Citation
Comparative analysis of neighborhood planning programs in central, satellite and suburban cities in the United States of America

Material Information

Title:
Comparative analysis of neighborhood planning programs in central, satellite and suburban cities in the United States of America
Creator:
Dzikiti, Tendai Mtunga
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iv, 52 leaves : forms ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
City planning -- Citizen participation -- United States ( lcsh )
Neighborhoods -- United States ( lcsh )
City planning -- Citizen participation ( fast )
Neighborhoods ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 28).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Tendai Mtunga Dzikiti.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
11968342 ( OCLC )
ocm11968342
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1984 .D95 ( lcc )

Full Text
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
AURARfA LIBRARY
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
of
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAMS
in
CENTRAL, SATELLITE
and
SUBURBAN CITIES in the
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
\9-' -
A/ 3
BY
Tendai Mtunga Dzikiti
December 7, 1984
ARCHIVES
LE ^
1190 WuiwBSimm
A 7I


ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
AURARIA LIBRARY
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Planning Programs 1n Central, Satellite and Surburban Cities in the United States of America
by
TENDAI MTUNGA DZIKITI
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Masters in Planning and Community Development
The University of Colorado at Denver
I
Fall 1984


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is a pleasent duty to acknowledge some of the outstanding assistance given me. I could not have undertaken this study without the guidance of Dr. Daniel Schler, Director of the Planning and Community Development Program and Acting Dean of the College of Design and Planning, who was always accessible and willing to spare time advising me even though his daily schedules were overloaded; and Dr. Andre' Kimboko, professor for Planning and Community Development who consistently provided the essential research guidance and the inspiration it takes to achieve the best.
I am grateful to Rob Walsh, planner for the City of Aurora, for designing the research project and without whom this could not have been possible. I wish to thank Maryln Elaisen, who is also a planner for the City of Aurora, for her cheerfulness and efficiency in assisting with SPSS programming.
I am indebted to Engrid Edinboro, a family friend, for cheerfully assisting with the task of putting together the statistical tables.
On a more personal basis, my thanks are due to my wife, Grace, for being so understanding during the most difficult moments of our lives.
Above all, I thank my parents for sacrificing the little they had so that I could have the opportunity to go to college when they themselves could not. Finally, I wish to extend my sincerest appreciation to those whom I did not mention by name whose willingness to lend a helping hand has made this study successful.
\
1


I
I
Shingirai,
To
Kundai, Kumbirai and Tawanda
ii


Abstract
A comparative study of neighborhood planning in central, suburban and satellite cities in the United States was designed to investigate and analyze problematic issues related to neighborhood planning. The major focus of the study addressed the different governmental structures and impact on decision making processes pertaining to neighborhood planning programs. Special attention was given to the various cities' population characteristics, the purpose of the neighborhood planning programs and the outcomes of planning programs.
The study also investigated the impact older neighborhoods have on neighborhood planning programs within the three types of cities.
A major portion of this study describes how cities could best serve their neighborhoods by implementing neighborhood planning programs designed to meet the needs of a specified planning area. The data for this description was taken from the strategies provided by the cities with successful neighborhood planning programs. Based upon this data, recommendations, analysis and conclusions were made for the most ideal governmental organizations, where neighborhood planning programs have thrived best.
Major findings from the survey were:
1. The study revealed that 88 cities were central and 14 were suburbs and 5 were satel1ites.
2. The mayor council form of government emerged as the most prominent organization with the essential characteristics to support and direct the growth of effective neighborhood planning programs.
3. Central cities dominated the whole investigation, the main contributing factor being that the majority of cities involved in the study turned out to be central.
4. Central cities despite their domination in the study, also have more than 40% of their total developed land in an age category above forty years.
5. The study indicated that city planners are either advisors, experts, or facilitators, while citizens are doing the plan formulation, organization and the implementation of neighborhood planning programs.


6. The study revealed that the degree of a planning program's success is associated with public involvement.
7. Finally, the study indicated that there were 32 cities with successful neighborhood planning programs and also 32 with unsuccessful neighborhood planning programs.
A major recommendation derived from this study is that city government
officials, city planners and all'effected citizens should work hard together to eliminate urban blight from old neighborhoods and prevent it from occurring in new neighborhoods by utilizing neighborhood planning programs.
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction........................................................... 1
I. Study Methodology................................................. 4
II. Discussion of Survey Results...................................... 6
III. Conclusions.......................................................22
IV. Recommendations...................................................26
V. Bibliography......................................................28
VI. Appendices........................................................29


INTRODUCTION
"Whether it is possible for a city, be it planned or not, to escape some sort of definition or at least local coloring by neighborhoods is problematic."
Lewis Mumford
"We shall have something solid to chew on, if we think of city neighborhoods as mundane organs or self-government."
Jane Jacobs
Neighborhood planning process is often viewed as a difficult and time consuming task among professional planners and consequently neighborhoods seem to be getting very minimal support from various planning organizations across the United States. Generally there are very few planners who are willing to be neighborhood planners or get involved with neighborhood planning issues. Neighborhood planning programs are always a good tool for preserving older sections of the community and for helping those emerging newer communities with their growing problems. How a city can best serve its neighborhoods is the major focus of this study.
The data furnished by one hundred and nine cities across the United States will not provide the solutions to problems of this magnitude, but will reveal what other cities are doing in regard to their neighborhood planning programs. The difficulties they are encountering and the rate of success they are attaining will be a good lesson to learn from, for those cities intending to implement a neighborhood planning program. Those cities who already have a program in progress will be able to compare with other cities and hopefully improve on their present effort those cities without neighborhood planning programs might find for it and introduce an appropriate program. For neighborhood planning programs are the best methods of analyzing and proposing solutions on a planning area basis. The neighborhood represents a logical planning area for the purpose of measuring and applying programs for correcting physical deterioration.*
*Morton Farrah, Neighborhood Analyses, p. 9
1


The one criterion which has made the neighborhood or other type of planning area a valid concept for use in the planning process is the feeling that people's identity with an area is strong enough to have a physical or visual ramifications. For an example, a planning or social action taken in one part of the planning area will certainly exert some degree of influence on the area as a whole. The process of gentrification in this instance serves as an ideal illustration of how the whole neighborhood can carry the burden of three or five houses which have undergone renovation or restoration so as to change ownership from a low income family to the elite or upper class family.
A good neighborhood planning program carries the identity of the neighborhood which it was designed for and also serves as a monitoring device to determine the needs of the community today and tomorrow.
The purpose of this study investigates the neighborhood planning characteristics pertaining to three types of cities, namely central, satellite and surburb. The major thrust of the investigation will be to analyze problematic issues related to neighborhood planning among three types of cities. The analyses addresses the following areas: first, form of government of each type of the city and how does that particular form government deals with neighborhood planning programs. This will include:
(a) program emphasis
(b) length of time the program has been in effect.
(c) primary purpose of the program.
(d) number of planning staff assigned to the program.
(e) rate of program success.
Second, an analysis of neighborhood plans has been made of city types so as to determine the impact of governmental organization on how plans are adopted and executed, and their bureaucratic influence in decision making processes with respect to neighborhood planning programs. Third, the study also investigates the degree of influence older neighborhoods have on the planning process and their sizes in terms of the total city area and population.
The objective of this study is to provide the state of art regarding neighborhood planning process and resulting programs among selected cities in the United States.
2Ibid.
2


