats they ultimately use to monitor the
Bronx River. The boats are built from wood from trees the youth identify and cut down
and mill. In the River they take water samples and plant stabilizing marsh grasses and
monitor the levels of invasive species. (Strickland 2005).
Both Rocking the Boat and the NMWW depend on the labor of youth, making their
participation invaluable. And both involve a range of youth in the entire process, not a
segmented phase. Similarly, youth in these programs are not merely voting on, or voicing
an opinion on an issue articulated by a professional planner or politician. Youth frame the
problem as well as address it.
Growing numbers of other programs – not necessarily planning-oriented – actively seek
the perspective of youth. Fotokids is a program that teaches poor youth in Guatemala and
Honduras to express themselves through photographs. It originated with Nancy McGirr, a
news photographer who has lived and worked in Central America, covering the region’s
civil wars, since 1983. Students in Fotokids take photographs ranging from streetscapes
to portraits. Their work has been sold as postcards, used in advertising campaigns, and
featured in exhibits in Britain, Germany and Spain. Allowing children both the skills and
the opportunity to express themselves not only informs a broader view of the world, but
expands the world for the participating youth. Funds generated from sales are used to
attend school. One graduate is about to begin art school (Gonzalez 2003).
71
110 Degrees is a new magazine about local lives in Tucson neighborhoods. It is
published by a local nonprofit that trains youth to tell their own stories, and to document
those of others. Local teens are employed at minimum wage jobs as writers and reporters.
In addition to the magazine, the participating youth helped document oral histories of
their own neighborhood. Their voices are thus permanently incorporated into the
collective voice of the community. These teens learn about their community, gain skills,
and gain self-esteem and options for their future (Eisele 2001).
Some specific suggestions for tapping into a child’s perspective as a way to improve
physical space and design planning include: using symbols to identify building and place
purposes, such as a giant book for library, placing signage at child’s eye height (about 2
½ feet from the floor), incorporating three-dimensional models of public places such as
shopping malls, and using patterns with lights or floor tiles to designate specific
pathways, such as exits within a large building. Some suggestions for community
development or social planning include using models of the human body to help identify
physical ailments, adding kinesthetic movements that mimic physical motions when
training for specific tasks or activities, and modeling rather than simply stating desired
behavior and actions (Gearin 2000).
Implications of Involving Children in Planning for Planners and Policymakers
It may be relatively easy as well as politically acceptable to universalize some of the
examples of child or youth participation. Yet the reported levels of participation remain
fundamentally tokenistic. At a more fundamental level, universalizing a tolerance for
72
different perspectives, suggested by the kindering examples, may be more difficult, yet
more far-reaching in the long-term. But kindering is about including a child’s
perspective, not excluding others. This universalization in ideology, rather than practice,
goes beyond simply adding children to the participation mix. It calls for understanding
and embracing different epistemologies, or ways of knowing as a venue to improved
knowledge.
One implication for planners and policymakers is an explicit venue for tying theory to
practice and broadening knowledge. Involving children in planning, and in particular,
recognizing the kindering concept chips away at planning’s foundation of traditional
sources of knowledge. Such a relativist view could move planners beyond the current
narrow epistemology, in a way that acknowledges personal history, culture, ethnicity,
social, and linguistic background, even gender and age. An enormous benefit of such an
approach is its ability to change with inevitably changing populations, such as
populations undergoing ethnic shifts or aging. This responsiveness also addresses the
goals and aims of meeting the needs of the community, for planners must first be able to
communicate with a given population in order to collaboratively identify need specific to
place and time (Gearin 2000).
Beyond this, children are intrinsically important and underrepresented. Without their
own declarations, we know what they need or want in their environment only with
difficulty. Children’s own perspectives, derived via direct involvement and kindering,
would prove valuable in this exercise. Consider what we do know. Both adults and
children agree that children need to feel integrated into their community (Aries 1977,
73
Childress 2000, Cobb 1977, Garbarino 1985, Gutenschwager 1995, Jacobs 1961, Ward
1978). Kindering offers one way.
74
PART II – EV ALUATING COMMUNITIES FOR CHILD-FRIENDLINESS
In Part II, I outline a tool that operationalizes the inclusion of youth systematically into
planning. I take the epistemology I introduced earlier, kindering, and codify it into an
assessment model. This model facilitates both expanding sources of knowledge, which
planners want, as well as developing a community that incorporates the expressed needs
of youth.
There is much discussion about making our neighborhoods child or youth-friendly, yet
little objective assessment of this characteristic. In order to begin to determine the extent
to which communities are kindered, or designed with a child or youth’s perspective, I
analyzed three communities in the Washington, D.C. region that were each historically
planned for families with children: the immediate pre-war neighborhood of Lyon Village
in North Arlington County, Virginia; the Lake Anne district in the planned community of
Reston, Virginia; and the new urbanist community of Kentlands, located in Gaithersburg,
Maryland.
The communities share many common general characteristics, such as climate and
topography, yet differ with regard to physical planning and design. The model considers
criteria youth identify as important in their community, including opportunities to
connect with each other and the larger community, valued participation in community
life, and access to public parks and other public green space. Evaluation of these
applications suggests proactive strategies interested communities can incorporate into
their efforts to become more youth-friendly.
75
What I find is twofold. Application of the model provides a picture of youth life in a
given community. The model queries for relevant data and analyzes characteristics
important to youth. Because it works as a tool to integrate the voices and perspectives of
youth into planning, it provides a starting point for integrating what youth want in their
communities into the planning realm, and for determining how well communities meet
the needs of local youth.
Second, the model application results suggest that planners should have multiple
approaches to improve upon youth-friendliness. They are not limited to designing
communities from whole-cloth, nor strictly adhering to a particular urban design model in
order to increase child and youth-friendliness in their community. Rather, focused efforts
in the areas identified as of greatest concern to youth are more likely to yield results.
76
CHAPTER 5: METHODS
In this chapter, I introduce a method to determine how well communities serve their
youth. I take a child-based perspective, kindering, to identify what youth seek in their
ideal environment. I review what has been undertaken to address this need, and I assess
the disparity. To that end, I design a modern indicator-based model to assess child-
friendliness in neighborhoods. While other indices evaluate areas on a city or regional
basis, the geographic constraints relevant to children and youth are smaller, and this
model applies data at a neighborhood level. This child-friendly model borrows from and
builds on successful community indicator programs in North America to create an index
focused on the needs of youth. Moreover, this model sidesteps the subsumed middle-class
values of other assessment projects and focuses on the self-identified needs of global
youth.
Methodology Overview
First I compiled the literature regarding what youth seek in the community. There are two
major sources for this. One is the unified long-term global studies of UNICEF that
directly query youth for the characteristics they seek in their communities. The other is
the body of numerous independent academic studies focusing on specific needs of youth
within a community, such as mobility, safety, or clean water. Next I reviewed indicators
in planning. This process included an historical overview, a consideration of the
traditional and current limitations of indicators, and an audit of existing indicator or
similar community evaluation programs. This review updated my knowledge of
77
indicators, including highlighting successful indicator efforts and suggesting venues to
improve community evaluation approaches; and it also confirmed a perceived gap in the
literature. There are no programs in place to evaluate the friendliness of a community to
its local children and youth. The third step I took in devising methodology addressed the
gap in the research. I created a model to assess the youth-friendliness of a community
from a largely youth perspective. I paired indicators from successful community
evaluation programs with the identified needs of youth. In some instances I needed to
look farther than the audited evaluation programs in order to identify a potential indicator
or proxy. This coordination of youth needs with indicators and proxies is outlined in the
Summary Table of Indicators. Finally, I applied the model to three Washington D.C.
communities. The results of this application are discussed in the following chapter.
What Youth Want
Characteristics of desirable communities, as defined by children and youth, were
identified through two major sources. The UNESCO Growing Up in Cities projects of the
1970s and 1990s generated a list of characteristics, as identified by children in a range of
global settings
7
that describe a desirable place to grow up – a child-friendly place. These
7
Buenos Aires, Melbourne Australia, Northampton UK, Bangalore, Trondheim Norway, Warsaw,
Johannesburg and Oakland California
78
researchers worked in several different countries and queried for how youth used their
environment and what youth sought. They employed a variety of research tools, including
interviews with youth, including tours led by these youth and discussion groups,
interviews with parents, direct observation of youth, and interviews with urban planners.
In addition to provision of basic needs such as clean water, enough food to eat, and good
health, youth seek social integration, cohesive community identity, peer gathering places,
varied activity settings, safe green spaces, a tradition of self-help, and security of tenure.
Relatedly, negative characteristics include social exclusion of children, stigma, violence
and crime, heavy traffic, lack of gathering places, lack of varied activity settings,
boredom, trash and litter, lack of provision for basic needs, insecure tenure, and political
powerlessness (Chawla 2002, 11 and 228-229, Lynch 1977). The coordinated work of
these two studies provided a major impetus for this research.
Independent scholars support the importance of these community characteristics to
children and youth. Youth highly value friends and actively seek places to be with peers
and share a ‘sense of identity’ (Woolley et al 1999, 28). A central theme expressed in
youth questionnaires is for “more kids’ areas – places where you do not need to have an
adult with you” (Woolley et al 1999, 276). Youth want places where they can interact
with peers, and places where they can find solitude (Aitken 2001, Childress 2000).
Similarly, children and youth need opportunities to connect with each other and with the
larger community in order to develop environmental awareness and social interaction
skills and maintain social networks. They need hangouts. Increasingly isolated youth
search for meaning and their role within their carefully circumscribed experience and
79
world (Aitken 2001). Allowing youth to navigate their own worlds and explore develops
a sense of competence and independence (Bartlett et al 1999, Katz 1998). Children’s
freedom to explore their local community is critical to their growing sense of
membership in that community (Tranter and Pawson 2001). “Primarily, the neighborhood
is the place where children are brought up to become members of their own society.
Inevitably, within a neighborhood, children encounter various older adults, from whose
experience they learn how to adapt themselves to the kind of society into which they are
growing.” (Mead 1966). Providing children with a range to explore and develop social
experiences allows children and youth to form foundations for a lifetime of emotional
strength and resiliency.
Children and youth also seek adaptable space. Widely dispersed, diverse spaces
accessible to youth are believed to facilitate local exploration and fulfill youth needs to
develop positive attachments to local places (Chatterjee 2005). Scholars of child
development relative to physical environment caution against overdesigning spaces for
youth, and argue specifically for open undeveloped spaces available for youth and
improved safe access to places children seek: “traffic-free zones, pedestrian bridges,
tunnels and walkways to overcome barriers of major traffic arteries…safe, convenient
and efficient public transportation” (Wohlwill and Heft 1987, 320). Indeed, for play
children prefer the unprogrammed spaces of streets, sidewalks, alleyways and vacant and
undeveloped land (Bartlett 1999, Abu-Ghazzeh 1998, Wilhjelm 1995).
Children and youth also seek access to green spaces and nature, although it is frequently
denied them (Kahn and Kellert 2002, Nabhan and Trimble 1994, Hart 1979). Youth want
80
to explore their own communities (Tranter and Pawson 2001), including nature and wild
places (Nabhan and Trimble 1994, Myers 1998). Recent studies credit green space with
providing physical health benefits such as opportunities for walking, cycling, and
gardening to combat the serious health problems of an increasingly sedentary urban
lifestyle (World Health Organization 1997); post-activity reduction of ADD behavior in
children with ADD (Taylor et al. 2001); mental rejuvenation when patients are provided a
view of the natural environment (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989); reduced stress levels as a
result of simply envisioning natural settings (Olds 1987), reduced aggression and
violence for residents of greened buildings (Kuo and Sullivan 2001), and decreased
mental fatigue for public housing residents in green surroundings (Kuo 2001).
Children and youth also want to feel heard. They especially seek opportunities for social
integration and participation in their environment, and to have their opinions valued
(Malone 2001, Woolley et al 1999, Hart 1999, Matthews 1992). When asked if they
thought anyone would take notice of a report considering youth opinions towards town
centers, they responded “No because we are young and people don’t take any notice” and
“No because people think that young people don’t know anything” (Woolley et al 1999,
279). In that study, the authors call for, among other things, inclusion of youth in
planning and decision-making processes for their communities. Additional research
shows that youth who participate in community service projects develop civic identity
and are more likely, as adults, to vote and participate in community organizations
(Youniss et al 1997).
81
Planning Theory and Indicators
Next, indicators were reviewed as a potential tool for community evaluation. Indicators
were selected because they have a long history in city and regional planning, and they are
rooted in planning theory. In practice, indicator models have been used to facilitate
community efforts to identify and meet residents' needs, and are comparable over time
and across jurisdictions. They have also become relatively inexpensive and easy to
implement, making them an increasingly popular tool for planners.
A published review of community indicator efforts begins with “…the need to set
priorities and the desire to take actions toward a desired future are at the heart of all these
indicator projects” (Besleme and Mullin 1997). This description aptly characterizes the
work of city planners, who seek to direct and improve the communities each represents. It
also correctly suggests that indicators are social constructions. The identification, or
operationalization of any indicator or proxy is biased by the researcher designing the
study.
Planners like indicators. In their work, planners are pragmatists, relating theory to
practice. Planners are also empiricists, defining the source of knowledge as dispassionate
observation. If a theory can be considered as the underlying principles used to explain
and predict outcomes, then indicators represent an implementation of theory, an
operational definition, so to speak. Social indicators are a tool for planners that unite
pragmatism’s subjective, practical knowledge with empiricism’s knowledge from
observation and experience. Indicators provide a framework for information analysis.
82
Social indicators act as a tool for pragmatists – including city and regional planners -- to
better understand their environment. Consider two major points in the history of social
indicators. The Russell Sage Foundation surveys of 1910 were conducted during the
emergence of the field of planning, in a halcyon age for city development, after the
Chicago World’s Fair and before World War I and the Great Depression. The synthesis
of architecture and social planning connected with the predictive and explanatory science
of indicators, providing a blueprint, of sorts, for understanding cities. This understanding
was critical during the relatively rapid shift from urban to suburban culture and resultant
demands to define urban life.
Social indicators, as a tool of empiricism, also expand planning’s source of knowledge.
Empiricism links direct experience to understanding and truth. While planning has not
historically considered multiple perspectives, recent work argues for a comprehensive
history (Sandercock 1998). Specifically, it calls for consideration of the views of women
(Sandercock and Forsyth 1992) and the perspectives of immigrants (Sassen 1998).
Planning scholarship has demonstrated a similar need to consider the essential nature of
planning, both its people and its places; from its whiteness (Sandercock 1998, Peattie
1987); to its maleness (Spain, 2001, Hayden 1999). Indicators act as venues for
information. They can be structured to document status and changes in specific spaces,
such as daily ridership on a given bus route, as well as within specific subpopulations,
such as daily bus ridership by children traveling alone. Indicators provide an opportunity
to easily focus on specific subpopulations and parse out knowledge to represent
subpopulations as well as the population as a whole.
83
Current Indicator Use in Planning
Today’s indicator efforts tend to be multidimensional emphases on quality of life. (A
history of the use of indicators in planning is found in Appendix I). This state reflects an
understanding that disjointed measures, such as average income or housing starts are not
representative of community progress or health (Besleme and Mullin 1997) and that
historical measures such as unemployment rates, are incomplete indicators of community
health (Schneider 1997). These recent models also remedy earlier criticisms that the
indicator process focused too much on measurement and data, and less on assessment,
and understanding the value of the data (Innes 1990). More importantly, today’s indicator
movement situates indicators neatly within a toolbox of planning tools. Neither the
creation of indicators, nor the assessment of indicators over time, can justify public
policy – indicators simply provide a way to better understand the complexity of urban life
and roles that individual elements of life play in developing and maintaining healthy,
prosperous places.
Current programs tend to classify indicators into economic, social, and environmental
(and sometimes sustainability) categories, and emphasize performance and productivity
(Seasons 2003). Planners use indicators to raise awareness and spur discussion around
local concerns; measure progress towards goals; and assign accountability for program
performance (Paterson 2002). They are used to not only monitor, but catalyze change.
Indicators can be used to create a three-part system – describe baseline conditions, set
goals, and track changes over time. Current planning indicator projects are broad and
varied. A quick search of the web suggests indicator and other evaluation projects being
84
considered and implemented all over – small towns, metro areas, regions – looking at
physical health, water quality, etc. This prevalence of indicator models is attributable to
several factors: the increase in support for and understanding of the consequences of
sustainability (Mitra 2003); burgeoning numbers of successful indicator proponents at
grass-roots levels, spurred by businesses, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups
(Gahin and Paterson 2001); to technological advances in computer programs (i.e. GIS
and address matching programs); to systemic changes such as the collaboration of service
agencies and development of data intermediaries; and finally, to recognition for the need
for new strategies to alleviate social problems (Kingsley 1997).
There remain serious limitations to the use of indicators in planning. In the 1970s Darwin
Stuart published two Planning Advisory Service Reports (Stuart 1970, 1972) that
examined how urban planning was evaluated and focused on methodological constraints.
The first report looked at how the systems approach, borrowed from economics and
business administration, of identifying objectives and goals, identifying alternate
programs, predicting the relative effectiveness of each alternative, and evaluating each
alternative as applied to urban problems. The second report focused on how indicators,
specifically, could be used to assess community well-being, including change over time.
While Stuart acknowledged the value of using indicators to evaluate alternative proposed
programs for their greatest impact, he also noted critical issues. Urban goals, and
alternative plans and programs needed to be very well-defined for any effort to be
accurate. Second, data sources could bias outcomes. And third, the indicators themselves
demanded continual refinement. Moreover, in many cases, monitoring and evaluation are
85
the last and also the forgotten steps in the comprehensive planning process, due to cost,
time, and data issues (Seasons 2003). Indicators may represent a wonderful planning
concept, but their cost in terms of limited resources often renders them a low priority.
The more insidious limitation regarding community assessments, including indicator
programs, lies in planning’s ubiquitous reliance on middle-class values. The prior review
of the history of planning over the last century, especially planning for children
underscores this limitation. Planners and policymakers across the United States shared a
vision of well-behaved, moral, temperate citizen. This vaunted group followed
playground rules, espoused patriotism, worked hard, feared God, and ideally lived in the
suburbs. They adhered to middle-class values. Behavior was then and is still often judged
against this narrow ideal.
Audit of Community Assessment Projects
Despite their limitations, indicators or other assessments of place provide a valuable tool
to residents and planners. How are ideal neighborhoods defined? What makes a healthy,
or cohesive, or prosperous community? I have outlined the importance of children and
youth, and raised the question of whether their needs are met in the design of historical or
contemporary environments. In the discussion that follows I demonstrate a method for
assessing the youth-friendliness of communities, from creating a model to applying this
model to case study developments.
86
To understand how various jurisdictions use community indicators or similar evaluation
efforts currently, I audited successful efforts. My focus was on currently implemented
community evaluation programs with available documentation. I located references for
these through related research for this dissertation, including academic journal articles
and internet searches. In some cases the assessment program was available for review
online; in other instances I located published documents.
First, I first sought evaluations focused on the geographic scale I am interested in, the
neighborhood level. I reviewed five of the most current: the Community Assessment
Program (CAP) of Tigard, Oregon; the Richardson, Texas, Neighborhood Assessment
Program (NAP); the River Market Neighborhood Assessment Project (FOCUS), in
Kansas City, Missouri; the New Japantown Community Plan, San Francisco; and the
Portland, Maine City Council Neighborhood-Based Planning System.
The neighborhood level assessments consider relatively small geographic communities,
often sequentially, and they focus much more on urban planning and land use issues. The
communities are often defined via locally-identified boundaries, and thus correspond to
residents’ perceptions of their neighborhoods rather than to political or other boundaries.
Local residents work with public planning department staff to identify opportunities and
constraints for individual communities, incorporating rather localized knowledge into the
data collection as well as the goal prioritization stage. Perhaps because the scale is so
small and geographically limited, the process typically includes a physical review of the
area as well as group discussions of assets and needs. Areas for consideration are often
open-ended; there are seldom predetermined indicators. Goals and objectives are very
87
specific and focused on land use issues such as enforcing the public/ urban code, ensuring
more open space in local condominium developments, and providing more places to hang
out. The very localized set of indicators suggests that while a given jurisdiction may be
assessed over time with regard to local resident concerns, such a report may not be
replicable across multiple jurisdictions.
Next I surveyed for evaluations of youth and/or children’s health and safety. I reviewed
eight (the sum total of youth evaluations I identified at the time): the Tarrant County
Texas Community Assessment Children and Youth Component; the Choices on the
Edge: Maryvale Community Assessment; the Building Blocks Community Assessment:
A Blueprint for Community Change, the supplement to Choices on the Edge; the report
from the program On Good Authority: Combating Gang Violence in Chicago’s Little
Village Neighborhood; the Eagle County Cares Youth Survey; the Kid-Friendly Cities
Health Improvement Report Cards from Zero Population Growth (ZPG); the Annie E.
Casey Kids Count Data Book; and the FYSB/National Clearinghouse on Families Youth
report, Reconnecting Youth and Community.
The focus of the youth assessments is the subpopulation of youth, rather than a particular
geography or social focus, such as health. The geographical scale, however, is typically
very broad, ranging from a large city (population greater than 100,000) to a nation. In one
example, the geographical scale was a neighborhood within Chicago, with a
correspondingly narrow focus on reducing gang activity rather than youth overall. Most
of the youth assessments also focus exclusively on the problems of troubled youth, from
violent and aggressive behavior to teen pregnancy to gang activity. Statistical data
88
regarding characteristics such as education levels/ test score, high school graduation
rates, teen pregnancy rates, truancy rates, juvenile arrest rates, and infant mortality rates
are emphasized. There is little consideration of the ideal physical environment of youth.
Finally I reviewed additional assessments that did not specifically focus on youth or
children, or on the neighborhood level, but were representative of the greater assessment
movement. I refer to these as general assessments. These general assessments provide
additional examples regarding community evaluation opportunities and constraints. There
were many of these. I selected ones that were oft-cited as models to other efforts. I
reviewed eight of these general assessments: the Jacksonville Quality of Life Progress
Report, 2003; the Life in Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project (CAP); the
1997 text Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring with
25 proposed indicators for a Community Health Profile (CHP); the Mobilization for
Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP) Community Health Status
Assessment (CHSA); the Community Health Assessment and Report 2000-2001 through
the Michigan Department of Community Health; the United Way of Southwestern
Indiana 1999-2000 Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment: A Light for the
Community; the Oregon Benchmarks/Oregon Shines report; and the Burlington, Vermont
Legacy Project. The general assessments generally consider both a broad geographic
area, such as entire city or metropolitan region, and a broad set of variables. Their focus
is characterized as quality of life, or health-oriented, and sometimes both. Similarly their
population focus is general – while there may be a demographic breakdown, these
assessments focus on the population as a whole. Where the needs of specific groups are
89
considered, it is usually via a committee of experts. For example, the characteristics and
needs of teens are represented by experienced providers of services to teens, rather than
teens themselves. These assessments include a large number of indicators, from 25 to
more than 74. They consider such a broad array of issues, the indicators themselves are
classified into major broad categories that encompass a full range of urban social
concerns: education, economic development, preserving the natural environment,
providing arts and culture, ensuring diverse recreational opportunities, facilitating local
governance, maintaining safety, improving health of residents, providing housing, and
maintaining property – in short, healthy people and community benefits. The process
typically incorporates some sort of survey with statistical data; followed by in some cases
focus group discussions and modeling; and a traditional planning orientation of
prioritization via committee. The large size of these reports, in particular the enormous
number of indicators, suggests that these reports may not be replicable across
jurisdictions, or even within a single jurisdiction over time. It may simply be too costly or
time consuming to regularly evaluate the selected indicators. The focus on a
geographically broad area may be optimal for policy planning but it typically does not
address the variable needs of any particular subpopulation or neighborhood.
This audit provided familiarity with the assessment process and products to date. The
audit uncovered multiple issues with current community evaluation efforts. A primary
problem is that many of these programs do not employ indicators, per se. This includes
the Richardson Texas NAP, the Kansas City River Market Neighborhood Assessment
Project, the New Japantown Community Plan, the Portland Neighborhood Foundation
90
Plan Program, the Maryvale Community Assessment, the FYSB report, and the United
Way of Southwestern Indiana Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment. Instead
they focus on specific but not measured or measurable opportunities to better the
neighborhood, such as incorporating green space into new housing developments,
increased groundwater protection, and improved traffic safety. Some of the proposals
were creative, but not indicator-based, such as sponsoring a children’s film festival as a
way to develop a sense of community.
Others suffer limitations due to their data collection approach. Some specifically seek
information regarding current issues facing youth, but they query adults rather than youth
directly. This includes the Tarrant County, Texas Community Assessment Children and
Youth Component, the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, and the
Maryvale Community Assessment. A couple may not be replicable either in other
jurisdictions, or over time in their own jurisdiction simply due to size. The Jacksonville
study looked at 119 indicators, for example, and the MAPP CHSA used 25 core and 114
extended indicators!
Still others provide fascinating insights, but at levels too narrow, or scales too
geographically large, to best address the local community needs of youth. Chicago,
Illinois’ On Good Authority program focuses solely on gang violence in Chicago’s Little
Village neighborhood. Zero Population Growth (ZPG) considers characteristics of
children and youth at a major scale, cities with populations of 100,000 or greater; while
the Annie E. Casey Foundation similarly looks at national and state-level data.
91
Finally, the middle-class bias inherent to much planning and policymaking poses a
significant limitation in these assessments. To some extent, it predetermines results in
that what’s left out of the assessments may be just as, or more important that what is
included. Neighborhood assessments typically focused on land-use characteristics and
failed to consider social characteristics, such as community programs. Youth assessments
emphasize issues that truly affect youth, but also have a historically offended middle
class reformers – teen pregnancy rates, juvenile crime rates, drug use. General
assessments seem to focus on poverty levels, conjuring up the poor is bad refrain in
planning, from as early as the advent of the poor-house and place-based assistance.
Despite these limitations, the audit also highlighted validated indicators that may be
borrowed or modified and used to measure characteristics important to youth. These
include the following: the presence of maintained sidewalks (Community Assessment
Program of Tigard, OR); numbers of children threatened or hurt by other adults (Tarrant
County, TX); poverty rates (Maryvale, AZ, Eagle County, CO, Santa Cruz CAP, MAPP
CHSA, Oregon Benchmarks); juvenile crime rate (Maryvale AZ, Chicago, IL, Eagle
County, CO, Jacksonville, Santa Cruz CAP, Oregon Benchmarks); percent of births to
teens (ZPG, Annie E. Casey); percent low birthweight births (ZPG, Annie E. Casey,
Improving Health in the Community CHP): bad air days/air quality (ZPG, Jacksonville,
Santa Cruz CAP, Oregon Benchmarks): parks per 1000 persons (ZPG); immunization
rates (Annie E. Casey, Jacksonville, Santa Cruz CAP, Improving Health in the
Community CHP, Oregon Benchmarks); percent of children without health insurance/
access to health care (Annie E. Casey, Santa Cruz CAP, Michigan CHAI); infant
92
mortality (Annie E. Casey, Jacksonville, Oregon Benchmarks, ZPG); local river bacteria
standards compliance/water quality (Jacksonville, Santa Cruz CAP, Oregon
Benchmarks); child abuse reports (Jacksonville, Santa Cruz CAP, Improving Health in
the Community CHP, Oregon Benchmarks); hunger (Oregon Benchmarks); park acreage
(Oregon Benchmarks); numbers of youth among elected and appointed officials
(Burlington Vermont Legacy Project); and percent of residents within ¼ mile of open
space (Burlington Vermont Legacy Project).
Addressing a Gap in the Research
Most significantly, the audit uncovered a significant gap in knowledge in the community
assessment field. Although there are numerous neighborhood-level assessments and
several youth assessments, there are no models for a neighborhood level youth
assessment. My research addresses this specific gap. I propose a model that is both
situated within a neighborhood level geography and also focused on the subpopulation of
youth. While the neighborhood level assessments focused on land use and physical
planning issues, and the youth assessments consider social issues, the neighborhood level
youth assessment unites these and considers both the physical environment, as well as
key characteristics of the social environment. By listening to the voices of youth, both
from a long-term, global study of youth-identified desirable community characteristics as
well as independent scholars of youth, this model sidesteps bias of indicator
identification.
93
All Populations Children & Youth
Geographic Level
Population
City Neighborhood State Country
• Oregon Benchmarks
• Burlington VT Legacy Project
Missing
Research
Kid-Friendly Cities Health Improvement
Report Cards (ZPG)
• Tarrant County, TX
Community Assessment
Children & Youth Component
• Maryvale, AZ Community
Assessment for Youth and
Families
• Jacksonville, FL Quality of Life Progress Report (JCCI)
• Life in Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project
• United Way of SW Indiana Community Needs Assessment
• Annie E. Casey Kids Count Databook
• National Clearinghouse on Families
and Youth
• Community Assessment Program, Tigard, OR
• Richardson, TX Neighborhood Assessment Program
• New Japantown Community Plan, SF
• Portland, ME Neighborhood Based Planning System
All Populations Children & Youth All Populations Children & Youth
Geographic Level
Population
City Neighborhood State Country City Neighborhood State Country
• Oregon Benchmarks
• Burlington VT Legacy Project
Missing
Research
Kid-Friendly Cities Health Improvement
Report Cards (ZPG)
• Tarrant County, TX
Community Assessment
Children & Youth Component
• Maryvale, AZ Community
Assessment for Youth and
Families
• Jacksonville, FL Quality of Life Progress Report (JCCI)
• Life in Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project
• United Way of SW Indiana Community Needs Assessment
• Annie E. Casey Kids Count Databook
• National Clearinghouse on Families
and Youth
• Community Assessment Program, Tigard, OR
• Richardson, TX Neighborhood Assessment Program
• New Japantown Community Plan, SF
• Portland, ME Neighborhood Based Planning System
Figure 1. Current indicator programs by target population and geography.
The Child-Friendly Model – How Well do Communities Serve their Youth?
