Citation
Building belonging

Material Information

Title:
Building belonging how spatial design influences the social-emotional factors of health and wellbeing at home
Added title page title:
How spatial design influences the social-emotional factors of health and wellbeing at home
Creator:
Roeswood, Makena ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (76 pages) : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of landscape architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Landscape architecture

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Place attachment ( lcsh )
Space (Architecture) ( lcsh )
Place attachment ( fast )
Space (Architecture) ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This master's thesis explores the dimensions of spatial design that influence attachments and social bonding in neighborhoods. There is evidence that belonging, place attachment, and community attachment contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and that the physical environment plays a role in the identity, bonding, and rootedness of people in place. Research from multiple disciplines is examined to develop a broad understanding of the relationships at play when bonding in place. Intentional communities are used as a model for building neighborhoods that prioritize social relationships. This thesis attempts to synthesize a unified position for how landscape architecture can be used to enhance and deepen the social bonds that sustain community. This position suggests enhancing belonging and attachment through shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and transitional space that creates a cozy distance between private and shared spaces. Finally, this model is illustrated through the design of a tiny house community in Colorado.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic resource.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Makena Roeswood.

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:
on10191 ( NOTIS )
1019158711 ( OCLC )
on1019158711
Classification:
LD1193.A77 2017m R64 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
BUILDING BELONGING: HOW SPATIAL DESIGN
INFLUENCES THE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL FACTORS OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING AT HOME by
MAKENA ROES WOOD B.A., University of Northern Colorado, 2009
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture Landscape Architecture Program
2017


2017
MAKENA ROES WOOD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
11


This thesis for the Master of Landscape Architecture degree by Makena Roeswood has been approved for the Landscape Architecture Program by
Jody Beck, Chair Esther Sullivan Bryan Bowen
Date: May 13, 2017


Roeswood, Makena (MLA, Landscape Architecture Program)
Building Belonging: How Spatial Design Influences the Social-Emotional Factors of Health and Wellbeing at Home
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Jody Beck
ABSTRACT
This masters thesis explores the dimensions of spatial design that influence attachments and social bonding in neighborhoods. There is evidence that belonging, place attachment, and community attachment contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and that the physical environment plays a role in the identity, bonding, and rootedness of people in place. Research from multiple disciplines is examined to develop a broad understanding of the relationships at play when bonding in place. Intentional communities are used as a model for building neighborhoods that prioritize social relationships. This thesis attempts to synthesize a unified position for how landscape architecture can be used to enhance and deepen the social bonds that sustain community. This position suggests enhancing belonging and attachment through shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and transitional space that creates a cozy distance between private and shared spaces. Finally, this model is illustrated through the design of a tiny house community in Colorado.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Jody Beck
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................1
Purpose of Project.........................................................1
Health, Safety, and Welfare and Wellbeing..................................2
Intentional Communities....................................................4
II. CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY...............................................6
Belonging..................................................................7
Community Attachment......................................................11
Place Attachment..........................................................14
Professional Perspectives on Creating a Sense of Community Through Design.17
III. APPLYING THE CONCEPTS TO DESIGN...........................................20
The Community Empowerment Model...........................................20
Conceptual Design.........................................................21
River View at Cleora Design...............................................33
River View at Cleora Re-design for Sense of Community.....................38
IV CONCLUSION..................................................................48
REFERENCES...........................................................................50
APPENDIX
A. Landscape Architecture Public Welfare Impact Evaluation....................52
B. Partially annotated Bibliography by subject................................59
Belonging.................................................................59
Community Attachment......................................................60
Place Attachment..........................................................63
Intentional Communities ..................................................66
Spatial Design ...........................................................68
v


DEFINITIONS
Belonging: A personal sense of rightness and at-homeness that one feels in a certain place or with certain people. This includes feelings of attachment, a confidence in ones role, a sensation of rootedness in a place, and the experience of being an appropriate part of a certain context.
Community attachment: An emotional reliance on the people, social networks, or lifestyle of a self identified group. The feelings of membership, affection, and loyalty that are directed toward a group of people.
Intentional Community: A collaboratively planned neighborhood composed of individuals who share a common vision for their lifestyle and are dedicated by intent to specific common values or goals, (Meltzer 2).
Place: A location or space that has meaning for an individual or group.
Place attachment: An emotional reliance on a space or location because of the meaning it has and the benefits it provides. The feelings of affection and loyalty that are directed toward a certain locality. Wellbeing: a holistic state of health, happiness, and the ability to thrive.
vi


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Project
The spatial design disciplines have long been concerned with the physical world. It is easy to recognize that architectural constructions will have impacts on the human experience of space and place. What is less tangible is the impact that spatial design has on the social experience of individuals and their social-emotional health. However, research from anthropology, sociology, psychology, geography, architecture, and intentional communities indicate that an individuals sense of community (their feeling of attachment to and support from the surrounding neighborhood) has a significant impact on their mental health and sense of wellbeing. So, how do we as designers create homes and landscapes that enable and enhance an individuals sense of community? This question is made more complex when health and wellbeing of entire social groups is also considered.
As a future landscape architect, I want to create places where people feel good about themselves and their role in the world, feel comfortable spending time among their neighbors, and know that their participation in the community is valued. I want to know how the design of buildings and outdoor spaces can improve relationships between people; how the meaning of a place influences peoples feeling of connection to each other; whether feeling emotionally rooted in a place makes people want to know and get along with neighbors or with strangers; how a feeling of belonging affects individual health, sense of safety, and feelings of happiness and success; and how to design places that encourage people to love and support each other. Ultimately, how can landscape design and community planning enhance the social factors that contribute to individual health and wellbeing?
These questions are increasingly important due to the nation-wide increase in depression and social isolation America has been experiencing over the last 50 years. There is a growing body of research showing that social-emotional experiences of belonging, community attachment, and place attachment are important for personal growth, emotional wellbeing, and long-term health. Hyde and Chavis report that social science research has shown that, having a sense of community (under the same and different names) is strongly associated with lower levels of mental, social, and health disorders, (179). Despite these
1


trends, landscape architects, architects, urban planners, and neighborhood developers continue to neglect this opportunity (perhaps their obligation) to use evidence-based design to improve the social-emotional experience and quality of life for the people who use the places they have designed. All too often, the question of which design yields the most profit gets the most priority at the expense of the social-emotional health of the community that lives there.
Health. Safety, and Welfare and Wellbeing
Licensed landscape architects are subject to professional regulation. They are ethically and legally obligated to protect public health, safety, and welfare. According to a 2003 report published by the American Society of Landscape Architects, professional boards view their essential role as prevention of harm (Schatz 7). This report discusses harm as, landscape architecture practice that may cause serious physical injuries, property damage, and various financial harms (16). This illustrates a perception of health, safety, and welfare that is restricted to physical and financial harm and ignores social and emotional harm. Health and safety are fairly easily defined in legal terms. Welfare however, is not. Apparently the Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards (CLARB) accepted the legal requirements to protect public health, safety, and welfare without a clear understanding of the definition of welfare. In 2010, CLARB hired a research firm which analyzed and defined public welfare for landscape architectural use as, the stewardship of natural environments and of human communities in order to enhance social, economic, psychological, cultural and physical functioning, now and in the future (Landscape Architecture and Public Welfare 13). The study listed seven impact areas where landscape architecture can improve public welfare through design that:
1. Enhances environmental sustainability,
2. Contributes to economic sustainability and economic benefits,
3. Promotes public health and well-being,
4. Builds communities,
5. Encourages landscape awareness/stewardship,
6. Offers aesthetic and creative experiences, and
7. Enables people and communities to function more effectively (11).
2


This definition explodes the purview of landscape architects ethical and legal responsibilities and clearly includes the social-emotional health of both individuals and groups. This report describes building community as creating attractive and functional places (15). They say this encourages people to engage in their surroundings, strengthening social cohesion, which in turn results in healthier, more dynamic, more resilient communities at the local, national and global levels, (15). I will consider this a sufficient description, though I think that describing something as functional begs the questions: functional for what, for whom, when, and how. This report has yet to be refined into specific building codes or regulations. There is a potential for developing a rating system for community or health and wellbeing similar to how LEED or SITES rates for sustainability, but that is not within the purview of this thesis.
I use the term wellbeing often in this thesis. While frequently used synonymously with welfare, and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) uses the two words to define each other, for this project I am going to define wellbeing as a holistic state of health, happiness, and the ability to thrive. Welfare, in contrast, is the ability to function. It is my opinion that while, as landscape architects, we are legally obligated to protect welfare, and wellbeing is listed as an impact area of welfare in the study above, as fellow human beings in positions of influence, we are also ethically compelled to enhance wellbeing.
This thesis specifically explores the connections between landscape and wellbeing at home.
For this purpose, home includes the physical features and neighborly relationships in ones immediate neighborhood. Home is a complex term with a long history and many connotations. The OED defines home as a dwelling place; a persons house or abode; the fixed residence of a family or household; the seat of domestic life and interests, (home A.I.2.a.) and as a refuge, a sanctuary; a place or region to which one naturally belongs or where one feels at ease, (A.I.4.). Having adequate shelter is obviously necessary for survival, but having a comfortable home is a necessary foundation for meeting higher level needs like safety, belonging, and self-esteem. It is for this reason that this thesis focuses on home rather than places of work or recreation.
Since the goal of this thesis is to examine how landscape architecture can be used to improve not only the physical experience of home, but the social-emotional experience as well, I will focus on three important aspects of health and wellbeing at home: belonging, community attachment, and place
3