The data used in the study was gathered by the city of Aurora Planning Department. The survey data will be used as means to find out how could cities best serve their neighborhoods.
The study results selected included:
(1) The different methods cities across the nation are using in neighborhood planning processes.
(2) The rate of neighborhood planning program success or failure.
(3) The integration of neighborhood planning programs by preparing itself with the best tools essential to make such a goal possible.
The content of this study includes the following:
Methodology: This section of the study describes how the entire research was and the tools that were employed. It also outlines how the questionnaire content was arranged and classified in respective categories so as to make it easier for the respondent to identify the sections and relate them to his or her city's neighborhood planning program.
Discussion of Survey Results: This section presents the analysis of the data and also provides a basis for the evaluation of neighborhood planning and the development of conclusions.
Conclusions and Recommendations: This is derived from the study findings which provide the evidence for the study's conclusions. The study's conclusions are based on the evaluation of the characteristics of different type ci tiesand their impact on neighborhood planning programs. This then followed by statements as to what should be done to enhance the processes of neighborhood planning so as to eradicate iirh^^ blight.
Appendices: This section is composed of statistical tables provided as supporting evidence to the findings of the study.
3


STUDY METHODOLOGY
A. Sample and Questionnaire:
A nationwide survey was conducted to study how cities across the United States conduct neighborhood planning programs. The questionnaire format was designed to obtain as much information as possible, essential to the formation of stable neighborhood planning' programs. The questionnaire used in the survey is attached in Appendix IV, pages 49 through 52, for further reference.
One hundred and seventy questionnaires were distributed from the city of Aurora by mail to planning offices across the United States and one hundred and nine were returned. The selection of the cities did not involve any scientific method, instead published census data information was utilized to determine all the cities with populations of 100,000 and above.
Since the task of the survey was to investigate what the cities across the United States were doing in their neighborhood programs, consequently, all the questions contained in the survey were relevent to neighborhood planning program issues.
The questionnaire employees three different categories of questions, all directly related to neighborhood planning programs. These categories include city information, program emphasis and neighborhood plans, as given below.
City Information: This is the first section of the questionnaire. It calls for the responding city planner or agent to answer questions that have similar characteristics to those of their neighborhood planning programs. Most of the questions on this section require circling the applicable statements or filling in the required information in brief sentences or phrases.
Program Emphasis: This section of the survey requires the responding planner to provide an overview of the city's involvement in neighborhood planning programs. The section also requests a resource list for future contacts regarding a particular topic related to neighborhood planning.
Neighborhood Plans: This section was designed to request information essential to assist in the evaluation of the methodology of neighborhood planning programs. This section also defines a neighborhood plan in the context of the questionnaire as a formal document containing policy recommendations, maps and other information prepared for an individual neighborhood or subarea of the community.
4


B. Data Analysis:
All the questionnaires returned were numbered, coded, and data entered in the computer. The computer tabulation of the survey is provided in the attached tables. The analysis represents the collected data from returned questionnaires and extrapolates the conclusions.
Two simple statistical methods were utilized as tools for analyzing the data and these were (a) frequency distribution and (b) cross tabulation.
Frequency Distribution: This was a tool used to calculate the number of questions that were responded to by different cities or the other way around, throughout different sections of the questionnaire. It provided simple summation accompanied by absolute, relative, adjusted and cumulative frequencies in percent format, enabling an easier comparison of data compiled from three different sections of the questionnaire.
Cross Tabulations: This particular computation was utilized as a means to compare two different sets of variables displayed in a cell format enabling the reader to directly compare data variations from the two sets of variables. The attached cross tabulation tables are self-explanatory and are provided in series of tables to show the variation of different variables.
5


DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS
The findings of this study reveal that most of the cities across the United States with a population of 100,000 and above classify themselves as central cities. Most of them are run by council mayor forms of governments, fewer cities are run by manager council forms of government and only five cities stated they are run by the commission form of government. There are also suburb and satellite types of cities, which are fewer in number than one would expect. One of the contributing factors is traditionally suburban and satellite cities are known to be self-contained, separated from the major cities by green belts while remaining economically and culturally related to them. Satellite and suburban cities are often planned around a policy of decentralization from the large city in order to promote suburban development. Often development is rapid enough to surpass the central city's population. Yet in some cases, the suburb remains stable with a population equivalent to about half that of the central city's.
The study received an overwhelming response from central cities because it did not set any guidelines to determine the classification of a satellite and suburb from a central city. The study precludes that responding cities probably based their city's classification on how dependent or independent they are on the central city and also on their respective population growth. Large population growth and self-containment appear to be the determining factor for being a central city. Those few cities with populations over 100,000 that stated themselves as suburban or satellite cities probably are still largely dependent on the central city for provision of a central business district service.
The form of government that did not clearly dictate its impact on neighborhood planning processes. Table 1, page 7, which is a cross tabulation of city type and form government, shows that there are 45 central cities with mayor council form of government and 38 with a council manager form of government. There are 14 suburban cities with council manager form of government. The rest of the figures on Table 1 are not relevant to comparison results.
Since one of the purposes of this study is to analyze how each form of government deals with neighborhood planning issues. Tables 2 through 4, pages 8, 10 and 11, are employed as aides to unfold the influence of government on how neighborhood organizations participate in the process of preparing neighborhood plans. Table 2 reveals that mayor council form of
6


CROSSTABULATION OF
CITY TYPE BY FORM OF GOVERNMENT
TABLE 1
COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT MAYOR-CO UNCIL 1. COUNCIL- MANAGER 2. OTHER 3.
1. 1 1 45 38 5 i
CENTRAL 1 51.1 45.2 5.7
1 95.7 69.1 100.0 !
1 1 42.1 35.5 4.7 -1
2. 1 1 i i
SUBURB 1 0 14 0 !
1 0. 100.0 0.
1 0. 25.5 0.
1 1 0. 13.1 0. 1
3. 1 1 2 3 0 !
1 40.0 60.0 0.
1 4.3 5.5 0.
1 1.9 2.8 o. !
COLUMN 47 55 5
TOTAL 43.9 51.4 4.7
ROW
TOTAL
88
82.2
14
13.1
107
100.0
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 63
7


CROSSTABULATION OF
FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY LEVEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATION
TABLE 2
COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT LOW 1 MEDIUM 2. HIGH 3. ROW TOTAL
1. ! 2 1 1 8 18 28
MAYOR-COUNCIL 7.1 1 28.6 64.3 45.2
66.7 1 34.8 50.0 :
3.2 1 1 { 12.9 29.0 ;

2. 1 1 1 13 17 31
COUNCIL-MANAGER 3.2 1 41.9 54.8 50.0
33.3 1 56.5 47.2 :
1.6 1 1 1 21.0 27.4 ;

3. 1 1 1 1 1
OTHER ! 0 1 2 1 | 3
0. 1 66.7 33.3 ; 4.8
0. 1 8.7 2.8
0. 1 1 1 3.2 1.6 i
COLUMN 3 23 36 62
TOTAL 4.8 37.1 58.1 100.0
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 108
8


government is rated high in 18 cities and council manager is rated second highest in 17 cities. Table 3 is a cross tabulation of forms of government by the agency's position on the neighborhood planner's role in preparing neighborhood plans. In the council manager form of government the planning agency holds the role of an expert in nine cities and is an advisor in 11 cities and is a facilitator in four cities. In the mayor council form of government the agency role is expert in six cities, advisor in seven cities and a facilitator in four cities. In this section of the study the agency has a greater influence in those neighborhood planning programs in cities with council manager forms of government. Table 4 cross tabulates forms of government by the agency given primary responsibility for implementing neighborhood plans in its community. Again the council manager form of government shows the city staff being responsible for implementing the neighborhood plans in thirteen cities while the mayor council form of government has staff implementing neighborhood plans in 11 cities. The rest of the tabulations on Table 4 are very insignificant to provide any strong evidence in this study.
Table 5, page 12, is a cross tabulation of city type by the number of neighborhood planners on the city's staff. This comparison reveals how much emphasis different cities across the nation put on neighborhood planning programs. In this table, 25 central cities have three to four planners to handle neighborhood planning issues. These problems will be discussed further in the sections that deals with recommendations. Table 5 is also incorporated with Table 6, page 13. This is a cross tabulation of city types by the number of persons in the planning staff and the time devoted to preparing neighborhood plans. Again, this particular table shows how central cities have dominated the whole study. The most time spent on neighborhood plans is 21% to 40% and this is true in 23 central cities as shown in Table 6. In order to get better results, more time should be allocated to the needs of the neighborhoods.
Table 7, page 14, shows a tabulation of city types by neighborhood plan success. Thirty central cities stated that their neighborhood plan process is successful while 28 stated that theirs is somewhat successful.
Table 8, page 15, is a cross tabulation of city types by the agency assuming primary responsibility for implementing neighborhood plans in its community. The majority of the central cities stated that primary responsibility for implementing neighborhood plans is assumed by the planning staff.
9