The neighborhood geography is so chosen because it represents the range of youth, who
are often constrained by lack of mobility. This geography is defined as smaller than a city
but larger than a few city blocks (Sawicki and Flynn 1996). While not all data is readily
available at this level, it is this level at which community development can be effectively
implemented (Kingsley 1997). The neighborhood is also the community youth are most
likely to experience on a regular basis, and as such it is the community with the most
potential to represent opportunities for or constraints to youth.
Such a model does not consider the broad needs of the population as a whole, in part
because planning typically provides for this broad population, and in part because
accommodating the needs of youth is likely to benefit the broader population. At the
same time, the proposed model does not focus exclusively on the needs of troubled youth.
94
While there is no monolithic ‘youth’, however, there is a key list of characteristics that
youth desire and need in a community, a list derived from the UNICEF studies and
independent scholars and described above, that can be defined as a relatively small set of
indicators. While these characteristics may vary slightly from one place to another, their
limited number makes this model somewhat replicable both across jurisdictions and over
time.
From What Youth Want to Child-Friendly Community Indicators
Reliable indicators were borrowed or modified from the audited community assessment
projects. In addition to the traditional economic and demographic indicators that provide
necessary descriptors of the population and local issues such as water quality, infant
mortality, and crime rates, this model expanded the assessment scope to consider other
characteristics that impact everyday living conditions for youth in particular. This
includes such issues as pedestrian access and sense of welcome. Considering these
additional community aspects coordinates with the list of attributes youth seek in their
community, and provide a picture of how a community is regularly experienced the
population as a whole. How easy is it to get around? How does it appeal to residents or
visitors? Understanding how youth experience their community is critical to evaluating
how well the community meets their needs, from their desire for clean water and access
to parks, to their demand to interact with each other and with adults. Hence, additional
indicators were sought or devised to measure these additional characteristics.
95
To measure pedestrian friendliness I borrowed from the City of Richmond, British
Columbia. In the Urban Development Division’s local program, the length and
proportion of major streets that meet a minimum standard of a sidewalk on one or both
sides is calculated. (The city has a new standard, the length and proportion of all streets
where the street and sidewalk are separated by a tree boulevard or row of parking to
reduce noise and improve pedestrian safety). The impetus for Richmond was to increase
modes of transport other than auto traffic, for which the city, like most, was designed.
From the period from 1990 to 1997, the city used this indicator to increase the total
length of roads meeting this standard by 43 percent. Richmond focused on this indicator
because it united issues of transportation, health, environment and society into a visible
effort with short- and long-term benefits (www.cityofrichmond.bc.ca)
Similarly, to assess friendliness, or a sense of welcome, I borrowed from the Seward
Neighborhood Group of Minneapolis. Friendly spaces are characterized as those that
encourage walking through the neighborhood and that indicate the neighborhood is
friendly and safe. A tally is created using the following point system: a home with a
porch or deck receives 5 points; a birdhouse or birdfeeder is 5 points; a driveway
basketball hoop 5 points; a porch swing, windsock, or flag is 2 points; boulevard garden
or bench, 10 points; dedicated sports areas, such as volleyball or tennis court, playground,
or boat moorings, 25 points; mural or other public art 25 points; picnic tables or benches,
rest rooms and fountains, 25 points; community bulletin board 8 points; community
garden, 60 points (Meter 1999).
96
Next, using kindering, or the idea of taking a child’s perspective, I organized key
demands of youth into five categories applicable to planning and policy-making. These
categories illustrate how youth might experience, or alternately, be limited in
experiencing their world: mobility, destinations, community of youth, health, and safety.
Then, these two indicators, sidewalk prevalence and friendliness tallies, as well as those
borrowed and modified from the audited projects were compiled. The set of indicators
was applied to each of the three case communities to assess their child-friendliness.
Planning visionaries have long held that well-planned development offered not just a
physical but a social community. Considering the works of Lewis Mumford and Frank
Lloyd Wright, Emily Talen has written “Translated into the physical goals of the planned
community, this has meant that the need for communal facilities, civic spirit, social
integration, proximity to nature, recreational facilities, public transportation, and easily
accessible daily life needs have all been part and parcel of the planned community ethos.”
(Talen 2005, 188). Limited recent research suggests people do have higher social capital
because of friendliness indicators. A survey of almost 1200 people in 3 Portland, Oregon
neighborhoods uncovered higher levels of perceived friendliness in new urbanist-style
neighborhoods compared to non-new urbanist neighborhoods (Podobnik 2002). ‘Social
capital may be represented by trust, knowing one’s neighbors, contacting elected
officials, participating in a protest, similarity in values among neighbors, perceived
community friendliness, and voting in elections “ (Forsyth 2007, p4). The results of these
applications are discussed in Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
97
Within each category, one or more indicators were identified or formulated to measure
the degree to which communities meet the needs of its youth. These are discussed in turn,
below.
Mobility -- The first category considers youth mobility within their neighborhood. How
do children and youth get around? Does the community provide the necessary expandable
range of youth? Do youth have opportunities to cross paths with each other and their
larger community?
This may be approximated with physically navigable communities. The mobility
category considers walkability, including the proportion of streets with maintained
sidewalks (and comfortable topography and climate), prevalence of bike lanes and bike
racks at destinations, and other modes of transportation accessible to young people,
including public transit. Pedestrian-friendly streets are those with a sidewalk on one or
both sides. The number of streets with and without sidewalks on either or both sides was
surveyed over three consecutive weeks in April 2005 and mapped in GIS. The mile
count of bike lanes in each community was counted. Alternate sources of mobility were
identified and evaluated, including public transit. Topography and climate were
discussed.
Destinations -- The second category considers destinations for youth. Where do children
and youth go? Are there varied opportunities to physically connect with others, peers and
adults? This category identifies formal and informal youth gathering spaces, public
spaces that do not purposely or otherwise exclude youth and children, including green
98
and other undeveloped natural spaces available to youth, and institutional spaces for
youth and others such as public recreation sites (community pools, skating rinks,
basketball courts, etc). as well as schools and libraries. In sum, do youth have
opportunities to connect with others, to observe others? I mapped the number of
households that live within ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1 mile of local primary schools
(elementary, middle and high-school); the number of households within ¼ mile, ½ mile,
and 1 mile of playgrounds, parks or other public undeveloped natural spaces; and the
number that live within ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1 mile of other public destinations, such as
shopping centers, coffee shops, recreation centers, libraries, and malls.
Sense of Belonging --The third category focuses on the perceived community of youth.
Do they feel a sense of belonging in the community? Are there opportunities to observe
positive role models, develop mentors, and engage with their community? This category
considers the numbers of other people visible in the community, including both residents
and visitors to the community. It also considers general indicators of friendliness and
welcome such as front porches, flags, and public benches. Finally, this category
encompasses a brief discussion of local efforts made to incorporate youth participation
into broader efforts to improve the community, such as youth-led efforts, adult-led efforts
with youth participation, and advisory bodies for youth. Indicators employed include a
99
tally system of friendliness indicators, such as a windsock, flag, or birdhouse that suggest
a neighborhood is welcoming and safe; and a discussion of efforts to incorporate youth
participation. In addition to creating and evaluating friendliness tallies, efforts to involve
local youth in participation in local governance were identified and discussed.
8
While it is
difficult to determine how youth engage in self-governance or impacting their
community, evidence of such involvement might follow the form of an advisory position
on an information gathering or policy-making body. The measurement, then, would be
more of a ‘yes, formalized local involvement’ or ‘no, no formalized local involvement.’ I
physically searched for organizations that include local youth, and called local planning
departments for such information.
Health -- The fourth category focuses on the health of youth in the community. Are they
physically healthy? Physical health is evaluated in terms of access to regular medical care
as determined by number of children with insurance,
9
infant mortality and teen pregnancy
8
Youth participation may include efforts such as those of Costa Mesa, California’s Advisory Committee of
Teens (ACT), created in 1997, made up of youth committee members ages 14-18 to advise on youth issues
to the city council staff and community (Gonzales 2000); the work of visiting planners with students at
Kramer Junior High School, in the historically black Anacostia neighborhood in Washington D.C., to apply
basic planning skills to specific projects (Race and Torma 1998, 16-17); Seattle Kids Place, a children’s
lobby, which in 1991 organized three youth summits in order to provide a forum for children and teens to
express issues of concern (Mullahey 1999, 19-23); and the El Arco Iris and Youth Power group, in South
Holyoke, Massachusetts, which has created a manual for 10-19 year olds to use to improve their
communities, step-by-step (Urban Places Project 2000).
9
The number of children with insurance is recorded by State departments of health.
100
rates,
10
and immunization rates;
11
as well as estimated via access to ample, quality food;
12
and the number and proportion of households living at or below the federal poverty
line.
13
Local air quality is determined as the number of days a jurisdiction meets or
exceeds EPA-established standards.
14
Local water quality is determined as a function of
safe drinking water violations, fish consumption advisories, nonpoint source pollution,
and status of waters not supporting their designated uses.
15
Proximity to high-traffic
10
Infant mortality and teen pregnancy rates are recorded by Counties.
11
Both counties and states record immunization rates.
12
The number of households living within ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1 mile of one or more full-service quality
grocery stores was calculated and mapped in GIS.
13
The number of households living at or below the poverty line is available at block group level from the
U.S. Census.
14
The number of days a jurisdiction meets or exceeds EPA-established standards can be assessed
electronically. EPA sets limits to protect people and the environment, and tracks air quality levels annually.
It has determined national air quality standards for six primary air pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). NO2,
SO2, CO, and Pb are emitted from a variety of sources; ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic
compounds react; and PM are both emitted and the product of other gases reacting. EPA estimates
emissions based on monitored readings and formulas. The Air Quality Index is divided into six categories:
good (0-50), wherein pollution poses little risk; moderate (51-100), wherein air quality is generally
acceptable but some pollutants may pose a health problem for unusually sensitive individuals; unhealthy
for sensitive groups (101-150), wherein certain groups but not the general population are known to be
affected by pollutants at these levels; unhealthy (151-200), wherein everyone may experience ill health
effects; very unhealthy (201-300), everyone likely to experience more serious health effects; and hazardous
(over 300), considered to be emergency conditions. The EPA monitors the number of days with overall Air
Quality Index values greater than 100 at about 90 metropolitan areas throughout the United States. Thirty-
two trend sites provide data to analyze the Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as a whole (compared with 2 for San Antonio, Texas, and 55 for Los
Angeles- Long Beach, California).
15
The counties within which the case communities are located post their annual reports directly to the web.
Both Arlington County (Lyon Village) and Fairfax County, Virginia (Lake Anne Village in Reston)
maintain their own water quality bureaus. Montgomery County, Maryland (Kentlands) obtains its water
101
areas is noted for its correlation with incidence of asthma;
16
as was proximity to
Superfund and EPA-designated brownfield sites.
17
Emotional health is considered in terms of proportion of stable, two-parent households,
18
and the presence of service and other institutions designed to improve the emotional well-
being of local youth.
19
Safety -- The final category considers overall safety for youth. Are children and youth
safe? Do they feel safe? The general crime rate for an area, as well as the youth crime
rate, the physical and sexual abuse rate, and the number of registered sex offenders within
the community were identified. Domestic abuse rates, juvenile arrest rates, and youth
alcohol/drug use rates are available at the wider county level and do not illuminate the
conditions within the localized neighborhoods. Local crime blotter data is available
online and can be plotted by type of crime and address.
from the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). These reports comply with EPA
standards and formats and provide comparable information regarding drinking water contaminants. Actual
data is obtained through regulating water provided by the water authorities, at their facilities, and through
testing at water taps, ensuring evaluation of the entire water system.
16
The number of households living within 300 feet of a major arterial highway was calculated .
17
The status of federal Superfund sites is maintained by the EPA and accessible online, sorted by zip code.
18
The number and proportion of two-parent households was calculated from 2000 U.S. Census block level
data.
19
The number of institutions which focus on the provision of services to improve the lives of local youth
was calculated.
102
Youth Want Indicator or Proxy Source Measurement
Clean Water Local river bacteria
standards compliance
Potable water
Jacksonville Quality of Life Progress
Report (JCCI)
Oregon Shines
Compliance with federal
EPA standards
Ample Food Children in poverty
Poverty rate
Household income
Annie E. Casey, Mobilization for
Action through Planning and
Partnerships (MAPP)
Maryvale AZ Building Blocks
Community Assessment (BBCA),
Eagle County CO, Santa Cruz
County Community Assessment
Project (CAP), Oregon Shines
Annie E. Casey
Percentage of children in
households at or below
the federal poverty line
Percentage of
households at or below
median income
Household income level
Good Health Access to medical care
Infant mortality rates
Births to teens
Immunization rates
Santa Cruz County CAP, Michigan
Community Health Assessment and
Improvement (CHAI),JCCI, Oregon
Shines
Zero Population Growth (ZPG),
Michigan CHAI
ZPG, Annie E. Casey
Annie E. Casey, JCCI, Santa Cruz
County CAP, CHP, Oregon Shines
Numbers of children
with health insurance
Infant mortality rate
Rate of births to teenage
mothers
Immunization rate
Social
Integration
Mobility – sidewalk
maintenance
Tigard, OR Community Assessment
Program (CAP)
Percentage of streets
with well-maintained
sidewalks (no trip
hazards, no vegetation
blocking sidewalks)
Cohesive
Community
Identification
Friendliness
Prevalence of bike
lanes
Accessible public
transit
Seward Neighborhood Group, MN Tally of visible
characteristics with
assigned point values
Percentage of streets
with bike lanes
Bus or metro
Peer
Gathering
Spaces
Geographic proximity
to schools, playgrounds,
parks, shopping centers,
coffee shops, recreation
centers, libraries.
[data from Google Earth and GIS
mapping]
Percentage of
households within ¼ and
½ miles to local schools,
shopping, recreation
centers, libraries.
Access to Safe
Green Spaces
Geographic proximity
to dedicated green
spaces and parks.
Parks per 1000 persons
Quality park acreage
Vermont Legacy Project
ZPG
Oregon Shines
Percentage of residents
within ¼ miles of open
space.
Number of parks per
1000 persons
Safety from
Violence and
Crime
General crime rate
Youth crime rate
Child abuse rate
Sexual abuse rate
Youth drug/alcohol
arrests
Maryvale Arizona BBCA, Santa
Cruz County CAP, CHP
On Good Authority, Chicago IL,
Eagle County CO Youth Assessment
JCCI, Santa Cruz County CAP,
Oregon Shines
JCCI, Oregon Shines
Tarrant County TX Community
Assessment
Local crime rate
Youth crime rate
Child abuse neglect rate
Sexual abuse rate
Number of youth
arrested for drug and
alcohol offenses
Distance from
Heavy Traffic
Proximity to high-
traffic areas
Households within ¼
and ½ mile of freeway
traffic
Table 2. Summary table of indicators.
103
Data Collection
Primary data was collected via direct observation from May 7 – May 29, 2005. The
timing is critical because May is springtime in the Washington D.C. metropolitan region
and as such was determined to be ideal weather and timing for observing neighborhood
use. It is substantially past the middle of winter and prior to the heat and humidity of
summer, both which sometimes deter outdoor activities. The month of May also does not
corresponded to scheduled public school spring break sessions, so observations of
neighborhood activity were unlikely to be skewed by large numbers of residents away on
vacation.
Each community was surveyed and videotaped over the three consecutive weekends.
During the period of videotaping, notes were also transcribed regarding the presence of
absence as well as the condition of sidewalks, and the presence or absence of friendliness
indicators. The tapes were then compared with the handwritten notes to doublecheck
accuracy. In some cases additional site visits were conducted to ensure accurate data
collection. Then a chart was made to record the number and type of friendliness indicator
for each residence in each of the case sites. This data was transposed into excel
spreadsheets, and mapped using GIS to facilitate viewing and comparison between areas.
Additional site visits included participation in the American Planning Association mobile
tours during the 2004 Annual Conference. One tour focused on the Kentlands and
Lakelands developments in Gaithersburg, Maryland; and a second focused on Reston,
104
Virginia, including Lake Anne Village. Each included walking tours of the
neighborhoods and overview by local planning staff.
Secondary data was collected primarily from June 2005 through November 2006. This
included review of historical archives in the Reston Museum, the Kentlands Arts Barn,
and the Arlington County Local History Collection; telephone and personal interviews
with local planners (Mark DePoe, Long Range Planning Director and Trudy Schwarz,
Community Planning Director, City of Gaithersburg, April 4, 2004, Eileen Doone,
Director of General Programs, Reston Community Center, September 21 2005 via
telephone, Ileana Mayorga, Arlington County Department of Human Services September
2005 via telephone, Ken Meter, Crossroads Research Center, regarding Seward
Neighborhood Group Residential Friendly Places Tally via email); online data searches
(census, police blotter records); local and regional planning documents (Arlington
Virginia Department of Environmental Services Annual Water Quality Report 2004,
District of Columbia 2004 Water Quality Report, Fairfax County 2005 Annual Report on
Water Quality, Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan 2000, Fairfax County Revitalization
Information Sheet accessed online September 28, 2006, Montgomery County Family and
Children First Council 2003 Outcomes); federal reports (Environmental Protection
Agency website, Household Food Security in the United States 2005 by the USDA
Economic Research Service, Human Rights Watch 2006 World Report, Hunger and
Homelessness Survey 2006 by the US Conference of Mayors, National Clearinghouse on
Families and Youth 1996 Reconnecting Youth and Community, National Clearinghouse
on Child Abuse and Neglect Information 2001); historical reviews (Rom and
105
McCandless’ 1985 Reston: The First Twenty Years, Planned Community Archives,
Times Community Newspapers of Northern Virginia Special Commemorative
Publication for Reston’s 40
th
Anniversary, April 14 2004, A Place Called Reston).
Definitions and Limitations
The terms used in this dissertation and model are amorphous. For clarity, I have
operationalized several definitions. First, there is no monolithic child, just as there is no
universal adult, and broad use of the concept ignores the complexity of the class of
children and the differentiation along lines of socioeconomic status, race, gender, history,
culture, and geography, not to mention age. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the
Child refers to anyone under the age of 18 as a child; U.N. use of the term youth typically
refers to those aged 15-25 years (Chawla 2002, 16). Herein children and youth generally
refer to both boys and girls aged 8 to 15 years. Some aspects of the model refer to
specific age cohorts of youth; for example, infant mortality data. Other indicators are
expected to work equally well in terms of illustrating communities with various
demographic character. Some modifications may be necessary for different geographies;
for example suburban youth may lack independent mobility, while urban youth may lack
access to public green space. More critically, children with different culture or ethnic
backgrounds may have different visions for their ideal community. Because the goal is
not so much to compare one community with another, but instead to allow a given
community to evaluate its own child-friendliness over time, additional indicators of local
interest are encouraged.
106
Moreover, kindering is a concept that means taking a child’s perspective in order to gain
information. This does not imply better knowledge, but rather additional knowledge that
may better inform planning and policy-making. Kindering works to move beyond
researcher bias and use the voices of the target population – youth – to inform the
research.
Additionally, the search for indicators, or a model, cannot be a justification for public
policy. While numbers and data generally do tell us something it is not possible to create
a mathematical equation that can predict the success or failure of a given community.
Rather, these tools inform planning and policy-making and must be carefully interpreted
within the broader context.
Finally, there is no monolithic suburb. The entire concept of the family-oriented suburban
neighborhood has changed dramatically over time. The three communities selected for
model application were chosen because they represent iconic suburban development in
different time periods. Each was designed to provide an exclusionary environment to
meet the demand of the ideal middle-class of the era, and each is composed of a
geographically discrete and identifiably bounded community. At the same time, because
the three case study communities are located in the same metropolitan area and are
socioeconomically similar, there is expected to be little variation among many of the
indicator criteria. The availability of data at only geographical scales larger than the
neighborhood level further blurs any distinction between these results.
107
The three case studies also vary in terms of maturity. Lyon Village was built largely in
the 1930s and 1940s as a moral residential development accessible to Washington D.C.
workers. Over the past 100 years or so technological advances and land development
patterns have rendered it more a bedroom suburb of the capitol. Lake Anne Village in
Reston was developed in the 1960s as the first phase of a new town ideal. The self-
contained community was the goal of a single, wealthy visionary. The new urbanist
Kentlands was designed by movement leaders Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-
Zyberk and built in the late 1980s and 1990s. Like Reston, Kentlands was designed as a
self-contained community, and like Reston, its current geographic isolation from an
urban area and outside diversions renders it essentially suburban. These three sites pose
limitations to the methodology. First, there is no urban control. Because all three case
studies concern essentially suburban neighborhoods, the results may be a factor of
suburbanization, rather than the design of the specific communities.
Finally, geographic boundaries posed challenges with regard to using census data for
local population analysis. This information was determined by using U.S. Census Bureau
American FactFinder website (http://factfinder.census.gov)
20
selecting the Maps option,
20
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ReferenceMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-
rm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=420|zf=0.0|ms=ref_stat_00dec|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|
dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-
1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=313:314:316:317:318:319:323|bl=354:355:356:357:3
58:393:362|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US&-
108
then the Reference Maps option, and selecting 2000 census tracts and blocks by zip code.
These census maps were then compared with planning maps obtained by the various
jurisdictions to determine exactly which census blacks and tracts corresponded with the
established neighborhood boundaries. Lyon Village (zip code 22201) lies within census
tract 1015. It includes all of block groups 2, 3, and 5 and parts of groups 1 and 4.
21
See
Figure 2 and Figure 3. Lake Anne in Reston (zip code 20190) includes all of block group
2 in census tract 4821
22
and one block in census tract 4822 (3001).
23
See Figure 4.
Kentlands (zip code 20878) is composed of the majority of blocks within census tract
7008.06.
24
See Figure 5 and Figure 6.
redoLog=false&-_lang=en&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=86000US20878 accessed 12/19/2006 and
10/10/2008.)
21
2 (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016), 3 (3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015,
3016, 3017), and 5 (5000, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5008, 5009, 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013,
5014, 5015, 5016) and parts of groups 1 (1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017,
1018, 1019, 1020) and 4 (4003, 4004, 4005, 4014, 4015).
22
2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2999.
23
Reston is a census designated place (CDP). The CDP designation is typically provided to an area that is
identifiable by name but is not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located,
nor has elected municipal officials. CDP boundaries may change from one decennial census to the next
with changes in population or settlement. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl_metadata.html#cdp
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl_metadata.html#cdp
24
1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039,
1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1057, 1058,
1059, 1061, 1062, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122,
1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1140, 1141.
109
Figure 2. Map of Lyon Village Civic Association. (“Arlington County, VA, Lyon Village
Civic Association”, Arlington County GIS Mapping Center, November 2007,
“http://gis.arlingtonva.us/Maps/Standard_Maps/Civic_Associations/Civic_Maps/Lyon_V
illage.pdf.)
110
Figure 3. Map of U.S. Census 2000 Tract 1015 (red) with block groups (black) and
blocks (green). Lyon Village Civic Association area superimposed in blue. (Adapted
from “Arlington County, Virginia, 2000 Census Boundaries, Tract, Block Group, and
Block Levels”, Arlington County GIS Mapping Center, July 2007,
http://gis.arlingtonva.us/Maps/Standard_Maps/Administrative_Maps/Census_2000.pdf.)
111
Approx. ½ mi.
North
Approx. ½ mi.
North
Figure 4. Map of a portion of U.S. Census 2000 Tract 4821 Block Group 2 for the Lake
Anne District, Reston, Virginia. Blue area indicates tract 4821 block group 2, which is
also the study area. Map adapted from U.S. Census Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov/,
Reference Maps, 2000 Census Tracts and Blocks, downloaded October 2008.
112
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Figure 5. Map of Kentlands, Gaithersburg, MD. Blue area indicates study area. Areas A
and B are considered part of Kentlands, but are part of an excluded census block. They
are thus excluded from demographic analysis, but are otherwise included in study area.
Areas C and D are considered part of Kentlands, but are separated from Kentlands
proper, and are thus excluded from the study area.
113
Approx. ½ mi.
North
Approx. ½ mi.
North
Figure 6. Map of a portion of U.S. Census 2000 Tract 7008.06 for Gaithersburg
Maryland, including census blocks. Blue area indicates study area, and comprises all of
block Group 1 except blocks 1000-1018,1023-1026,1043-1044, 1052-1111, 1123-1124,
1134, 1139, 1142-1149, 1160, 1166-1209, 1987-1999. Map adapted from U.S. Census
Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov/, Reference Maps, 2000 Census Tracts and Blocks,
downloaded October 2008.
114
In order to better understand how suburbs were continually reinvented and purportedly
improved over time, the case study developments are considered with respect to the
model in reverse chronological order of development, beginning with Kentlands,
Maryland. This is followed by Lake Anne in Reston, Virginia and finally concludes with
Lyon Village, in Arlington County, Virginia.
115
CHAPTER 6: CASE STUDY – KENTLANDS
Kentlands History
Kentlands is a 350 acre traditional neighborhood development (TND) within the City of
Gaithersburg, Maryland, about 25 miles north of Washington, D.C. Kentlands
25
was
designed with new urbanist principles to incorporate 1,500 residential dwellings and
800,000 square feet of retail space.
The property was originally part of a 1723 land grant to Joseph West, and for more than
two hundred years the land was farmed and used for pasture for cows, sheep and race
horses. Henry Clagett acquired the land in 1700s and his son, Joseph Clagett inherited it
in 1829. In 1852, Frederick Tschiffeley, a successful Washington D.C. pharmacist,
purchased 200 acres of the Clagett estate and named the area Wheatlands. By 1865
Tschiffeley had acquired an additional 232 acres. In addition to the pharmacy business in
Washington DC, Tschiffeley was an active leader in the community development,
including religious, social, and education areas. He continued to acquire adjacent lands,
and also made land donations to the community, including for a new school and to the
local Presbyterian church.
25
Zip code 20878.
116
Figure 7. Street scenes of the Kentlands community in Gaithersburg, Maryland. (Gause
2002, 122, 124).
In 1900, Frederick Tschiffeley Jr. inherited the land upon his mother’s death, and began
construction of a brick home for his wife and eight children. Tschiffeley Jr. was also a
pharmacist and commuted daily, via horse and buggy, to his Washington DC pharmacy.
On the Montgomery County grounds he also farmed wheat and corn, and used the lands
as pasture for cows, horse, and sheep and raising racehorses. Like his father before him,
Tschiffeley continued to add to the estate, and upon his death in 1931 it was 648 acres.
The next generation of Tschiffeleys did not live on the estate full time, but instead used it
117
as a summer retreat from their home, closer to Washington D.C. In 1942 the property was
sold to Otis Beall Kent, a wealthy attorney and conservationist who enlarged the mansion
to showcase his art and book collection. Kent was a strong supporter of local wildlife. He
constructed lakes for wildlife and natural flood control. He deeded unbuilt parts of the
property to the Izaak Walton League and sold 100 acres to the National Geographic
Society to be maintained, in perpetuity, as wildlife habitat. Other lands were annexed into
the City of Gaithersburg. These City lands were created as a habitat sanctuary where
lakes and ponds were constructed (APA Annual Conference Tour of Kentlands 2004).
At the same time, Kent envisioned creating a naturally landscaped natural residential
community, and to that end began work to develop the built portions of the estate,
including annexing portions from unincorporated Montgomery County, Maryland into
the City of Gaithersburg. In the 1970s, Kent worked with a development firm, Lakelands
Estates Partners to build 60 acres of a planned community of single-family detached
homes. After Kent’s death, his daughter, granddaughter, and her family continued to live
on the estates until 1988 when it was sold to Great Seneca Limited Partnership (Joseph
Alfandre and Co., Inc). for $40 million.
In 1987 Alfandre had approached the City regarding development of the Kent farm
property. The City of Gaithersburg had already begun a land use Master Plan process and
divided the City into 6 neighborhoods. The Council appointed an ad hoc committee
including Alfandre to review the existing Master Plan. In June 1987 the committee
reviewed the 1974 Master Plan, and by September 1987 they had proposed changes to the
Council. At a February 1988 public hearing Alfandre presented an early vision of his
118
proposed walkable community, similar to Georgetown or Alexandria, on a grid of mixed
uses.
Joseph Alfandre, a 3
rd
generation Washington D.C. area builder, especially sought
innovative design and building. In 1988 he met with prominent new urbanism proponents
Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and subsequently sent a letter to the City
indicating he had hired their planning and design firm, and setting a date for a design
charrette. It was during this 5-day charrette with local citizens and planning experts that
Kentlands was designed. The charrette group focused on creating a community like the
public realms of Georgetown and Annapolis, with an emphasis on people and
pedestrians, rather than cars.
The City liked the ideas but felt there was no legal way, within the existing City Zoning
Code, to permit it. To overcome current planning and zoning restrictions, which
prohibited most mixed-use properties and, for example, required large turning radii and
other design features for a traditional subdivision, Alfandre’s attorney worked with City
attorneys and staff to design a mixed development zone (MXD). In November 1988 the
Mayor and City Council amended the City’s zoning ordinance to add the MXD
designation for the Kentlands development, the first non-euclidean zone in the City.
The MXD designation allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses. It also
requires a three-step plan approval process: a sketch plan showing different uses and
density; a more detailed Schematic Development Plan (SDP) similar to a preliminary site
plan for lot layout; and a final site plan approved with architectural elevations, materials,
119
and landscape plans. By February 1989 the Mayor and City Council approved the sketch
plan and rezoning for Kentlands. The first phase of development was approved
September 1989, and the second phase for August 1990. Retail was approved in 1992 and
the final phase in 2001. (All from City of Gaithersburg Planning and Code
Administration handouts at APA tour, derived from City Archives).
Kentlands is laid out on a traditional grid featuring public open spaces, including a
village green, and recreational park, rather than feeder roads and cul de sacs seen in other
planned developments (including Reston). In addition to this traditional town layout,
Kentlands is also loosely divided into several discrete neighborhoods, including Old
Farm, centered on the historic brick Kentlands Mansion and the Kentlands Barn, now a
venue for art exhibits and classes and other public events. The Main Street neighborhood
offers mixed-use live-work buildings of ground-floor commercial topped by residential
units. Market Square and Kentlands Square are commercial districts with grocery stores,
banks, restaurants, and movies situated at one edge of the perimeter of the development.