attachment. These psychological experiences bridge the gaps between place and social bonding. It is my intention to ultimately distill design strategies from the research that will enhance belonging, community attachment, and place attachment in order to facilitate and deepen social bonding between neighbors. Intentional Communities
In order to narrow the scope of this research and to compare like data, this thesis specifically analyzes intentional communities (ICs) rather than neighborhoods in general. Contemporary American ICs (including cohousing, ecovillages, communes, and co-ops) have evolved over the last 60 years in reaction to the trends toward urban and suburban sprawl, gated communities, and the dramatic increase of singlefamily housing size and resource use despite the overall decrease in family size (Sullivan 2). Prior to World War II, communities tended to fit into what Shaffer and Anundsen call functional communities: groups of people who live near to each other where members support the physical and social well-being of the group and its participants, making sure all members are sheltered, clothed, fed, educated, and fit so that they can be productive and maintain the social order, (11). Since then, globalization, job-related mobility, and urbanization have compounded to create what Christian describes as, an increasingly fragmented, shallow, venal, costly, and downright dangerous society, and reeling from the presence of guns in the school yard and rogues in high office, (xvii). These IC activists claim that people are longing for a change in their way of life toward one that is more affordable, supportive, and connected. This movement manifests in the conscious communities that are increasing in number and popularity in the U.S. These groups, incorporate many social and survival aspects of functional community, but also emphasize members needs for personal expression, growth, and transformation, (Shaffer and Anundsen 11).
These communities are difficult to maintain. According to Christian, only 10% of groups that intend to start an IC are successful in completing their development. As Sullivan discovered in her ethnography of one group, even if a community is successful in maintaining group cohesion and completing the construction of their community, it may come at the cost of their initial values. In this example, this group came together to reverse the isolationism found in typical U.S. residential arrangements and to create a neighborhood that promoted, common space, increased social interaction, and collective decision making, ultimately conceded these goals in favor of individual autonomy, privacy, and personal rewards
4


(Sullivan 1). However, despite these challenges, groups continue to embark on this collaborative venture to build a place to live where they can experience a sense of belonging and community.
Examining ICs for this thesis simplifies some of the variables of a traditional neighborhood. ICs are composed of people who are already interested in developing the social relationships in their neighborhood. They have already experimented with and documented design solutions that serve to support their social relationships. However, there are also complications with ICs that traditional development communities do not have. Money (meeting initial infrastructure costs and juggling continued shared expenses) is a huge barrier and social strain that is frequently the cause of failure. Living in an intentional community is not easy, especially for Americans whose dominant cultural trait is individualism. This is why the spatial design of these communities is so important: whatever can be done in the setting to passively facilitate community engagement and make it more enjoyable than isolation will reduce the psychological effort it takes to get along in this environment. While the specific solutions that work for one IC may not work for other groups including more traditional neighborhoods, the generalizable lessons learned from researching ICs can apply to any neighborhood interested in enhancing the social-emotional experience of the place to the benefit of the health, welfare, and wellbeing of residents.
Chapter II will discuss the research on three concepts of sense of community (belonging, community attachment, and place attachment), their importance to peoples health, wellbeing, and quality of life, and how built space and the environment influences them. Chapter III explores how design has been used in the past to create a sense of community through models, town planning, and intentional communities. Chapter IV will distill the research into design guidelines that are applied to an abstract model and the design of a tiny house neighborhood in Colorado. This thesis attempts to connect the evidence based research on community feeling with the experience based guidelines for building sociability into neighborhoods. This process begins to answer the question of how spacial design influences the social-emotional factors of health and wellbeing at home.
5


CHAPTER II
CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, You are not human because you think. You are human because you participate in relationships... A person is a person through other persons, (Big Questions). Hyde and Chavis argue in their sociological article, ...whether it be called social capital, social support, neighborhood cohesion, place attachment, or sense of community; that feeling of connectedness with others, the feeling that we are part of community, is one of the most basic human needs, (179). Indeed, love and belonging is level three in Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Self-actualization
Esteem
morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts
self-esteem,
confidence, achievement, ^respect of others, respect by others''
Lova/BaBongirBO
friendship, family, sexual intimacy
Safety
security of body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of the family, of health, of property
Physiological
'breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion'
Figure 1. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Image by Finkelstein, J. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Digital image. File:Maslows Hierarchy of Needs.svg. Wikimedia Coimnons, 27 Oct. 2006. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
Over the last 70 years neighborhood structure and suburbanization lias trended away from sociability and toward individualism. Houses are on private property with large interior square footage, six foot fences around the backyards, and two car garages. You can actually live in these neighborhoods, driving to and from work everyday, for an entire lifetime and never actually come face to face with a neighbor. How could anyone develop a sense of community if they never interact with the people around them? In this scenario, a person has to make the concerted effort to reach out to neighbors which puts them in a rather vulnerable
6


position. With so many people being overworked or over-committed, who has time or energy for this? Our many modem conveniences actually limit our opportunities for neighboring. Going to the village well for water, walking to and from work, and even watering the lawn were all times when we could interact with and get to know the people around us. Each time we eliminate one of these chores, we lose access to our communities. Americans move around a lot these days too. Neighboring relationships are reset with each move to a new house. The disconnection and isolation that results from these common modem conditions has negatively affected the health and wellbeing of many who crave a sense of belonging and community without understanding why they feel this way. People are turning to intentional communities in an effort to find the sense of community they seek.
So what can be done about this? Research into aspects of community feeling like belonging, community attachment, and place attachment illuminates some of the many elements that are necessary for a sense of community to develop. These aspects, while distinct phenomena, seem to be intrinsically linked. One study found that a sense of bondedness, or feelings of being a part of ones neighborhood, and a sense of rootedness to the community are two communal dimensions of attachment (Manzo 338). This suggests that the emotional bonds (belonging) to a neighborhood experienced by individuals are not only the result of internal processes (place attachment) but also social processes (community attachment). The following sections will explore these aspects of community feeling and how they are expressed in the design of intentional communities. Each section will conclude with a list of design concepts distilled from the literature and some suggestions for how they might be implemented. The final section discusses some of the ways professional designers have attempted to create a sense of community in their designs. Belonging
Belonging is an emotional attachment; a feeling of being at home; a confidence in ones role; a sensation of rootedness in a place. The OED defines belonging as: to be rightly or naturally placed [... to] fit a specified environment, (OGorman 283). Clearly, belonging can be ascribed to both people and things with correspondingly different and nuanced connotations. As landscape architects, we are in the position of deciding what belongs somewhere and what does not. We attempt to create a place where
7


people, but only certain people, feel that they themselves belong,. How do we make those decisions? What do we do to cultivate that sense of rootedness or at-homeness in the population we wish to invite?
The concept of belonging has been discussed in numerous disciplines that illuminate and thicken its meaning so these questions can be addressed. The Dictionary of Geography describes belonging as [being] intimately tied to place, as any understanding of community and affinity with specific landscapes (placemaking) simultaneously constructs a sense of socially recognized membership (Mayhew). The Dictionary of Human Geography discusses the subjectivity of belonging as the result of years of immersion in a specific environment and its problematic, sometimes oppressive, results (Castree). Yuval-Davis, a professor of gender, sexuality, and race studies, adds feeling safe to the definition of belonging (197). She points out the complex desires of individuals in which a duality of belonging and wanting to belong is reflected in narratives of identity (202). Leach, writing on architecture, describes belonging as, an ever provisional, rhizomatic model of attachment to place, (81). He argues its usefulness as a framework for understanding contemporary place identification. Environmental historian OGorman analyzes belonging and its emphasis on fit as a way to understand how biocultural relationships are created and contested (286). Clarkson, a journalist and public servant, argues that we must strive to satisfy our competitive instincts as well as the desire for cooperation (41). Belonging, she says, is our interdependence with others. Social anthropologist Lovell defines belonging as developed through experience of a locality in which perceived ideals of a place are established (1). This creates loyalty and individual and collective identity.
This research will use the term belonging to describe the experience of being an appropriate part of a certain context. From this definition, the role of landscape in belonging starts to become visible. Without going into a drawn out theoretical argument, landscape, at the very least, will always be a foundational part of a context if not the entirety of it. From this the argument can be made that making changes in a landscape will alter the context, thereby directly influencing belonging. This thesis will attempt to determine whether we can realistically predict what the influences will be.
In ICs belonging is visible in shared activities (group meals, communal worship, shared work like gardening, or shared recreation like playing board games). It is important to do things together. Isolated
8