CROSSTABULATION OF
FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY PLANNER'S ROLE IN PREPARING PLANS
TABLE 3
COUNT
ROW PCT EXPERT ADVISOR FACILITA ROW COL PCT TOR TOTAL
TOT PCT 1. 2. 3.
1.
MAYOR-COUNCIL
2.
COUNCIL-MANAGER
OTHER
COLUMN
TOTAL
6 35.3 40.0 14.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 4 41.2 ! 23.5 38.9 40.0 16.3 ! 9.3 17 39.5
9 i i 11 4 24
37.5 i 45.8 16.7 55.8
60.0 i 61.1 40.0
20.9 i i 25.6 9.3
0 i 0 2- 2
0. i i 0. 100.0 4.7
0. i 0. 20.0
0. i i 0. 4.7
15 18 10 43
34.9 41.9 23.3 100.0
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 127
10


CROSSTABULATION OF
FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY RESPONSIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS
TABLE 4
COUNT ROW PCT CITY STA ELECTED ORGAN IZA OTHER NOT IMPL ROW
COL PCT FF OFFICIAL TIONS EMENTED TOTAL
TOT PCT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
T T
i. : ii 3 4 2 2
MAYOR-COUNCIL 50.0 13.6 18.2 9.1 9.1
j 42.3 42.9 40.0 66.7 66.7
! 22.4 i 6.1 8.2 4.1 4.1

2. 13 4 5 1 1
COUNCIL-MANAGER 54.2 16.7 20.8 4.2 4.2
! 50.0 57.1 50.0 33.3 33.3
! 26.5 1 8.2 10.2 2.0 2.0
T~"
OTHER 3. 2 0 1 0 0
! 66.7 0. 33.3 0. 0.
! 7.7 0. 10.0 0. 0.
: 4.i i 0. 2.0 0. 0.
COLUMN 26 7 10 3 3
TOTAL 53.1 14.3 20.4 6.1 6.1
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 121
11


CROSSTABULATION OF
CENTRAL
SUBURB
SATELLITE
NUMBER
CITY TYPE BY SIZE OF STAFF TABLE 5
COUNT
ROW PCT 1-2 3 -4 5-6 7 -8 9 OR MOR
COL PCT E
TOT PCT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. j 17 1 1 1 25 7 1 1 6 1 1 3
! 29.3 1 1 43.1 12.1 1 1 10.3 1 1 5.2
! 89.5 1 1 92.6 77.8 1 1 100.0 1 1 100.0
| 26.6 1 1 39.1 10.9 1 1 9.4 1 1 4.7
J--...-.- 1 1
1 1
2. J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
! 33.3 1 1 33.3 33.3 1 1 0. 1 1 0.
| 5.3 1 1 3.7 11.1 1 1 0. 1 1 0.
! 1.6 1 1 1.6 1.6 1 1 0. 1 1 0.
J i 1 1
1
3. | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
! 33.3 1 1 33.3 33.3 1 1 0. 1 1 0.
! 5.3 1 1 3.7 11.1 1 1 0. 1 1 0.
! 1.6 1 1 1 1.6 1.6 1 1 0. 1 1 1 0.
COLUMN 19 27 9 6 3
TOTAL 29.7 42.2 14.1 9.4 4.7
MISSING OBSERVATIONS 106
ROW
TOTAL
58
90.6
3
4.7
3
4.7
64
100.0
12


CROSSTABULATION OF
CITY TYPE BY PLANNING STAFF TIME DEVOTED ON PLANS
TABLE 6
COUNT
ROW PCT 20% OR L 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
COL PCT ESS
TOT PCT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.1
CENTRAL 1. 20 23 7 6 3
33.9 39.0 11.9 10.2 5.1
87.0 95.8 87.5 85.7 100.0
30.8 35.4 10.8 9.2 4.6
'
2. 2 1 0 1 0
SUBURB 50.0 25.0 0. 25.0 0.
8.7 4.2 0. 14.3 0.
3.1 1.5 0. 1.5 0.

SATELLITE 3. 1 0
50.0 0. 50.0 0. 0.
4.3 0. 12.5 0. 0.
1.5 0. 1.5 0. 0.
COLUMN 23 24 8 7 3
TOTAL 35.4 36.9 12.3 10.8 4.6
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 105
ROW
TOTAL
59
90.8
65
100.0
13


CROSSTABULATION OF CITY TYPE BY SUCCESS OF PLANS
TABLE 7
CENTRAL
SUBURB
SATELLITE
COUNT
ROW PCT YFS COL PCT TOT PCT
SOMEWHAT NO ROW
TOTAL
1. 2. 3.
I-----------------------------------r
! 30 28 1
i 50.8 47.5 1.7
! 93.8 87.5 100.0
! 46.2 43.1 1.5
|
i 1 3 0
| 25.0 75.0 0.
! 3.1 9.4 0.
: 1.5 1 4.6 0.
l
; l 1 0
! 50.0 50.0 0.
I 3.1 3.1 0.
! 1.5 1.5 0.
_L
59
90.8
COLUMN 32 32 1
49.2 49.2 1.5
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 105
65
100.0
14


CENTRAL
SUBURB
CROSSTABULATION OF '
CITY TYPE BY RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS
TABLE 8
COUNT
ROW PCT CITY STA ELECTED ORGANIZA OTHER NOT IMPL ROW
COL PCT FF OFFICIAL TIONS EMENTED TOTAL
TOT PCT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. 22 51.2 84.6 44.9 6 14.0 85.7 12.2 9 20.9 90.0 18.4 3 7.0 100.0 6.1 3 7.0 100.0 6.1

2. 2 1 1 0 0
50.0 25.0 25.0 0. 0.
7.7 14.3 10.0 0. 0.
4.1 2.0 2.0 0. 0.

3. 2 0 0 0 0
ioo.o 0. 0. 0. 0.
7.7 0. 0. 0. 0.
4.1 0. 0. 0. 0.
1
43
87.8
COLUMN
TOTAL
26 7
53.1 14.3
10 3
20.4 6.1
3 49
6.1 100.0
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 121
15