Each neighborhood has a different vibe and there seems to be a neighborhood to appeal
to every taste. The design has also had to bend with market forces with small apartments
over retail shops replacing office and mall space.
In addition to providing a range of housing types in a range of neighborhood types,
Kentlands incorporates community preservation and development. The development as a
whole retained many of the historic buildings, adding temporal depth to this newer
community. Development also maintained much of the wildlife habitat. Approximately
forty percent of the land in the development has been maintained as green space, with
120
three miles of jogging and bike trails. The existing artificial lakes and wildlife preserves
wind throughout the property, and wherever possible, the architects protected mature
trees. For sport activities, the Kentlands Recreation Center, available to homeowners
through their Homeowner Association Membership offers a 25 meter lap pool, 2
additional pools including one reserved for children, 4 tennis courts, basketball and
volleyball courts and a fitness room. The Kentlands Children’s Center has full day child
care, before and after-school day care, and a preschool. The Kentlands Mansion houses
the City of Gaithersburg’s Council for the Arts. Public events at this facility include
musical concerts, art exhibits, and lectures.
Design plays a prominent role in the appeal and desired community use of Kentlands.
The moderately high density (5-6 units/acre, or 14 persons per acre) includes apartments
(240), townhomes (508), multifamily condominiums (292) and single-family detached
homes (467) (some with granny flats). This range of housing was created addressed one
of the developer’s goals, that of enabling residents to move within Kentlands over the
course of their life cycle. In keeping with the MXD designation and new urbanist design
goals, homes, the local elementary school, and civic buildings are within walking
distance of one another and of transit connections.
Residences and commercial facades are varied and in some cases ornate, while adhering
to a strict design code set out by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) (Lee
and Ahn 2003). While Kentlands has no zoning setbacks, setbacks are determined by
the Architectural Code for each building type and street. The Architectural Standards
(August 4, 1993 version) are detailed and comprehensive. They specify, for example,
121
acceptable construction materials for railings, wood materials for flower boxes, and the
size of glass window panes, as well as more traditional height ranges for fencing (from
the Kentlands Information Package, City of Gaithersburg, Planning and Code
Administration, Gaithersburg, MD 20877).. Each building is subject to review and
approval with the City Planning Commission. Most buildings have a minimal setback
from the street. No two identical facades are permitted to be situated adjacent to each
other. Less attractive elements are concealed by design. Electrical, telephone and cable
services are located in the alleys, and sewer and water lines are located in the streets. (a
26 foot Public Utility Easement is required on the site plan and record plat). The streets
are public ROWs and City-owned and maintained, while the alleys are owned and
maintained by the Kentlands Homeowners Association.
Similarly, road right-of-way requirements vary to reflect the desired pedestrian use.
Primarily residential streets require a 26-foot right-of-way, with 12 feet of paving, while
midtown streets require a 25 foot right-of-way, with 14 feet of paving. Sidewalk widths
range from 4 feet in the districts centered on the historic buildings, such as Old Farm and
Gatehouse, to 10 feet in the primarily commercial areas (DePoe and Schwarz 2004).
Architecturally, the area conjures up the desirable vernacular of past – white picket
fences, front porches, meandering sidewalks.
122
Indicators Applied to Kentlands
Mobility
Sidewalk coverage in Kentlands is virtually 100 percent. As part of the New Urbanism
design covenants, sidewalks (on both sides of the street) are ubiquitous, as are alleys and
in some cases, pedestrian paths through preserved green space, and stair walkways. There
is little dramatic variation in topography, and climate, as in all of metropolitan
Washington, D.C. is pleasant and facilitates walking except in the most inclement periods
of mid-winter (cold, snow) and summer (hot, high humidity).
Destination
Related to mobility, the distance between households and local primary schools was
calculated. Twenty-two percent (164/741) of households live within 0,125 miles of the
local elementary school, Rachel Carson Elementary School, located within the Kentlands
development. Sixty percent (448/741) live within 0.25 miles, and 100 percent of
households live within 0.5 miles. All households live within 0.5 miles of the local middle
school, Lakelands Park Middle School, located in the neighboring Lakelands
development. (Lakelands Middle School has a broad service area that includes most of
the City of Gaithersburg as well as Kentlands and Lakelands). All households live within
one mile of the local high school, Quince Orchard High School, although it is across a
busy street, albeit well-marked with crosswalks.
123
Similarly, the distance between households (parcels) and green space or other
undeveloped natural spaces was calculated. Kentlands has manicured street medians, a
village green, tot lots, a state-of-the-art playground, and community pool and tennis
courts. The housing is dense, and while individual yards tend to be small, where possible,
existing trees were explicitly preserved. The clustered development resulted in small
undeveloped green spaces throughout the community. (See aerial photos). In Kentlands,
the median distance from the center of the parcel to preserved green space is 100 feet.
Sense of belonging
By design, much of Kentlands appears friendly and welcoming to the resident or visitor.
Most single family detached dwellings feature a front porch. Many of those have a porch
swing or bench. Many residences, including townhomes, have flags flying. Most of the
friendliness features are design-oriented, or built into the architecture and vision of
Kentlands. The porches and flags meet any informal housing code, by definition.
Conversely, there were few individual representations of neighborhood friendliness and
welcome. Only a handful of basketball hoops were situated in driveways (8), less than a
dozen birdhouses or birdfeeders were located in the entire community (10), and there
were no windsocks or yard art. There are no formalized efforts to allow youth a role in
local governance (DePoe, local planner).
124
¼mile ¼mile
Figure 8. Friendliness Indicators for Kentlands, VA. Legend: (B-Bench, Flag-Flag,
House-Birdhouse, K-Basketball Hoop, L-Playground, P-Porch, S-Swing, Tree-Garden)
(Data by author presented using Google Earth Professional).
125
Health
Health trends. In the state of Maryland and, more dramatically, in Montgomery County,
the health of infants has improved slightly during the five-year period 1999-2003. In
Maryland, the percentage of low birthweight babies (babies born weighing 2500 grams /
5.5 lbs or less) has remained steady (9 percent). In Montgomery County, low birthweight
declined from 8 percent to 7.5 percent. In Maryland, infant mortality (the number of
infants who die before their first birthday per 1,000 live births) declined slightly overall,
from a high of 8.5 percent in 1999 to a low of 6.5 in 2003, generally hovering around 8.5.
About 84 percent of mothers initiated prenatal care in the first trimester of their
pregnancy. The teen birth rate (number of births to women 15-19 per 1000 women 15-19)
decreased significantly from 41 in 2000 to 33.5 in 2003. In Montgomery County, infant
mortality declined from 7 to 5.5 percent. The percentage of pregnant women seeking
prenatal care during their first trimester also declined, from 89 to 85 percent. The teen
birth rate dropped from 23 in 2000 to 17.5 in 2003 (www.aecf.org).
Access to quality food. The number of households living within ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1
mile of one or more quality grocery stores was calculated. Four percent (4%) of
households live within 0.125 miles of a quality, full-service grocery store; 16 percent live
within 0.25 miles; and 80 percent of all households live within 0.5 miles of one or more
grocery stores, including Safeway, Giant, and Whole Foods.
The child poverty rate (percentage of all children 0-17 with incomes below the US
poverty threshold) for the state of Maryland declined slightly, from 10.5 percent in 2000
126
to 10 percent in 2002. Similarly, the number of children receiving benefits from the
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF) also declined from 1999
(71,363) to 2003 (51,756) (www.aecf.org). These findings are likely a result of the
increasing affluence of the area. Less affluent families may be priced out of local
housing.
Within Kentlands, in the commercial/retail corridor along the northeast part of the
development, there are several restaurants, ranging from pizza and Italian cuisines to
Subway sandwiches and seafood. Local residents likely patronize both the fine dining
and the fast food. Within one mile of the center of Kentlands there are two quality
grocery stores, a Safeway and a Whole Foods Market.
Household poverty. The number and proportion of households living at or below the
federal poverty line was identified as three percent.
26
Air Quality. For 2003, The Washington MSA had 12 days where the air quality index
values were greater than 100 (describe what this means); compared with 0 days at a
number of coastal locations (San Francisco, San Juan Puerto Rico, Portland, Oregon,
26
U.S. Census poverty data, like much personal census data, is made available to the public at the more
aggregated block group, rather than the block level, in order to preserve individual privacy. Kentlands is
composed of several discrete blocks (see table), but comprises part of one much larger census block group
that also includes the City of Gaithersburg (7008.06 Block Group 1). Any discussion of poverty
characteristics based on the U.S. census data is therefore skewed toward the larger City of Gaithersburg.
127
Palm Beach) and with 141 (Bakersfield, California) and 138 (Riverside – San
Bernardino, California). Twelve sites in the Washington MSA provide information
specifically about ozone levels. There were days in 2004 when the ozone levels were
higher than the EPA limits. This compares with a number of jurisdictions with 0 days of
ozone levels higher than EPA limits (Newark, NJ, Oklahoma City, and Minneapolis,
among them) and jurisdictions with much higher levels, too (103 in Bakersfield, 88 in
Riverside –San Bernardino).
128
Source:
Census
2000
Summary
File 3
Median
family
income
in 1999
(a)
Population
For whom poverty status is determined
Total
(k)
Income in 1999 below poverty level
Total
(j)
< 5
years
(b)
5
years
(c)
6-11
years
(d)
12-
17
years
(e)
18-
64
years
(f)
65-
74
years
(g)
75
years
and
over
(h)
Total
(all
ages)
(i)
Block
Group 1
$86,269 38 0 19 19 154 18 30 278 8,761 8,799
Poverty Rate 4% 0% 2% 4% 3% 6% 16% 3%
Poverty Rate Source (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s)
Table 3. Kentlands Household Poverty. Maryland, Montgomery County, Census Tract
7008.06, Block Group 1.
27
Water Quality. Regulated contaminants generally fell within EPA’s acceptable range for
2004. In some instances slightly higher than acceptable levels of both coliform bacteria
(naturally present in the environment) and lead (from either corrosion of household
plumbing systems or erosion of natural deposits) were detected. (Because data is for the
county as a whole, impossible to say if affected Kentlands directly; more importantly
significant is that official monitoring is undertaken, with process in place to reduce
unacceptable levels where they are detected. With regard to lead levels, orthophosphate
27
All data from Census 2000 Summary File 3. Population data from following census fields: (a) P077001,
(b) P087003, (c) P087004, (d) P087005, (e) P087006, (f) P087007, (g) P087008, (h) P087009, (i) P087002,
(j) P087001, (k) P001001. Poverty rate computed by dividing census fields as follows: (l) P087003/
P087011, (m) P087004/ P087012, (n) P087005/ P087013, (o) P087006/ P087014, (p) P087007/ P087015,
(q) P087008/ P087016, (r) P087009/ P087017, (s) P087002/ P087010.
129
has been added to the District’s water to control lead leaching by coating the interior of
pipes. The District is also replacing lead service lines in its water distribution system; and
financial assistance is available for low-income homeowners to replace indoor
plumbing).
Proximity to high traffic areas. There are no households living within 300 feet of a major
arterial roadway.
Superfund sites. There are no Superfund sites in Montgomery County
(www.epa.gov/superfund/sites).
130
Source: Census 2000
Summary File 1
Households with one or more people under 18 years old;
Family Households
Total (a)
Married couple-
Family (b)
Male
householder;
no wife present
(c)
Female
householder;
no husband
present (d)
Kentlands Study Area 357 325 13 19
Percentage 100% 91% 4% 5%
Table 4. Kentlands Family Household Composition. Maryland, Montgomery County,
Census Tract 7008.06, Block Group 1 (excluding Blocks 1000-1018,1023-1026,1043-
1044, 1052-1111, 1123-1124, 1134, 1139, 1142-1149, 1160, 1166-1209, 1987-1999).
28
Proportion of two-parent households. The number and proportion of two-parent family
households within the neighborhood was calculated as 91 percent.
29
Institutions for wellbeing of youth. The number of institutions which focus on the
provision of services to improve the lives of local youth was calculated.
28
Data from Census 2000 Summary File 1 as follows: (a) P019003 – total households, (b) P019004 –
married couples, families, (c) P019006 – male heads of households, (d) P019007 – female heads of
households.
29
U.S. Census data for household composition is available at the less aggregated block level, which
accurately represents the borders of the Kentlands development.
131
¼mile ¼mile
Figure 9. Selected businesses in Kentlands, MD. (Legend R-Restaurant, F-Fast Food, C-
Convenience Store, G-Grocery, B-Bakery). (Data by author presented using Google
Earth Professional).
Safety
In the state of Maryland, during the five-year period 2000-2004, school violence (number
of suspensions or expulsions resulting from verbal or physical attacks against teachers,
students, or staff, per 1000 students) increased, from 42 percent in 2000 to 46.5 percent in
2002, to 48 percent in 2003, to 53.5 percent in 2004. In Montgomery County, over the
same period, school violence also increased annually, from 21.5 in 2000 to 34 in 2004.
And, the rate of child abuse and neglect decreased from 2.5 in 1999 to 2.0 in 2002
(www.aecf.org). The child abuse and neglect rate (rate of indicated child abuse and
neglect investigations per 1000 children 0-18) is decreasing slightly, 6.5 in 1999 to 5.5 in
2002.
132
The general crime rate for an area, as well as the youth crime rate, the physical and
sexual abuse rate, and the number of registered sex offenders within the community were
identified. Five percent (5%) of households live within 0.125 miles of the home or work
address of a registered sex offender; 65 percent live within 0.25 miles; and 100 percent
live within 0.5 miles.
133
Indicator Jurisdiction
Trend Data
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Low Birth
Weight
Montgomery County 8.0% 7.0% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5%
Maryland 9.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Infant
Mortality
Montgomery County 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5
Maryland 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.5 6.5
Early
Prenatal
Care
Montgomery County 89.0% 91.5% 82.0% 84.0% 85.0%
Maryland 83.5% 86.5% 83.5% 84.0% 83.5%
Teen Birth
Rate
Montgomery County 23.0 21.0 17.5 17.5
Maryland 41.0 38.0 35.5 33.5
School
Violence
Montgomery County 21.5 25.5 29.0 28.0 34.0
Maryland 42.0 48.0 46.5 48.0 53.5
Child
Abuse and
Neglect
Montgomery County 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0
Maryland 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.5
Child
Poverty
Montgomery County 7.0% 6.5% 6.5%
Maryland 10.5% 9.5% 10.0%
TANF
Montgomery County 2,335 1,796 1,686 1,714 1,711
Maryland 71,363 57,130 54,243 52,683 51,756
Table 5. Kentlands Demographic Indicators (Montgomery County and Maryland).
www.aecf.org.
Kentlands – Pleasantville
Kentlands is beautiful and pristine. The sidewalks, alleys, and footpaths make it easy and
pleasant to walk through the community. Narrow streets and dense residential
development facilitate neighborly proximity. Preserved landmarks offer a sense of the
area’s history. The range of recreational and cultural facilities offer opportunities for
community cohesion.
Kentlands builds a lot of design friendliness into its architecture. Many homes in
Kentlands are oriented toward the street and feature porches or decks. Often they fly an
134
American flag. Even townhomes typically fly a flag and many hang a wreath on the door.
Relatively few of the more individualized friendliness indicators, such as windsocks or
chimes or birdhouses or even driveway basketball hoops are observed. Virtually the
entire community is accessible via sidewalk and walkways. Recreational facilities,
including a delightful, state-of-the-art playground, community pool, and tennis courts are
centrally located to facilitate access for all residents. Local air and water quality is good,
quality grocery stores and restaurants abound, local crime is relatively low. Preserved
green spaces accent the community.
Kentlands does not have a process for youth to participate in local government or policy
making. Although the demographic data available provides only a blurry picture of local
youth health, the regional trend is toward slightly improved infant health, optimistically
hinting at improvements in overall health access. Because Kentlands is an affluent
development, however, resident youth are likely to have access to good, regular health
care.
Kentlands works hard to create a strong social fabric. Setting aside the design features
that encourage regular neighborly interaction, the local organizations are active and
pervasive, having organized a neighborhood watch listserv (a modern-day block watch),
periodic receptions for new residents, and a Men’s Club. The local paper, the Kentlands
Crier, reports on these and the workings of the various committees – Capital
Improvements, Budget and Finance Advisory, Board of Trustees, Historical Trust,
Kentlands Community Foundation, Garden Club – openings of new businesses, as well as
local weddings and human interest stories (Kentlands Crier, Volume 11 No 2, February
135
2005 and others). These actions may be necessary as, per direct observation, residents do
not tend to be out and about.
The friendliness indicators may correlate with perceived friendliness, but it is not clear
how well they correlate with numbers of individuals accessing the community. During
weekday data collection periods, including one lovely spring day in 2005 when the
American Planning Association hosted a tour of Kentlands, almost no was one out in the
community. One single man was running for exercise, and another was walking a dog.
No children were observed anywhere, anytime, including at the large playground and the
numerous tot lots. Other weekday afternoons yielded similar observations wherein the
only people observed in the residential part of Kentlands were maid and garden services,
and a lone woman in business attire getting into a car. Yet the foundation for engaging
with neighbors is in place, and weekends were vastly different. Even on cold spring days
there were too many joggers, strollers, and dog-walkers to count on the sidewalks and
walking paths. The main playground, an enticing state-of-the-art area with a climbing
wall and several climbing and slide structures, was occupied by an ever-changing array of
children with supervising adults. The neighborhood tot lots were filled as well, including
one Saturday during a light drizzle.
Based on these observations here, and the market (houses regularly sell for $1 million)
Kentlands may be diverse only in the sense that one socioeconomic group, at different
stages of its life cycle, can afford to live there: young couples in townhomes; mid-career
dual-income families with children in single-family homes; and well-to-do retirees in
condominiums.
136
One of the original goals for this development was the creation of a self-contained
community that facilitated living, working and shopping in one attractive, engaging
environment. Kentlands is surely beautiful. However, in practice, it appears to function
primarily as a live-only community, and barely at that. This may not be surprising. These
observations epitomize the viewpoint of housing expert Catherine Bauer. “A
neighborhood ‘made’ entirely by either a real estate operator, however enlightened and
efficient, or direct government action, however beneficient, is all too likely to have the
repressed and depressing atmosphere of a company town” (Bauer 1945, 112).
Kentlands is somewhat isolated, both geographically and commercially. The larger roads
bordering the perimeter of the development have busy 4 to 6 lanes of traffic, and
discourage local pedestrian activity. Darnestown (MD Route 28) and Quince Orchard
(MD 124), both planned for further widening, per the Master Plan, and Great Seneca
Highway (MD Route 119) are all three state highways.
Not unrelatedly, the stores in the adjacent shopping center are satisfactory neighborhood-
serving commercial enterprise, including banks, dry-cleaning services and hair salons.
Stores and restaurants such as K-Mart, Hallmark, Dress Barn, Quizno’s and Chicken Out
Rotisserie serve the local neighborhood well but do not represent destination-oriented
shopping or dining. Bus stops on Route 28 and Route 124 connect to Shady Grove Metro
Station, which in turn is a 35 minute ride to downtown Washington, D.C. While this is an
acceptable commute, the time and distance is likely to deter casual visitors and shoppers.
137
Figure 10. Map of Kentlands area. Adapted from “City of Gaithersburg,
Kentlands/Lakeland’s Locator Map.
Do all these design guidelines built into the development and incorporated to facilitate
friendliness and neighborliness work? It is hard to tell. Because Kentlands is relatively
new, it is hard to gauge its long-term effectiveness. It has not had to evolve much, so far,
or change with the times. Adjacent development plans include widening the larger roads
on the perimeter of the development and adding a new school. These changes may further
increase the overall regional isolation of Kentlands as well as the isolation of pedestrians
and youth even as it expands their population. But it will remain an affluent enclave.
Alternately, these changes may ultimately expand the range of youth. Kentlands was the
new urbanist vision of an experienced developer. His goal was to create a traditional
138
neighborhood, evocative of the small towns of the past, but seemingly internally oriented.
While Kentlands is currently isolated, this may change with time and expansion within
the Washington D.C. area. If we consider Kentlands the first piece of a new design
paradigm in the area, expanding the development could result in expanding the world and
therefore the range of youth. The adjacent property, for example, was bought in 1995 by
another Washington D.C. development family who also worked with DPZ to conduct a
charrette and design a neo-traditional community. This development, Lakelands was
completed a few years after Kentlands is sometimes considered an extension of
Kentlands. Residents in both communities share the local schools and neighborhood
shopping. But the question remains, while walking on the ubiquitous sidewalks or nature
trails, where would the youth go? The area is still bereft of meaningful opportunities to
engage youth in the community or to observe other adults, let alone contribute to local
planning and policy-making.
139
CHAPTER 7: CASE STUDY – LAKE ANNE VILLAGE, RESTON
Lake Anne Village History
Reston is a New Town community in Fairfax County, Virginia, between Tyson’s Corner
and Washington Dulles International Airport, about 20 miles northwest of Washington
D.C. It is 7100 acres with a population of about 60,000 (Fairfax County Revitalization
Sheet 2006). Reston is designed as a mixed use community of five villages and one town
center. Lake Anne,
30
a pedestrian-friendly village, was the first phase of Reston
completed. The Lake Anne Village neighborhood in Reston mirrors Fairfax County’s
predominantly white racial makeup. Fully 70 percent of the population is white. In terms
of affluence, it is somewhere in between wealthy Fairfax County, where 1999 median
household income was $81,050 and median home value was $233,300; and the state of
Virginia, with a 1999 median household income of $46,677 and median home value of
$125,400. Lake Anne median household income in 1999 was $73,657 and median home
value was $205,200. It has a slightly smaller proportion of children than in either Fairfax
County or Virginia as a whole: 20 percent of the population is under 18 years in Lake
Anne; and about 25 percent of the population is under 18 in both Fairfax County and
Virginia. At the same time, only 9 percent of children 17 and under were determined to
30
Zip code 20190
140
be living in poverty, versus 31 percent for Fairfax County and 32 percent for the State of
Virginia.
31
Figure 11. Scenes from the Lake Anne Village Community, Reston, Virginia. (Gause
2002, 186, 185).
Reston was created by Robert E. Simon Jr. (The name Reston comes from the first letters
of Simon’s first, middle, and surnames). The Reston property was originally part of a 5
million acre Northern Neck Proprietary, a 1649 royal grant from Charles II of England to
a handful of loyal supporters. During the 1600s and 1700s, the land was held by members
of the Fairfax family. Benjamin Thornton, a land speculator, bought 8000 acres of the
land in 1848, at $5 per acre. He facilitated access to the railroad and developed a
mansion, long gone. In 1886, Dr. Max Wiehle bought the area north of the railroad tracks
31
The Lake Anne neighborhood in Reston is composed entirely of census tract 4821, block 2.
141
and Dr. McKee Dunn bought the area south of the tracks. Wiehle had an idea to develop
a health resort on the land, and filed a plat for this purpose, but he died before the plan
came to fruition. In 1908 dentist Dr. Hugh Barbour Hutchinson purchased the land from
Wiehle’s estate and raised cows. His heirs sold the land to A. Smith Bowman in 1927.
Bowman raised cows and established Bowman’s distillery, ultimately producing 1,800
gallons each day towards the war effort.
In 1948 Bowman purchased the Dunn tract south of the railroad line, reuniting the two
parcels. Bowman hired a planning firm to prepare a Master Plan for all 6750 acres, with
the idea of creating a satellite city of 30,000 people in mostly single-family detached
homes on ¼ to 10 acre lots, along with ponds, bridle paths, swimming pools, and
industrial center, shopping areas, and a church. The plans were scrapped because there
was no apparent way to provide sewer service to the land without negatively impacting
the Potomac watershed, and because Fairfax County’s zoning code did not have the
provisions to develop a new small city. In 1960 Bowman’s heirs sold the entirety to
Lefcourt Realty, a Florida developer, for $20 million. (McCandless and Grubisich 1985,
142
34). A year later Lefcourt sold the land to Palindrome, a New York City corporation
owned by Robert E. Simon, Jr.
32
Simon’s father, Robert E. Simon, Sr. had helped finance the auto-oriented new town of
Radburn, in the 1920s. Simon, Jr. himself helped name the streets of Radburn (Grubisich
and McCandless 1985, 33-4). Simon, Jr. later visited new towns in England. He was
intrigued by the new town concept of exurban developments that incorporated living,
work, recreational, and social spaces. He himself lived in a thriving, mixed-use
neighborhood on 57
th
street in Manhattan, near art galleries, department stores and
boutiques, restaurants including the Russian Tea Room and the Automat, and concert
venues Steinway Hall and Carnegie Hall (Grubisich and McCandless 1985, 33).
Although he loved the city, he ‘thought the country was the best place to raise a child.’
(34) He and his wife, pending the adoption of their second child, bought 5 acres of
woodlands in Long Island in anticipation of ideal family life. Simon became an avid
gardener and one year planted hundreds of pines and spruces on his property. Yet the
commute times, both from one activity to another in the Long Island neighborhood and to
his work in New York City, frustrated him (Grubisich and McCandless 1985, 34).
32
Partial financing was made possible by proceeds from the sale of the Simon family-owned property, the
New York City concert venue Carnegie Hall to New York City for $5 million.
143
Simon sought a large piece of land for sale in single ownership near a large city.
33
He
wanted to design a community in contrast to typical suburban postwar development. His
dream was to encourage interaction, primarily via the integration of recreation and
cultural spaces. He outlined seven major goals that defined the proposed development.
Several are in keeping with new town principles, but expand upon them in the cultural
context of early 1960s United States. Housing would be created, maintained and offered
to permit individuals to remain in their neighborhood over their life cycle. Young couples
could, for example move into an apartment. Later, with rising incomes and also
expanding family sizes they could transition to a single-family detached home. As empty-
nesters, they might downsize to a townhome in a village center. This range of housing
within the community was thought to ensure greater population diversity. In keeping with
New Town principles, Reston would also facilitate living and working within the
community. Economic development, particularly job creation, would be pursued as
actively as residential development. The community would also provide a wide range of
recreation and leisure opportunities, both passive and active, from pedestrian walkways
and bike paths to swimming pools and tennis courts. In the post war period, the United
States military and economic might meant secure, relatively large paychecks at home, as
33
Jim Rouse was working on the frustrating and time-consuming and expensive task of land assembly for
Columbia, MD, at about this time, and Simon wanted to sidestep this part of the development process
(Simon 2008).
144
well as free time. Moreover, community and cultural facilities would be provided
throughout the community.
Other guiding principles go beyond new town principles and embrace the burgeoning
social issues of the time. Physical beauty, including the natural environment as well as
architectural amenities, would be provided for throughout the development, as Simon
believed they were essential for good living. And, from a philosophical standpoint,
Simon wanted this development to ensure the dignity of all residents. Reston was the first
development in Virginia to offer housing to people of all races (Simon 2008). Finally,
because the development represented a private enterprise, Simon avowed the future
financial success of the development and community.
It was with these goals in mind that Simon went forward. He hired three prominent
planning firms, settling on Whittlesey and Conklin, associates of Clarence Stein
(developer of Radburn), but incorporating advice and suggestions from Arthur D. Little,
Inc., who conducted a land feasibility study and recommended master planners to
develop the site, and Harland Bartholomew and Associates, one of the oldest city
planning firms in United States.
Practical issues posed barriers at the outset. No one had developed town homes outside of
urban areas. Because it was new, without documented success, it was deemed too risky.
Simon approached 40 banks before finding one willing to provide initial financing
(Simon 2008). In addition to financing, planning logistics represented a similar set of
barriers. Although Simon had the opportunity to incorporate Reston under Dr. Wiehle’s
145
1890s plan for the town of Wiehle, he withdrew this plan from the County. He wanted to
pursue his own New Town vision, without being constrained by someone else’s goals.
Fortunately, Fairfax County planners were eager and enthusiastic about creating a New
Town.
With the help of local government planners, Simon’s design consultants and legal team,
Fairfax County approved the necessary planning documents in a record 15 months. These
included an innovative Residential Planned Community (RPC) designation, a land use
Master Plan for the entire community, Commercial Facilities Plan and Transportation
Plan. The plans were originally adopted in 1962 and they identify the land use and
density of every parcel (Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2000, 80-128). These
original plans lay out 7 villages, each with a village center, plus a larger town center
serving the entire community. Each village was planned for a maximum population of
10,000, and had a supermarket as a commercial anchor, plus neighborhood-serving
commercial and retail.
The RPC
34
was tied to the overall County Master Plan. This document and the Fairfax
County Comprehensive Plan further codify development. The RPC approved design at 13
persons per acre maximum. Because Reston is relatively high-density, low-density
34
Residential Planned Community, or RPC has since been changed to Planned Residential Community
District, or PRC.
146
residential development is required as a buffer on lands at the perimeter of Reston, to
blend with lower County residential densities. The density is tiered, decreasing from the
center of Reston toward Reston’s boundary, particularly on the south and east borders
(Fairfax County Comp Plan 81 of 128; 2000 Edition, Upper Potomac Planning District,
UP-5 Reston Community Planning Sector, Area III excerpt). To ensure neighborhood
stability from long-term development or redevelopment, all infill or redevelopment must
be compatible with existing and planned residential neighborhoods (Comprehensive Plan
p86). Reston was also required to provide 10 acres of parks per 1,000 people, a figure
that was double the national standard.
The final design ultimately limited expansion and defined the role of residents. The ideal
village population was revised down to 5,000, the population supporting an average
neighborhood-serving elementary school. Public space was guaranteed at 42 percent of
the entire development. Homeowner associations were specified to care for the land and
facilities in common ownership. Finally, an architectural review board and other
protective covenants were detailed to enforce community norms, from requiring public
review for all fencing and signs, to prohibiting airing laundry in public
Simon had his own goals, too, in addition to County planning requirements. Lake Anne
Village, the first phase of the design, was designed to resemble a European village, with a
traditional Italian hardscape plaza, tall apartment buildings, townhomes and local
commercial and retail establishments situated around a lake. The design incorporated
ideas from Simon’s travel. A high-rise office building in Tapiola Finland became the
147
model for the high-rise apartment building in Lake Anne, and a fountain in Lake Geneva,
Switzerland inspired the fountain in Lake Anne.