Figure 2. Community Activity. Image by Community Garden 01. Digital Image, www.rcc.edu. Riverside City College, n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2016.
activities like watching television do not reinforce social bonds. Without a sense of belonging, trying to live in such a socially connected enviromnent is not worth the effort.
As O Gorman notes, a sense of belonging in relationships is about lit. Most people cannot experience belonging in every enviromnent. It is important to have interests and values in coimnon with others. Otherwise an individual can feel odd and left out. It is also important to have a role in the community: some feeling that their unique contributions are valued by others. It can be difficult to experience belonging when one feels useless or redundant. There is a paradox in belonging: the need to be seen and valued for ones individuality and the need to feel in coimnon: to see ones self in others. This is one reason why belonging is so variable. Shared activities give group members tilings in common and provide opportunities for individuals to fill a role and be appreciated.
Designing for Belonging
Safety: A reasonable expectation of safety is a prerequisite for feelings of belonging. This is already a tenet of design for built space. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Francis; and McCamant
9


Shared activities: Shared activities like maintenance, gardening, community meals, play, recreation, relaxation, meetings, celebrations, rituals, and spontaneous gatherings can all contribute to a sense of belonging. Someone once told me that the strength of a community can be judged by how many times a week they eat together. People must do things together regularly to maintain their sense of connection. Development communities probably wont schedule regular community meals, but by providing things to do in the shared spaces, people will naturally come together to get to know each other. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Christian; McCamant and Durrett; and Shaffer and Anundsen.
Balance individual and common identity: Hugh Mackay said, We are individuals with a strong sense of our independent personal identity and we are members of families, groups and communities with an equally strong sense of social identity, fed by our intense desire to belong, (qtd. in Minter). Develop a cohesive pallet that contains enough diversity and opportunity for customization to represent both identities. Explore the unique character of the people and the landscape to help define the identity of the place, and express that in the design. Use style, color, and symbolism to create a feeling of groupness. Provide opportunities for variation on the theme to allow individual units to express their uniqueness. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Hester; Kaplan and Kaplan; Lovell; Mason; and Watson and Bentley.
Broaden the fit: People need to feel like they fit in their context. Create a place that accommodates varying perceptions of individual identity. Units should have equal access to shared space and equal value to the neighborhood. Depending on the expected resident population, include as many opportunities for inclusion and acceptance as possible. Providing options for individualization within the identity of the group may be one way to accomplish this. This may include everything from distribution of space to materiality. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Hester; Lovell; Mason; McCamant and Durrett; and Meltzer.
Define use of space: People feel more comfortable in spaces where they know what the expected use is for the space. Spaces that have a clear use and purpose get used more frequently. Defining a space includes treatment of boundaries and creating messages indicating who belongs, what they do here,
10


temporal use, sense of location, and the meaning of the place. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Canter; Francis; Hayden; Lovell; and Watson and Bentley.
Interdependence, socially recognized membership, and roles for members are also important for creating a sense of belonging, but are weak motivators for design decisions.
Community Attachment
Community Attachment is an emotional reliance on the people, social networks, or lifestyle of a self-identified group. Hyde and Chavis define community attachment as, a perception of belonging that makes us feel good and safe, (179). Manzo and Perkins add that community attachment includes an emotional connection based on a shared history, as well as shared interests or concerns, (339). As landscape architects we may not have control over who lives in our neighborhoods, but we must provide the setting for these attachments to develop.
In a quantitative study exploring the natural environment as an element of community attachment, Brehem describes findings that reveal community attachment as reliant on the natural environment as well as being bound up with the social context of a lifestyle resulting from a natural environment. In 1974, Kasarda and Janowitz wrote a well known and thoroughly reviewed study which examines two models of community attachment: one that focuses on population size and density and the other on length of residence. Their findings supported the latter model (328). Gattino describes a psychological study which surveyed 344 adults in Piedmont, Italy. They attempted to assess the effects of place attachment and sense of community (community attachment/belonging) on the health and quality of life of residents. Findings showed a connection between sense of community and quality of life, but no connection with place attachment. Other findings showed that living in a small town enhances the environmental, psychological, and relational quality of life (811). This may be because of the shared history, culture, or identity of those living in a small town, or the opportunities for neighboring that running into the same people at the grocery store brings, or merely the fact that most of them have lived in the same town for a long time, but it is clear that all of these things are diluted in large cities.
The word community has become a trite and overused shorthand for any arbitrarily defined group of people. A real community does not exist without some kind of emotional glue that bonds people together.
11


This is community attachment. Without this, people are just residents of a neighborhood, or a group of people who share some trait. However, the purview of this research does not include an argument for redefining the valid compositional structure of community. In this research, community attachment is used to describe the feelings of affection and loyalty that are directed toward a group of people. Further, the research focuses on the role of landscape in community attachment, which is to say providing a suitable context in which community attachments are easily developed.
Community attachment is visible in ICs through the shared identity and identification as a group.
IC members are often brought together by shared values and interests. They typically design their homes to provide as many opportunities for neighboring as possible by grouping laundry and mailboxes, sharing pathways to and from the house, and parking cars away from homes. An individuals sense of influence over a community is present in their welcomed input at the regular meetings and collaborative planning structure of ICs.
Designing for Community Attachment
Create opportunities for neighboring: Create passive opportunities for neighbors to see each other, and spent time together. This seems to be one of the most important concepts in this research. In order for people to engage with their communities there must be convenient, open invitations to do so. Creating these opportunities includes limiting the number of units per community: having fewer than 12 households puts too much pressure on individuals to socialize while more than 35 households overwhelms both shared spaces and individuals ability to know all of their neighbors (McCamant and Durrett 249). The sweet spot seems to be around 20 households per community. Provide shared spaces where residents share ownership and can socialize (248). Common spaces often include: common houses for community meals, meetings, and recreation; a shared lawn, plaza, or play structure; and community gardens. The key to common spaces is that residents should have a practical reason to go there on a regular basis. A common house that no one has to go to will rarely get used. Putting the mail boxes there will ensure an almost daily visit from residents. Common spaces should have prominence in the community and each unit should have line of sight to the play structure at least. The more shared space that can be seen from a unit, the more invitation the resident has to join in. A cozy distance between houses (no more than 40) allows neighbors to greet
12


each other (256). Consolidate footpaths from parking to houses to maximize casual encounters (Christian 149). Provide gathering nodes off footpaths for people to comfortably stop to chat. Provide a variety of gathering areas for different size groups, activities, and weathers. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Hester; and Lovell.
Include adaptability or flexibility in the design: Length of residence is shown to predict the level of community attachment. Create neighborhoods that are adaptable to different life stages so individuals and families can stay in their neighborhood long term (McCamant et al. 191). Include flex rooms that can be swapped between units or multi-level units that can be converted into two separate units as family structures and needs change. Shared spaces could be converted per the current needs of the community.
This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Brebner; Hester; and McCamant and Durrett.
Highlight shared history, values, and interests: If the community comes fully formed to the designer, this will be easy. If not, the designer must make some educated guesses about the values and interests of the future residents. Residents who value energy efficiency may prefer cohousing or duplex architecture while individuals who value independence and the idea of a single family home may prefer free standing units. This concept motivates design more or less depending on the type. For more information see sources: Christian; Hester; McCamant and Durrett; Meltzer; Shaffer and Anundsen; and Watson and Bentley.
Neighborhood satisfaction: People are more likely to develop attachment to their communities if they are satisfied with their neighborhoods. Safety, walk-ability, parks and recreational facilities, maintenance, vegetation, vehicular circulation, parking, accessibility of common public spaces, traffic, noise, and crowding are all important considerations for people. There are many other sources that talk about the tenets of design. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see source:
Hester.
Sense of influence over community: People need to feel like they matter and can have an impact on the world around them. Provide space for residents to make their neighborhood their own: perhaps a platform for residents to express or share their voices. See also Ownership under place attachment.
13


This concept moderately motivates design. For more information see sources: Christian; Fromm; Lovell; McCamant and Durrett; and Norwood and Smith.
Other concepts that contribute to community attachment like a common lifestyle or culture, a mutual commitment to the environment, a supportive social structure, and self identifying as a group are important but difficult to design for.
Place Attachment
Place attachment is an emotional reliance on a space or location because of the meaning it has and the benefits it provides. This thesis defines place attachment as the feelings of affection and loyalty that are directed toward a certain locality. Place attachment appears to be less of a direct cultivator of social bonds but more of a motivating factor for interaction. An individual who is emotionally invested in a place should be motivated to work with and interact with others who share and invest in that place. If a person dislikes or is neutral about a place they could be less motivated to expend the effort it takes to get along with their neighbors because they wouldnt mind just packing up and moving. The role of landscape in place attachment is perhaps obvious, but this chapter will discuss some of the design moves that specifically encourage place attachment.
Place attachment is a varied and integrating concept. As Altman and Low suggest, place attachment may not be a single phenomenon, but rather a variety of types of place attachments that differ in their aspects, origins, and purposes, (12). There are many aspects of place that create patterns of attachment including those based on emotional, cognitive, and practical reasons (8). Attachment can exist across scales. For example, one can experience attachment to their country, their region, their state, their city, their neighborhood, their block, and their house at differing intensities for any, all, or none of the above. Place attachment can occur in individuals, groups, and entire cultures. It could develop because of the physical landscape, the climate, the seasons, or any part of a place that is meaningful. People often associate emotions they experienced in a place with the place itself, and in that way it becomes meaningful. These patterns of experience in a place ultimately become linked with the identity of individuals, groups, or cultures who use them (11).
14