Table 9, page 17, contains a very crucial informational report. It spells out the primary purpose of the neighborhood planning program as revealed by different cities across the United States. It is however regrettable that the majority of the cities did not make an effort to provide this vital information on the questionnaire. Nevertheless, based on the statements provided by the few cities that were willing to be more informative on the well-being of their neighborhood planning programs, 20 cities stated that the primary purpose of their neighborhood planning process is understanding the problems and potentials of specific areas in order to develop city policies and actions to guide decision making. This statement, in its entirety, calls for a close knowledge of the neighborhood and its people in order to fully understand the needs of the people before decisions are made.
The second purpose of the neighborhood planning program concerns community development and housing rehabilitation. This certainly helps to maintain a stable home value by encouraging the residents to improve and repair their houses and surroundings. Such an effort would bring about the community development and understanding necessary to keep the neighborhood competitive spirit alive.
The third purpose of the neighborhood planning program concerns promotion of reinvestment into neighborhoods and the upkeep of housing stock. This effort is the best way to keep neighborhoods from urban blight.
The fourth purpose of the neighborhood planning program deals with updating of land use plans, improving infrastructures and revising zoning. When people are involved in the affairs of their neighborhood, especially maintenance of the infrastructure, they develop a common identity. The spirit of togetherness generates a common goal with desires to create the best neighborhood to live in.
The fifth purpose of the neighborhood planning program concerns development of a comprehensive plan for each community or district. This will help to enlighten the public on what comprehensive plans are all about and the best way to do this is to make communities part of the planning process.
The final purpose of the neighborhood planning program concerns maximizing citizen participation by organizing neighborhoods to assist in the preparation, coordination and implementation of the plan. This statement underlines what neighborhood planning programs should address. It is the key to the entire planning process "to get citizens' participation." Failing to achieve this,
16


a neighborhood planning program has failed to serve its primary task and should be abandoned or dissolved.
All six purposes for the neighborhood planning programs are equally important. Hopefully, those cities that failed to provide such information failed to do so not because they do not have the purpose for their programs spelled out, but simply because they did not feel it was an important part of the survey to provide such information.
TABLE 9
NR = No Response TR = Total Response
NUMBER OF
PRIMARY PURPOSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CITIES
Understanding the problems and potentials of specific areas 20 and to develop city policies and actions to guide decision making.
Community development and housing rehabilitations. 14
Promote reinvestment into the neighborhood and the upkeeping 11 of housing stock.
Provide a capital improvement framework for the updating of 8 land use, improving infrastructures and revising zoning.
Develop a comprehensive plan for each community or district.
Maximise citizen participation by organizing neighborhoods to 10 assist in the preparation, coordination and implementation of plans.
63 TR 46 NR
17


Table 10, page 19, provides a list of some of the activities in which cities in the United States are getting their neighborhood planning programs involved. This section of the questionnaire had the same programs as those revealed in Table. 9. The response to both of the questions in this section of the questionnaire was bad. However, the few cities that responded provided some very positive ideas as to how they are utilizing their neighborhood planning programs.
The first activity consists of neighborhoods writing their own plans including comprehensive as specified in the cities' master plan. This is a very good form of education for the public. It certainly provides a brighter future.
The second activity in this section consists of the involvement of neighborhoods in clean-up events; sidewalk and curb improvement, and housing rehabilitation in target neighborhoods as part of city-wide infrastructure maintenance and repairing. Although only six cities indicated that they were utilizing such activities in their neighborhood planning programs, it is usually not easy to convince citizens to clean up thier neighborhoods as most people feel clean-up jobs are the sole responsibility of the city and its employees. Indeed such an achievement deserves some compliments.
The third activity consists of neighborhood involvement with newsletter printing and distribution, neighborhood private partnerships, handicap rehabilitation and providing technical assistance to neighborhood-based organizations. Such activities are very important to the well-being of the whole community, especially newsletters which expediate communication and help to keep the people informed of activities in their neighborhoods. Technical assistance helps the neighborhood to be self-sufficient in maintaining their infrastructure and houses.
The fourth activity consists of downtown planning and Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs). Seven cities across the United States revealed that their main activities were the involvement of neighborhood planning programs in Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs), which is a Federal government funded grant to revitalize houses and sidewalks in neighborhoods.
The fifth activity consists of liaison resonsibilities, law enforcement, historic preservation neighborhood statistics programs and business district revitalizations. Such activities are very essential to neighborhoods because people are always bound to be proud of their achievements and getting them
18


involved with activities such as law enforcement makes them appreciate thei personal efforts in making thier neighborhoods safe to live in. Historic preservation is a relatively new phenomenon to the public. Because of this the public should be made aware of the values of historic preservation in their communities and why it should be part of their neighborhood planning programs.
NR = No Response TR = Total Response
TABLE 10
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN WHICH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAM IS INVOLVED IN WHICH THE QUESTIONNAIRE DOES NOT ADDRESS TO:
. Neighborhoods write their own plans including
comprehensive plans as specified in the master plan.
. Neighborhoods are involved in clean-up events; sidewalk curb improvement, and housing rehabilitation in target neighborhoods as part of city wide infra-strature maintenance and repairing.
. Neighborhoods are involved with newsletter printing 8
and distribution, private partnerships, handicap rehabilitationandproviding technical assistance to neighborhood based organizations.
. Downtown Planning Community Development Block Grant (CDBC). 7
Liaison responsibilities, law enforcement, historic 7
preservation, neighborhood statistics program and business district revitalizations. However, the effort it takes to educate them about the concept of preservation and the appreciation of historic buildings in their neighborhoods is again a great achievement on the part of the city planners. It will not serve any purpose of the city to adopt preservation measures if the public is ignorant about it. All the issues in activity should provide a modern insight of planning more and more. Cities should attempt to implement such activities as part of their neighborhood planning programs. It is, however, equally important to study the neighborhood needs before introducing any problem. It is also well recommended to modern approach to plan which simply gives the citizens the opportunity to learn by doing. This study has revealed that whether planners play the role of experts, advisors or facilitators, the results are about the same. In the general summary, tables attached in the appendix, more cities seem to favor the role of an advisor. All these roles however provide the citizen with the opportunity to decide their own destiny. 38 TR
71 NR
NUMBER OF CITIES
10
6
19


Table 11, page 21, is a cross tabulation of 1980 cities' population by city type. More than 50% of the cities involved in this study had a population range of 100,000-300,000 and they were all central cities. There were also 14 suburbs and five satellite cities in that population range category. There were only five cities with a population above 900,000. Table 11 shows clearly how central cities dominated the whole study. The large population is also an indication of why they are central cities.
Tables 12-27, in Appendices II and III, are general tables which were used in the findings of this study but are not specifically directed to the compairson of central, satellite and suburban cities. Instead, these tables are made available so that they can show how 109 cities involved in this study responded to some of the major questions regardless of their city type.
Table 1A and 3A, pages 26-28 in Appendix I, serve the purpose of a directory, showing information such as names of cities and their states, forms of government and population.
20


CROSSTABULATION OF
P0P80
1980 POPULATION BY CITY-TYPE
TABLE 11
1000000-3000000
300001-5000000
500001-700000
7000001-9000000
GRTR THAN 9000000
COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT
1.
COLUMN
TOTAL
CENTRAL SUBURB SATELLITE ROW
TOTAL
1. 2. 3.
57
75.0
64.8
53.3
16
100.0
18.2
15.0
7
100.0
8.0
6.5
3
100.0
3.4
2.8
5
100.0
5.7
4.7
14
18.4
100.0
13.1
88
82.2
0
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5
6.6
100.0
4.7
14
13.1
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5
4.7
76
71.0
16
15.0
7
6.5
3
2.8
5
4.7
107
100.0
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS
63
21


CONCLUSIONS
This section will focus on the major issues revealed in the study. Emphasis will be placed on those issues directly related to the neighborhood planning characteristics of the three types of icities, namely, central, satellite and suburb.
This study unfolds evidence suggesting that most developed areas in central cities are over 40 years old. Revealed then, is the importance and need for neighborhood planning programs to serve the needs of these old or decaying areas.
In general, central cities contain higher proportions of low and moderate income households than suburbs and a lower proportion of upper income households, although a significant number of poor persons live in the suburbs.'*'
Due to more open space still available in the suburbs, author Anthony Downs, in his book, Opening up the Suburbs, pointed out that, "Suburban areas experience much more total construction of new houses than central cities and a much higher fraction of all neighborhoods experience nearly complete residential transition from one income or ethnic to another in central cities than in suburbs in any given time period." This foregoing argument has been fully supported by what this study has revealed. Table 6 fully illustrates the burden of old neighborhoods within central cities. The table shows a range from 20% to 40% of the total central cities areas falling in the over 40 year old category.
Without the existence of a well supported neighborhood planning program, one must question what type of program is needed to expediate remedies for the decaying neighborhoods in America. Central cities are confronted with enough problems justifying the need for hundreds and hundreds of neighborhood planners. The fact that Urban Renewal Programs failed to yield their intended goals and objectives suggests the best solution is to turn to a full scale neighborhood planning program.
Population densities tend to be higher in central cities than in suburbs; but densities fall, in general, with distance from the central business district. Therefore, some parts of central cities far from the downtown area
2
have low densities and some close-in suburbs have high densities. This
Anthony Downs, Opening up of the Suburbs, p. 13.
2
Anthony Downs, Opening up of the Suburbs, p. 15.
22


