One of the most enduring and pervasive ideas in urban policy is that cities should consist of numerous self-contained and self-sufficient neighbourhoods. With urban villages anchoring each neighbourhood, residents could work, shop, study and play locally, thereby saving on travel and building a strong sense of neighbourhood community.
Iâve long been dubious about this romantic notion. To me it harks back to a rural provincialism thatâs the antithesis of what cities are actually about. But I was surprised on reading Jane Jacobsâs 1960 classic, The death and life of great American cities, to see that she was well ahead of me*. Hereâs how she opens her chapter on neighbourhoods:
Neighborhood is a word that has come to sound like a Valentine. As a sentimental concept, “neighborhood” is harmful to city planning. It leads to attempts at warping city life into imitations of town or suburban life. Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense.
In Jacobâs time the ideal city was seen as a series of cosy, inward-looking neighbourhoods, each with a population of around 7,000. That was thought by planners to be big enough, she explains, to âpopulate an elementary school and to support convenience shopping and a community center. This unit is then further rationalized into smaller groupings of a size scaled to the play and supposed management of children and the chitchat of housewivesâ.
FollowÂ this linkÂ to win one of two copies of Andrew Leighâs âDisconnectedâ. Hurry, entries close Tuesday 13 March
She argues that urban neighbourhoods are not like a bounded country town where behaviour is mediated by gossip and convention. The point of cities is to provide wide choice and access to diverse opportunities. Unlike small towns, cities offer extraordinary variety and high levels of specialisation in products, services and skills because they draw on a huge pool of people. The very essence of a city, she says, is that neighbourhoods arenât economically or socially self-contained.
Yet the concept of self-sufficient âurban villagesâ is surprisingly resilient and still frequently cited today (see here, hereÂ and, at least in philosophy, here and here, for Australian examples). Thatâs surprising because there are obvious reasons why the idea of self-contained neighbourhoods isnât a sensible objective for policy.
First, even if we wanted to live and work in the same neighbourhood, many households have multiple members who work in different places. Finding an affordable residential location that puts all household members within the same neighbourhood as their work or study would in most cases be difficult.
Second, neighbourhoods that actually do offer good access to a range of jobs and services â like suburbs on the edge of the CBD â are expensive to live in precisely because of the high accessibility they offer. Most people however canât afford to pay that premium. For example, less than 10% of Melbourneâs population lives within 5 km of the city centre.
Third, many workers are in specialised occupations that have a limited geography. For example, workers in finance might only find suitable work in the CBD. Or those who work in health might be tied to a handful of major hospitals. Moreover, industry rationalisation and declining job security mean it makes little sense to put all oneâs eggs in one basket by choosing to buy close to a particular institution (and high transaction costs discourage residential mobility).
Fourth, the size of friendship networks in cities now extends far beyond the local neighbourhood. Many social networks relate directly or indirectly to our working and studying lives, driven in part by the massive increase in womenâs participation in the workforce over the last 50 years, and by the high mobility of workers between workplaces (not to mention between cities and countries).
Fifth, low transport costs mean we can and will travel beyond the neighbourhood to go to a party, to a preferred restaurant, a specialty shop, the opera, the beach, the footy, the dentist, and so on. This is really Jacobâs point â cities offer us the best of everything. By and large, the bigger they are the more they offer.
Sixth, minimising the time it takes to get to work is not the major determinant of residential location it used to be. It now accounts for a minority of all the trips we make, between a fifth to a third (depending how you measure it). Many now choose their place of residence primarily on other criteria, such as amenity, and trade-off proximity to work.
Rather than limit the economic and social value of cities â in particular, the enormous positive externalities they offer â a better approach would be to improve mobility within cities by, for example, making transport systems more sustainable. However as Jacobâs points out, we shouldnât lose sight of the reality that we still live in neighbourhoods. It makes sense to maximise whatever inherent value neighbourhoods offer to our lives.
Jacobs thought the neighbourhood could be a powerful political unit complementing the âstreetâ and âcity-wideâ units. Indeed, thatâs the only real value she saw in it â she devotes most of her chapter on neighbourhoods to their potential for political action. Theyâre a convenient unit because the city is too big to care about local issues and the street is too small to have the skills and contacts for political action (which in her day was directed against massive housing redevelopment projects and freeway proposals).
What we can do with neighbourhoods is a big issue I’ll leave for another day. For now, I’ll just make a few brief comments. Sustainability wasnât the pre-eminent public policy issue in Jacob’s time it is today – nowadays weâd recognise thereâs scope for neighbourhoods to make a modest contribution to improving sustainability, particularly in transport. But we shouldnât forget the main game is in improving whole-of-city mobility â the neighbourhoods should fit in with that.
Weâre much less reliant on our neighbourhoods for social capital than earlier generations were, but there are still some important institutions that operate at the local level, mainly State and systemic primary schools. But again, itâs important to recognise that strong social connections mostly arenât local, and moreover donât need to be.
Note: If you live in or on the edge of the CBD and work in the CBD, you may feel you live in an urban village. Note though that only a tiny percent of the city’s population lives this close to the CBD. Note also that while most of that tiny percent work in the CBD, the great bulk of CBD workers actually live in the suburbs.
*I’m reading Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life as a member of the City Builder Book Club.