By 1967, this new development had attracted a lot of attention, but sales were not
keeping pace with development costs. Moreover, the housing variation was interesting,
but not initially popular. Gulf Oil Corporation took over the development later that year
and formed subsidiary Gulf Reston, Incorporated to protect their $15 million investment
[in 1964 dollars]. At that time, Reston owed an additional $6 million to various banks,
plus $10 million to John Hancock Life Insurance, and larger real estate developments
across the country were starting to fail due to insufficient funding and inadequate
management (Netherton 1989, 87). Gulf Reston, Inc. hired a consultant, Bob Ryan, a
Harvard MBA with housing development experience, to assess the economic feasibility
of Reston.
Ryan took a bold, broad approach. He improved both the logistics and the appeal of life
in Reston. He secured a commuter bus between Reston and Washington, D.C. He also
had some of the units redesigned in order to provide a better value to the homeowner, and
therefore to sell more quickly. Ryan also addressed local economic development. He
closed the Quay Club, a members-only bottle club in Lake Anne that competed with
neighboring restaurants struggling to cultivate business. Finally, he cut back staff,
including removing Simon from his position on the Board of Directors (Netherton 1989,
87).
148
Ryan saved Reston. Had Gulf Reston not taken over management, Gulf Oil would likely
have dropped out of the financing team and let John Hancock Insurance, with no defined
interest in the New Town aspects of Reston, take over the development. Yet initial
distrust of Ryan and Gulf Reston at the time yielded an unexpected bonus. In 1967 the
Reston Community Association (RCA) was formed to promote Reston’s growth as a new
town with Simon’s vision (Netherton 1989, 88). The Reston Homeowners Association
(RHOA), now the Reston Association (RA) had long managed the 1100 acres of open
space, habitat and commons throughout Reston, produced a newsletter and maps, and
provided educational programs.
35
The all-volunteer RCA formed for the more amorphous
purpose of ensuring the continued ideal character of Reston. Within a few months the
newly formed RCA membership swelled to 900. Over time, the focus has become more
issue-oriented toward Reston planning and zoning.
By 1977 Gulf Oil felt real estate investments were no longer part of Gulf’s business
interests, and they sold their Reston holdings. Creative marketing of the development
resulted in a resurgent interest in Reston. The Gulf holdings were sold to Mobil
Corporation, who sought to develop the 3,700 acres of undeveloped lands. Mobil
assumed they’d stick to the approved Master Plan, and Mobil Reston Land Corporation
35
They must be doing a good job because a 1980 referendum for municipal government failed, with most
Reston voters fear additional taxes but also happy with the level of services and the quality of life provided
by the RA.
149
(RLC) continued to involve those familiar with the development (Netherton 1989, 120).
At this time, businesses began choosing to locate to Reston because of proximity to
Dulles airport and Washington D.C., the varied housing of Reston, and the high quality of
life. These included high tech industrial leaders, such as Sperry (now Unisys), GTE,
ComSat, and MCI. This economic development and the large numbers of local
employment opportunities significantly contributed to the current quality of life in
Reston.
Looking back at the development process, Simon attributes much of Reston’s success to
its nongovernmental status. Federally-funded projects during that era were poorly funded,
and failed to thrive. Reston did not rely on local public or federal government money, and
was adequately funded through private financial institutions and investors. These funders,
in turn, were highly motivated. Further, while there were relatively few barriers to
creating the housing (once the initial issue of bank financing was overcome, local
planners were uniformly enthusiastic about the development) the community was open to
all. Although real estate brokers discouraged some people from looking within Reston,
due in part to its lack of racial and ethnic covenants (Simon 2008) the community grew.
While he lost control of its management, Simon continued to exert authority as a leader
within the community. Moreover, both the RA and RCA took on larger roles in ensuring
that Simon’s vision was fulfilled. In 1984 the business community formed the Reston
Board of Commerce to encourage local economic development. By 1988 there were more
than 1400 businesses in Reston employing a total of 31,000 people.
150
Indicators Applied to Lake Anne
Mobility
Parts of Lake Anne are accessible via traditional sidewalks that border streets. A driving
survey indicated the precise locations and absences of sidewalks. Approximately 75
percent of roads have sidewalks on at least one side of the roadway. (About 20 percent of
the roads have sidewalks on both sides, about 55 percent have sidewalks on one side).
More importantly, much of Lake Anne is connected via a network of pedestrian and bike
paths that do not border the road system but instead follow the local topography and
residential layout. Within the Lake Anne neighborhood, there are 3 ½ miles of pedestrian
footpaths (in addition to sidewalks) that weave in and out of Lake Anne Plaza and the
surrounding residential clusters. The paths appear well-maintained, and in general are
removed from the noise and danger of auto traffic. In that sense, they also appear, in
some locales, rather isolated. There is little dramatic variation in topography, and climate,
as in all of metropolitan Washington, D.C. is pleasant and facilitates walking except in
the most inclement periods of mid-winter (cold, snow) and summer (hot, high humidity).
151
Comm. Pool
Road / Parking Lot
Primary Road
Common Green Space
Water
Water / River
Sidewalk
Parcel
Lake Anne
District
North
1/8 mile
Comm. Pool
Road / Parking Lot
Primary Road
Common Green Space
Water
Water / River
Sidewalk
Parcel
Comm. Pool Comm. Pool
Road / Parking Lot Road / Parking Lot
Primary Road Primary Road
Common Green Space Common Green Space
Water Water
Water / River Water / River
Sidewalk Sidewalk
Parcel Parcel
Lake Anne
District
North North
1/8 mile
Figure 12. Lake Anne Sidewalk Coverage.
152
North 1/8 mile North North 1/8 mile 1/8 mile
Figure 13. Lake Anne Trail Map. Source: www.reston.org/maps, © 2003 Reston
Association.
Destination
Related to mobility, the distance between households and local primary schools was
calculated. Eight percent (83/1069) of households live within one quarter mile of the
local elementary school, Lake Anne Elementary. Fifty-nine percent (633/1069) live
within 0.5 miles of the school; and 100 percent live within 0.75 miles. The neighborhood
is situated about two miles from the designated middle school, Langston Hughes Middle
153
School. No households are within easy walking distance. Similarly, the high school,
South Lakes High School, is about 2.5 miles from Lake Anne.
The access of each parcel, or household to green space or other undeveloped natural
spaces was calculated. Within Lake Anne Village there are numerous public open and/or
greened spaces, including all manner of recreational activities (volleyball sandpits,
basketball hoops, tennis courts, tot lot playgrounds) as well as man-made Lake Anne
around which the commercial and civic plaza is situated. The Lake is a public, natural
centerpiece. Restaurants offer open-air seating looking out at the lake; a farmer’s market
that draws from the wider region operates Saturday mornings; residents who live on the
property fronting Lake Anne maintain their own docks, and others can rent boats at the
plaza. Beyond this, much of Lake Anne is connected via a network of pedestrian and
bicycle pathways that wind in and out of the clustered housing and preserved grounds.
While the actual Plaza is hardscape, there is natural green space everywhere else.
In Lake Anne, every parcel is adjacent to either preserved green space or Lake Anne
itself. Because some of these units are multi-unit condominiums and apartment buildings,
this means that some households are, in fact, more vertically distant than others.
154
Figure 14. Overhead image of Lake Anne Plaza, Reston, VA. (Google Earth
Professional).
250 ft. 250 ft.
Figure 15. Overhead view of Hook Road Recreational Area adjacent to the intersection of
Hook Road and Fairway Drive in Reston, VA. (Google Earth Professional).
Sense of belonging
The design and layout of Lake Anne rendered one part of this particular indicator moot.
Most homes are clustered together and oriented away from the streets, communal parking
areas, and even walkways, and towards the lake. Even if private residences display
friendliness indicators like windsocks or flags, a passing observer (other than one boating
on the lake) would not be able to see and appreciate them. Conversely, the friendliness
index was designed to incorporate both private and public displays of friendliness, and
Lake Anne offers many such public displays. Within the Lake Anne neighborhood are
dozens of benches, several tennis courts, a baseball diamond, a public pool, several flags
155
and displays of yard art, and a community garden. These features suggest a cared-for and
welcoming community
There are no formalized efforts to allow youth a role in local governance. The Fairfax
County Board of Supervisors appoints 9 adults to the Reston Community Center Board of
Governors for 3-year terms. The Board of Governors oversees the design and
implementation of all community programs throughout Reston. There are plans to create
a teen council to advise a director in the area of issues to and programs desirable to teens.
Currently suggestions in the form of suggestion boxes and emails are welcome from all
Reston residents, including teens (Eileen Doone, Director of General Programs, Reston
Community Center, telephone discussion 21 Sept 05 703-390-6162).
156
1/8 mile 1/8 mile
Figure 16. Friendliness Indicators for Lake Anne District, Reston, VA. Legend (B-Bench,
D-Baseball Diamond, Flag-Flag, G-Community Garden, House-Birdhouse, K-Basketball,
S-Playground, T-Tennis Court, W-Public Pool, Y-Yard Art). (Data by author presented
using Google Earth Professional).
157
1 mile 1 mile
Figure 17. Selected businesses in the Lake Anne Area of Reston, VA. (R=Restaurant,
F=Fast Food, C=Convenience Store, G=Grocery). (Data from Yahoo Yellow Pages,
presented using Google Earth Professional).
Health
In the state of Virginia as well as in Fairfax County, the health of infants has declined
slightly during the five-year period 1999-2003. In Virginia, the percentage of low
birthweight babies (babies born weighing 2500 grams / 5.5 lbs or less) has grown from
7.8 to 8.2 percent; in Fairfax County from 6.6 to 6.8 percent. In Virginia, infant mortality
(the number of infants who die before their first birthday, raw numbers) increased from
685 to 766; in Fairfax County from 65 to 76. In Virginia, the rate of mothers who saw a
healthcare provider during their first thirteen weeks of pregnancy stayed almost constant,
from 84.7 to 84.8 percent; in Fairfax County the number declined more significantly from
87.2 to 84.4 percent. The teen birth rate (number of births to girls 15-17 per 1000 girls
158
age 15-19) decreased significantly from 24 to 17 in the state of Virginia; but increased
from 8 to 9 in Fairfax County. The numbers of children with health insurance (percent of
children enrolled in Medicaid and famis who are estimated eligible) in 2003, the only
year data was available was 104 percent for Fairfax County and 90 percent for the state of
Virginia (www.aecf.org). In terms of regular physical activity for youth, the state of
Virginia has made recess a daily requirement for schoolchildren (Economist 2001).
Access to quality food. The number of households living proximate to one or more
quality grocery stores was calculated. Ten percent (10%) of households live within 0.5
miles of a quality, full-service grocery store; 75 percent live within 0.75 miles; and 100
percent of all households live within 1 mile of one or more grocery stores, including
Safeway, Giant, and Whole Foods.
The child poverty rate (children under age six living below 100% of poverty) for Fairfax
County for the year 2000 was 5 percent, compared to 13 percent for the state of Virginia.
The number of children receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families Program (TANF, number per 1000 children) declined in both Fairfax County
and the state of Virginia during the period from 2000 to 2003, from 8 to 7 in Fairfax
County, and from 30 to 26 in Virginia. At the same time, the numbers of students
approved for free or reduced price school lunch (the percentage of Virginia public school
students, K-12, who were approved for free or reduced price school lunches) has
increased overall in both the County and the State during the period 2000 – 2003 (in
Fairfax from 18 to 20 percent and in Virginia from 31 to 33 percent) (www.aecf.org). The
local elementary schools are Forest Edge and Lake Anne. The percentage of children who
159
are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches is 28 percent at Forest Edge, and 31
percent at Lake Anne. This compares with an average of 23 percent for Fairfax County as
a whole (http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Finance/Nutrition/statistics.html and
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Finance/Nutrition/SchoolLevel-
Free&ReducedEligibilityOCT2004.xls). At Lake Anne Plaza there are several
restaurants, including two cafes, an Italian restaurant, and an independent coffee shop.
There is one convenience market. However, within a 1.5 mile radius, there are many
upmarket chain and ethnic groceries, including Safeway, Harris Teeter, Giant, Whole
Foods, and Trader Joe’s.
Household poverty. The number and proportion of households living at or below the
federal poverty line was identified as 2 percent.
160
Source:
Census
2000
Summary
File 3
Median
family
income
in 1999
(a)
Population
For whom poverty status is determined
Total
(k)
Income in 1999 below poverty level
Total
(j)
<5
yrs.
(b)
5 yrs.
(c)
6-11
yrs.
(d)
12-
17
yrs.
(e)
18-
64
yrs.
(f)
65-
74
yrs.
(g)
75
yrs.
and
over
(h)
Total
(all
ages)
(i)
Block
Group 2
$86,259 - - - - 40 - - 40 1,984 2,016
Poverty Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2%
Poverty Rate Source (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s)
Table 6. Poverty data for Lake Anne Household Poverty .Virginia, Fairfax County,
Census Tract 4821, Block Group 2.
36
Air Quality. For 2003, The Washington MSA had 12 days where the air quality index
values were greater than 100 (describe what this means); compared with 0 days at a
number of coastal locations (San Francisco, San Juan Puerto Rico, Portland, Oregon,
Palm Beach) and with 141 (Bakersfield, California) and 138 (Riverside – San
Bernardino, California). Twelve sites in the Washington MSA provide information
specifically about ozone levels. There were days in 2004 when the ozone levels were
higher than the EPA limits. This compares with a number of jurisdictions with 0 days of
36
All data from Census 2000 Summary File 3. Population data from following census fields: (a) P077001,
(b) P087003, (c) P087004, (d) P087005, (e) P087006, (f) P087007, (g) P087008, (h) P087009, (i) P087002,
(j) P087001, (k) P001001. Poverty rate computed by dividing census fields as follows: (l) P087003/
P087011, (m) P087004/ P087012, (n) P087005/ P087013, (o) P087006/ P087014, (p) P087007/ P087015,
(q) P087008/ P087016, (r) P087009/ P087017, (s) P087002/ P087010.
161
ozone levels higher than EPA limits (Newark, NJ, Oklahoma City, and Minneapolis,
among them) and jurisdictions with much higher levels, too (103in Bakersfield, 88 in
Riverside –San Bernardino).
Water Quality. Regulated contaminants generally fell within EPA’s acceptable range for
2004. There was one instance of coliform bacteria; retesting was negative. Because
Fairfax County has consistently tested below the action level of the federal Lead and
Copper Rule, the County is only required to test every three years (rather than twice per
year), and the results reported for lead contamination were from 2002 (and all negative).
Proximity to high traffic areas. There are no households living within 300 feet of a major
arterial roadway.
Superfund sites. There are no Superfund sites in Fairfax County
(www.epa.gov/superfund/sites).
Proportion of two-parent households. The number and proportion of two-parent family
households was calculated as 72 percent.
37
37
The geographic boundaries of Lake Anne coincide with the boundaries of U.S. Census tract 4821, block
group 2..It was therefore not necessary to modify census data in order to analyze household composition or
poverty levels.
162
Source: Census 2000
Summary File 1
Households with one or more people under 18 years old;
Family Households
Total
(a)
Married
couple-
Family
(b)
Male
householder;
no wife
present
(c)
Female
householder;
no husband
present
(d)
Lake Ann Study Area 183 131 15 37
Percentage 100% 72% 8% 20%
Table 7 Lake Anne Family Household Composition. Virginia, Fairfax County, Census
Tract 4821, Block Group 2.
38
Institutions for wellbeing of youth. The number of institutions which focus on the
provision of services to improve the lives of local youth was calculated.
In the state of Virginia and in Fairfax County, during the five-year period 2000-2004, the
child abuse and neglect rate (rate per 1000 children ages 0-17 whose child abuse or
neglect has been founded after an investigation by the local department of social services)
decreased. In Virginia the numbers went from 5.6 to 3.8; in Fairfax County from 2.9 to
1.0 (www.aecf.org).
38
Data from Census 2000 Summary File 1 as follows: (a) P019003 – total households, (b) P019004 –
married couples, families, (c) P019006 – male heads of households, (d) P019007 – female heads of
households.
163
Safety
The general crime rate for an area, as well as the youth crime rate, the physical and
sexual abuse rate, and the number of registered sex offenders within the community were
identified. Twenty-six percent (26%) of households live within 0.125 miles of the home
or work address of a registered sex offender; 56 percent live within 0.25 miles; and 100
percent live within 0.5 miles.
1 mile 1 mile
Figure 18. Green space adjacent to Lake Anne area. (Google Earth Professional).
164
Indicator Jurisdiction
Trend Data
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Low Birth
Weight
Fairfax County 6.6% 6.7% 6.6% 6.4% 6.8%
Virginia 7.8% 8.0% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2%
Infant Mortality
Fairfax County 65 60 67 68 76
Virginia 685 676 730 725 766
Early Prenatal
Care
Fairfax County 87.2% 84.8% 84.8% 84.8% 84.4%
Virginia 84.7%84.6%84.9%84.7% 84.8%
Teen Births
Fairfax County 8 10 10 8 9
Virginia 24 21 21 19 17
Child Abuse
and Neglect
Fairfax County 2.9 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.0
Virginia 5.6 5.2 4.7 3.7 3.8
Child Health
Insurance
Fairfax County 104%
Virginia 90%
Children under
age 6 living in
Poverty
Fairfax County 5%
Virginia 13%
Students
approved for
free lunch
Fairfax County 18% 21% 19% 20%
Virginia 31% 31% 32% 33%
TANF
Fairfax County 8 6 6 7
Virginia 30 26 26 26
Table 8. Reston Demographic Indicators (Fairfax County and Virginia), www.aecf.org.
Lake Anne – Everyday Living in a Natural Setting
Reston offers a unique lifestyle. It promotes environmental stewardship and from the
outset had an environmental director on staff and offered numerous nature education
programs. Ample natural beauty has been preserved and made accessible to residents and
visitors. Strong local leadership was provided by visionary Robert E. Simon, local
planners proved supportive from the outset, private funders stayed committed to its
165
economic success, and long-term homeowner investment occurred via the RA and RCA
groups.
Forty years after its inception, it has also been described as the ‘prototype’ for new town
projects centered on a traditional main street (Lockwood 1997). In 2004, Robert Simon
and others counted up the amenities of Reston as a whole: 2 community centers and 3
community rooms, art galleries, a museum, 26 communities of worship, 12 schools, 55
miles of paved trails, 4 lakes, 2 ponds, a 75-acre nature center, 200 garden plots, 3 picnic
pavilions, 2 golf courses, 2 skating rinks, a YMCA, 84 ball fields, 58 tennis courts, 44
basketball courts, 7 volleyball courts, 70 tot lots, and 15 outdoor and 2 indoor swimming
pools. Reston has more jobs than resident workers.
Lake Anne, in particular, is easy and relatively safe to walk or bike around, although the
mode is via pathways rather than traditional sidewalks, so the perception of safety may be
a bit different. Because of architectural regulations, residents don’t display friendliness
indicators. Most homes in Lake Anne are oriented toward the lake and away from the
roadways and sidewalks. Still, numerous birdhouses, birdfeeders, and public benches are
maintained on public space. Similarly public tot lots, volleyball courts, and basketball
hoops are dispersed throughout the community. Local air and water quality is good,
quality grocery stores and restaurants abound, local crime is relatively low. Public green
and open spaces encircle the entire community, giving anyone the feeling of living within
a regional park and nature preserve.
166
A process has not been created for youth to engage in local government or policy making.
And, while the demographic data are less useful in providing a picture of local health,
these numbers suggest that youth health is not necessarily improving. Because Lake
Anne Village residents have moderate and above-average income, however, resident
youth are likely to have access to regular health care. Moreover, because the percentage
of Fairfax County children with health insurance is significantly higher than the
percentage of state of Virginia children as a whole (104 compared to 90), Fairfax County
appears to be rigorously pursuing health care access for its population.
While Kentlands builds a lot of design friendliness into its architecture with front porches
and ubiquitous sidewalks, Lake Anne features less of this personalized friendliness.
Clustered dwelling units tend to face out on private-seeming, preserved green space
rather than the more publicly visible parking lots. Community recreational sites,
including numerous walking paths and benches are dispersed throughout. This design
appears to invite participation. On every single day of data collection, both on weekends
and during weekdays, in all seasons including winter, people were on the plaza. In warm
weather the restaurants offer outdoor seating and boats are available for rent on the lake.
The climbable sculptures in the plaza are irresistible to children. A farmer’s market
operates on the plaza on Saturdays except in the most inclement weather. The Plaza hosts
a popular children’s clothing consignment shop and a used bookstore, as well as the
Reston Historical Society, which is open to the public. The Plaza seems to attract people
as a destination. Fewer people were observed on the trails during the week. People were
regularly observed in the communal resident parking lots, indicating that residents tend to
167
drive and to access their own units via their communal parking areas in the course of
workday business schedules. On weekends the entire area was observed to be teeming
with people of all ages. Some were on the volleyball, basketball and tennis courts. Others
hit tennis balls against practice walls. Children visited local playlots by themselves and
with adult supervision. Gardeners worked in the community garden, and runners and dog
walkers exercised on the trails. In short, residents appear to take great advantage of their
natural and recreational amenities.
168
Figure 19. Photo of author’s daughter playing on climbable sculptures in Lake Anne
Plaza. (Photo by author).
While Lake Anne is a lovely place to live, it probably does not receive a lot of regular
visitors. While design can encourage pedestrian or other resident and visitor friendliness,
169
it alone does not attract them. Lake Anne Village has local commercial establishments
including a hair salon and coffee shop, yet there is little to attract a regional customer
base. Several businesses have failed. The ethnic grocery store is not large enough to
satisfy local grocery shopping needs. And Lake Anne, with its secondhand stores and
quirky independent coffee shop may not compete well with the new Reston Town Center
which is more centrally located and draws visitors to trendy chain stores including The
Gap, Williams Sonoma, McCormick and Schmick’s Seafood and movie theaters. In cold
weather the Town Center converts its pavilion to a popular open-air ice-skating rink and
attracts crowds. And Lake Anne’s very setting – tucked away within the natural preserves
of Reston – means it is regionally isolated. One is unlikely to stumble upon it; nor is one
likely to make a special trip to visit the stores or coffee shop. Yet Lake Anne youth are
not completely confined. Although they have few opportunities to engage in
policymaking in their community, or to observe visitors, residents are often active.
Moreover youth in Lake Anne do benefit from something of an expandable neighborhood
range. Hard-surface paths, appropriate for walking or cycling connect all of Reston,
including Lake Anne Village to the Reston Town Center. While Lake Anne might not be
a very exciting place for older youth and teenagers, they are welcome throughout Reston.
170
CHAPTER 8: CASE STUDY – LYON VILLAGE
Lyon Village History
Lyon Village is an old residential neighborhood in the heart of the fast-growing
restaurant and retail Clarendon area of Arlington County, just west of Washington D.C.
It is a relatively affluent, predominantly white neighborhood (approximately 90 percent
white, compared to 70 percent for both Arlington County and the state of Virginia). The
median income is between $100,000 and $125,000, compared to $60,000 for the County
and $47,000 for the State. Sixty-five percent of homes are owner-occupied. It appears to
be desirable for both married couples with children under 18 years (26 percent, compared
to 15 percent for Arlington County and 26 percent for the State) and for married couples
without children (29 percent, compared to 21 percent for the County and 29 percent for
Virginia) find it desirable. Within Arlington, parents apparently deem Lyon Village
relatively desirable for children: 21 percent of the population is 18 or under, compared to
17 percent for the County, and 26 percent for the State.
39
39
Lyon Village is an Arlington County civic association and the boundaries do not correspond 1:1 with
census tracts or block groups. Of the five block groups that comprise some portion of Lyon Village, 2 are
almost entirely outside its borders. Thus three groups were used to calculate this data, groups 2, 3 and 5 in
census tract 1015.
171
Lyon Village was developed by Frank Lyon, a young, teetotalling, Arlington County
attorney. Lyon was frustrated by the gambling and related crime associated with
Rosslyn. The area had developed into a gambling mecca in the late 1870s, when
gambling promoters, reacting to the recent gambling prohibition in New Jersey, sought
other venues and landed in Arlington, Virginia.
40
Two neighborhoods became popular
gambling havens, Jackson City, and Rosslyn. Rosslyn was especially accessible with its
boat terminal, ferry station, 3 trolley lines and 2 railroad lines running through it, and
criminal activity flourished. By the 1890s, Rosslyn was known as the ‘Monte Carlo of
Virginia’ and featured keno, slot machines, horse-racing and cock-fighting, a cocaine
house, and brothels. Travelers from the District to Northern Virginia who had to pass
through Rosslyn found this a dangerous journey on busy Saturday nights (Shafer, 1978,
62-68).
Lyon felt these influences hindered sound development within Arlington County.
Moreover, they offended his moral character. As a partner with attorney Robert Walton
Moore, he became active in land development in Arlington County. He joined the Good
Citizens League and purchased the local newspaper, the Alexandria County Monitor, to
publicize political corruption and bribery regarding the gambling dens, drinking
40
In 1846, the land west of the Potomac River was ceded back to the state of Virginia. This included the
City of Alexandria, and the land outside the city limits, known then as Alexandria County. In 1920,
Alexandria County was renamed Arlington County.
172
establishments and brothels (Templeman 1959, p76). He argued successfully against
granting liquor licenses without adequate police protection (the Alexandria County
Sheriff’s Department consisted of the Sheriff and one deputy); and subsequent property
deeds were stamped with a teetotalling clause restricting alcohol use (The World of Frank
Lyon 2002).
Frank Lyon wanted to create a community that would uphold strong morals and family
virtues. During the period from 1919-1922, Lyon had developed a tract of land he named
Lyon Park. It was 3 miles from the White House and on the trolley lines near Arlington
National Cemetery. In 1923 Lyon wanted to expand upon this success with a planned
community, characterized by clean family living. He settled on a 163-acre tract which
had belonged to Robert Cruit. Cruit had purchased the land to serve as a weekend retreat
from Washington D.C., to raise thoroughbred horses, and to establish a dairy farm.
41
Lyon purchased the land for $175,000 in 1923 and began to sell individual lots for
between $1,600 and $2,400.
From the start, Lyon envisioned this new community, Lyon Village, as secluded, quiet
and family-oriented, despite external development in adjacent commercial Clarendon
41
Cruit was the first person in the United States to import Jersey cows, and he had a successful dairy herd
for four generations. The Cruit family house on the site had served as a Union hospital during the Civil War
(Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Survey Form File no 00-29 Robert Cruit home appendix #6).
173
(The World of Frank Lyon brochure 2002). To Lyon, married with children himself,
families would thrive best when far removed from the immoral influences of the urban
areas. In order to achieve his vision, Lyon devised a street layout that limited traffic
through the community, and resulted instead in a rather closed neighborhood. A simple
street grid overlaid at an angle to arterials on the community’s border discouraged the use
of the Lyon Village streets as shortcut from one neighborhood to another. A major
thoroughfare, Key Boulevard, ran through Lyon Village to the newly constructed Key
Bridge, connecting Arlington commuters to Georgetown and the District
174
Figure 20. Cruit Land Tract, Wilson Boulevard looking north, August 1923 (Virginia
Room, Arlington County Public Library).
175
.
North
1/4 mile
North
1/4 mile 1/4 mile
Figure 21. Arlington County Streets, Subdivisions and House Numbers by W. F.
Sunderman Landscape Architect and Certified Land Surveyor, 1931 (Virginia Room,
Arlington County Public Library). The study area is outlined in red.
Early Arlington suburbs were characterized by narrow lots (usually 25 feet wide by 125
feet long) and setbacks about 20 feet from the front lot line. Homebuilders usually had to
purchase two or more lots in order to have sufficient frontage for single-family detached
building construction. Although plots typically included areas for sidewalks, utilities, and
paved roads, builders usually only built these amenities if they thought they would help
to attract buyers. Lyon wanted to attract buyers who would help ensure the success of his
176
ideal community. Lots were laid out with respect to scenery and views, and the
community included a playground with swings, see-saws, and a sand-pile, state-of-the-art
playground equipment. Lyon provided a trust fund for the lot owners, including for the
planned maintenance of streets, sewers, electric lights, and the construction and
maintenance of a community house on lots donated by Lyon Properties, Inc. (The World
of Frank Lyon brochure 2002).
While a number of different builders constructed the Lyon Village homes, these builders
adhered to a handful of architectural styles that continue to facilitate neighborly
interaction or ensure neighborhood coherence. From 1923 – 1929, when the lots sold
briskly, 37 percent of the homes in Lyon Village were built. These homes were generally
to the East of Highland Street, and mostly farmhouse and four-square-style architecture.
Both styles were relatively inexpensive to built and maintain. The farmhouse-style
features prominent full-width front porches and natural materials, with weatherboard and
stucco cladding. The four-square is designed as a 2-story, 2 rooms-deep and 2 rooms-
wide home. Like the farmhouse, the four-square usually features a front porch.
During the 1930s and 1940s, the area west of Highland Street was developed. This
development was slower, due to the economic depression, and the style of homes was
mostly formal and spare brick colonials, and frame and brick Cape Cods. Frank Lyon had
less ultimate oversight regarding the development of this part of Lyon Village. This area
was not designed to be as connected as the early sections, and hence had fewer sections
and less of a traditional grid street layout. One builder, Frederick E. Westenberger,
bought a square block of lots in 1937 and built his own house and 22 others. All these
177
homes were modest brick colonials, as per the Lyon Village Citizens Association, but
each featured slight architectural variations and attention to craftsmanship, including
bricks made by hand and slate roofs.
Lyon’s vision was well received, then and since. According to the Book of Washington
(1930 Edition), Lyon Village represented the ‘ideal residential community’, featuring
‘stately trees…park-like appearance…curving thoroughfares…’ To ensure the
continuation of such a lovely place, residents established the Lyon Village Citizens’
Association in 1926. The Association not only provided social events, it also published a
monthly bulletin to maintain the peaceful nature of the development.