statement by author, Anthony Downs, further illustrates that suburbs do not completely escape the urban blight process. They also pay the price from central cities spill over into suburbs. Examples, such as Chicago, II1i no is? Washington D.C.; Dayton, Ohio,* Salt Lake City, Utah', Paterson, New Jersey; and Torrance, California have their developed city area over forty years old falling within the 81% to 100% category. Such central cities will certainly have some distinctive characteristics of their decay with the peripherical suburbs. Such a stigma would leave no other choice among planners except to implement joint neighborhood planning programs embracing the whole central city and the adjoining surburban and satellite areas. The relationship among these three types of cities should always be symbiotic in order to make the urban area pleasant to live in.
Table 14, page 34 in Appendix II, Summary of General Tables, shows that many cities in the United States are beginning to implement neighborhood planning programs as part of the comprehensive plan. This shows an effort in trying to reinforce the importance of neighborhood planning processes.
All the cities that have stated that they have a successful neighborhood planning program have also showed a strong indication of public participation. Like the concept of democracy, neighborhood planning programs should be designed and implemented by the people for the people.
This study is also intended to discuss the findings of bureaucratic influence in decision making, as mentioned earlier. Forms of government did not reveal much impact on neighborhood program implementation procedures.
Most cities have similar program implementation procedures regardless of whether the city has council-mayor or council-manager form of government.
Both forms provide an ideal environment for neighborhood planning programs.
The commission form of government of which only four cities out of one hundred and nine cities are governed have some setbacks as far as introducing new issues. The commission government traditionally exercised legislative authority, making policy decisions and administrative appointments. Individually each member serves as an authority. The commission form of government's criticisms are generally centered around lack of responsibility to the public; the absence of policy leadership on the legislative body; the absence of policy leadership on the legislative body, the absence of coordination in administration of executive functions and the prevalance of accommodation among the commissioners in their dual
23


roles as legislators and administrators. Responsibility to the public has never been clearly identified; instead it is divided among the several commissioners. The fact that commissioners are elected at large enables each member to use the other in identifying responsibilities for the kinds and content of policy enacted by the legislature. There is also the fact that no one is incharge of the overall operations. Following such bureaucratic unclarified roles its almost inevitable that poor neighborhoods will always be poor while the affluent neighborhoods will forever be in prosperity.
The counci 1-manager government sought to eliminate the problems of separated powers and the inefficient, incompetent operation of the city government.
The city council exercises legislative authority and makes policy and basic decisions for the city. Numbering five to nine members are chosen at large in nonpartisan elections. Members of the council are the only popularly elected government officials. Administrative authority is delegated to a manager appointed by the council. The city manager is responsible to the council for the day-to-day operation and performance of city government. The manager carries out the policies enacted by the council. There is no separation of power, since the executive authority of the manager is derived from and delegated by the council. The administration of the city is intergrated under the control of the professional manager chosen by the council presumably because of administrative training, competence and expertise in administration. This once again creates a good orderly environment to introduce a very efficient neighborhood planning program with overwhelming public support. Although the manager's position in the city receives no fixed term in office, the council-manager form of government still enjoys a considerable and wide spread popularity measured by its adoption in many cities across the United States.
Last but not least, is the mayor-council form of government which somewhat differs from council manager because the mayor, unlike the manager, is elected by a popular vote. The mayor post is typically a political position which demands the public's consideration on a daily basis. The mayor receives political superiority over the council members and even holds the power to veto their decisions without any fear of losing his or her job.
However, the executive duties of a mayor are more demanding than those of a manager due to the fact that the public vote puts the official into
24


office, demanding the best from their mayor. The fact that such a relationship exists between the public and the mayor, makes the mayor council form of government the best for nourishing a dynamic neighborhood planning program. This is an environment where both the mayor and the public enjoy a good partnership if the results of programs such as neighborhood plans are bringing in distinctive yields as set forth in goals and objectives. Whenever public support and participation exists in the daily activities of the city, the work for the mayor, city officials and planning staff is often made much easier and enjoyable. The success of a great city is a result of a strong teamwork between city officials and the citizens.
25


RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the neighborhood is the best geographical unit to be used in evaluating urban problesm and the need for such activities as restoration, preservation and infrastructure maintenance, planners, city government officials, community agencies and private citizens should:
1. Identify and understand the problems and potentials of their neighborhoods.
2. Work cooperatively in organizing neighborhoods to prepare their plans by emphasizing coordination and implementation procedures.
3. Promote reinvestment in the neighborhood and the upkeep of housing stock.
4. Provide land use capital improvement framework and constantly update land use, improve infrastructure and revise zoning regulations.
5. Maximize citizen participation in formulating planning goals and objectives.
6. Communication methods should be improved by asking citizens to participate in drafting a monthly neighborhood newsletter.
7. Skilled citizens should help train others in their neighborhoods. This could be achieved by introducing weekly or monthly technical assistance seminars.
8. Law enforcement should be part of a citizens' duty so as to safeguard their property and neighborhoods.
9. Cities should have more neighborhood planners.
The above nine recommendation statements were some of the views and opinions stated by different cities. The 109 cities across the United States generally agree to that teamwork is the backbone of an effective neighborhood planning program. Planners should not be dictators but advisors, facilitators or experts. Planners should be more accessible to their citizens to provide the needed services.
It is a difficult task for the majority of the cities involved in this study to have an effective planning program due to the fact that they are understaffed. For example, a city like San Antonio, Texas, with a 1984 population of about 800,000 has about two neighborhood planners on staff. Chicago, Illionois has a 1980 population of three million with four neighborhood planners. Unless cities begin to utilize their resources and have more planners, it is not likely that neighborhood planning programs will be an effective tool to many cities across the United States. Neighborhood planning programs can be utilized effectively when the essential resources
26


to guide and assist citizens1 goals and objectives are available.
Another important factor related to planning staff is that neighborhood planners should devote 100% of their time to neighborhood issues. This factor has also been revealed in the study: many cities devoted about 40% of their time to neighborhood planning matters. In order to get satisfactory results, cities should have sufficient planners devoting adequate time to neighorhood planning programs. The task of neighborhood planning programs should not be appeased because it is a very important tool in the planning process. Planners and citizens need neighborhood planning programs to fight urban decay.
27


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Downs, Anthony, Opening the Suburbs, New Haven and London Yale University Press, 1973.
Cary, Lee J, Community Development as a Process, University of Missouri Press Columbia, 1983.
Farrah, Morton, Neighborhood Analyses, West Trenton, N.J. Chandler Davis Pub.
Co., 1969.
Frieden, Bernard J., The Future of Old Neighborhoods, Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press, 1965.
Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, N.Y. Vintage Books,
1961.
Mumford, Lewis, The Urban Prospect, Harcourt, Bruce and World, Inc. N.Y..N.Y.
1968.
28