Tilley argues that it is the day-to-day familiarity of a landscape that imbues it with placeness (26-27). People use their knowledge of their locality to give meaning to their lives. This process works to create people who are of that place. This in turn engenders belonging, rootedness, familiarity, and a power to act. Relph argues that access to places with structure and meaning are a human need and that they should be made with authenticity and a commitment to personal authority and values (preface). He considers it important to appreciate the place for what it is, rather than what it can provide economically.
In a study of individuals relationships with place, memory, and a sense of well-being, Costa et al concluded when place qualities are aligned with peoples interests and expectations they become special and part of their lives, and thus, they mediate, cultivate and reinforce well-being experiences, which are crucial to generate dialogues with and long lasting attachment with landscapes (132). Manzo and Perkins sought to make a connection between environmental and community psychology through urban planning. They argue that place attachments, place identity, sense of community, and social capital all contribute importantly to the interactions that aid in community development (347). Most notably, place attachments inspire action by motivating people to find, protect, and improve meaningful places. This research is primarily interested in place attachment that is generated from added value in the landscape rather than mere familiarity with a place.
This process has two sides: a positive one and a shadow side. In the past, these attachments have entrapped people and engendered conflicts over territory. The knowledge of a place has been shared unequally creating power imbalances that allow opportunities for domination and exploitation. However, studies have shown that residents who experience greater attachment to their neighborhood also enjoy greater social cohesion, social control, and maintenance of the appearance of their neighborhood while their fear of crime goes down.
Place attachment is visible in intentional communities through the collaborative design process and the way they mark their place with representation of themselves. Members contribute regularly to the maintenance and appearance of their neighborhood, and they often have opportunities to contribute to the decision process over future changes to the neighborhood.
Designing for Place Attachment
15


Give people a sense of privacy. Privacy is a human need. Without it people feel threatened and are unlikely to develop a sense of security and long term attachment. This is one of the most frequently heard hesitations from people considering intentional community. They are afraid that they will have to be around other people all the time and everyone will know all their secrets. However, people who have lived in ICs for years explain that this doesnt have to happen and the design of the neighborhood has a lot to do with it. One solution is to provide an appropriate balance of shared, private, and transitional space for each community. A transitional zone of 10 between the shared walkway between houses and each dwelling provides a comfortable buffer so individuals dont feel like theyre living right in the middle of a public space (Christian 149). Each dwelling should have somewhere to sit outside in seclusion (ex. back patio) and somewhere to sit outside that is available to neighbor interaction (ex. front porch). Dwelling windows should not face directly into neighboring windows. Dwellings should be separated by a cozy distance (i.e. 25 to 40) that is not too close to feel crowded and not so far that you cant say hello (McCamant and Durrett 256). This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Canter; Francis; Kaplan and Kaplan; McCamant and Durrett; Meltzer; Norwood and Smith; and Shaffer and Anundsen.
Give the place a structure. Providing a recognizable structure prepares peoples expectations and helps them to feel comfortable in the knowledge of what a place is used for, who uses it, and when it should be used. It gives cues for where to go and how long to linger. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Kaplan and Kaplan; and Shaffer and Anundsen.
Give the people some serenity. Instill a sense of peace and calm into the place that allows people to feel restful and rejuvenated in their neighborhood. This is strongly tied to beauty. People should want to spend time there. Each neighborhood should have comfortable places to rest in every season and time of day. Make it beautiful. Make it comfortable. Give people options. Include access to elements like water, fire, dirt, and growing things. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Brebner; Lovell; Hester; Thayer; and Watson and Bentley.
16


Program ongoing or repetitive activities. Program activities that give people recurring opportunities to engage in the place. Shared maintenance is an option, but also include opportunities that are fun, meaningful, and unique to the place. This concept strongly motivates design.
Security: This basic tenet of design is both necessary for place attachment, its important to have a reasonable expectation of safety, and increased by place attachment. Knowledge of a place and the people of that place creates an increased sense of security regardless of the actual crime data. Appropriate lighting, conscious access, and visibility must all be considered. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Francis; and McCamant and Durrett.
Use symbols: Provide symbols of the unique community experience of each neighborhood. This provides a sense of shared identity. Individuals have the opportunity to adopt the unique culture and express their membership in the tribe. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Hester; and Thayer.
Ownership: A sense of ownership is important to peoples willingness to commit to something. Leave opportunities for residents to finish or change certain parts of the aesthetics of function of the shared space. The degree to which this should be done will depend on the values of the unique population of each neighborhood. In rental neighborhoods, this can be more difficult, but it could be done by providing options in each unit for individuation or personal display. Assigning community responsibilities to each unit regardless of ownership status might work. Or provide renters opportunities to contribute to the community process. This concept motivates design depending on the neighborhood type. For more information see sources: Christian; Fromm; Lovell; McCamant and Durrett; and Norwood and Smith.
Align qualities with expectations: People have expectations of what their place of residence should be like. Some of those expectations can be gently redirected. Some however, must be respected. This is also relevant when considering spaces to include that will be meaningful to the specific community. The more a designer knows their target population the stronger this concept will motivate the design. For more information see source: Christian.
Professional Persnectives on Creating a Sense of Community Through Design
17


There are several ways environments may influence people-place relationships. Altman and Low mention cultural ecology (the interaction of technologies and resources), geomorphological regionalism (the adaptation to environmental challenges and opportunities), and environmental determinism (the environmental impacts on human habitation), but ultimately argue that it is the narratives and symbols provided by the landscape that influence the local cultural identity (8-9). They found this more likely than environmental factors having direct deterministic effects on the ways people relate to their landscapes. Alexander had a holistic and integrated world-view of the relationship between people and place. He said, when you build a thing you cannot merely build that thing in isolation, but must also repair the world around it, and within it, so that the larger world at that one place becomes more coherent, and more whole; and the thing which you make takes its place in the web of nature, as you make it, (Alexander xiii). It was this world-view that inspired him to create an extensive list of design standards aimed at creating places with identity where people can have positive relationships with and within their environments.
In the 1970s, Alexander developed a theory for building and planning in an attempt to understand the nature of the building process, (ix). Simultaneously he developed a pattern language (an extensive, scalable list of design elements and standards) designed to satisfy the lessons of his theory. He developed a language that would be vibrant, cohesive, and coherent and allow the towns and buildings to become those things as well (x). He believed this language to be dialectical and that new languages should be developed for each individual, group, project, and region. His goal was to help create places that would make people feel alive and human, (xvii).
Like Alexanders theory, examples of intentional community design standards are dialectical although often significantly less defined. They are based on experience rather than evidence. Chuck Marsh, a resident of Earthaven Ecovillage with 25 years experience in permaculture design according to earthaven.org, is quoted in Christians book talking about designing for conviviality, (Making a Living). A community site plan can enhance social interaction and community glue, ...Designing for conviviality involves placing our access ways and building in patterns that allow for, and in fact encourage, quality human interactions as we go about our daily activities, (Christian 149). Patterns listed are: visual connection (line of sight to the community building and others homes); cozy distance (about
18


ten feet from front porches to common pathways); prominence (give the community building centrality); and footpaths, gathering nodes, and centripetal energy (foot traffic should flow in a way that encourages social interaction). Additionally they list standards for the community building: put most amenities in the community building; make it prominent; put it at the heart; make it beautiful; build it first; and build it yourselves.
Ross Chapin, principal of his own award-winning architectural firm, has worked on six pocket neighborhoods according to his books website. Pocket neighborhoods are a form of intentional communities that focus on the form of the space rather than the social structure of the people who live there. Chapin designs them at a scale where meaningful neighborly relationships are fostered, between 4 and 16 households (Chapin 8-9). In this example, the most important element of the landscape is the shared outdoor space. This defined space exists in a realm that is in between private and public. Here, the dwellings are organized around the common space and share in its maintenance. It affords the residents a feeling of identity and security. It encourages casual interaction in the hopes that those relationships will develop into long-term friendships and community attachments.
This chapter discussed sense of community and three primary aspects of it. Several design concepts were described for each aspect. Finally several designers were discussed to explore some of what has been done for sense of community in the design profession. The next chapter follows how the author applied these concepts to a theoretical design model and finally a tiny house neighborhood design in Colorado.
19