In addition to the strong design foundation in planned development, from the secluded
atmosphere to friendly front porches, another feature plays a prominent role in the sense
of community. The Lyon Village Citizens’ Association has provided architectural
oversight both within and outside of the immediate neighborhood for ninety years. In the
1970s the Association formed a Lyon Village Neighborhood Conservation Committee
and created a plan that identified neighborhood priorities for auto and pedestrian traffic.
This group also provided the basis for Arlington County’s Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan for Lyon Village, including input regarding development around nearby metro
stations (Rose 1976). A 1978 County Conservation Plan for Lyon Village reiterated
Lyon’s early design guidelines, emphasizing minimal traffic short-cuts through Lyon
Village. It also imposed new ones, such as limited building heights in adjacent,
commercial Clarendon.
178
The design foundation Frank Lyon built Lyon Village upon foreshadowed and possibly
influenced today’s development decisions throughout Arlington County. The County
General Land Use Plan 1980 includes neighborhood conservation among its stated goals
for this community: ‘major apartment and townhouse construction, medium density
office development, commercial revitalization, and neighborhood preservation’
(Clarendon Sector Plan: Arlington County, VA, prepared by Arlington County VA
Department of Community Affairs: Planning, Housing and Community Development
Division, Planning Section. Adopted May 1984, p23). The 2006 Master Transportation
Plan identifies six goals, including moving more people with fewer motor vehicles,
facilitating environmental sustainability via ecological street design and maintenance of
street trees, and establishing equity, such as redesigning arterials to better serve residents,
commuters and visitors. The plan notes that the existing street layout of limited
thoroughfares through some of the County’s urban neighborhoods preserves their quiet
communities, while funneling most auto travelers to the arterials, resulting in a critical
mass for commercial and retail development.
In 2002 the 191-acre Lyon Village was added to the U.S. Department of Interior’s
National Register of Historic Places. This designation makes the community as a cultural
resource representative of U.S. history, including traditional 20
th
century neighborhoods.
It also provides tax credits to owners who undertake residential rehabilitation within
approved preservation guidelines, and as such provides financial incentives to help ensure
long-term maintenance and improvements within an approved design range.
179
Indicators applied to Lyon Village
Mobility
Much of Lyon Village is accessible via sidewalk, making it easy to walk around the
neighborhood, push a stroller, ride a bike, etc. A driving survey indicated the precise
locations and absences of sidewalks. This data was plotted in GIS. While some pockets of
the neighborhood have a shortage of sidewalks, most blocks (approximately 90 percent)
have sidewalks on one (15 percent) or both (75 percent) sides of the roadway. In general,
these sidewalks are in good repair and well-maintained in snowy or other inclement
weather (as observed). They provide a safe avenue for travel throughout Lyon Village
and to the retail/commercial district which borders the community to the south (along
Wilson Boulevard). (There are no dedicated bike trails or paths). This particular
neighborhood has some variation in the topography, with the northern part of the
community being a bit hillier than the southern part. There is a bench at a traffic isthmus
at the crest of the hill along the primary north-south thoroughfare (Highland). Climate, as
in all of metropolitan Washington, D.C. is pleasant and facilitates walking except in the
most inclement periods of mid-winter (cold, snow) and summer (hot, high humidity).
Moreover, the southern boundary of Lyon Village houses the Clarendon Metro station,
providing transit to points in Washington D.C., Alexandria, and points west. Finally, the
Arlington County Board of Supervisors recently voted to reduce Arlington Transit (ART
busses) fares from $1.25 to $0.60 for youths traveling with a valid middle- or high-school
ID effective January 1, 2007.
180
North
1/4 mile
North North
1/4 mile
Figure 22. Lyon Village Sidewalk Coverage
Destination
Related to mobility, the distance between households and local primary schools was
calculated. (The one-mile mark is the cut-off for walkers in Arlington County, for
example. Households residing outside of that range but still within the school boundaries
are bussed to school). Forty-one percent (425/1035) of households live within one quarter
mile of one of two local neighborhood-serving elementary schools (Key Elementary and
Science-Focus Elementary). All households (100 percent) live within 0.5 miles of a local
elementary school. The neighborhood is situated about two miles from the designated
181
middle school, Swanson Middle School. No households are within easy walking distance.
Well more than half (67 percent or 696/1035) of households live within one mile of the
local high school, Wakefield-Lee.
Similarly, the distance between households (parcels) and green space or other
undeveloped natural spaces was estimated. Lyon Village has a neighborhood park and a
popular destination playground for larger North Arlington. Both are easily accessible to
neighborhood residents. Parking is limited so these parks are therefore less accessible to
out-of-neighborhood visitors. In addition to these parks, the neighborhood features
greened street medians. The playground and playing fields of the local elementary school,
Key, are used for family and informal recreation weekends. Based only on dedicated
public green space within the neighborhood, there is approximately 283 square feet of
park area per resident. In Lyon Village, the median distance from the center of the parcel
to preserved green space is 270 feet.
Sense of belonging
Lyon Village residences offer a large and diverse array of friendliness indicators, from
yard art to birdbaths to benches. Approximately 33 percent of residences (or 251 of 770)
have one or more such feature. A driving survey indicated the precise nature and location
of these features. Many homes include front porches, which while an indicator of
friendliness per the Seward Neighborhood Group of Minneapolis, represent a design
feature of the home’s architect rather than the current residents’ attitude towards
welcoming their neighbors. Not surprisingly, homes with front porches are clustered.
182
Perhaps more surprisingly, the homes featuring porches are among the more moderate,
older homes, rather than the largest, most affluent part of the neighborhood. Other
features, such as flags and basketball hoops, are more evenly dispersed throughout the
neighborhood. In general, one moving through Lyon Village (walking or driving) on the
main thoroughfares or side streets would observe flags flying, birds hovering around
maintained feeders and birdhouses, and furnished front porches. All suggest a cared-for
and welcoming community. The community also has a popular destination playground,
tennis courts, picnic pavilion, and dog run area.
183
North
1/4 mile
North North
1/4 mile
Figure 23. Lyon Village Friendliness Indicators
There are 79 advisory boards in Arlington County, including the Arlington Partnership
for Children, Youth and Families, and none of them provide a role for local youth to
participate directly. For the past three years Freddie Mac has sponsored a Youth
Leadership Program to develop leadership skills and encourage civic participation among
high school juniors throughout Arlington County, but these youth do not have a voice or
direct input to any local government decision-making body. The Arlington County Office
of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services has included, since the 1990s, an Office for
Teens (Ileana Mayorga, Arlington County Department of Human Services, 12 Sept 2005
184
via telephone 703-228-1198) This office, led by county staff, coordinates local teens who
meet to plan activities and spaces for teens.
Health.
In the state of Virginia as well as in Arlington County, the health of infants has declined
slightly during the five-year period 1999-2003. In Virginia, the percentage of low
birthweight babies (babies born weighing 2500 grams / 5.5 lbs or less) has grown from
7.8 to 8.2 percent; in Arlington County from 6.1 to 6.3 percent. In Virginia, infant
mortality (the number of infants who die before their first birthday, raw numbers)
increased from 685 to 766; in Arlington County it jumped around but ultimately declined
from a high of 16, in 1999 to 12 in 2003. In Virginia, the rate of mothers who saw a
healthcare provider during their first thirteen weeks of pregnancy stayed almost constant,
from 84.7 to 84.8 percent; in Arlington County the number declined slightly from 76.7
percent to 73.2 percent. The teen birth rate (number of births to girls 15-17 per 1000 girls
age 15-19) decreased significantly from 24 to 17 in the state of Virginia; and even more
dramatically from 27 to 13 in Arlington County. The numbers of children with health
insurance (percent of children enrolled in Medicaid and famis who are estimated eligible)
in 2003, the only year data was available, was 79 percent for Arlington County and 90
percent for the state of Virginia (www.aecf.org). In terms of regular physical activity for
youth, the state of Virginia has made recess a daily requirement for schoolchildren
(Economist 2001).
185
Access to quality food. The number of households living within ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1
mile of one or more quality grocery stores was calculated. Eight percent (8%) of
households live within 0.125 miles of a quality, full-service grocery store; 47 percent live
within 0.25 miles; and 100 percent of all households live within 0.5 miles of one or more
grocery stores, including Safeway, Giant, and Whole Foods.
The child poverty rate (children under age six living below 100% of poverty, where
100% poverty was 16,895 for a family of 4 in 1999) for Arlington County for the year
2000 was 8 percent, compared to 13 percent for the state of Virginia. The number of
children receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program
(TANF, number per 1000 children) declined in both Arlington County and the state of
Virginia during the period from 2000 to 2003, from 23 to 14 in Arlington County, and
from 30 to 26 in Virginia. At the same time, the numbers of students approved for free or
reduced price school lunch (the percentage of Virginia public school students, K-12, who
were approved for free or reduced price school lunches) has increased overall in the State
during the period 2000 – 2003, from 31 to 33 percent, and decreased in Arlington
County, from 42 to 39 percent (www.aecf.org). The local elementary school is Taylor
Elementary. The percentage of children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school
lunches is 9.32. Only three of the 22 elementary schools in the County have a lower
percentage. This compares with an average of 47 percent for Arlington County as a
whole (http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Finance/Nutrition/statistics.html and
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Finance/Nutrition/SchoolLevel-
Free&ReducedEligibilityOCT2004.xls). Within the Lyon Village service area, there are a
186
number of fast food restaurants (Taco Bell, Arby’s, Wendy’s Domino’s Pizza) which are
almost assuredly patronized by local families and youth, but also a number of popular
ethnic restaurants including Indian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Mexican, Vietnamese and
Thai cuisine.
Household poverty. The number and proportion of households living at or below the
federal poverty line was identified as two percent.
42
Source:
Census
2000
Summary
File 3
Median
family
income
in 1999
(a)
Population
For whom poverty status is determined
Total
(k)
Income in 1999 below poverty level
Total
(j)
<5
years
(b)
5
years
(c)
6-11
years
(d)
12-
17
years
(e)
18-
64
years
(f)
65-
74
years
(g)
75
years
and
over
(h)
Total
(all
ages)
(i)
Block
Group 2 $98,750 - - - - 8 - - 8 418 418
Block
Group 3 $125,000 - - - 12 6 - - 18 434 434
Block
Group 4 $175,530 - - - - 12 - - 12 847 847
Total
Block
Groups
2-4 $143,732 - - - 12 26 - - 38 1,699 1,699
Poverty Rate for
Block Groups 2-4 0% 0% 0% 20% 2% 0% 0% 2%
Poverty Rate Source (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s)
42
U.S. Census poverty data is made available to the public at the block group, rather than the less
aggregated block level. Lyon Village is composed of five block groups. Three of those groups are
representative of the larger community, thus data for those three groups was retained and analyzed.
187
Table 9. Lyon Village Household Poverty. Virginia, Arlington County, Census Tract
1015.
Air Quality. For 2003, The Washington MSA had 12 days where the air quality index
values were greater than 100 (describe what this means); compared with 0 days at a
number of coastal locations (San Francisco, San Juan
43
Puerto Rico, Portland, Oregon,
Palm Beach) and with 141 (Bakersfield, California) and 138 (Riverside – San
Bernardino, California). Twelve sites in the Washington MSA provide information
specifically about ozone levels. There were days in 2004 when the ozone levels were
higher than the EPA limits. This compares with a number of jurisdictions with 0 days of
ozone levels higher than EPA limits (Newark, NJ, Oklahoma City, and Minneapolis,
among them) and jurisdictions with much higher levels, too (103in Bakersfield, 88 in
Riverside –San Bernardino).
Water quality. Regulated contaminants generally fell within EPA’s acceptable range for
2004. In some instances slightly higher than acceptable levels of both coliform bacteria
43
All data from Census 2000 Summary File 3. Population data from following census fields: (a) P077001,
(b) P087003, (c) P087004, (d) P087005, (e) P087006, (f) P087007, (g) P087008, (h) P087009, (i) P087002,
(j) P087001, (k) P001001. “Total Median income for Block Groups 2-4” is the population weighted
average of the median incomes for Blocks 2, 3, and 4. Poverty rate computed by dividing census fields as
follows: (l) P087003/ P087011, (m) P087004/ P087012, (n) P087005/ P087013, (o) P087006/ P087014, (p)
P087007/ P087015, (q) P087008/ P087016, (r) P087009/ P087017, (s) P087002/ P087010.
188
(naturally present in the environment) and lead (from either corrosion of household
plumbing systems or erosion of natural deposits) were detected. Retesting of the six sites
where coliform was detected was negative. Arlington County has also introduced
orthophosphates to control lead leaching.
Proximity to high traffic areas. The number of households living proximate to a major
arterial roadway was calculated. Seven percent live within 0.125 miles of a major arterial
roadway (Route 66); 32 percent live within 0.25 miles; and 95 percent live within 0.5
miles.
In terms of environmental threats, there are no Superfund sites in Arlington County
(www.epa.gov/superfund/sites).
Proportion of two-parent households. The number and proportion of two-parent family
households was calculated as 72 percent
44
44
U.S. Census data for household composition is available at the block level, which borders coincide with
the geographic borders of Lyon Village.
189
Source: Census 2000
Summary File 1
Households with one or more people under 18 years old;
Family Households
Total
(a)
Married couple-
Family
(b)
Male
householder;
no wife present
(c)
Female
householder;
no husband
present
(d)
Lyon Village Study Area 251 214 8 29
Percentage 100% 72% 8% 20%
Table 10. Lyon Village Family Household Composition. Virginia, Arlington County,
Census Tract 1015, Block Group 1 (excluding Blocks 1000-1005, 1011-1012), Block
Group 2 (all), Block Group 3 (excluding Blocks 3011, 3018), Block Group 4 (excluding
Blocks 4000-4002). 45
Institutions for wellbeing of youth. The number of institutions which focus on the
provision of services to improve the lives of local youth was calculated.
Safety
The general crime rate for an area, as well as the youth crime rate, the physical and
sexual abuse rate, and the number of registered sex offenders within the community were
identified. Ten percent (10%) of households live within 0.125 miles of the home or work
45
Data from Census 2000 Summary File 1 as follows: (a) P019003 – total households, (b) P019004 –
married couples, families, (c) P019006 – male heads of households, (d) P019007 – female heads of
households.
190
address of a registered sex offender; 25 percent live within 0.25 miles; and 86 percent
live within 0.5 miles.
Safety from Threats of Violence. In the state of Virginia and in Arlington County, during
the five-year period 2000-2004, the child abuse and neglect rate (rate per 1000 children
ages 0-17 whose child abuse or neglect has been founded after an investigation by the
local department of social services) decreased. In Virginia the numbers went from 5.6 to
3.8; in Arlington County from 6.4 to 2.5 (www.aecf.org). In general, crime in North
Arlington is very low. Crime in Lyon Village for a nine-month period (January –
September 2006) ranged from vandalism to robbery and assault. Much of the local crime
(larceny and vandalism) occurred along the business and commercial districts of Lee
Highway and Wilson Boulevard.
191
Figure 24. Lyon Village (Arlington, VA) Summary of 2006 (partial year) Part 1 Criminal
Offenses, by location and type. (Arlington County GIS Mapping Center).
192
Lyon Village Lyon Village
North
1/4 mile
Lyon Village Lyon Village
North North
1/4 mile
Figure 25. Green Space in Lyon Village (Arlington, VA).
Park Size (ft
2
)
Lyon Village Park 66,343
Kirkwood Road Park 106,245
Kirkwood Road Neighborhood
Park 18,108
Herndon and 13th Street Park 27,338
Total 218,034
Residences (approx. count) 770
Park area per residence
(ft
2
per count) 283
Table 11. Parks Size in Lyon Village (Arlington, VA).
193
100 ft. 100 ft.
Figure 26. Overhead view of Lyon Village Park at 1800 North Highland Street,
Arlington, VA. (Google Earth Professional).
194
Figure 27. Street-level View of Lyon Village Park at 1800 North Highland Street,
Arlington, VA. (Photo by author).
195
100 ft. 100 ft.
Figure 28. Overhead view of Lyon Village greened median at the intersection of North
Byron Street and North Franklin Road in Arlington, VA. (Google Earth Professional).
196
100 ft. 100 ft.
Figure 29. Overhead View of Greened Perimeter of Traffic Circle at Key Boulevard and
Highland Street in Lyon Village, Arlington, VA. (Google Earth Professional).
197
Figure 30. Street-Level view of Greened Perimeter of traffic circle (shown in Figure 29)
at Key Boulevard and Highland Street in Lyon Village, Arlington, VA. Shown looking
north at intersection of Franklin Road and North Highland Street. (Photo by author)..
198
200 ft.
Figure 31. Overhead image of Key Elementary School at 2300 Key Blvd, Arlington, VA.
199
Indicator Jurisdiction
Trend Data
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Low Birth
Weight
Arlington County 6.1% 6.6% 5.8% 6.5% 6.3%
Virginia 7.8% 8.0% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2%
Infant
Mortality
Arlington County 16 6 13 7 12
Virginia 685 676 730 725 766
Early
Prenatal
Care
Arlington County 76.7% 74.4% 74.1% 71.7% 73.2%
Virginia 84.7%84.6%84.9%84.7% 84.8%
Teen Birth
Rate
Arlington County 27 22 17 15 13
Virginia 24 21 21 19 17
Child Abuse
and Neglect
Arlington County 6.4 6.8 5.4 3.9 2.5
Virginia 5.6 5.2 4.7 3.7 3.8
Child Health
Insurance
Arlington County 79%
Virginia 90%
Children
under age 6
living in
Poverty
Arlington County 8%
Virginia 13%
Students
approved for
free lunch
Arlington County 42% 41% 415 39%
Virginia 31% 31% 32% 33%
TANF
Arlington County 23 18 15 14
Virginia 30 26 26 26
Table 12. Lyon Village Demographic Indicators (Arlington County and Virginia).
Source: www.aecf.org46
46
The Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) conducts research and analyzes data pertaining to child and
family quality of life across the United States. In some cases, the data analyzed is secondary and provided
by local jurisdictions and therefore not always uniform across localities.
200
Lyon Village – Classic Suburb turns Trendy Walking Neighborhood
The historical emphasis on family values and clean living secluded from the larger urban
atmosphere impacts the current evaluation. The tools implemented to create, and later
maintain Lyon Village, from Frank Lyon’s original moral impetus, to the architectural
covenants, to Lyon Village Civic Association’s long-term oversight result in a cohesive,
friendly, neighborhood. Through-traffic from the bordering Clarendon commercial area is
discouraged via an intricate system of one-way streets and limited points of entry to the
neighborhood. Yet the grid and curving overlays within Lyon Village make it easy to
travel within the community and create a sense of peacefulness. Unlike many isolated
early twentieth-century suburban communities, Lyon Village is both secluded for its
residents yet accessible to hip and trendy Clarendon. The combination creates a
neighborhood with a clear sense of neighborhood boundaries, both to residents and to
visitors.
The standard setbacks and varied architecture, with an emphasis on front porches
facilitates order, too, as well as neighborly interactions. Proactive and progressive
Arlington County planning complements these efforts, with the National Register of
Historic Places designation and neighborhood preservation. Moreover, Lyon Village’s
geographic location within the beltway and proximity to the nation’s capitol including
employment ensures a strong long-term economy. Homes are well-maintained and
steadily increase in value. Residents tend to be organized, politically facile, and affluent.
Lyon Village offers children and youth a friendly, welcoming, supportive community. It
is easy and safe to walk around. Residences showcase a range of visible characteristics
201
that indicate residents care about their community – they are ready to play basketball in
their driveways or cul de sacs, to sit on their wide front porches, and to nurture local
wildlife. Local air and water quality is good, there are ample quality grocery stores and
restaurants, crime is relatively low, and there are parks and public green spaces in the
neighborhood and nearby.
The area does not have a process for youth to participate in local government or policy
making. And, while the demographic data are less useful in providing a picture of local
health, these numbers suggest that youth health is not necessarily improving. Because
Lyon Village is affluent, however, resident youth are likely to have access to regular
health care.
Frank Lyon’s original design focus on limited auto access to Lyon Village has been
maintained. Key Boulevard once provided a relatively straight auto commute eastbound
to Key Bridge and Washington D.C., and it still acts a major thoroughfare through the
neighborhood. Now, however, residents are as likely to drive along Key Boulevard to
jobs north and east as walk to the nearby Metro station bordering Lyon Village to the
south and commute to D.C. via public transit.
Lyon Village, like Reston, always had a lot of people going about their business,
especially along the neighborhood perimeters. Wilson Boulevard in Lyon Village is home
to popular restaurants, shops, and metro stations that likely transport local residents to
their jobs in Washington, D.C. This area serves as something of a local destination.
During data collection and observation visits, both on weekends and weekdays adults
202
were walking dogs and working in gardens, parents or nannies were pushing strollers,
and older youth were shooting baskets, riding bikes, or walking. Parts of Lyon Village
appear to garner more and different activity than others. The residences on the hill, in the
northwest part of Lyon Village, without sidewalks and with few porches or benches, were
relatively quiet. This part of the community was developed during and immediately after
the economic depression, and is even more isolated from the regional shops and
restaurants. Only a couple of streets lead in and out of this area, and it is not necessary to
pass through this neighborhood on the way to the restaurants or the local schools. The
playground, located on major thoroughfare Highland Street and bordering this tucked-
away area, is always crowded.
The lower-lying neighborhood, configured on a sort-of traditional grid and more
proximate to retail and commercial destinations, as well as Metro stops, featured more
activity. The popular commercial-retail corridor along Wilson Boulevard underwent a
revitalization a decade ago and shifted its focus from local auto mall to destination
shopping. This area remains heavily traveled throughout the day, and with popular
restaurants, now well into the evening as well. The grounds and play equipment at the
local elementary school are continuously used on the weekends by families and local
youth and adult sporting groups, both formal and informal. In short, the area sees a great
deal of regular activity. Lyon Village is familiar and inclusive to its residents, and
welcoming and attractive to visitors.
203
Figure 32. Street-level view of Clarendon Metro Station at the corner of Wilson
Boulevard and South Highland Street, Arlington, VA. Photo taken looking southwest.
(Photo by author).
204
Figure 33. Street-level view of Lyon Village Dog Park. Photo taken looking east across
intersection of 13th Street North and North Herndon Street, Arlington, VA. (Photo by
author).
205
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION
The indicator model helps us to begin to understand and evaluate the suburban
environment of youth. The three case study developments are similar in many ways. All
three represent healthy and safe places for youth, and all three similarly lack dedicated
venues for youth participation in local planning and policy-making. At the same time, the
model and the underlying impetus for the model illuminate some differences.
Indicator Kentlands Lake Anne
Lyon
Village
Low birth weight babies, 2003 (County-level data) 8% 7% 6%
Child poverty, 2002 (County-level data) 7% 5% 8%
Households within 0.5 miles of registered sex offender 100% 100% 86%
Households within 0.125 miles of major arterial 0% 0% 7%
Households within 0.5 miles of full service grocery 80% 10% 100%
Households within 0.5 miles of local elementary school 100% 59% 100%
Sidewalk coverage (one or both sides of street) 100% 55% 90%
Households at or below federal poverty line
(2000 census)
3% 2% 2%
Median distance from parcel to preserved green space 100 feet 0 feet 283 feet
Table 13. Summary Case Study Comparison.
The degree to which friendliness indicators correlate with numbers of people out and
about varies, in part with community design. In Lyon Village, the friendliness indicators
correlate strongly with a high level of observed activity. Most homes have shallow front
yards and often a porch, swing, or flag, and the entire neighborhood is connected with
206
sidewalks. The nearby Metro stations and popular restaurants attract a steady stream of
visitors to the area.
Although Lake Anne has relatively few architectural community-friendly indicators,
compared with both Lyon Village and Kentlands. Many homes are oriented toward back-
rather than front yards. Yet many of these homes maintain birdhouses, possibly in
keeping with the preserved environment approach inherent in the original development.
Lake Anne is also highly pedestrian accessible, with sidewalks and walkways and bike
paths throughout the village and the larger Reston community. There are many ways to
move around and through Lake Anne, and a high level of varied activity was observed
over repeated occasions. During weekdays and weekends, and in all four seasons
including cold winter days, moderately sized groups of people were visible in Lake Anne,
looking at the lake and visiting stores and restaurants. In warmer weather, people are
everywhere – kids in the playgrounds, dogwalkers on the paths, tennis rallies on the
tennis courts, shoppers, couples and families dining outside, residents gardening, the
occasional boater, and people just sitting on the benches in Lake Anne Village Plaza.
These observations of activity within Lyon Village and Lake Anne contrast directly with
Kentlands’ observed lower activity levels. While Kentlands’ design encourages
comprehensive friendliness, including front porches, window boxes, standard short
setbacks and sidewalks and alleyways to facilitate neighborliness, there were no almost
no neighbors out to engage with one an another during the weekdays. Over the course of
several weekdays I observed commercial gardening and housekeeping crews working at
residential properties. There was a jogger, someone walking a dog, and a woman getting
207
ready to go to work – busy, relatively solitary activities. No kids in strollers, and no
identifiable residents walking, playing, visiting one another. This level of activity
changed markedly on weekends, when I observed Kentlands bursting with activity, from
joggers to families at the playground to casual social interactions on the ubiquitous
sidewalks.
Some of this variation is due to geographic and regional changes over time, with respect
to land development. Although all three of these iconic communities have ultimately
been successful, both financially and in terms of market demand, and all remain true to
the vision of their early developer, Lyon Village has retained its isolated community feel
in the midst of thriving destination shopping and dining growth. Lyon Village was the
ideal of a morally upright developer who wanted to create a family-oriented community,
protected from the crime of the larger metropolitan area. But Frank Lyon did not gate
Lyon Village. He merely limited auto thoroughfares while ensuring an easy commute to
the region’s job center. Seventy years later, the neighborhood is surrounded by booming
development and metro access.
Similarly, Lake Anne sits amid preserved green space within larger Reston, which now
includes the regionally popular Reston Town Center. Lake Anne in Reston was the dream
development for raising a family within the beauty of nature but easy accessibility of
employment, cultural, recreation and commercial opportunities. Like Lyon Village, the
area around Reston flourished in the last 45 years, with the development of Tyson’s
Corner and the implementation of the Dulles Toll Road. Reston itself completed the
208
Town Center, including hotels, meeting sites, restaurants and shopping, and movie
theaters and a seasonal ice-skating rink.
Kentlands, while not as active during the week, appears to teem with resident activity on
weekends. Yet the development of Kentlands is still comparatively new, and the area
immediately surrounding Kentlands is still developing. Over time, Kentlands may
become part of a larger regional destination. Time will tell as to its long-term success.
Overall, Lyon Village appears to be, at least at this time, the most child-friendly
neighborhood.
General Observations
First, children are special. They are not simply little adults but retain a special status in
our culture. Their status as youth is limited, unlike other defining characteristics such as
race or gender. As we note in all three case studies, while the other end of the age
spectrum, the elderly, is well represented politically, children have no voice. Similarly the
built environment is beginning to reflect the changing needs of the elderly population.
Yet children must function within an environment built primarily for adults. Children and
youth also offer a special viewpoint, kindering, that can illuminate planning and policy-
making decisions.
Second, planners have not planned for children. Rather, they have planned for a particular
child, an idealized, essentialized, monolithic child. From the child-savers and reformers
at the turn of the century to the suburban visionaries, planners have sought both to
209
accommodate the perceived needs of the ideal child, and to foster development toward
adopting the middle-class values of the idealized family. Each of the case studies
ultimately favors the essentialized family and child. While the suburban model has
changed, from encouraging American-style homeownership to fostering patriotic
consumption habits, it has neither kept pace with social changes nor adequately addressed
the needs of children.
The world of youth, increasingly limited both geographically and temporally by the
suburban planning model, gives no sense of the larger world. Today’s youth observe little
relationship between their world and real-world problems. We now know what youth
want in their communities, and for the most part, it is not what their communities
provide. They crave integration and connectivity, yet our models, such as Lake Anne in
Reston and Kentlands, look internally, nor externally. Efforts to expand youth
participation in planning and policy-making have typically been superficial and do not
seek youth perspectives so much as goodwill. At the same time, design likely influences
youth-friendliness as much as policy efforts, suggesting that planning departments indeed
have a grand role to play in improving their communities in the eyes of local youth. A
significant mismatch exists between what youth need and what they receive in their local
environments. “Children are a kind of indicator species. If we can build a successful city
for children, we will have a successful city for all people.” (Enrique Penalosa, Mayor of
Bogotá 2003). Local planners and policy-makers can facilitate development that allows
youth into the public realm. This includes creating physical spaces that welcome youth,
such as the park in Lyon Village or the plaza at Lake Anne. These temporal spaces
210
accommodate youth, and expand the social realm that regularly welcomes youth in the
larger, historically adultist world of work and leadership.
Finally, we do not need to keep reinventing the suburb. We do not need a new model, we
already have a model that works. These findings suggest that the conventional view of
the suburb, with homes distinctly separated from business and retail establishments, may
be less valid than once thought. Each of the case study suburbs, for example, offers a
differently-oriented mix of commercial, recreational and residential areas. The
observations support both the benefits and the constraints of suburban life. All three case
study suburbs remove families from the ills of the city, but in some cases, such as
Kentlands and Lake Anne, also restrict them from the positive aspects of urban living,
including, variously, walkability, regular access to destinations, including cultural
institutions, and to opportunities to interact with others, including adults. Lyon Village,
situated adjacent to a bustling commercial corridor and transportation nodes and rendered
accessible with maintained sidewalks fosters this desirable access. It is far more
productive to identify these local success stories and then determine and enact ways to
preserve them, than to revert to nostalgia. Sustain local success stories and work to
maintain their regional connection.