APPENDIX I
List of Study Cities and Some of Their Characteristics
TABLE 1-A
CITY STATE FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLASSI- FICATION PERCENT DEVELOPED 1970 POPULATION 1980 1984
CHICAGO IL MAYOR-C CENTRAL 81-100 3,369,000 3,0005,000 N/A
HOUSTON TX MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40
DETROIT MI MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 1,514,000 1,203 000 N/A
SAN DIEGO CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 697,000 876,000 941,000
PHOENIX AZ COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 01 /in L_ X ~T\J 584,000 790,000 848,000
SAN FRANCISCO CA MAYOR-C CENTRAL N/A 716,000 679,000 706,000
MEMPHIS TN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 624,000 646,000 N/A
WASHINGTON DOC MAYOR-C CENTRAL 81-100 756,000 638,000 633,000
. MILWAUKEE WI MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 717,000 632,000 617,000
DALLAS TX COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 800,000 910,000 950,000
SAN JOSE CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 N/A N/A 670,000
COLUMBUS OH MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 N/A N/A N/A
NEW ORLEANS LA MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 593,000 558,000 562,000
JACKSONVILLE FL MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 529,000 571,000 587,000
DENVER CO MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 514,000 492,000 501,000
KANSAS CITY MO COUNCIL-M CENTRAL N/A 507,000 448,000 N/A
EL PASO TX MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 325,000 425,000 455,000
ATLANTA GA MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 495,000 425,000 438,000
OKLAHOMACITY OK COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 N/A 404,000 N/A
CINCINNATI OH COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 453,000 385,000 N/A
MINNEAPOLIS MN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 434,000 371,000 364,000
PORTLAND OR MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 383,000 368,000 N/A
TOLEDO OH COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 61-80 383,000 354,000 N/A
MIAMI FL COUNCIL-M CENTRAL N/A 335,000 400,000 409,000
OAKLAND CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 362,000 339,000 348,000
ALBUQUERQUE NM MAYOR-C CENTRAL 20 244,000 332,000 N/A
TUCSON AZ COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 263,000 331,000 367,000
NEWARK NJ MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 382,000 329,000 340,000
CHARLOTTE NC COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 241,000 315,000 328,000
BURMINGHAM AL MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 300,000 286,000 285,000
SACRAMENTO CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 257,000 276,000 N/A
TAMPA FL MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 278,000 272,000 280,000
ST.PAUL MN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 301,000 276,000 275,000
NORFOLK VA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 308,000 267,000 267,000
29


List of Study Cities and Some of Their Characteristics
TABLE 2-A
FORM OF CLASSI- PERCENT POPULATION
CITY STATE GOVERNMENT FICATION DEVELOPED 1970 1980 1984
CORPUSCHRISTI TX COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 205,000 232,000 245,000
JERSEYCITY NJ MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 261,000 223,000 221,000
BATONROUGE LA MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 285,000 366,000 398,000
ANAHEIM CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 167,000 219,000 229,000
FRESNO CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 166,000 218,000 262,000
SHREVEPORT LA MAYOR-C .CENTRAL 21-40 182,000 205,000 215,000
LEXINGTON KY MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 174,000 204,000 216,000
SANTA ANA CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 61-80 157,000 204,000 230,000
DAYTON OH COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 81-100 244,000 293,000 194,000
YONKERS NY COUNCIL-M SUBURB 21-40 204,000 195,000 192,000
DESMOINES IA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 204,000 191,000 N/A
GRANDRAPIDS MI COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 185,000 182,000 N/A
MONTGOMERY AL MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 N/A 178,000 N/A
LUBBOCK TX COUNCIL-M SUBURB 41-60 149,000 174,000 182,000
FORTWAYNE IN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 178,000 172,000 N/A
LINCOLN NE MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 150,000 172,000 177,000
SPOKANE WA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 171,000 171,000 170,000
RIVERSIDE CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 140,000 171,000 178,000
HUNTINGTONBEACH CA COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 116,000 171,000 178,000
SYRACUSE NY MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 197,000 170,000 165,000
CHATTANOOGA TN COMMISS CENTRAL 21-40 120,000 170,000 170,000
COLUMBUS GA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 167,000 170,000 N/A
SALT LAKE UT MAYOR-C CENTRAL 81-100 176,000 163,000 N/A
AURORA CO COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 74,000 155,000 200,000
LITTLEROCK AZ COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 132,000 159,000 N/A
GREENSBORO NC COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 144,000 156,000 158,000
FORTLAUDERDALE FL COMMISS CENTRAL 21-40 140,000 153,000 154,000
MESA AZ COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 63,000 152,000 197,000
SPRINGFIELD MO MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 163,000 152,000 151,000
RALEIGH NC COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 123,000 150,000 165,000
STOKKTON CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 108,000 150,000 168,000
AMARILLO TX COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 125,000 149,000 157,000
NEWPORT VA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 138,000 150,000 148,000
BRIDGEPORT CN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 157,000 143,000 143,000
HUNTSVILLE AL MAYOR-C CENTRAL 20 139,000 143,000 149,000
30


List of Study Cities and Some of Their Characteristics
TABLE 3-A
FORM OF CLASSI- PERCENT POPULATION
CITY STATE GOVERNMENT FICATION DEVELOPED 1970 1980 1984
GELENDALE CA COUNCIL-M N/A 21-40 133,000 189,000 146,000
PATERSON NJ MAYOR-C CENTRAL 81-100 146,000 138,000 138,000
FREMONT CA COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 102,000 132,000 140,000
EVANSVILLE IN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 N/A 130,000
LANSING MI MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 131,000 131,000 131,000
TORRANCE CA COUNCIL-M N/A 81-100 135,000 130,000 131,000
PEORIA IL COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 130,000 129,000 127,000
HOLLYWOOD FL MAYOR-C N/A 21-40 107,000 123,000 123,000
YOUNGSTOWN OH MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 141,000 115,000 111,000
TOPEKA KS COMMISS CENTRAL 41-60 125,000 119,000 N/A
CHESAPEAKE VA COUNCIL-M SUBURB 10 90,000 114,000 124,000
LAKEWOOD CO COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 93,000 114,000 125,000
PASADENA TX MAYOR-C N/A 21-40 90,000 113,000 119,000
INDEPENDANCE MO COUNCIL-M SUBURB 21-40 112,000 112,000 110,000
CEDARRIPIDS IA COMMISS CENTRAL 21-40 110,000 110,000 N/A
ANN ARBOR MI COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 100,000 108,000 110,000
TEMPE AZ COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 86,000 112,000 146,000
SUNNYVALE CA COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 95,000 108,000 N/A
MODESTO CA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 20 62,000 107,000 123,000
ELIZABETH NJ MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 113,000 106,000 N/A
PORTSMOUTH VA COUNCIL-M N/A 41-60 111,000 105,000 106,000
WATERBURY CN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 108,000 103,000 103,000
DAVENPORT IA MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 98,000 103,000 103,000
CONCORD CA COUNCIL-M SUBURB 20 94,000 104,000 N/A
BOISE IN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 75,000 102,000 104,000
FULLERTON CA COUNCIL-M SUBURB N/A 84,000 102,000 106,000
ALBANY NY MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 113,000 101,000 N/A
RENO NV COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 73,000 101,000 110,000
ROANOKE VA COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 41-60 N/A N/A N/A
SANANTONIO TX COUNCIL-M CENTRAL 21-40 654,153 786,023 N/A
STAMFORD CT MAYOR-C CENTRAL 61-80 107,000 103,000 103,000
LOS ANGLEES CA MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 N/A 2,900,0003,000,000
OMAHA NE MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 354,389 327,554 329,327
KNOXVILLE TN MAYOR-C CENTRAL 41-60 174,587 175,045 N/A
EUGENE OR MAYOR-C CENTRAL 21-40 79,028 105,624 103,100
31


APPENDIX II
SUMMARY OF GENERAL TABLES TABLE 12
'All missing and no response figures were excluded from the following tables.';
POPULATION CATEGORY 1970 TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
100,000 to 300,000 96 66. .7
300,001 to 500,000 22 15. .3
500,001 to 700,000 13 9. ,0
700,001 to 900,000 6 4. .2
Greater than 900,000 7 4. .9
1980
10,000 to 300,000 122 71.8
300,001 to 500,000 26 15.3
500,001 to 700,000 10 5.9
700,001 to 900,000 5 2.9
Greater than 900,000 7 4.1
32