CHAPTER III
APPLYING THE CONCEPTS TO DESIGN
How does a designer begin to apply the lessons from the research and intentional communities? Canter suggests these steps: 1. Identify the major places. 2. Elaborate qualities and attributes of those places. 3. Relate those places where the qualities are combined into a hierarchical structure. (163). For this project, the author uses the design lessons from the research to develop a purely conceptual model before translating it onto the unique needs and conditions of a real site. This chapter goes through how the author applies the research concepts to design. Each section will describe the questions encountered throughout the graphic decision making process.
The Community Empowerment Model
Figure 3. Community Empowennent Model. Diagram by Graham, Meltzer Stuart. Figure 18.1 Sustainable Community. Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2005. 155. Print.
This is the Community Empowennent Model described by Graham Meltzer. He examines how
the social-emotional benefits of cohousing influence individual action toward environmentalism or
sustainability. It is described as a cyclical and iterative process that strengthens over time. The inputs at
20


each stage influence the character of the praxis. Design professions only have direct influence over the circumstance. However, this model shows why it might be possible to tweak circumstances and expect to be able to create environments that achieve a desired outcome of a sense of community.
It is worth noting that belonging and attachment are a few steps away from the place where design interventions can be made: circumstance. This could suggest one reason why these social-emotional factors have been largely ignored in the design professions. They can only directly intervene in the circumstance which has the strongest influence on interaction, then relationships, and finally engagement. However, in order to achieve a desired outcome, for this thesis, a praxis of social support and community wellbeing, the right inputs should be made at every stage. Without the right circumstances present, the desired outcomes are difficult to achieve or maintain over time as this process continues to iterate. The following section goes through the process of creating desired conditions by applying the community based design concepts. Concentual Design
For the conceptual design, the process begins with an overall look at the organization of houses around a central space (see Figure 4). Changing the number of sides in the geometric shapes and sizing them to fit the same number of houses around the perimeter shows that the greater the number of sides, the greater the area of the central space. The exception to this is the star shapes which have much smaller total areas. This provides a baseline for beginning to apportion space. The shape of the space also changes how individual houses relate to each other.
Next is the application of the design concepts. This process starts at the small scale and moved up from there. The existing plan, the redesign of which is the ultimate culmination of this thesis, used 200 tiny houses. 20 foot tiny houses on wheels became the unit model used throughout this process.
The most relevant concepts at this stage are: shared activity space; opportunities for neighboring including: line of sight, prominence of shared space, convenient access to shared space with daily invitations, and cozy distance; broadening the fit and sense of privacy by maximizing scales of sociability and honoring transitional space; and providing structure. Some of these concepts conflict. For example, the most direct way to provide line of sight to a prominent common house from units is to organize them in a circle around it. However, this conflicts with the concept of cozy distance which suggests that units
21



c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
n









20
Figure 4. How the shape of the central space affects the size around which the same number of units can fit.
K>
K>


facing each other should be separated by no more than 40 feet. To accommodate both of these concepts, the community could only fit about four units. Also, ensuring equally convenient access to common spaces discourages a design that leaves certain units pushed back or removed from the circle.
Since the research suggests that 20 houses is the sweet spot for a community, community is defined as 20 units organized around a common house, lawn, play set, etc. Several shapes are then formalized to get an idea of circulation and spacial relationships (see Figure 5). Opportunities for neighboring are increased by placing parking outside of the community so residents pass through the common space on the way to and from their cars. Community Option C in Figure 5 is preferred due to its superior relationships between units. This exercise reveals that inclusion of a pod scale maximizes scales of sociability, maintains cozy distance, and retains prominence/centrality of common space.
A pod consists of four units. Units have a private/secluded back yard space and a more socially available front porch to provide scales of sociability even within each unit. They are organized around a small central space and a shared footpath that leads to the community space (see Figure 6). This allows these four units to maintain a cozy distance and develop a more intimate/exclusive scale of sociability. Figure 6 shows again that when pods are organized around shapes with fewer sides, they take up less space and retain a cozier distance. However, these shapes also have a narrower line of sight range to the common space. Therefore the options for pod orientation to the common house are more limited.
The pods are then arranged around the common spaces (see Figure 7). This allows the common house to remain prominent and accessible to each unit. Each unit has line of sight, but they are not directly facing the common house. This provides a community scale of sociability. Figure 7 shows how different the community can feel just by modifying the footpath design. Community Option B in Figure 7 is preferred because it feels more organic and like moving through the landscape as part of it rather than between separate sections of the landscape. Figure 8 tries to squeeze more houses into the community. By adding one more unit to each pod, the community space is severely curtailed. Units are cramped together sacrificing buffer space. Also line of sight is interrupted for some units. 20 units per community is still preferred.
23


Option A.
Option B.
Option C
Figure 5. Formalized community shapes for 20 tiny houses on wheels, common spaces, and parking. Option C was preferred.
K>
4^
ITHOUJI ITHOUJI


Sqft:Unit 1714:1 1799:1
1718:1 1788:1 1795:1
Figure 6. Testing pod configurations for total size and dimensions.
25


THOLU ____ THOLU
Option A.
Figure 7. Pods of four organized around common space. The only difference between options is design of footpaths. All buildings are in the same location.
K>


Figure 8. Trying to fit pods of five into the same space. It severely curtails the available community space and interferes with line of sight.
K>
^1


The design needs to include a total of 10 communities to meet the goal of 200 units set by the existing plan. This provides an opportunity for an additional scale of sociability: the neighborhood scale. Neighborhood is defined as 200 units organized in communities of 20 around the parking and neighborhood amenities like a larger lawn, playground, covered pavilion, market/cafe, farm, etc (see Figure 9). The organization of the neighborhood scale led to a contentious argument between the author and faculty advisors. The problem, as ever, is parking.
In order to maintain the relationship between community and neighborhood that should logically mimic the relationship between pod and community, parking needs to be central to the layout. If parking is removed to the outside edges of the neighborhood, either communities have to be turned away from the neighborhood common space removing line of sight, prominence, convenient access, and daily invitations to the neighborhood, or residents have to walk all the way around the community and through the neighborhood common space to get to their community and house. The other option is to maintain the relationship between community and neighborhood and leave parking on the outside, but then residents have to park then walk through what is essentially the back door of the community to get to their house. This option is the worst as it removes the opportunities for neighboring at both community and neighborhood scales. The author recognizes that having to walk between parking lots to move from one shared space to another is not ideal. However, given the constraints of the concepts of sociability, it is preferable to the alternatives. To make up for it, special attention must be given to the aesthetics and function of the parking lots.
Figure 10 shows a variation on the neighborhood design in which every two communities are angled toward each other. This creates an additional scale of sociability between those two communities. Figure 11 shows two merged hexagons rather than a decagon. This layout also offers an additional scale of sociability, but between five communities rather than two. This neighborhood layout is preferred as it offers better opportunities for distribution and variety of shared spaces. Figure 12 shows the scales of sociability for this layout. Through the gradation shown, there are at least seven different scales of sociability available to a resident of this hypothetical neighborhood. This provides seven options for her to choose how many people shed like to encounter at any one time. This concludes the conceptual design exploration.
28


Figure 9. Communities around a decagon.
29


Figure 10. Communities angled together to create an additional scale of sociability.
30


u>
Figure 11. Merged hexagons also create an additional scale of sociability, but they create better opportunities for distribution of space.


Figure 12. Scales of sociability. Green is more private. Orange is more social.
GO


River View at Cleora Design
The site selected to test this model is a tiny house community currently in development 5 miles outside of Salida, Colorado (see Figure 13 and Figure 14). It is 19.13 acres and pretty flat until it reaches a steep bluff" going down to the Arkansas River. Access to the site is to the south coming off CO Highway 50. It is mostly unused green field. This Sprout Tiny Homes planned development includes 200 rental tiny homes manufactured and on foundations, a community center building, a community garden, a restaurant, an area for storage units, and about 4.57 acres of private open space and a public trail along the river, (see Figure 15) (Crabtree Group Inc. 1).
Critique of the Existing Plan
While Sprout, Crabtree, and Salida are to be applauded for their willingness to attempt a novel rental development like this, and while the design does include some community features like a community center and community garden, the design lacks many key design concepts that would make the community spaces more usable and increase the overall sense of community at the site. Abetter understanding of the concepts of shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and privacy as described by the research would improve the function and sense of community for this neighborhood.
One problem with the existing plan is that the community center and garden are separated from the housing, and there arent any daily reasons for people to go there so they are likely to be under utilized (see Figure 16). The community center is described as containing the rental office, laundry facilities, and possibly a fitness center, (Crabtree Group Inc. 4). One laundry serving 200 units is a wasted opportunity for community. 200 units is too many for this chore to be an opportunity to get to know the neighbors.
The same problem goes for the community garden. If the laundry and garden are broken up into separate community spaces serving a smaller number of units, they can serve the additional purpose of allowing neighbors to spend time together thereby creating a sense of community. These smaller community houses could also contain other opportunities for neighboring like large kitchens or barbecues, spaces to have dinner parties, campfires, play rooms, or libraries. These amenities in a location like the community center in the existing plan would likely not work well. They must be closer to the units, within line of sight, and residents need a daily reason to pass though or by them.
33


U>
4-
Figure 13. Aerial of Salida, CO and River View at Cleora site. Image by Google, US Dept of State Geographer. 2016.