Kindered Communities
Kindered communities, or communities that are informed by the perspectives of youth,
address these points. Despite their specialness, and their need to be incorporated into their
community, the adult-oriented built environment typically includes inflexible spaces
211
envisioned for adults with static needs. With a minimal effort, these spaces could be
modified to make them more welcoming of and supportive for youth. These efforts could
include free or low-cost youth-friendly venues like museums, zoos, and parks; low
benches in outdoor plazas and parks and provide pedestrian or bike access from
neighborhoods to community centers; and lowered cost of access to professional sports
and cultural events. Public schools kept functioning with extracurricular recreation
programs after hours, apprenticeship programs with local employers, and regular
community service projects for families all work to include youth.
Planners can help parents feel safer with neighborhoods designed with eyes on the street
to create a sense of informal regulation. Destination restaurants, shopping, and access to
the Metro in Arlington’s Lyon Village facilitate regular activity. Similarly, if youth are
perceived as wild and warranting increasingly greater restrictions, planners and
policymakers can increase youth access to the larger community so they benefit from
socially acceptable role models and opportunities and develop a sense of local civitas and
responsibility.
Rigorously seek out the voices of youth. Demonstrate the community’s interest and
investment in their local youth. Incorporate signage and directions that use intuitive or
universal symbols rather than notation in a single language. Showcase the art, music and
writing of area youth on the local restaurant and café circuits. Offer youth clear
opportunities to be heard. Implement ‘take your parent to school’ days, and create youth
advisory positions on city councils and chambers of commerce. If it is their voices we
wish to hear, alternative methods are necessary. More critically, planners and policy-
212
makers can strive to see the world the way children and youth see it – both literally and
ideally.
Currently urban planners and others measure neighborhood indicators as a standardized
state for adults where measurements indicate problems within communities such as
limited grocery stores, poor test scores at local schools, and high crime rates. We need to
start defining not just ways in which our communities are deficient, but ways in which we
meet the needs of the community, a state of health. The child-friendly community model
suggests that we already have a good model for a youth-friendly neighborhood, and it
measures a kindered, or friendly environment for children. The indicator set provides
guidance to policymakers and planners in thinking about what would make a
neighborhood a better, healthier environment for children, not just identifying generic
challenges and problems.
213
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. 1998. Children’s use of the street as playground in Abu-Nuseir,
Jordan. Environment and Behavior, 30(6),.799-831.
Adams, Annmarie and Van Slyck, Abigail A. 2004. Children’s Spaces. In Fass, Paula,
editor. Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society, Vol. 1. New
York: MacMillan Reference USA; 187-194.
Addams, Jane. 1912. The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets. New York: Macmillan Co.
Aitken, Stuart. 2001. Geographies of Young People. London: Routledge.
America’s Children 2000. childstats.gov accessed http://childstats.gov 2/27/2002
America’s Second Harvest. Hunger in America 2001 National Report, October 2001,
http://www.hungerinamerica.org/A2H-NatlRpt10-31.pdf
Andrews, James H. 1996. Going by the numbers. Planning 62, 9, 14-18.
Anonymous. 1903. “Back to Nature” Outlook 74, 305-07.
Appleyard, Bruce S. 2005. Livable Streets for Schoolchildren: How Safe Routes to
School programs can improve street and community livability for children. NCBW
Forum Article 3-7-05. National Center for Bicycling and Walking. 1-15.
www.bikewalk.com
Appleyard, Bruce S. 2003. Planning Safe Routes to School. Planning. May 34-37.
Applied Survey Research. 2002. Life in Santa Cruz County: Community Assessment
Project Comprehensive Report. United Way, Capitola, CA.
Applied Survey Research. 2004. Life in Santa Cruz County, Year 10: Community
Assessment Project Comprehensive Report. www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap
____. April 27, 2004. Mobile Workshop: (Reston). American Planning Association
Annual Conference.
Aries, Philippe. 1977. “The Family and the City” in Daedalus Spring, 227-237.
Arlington County Department of Community Affairs: Planning, Housing and Community
Development Division. Adopted May 1984. Clarendon Sector Plan, p.23.
Arlington Heritage Alliance. 2002. The World of Frank Lyon Tour, brochure.
214
Arlington Virginia Department of Environmental Services. 2004. 2004 Annual Water
Quality Report. Utilities and Environmental Policy Division, Water, Sewer and Streets
Bureau.
Arlington County. 2006. Master Transportation Plan, Streets Element. Second Draft.
November 2006.
Armstrong, David. 1986. The invention of infant mortality. Sociology of Health and
Illness. 8, 3, 211-232.
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1974. Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, 216-224
Bartlett, Sheridan. 2001. Children and development assistance: the need to re-orient
priorities and programmes. Development in Practice . Vol 11, No1, February.
Bartlett, Sheridan. 1999. Children’s experience of the physical environment in poor urban
settlements and the implications for policy, planning and practice. Environment and
Urbanization 11(2): 63-73.
Bartlett, S.N. 1997. No place to play: implications for the interaction of parents and
children. Journal of Children and Poverty, 3, 37-48.
Bartlett, Sheridan, Roger Hart, David Satterthwaite, Ximena de la Barra and Alfredo
Missair. 1999. Cities for Children: Children’s Rights, Poverty and Urban Management.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Basile, Carole G. 2000. Environmental Education as a Catalyst for Transfer of Learning
in Young Children. The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol 32, No 1, 21-27.
Bauer, Catherine. 1945. Good Neighborhoods. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Vol 242, 104-115.
Berens, Gayle. 2001. Bryant Park, New York City. In Alexander Garvin and Gayle
Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban Land
Institute, 44-57.
Berens, Gayle. 2001. Hudson River Park, New York City. In Alexander Garvin and
Gayle Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban
Land Institute, 116-133.
Berger, Leslie. 2000. What Children Do When Home and Alone. New York Times
Science Tuesday. April 11, D8.
215
Bergmann, Luke. 2001. What is childhood in a postindustrial, rustbelt city? Michigan
Today. Winter: 17-18.
Besleme, Kate and Mullin, Megan. 1997. Community indicators and healthy
communities. National Civic Review 86: 43-52.
Birch, Eugenie Ladner. 1980. Radburn and the American Planning Movement: the
persistence of an idea, Journal of the American Planning Association 46, 4, 424-439.
(Reprinted in Krueckeberg, Donald A., editor,1983, Introduction to Planning History in
the United States. Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey Press, 122-151).
Bondi, Liz. 1997. In whose words? On gender identities, knowledge and writing
practices. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers Vol 22 No 2, 245-258.
Boshara, Ray and Michael Sherraden. For Every Child, a Stake in America. New York
Times July 23, 2003 online at www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23.
Boyden, Jo. “Childhood and the Policy Makers: A Comparative Perspective on the
Globalization of Childhood” in James, Allison and Prout, Alan, editors. 1997.
Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological
Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press, 190-229.
Boyer, Paul. 1978. Urban Masses and Moral Order in America: 1820-1920. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bridgman, Rae. 2004. Child-Friendly Cities: Canadian Perspectives. Children, Youth and
Environments 14(2) 178-203.
Burlington Legacy Project. 2000. Action Plan: Becoming a Sustainable Community.
Burlington’s Legacy Project, Burlington, Vermont. Accessed
http://maps.vcgi.org/burlingtonlegacy/burlingtonlegacy.pdf July 7 2004;
http://crs.uvm.edu/burlingtonlegacy/
Burt, M. and Aron, L. 1999. Homelessness: Programs and the people they serve.
Washington, D.C. : Urban Institute. Accessed
www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/homelessness/contents.html.
Buss, Shirl. 1995. Urban Los Angeles from Young People’s Angle of Vision. Children’s
Environments 12(3) 340-351.
Carmany, Erin. 2001. Kid-Friendly Cities Report Card 2001. Zero Population Growth.
Accessed www.KidFriendlyCities.org July 8 2004.
Carrier, Scott. 2002. Childhood Burdens. Mother Jones. July/Aug 52-56.
216
Casey, Annie E. Foundation. 2004. KIDS COUNT Data Book 2004. Baltimore, MD:
Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Cavallo, Dominick. 1981. Muscles and Moral: Organized Playgrounds and Urban
Reform, 1880-1920. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Chang-Moo, Lee and Ahn, Kun-Hyuck. 2003. Is Kentlands better than Radburn? The
American Garden City and the new urbanist paradigms. Journal of the American
Planning Association 69, 1, 50, 22pages.
Charles Booth online archive. http://booth.lse.ac.uk/ August 23, 2005.
Chatterjee, Sudeshna. 2005. Children’s Friendship with Place: A Conceptual Inquiry.
Children, Youth and Environments 15(1).
Chawla, Louise, editor. 2002. Growing Up in an Urbanising World. Sterling, VA:
UNESCO.
Chawla, Louise. 2002. “Insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment”; integrating
children and youth into human settlement development. Environment & Urbanization,
Vol 14, no 2, 11-21.
_____. 1991. Child-Friendly Cities. The Futurist, May-June, Vol25, no3, p50(1).
____. Children Underground (film)
Chawla, Louise and Malone, Karen. “Neighbourhood quality in children’s eyes” in
Christensen Pia and O’Brien, Margaret, editors. 2003. Children in the City: Home,
Neighbourhood and Community. London: Routledge, 118-141.
Children’s Defense Fund. 2004. The state of America’s children. Washington, D.C.
Children’s Defense Fund. 2005. The state of America’s children. Washington, D.C.
Children’s Defense Fund. 2006. Protect children not guns. Washington, D.C.
Childress, Herb. 2000. Landscapes of Betrayal, Landscapes of Joy: Curtisville in the lives
of its teenagers. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Christopher, Karen. 2002. Family-Friendly Europe. The American Prospect. April 8, 59-
61.
Christopherson, Susan. 1989. “On Being Outside the Project,” Antipode. 21:2, 83-89.
City of Gaithersburg. 1997. Neighborhood Four Land Use Plan: A Master Plan Element.
217
City of Richmond, Urban Development Division,
www.city.richmond.bc.ca/landuse/SOEreport.htm)
City of Santa Monica Environmental Programs Division. 2002. Sustainable City Program
Status Report. Santa Monica, California.
___. City of Tigard webpage. Coming to a Neighborhood Near You!
www.ci.tigard.or.us/community.cap 14 Dec 04
City of Tucson. 1998. Indicators for Livable Tucson Goals – Draft. Tucson, Arizona.
Accessed www.ci.tucson.az.us/lt_indicators.html July 7 2004.
Clemetson, Lynette. Census Shows Ranks of Poor Rose in 2002 by 1.3 Million. New
York Times September 3, 2003 online at www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03.
Cobb, Clifford W. and Rixford, Craig. 1998. Lessons learned from the history of social
indicators. San Francisco: Paper published by Redefining Progress.
Cobb, Edith. 1977. The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Coleman, Michael C. 1993. American Indian Children at School, 1850-1930. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi.
Coleman, Michael C. 2004. American Indian Schools. In Fass, Paula, editor.
Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society, Vol. 1. New York:
MacMillan Reference USA,.51-52.
Colorado Center for Healthy Communities. 2000. The Colorado Index: Understanding
and Tracking Quality of Life. Carbondale, Colorado.
Community Research Partners. 2001. Community Indicators Database Report: A Picture
of Trends and Conditions in Central Ohio. Franklin County, Ohio. Accessed
www.uwaycolumbus.org/cidr_racerelations.pdf, July 7 2004.
Communities County. 2002. Social and Health Indicators across King County. Seattle
and King County, Washington.
Colorado Center for Healthy Communities. 2000. The Colorado Index: Understanding
and Tracking Quality of Life. Carbondale, Colorado.
Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: America’s Families and the
Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.
Cooper Marcus, Clare. 1995. House As A Mirror of the Self: Exploring the Deeper
Meaning of Home. Berkeley: Conari Press.
218
Cranz, Galen. 1982. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cronon, William. 1995. “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong
Nature,” in Cronon, William, editor, Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 69-90.
Cunningham, Hugh. 1995. Children and Childhood in Western Society Since 1500.
London: Longman.
Davis, Allen F. 1967. Playgrounds, Housing and City Planning. In, Davis, Allen F.
Spearheads for Reform: The Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement, 1890-
1914. Oxford University Press. (Reprinted in Krueckeberg, Donald A., editor,1983,
Introduction to Planning History in the United States. Rutgers: The State University of
New Jersey Press, 73-87).
Davis, Mike. 1992. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London:
Verso.
Demos, John. 1970. A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony. New
York: Oxford University Press.
DePoe, Mark, Long Range Planning Director and Schwarz, Trudy M.W., Community
Planning Director, April 4, 2004 Mobile Workshop 72: New Urbanism: Kentlands and
Lakelands, The Evolution of Neo-Traditional/New Urbanism Development. American
Planning Association (APA) Annual Conference 2004.
DeVries, Rheta and Lawrence Kohlberg. 1987. Programs of Early Education: The
Constructivist View. New York: Longman.
Dhar, Arunima. 2003. Kid-Friendly Countries Report Card. The Population Connection.
Accessed www.popconnect.org/kidfriendlycountries July 8 2004.
Dickason, Jerry G. 2004. Playground Movement. In Fass, Paula, editor. Encyclopedia of
Children and Childhood in History and Society, Vol. 2. New York: MacMillan Reference
USA, 687.
District of Columbia. 2004. 2004 Drinking Water Quality Report. District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA).
Eileen Doone, Director of General Programs, Reston Community Center, 21 Sept 05, via
telephone 703-390-6162)
219
Draper, Joan, “The Art and Science of Park Planning in the United States: Chicago’s
Small Parks, 1902-1905” in Mary Corbin Sies and Christopher Silver, editors. 1996.
Planning the Twentieth Century American City. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 98-119.
Egan, Timothy. 2005. Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children. The New York
Times March 24, 2004. accessed nytimes.com March 28 2005.
Eisele, Kimi. 2001. Documenting the Then and the Now: Tucson Youth Tell Tucson
Stories. Orion Afield. Autumn 2001, 16-20.
Engler, John and Haveman, James K. Jr. 2000. Community Health Assessment and
Improvement. Michigan Department of Community Health.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PartI_35796_7.pdf#search='michigan%20departme
nt%20of%20community%20health%20CHAI'
Environmental Protection Agency website. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ and
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/msa_aqt.pdf
Epstein, L.H., Kilanowski, C.K., Consalvi, A.R., and Paluch, R.A. (1999). “Reinforcing
value of physical activity as a determinant of child activity level.” Health Psychology
18(6): 599-603.
ESRC. 2000. Childhood, urban space and citizenship: child-sensitive urban regeneration.
Children 5-16 Research Briefing. Economic & Social Research Council. July, Number
16.
Erie County. 2002. The Health Status Indicator Progress Report: Measuring the Health of
Erie County Residents. Erie County, Pennsylvania. Accessed
http://www.ecdh.org/child.asp?ID=73. July 8 2004.
Eubank-Ahrens, Brenda. 1984/85. “The impact of Woonerven on children’s behavior,”
Children’s Environments Quarterly, Vol 1, No 4, 39-45.
Evans, G. W. 2001. Environmental stress and health. In A. Baum, T. Revenson and J.E.
Singer, Eds. Handbook of Health Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 365-
385.
Evans, G. W. and Kantrowitz, E. 2002. Socioeconomic status and health: the potential
role of environmental risk exposure. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 202-231.
Evans, Gary W., Lepore, Stephen J., Shejwal, B.R., and Palsane, M.N. 1998. Chronic
Residential Crowding and Children’s Well-Being: An Ecological Perspective. Child
Development December Vol 69, No.6, 1514-1523.
Everheart, W. (1983). The National Park Service. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
220
Fairfax County. 2005. Annual Report on Water Quality. Fairfax County Water Authority.
Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2000 Edition. Upper Potomac Planning District,
UP5-Reston Community Planning Sector. Area III, 80-102.
Fairfax County Revitalization Information Sheet. Department of Housing and
Community Development. Updated August 10,2006, accessed September 28, 2006.
http://www.fcrevit.org/lakeanne/demo.htm
Federation for Community Planning. 2001. Social Indicators 2001: Executive Summaries
from Reports on Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. United Way Services, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Finkelstein, Barbara. 1985. “Uncle Sam and the Children: A History of Government
Involvement in Child Rearing,” in N. Ray Hiner and Joseph M. Hawes, editors. Growing
Up In America: Children in Historical Perspective. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois
Press, 254-266.
Fishman, Robert. 1977. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard,
Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. New York: Basic Books.
Flekkoy, M. G. 1995. The Scandinavian experience of children’s rights. In B. Franklin,
editor, The Handbook of Children’s Rights. Routledge: London, 176-187.
Fleming, William and Schrader, Richard. Undated. New Mexico Watershed Watch
Workbook: A Watershed Ecosystem Approach to Water Quality Education. New Mexico
Game and Fish.
Folbre, Nancy. 2001. Leave No Child Behind? How Government Subsidy Fails Needy
Kids. The American Prospect. January 1-15, 20-22.
Forsyth, Ann. 2007. Design for Health. 2007 Key Questions. Social Capital. Version 2.0
accessed October 1, 2008 www.designforhealth.net
___. 11/30/02. Forty million orphans. Economist. 41.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Fox, Sharon, Stencil, Debra, and Van Dijk, Julie Willems. 2003. Marathon County
Community Health Assessment. Wausau Health Foundation, Wisconsin.
Freeman, Jo. 1980. “Women and Urban Policy” in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture
and Society, Spring Supplement, 5, 3, S4-23.
221
Friedmann, John. 2002. City of fear or open city? Journal of the American Planning
Association, 68, 3, 237 (7pp).
Friedmann, John. “Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview” in Mandelbaum,
Seymour, Luigi Mazza and Robert W. Burchell, editors. 1996. Explorations in Planning
Theory. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers, 12-13.
Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gagen, Elizabeth, A. 2000. “An example to us all: child development and identity
construction in early 20
th
-century playgrounds.” Environment and Planning A 32, 599-
616.
Gahin, Ronda and Chris Paterson. 2001. "Community Indicators: Past, Present, and
Future," National Civic Review v90, no.4, 347-361.
Gandhi, Mahatma. 1931. quote. Documented in, among
others,www.soundout.org/quotes.html and
www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/selected_quotes Accessed 19 February
2007.
Gans, Herbert J. 1967. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban
Community. New York: Vintage Books.
Garbarino, James. Habitats for Children: An Ecological Perspective, in Wohlwill,
Joachim F. and Willem van Vliet. editors. 1985. Habitats for Children: The Impacts of
Density. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 138-142.
Garbarino, James. 1995. Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Garrison, Theodosia (Faulks). “God’s Green Inn” in De Mille, A. B., editor, 1923.
American Poetry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 253-4.
Gaster, Sanford. Historical Changes in Children’s Access to U.S. Cities: A Critical
Review. Children’s Environments. Vol 9, No 2, Fall 1992.
Gause, Jo Allen. 2002. Great Planned Communities. Washington, DC: Urban Land
Institute.
Garvin, Alexander. 2000. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space: A Twenty-first Century
Agenda, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 497/498. Chicago, IL: American
Planning Association.
222
Garvin, Alexander. 1995. The American City: What Works, What Doesn’t. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Garvin, Alexander. 1997. “Enhancing the Public Realm” in Garvin, Alexander, Gayle
Berens et al., 1997, Urban Parks and Open Space, Washington D.C. : The Urban Land
Institute, 1-24.
Gearin, Elizabeth. Kindering: What can children teach planners and planning theorists?
Paper prepared for presentation at ACSP 2000 Conference.
Geddes, Patrick. 1915. Cities in Evolution. London: Williams and Norgate.
Gerckens, Lawrence Conway, “Historical development of American city planning” in So,
Frank, and Getzels, Judith, editors. 1988. The Practice of Local Government Planning.
Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association, 20-59.
Goff, Gina M. and Philpot, Billy. 2000. Cabarrus County Community Needs Assessment
2000 Final Report. Healthy Cabarrus, Cabarrus Health Alliance and United Way of
Central Carolinas, Inc.
Gonzalez, David. 2003. Young Lives Transformed, Guided by a Camera Lens. New York
Times, May 7, 2003. Accessed online
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/07/arts/design/07FOTO.html
Gonzales, Erualdo, per Kris Day at UC Irvine, via email December 5, 2000.
Gorlitz, D., Harloff, H.J., Valsiner, J., and Hinding B. The City as a Frame of
Development for Children. Children’s Environments. Vol 9, Issue 2, 1992, 63-64.
Gorlitz, Dietmar, Hans Joachim Harloff, Gunter Mey and Jaan Valsiner, editors. 1998.
Children, Cities and Psychological Theories: Developing Relationships. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, p.104, 218-9.
Graebner, William. 1980. “The Unstable World of Benjamin Spock: Social Engineering
in a Democratic Culture, 1917-1950,” Journal of American History 67(3):612-29.
Graff, Harvey J. 1995. Conflicting Paths: Growing up in America. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Greed, Clara H. 1994. Women and Planning: Created Gendered Realities. London:
Routledge.
Gruber, Jonathan and David A. Wise. 2002. An International Perspective on Policies for
an Aging Society. In Stuart H. Altman and David I. Shactman, editors. Policies for an
Aging Society. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 34 – 62.
223
Grubisich, Tom and Peter McCandless. 1985. Reston: The First Twenty Years. Planned
Community Archives, Inc., Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company, Inc., A Prentice-
Hall Company.
Gutenschwager, Gerald. “Forty years on persisting priorities - Ekistic environment and
influences on the child,” Ekistics, Vol.62, No.373, 1995, 289.
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s
Lives. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Harloff, Lehnert and Eybisch in Gorlitz, Dietmar, Hans Joachim Harloff, Gunter Mey and
Jaan Valsiner, editors. 1998. Children, Cities and Psychological Theories: Developing
Relationships. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 58.
Harnik, Peter. 2000. Inside City Parks. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
Harnik, Peter. 2001. Cedar Lake Park and Trail, Minneapolis. In Alexander Garvin and
Gayle Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban
Land Institute, 58-69.
Harnik, Peter. 2001. The Park at Post Office Square, Boston. In Alexander Garvin and
Gayle Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban
Land Institute, 146-157.
Harnik, Peter. 2001. Philadelphia Green, Philadelphia. In Alexander Garvin and Gayle
Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban Land
Institute, 158-167.
Harnik, Peter. 2001. Pinellas Trail, Pinellas County, Florida. In Alexander Garvin and
Gayle Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban
Land Institute, 168-178.
Hart, Roger. 1979. Children’s Experience of Place. New York: Irvington.
Hart, Roger. 1997. Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young
Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. New York: UNICEF.
Harwood, Stacy and Dowell Myers. 2002. The Dynamics of Immigration and Local
Governance in Santa Ana: Neighborhood Activism, Overcrowding, and Land-Use Policy.
Policy Studies Journal, Vol 30, No 1, 70-91.
Hawes, Joseph M. and N. Ray Hiner, editors. 1991. Children in Historical and
Comparative Perspective: An International Handbook and Research Guide. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Hayden, Dolores. 1999. The Power of Place. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
224
Hays, Samuel P. 2000. A History of Environmental Politics Since 1945. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Healthy Communities Initiative. Accessed
www.ncl.org/cs/services/healthycommunities.html July 7 2004.
Hewlett, Sylvia Ann and Cornel West. 2001. Caring for Crib Lizards. The American
Prospect. January 1-15, 17-19.
Higonnet, Anne. 1998. Pictures of Innocence: The History and Crisis of Ideal Childhood.
New York: Thames and Hudson, Inc.
Hiller, Herb. 2005. Biking to Florida’s Future: Two Days on the Pinellas Trail. Land and
People, vol 17, no 2, 41-51.
Hillman, Mayer and John Adams. Children's Freedom and Safety. Children’s
Environments. Vol 9, No 2, Fall 1992.
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Ph.D., Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, Ph.D. with Diane Eyer, Ph.D.
2003. Einstein Never Used Flash Cards: How Our Children Really Learn – And Why
They Need to Play More and Work Less. United States: Rodale.
Hise, Greg. 1997. Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth-Century Metropolis.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hoch, Charles J., Dalton, Linda C., and So, Frank S., editors. 2000. The Practice of Local
Government Planning, Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: The International City/County
Management Association.
Homel, R. and A. Burns. 1987. Is this a good place to grow up in? Neighbourhood
quality and children’s evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning 14, 101-116.
Household Food Security in the United States, 2005. USDA Economic Research Service.
November 2006. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err29/
Howard, Ebenezer. (1898). 1965. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Great Britain: Faber and
Faber, Ltd.
Howe, Deborah. 1992. Creating Vital Communities: Planning for Our Aging Society.
Planning Commissioners Journal 7; Accessed 4 July 08
plannersweb.com/articles/how030.html
Human Rights Watch. 2006. World Report.
Hunger and Homelessness Survey 2006. US Conference of Mayors. December 2006.
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurvey/2006/report06.pdf
225
Huttenmoser, M. 1995.Children and their living surroundings: empirical investigations
into the significance of living surroundings for the everyday life and development of
children. Children’s Environments, 12, 403-413.
Innes, Judith Eleanor. 1990. Disappointments and legacies of social indicators. Journal
of Public Policy , 9(4): 429-432.
Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Richard Joseph Jackson. 2004. Healthy by Design. Orion. September/October, 72-3.
Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. 2003. Quality of Life: Progress Report. JCCI,
Jacksonville, Florida.
Jacobs, Jane. 1989. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage
Books.
Jansson, Beate. 1984. Children’s Play and Nature in an Urban Environment. Darmstadt:
Werhert-Druck GmbH.
John-Steiner, Vera. 1985. Notebooks of the Mind: Explorations of Thinking.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Jones, Owain. 2001. ‘Before the Dark of Reason’: Some Ethical and Epistemological
Considerations on the Otherness of Children. Ethics, Place and Environment 4,2, June
173-178.
Kahlenberg, Rebecca R. What Makes a Neighborhood Kid Friendly? Washington Post
Saturday March 6, 2004, F01.
Kahn and Kellert 2002
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: a psychological
perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Katz, Michael B. 1996. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in
America. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
Keats, John. 1957. The Crack in the Picture Window. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kennedy, David K. 1998. “Reconstructing Childhood,” Thinking. Vol 14.
Kentlands Town Crier. Volume 11, No.2, February 2005.
226
Kett, Joseph F. 1977. Rites of Passage: Adolescence in America 1790 to the Present. New
York: Basic Books.
___. 2000. 2000 Kids Count Emphasizes Need for Connections. Casey Connections.
Annie E. Casey Foundation: Baltimore MD. Summer 2000. www.Aecf.org
Kilmer, Joyce. “Trees” in De Mille, A.B. , editor, 1923. American Poetry. Boston, Allyn
and Bacon, 241-242.
Kingsley, G. Thomas, Joseph B. McNeely and James O. Gibson. 1997. Community
Building: Coming of Age. The Development Training Institute, Inc. and The Urban
Institute.
Kingsley, G. Thomas, Ed. 1999 Building and Operating Neighborhood Indicator
Systems: A Guidebook. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and National
Neighborhood Indicators Partnership.
Kotkin 2003
Korpela, K. 2002. Children’s environments. In R.B. Bechtel and A. Churchman, Eds.
Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 363-373.
Kostof, Spiro. 1991. The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History.
Boston: A Bullfinch Press Book.
Kruger, Jill Swart, with Louise Chawla. 2002. “We know something someone doesn’t
know”; children speak out on local conditions in Johannesburg. Environment &
Urbanization, vol 14, no 2, 85-96.
Kunstler, James Howard. 2003. Big and Blue in the USA. Orion Online Magazine.
Oriononline.org 9/15/2003. 5pp.
Kuo, F.E. (2001). “Coping with poverty: impacts of environment on attention in the inner
city.” Environment and Behavior 33(1): 5-34.
Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C. (2001). “Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects
of environment via mental fatigue.” Environment and Behavior 33(4): 543-571.
Lamm, Richard D. 2002. The Moral Imperative of Limiting Elderly Health Entitlements.
In Stuart H. Altman and David I. Shactman, editors. Policies for an Aging Society.
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 199-216.
Lassar, Terry Jill.. 2001. Downtown Park, Bellevue Washington. In Alexander Garvin
and Gayle Berens, principal authors. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.:
Urban Land Institute, 70-81.
227
Leavitt, Jacqueline. 1986. Feminist Advocacy Planning in the 1980s. In Barry
Checkoway, editor. Strategic Perspectives in Planning Practice. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 181-194.
Lewis, Charles. Green Nature/Human Nature: The Meaning of Plants in Our Lives, from
http://www.emagazine.com/november-december_2001/1101curr_parks.html , accessed
27 Jan 2003.
Little, Jo. 1994. Gender, Planning and the Policy Process. University of the West of
England, Bristol, UK: Pergamon.
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1984. The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Philosophy.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lockwood, Charles. 1997. Putting the urb in the suburbs. Planning June, Vol 63, Issue 6,
18 (4).
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. 2003. Children’s common grounds: A study of intergroup
relations among children in public settings. Journal of the American Planning Association
69, 2, 130(14).
Louv, Richard. 1990. Childhood’s Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Lynch, Kevin, editor. 1977. Growing Up in Cities: Studies of the Spatial Environment of
Adolescence in Cracow, Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toluca, and Warszawa.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lynch, Kevin. 1981. Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacGregor, Sherilyn. 1997. “Rethinking Urban Planning to Include Diversity,”
Women’s International Network News. Spring 23:2, 82.
MacKaye, Benton. 1990. The New Exploration: A Philosophy of Regional Planning The
New Exploration: A Philosophy of Regional Planning. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: The
University of Illinois Press.
Macleod, David I. 1998. The Age of the Child: Children in America, 1890-1920. New
York: Twayne Publishers.
MacLeod, David I., “Act Your Age: Boyhood, Adolescence and the Rise of the Boy
Scouts of America” in Graff, Harvey J, editor. 1987. Growing Up in America. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 397-413.
Maine Development Foundation. Indicators of livable communities. Accessed
http:..www.mdf.org/mdf/order_form.php July 7, 2004.
228
Males, Mike. Punishing Teens to Protect Them; Curfews and other efforts to control
youth behavior may be undermining social order. The Los Angeles Times June 11, 2000
online at pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc
Malone, Karen. 2002. Street life: youth, culture and competing uses of public space.