SUMMARY OF GENERAL TABLES
TABLE 13
HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
PLANNING PROGRAMS?
2 Yrs. or less 5 6.9
3 to 4 Yrs. 10 13.9
5 to 6 Yrs. 12 16.7
7 to 8 Yrs. 10 13.9
9 Yrs. or more 35 48.9
NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNERS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
1 to 2 27 29.7
3 to 4 9 42.2
5 to 6 6 14.1
7 to 8 3 9.4
9 or more 33 4.7
RECOGNITION OF GROUPS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Yes 34 46.6
No 39 53.4
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
DETERINE OWN BOUNDARIES
Yes 41 56.9
No 31 43.1
33


SUMMARY OF GENERAL TABLES
TABLE 14
/All missing and no-response figures were excluded from the following tables.'1
SUMMARY OF TABLES
CITY CLASSIFICATION NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Central 88 82.2
Suburb 14 13.1
Satel1ite 5 4.7
AREA OF COMMUNITY OVER 40 YRS. OLD NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
20% or less 20 19.0
21% to 40% 36 34.3
41% to 60% 30 28.6
61% to 80% 13 12.4
81% to 100% 6 5.7
FORM OF GOVERNMENT NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Mayor-Council 47 43.1
Counci 1-Manager 57 52.3
Other 5 4.6
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
-Responsibilties Distributed 18 17.0
throughout Planning Dept. -Special Focus 35 33.0
-Separate Division of Planning 12 11.3
Dept. -Other City Depts. 8 7.5
-No Neighborhood Planning Program 33 31.1
34


SUMMARY OF GENERAL TABLES
TABLE 15
PROGRAM STATUS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Expanding 7 9.7
Stable 44 61.1
Declining 21 29.2
PROGRAM HAS CITY GOVERNING NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
BODY SUPPORT
Yes 40 54.8
Somewhat 32 43.8
No 1 1.8
% OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING STAFF NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
TIME DEVOTED TO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
20% or Less 23 35.4
21% to 40% 24 36.9
41% to 60% 8 12.3
61% to 80% 7 10.8
81% to 100% 3 4.6
LEVEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
PARTICIPATION
Low 3 4.8
Medium 23 37.1
High 36 58.1
35


SUMMARY OF GENERAL TABLES
TABLE 16
ROLE OF THE PLANNER IN NEIGHBORHOODS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Expert
Advisor
Facilitator
15 34.9
18 41.9
10 23.3
PLANS ADOPTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Yes
No
48 72.7
18 27.3
PLANS ADOPTED BECOME PART OF NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Yes 51 77.3
No 9 13.6
No Comprehensive Plan 6 9.1
PLANS BOUND WITH SAME DOCUMENT AS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Yes 12 20.7
No 46 79.3
HAVE STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
PREPARING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
Yes 43 65.2
No 23 34.8
LENGTH OF PROCESSING NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
PLANS
Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years Varies
6 9.2
31 47.7
11 16.9
17 26.2
36


SUMMARY OF GENERAL TABLES
TABLE 17
BOUNDARY CRITERIA
NUMBER OF CITIES
ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Census Area Geographic Features Combination of Above Other
3
2
30
3
7.9 5.3
78.9
7.9
REQUIRED PARTICIPATION
NUMBER OF CITIES
ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Yes
No
6
30
16.7
83.3
SELF-HELP GRANTS
NUMBER OF CITIES
ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Yes
No
25
47
34.7
65.3
SEND NOTICES TO NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Yes 64 85.3
No 11 14.7
COMMUNITY HAVE COUNCILS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
Yes 47 62.7
No 28 37.3
37


TABLE 18
NUMBER OF PLANS YOUR AGENCY HAS NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
PREPARED 1 to 2 5 7.6
3 to 4 13 19.7
5 to 6 13 19.7
7 to 8 7 10.6
9 or more 28 42.4
RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY^)
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
City Staff 26 53.1
Elected Officials 7 14.3
Organizations 10 20.4
Other 3 6.1
Not Implemented 3 6.1
HAVE EVALUATION SYSTEM TO MEASURE NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
SUCCESS
Yes 12 18.5
No 53 81.5
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUCCESSFUL NUMBER OF CITIES ADJUSTED FREQUENCY(%)
32
32
1
Yes
Somewhat
No
38
49.2
49.2


APPENDIX III
TABLE 19
SUCCESS OF PLANS BY EVALUATION N = Number Of Responses
YES % OF TOTAL NO % OF TOTAL TOTALS
N N N
Yes 7 10.9 24 37.5 31
Somewhat 5 7.8 27 42.2 32
No 0 0 1 1.6 1
TOTALS 12 18.7 52 81.3 64 TOTAL RESPONSES
39


TABLE 20
PROGRAM STATUS BY EVALUATION N = Number Of Responses
YES % OF TOTAL NO % OF TOTAL TOTALS
N N N
Expanding 0 0 7 11.5 7
Stable 8 13.1 32 52.5 40
Declining 3 4.9 11 18.0 14
TOTALS 11 18.0 50 82.0 61 TOTAL RESPONSES
40


TABLE 21
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING NEIGHBORHOOD N = Number Of Responses PLANS BY PLANNER'S ROLE
EXPERT N % OF TOTAL ADVISOR N % OF TOTAL FACILITATER N % OF TOTAL TOTALS N
City Staff 8 21.6 9 24.3 3 8.1 20
Elected Official 2 5.4 3 8.1 0 0 5
Organizations 0 0 4 10.8 4 10.8 8
Other 0 0 1 2.7 0 0 1
Not Implemented 2 5.4 0 0 1 2.7 3
TOTALS 12 32.4 17 45.9 8 21.6 37 TOTAL RESPONS
41


TABLE 22
FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY PLANNER'S ROLE N = Number Of Responses
EXPERT N % OF TOTAL ADVISOR N
Mayor-Council 6 14.0 7
Council-Manager 9 20.9 11
Other 0 0 0
TOTALS 15 34.9 18
% OF TOTAL FACILITATER % OF TOTAL TOTALS
N N
16.3 4 9.3 17
25.6 4 9.3 24
0 2 4.7 2
41.9 10 23.3 43 TOTAL RESPONSE
42


TABLE 23
% OF DEVELOPED COMMUNITIES OVER 40 YEARS OLD BY PLANNER'S ROLE
N = Number Of Responses
EXPERT N % OF TOTAL ADVISOR N % OF TOTAL FACILITATER N % OF TOTAL TOTALS N
20% or less 3 7.3 4 9.8 0 0 7
21-40% 5 12.2 7 17.1 3 7.3 15
41-60% 5 12.2 4 9.8 4 9.8 13
61-80% 5 12.2 4 9.8 4 9.8 5
81-100% 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 1
TOTALS 19 34.1 19 46.5 11 26.9 41 TOTAL RESPONSE
43


TABLE 24
SUCCESS OF PLANS BY LEVEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATION
N = Number Of Responses
LOW % OF TOTAL MEDIUM % OF TOTAL HIGH % OF TOTAL TOTALS
N N N N
Yes 1 1.7 6 10.0 22 36.7 29
Somewhat 2 3.3 15 25.0 13 21.7 30
No 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 1
TOTALS 3 5.0 22 36.7 35 58.4 60 TOTAL RESPONSE
44


TABLE 25
CROSS-TABULATION OF FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY LEVEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATION
N = Number Of Responses
LOW % OF TOTAL MEDIUM
N N
Mayor-Council 2 3.2 8
Council-Manager 1 1.6 13
Other 0 0 2
TOTALS 3 4.8 23
% OF TOTAL HIGH l OF TOTAL TOTALS
N N
12.9 18 29.0 28
21.0 17 27.4 31
3.2 1 1.6 1
37.1 36 58.0 62 TOTAL RESPONSE
45