Figure 14. Site photos of River View at Cleora site. May 2016.
Ui


GRAPHIC SCALE
BLDG ENVELOPE:?'
NATURAL LANDSCAPING
BLDG, ENVELOPES
!Ep6 RESIDENTIAL UNITS)
GRAVEL PARKING

.ACCESS & UTILirr ESMT'
: ACRES' '
? r>^ / r
BLDG ENVELOPE:5,
rS^b!29 ACRES f[~~~,
/ (8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) I
BUILDING
FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY
t~~2f L
-BLDG ENVELOPE::
BLDG ENVELOPE;7
N0.79 ACRES \ .(STORAGE 'BUILDINGS)
>18.45 ACRES
IBLDG ENVELOPES) JS'Zd'jB ACRES-Jm
ROCK PARK
0.48 ACRES
/LOT: 2.x
0.68 ACRES
'BLDG ENVELOPES" ~~} [2.54 ACRES jUSS (SI RESIDE/imL BUILDINGSf
g*So- I
CLEORA PARK' 4. lO^ACRES^ CCOMMUNIWVARK) ,
RIVER VIEW AT
IN SEI/4NEI/4 NE1/4SEI/4 SEC.
CHAFFEE COUNTY sm/4NM/4 SEC. 10, T49N,
CLEORA
& NWI/4SWI/4 St E, N.I4.P.M, COLORADO
HENDERSON LAND SURVEYING CO.. INC. P.O. 8OX 312 SALIDA, COLORADO
DRAWING
CHECKED:
U>
ON
Figure 15. Current site plan for River View at Cleora. Image by Crabtree Group Inc. River View at Cleora Planned Development and Subdivision. Salida, CO: City of Salida Public Hearing, 2016. 17. Print.


Figure 16. Scales of sociability for current site plan. Image by Crabtree Group Inc. River View at Cleora Planned Development and Subdivision. Salida, CO: City ij of Salida Public Hearing, 2016. 138. Print. Modified by the author.


As Figure 16 shows, the plan has few scales of sociability. All the neighborhood amenities are concentrated on one side and the rest of the space is focused on privacy and independence. Few of the units have line of sight to any community space. The space around the shared walkways have no invitations to socialize. At the same time having no tmly private outdoor space for each unit, shared walls between some units, and lining the units up in rows all have detrimental effects on the sense of privacy in the neighborhood. Also, the pods dont have a sense of groupness or opportunity for unique character. In sum, there is a lot of room for improvement of sociability in this plan.
River View at Cleora Re-design for Sense of Community
At this point, the sense of community design concept of shared history, values, and interests becomes relevant. The anticipated population for the neighborhood is young (21-45 years old), low wage, working class individuals in the outdoor recreation, service, and marijuana industries. These people are expected to be outdoorsy/rural/minimalist types that value independence, fun, and a good challenge. If they are outdoor sport guides and service providers they probably like people and relaxing outdoors. This analysis leads to a vision statement for the neighborhood: River View at Cleora is a community minded neighborhood offering fun opportunities to relax and connect with neighbors while retaining the independence and privacy of detached tiny houses.
Figure 17 shows an early attempt at applying the concepts from the research to the design of the site. This attempt prioritizes the integrity of the community layouts developed in the conceptual model.
In this plan there are only 136 houses in 7 communities and one of them doesnt even have access to the neighborhood shared space. There is a lot of unused leftover space on the site. It is clear that the design must be more sensitive to the conditions of the site.
The next attempt (see Figure 18) starts with the smallest scale of community: an optimum pod layout which balances the amount of space it takes up and concepts of community derived from the research.
These pods are distributed around the perimeter of the site leaving space adjacent to the river for recreation and a cafe/market. Then community space is filled in and bounded by an interior ring of pods. This leaves an circular pathway between communities for increased connection throughout the neighborhood and
38


50
0
75
50
300
I- I Vs
rest
^1 ^.e,^
I 36 UNITS
84 SPACES
4%tiem
Hi
X> ^a^2^ vrA4^ 0 ^
m

an


#A- ?H Xpm ^
<$>
a

<^A #
ti\£ys
U>
VO
Figure 17. Early attempt at applying concepts of community to River View at Cleora.


4-*
O
I : I 50
0 75
50
300

/a HE ID a
dT ^ ##

205 UNITS
294 SPACES
Figure 18. Final site plan for River View at Cleora re-design.


perhaps delivery of privately owned tiny houses on wheels. Community houses are added in the interior ring wherever they make sense and pods are angled to maximize line of sight to the community spaces.
Since the existing plan actually intends for 30% of the units to be vacation rentals, six apartment style units of 250 sq ft are added as a second story to each community house. This changes the character of the vacation rentals from cabin-like to hostel-like. However, the young, transitory population intended for this neighborhood may provide the social conditions that would be uniquely suited for this situation. The vacationers would make frequent use of the common house. They may also provide a sort of vibrancy that this population would appreciate. It would also simplify house keeping duties.
This creates eight communities varying in size from 20 to 28 units. Each community is unique and organically shaped from the site. There are 205 units and 294 parking spaces. The central neighborhood space could include: a larger lawn for soccer or frisbee, a covered pavilion for neighborhood picnics or music concerts, and a playground (see Figure 19). Community spaces could include: a shared kitchen or barbecue, a patio with shaded seating, a campfire, a small play set, a small lawn suitable for volleyball or picnicking, community garden spaces, edible landscaping, and a variety of seating to offer a comfortable option in every season and at every time of day.
The scales of sociability for this plan are comparable to the conceptual model (see Figure 20). A resident still has their privacy and the option to be alone, but there are many more options to interact with others that what is offered in the existing plan (see Figure 21 and Figure 22).
The final stretch of this design process zooms in to a more detailed scale (see Figure 23). Here, additional sense of community design concepts gain prominence: balance of identity, serenity, and defined use of space. This plan rendering begins to show how pods can express their unique identities through their shared space and transitional space. The beauty and comfort of the spaces provide many options to interact with the people and the place. Figure 24 shows the character of the planting zones and how they might influence the way residents may feel passing through them.
This design gives people options and invitations. It provides an environment where people can get to know their neighbors conveniently and with little effort and develop meaningful relationships with those who live around them. In an environment like this, people can belong.
41




1:150 0 75
50
300
as
j ID
yy t
s
O B
ur^
£>
205 UNITS
294 SPACES

c\ ^4
^<< ID

U>
Figure 20. Scales of sociability for re-design.


Figure 21. Section A showing scales of sociability for river walk, a pod, a community, parking lot, and neighborhood held.
4-
4-


Ui
Figure 22. Perspective rendering showing scales of sociability between community house and a pod.


Figure 23. Zoomed in plan rendering of pods, a community, and neighborhood transitions.
46


Figure 24. Experiential sections for planting zones.
47


CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
This thesis provides an interdisciplinary theoretical foundation for research and design into creating sociability and a sense of community in neighborhoods. Why is it important to have a sense of community around places of residence? It increases social stability. Stable societies are functional, productive, self perpetuating, and adaptable to change. In America today, many people live in social conditions that are broken, destructive, self sabotaging, and crumbling in the face of the massive climatic and social changes happening across the world. This lack of stability is contributing to the volatile political and social conditions the country is facing.
From a more practical perspective, it makes sense to have a sense of community at home rather than online or through activity based groups. It increases security in the neighborhood when people know who is supposed to be there and who is not. It is convenient. Finally, it is a source of power. Local investment and community engagement lead to a level of organization that is able to influence other groups and structures.
This thesis explores the dimensions of spatial design that influence attachments and social bonding in neighborhoods. There is evidence that belonging, place attachment, and community attachment contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and that the physical environment plays a role in the identity, bonding, and rootedness of people in place. Research from multiple disciplines is examined to develop a broad understanding of the relationships at play when bonding in place. It shows that certain design concepts like shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and privacy are vital for developing a sense of community.
Intentional communities are used as a model for building neighborhoods that prioritize social relationships. Intentional communities, built to enhance sociability in built space, teach that line of sight to prominent community space, cozy distance between housing units, and transitional space help to build a sense of community by creating invitations to engage in community activities and scales of sociability. These concepts provide options for people to choose how theyd like to experience their community and they enhance opportunities to connect with neighbors and the place.
48


This thesis attempts to synthesize a unified position for how landscape architecture can be used to enhance and deepen the social bonds that sustain community through the design of a conceptual model and a tiny house community in Colorado. The design process showed that creating levels of sociability through the relationships of units to each other, to the community, and to the neighborhood maximizes the scales of sociability and options for residents.
The re-designed River View at Cleora plan doesnt take into account some of the practicalities of building these developments like utilities. However, the human need for belonging is more basic than their need for electricity and running water. Lets start with whats good for people, then figure out how to make the infrastructure happen. Designers and planners dont have to wait for a group of people to come asking for a socially designed community. They can start providing people with community focused neighborhoods now.
The author intends to continue this research. She would like to dive into a series of case studies for intentional communities and developments prioritizing sociability like Radbum, Baldwin Hills, and Lafayette Park. This would round out the research nicely. The search for community feeling has been part of the human condition for a long time. Going forward, this research will continue to develop into a more comprehensive understanding of how people are able to bond in place, and designers will hopefully leam from this. Then building belonging will become more of a priority in the development of built space.
49