Environment & Urbanization, vol 14, no 2, 157-168.
Malone, Karen. 2001. Children, Youth and Sustainable Cities. Local Environment Vol 6,
No 1, 5-12. (Note Special Edition of Local Environment)
Mansnerus, Laura. 2003. Great Haven for Families, but Don’t Bring Children. New York
Times, August 13. Accessed online 8/18/2003.
Matthews, H., Limb, Melanie, and Taylor, M. Reclaiming the Street: the Discourse of
Curfew. Environment and Planning A V31 no10, October 1999, 1713-30.
Matthews, H. and Limb, M. 1999. Defining an agenda for the geography of children:
agenda and prospect. Progress in Human Geography 23(1), 61-90.
Matthews, M.H. (1992). Making Sense of Place: children’s understanding of large-scale
environments. Savage, MD: Barnes and Noble Books.
May, Elaine Tyler. 1988. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era.
New York: Basic Books.
Ileana Mayorga, Arlington County Department of Human Services, 12 Sept 2005 via
telephone 703-228-1198
McCamant, Caroline Hinkle. 2004. Child Saving. In Fass, Paula, editor. Encyclopedia of
Children and Childhood in History and Society, Vol. 1. New York: MacMillan Reference
USA, 195-197.
McDevitt, Cleland, C. 1930. Lyon Village, Lyon & Fitch. The Book of Washington,
sponsored by the Washington Board of Trade. (Arlington Public Library Virginia Room,
Archives, VA 975.3 11 3192.b)
McKeggie, Kim. 2000. El Arco Iris YouthPower Program. Planning. April 2000, 14-15.
Mead, Margaret. 1966. “Neighbourhoods and human needs,” Ekistics, 21(123, 124-126.
Melosi, Martin. 2000. The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial
Times to the Present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Meter, Ken. 1999. Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Guidebook. Minneapolis,
Minnesota, Urban Ecology Coalition by Crossroads Resource Center.
229
Minnesota Planning. 1998. Minnesota Milestones: Measures that Matter. Minnesota
Planning, St.Paul, Minnesota.
Mintz, Steven and Kellogg, Susan. 1988. Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of
American Family Life. New York: The Free Press.
Mitra, Anandita. 2003. A tool for measuring progress: the growing popularity of
sustainable indicators in the United States. National Civic Review 92(3): 30-45.
Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships. Washington, DC: National
Association of County and City Health Officials.
http://mapp.naccho.org/MAPP_Home.asp; http://mapp.naccho.org/chsa/index.asp
Montgomery County Family and Children First Council. 2003. Outcomes, Indicators and
Strategic Community Initiatives Progress Report: Phase I Conclusion. Dayton, Ohio.
Moore, Robin C. The Need for Nature: A Childhood Right. Social Justice 24:203-20. Fall
1997
Morrison, Peter A. 1990. The Changing Demographic Context of Municipal Governance.
July, P-7654, RAND: Santa Monica, California.
Morrow, Virginia. 1999. Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of
children and young people: a critical review. The Sociological Review. 47, 4, 744-765.
Morrow, Virginia. “Improving the neighbourhood for children: possibilities and
limitations of ‘social capital’ discourses” in Christensen Pia and O’Brien, Margaret,
editors. 2003. Children in the City: Home, Neighbourhood and Community. London:
Routledge, 162-183.
Muir, John. 1999. In John Muir: To Yosemite and Beyond. Writings from the Years 1863
to 1875. Edited by Robert Engberg and Donald Wesling. Salt Lake City: The University
of Utah Press.
Mullahey, Ramona K., Susskind, Yve, and Checkoway, Barry, 1999. Youth Participation
in Community Planning. PAS 486.
Mulvihill, David. 2001. Flagstar Corporate Plaza and Jerome Richardson Park,
Spartanburg, North Carolina. In Alexander Garvin and Gayle Berens, principal authors.
Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 100-107.
Myers, Dowell. 1988. Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 3,347-358.
Myers, Gene. 1998. Children and Animals: Social Development and Our Connections to
Other Species. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
230
Nabhan, G.P. and Trimble, S. (1994). The Geography of Childhood: why children need
wild places. Boston: Beacon Press.
Nasar, Jack. L., Julian, David A. 1995. “The Psychological Sense of Community in the
Neighborhood,” Journal of the American Planning Association Vol61, No2, 178-185.
Nasaw, David. 1985. Children of the City: At Work and At Play. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nash, Roderick. 1967. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Nast, Heidi. 1994. Women in the Field: Critical Feminist Methodologies and Theoretical
Perspectives; Opening Remarks. The Professional Geographer 46, 1, 54-66.
National Academy of Sciences. 1997. Improving Health in the Community: A Role for
Performance Monitoring. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/improving/
National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth. 1996. Reconnecting Youth and
Community: A Youth Development Approach. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Administration for Children and Families.
http://www.ncfy.com/RECONNEC.PDF
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. 2001. In harm’s way:
domestic violence and child maltreatment. Washington, D.C.: Administration for
Children and Families. Accessed
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/otherpubs/harmsway.cfm
Netherton, Nan. 1989. Reston: A New Town in the Old Dominion. A Pictorial History.
Norfolk, VA: The Donning Company/Publishers.
Nimmo, John. 1998. The Child in Community: Constraints From the Early Childhood
Lore. In Edwards, Carolyn, Lella Gandini, and George Forman, editors. The Hundred
Languages of Childhood: The Reggio Emilia Approach – Advanced Reflections, Second
Edition. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Company, 295-312.
Noschis, Kaj. Child Development theory and planning for neighborhood play. Children’s
Environments. Vol 9, No 2, Fall 1992.
____. 2001. No time for play. The Economist. June 16, 35.
O’Brien, Margaret. “Regenerating children’s neighbourhoods: What do children want?”
in Christensen Pia and O’Brien, Margaret, editors. 2003. Children in the City: Home,
Neighbourhood and Community. London: Routledge, 142-161.
231
O’Connor, Stephen. 2001. Orphan Trains: The Story of Charles Loring Brace and the
Children He Saved and Failed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Olds, A.R. (1987). “Designing settings for infants and toddlers.” In C.S. Weinstein and
T.G. David, eds. Spaces for Children: the built environment and child development. New
York: Plenum Press.
Oldenburg, Ray. 1989. The Great Good Place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers,
beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the day. New
York: Paragon House, 3-85 and 203-296.
Olmsted, Frederick Law. 1870. Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns. American
Social Sciences Association excerpted in LeGates, Richard T. and Stout, Frederic,
editors. The City Reader. 1996. London: Routledge, 338-344.
Ombudsman for Children in Norway webpage. http://www.barneombudet.no/cgi-
bin/barneombudet/imaker?id=3510&visdybe= Accessed 5 July 2007.
Oregon Progress Board. 1999. Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: The 1999
Benchmarks Performance Report. Oregon Progress Board, Salem, Oregon.,
http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/obm.shtml#Introducing_Oregon_Benchmarks
Palen, J. John. 1995. The Suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Paterson, Chris. 2002. Critique: whither community indicators. Urban Quality Indicators
26: 5.
Peattie, Lisa. 1987. Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guayana. Chicago, IL: University of
Michigan Press.
Penalosa, Enrique (Mayor of Bogota) as told to Susan Ives. 2002. The Politics of
Happiness. Land and People, Trust for Public Land, spring.
Peterson, Jon A. 1979. The Impact of Sanitary Reform upon American Urban Planning,
1840-1890. Journal of Social History 13, 1, 83-103. (Reprinted in Krueckeberg, Donald
A., editor,1983, Introduction to Planning History in the United States. Rutgers: The State
University of New Jersey Press, 13-39).
Phillips, Rhonda. 2003. Community Indicators: Planning Advisory Service Report
Number 517. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association.
___. 2004. A Place Called Reston: 2004 Directory. New Town Publications.
Piaget, Jean. 1951. The Child’s Conception of the World. Savage, Maryland: Littlefield
Adams Quality Paperbacks.
232
Podobnik, B. 2002. New Urbanism and the Generation of Social Capital: Evidence from
Orenco Station. National Civic Review. 91(3): 245-255.
Population Connection. 2002. Kid-Friendly Cities Health Improvement Report Card.
Population Connection, Washington DC.
Portes, Alejandro. 2002. Immigration’s Aftermath. The American Prospect. April 8, 35-
37.
www.portlandplanning.com/housingfoundationplan.pdf 25Jan05
Proctor, Robert N. 1991. Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Prout, Alan and Allison James, “A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood?
Provenance, Promise and Problems” in James, Allison and Prout, Alan, editors. 1997.
Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological
Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press, 7-33.
Punch, Samantha. 2002.Research with Children: The same or different from research
with adults? Childhood 9, 3, 321-341.
Putnam, Robert. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital, Journal of
Democracy 6, 1, 65-78.
Quinn, Joseph F. 2002. Changing Retirement Trends and Their Impact on Elderly
Entitlement Programs. In Stuart H. Altman and David I. Shactman, editors. Policies for
an Aging Society. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 293-315.
Race, Bruce and Carolyn Torma. 1998. Youth Planning Charrettes: A Manual for
Planners, Teachers, and Youth Advocates. APA Planners Press,
Radford, Gail. 1996. Modern Housing for America: Policy Struggles in the New Deal
Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rasmussen, Kim and Smidt, Soren. “Children in the neighbourhood: the neighbourhood
in the children” in Christensen Pia and O’Brien, Margaret, editors. 2003. Children in the
City: Home, Neighbourhood and Community. London: Routledge, 82-100.
Rein, Martin and Donald Schon, “Reframing Policy Discourse in Fischer, Frank and John
Forester, editors. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.
Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 145-160.
Riis, Jacob. (1901). 1971. How the Other Half Lives. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
233
Ritzdorf, Marsha. “Sex, Lies, and Urban Life: How Municipal Planning Marginalizes
African American Women and Their Families” in Miranne, Kristine B. and Young, Alma
H., editors. 2000. Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Roberts, S. M. 1998. Commentary: What about the children? Environment and Planning
A, 30, 3-11.
Roediger, David R. 2005. Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants
Became White; The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs. New York: Basic
Books.
Rome, Adam. 2001. The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of
American Environmentalism. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, Ruth P. 1976. The Role of Frank Lyon and His Associates in the Early
Development of Arlington County. Arlington Historical Magazine, Arlington Historical
Society, Inc. vol 5, no 4, 46-58.
Rowe, Peter G. 1991. Making a Middle Landscape. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
___. 12/7/02. Sad little sorcerers. Economist, 47.
Saizow, Hildy and Nancy Welch. 2003. Building Blocks Community Assessment: A
Blueprint for Community Change. Arizona Supreme Court, September 2003. accessed
www.supreme.state.az.us//jjsdl
Sandercock, Leonie, editor. 1998. Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning
History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sandercock, Leonie. “Framing Insurgent Historiographies for Planning” in Sandercock,
Leonie, editor. 1998. Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 10-13.
Sandercock, Leonie and Ann Forsyth. 1992. A Gender Agenda: New Directions for
Planning Theory. Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 58, Issue 1, 49, (11).
Sassen, Saskia. 1999. Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of
People and Money. New York: The New Press.
Sawhill, Isabel and Chadwick, Laura. 1999. Children in Cities: Uncertain Futures. The
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy: Washington DC.
December.
234
Sawicki, D.S. and Flynn, P. 1996. Neighborhood indicators: a review of the literature and
an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of the American
Planning Association 62(2): 165-183.
Sazama, Jenny and The Resource Center for Youth and Allies. 2001. “Get the Word Out”
Youth on Board, Somerville, MA. (accessed 18 October 2006 www.youthonboard.org)
Schachtel, Ernest G. 2001. Metamorphosis: On the Conflict of Human Development and
the Psychology of Creativity, Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Scharfstein, Ben-Ami. 1989. The Dilemma of Context. New York: New York University
Press.
Schenker, Heath M. 1996. “Women’s and Children’s Quarters in Golden Gate Park, San
Francisco” Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography Vol 3 No 3,
293-308.
Scherer, Paul M. Park Power! When neighbors work together even the smallest park or
garden can transform a neighborhood. Land and People, vol 16, no 2, 10-24.
Scherzer, Kenneth, A. 1992. The Unbounded Community: Neighborhood Life and Social
Structure in New York City, 1830-1875. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Schmitt, Peter. J. 1969. Back to Nature: The Arcadian Myth in Urban America. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, Keith. 1997. Quality of life indicators. Planning and Zoning News March.
Schwartz, Anne. 2005. A Place to Play. Land and People, vol 17, no 2, 10-19.
Seasons, Mark. 2003. Monitoring and Evaluation in Municipal Planning. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 69, 4, 430.
Sennett, Richard. 1990. The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities.
New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Seward Neighborhood Group Residential Friendly Places Tally, (Ken Meter, Crossroads
Resource Center, 612-869-8664, PO Box 7423, Minneapolis MN 55407, email
kmeter@igc.apc.org)
Shafer, Holly, Wiley, Jim, Rogers, John, DeFever, Renatta, Nakagawa, Monique,
Adcock, Kevin and Menendez, Danny. 2002. Community Needs Assessment Parent
Phone Survey. Public Research Institute: San Francisco State University, Department of
Children, Youth and Their Families. www.pri.sfsu.edu/reports/dcyffinal.pdf
235
Shafer, Mary Louise. 1978. Recreation in Arlington County 1870-1920. The Arlington
Historical Magazine, Arlington Historical Society, Inc. vol 6, no 2, 62-68.
Sherman, A.1994. Wasting America’s future: the Children’s Defense Fund report on the
cost of child poverty. Boston: Beacon.
Shepard, Paul. 1982. Nature and Madness. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.
Sibley, D. 1992. Outsiders in society and space. In K Anderson and K. Gale, editors,
Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Longman: Melbourne, 107-122. (not
cited in text – omit?)
Simpson, B. Towards the participation of children and young people in planning and
design. Urban Studies. Vol 34, Issue 5-6, 1997, 907-925.
Sinclair, Upton. 1946. The Jungle. Cambridge, MA: Robert Bentley, Inc.
Skinner, Jon. 2008. Public Places, Universal Spaces. Planning, July, accessed online.
Sloane, David. 2005. “Not Designed Merely to Heal”: Women Reformers and the
Emergence of Children’s Hospitals. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. Vol4,
No4, 331-354.
Smith, Donna C. 2002. Colorado Community Assessment Manual. Economic Developers
Council of Colorado and the Colorado Office of Economic Development and
International Trade. www.edcconline.org/community
Smith, Stanley K., Rayer, Stefan, and Eleanor A. Smith. 2008. Aging and Disability:
Implications for the Housing Industry and Housing Policy in the United States. Journal of
the American Planning Association, V 74, No.3, 289-306.
So, Frank, and Judith Getzels, editors. 1988. The Practice of Local Government Planning,
Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: The International City/County Management
Association.
Southworth, Michael. 1997. Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional
communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, V 63,
Winter, 28-44.
Spain, Daphne. 2001. How Women Saved the City. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Stea, David and James Blaut in Downs, Roger M. and David Stea, editors. 1973. Image
and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, 226-234.
236
Stearns, Peter N. 2003. Anxious Parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America.
New York: New York University Press.
Stilgoe, John R. 1988. Borderland: Origins of the American Suburb, 1820-1939. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Strickland, Eliza. 2005. The Buoyant Brigade. Orion. November-December 72-73.
Stromberg, Meghan. 2006. Shadow Kids. Planning. June: 6-12.
Stuart, Darwin G. 1972. Urban Indicators: Their Role in Planning: Planning Advisory
Service 281. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association.
Stuart, Darwin G. 1970. The Systems Approach to Urban Planning: Planning Advisory
Service 253. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association.
Studnicki, James. 2001. Comprehensive Assessment for Tracking Community Health,
Leon County, Florida. University of South Florida and Florida Department of Health.
Survey Research Center University of North Texas. 2000. Tarrant County Community
Assessment: Children and Youth. United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County,
Texas.http://www.unitedwaytarrant.org/home/CommunityImpact/source/4_Children%20
and%20Youth.pdf#search='Tarrant%20County%20Community%20Assessment:%20Chil
dren%20and%20Youth.'
Sustainable Measures. 1998. Indicator Spotlight: Pedestrian Friendly Streets. North
Andover, MA.
Talen, Emily 2005. New Urbanism and American Planning: the Conflict of Cultures.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E., and Sullivan, W.C. (2001). “Coping with ADD: the surprising
connection to green play settings.” Environment and Behavior 33(1): 54-77.
Taylor, A.F. , Wiley, A., Kuo, F.E., and Sullivan, W.C. (2001). “Growing up in the inner
city: green spaces as places to grow.” Environment and Behavior 30(1): 3-27.
Teaford, Jon C. 1986. The Twentieth-Century American City: Problem, Promise, and
Reality. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Templeman, Eleanor Lee. 1959. Arlington Heritage: Vignettes of a Virginia County.
New York: Avenal Books.
Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
237
Throgmorton, James A. 1996. Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical
Construction of Chicago’s Electric Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Times Community Newspapers of Northern Virginia, Special Commemorative
Publication for Reston’s 40
th
Anniversary. Wednesday April 14, 2004. “40 Stories for 40
Years.”
Tjaden, Claus D. and Reilly, Beth. 2004. Eagle County Youth Assessment: The Eagle
County Cares Youth Survey 2003 Report of Findings. Eagle River Youth Coalition and
Eagle County School District RE 50J, Colorado.
www.healthref.com/ERYC/ERYCsurvey2003.pdf
Toner, William. “Environmental land use planning,” in So, Frank, and Getzels, Judith,
editors. 1988. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington, D.C.:
International City/County Management Association, 117-138.
Tranter, Paul and Pawson, Eric. Children’s Access to Local Environments: a case-study
of Christchurch, New Zealand. Local Environment 6, No.1, 27-48.
Turner, Frederick Jackson. 1920. The Frontier in American History. New York.
Tyler Norris Associates. The Community Indicators Handbook: Measuring Progress
toward Healthy and Sustainable Communities. Seattle, Washington: Redefining Progress.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families. 2006. Child maltreatment 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast. 2003. Community Assessment.
www.uwtcg.org/pdfs/2003
United Way of Windham County. 2002. Community Assessment Project Windham
County Vermont. Brattleboro, VT.www.unitedwaywindham.org/comm.pdf
Urban Ecology Coalition. 1999. Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Guidebook.
Crossroads Resource Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Urban Places Project. 2000. The Youth Power Guide: How to Make Your Community
Better. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts.
Valentine, Gill, Skelton, Tracey, and Chambers, Deborah. “Cool Places: An Introduction
to Youth and Youth Cultures” in Skelton, Tracey, and Valentine, Gill, editors. 1998. Cool
Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. London: Routledge, 1-32..
Van Andel, Joost. 1984. Effects on children’s behavior of physical changes in a Leiden
Neighborhood. Children’s Environments Quarterly, Vol 1, No 4, 46-54.
238
Verma, Niraj. 1998. Similarities, Connections, and Systems: The Search for a New
Rationality for Planning and Management. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.
Vermont Department of Education. 2003. Vermont Department of Education School
Report. Montpelier, Vermont. Accessed
http://crs.uvm.edu/schlrpt/cfusion/schorpt03/vermont.cfm July 7 2004.
Villarruel, Francisco A., Daniel F. Perkins, Lynne M. Borden, and Joanne G. Keith,
editors. 2003. Community Youth Development: Programs, Policies, and Practices.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Survey Form File no 00-29 Robert Cruit home
appendix #6.
Vogel, Joachim. 1997. The future direction of social indicator research. (speech –
transcript) Social Indicators Research 42(2): 103-116.
Wagner, Clark, AICP. A New Urbanism Approach to Service Station Design. PAS
Memo. 1/2/2001.
Wals, A.E.J. Nobody Planted It, It Just Grew! Children’s Environments. Vol 11, Issue 3,
1994, 177-193.
Ward, Alan C. “Certainty to Flexibility: Planning and Design History, 1963-2005” in
Ward, Alan C., editor. 2006. Reston Town Center: A Downtown for the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C.: Academy Press, 28-73.
Ward, Colin. 1978. The Child in the City. New York: Pantheon Books.
Ware, Wron and Sue Cavanagh. Planning for Children in Public Places. Children’s
Environments. Vol 9, No 2, Fall 1992.
Weiss, Nancy Pottishman. 1985. “Mother, the Invention of Necessity: Dr. Benjamin
Spock’s Baby and Child Care,” in N. Ray Hiner and Joseph M. Hawes, editors. Growing
Up In America: Children in Historical Perspective. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois
Press, 282-303.
White, James Boyd. 1984. When Words Lose Their Meaning: Constitutions and
Reconstitutions of Language, Character and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wilhjelm 1995
Wilkie, Jacqueline S. 2004. Hygiene. In Fass, Paula, editor. Encyclopedia of Children
239
and Childhood in History and Society, Vol. 2. New York: MacMillan Reference USA,
443-447.
Williams, Raymond. 1973. The City and the Country. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wilson, Elizabeth. 1991. The sphinx in the City: Urban Life, the Control of Disorder, and
Women. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Wirka, Susan Marie, “The City Social Movement: Progressive Women Reformers and
Early Social Planning” in Mary Corbin Sies and Christopher Silver, editors. 1996.
Planning the Twentieth Century American City. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 55-75.
Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P. and Fehrenbach, J. 2005. Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles:
An Equity Mapping Analysis. Urban Geography. 26, 2, 4-35.
Wohlwill and Heft 1987. The Physical Environment and the Development of the Child.
In D. Stokols and I. Altman, eds. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York:
Wiley, 281-328.
Woodside, Christine. 2004. Partners in Trust.: In Connecticut – and nationwide – land
trusts are protecting local landscapes with TPL’s help. Land and People, vol 16, no 2, 30-
42.
Woolley, Helen, Christopher Spencer, Jessica Dunn and Gwyn Rowley. 1999. The Child
as Citizen: Experiences of British Town and City Centres, Journal of Urban Design Vol
4, No 3, 255-282.
World Health Organization. 1997. Obesity: Preventing the Global Epidemic. Geneva:
WHO.
Wright, Gwendolyn. 1981. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Yampa Valley Partners. 2000. Community Indicators Project: Focus 2000: Update
Report. Yampa Valley Partners, Craig, Colorado. Accessed
http://www.yampavalleypartners.com/cip/2000_update.pdf July 7 2004.
Youniss, J. McLellan, J.A. and Yates, M. 1997. What we know about engendering civic
identity. American Behavioral Scientist. 40, 620-631.
Zelizer, Viviana A. 1994. Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of
Children. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
240
Zueblin, Charles. 1898. Municipal Playgrounds in Chicago. The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol 4, 144-158.
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Finance/Nutrition/statistics.html
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Finance/Nutrition/SchoolLevel-
Free&ReducedEligibilityOCT2004.xls
www.vdh.state.va.us
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data
241
APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF INDICATORS IN PLANNING
Early indicator use predates professional urban planning yet its slowly evolving history
shaped both social reform and the field of planning. In the very early 1800s, United
States prison reformers used statistics to urge speedier trials for defendants who had been
incarcerated for years; and in the 1830s, temperance advocates employed statistics to
demonstrate a connection between alcohol, crime and poverty (Cobb and Rixford 1998,
16). These initial efforts focused on collecting and presenting data, and letting the
numbers speak for themselves. Later research represented the use of linking data to social
conditions in order to further science, or a specific cause. In the mid 1800s, doctors
studying epidemics looked for a link between the incidence of disease and other
community characteristics in industrial cities (Gahin and Paterson 2001, Cobb and
Rixford 1998). By the late 1800s, political and social concerns in the United States
centered on the working class. The original directors of the Massachusetts Bureau of
Labor, created in 1869, were in fact labor sympathizers who gathered, analyzed and
presented data on wages on labor and employment in a partisan light. (The Massachusetts
governor replaced this biased group with an individual who, while not strictly non-
partisan, strove to act as a ‘neutral technician.’) (Cobb and Rixford 1998, 6).
This union of groups of data yielded results. In 1886, Charles Booth began a study of
London that ultimately linked public health and social services. He used surveys of rent,
income, occupation, and family size, among other characteristics, and direct observation
to classify and map poverty levels (http://booth.lse.ac.uk). Booth’s work was only the
242
beginning. In 1914 the Russell Sage Foundation funded the Pittsburgh survey, a report of
industrial conditions in the city. The study’s release spurred widespread interest among
other jurisdictions to implement surveys focused on education, public health, recreation
and crime. The Foundation provided technical assistance to local supervisory groups,
churches, and civic associations who undertook the survey work, and shared their data
findings in efforts to garner support for specific reforms (Gahin and Patterson 2001, Cobb
and Rixford 1998).
Others used data to encourage a normative approach to urban development. Patrick
Geddes’ consideration of regions as places, and his related concept of organized region-
wide planning supported his thesis for planning surveys (Geddes 1915). As early as the
late 1880s in Dumferline, Scotland and later in Dublin he vigorously encouraged a
comprehensive assessment of local geology, geography, economics, and history prior to
undertaking any urban planning (Kostof 1991, 86). Geddes transcended the two-
dimensional goals of the Town Planning Act and acknowledged the variety of types of
towns, and thus the variety of histories, constraints, opportunities and needs. As much as
one needed localized data and information, it was critical to conceptualize smaller
localities as within and part of their wider region.
Another early effort at justifying city plans with data came with development of the
Chicago Small Parks in the early 1900s. These parks expanded on the goal of the earlier
sand gardens to foster desirable behavior, and incorporated aesthetic guidelines. Members
of the Chicago Special Park Commission were tasked with studying park needs, creating
a plan, and establishing needed parks. One member justified the Commission’s plan in a
243
published article detailing the link between population and park location. Juvenile
delinquency, lack of open space, mortality and other social concerns were correlated with
geography, and used to argue for park placement. The Commission established an early
standard of 1 park acre for every 200 inhabitants (Draper 1996, 112-114).
These municipal surveys also sparked national interest. The National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER) was established in 1920 to focus on national business and
economic statistics. Herbert Hoover, first as Secretary of Commerce and later as
President of the United States, called for a Research Committee on Social Trends to
collect and analyze demographic, health, and education indicators in the 1920s and
1930s. Social measurements illustrated change. Then, from the Depression era through
the end of World War II, data was gathered and analyzed with the purpose of
understanding living conditions and predicting economic cycles. The emphasis on facts
and data versus deduction and theory continued to define social indicators through the
1960s (Cobb and Rixford 1998, 8).
By the 1950s and 1960s Russian space exploration and resultant funding for United
States’ space exploration shifted indicator focus to scientific research and education.
“The social indicators movement of the 1960s was concerned with the role that social
information plays in crafting the future of the nation.” (Besleme and Mullin 1997, 2). A
1966 report, Social Indicators, a NASA-sponsored program, examined the effects of the
U.S. space program on culture and society and made space exploration a household term
(Gahin and Patterson 2001, 348, Cobb and Rixford 1998, 9).
244
At this point, the concept of indicators and the de facto indicator system was widely
accepted. The Kennedy Administration implemented a national accounting system,
wherein economists used indicators and models to recommend tax cuts and revive the
economy (Gahin and Paterson 2001, Cobb and Rixford 1998). Poverty, race and housing
advocates called for a quantifiable social indicator measurement system similar to the
successful national accounting system. In 1969 the Russell Sage Foundation and the
Social Science Research Council (SSRC) published Indicators for Social Change. The
report’s authors argued for better research and data series and advocated an inductive
approach that valued subjective measurement (Cobb and Rixford 1998, 10). This
emerging demand for inductive reasoning both recalled indicators’ early adoption by
social advocates, and underscored the coming change in the use of these tools. Indicators
again began to represent an overt advocacy tool, as much as a source of objective
information.
In the early 1970s social indicator projects were characterized as scorecards with
quantifiable service outcome data (Besleme and Mullin 1997). These scorecards
evaluated progress in areas of specific concern to the general public, such as education
and parks, and used common, accessible language to do so. They also inspired the later
environmental quality reports of the 1980s (Gahin and Paterson 2001, Cobb and Rixford
1998).
A focus on urban indicators, in particular, also emerged beginning in the 1970s. Local
governments and universities conducted surveys and assessments and created city report
cards and profiles (Gahin and Patterson 2001). The indicator field also expanded
245
sufficiently to support academic oversight. The Social Indicators Research Journal began
publication in 1974, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) published a 1978 reference, Urban Environmental Indicators, to guide
measurement of a locality’s housing and other characteristics (Gahin and Patterson 2001).
Quality of life work begun in the 1970s especially highlighted the opportunity for urban
planners to proactively identify and address local residents’ needs for their physical
environment (Myers 1988). The widespread nature of this work plus academic oversight
created a body of knowledge regarding which elements were reliable indicators of
quality, life, and communities.
The social and quality of life indicators of the late 1960s and 1970s had provided a
platform for expanding the economic indicators of the 1960s. Arguments that economic
growth patterns negatively impacted the natural environment without any accounting
resulted in greened national accounting processes, including developing environmental
indicators (Gahin and Patterson 2001, 350, Cobb and Rixford 1998). In the U.S., the
Council on Environmental Quality published the report Environmental Trends in 1981.
The EPA began work on indicators. Internationally, Worldwatch Institute and the World
Resources Institute began publication of their respective journals, State of the World
Report and World Resources Report. OECD expanded their environmental indicators of
the 1970s to offer country environmental performance reviews. These environmental
indicator efforts were matched by sustainability indicator programs in the later 1980s and
later, both internationally and within the United States. The United Nations published the
Brundtland Report in 1987 and the Rio Summit was convened in 1992. The President’s
246
Council on Sustainable Development was formed in 1996 and the United States
Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators was established in
1998 (Gahin and Patterson 2001, 350-351, Cobb and Rixford 1998, 12). In nations and
global organizations where political will is coordinated with the scientific community,
these efforts have continued and expanded into the 21
st
century, in effect extending the
time horizon into the future. In localities without the requisite political leadership, such
efforts have lapsed.