TABLE 26
% OF DEVELOPED COMMUNITY OVER 40 YEARS OLD BY LEVEL OF N = Number Of Responses NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATION
LOW % N OF TOTAL MEDIUM N % OF TOTAL HIGH N % OF TOTAL TOTALS N
20% or less 0 0 5 8.3 4 6.7 9
21-40% 2 3.3 7 11.7 15 25.0 24
41-60% 1 1.7 6 10.0 10 16.7 17
61-80% 0 0 3 5.0 5 8.3 8
00 1 1 o o 0 0 1 1.7 1 1.7 2
TOTALS 3 5.0% 22 36.7% 35 58.4% 60 TOTAL RESPONS
46


TABLE 27
CROSS TABULATION OF
FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
N = Number of Responses
CITY ELECTED
STAFF % OF TOTAL OFFICIALS % OF TOTAL ORGANIZATIONS % OF TOTAL OTHER % OF TOTAL IMPLEMENTED % OF TOTAL TOTAL
N N N N N
Mayor-Council 11 22.4 3 6.1 4 8.2 2 4.1 2 4.1 22
Counci 1-Manager 13 26.5 4 8.2 5 10.2 1 2.0 1 2.0 24
Other 2 4.1 0 0 1 2.0 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 26 53.0 7 14.3 10 20.4 3 6.1 3 6.1 49
TOTAL
RESPONSES
47


TABLE. 28
SUCCESS OF PLANS BY RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS N = Number Of Responses
CITY STAFF % OF TOTAL ELECTED OFFICIALS % OF TOTAL ORGANIZATIONS % OF TOTAL OTHER * OF TOTAL NOT IMPLEMENTED % OF TOTAL TOTAL
N N N N N
Yes 13 27.1 3 6.3 3 6.3 1 2.1 0 0 20
Somewhat 12 25.0 4 8.3 7 14.6 2 4.2 2 4.2 27
No 1 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
TOTALS 26 54.2 14.6 10 20.9 3 6.3 2 4.2 48 TOTAL RESPO
48


p-
APPENDIX IV
CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING SURVEY
Neighborhood planning, for the purpose of this questionaire, may be defined as a special focqs of city planning which emphasizes citizen participation at the neighborhood or subarea level. For most questions, please circle the letter preceding the most appropriate answer.
L Name of person completing questionaire _____________________________________________________
2. Title ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Agency ___________________________________________________________________________________
4. Address-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. City/State/Zip____________________________________________________________________________
6. Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey?
a. YES
b. NO
CITY INFORMATION
The information requested below will enable us to correlate the characteristics of neighborhood planning programs with various types of communities.
7. Please list your city's population in:
a. __________________1970
b. __________________1980
c. __________________1984
8. How would you classify your city? central city suburb
c. satellite
9. What percentage of the developed area in your community is more than 40 years old?
a. 20% or less
b. 21-40%
c. 41 60%
d. 61 80%
a. 81 100%
10. What is your form of government?
a. mayor council
b. council manager
c. other_______________________
PROGRAM EMPHASIS
This section will provide an overview of your involvement in neighborhood planning. It will also provide a resource list for future contact regarding a particular topic related to neighborhood planning.
11. How does neighborhood planning fit into your city's organizational structure?
a. responsibilities distributed throughout planning department
b. special focus within a division of planning department
c. separate division of planning department
d. responsibilities in one or more other city departments
a. we do not have a neighborhood planning program
IF YOUR AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAM. PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONAIRE WITHOUT COMPLETING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.
49


12. How long have you had a neighborhood planning program?
a. 2 years or less
b. 3-4 years
c. 5-6 years
d. 7-8 years
e. 9 years or more
13. What is the primary purpose of your neighborhood planning program?
14. How many neighborhood planners are on your staff?
. N/A
b. 1 2
c. 3-4
d. 5 -6
e. 7 -8
f. 9 or more
15. Do you have a system for recognizing neighborhood organizations through formal registration with the city7
a. YES
b. NO
16. Do neighborhood organizations in your community determine their own bounderies, without restrictions?
a. YES
b. NO
17. If not, does the city have criteria based on:
a. land area
b. number of dwelling units
c. population
d. census areas
e. geographic features
f. combination of above
g. other_________________________
h. N/A
18. If you have a registration system, do you have a requirement for a minimum level of participation or membership in a neighborhood organization?
a. YES
b. NO
c. N/A
19. Do you sponsor a self-help grant program for neighborhoods?
a. YES
b. NO
20. Do you send notices to neighborhood organizations as a part of your development review process?
a. YES
b. NO
21. Does your community have government initiated neighborhood councils, advisory boards or planning committees, etc., that have a formal role in public decision making?
a. YES
b. NO
22. Please list activities, that are not addressed above, in which your neighborhood planning program is
involved:_______________________________________________________________________________________
50


23. What is the status of your neighborhood planning program with regard to staffing and budget?
a. expanding
b. stable
e. declining
24. Does your neighborhood planning program have the support of the city's governing body?
a. YES
b. SOMEWHAT C. NO
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
A neighborhood plan, for the purpose of this questionaire, may be defined as a formal document containing policies, recommendations, maps, etc., which is prepared for an individual neighborhood or subarea of the community. The results of this section will help in evaluating our methodology.
25. Is your agency involved in preparing neighborhood plans?
a. YES
b. NO
26. If not, why? staff constraints
b. not a department priority
c. governing body not supportive
d. lack of neighborhood interest
a. other___________________________
f. N/A
IF YOUR AGENCY IS NOT INVOLVED IN PREPARING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONAIRE WITHOUT COMPLETING THIS SECTION.
27. What does your agency see as the primary purpose in preparing neighborhood plans? ____
28. What percentage of your neighborhood planning staff's time is devoted to preparing neighborhood plans?
a. 20% or less
b. 21-40%
c. 41 60%
d. 61 80% a. 81 100%
29. At what level do neighborhood organizations participate in the process of preparing neighborhood plans?
a. low (public hearings only)
b. medium (some neighborhood meetings)
c. high (extensive involvement)
30. What is your agency's position on the neighborhood planner's role in preparing neighborhood plans?
a. planner as expert
b. planner as advisor to neighborhood
e. planner as facilitator in process
d. neighborhoods work independently
31. Are neighborhood plans formally adopted by your planning commission?
a. YES
b. NO
32. By your governing body?
a. YES
b. NO
51


33. Do neighborhood plans, once adopted, become a part of your comprehensive plan?
a. YES
b. NO
c. dont have a comprehensive plan
34. Are neighborhood plans, in whole or part, bound in the same document with your comprehensive plan?
a. YES
b. NO
c. N/A
35. Do you have a standard methodology for preparing neighborhood plans?
a. YES
b. NO
IF YES, AND IF WRITTEN. PLEASE SEND A COPY.
36. How long is your agency's process for preparing a neighborhood plan?
a. less than 6 months
b. 6 months 1 year
c. 1 year 2 years
d. more than 2 years
a. wide variation between neighborhoods
37. How many neighborhood plans has your agency been involved in preparing?
a. 1 2
b. 3-4
c. 5-6
d. 7-8
a. 9 or more
38. Who assumes the primary responsibility for implementing neighborhood plans in your community?
a. city staff
b. elected officials
c. neighborhood organizations
d. other____________________________
a. plans are not implemented
39. Do you have an evaluation system to measure the success of neighborhood plans? a. YES
NO
40. If yes, please briefly describe your approach:_____________________________________________
41. Is your neighborhood plan process successful?
a. YES
b. SOMEWHAT C. NO
42. Do you have additional comments which may help us in developing our neighborhood planning program?
PLEASE MAIL THIS QUESTIONAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED BY JANUARY 27, 1984. PLEASE SEND LITERATURE ON YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAM!
THANK YOU
52