REFERENCES
Altman, Irwin, and SethaM. Low. Place Attachment, lsted. Vol. 12. Springer US, 1992. Print. Human Behavior and Environment.
Big Questions: Desmond Tutu, Templeton Prize 2013. N.p., 2013. Film.
Brehm, Joan M. Community Attachment: The Complexity and Consequence of the Natural Environment Facet. Human Ecology 35.4 (2007): 477-488. Print.
Castree, Noel, Rob Kitchin, and Alisdair Rogers, belonging. A Dictionary of Human Geography. : Oxford University Press, 2013. Oxford Reference. 2013. Date Accessed 7 Sep. 2016.
Christian, Diana Leafe. Creating a Life Together. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2003. Print.
Clarkson, Adrienne. Belonging: The Paradox of Citizenship. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2014. Print.
Costa, Sandra, Richard Coles, and Anne Boultwood. Special Places and Attachment as Drivers for
Cultivating Well-Being. Landscape: A Place of Cultivation. Porto, Portugal: University of Porto, 2014. 131-133. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. ECLAS.
Crabtree Group Inc. River View at Cleora Planned Development and Subdivision. Salida, CO: City of Salida Public Hearing, 2016. Print.
Gattino, Silvia Piccoli Norma Fassio, Omar Rollero, Chiara. Quality of Life and Sense of Community, a Study on Health and Place of Residence. Journal of Community Psychology 41.7 (2013): 811-826. EBSCOhost. Web.
home, n.l and adj. OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. Web. 18 October 2016.
Hyde, Mary, and David Chavis. Sense of Community and Community Building. Handbook of
Community Movements and Local Organizations. Ed. Ram A. Cnaan and Carl Milofsky. Springer US, 2008. 179-192. O-link.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research.
Kasarda, John D., and Morris Janowitz. Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological Review 39.3 (1974): 328-339. JSTOR. Web.
Landscape Architecture and Public Welfare. Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards, 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2017.
Leach, Neil. Belonging. AA Files 49 (2003): 76-82. Print.
Lovell, Nadia, ed. Locality and Belonging. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. European Association of Social Anthropologists.
Manzo, Lynne C., and Douglas D. Perkins. Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place
Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20.4 (2006): 335-350. 0-jpl.sagepub.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web.
50


Mayhew, Susan, belonging. A Dictionary of Geography. : Oxford University Press, 2015. Oxford Reference. 2015. Date Accessed 7 Sep. 2016
OGorman, Emily. Belonging. Environmental Humanities 5.1 (2014): 283-286.
O-environmentalhumanities.dukejoumals.org.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web.
Pitz, Maijorie. How Do We Protect Public Welfare and What Is It Exactly? Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. Print.
Schatz, Alex P. Regulation of Landscape Architecture and the Protection of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. Lafayette, CO: The American Society of Landscape Architects, 2003. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Shaffer, Carolyn R., and Kristin Anundsen. Creating Community Anywhere. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Putnam, 1993. Print.
Sprunt, David, and Michael Weir. ASLA Colorado Public Welfare Research Study. Denver, CO: American Society of Landscape Architects, Colorado, 2015. Web. 24 Apr. 2017. Advocacy through Research.
Sullivan, Esther. Individualizing Utopia: Individualist Pursuits in a Collective Cohousing Community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (2015): 1-26. Web.
Tilley, Christopher. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1994. Print.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. Belonging and the Politics of Belonging. Patterns of Prejudice 40.3 (2006): 197-214. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web.
51


APPENDIX A
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PUBLIC WELFARE IMPACT EVALUATION
This is the ASL A Public Welfare Impact Evaluation Tool developed by ASLA Colorado in 2015 in an effort to provide a framework for evaluating the public welfare benefits of landscape architecture. The questions were developed directly from the seven impact areas described in the 2010 CLARB report on public welfare. I copied the text of the questions directly from ASLA Colorados 2015 report (Sprunt and Weir 35-43).
Site Evaluation Questions
Public Welfare Imnacts of Landscape Architecture
REMINDER: IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION The seven impact categories and their questions are designed to provide a framework for communicating information about the landscape architecture design and process. Answers to some questions may be more pertinent than others to understanding the story of landscape architectures public welfare benefits on this site.
Impact 1
Enhancing Environmental Sustainability
Landscape Architecture contributes to environmental sustainability by responding to development challenges with solutions that involve sensitivity towards natural systems.
Landscape Architects at the site design level integrate sustainability measures into all designs.
Landscape Architecture protects natural systems by ensuring that all members of communities have access to common resources and are involved in active conservation of those resources.
Questions
1-A) How did the landscape architect(s) integrate sustainability measures into the design?
1-B) How does the landscape design and/or how did the design process enhance environmental sustainability by being sensitive toward natural systems? Describe natural systems that were enhanced or protected from harm because of the involvement of landscape architects.
52


1-C) How does the design protect natural systems by ensuring all members of affected communities (people, plants and animals) have access to common resources (water, food, fresh air, etc.)?
1-D) How does the landscape architecture design or design process protect natural systems and resources by helping community members become involved in actively conserving those resources?
1-E) Describe how an individual or group of individuals in the community became engaged in sustaining the environment because of the landscape architecture design or the design process.
1- F) How did involvement of landscape architects in the design process shape or guide development that preserves and protects natural systems?
COMMENTS IMPACT 1 QUESTIONS Provide any comments or suggestions about the above Environmental Sustainability Impact questions:
Impact 2
Contributing to Economic Sustainability & Economic Benefits
Landscape Architecture contributes significantly to economic sustainability. Through their services, landscape architects assist policy makers and others to improve the marketability and long-term value of residential and commercial housing/property. Economic benefits include:
Reduction of crime
Smart development and growth
Improved air and water quality
Efficient energy use
Enhanced quality of life and health
Access to culture and recreation Questions
2- A) How does the landscape architecture and/or how did the design process contribute to economic sustainability in the local community, state, or region?
2-B) How did the landscape architect(s) assist policy makers in developing economic and planning policies that benefit the public?
53


2-C) How has the landscape architecture improved the marketability and long-term value of residential/commercial housing/property? Provide before-and-after stories and/or data of real estate values if available.
2-D) How has the landscape project reduced crime in the area? Provide anecdotal stories and/or before-and-after data if available.
2-E) How did involvement of landscape architects in the development process contribute to development solutions that enhanced economic growth in the local community, state or region? Describe before-and after effects if possible.
2-F) How does the landscape architecture improve air and water quality? Provide anecdotes and/ or data. What aspects did the landscape architect(s) consider in developing the design? Describe air/water quality before-and-after the implementation of the design.
2-G) How does the landscape architecture enhance and reduce energy consumption (electricity, gas, gasoline, etc.)? What aspects of energy conservation did the landscape architect(s) consider and implement when developing the design?
2-H) How does the landscape design enhance the quality of life and health of members of the local community, or wider community? Describe how one or more individuals in the community benefitted by the landscape design.
2-1) How does the landscape design improve access to culture and recreation? How have individual members of the community benefitted from the design?
COMMENTS IMPACT 2 QUESTIONS Impact 3
Promotes Public Health and Well-Being
Landscape Architecture is increasingly grounded in the growing body of research in public health. This research makes connections between human health and well-being and the conditions of the outdoor environment. Landscape Architecture projects can:
Directly affect the mental and physical health of individuals and communities.
Provide immediate and lasting therapeutic benefits.
54


Questions
3-A) How does the landscape architecture contribute to the mental and physical health of individuals? Cite specific examples. Tell the story of how lives of individuals have benefitted from the landscape architecture. Before-and-after comparisons are often useful.
3-B) How does the landscape architecture contribute to the mental health of the community?
3-C) How does the landscape architecture contribute to the physical health of the community?
3- D) How does the landscape architecture provide immediate and lasting therapeutic benefits to individuals and the community? Describe specific examples.
COMMENTS IMPACT 3 QUESTIONS Impact 4
Building Community
Landscape architects work to help build communities: their work significantly affects quality of life. By creating attractive, functional places, Landscape Architecture encourages people to engage in their surroundings, strengthening social cohesion, which in turn results in healthier, more dynamic, more resilient communities at the local, national and global levels.
Questions
4- A) How did the landscape architecture process help to build community and improve quality of
life?
4-B) How does the landscape architecture design serve to bring members of the community together and build social cohesion?
4-C) How does the landscape architecture design and design process encourage people to come together to enjoy and participate in community activities?
4-D) Describe changes in community interaction that were influenced by the landscape design. Focus on what was happening in the community before implementation of the design/design process, and what has happened since the site was built.
COMMENTS IMPACT 4 QUESTIONS Impact 5
55