The late 1980s also witnessed the emerging healthy communities movement. This
movement recalled earlier community indicators, but improved upon them, too. Healthy
communities paralleled the efforts at inclusivity of social indicators and called for a
comprehensive, community-based orientation to individual health. This implicitly
recognized the myriad environmental determinants of healthy well-being (Besleme and
Mullin 1997, 3).
Despite this widespread acceptance and utilization, by the late 1980s the social indicator
movement in the U.S. was essentially over (Cobb and Rixford 1998). The expense of
collecting data was too great (Kingsley 1997). Moreover, there was a pervasive sense that
indicators were less useful than originally thought (Besleme and Mullin 1997). In
particular, there was a sense that the emphasis on descriptive statistics, without
accompanying interpretation, was insufficient to explain social conditions (Cobb and
Rixford 1998, 11). After one hundred years, indicators were no longer sufficient as stand-
alone measurements of conditions, but began to require a greater social context.
247
APPENDIX II: CATALOGUE OF ASSESSMENT MODELS
The empirical work for this paper evolves out of a model to evaluate the child- or youth-
friendliness of a community. An initial component to creating this model was
cataloguing existing community evaluation efforts.
In order to prepare the catalogue, I first sought evaluations focused on the geographic
scale I am interested in, the neighborhood level. In terms of neighborhood level
assessments or evaluations, I reviewed five: the Community Assessment Program (CAP)
of Tigard, Oregon; the Richardson, Texas, Neighborhood Assessment Program (NAP);
the River Market Neighborhood Assessment Project (FOCUS), in Kansas City, Missouri;
the New Japantown Community Plan; and the Portland, Maine City Council
Neighborhood-Based Planning System. Next I surveyed for topics close to my own,
youth and children. Here I reviewed eight: Tarrant County Texas Community Assessment
Children and Youth Component; Choices on the Edge: Maryvale Community
Assessment; and the Building Blocks Community Assessment: A Blueprint for
Community Change; On Good Authority: Combating Gang Violence in Chicago’s Little
Village Neighborhood; the Eagle County Cares Youth Survey; the Kid-Friendly Cities
Health Improvement Report Cards from Zero Population Growth (ZPG); Annie E. Casey
Kids Count Data Book; and the FYSB/National Clearinghouse on Families Youth report,
Reconnecting Youth and Community. Finally I reviewed additional assessments that did
not specifically focus on youth or children, nor limit themselves to the neighborhood
level, but that were representative of the greater assessment movement. I refer to these as
general assessments. These additional assessments add diversity to the catalogue and
248
inform my own model. They provide additional examples for how to create an
assessment, what to include or exclude, how to present findings, and so on. For this
portion of the model catalogue, I reviewed eight: the Jacksonville Quality of Life
Progress Report, 2003, Life in Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project
(CAP), the 1997 text Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance
Monitoring with 25 proposed indicators for a Community Health Profile (CHP), the
model from the Mobilization for Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP),
Community Health Assessment and Report 2000-2001 Michigan Department of
Community Health, Oregon Shines/Oregon Benchmarks, United Way of Southwestern
Indiana 1999-2000 Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment: A Light for the
Community, and the Burlington, Vermont Legacy Project.
Overall Assessment Comparison
The neighborhood level assessments consider relatively small geographic communities,
often sequentially; and focus much more on urban planning and land use issues. The
communities are often defined via locally-identified boundaries, and thus correspond to
residents’ perceptions of their neighborhoods. Local residents work with public planning
department staff to identify opportunities and constraints for individual communities,
incorporating very localized knowledge into the data collection as well as the goal
prioritization stage. Perhaps because the scale is so small and local, the process includes a
physical review/ assessment of the area as well as group discussions of assets and needs.
Areas for consideration are open-ended; there are no predetermined indicators. Goals and
249
objectives are very specific and focused on land use issues such as enforcing the public/
urban code, ensuring more open space in local condominium developments, and provide
more places to hang out. The very localized set of indicators suggests these reports may
not replicable across jurisdictions, although progress within a given jurisdiction over time
is quite likely.
The focus of the youth assessments is youth, rather than a particular geography or social
focus, such as health. The geographical scale, however, is typically very broad, ranging
from a large city (population greater than 100,000) to a nation. In one example, the
geographical scale was a neighborhood within Chicago, with a similarly narrow focus, on
reducing gang activity rather than youth overall. In fact, many of the youth assessments
focus on the problems of troubled youth, from violent and aggressive behavior to teen
pregnancy to gang activity. In some cases these are considered to be the primary issues
youth regularly deal with. Procedurally, youth may be asked to provide personal data
about their exercise and dietary habits, sexual activity and history of drug or alcohol use.
Statistical data regarding characteristics such as education levels/ test score, high school
graduation rates, teen pregnancy rates, truancy rates, juvenile arrest rates, and infant
mortality rates are emphasized. Adult professionals who work with youth provide
additional data, and/or analyze the data, and prioritize goals.
The general assessments generally consider both a broad geographic area, such as entire
city or metropolitan region, and a broad set of variables. Their focus is characterized as
quality of life, or health-oriented, and sometimes both. Similarly their population focus is
general – while there may be a demographic breakdown, these assessments focus on the
250
population as a whole. Where the needs of specific groups are considered, it is usually via
a committee of experts. For example, the characteristics and needs of teens are
represented by experienced providers of services to teens, rather than teens themselves.
These assessments include a large number of indicators, from 25 to more than 74. They
consider such a broad array of issues, the indicators themselves are classified into major
broad categories that encompass a full range of urban social concerns: education,
economic development, preserving the natural environment, providing arts and culture,
ensuring diverse recreational opportunities, facilitating local governance, maintaining
safety, improving health of residents, providing housing, and maintaining property – in
short, healthy people and community benefits. The process typically incorporates some
sort of survey with statistical data; followed by in some cases focus group discussions
and modeling; and a traditional planning orientation of prioritization via committee. The
large size of these reports, in particular the enormous number of indicators, suggests that
these reports may not be replicable across jurisdictions, over within a single jurisdiction
over time. It may simply be too costly or time consuming to regularly evaluate the
selected indicators. The focus on a geographically broad area may be optimal for policy
planning but it does address the variable needs of any particular subpopulation or
neighborhood.
I propose a model that is both situated within a neighborhood level geography and also
focused on the subpopulation of youth. The neighborhood geography is so chosen
because it represents the range of youth who often are constrained by lack of mobility.
The neighborhood is thus the community youth are most likely to experience on a regular
251
basis, and as such it is the community with the most potential to represent opportunities
or constraints to youth. Where the neighborhood level assessments focused on land use
and physical planning issues, the neighborhood level youth assessment will expand upon
this focus and consider both the physical environment, as well as key characteristics of
the social environment. Such a model will not consider the broad needs of the population
as a whole, in part because planning typically provides for this broad population, and in
part because accommodating the needs of youth is likely to benefit the broader
population. The needs of youth are defined by multiple sources, including professionals
who regularly work with youth, as the reviewed youth assessments have done, and also
including youth themselves. (In some cases, this is best achieved via secondary data, such
as scholarly reports that survey youth for their needs; in others, where possible, local
youth may be consulted to supplement this information and provide locally relevant
information). At the same time, the proposed model will not focus exclusively on the
needs of troubled youth. While there is no monolithic ‘youth’, there is a key list of
characteristics that youth desire and need in a community that can be defined as a
relatively small set of indicators. While the characteristics of concern, and even the
indicators may vary slightly from one place to another, their limited number makes this
model replicable both across jurisdictions and over time.
Neighborhood Assessments
(1)The Community Assessment Program (CAP) of Tigard, Oregon connects diverse
public agencies for the purpose of identifying neighborhood issues, and strategizing plans
252
to address these issues. Each week representatives from several departments, including
public works, police, community development and finance, walk one of the 45 sub areas
into which the city has been divided. In addition to planning for public action, this effort
publicizes pertinent information for residents, including, for example, the responsibilities
to keep vegetation off sidewalks, the procedure for reporting an abandoned vehicle, and
opportunities to volunteer within the community. Relevant indicators: sidewalk
maintenance (trip hazards on sidewalks, vegetation blocking sidewalks); new sidewalks
(areas slated for new sidewalks); basketball hoops located [illegally] in the right-of-way.
(2)Richardson Texas Neighborhood Assessment Program (NAP) is a new program, new
program, implemented in a handful of locations only (by application and review). The
program is sequential and includes a neighborhood tour by local residents and planning
staff, interviews with key neighborhood residents, creation of a Neighborhood
Assessment Committee, formulation of a neighborhood vision statement, and creation of
a neighborhood profile using both resident and demographic information. There are no
specific pre-determined characteristics or variants to address, since the program is
intended to vary with each neighborhood. Instead, the areas to address are very broad and
the assessment is very open-ended. Current work to replace sidewalks and redevelop
alleyways is coordinated with the NAP. Relevant indicators: NA (new endeavor, no data
yet, and open-ended)
(3)The River Market Neighborhood Assessment Project, known as FOCUS, in Kansas
City, Missouri, incorporated a neighborhood self-evaluation with strategy development.
Early meetings identified local planning and design features along traditional
253
architectural perception – landmarks, paths, barriers, etc., as well as neighborhood assets.
Interested parties were asked to finish the statement “If I could fix one thing”, resulting in
a list of goals for the neighborhood. A prioritized list of goals was divided into
categories: those activities the neighborhood residents can accomplish themselves, such
as neighborhood clean-up; those activities that require public and private sector partners,
such as mandating condominiums provide more open space; and those activities that are
the logical domain of the city, such as developing transit options. Relevant indicators:
NA. Indicators per se were not devised. Instead a list of opportunities that could be taken
to improve the neighborhood was created: creation of message board for upcoming
events; incorporate green space into new housing development; create ongoing public art
project; improve neighborhood safety, including traffic safety.
(4)The Japantown Planning, Preservation, and Development Task Force/ New Japantown
Community Plan, created with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and local
consultants Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) and Asian
Neighborhood Design (AND) generated a scope of services and schedule of work to
improve the area. The Plan contains an overview of the Japantown Community Planning
Process, the goals and objectives, the defined community (including the extended
boundary following review), and the local vision. There are no predetermined sets of
priorities, issues, or characteristics – all were generated locally for a very specific
community. The assessment is clear and generates its own list of priorities: hours of
business do not work for professionals not working in neighborhood; there is no place to
hang out; and includes both strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
254
Suggestions to improve community also thoughtful – local grocery store to sponsor
cooking classes; senior-staffed information kiosks on weekends. Relevant indicators: NA.
Plan organized by broad goals, more specific objectives, and slightly more directed
strategies. Some specific ideas suggested within strategies include: educating existing
institutions and organizations towards the needs of youth and families; use the Peace
Plaza as a continual gathering space; display a neighborhood map and listing of cultural
and other events; sponsor a children’s film festival; encourage historical programs for
children and youth.
(5)The Portland, Maine City Council Neighborhood-Based Planning System is a City
Council established effort to increase citizen involvement. The subsequent Neighborhood
Foundation Plan Program incorporates strategic assessments of neighborhoods. Each
neighborhood plan has specific, predetermined components including a neighborhood
initiative and an emphasized sense of place. Each neighborhood is selected, described,
assets are inventoried, a vision statement is created, a strategy developed, and a draft plan
submitted first to the community and then to the city for review. Relevant indicators:
officer assistance at busy intersections to improve safety for autos, bikes and pedestrians;
protect surface and groundwater from degradation; discuss with island youth their
recreational needs; address the unmet recreational needs of island groups such as young
children, preschoolers, and the elderly [Note that these are primarily goals, not indicators
and are specific to the only completed plan, for Peaks Island.]
255
Youth Assessments
(6)Tarrant County, Texas created a Community Assessment and incorporated a specific
Children and Youth component. Extremely detailed key informant interviews with adults
(aged 18 to 65 and over) were used to identify the top three issues facing youth: violent
and aggressive behavior; youth gangs; and pregnant and parenting teens. The adult
interviewees identified seven strengths of Tarrant County: children and adolescents have
positive roles to play in the community; they receive support and caring form schools;
they have venues to give support to youth in their community; they receive support and
caring form their families; local interagency cooperation to serve children and youth and
families; and the community provides safe schools and other places in neighborhoods.
Note that this report provides local adults’ perception of youth quality of life, rather than
the results of a direct survey of youth’s perceived quality of life. Relevant indicators:
where children 6-11 years old spent most of their after-school time when not with their
parents; percentage of children who stayed home alone while their parents worked; the
perception that children and adolescents had a positive role to play in the community;
numbers threatened or hurt by other adults, and by other children.
(7)Choices on the Edge: Maryvale Community Assessment (Arizona) is the result of a
year-long assessment to identify local strengths as well as needs with respect to youth and
families, and to generate ideas for community improvement and support for these ideas.
Several areas focused on both physical and social determinants were identified as
priorities: reducing truancy; providing greater recreational and other options for area
youth; addressing the inconsistency in accessing services targeted to youth; increasing
256
positive police-youth interactions; increasing job training, tutoring, and recreational after-
school programs; providing prevention programs for very young children; addressing the
documentation issues of youth whose parents may be illegal immigrants; providing,
among other services, parenting classes, ESL and cultural competency services to
families; increasing the role of faith-based organizations and schools and established
professional and community institutions to create a community that involves and supports
local youth; and implementing a strategy to reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders.
The assessment is geared to the needs of youth and families (although it is unclear
whether the opinions of youth were solicited directly). It is also written in the format of a
comprehensive public plan, with background, goals and specific objectives.
(8)Building Blocks Community Assessment: A Blueprint for Community Change is a
report that focuses on actions communities can take to reduce the numbers of minority
youth in the juvenile justice system in Arizona. The report incorporates the work from
Maryvale AZ’s assessment that considered community strengths and needs, identified
strategies to improve the juvenile justice system, and fostered community involvement in
youth activities. The broader Building Blocks Community Assessment follows 6 key
steps: create assessment team; outreach to community; profile community well-being;
assess community needs; and resources; and establish priorities and action plans. While
the effort uses indicators, it acknowledges no one set of indicators is appropriate for all
communities but suggests including: demographics; race and ethnicity; English
proficiency; income levels and use of public assistance; education attainment and drop-
out rates; employment; homeownership and home values; juvenile crime rates and
257
offenses; and race and ethnicity of juvenile offenders. Open ended questions are posed to
officials, parents and youth regarding top issues in neighborhoods, or families and youth,
available activities, special challenges of minority youth who come into contact with law
enforcement personnel. Relevant indicators: poverty rates; use of public assistance;
juvenile crime rates.
(9)On Good Authority: Combating Gang Violence in Chicago’s Little Village
Neighborhood (Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority) reports on the efforts of a
federally and locally-funded program to reduce gang violence. Approaches include
community mobilization, social intervention, suppression, and organizational change
strategies. Youth outreach workers and project tactical officers provide gang members
and those at-risk for joining gangs with referrals for mental, physical health care, drug
treatment, military options, public aid, and justice system referrals. Characteristics of the
community were compared before and after the program’s implementation: the numbers
of school dropouts decreased among the targeted youth in the two gangs; levels of
employment increased; levels of crime decreased. Variables significantly related to
lowered levels of violent crime include obtaining a high school diploma or equivalency
degree, creating realistic career aspirations, associating with friends not in a gang, and
developing satisfaction with the community (although how this was measured is not
discussed). Variables significantly related to decreased drug arrests include employment
of the targeted youth, marriage plans, employment of individuals in the youth’s
household, and increased numbers of household members who had been incarcerated.
258
Relevant indicators: associating with friends that are not gang members; satisfaction with
the community; arrest levels.
(10)The Eagle County Youth Assessment/ Eagle County Cares Youth Survey 2003
Report of Findings, May 2004, prepared for Eagle River Youth Coalition (United Way,
Vail Valley Medical Center) combined the results of a survey administered to local
students with other local indicators – teen births, juvenile arrests, adolescent suicides – to
identify strengths and needs of local youth. Youth were directly queried for very personal
information, including eating and exercise habits, sexual activity, drug use, and self-
esteem. The report overview underscores the physical and mental health focus of this
research (diet, fitness, safety, smoking and alcohol, self-esteem, suicide, school
environment). This was a self-reported online survey. Many, many indicators were
included, some measuring the same characteristics. The final report presentation did not
highlight particular survey aspects or findings. Relevant indicators: overall assessment of
individual health; carried a gun; there is a gun in your house; juvenile arrests; lots of fun
things to do in free time; out-of-home placement; free and reduced lunch eligibility;
TANF participation; persons living below poverty level;
(11)The Kid-Friendly Cities Health Improvement Report Cards from Zero Population
Growth (ZPG) allow each of the major cities (those with populations over 100,000,
numbers growing each year but most recently about 25) to compare their progress over
time. The city report cards include data on infant mortality, percent of births to teens,
percent low birthweight births. A related ranking considers 87 smaller cities on similar
259
data. Relevant indicators: births to teens; bad air days; parks per 1000 persons; library
circulation per child.
(12)The annual Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Book provides a national and state-by-
state assessment of youth in the United States, using benchmarks. The smallest
geographical level considered, the state, considers a wide variety and large number of
characteristics: demographic data including total population, and by age breakdown;
race/ethnicity of young adults; immunization rates for 2-year olds; percent of children
without health insurance; economic conditions of families including median income of
families with children, percent of children in extreme poverty, and percent female-headed
households receiving child support/alimony; education reading and math levels for 4
th
and 8
th
graders; number in foster care aged 15-19; number of mothers under aged 20;
number of juveniles detained, incarcerated or placed in residential facilities; number
disconnected young adults (18-24) (not in school, working, no degree beyond high
school); plus indicators such as percent low birthweight babies; infant mortality rate;
child death rate; rate of teen deaths by accident homicide or suicide; teen birth rate;
percent older teens who are high school dropouts; percent older teens not attending
school and not working; percent of children living in families where no parent has full-
time, year-round employment; percent of children in poverty; percent of families with
children headed by single parent. (NOTE excellent documentation for each indicator
provided at end of report including definitions for terminology, sources for data, and
changes in data over time). Relevant indicators: low birth-weight babies; child deaths;
teen deaths; teen births; children in poverty.
260
(13)The FYSB/National Clearinghouse on Families Youth report, Reconnecting Youth
and Community, identifies what young people need: a sense of personal safety; structure;
a sense of belonging or membership; a sense of self-worth predicated on achievement and
character; mastery of skills; access to learning opportunities outside the classroom;
responsibility; spirituality; self-awareness; and support and guidance from caring adults
(p 5). To that end, the authors advocate rebuilding community as a critical step toward
creating an optimal environment for youth that allows them sovereignty and opportunities
to contribute positively to their community. The youth development approach focuses on
the desired possible outcomes for youth rather than preventing negative outcomes. An
appendix includes a questionnaire regarding organization programs and services, which
questions parallel issues in other reports (see pages 39-42). No specific indicators to
benchmark change are provided. Relevant indicators: placement of young people in
supported leadership positions in the community; youth involved in strategies to rebuild
communities.
General Assessments
(14)The Jacksonville Quality of Life Progress Report, 2003, Jacksonville, Florida,
prepared by the Community Council, Inc. (JCCI) is an ambitious and widely-copied
effort. The city-county, at 840 square miles, is the largest in the lower 48 states. The
population exceeds 700,000. JCCI was established in 1985 as a forum to consider
community social qualities. The initial study considered 74 indicators, and the process
has been followed, and modified each year since, and now includes an emphasis on
261
priorities. The annual quality of life reports have been used to recruit new doctors,
prioritize funding, and serve as an informational tool for new residents (Andrews 1996).
JCCI’s efforts are designed to allow Jacksonville to measure its own progress, not to
compare to other communities. The indicators are organized into 9 major areas
(achieving educational excellence, growing a vibrant economy, preserving the natural
environment, promoting social well-being and harmony, enjoying arts culture and
recreation, sustaining a healthy community, maintaining responsive government, moving
around efficiently, and keeping the community safe), with a total of 119 indicators. (It is
interesting to note that this report somewhat parallels the general plan outline, begging
the question as to why general plans themselves are not more responsive). The 2003
report is a lovely, readable document – defines terms such as poverty with operational
definitions, lots of simple graphics and charts and photos of Jacksonville residents.
Relevant indicators: children in poverty (free lunch participation); recipients of public
assistance; infant death rate; children receiving scheduled immunizations; days the air
quality index is ‘good’; local river bacteria standards compliance; juvenile alcohol/ drug
arrests; child abuse reports; violent deaths of youth.
(15)Life in Santa Cruz County, Year 10, 2004 Community Assessment Project (CAP)
reviews the 10-year effort to improve the quality of life for Santa Cruz residents by
providing information and establishing action plans. The primary data is a telephone
survey of a sample of local residents, data geographically representative and weighted;
and secondary data from the census, government agencies, local institutions and the
internet. Adults were queried regarding health care, cost of housing, mental health,
262
perception of racism, substance abuse, and use of local parks; and parents in particular
were queried for children’s sense of safety at school and parental satisfaction with school,
among other concerns. Because it is a long-term report, it provides a review of progress
relative to baseline data. Relevant indicators: poverty level; temporary assistance to
needy families (TANF); access to health care; immunization levels of children; children
receiving free or low-cost meals; adequacy of youth activities; juvenile crime rates; child
abuse; foster care placement; park usage; air quality; water quality. [Note some of this is
particularly not useful as it is data generated as part of an opinion survey: i.e. “do you
think local water quality is improving?”]
(16)The 1997 text Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance
Monitoring enumerates 25 proposed indicators for a Community Health Profile (CHP).
These indicators are subclassified as sociodemographic characteristics, health status,
health risks, health care resource consumption, functional status, and quality of life. The
focus is definitely on adult health – for example, the CHP queries for populations aged 18
and older who are obese, despite the urgent issue of obesity in children. Discussion of
indicators within this text states they were selected in party for their widespread
application across communities, and in part due to the relative ease of accessibility. The
indicators balance three criteria: importance in contributing to the knowledge of
community health; usefulness across communities; and feasibility of measurement (p
138). These are to be considered a ‘basic set of indicators’ (138), receptive to
supplementation with expanded data where appropriate and available. The authors also
recommend revising the set of basic indicators periodically; and using data at the
263
neighborhood level where available since is the level at which health improvement
actions can be best supported. Relevant indicators: low birthweight babies; immunization
rates; confirmed child abuse cases.
(17)The Mobilization for Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP) organization
provides a Community Health Status Assessment (CHSA) to illustrate the health of a
given area. As such, it provides broad core indicators that each community ideally
supplements with additional indicators representative of local concerns. The more than 25
core and 114 extended indicators are categorized as: demographic characteristics;
socioeconomic status; health resource availability; quality of life; behavioral risk factors;
environmental health indicators; social and mental health status; maternal and child
health status; death, illness and injury numbers; infectious disease figures; and
information about sentinel events. The authors of this method recommend using data
related to these broad “core indicators” and even provide some examples of proxies for
these issues; plus they recommend using supplemental data that illuminate additional
locally appropriate indicators. Relevant indicators: percent below poverty level (broken
down by children and families); number of civic associations per 1000 population; WIC
eligibles; food stamp recipients; proportion of youth involved in after-school activities.
(18)Community Health Assessment and Report 2000-2001 Michigan Department of
Community Health. The Community Health Assessment and Improvement (CHAI)
Initiative was passed to guide local community efforts to improve health within the state
resulted in several sub-efforts with shared priorities but different strategies. Hence it
allows for assessment of change within a community over time, but less well across
264
communities. General priorities include promoting healthy behavior, promoting health
and safe communities, improving systems for personal and public health, and preventing
and reducing incidence of disease and health disorders. Relevant indicators: access to
health care; teen pregnancy.
(19)United Way of Southwestern Indiana 1999-2000 Comprehensive Community Needs
Assessment: A Light for the Community is a report characterized as a study of the critical
human issues facing 3 specific counties in southwest Indiana. It is based on quantitative
survey data compiled into a general study plus 9 separate studies that focus on the abuse
and neglect of children, teens (teen sex, pregnancy and motherhood), improving the
quality of life of families, independent living needs of the elderly and disabled, local
health issues of alcohol and drug abuse, self-sufficiency, plans for neighborhood
improvements, drug abuse in Warrick County, and youth at risk in Spencer County. It is
notable for its 27 individual neighborhood plans and additional reports for at least 2
counties. An executive summary overviews each of the studies, includes a vision
statement, and rank-ordered program outcomes for each sub-study. The process
incorporated focus groups, data reports, and a logic model (based on vision statements,
desired outcomes, and strategies). In the work of the livable neighborhoods
subcommittee, each neighborhood developed a resident description of their
neighborhood, a description of their ideal neighborhood, specific neighborhood goals,
and an outline of a plan to reach these goals. Major issues included city maintenance,
crime control, recreation and green space needs, property maintenance and code
enforcement, traffic/parking, social unity, area beautification, and spot zoning. The
265
children’s, teen’s, and family subcommittees all used the same set group of adult
participants and all worked with predefined issues (child abuse and neglect, teen sex,
pregnancy and parenthood, and family quality of life respectively). Personal information
on abuse was sought not from children, but from adults who had been abused as children.
Interviews were conducted with both pregnant and parent teens as well as nonparent
teens in order to identify associations between behavior and characteristics. This was
supplemented with statistics and a logic model linking program outcomes (teens
perceived feeling of hope for future) to community outcomes (reduced teen pregnancy) to
vision statements (teens mature as adults prepared to become productive members of
society). The livable neighborhoods components incorporated residents’ descriptions of
their neighborhoods (for example, improving, people care about children) with
descriptions of their ideal neighborhoods (having a library with a computer lab, improved
lighting, an ice-cream stand), agreed-upon goals (creating a local community center,
developing a city center), and finally broken-down into objectives (raise money, generate
institutional support). This latter was surprisingly the shortest part of the neighborhood
component. Relevant indicators: teens engaged in after-school activities [teens];
community values and supports youth [teens]; youth opportunities for fun and excitement
[health]; youth have sense of purpose [health]; increased social unity and friendliness of
neighborhood [livable neighborhoods].
(20)Oregon Benchmarks represents the efforts towards achieving the vision outlined in
the document Oregon Shines. The Oregon Progress Board, an independent 12-member
state planning and oversight panel created by the state legislature in 1989 is charged with
266
monitoring the state’s 20-year strategic vision outlined in the document Oregon Shines.
The Board administers surveys to 1500 individuals on their email list in the areas of 90
benchmarks. The benchmarks, organized along seven major lines -- economy, education,
civic engagement, social support, public safety, community development and
environment – guide policymaking and budgeting. State agencies must link performance
measures to these benchmarks. Major goals include good jobs, safe and high quality of
life communities, and a sustainable environment. Relevant benchmarks (indicators):
Immunizations; infant mortality; teen pregnancy; teen substance abuse; child abuse;
poverty; hunger; juvenile arrests; students carrying weapons; potable drinking water; air
quality’ park acreage.
(21)The Burlington Vermont, Legacy Project was begun 1999 to ensure the city
maintained its vibrant, environmentally engaged lifestyle. A direct result was a 30-year
plan (Legacy Action Plan) designed to promote sustainability along several lines:
neighborhoods, including noise violations, crime rates, and incidence of child abuse, as
well as number of affordable housing units; economy, including population, gross sales,
percentage of low birthweight babies, percentage of population receiving food stamps,
unemployment rate, VMT traveled for state highways; governance, including percent of
registered voters who vote and diversity of elected and appointed officials, focusing on
minorities, youth and women, and student community service hours; youth and life skills,
including number of high school dropouts, school attendance levels for all grades,
number of high school seniors planning to attend 4-year colleges, adult literacy rates; and
environment, including air quality, water quality, energy consumption, and data on
267
recycled materials. Relevant indicators include: percentage of population receiving food
stamps; diversity (minorities and youth) of elected and appointed officials; community
service hours by students; and percent of residents within ¼ mile of open space.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The twilight of the local redevelopment era: the past, present, and future of urban revitalization and urban economic development in Nevada and California
PDF
Building Los Angeles: urban housing in the suburban metropolis, 1900-1936
PDF
Social entrepreneurship and urban tourism as economic development: best practices from Long Beach, California
PDF
Alternative ways, locations, and partners to meet the recreational needs of underserved communities: the case of Florence-Firestone
PDF
The film industry and urban development in metropolitan Los Angeles, 1920-1975
PDF
Order before zoning: land use regulation in Los Angeles, 1880-1915
PDF
Walkability as 'freedom': the ecology of school journey in inner city Los Angeles neighborhoods
PDF
Market-state-based planning for nation-state style prosperity: reinventing the higher "promise" to create a "win/win/win" for California
PDF
A capability-based approach to defining performance characteristics of the built environment
PDF
Avoiding middle-class planning 2.0: media arts and the future of urban planning
PDF
Spaces of market-culturalism: the case of Chungking Mansions, Hong Kong
PDF
A better method for measuring housing affordability and the role that affordability played in the mobility outcomes of Latino-immigrants following the Great Recession
PDF
Population and employment distribution and urban spatial structure: an empirical analysis of metropolitan Beijing, China in the post-reform era
PDF
A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)
PDF
Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities
PDF
Research to develop a manual for parents, caregivers, and volunteers to teach children from birth to five years of age with intellectual disability living in rural communities in the Dominican Re...
PDF
Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools
PDF
Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...
PDF
Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gearin, Elizabeth
(author)
Core Title
The kindered community: using a child's perspective to improve urban planning and evaluate neighborhood friendliness
School
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
12/01/2008
Defense Date
05/12/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Children,Community development,kindering,neighborhood evaluation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Urban planning
Place Name
Arlington
(counties),
Gaithersburg
(city or populated place),
Kentlands
(city or populated place),
Lake Anne
(city or populated place),
Lyon Village
(city or populated place),
Maryland
(states),
Reston
(city or populated place),
USA
(countries),
Virginia
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sloane, David C. (
committee chair
), Myers, Dowell (
committee member
), Wolch, Jennifer (
committee member
)
Creator Email
egearin@egearin.com,gearin@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1854
Unique identifier
UC1171315
Identifier
etd-gearin-2527 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-139405 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1854 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-gearin-2527.pdf
Dmrecord
139405
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gearin, Elizabeth
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
kindering
neighborhood evaluation