Encourages Landscape Awareness and Stewardship
Landscape Architecture stimulates our awareness of the landscape and increases our understanding of the role that humans play in it. Landscape Architecture:
Encourages citizens to appreciate landscape and to participate in the processes that shape it, cultivating a symbiotic and iterative relationship between people and their environment.
Encourages protection, stewardship and understanding of the landscape.
Deepens the memory, meaning, sense of identity and culture inherent in the environment.
Questions
5-A) How does the landscape architecture and/or the design process engage citizens to gain an appreciation for and awareness of the landscape? Provide stories of how individuals use the space.
5-B) How do individuals in the community participate in processes that shape the landscape and how did landscape architects create the opportunity for this engagement? Are there any aspects of the design that have been co-opted or taken over and modified by members of the community? Cite specific examples.
5-C) How has the landscape architecture cultivated an interactive, symbiotic and iterative (repeating) relationship between individuals and their environment? Cite specific examples.
5-D) How did the landscape architecture design process and how does the finished design encourage protection, stewardship and understanding of the landscape?
5-E) How did the landscape architecture design or design process deepen community members memory, meaning and sense of identity and culture exemplified by the landscape design?
COMMENTS IMPACT 5 QUESTIONS Impact 6
Offers Aesthetic and Creative Experiences
Landscape Architecture offers people that which artists offer, the opportunity to:
Experience enjoyment, contentment, stimulation or pleasure by participating in the aesthetic experience of landscape.
An important part of this dimension is the preservation and protection of significant historic properties, buildings, structures, districts, cultural landscapes, artistic objects and archeological
56


elements.
Questions
6-A) How does/did the landscape architecture and/or the design process engage citizens to experience enjoyment, contentment, stimulation or pleasure through the aesthetic experience of landscape?
6-B) How does the landscape architecture help preserve cultural heritage by preserving and protecting historic structures, districts, cultural landscapes, artistic objects and archaeological elements?
6-C) What aspects of sensory experience did the landscape architect(s) consider when developing the design?
6-D) How do visitors to the site engage in creative activity because of the landscape architecture design?
6-E) What aspects of historic preservation did landscape architects consider when developing the design, and how were these considerations implemented in the built project?
6- F) How does the landscape architectural design engage the visitor to consider former uses of the site and build an understanding of its historical context?
COMMENTS IMPACT 6 QUESTIONS Impact 7
Enables People and Communities to Function More Effectively
Landscape Architecture enables people to function more effectively in their environments. On a practical, day-to-day level, landscape architecture facilitates many human activities and functions such as:
Efficient traffic flow & parking
Waste collection/recycling
Water use/drainage
Air quality
Optimal use of space Questions
7- A) How does the landscape architecture and/or how did the design process help people by improving traffic flow and parking? Cite before-and-after examples and provide data if possible.
57


7-B) How does the landscape architecture and/or how did the design process enhance or encourage efforts to collect waste and reuse or recycle materials?
7-C) How does the landscape architecture manage water use and drainage issues? Provide anecdotal information and/or quantitative information about water management (precipitation, storm water, ground water, city water, waste water, etc.).
7-D) How does the landscape architecture enable people to function more effectively in their environment by addressing air quality issues? How has air quality improved because of the landscape architecture design? Provide beforeand-after examples if possible.
7-E) How does the landscape architecture make optimal use of available space? What trade-offs were involved in the design process and how were space conflicts resolved? What was the landscape architects role in space planning and how did the landscape architect(s) influence the decisions on space issues?
COMMENTS IMPACT 7 QUESTIONS
Thank you
Overall Comments and Suggestions
58


APPENDIX B
PARTIALLY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY BY SUBJECT
Belonging
Castree, Noel. Belonging. A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
This dictionary entry from Oxfords Paperback Reference Series defines belonging as a human geography term. It describes belonging in terms of attachments derived from lengthy immersion in a particular milieu. The source and authors are reputable and qualified. This entry contributes not only an important disciplinary definition of belonging, it includes comments on its influence on landscape, architecture, and globalization.
Clarkson, Adrienne. Belonging: The Paradox of Citizenship. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2014. Print.
Cohen, Anthony P. Belonging: Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1982. Print.
Leach, Neil. Belonging. AA Files 49 (2003): 76-82. Print.
This article published by the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London and authored by Leach (a British architect and architectural theorist) addresses the relationship between the built environment and cultural identity. Leach describes belonging as a model for understanding identification with place. This source is somewhat dense, disciplinary, and academic with ample citations and notes. How does it contribute to the research conversation?
Lovell, Nadia, ed. Locality and Belonging. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. European Association of Social Anthropologists.
marinavelez. Symposium in Action. Cambridge Sustainability Residency. N.p., 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.
This is a blog post for the Cambridge Sustainability Residency (a project for artists working on sustainability) describes a symposium convened on discussing belonging and the boundaries it creates. It describes the motivation of and questions discussed, focusing on inclusion and exclusion in the geopolitical context. The post is short and doesnt describe the conversations that took place at the symposium. However, it does present the questions of belonging as they pertain to sustainability and politics. I find this useful as a concise expansion of the implications of belonging in other fields and a contributor of interesting questions.
Mason, Andrew. Community, Solidarity and Belonging: Levels of Community and Their Normative Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Mayhew, Susan. Belonging. A Dictionary of Geography. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.
Mayhew, Susan. Belonging, Geographies of. A Dictionary of Geography. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.
59


OGorman, Emily. Belonging. Environmental Humanities 5.1 (2014): 283-286. O-environmentalhumanities.dukejoumals.org.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web.
Wheatley, Margaret J. The Promise and Paradox of Community. The Community of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. Belonging and the Politics of Belonging. Patterns of Prejudice 40.3 (2006): 197-214. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web.
Community Attachment
Brehm, Joan M. Community Attachment: The Complexity and Consequence of the Natural Environment Facet. Human Ecology 35.4 (2007): 477-488. Print.
This journal article in the field of sociology describes a qualitative study that explores the natural environment as an important element of community attachment. It was preceded by a quantitative analysis that suggested that natural environment may be a distinct dimension from the social. The results of this qualitative study using narratives of community members did not fully support this position and suggested that the elements may be more realistically integrated. Findings also reveal community attachment as reliant on the natural environment as well as being bound up with the social context of a lifestyle resulting from a natural environment. In growing communities, while individuals may differ in traditional models of community attachment (social ties and kinship networks) they may share connections over their attachment to the natural environment. Brehm argues that these findings demonstrate the importance of considering the natural environment when exploring community attachment.
This article supports the consideration of what Brehm calls the natural environment (a concept which seems to include the location, climate, situation, landscape, and natural amenities of a place). This is relevant to my line of research as it supports my position that physical attributes of a space influence social bonding within a community. It may also support the idea that place attachment could serve as a motivating factor in the establishment and maintenance of social bonds. The limitations of the study include generalization (the study is based on interviews within one rural community with an abundance of natural amenities) and specificity (it doesnt get at any specifics in terms of the particular elements that are especially treasured). However, it appears to be a reliable source with good citations.
Buttel, Frederick H., Oscar B. Martinson, and E. A. Wilkening. Size of Place and Community Attachment: A Reconsideration. Social Indicators Research 6.4 (1979): 475-485. Print.
Journal article critiques the theories of Kasarda and Janowits.
Comstock, Nicole et al. Neighborhood Attachment and Its Correlates: Exploring Neighborhood
Conditions, Collective Efficacy, and Gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30.4 (2010): 435-442. ScienceDirect. Web.
See under Place Attachment
Crenshaw, Edward, and Craig St John. The Organizationally Dependent Community A Comparative Study of Neighborhood Attachment. Urban Affairs Review 24.3 (1989): 412-434. uar.sagepub.com. Web.
This study explores the relationship between neighborhood organizations and community attachment specifically in organizationally dependent communities (which describes communities that have weak social ties and are therefore dependent on neighborhood organizations to engage in
60


the community). This article may not be useful since their focus is on the social mechanism by which community attachment is enhanced rather that the mechanisms in the physical environment. However, it does show how new communities can begin to develop attachment and cohesion through this process.
Flaherty, Jeremy, and Ralph B. Brown. A Multilevel Systemic Model of Community Attachment:
Assessing the Relative Importance of the Community and Individual Levels. American Journal of Sociology 116.2 (2010): 503-542. JSTOR. Web.
This sociology article written by a PhD student and a rural sociology professor at Brigham Young University improves on Sampsons multilevel approach to Kasarda and Janowitz systemic model of community. Their data came from the 2004 Iowa Rural Development Initiative Project that surveyed 150 households in each of 99 Iowa rural towns. Community attachment is measured in this survey through two sentimental questions: one that rates how much one feels at home in their community, and one that rates how sorry to leave one would feel if they had to. There is also a cognitive attachment question that asks how much one is interested in the goings on of their community. Independent variables measured include: length of residence, children, marital status, age, social position, education, income, race, sex, population size, miles to metro, residential stability, mean SES, density of acquaintanceship, and density of friendship. Though at times repetitive and awkwardly written, the authors show general support for the systemic model but suggest that the community context actually has little effect on ones level of community attachment (503).
This article suggests that the social context of a community has little to do with an individuals community attachment and supports Kasarda and Janowitz conclusions that length of residence is the most important determinant of community attachment. However, they talk about community context but neglect almost entirely the physical attributes of a community. This seems to be a common failing in the sociological literature. Its like humans exist in floating networks of culture completely separate from their physical environment. The only gesture they make toward a physical variable is miles to metro, but really they mean miles to their friends and jobs.
Gattino, Silvia, Norma Piccoli, OmarFassio, and Chiara Rollero. Quality of Life and Sense of
Community, a Study on Health and Place of Residence. Journal of Community Psychology 41.7 (2013): 811-826. EBSCOhost. Web.
This psychology study surveyed 344 adults in Piedmont, Italy. They attempted to assess the effects of place attachment and sense of community on the health and quality of life of residents. Findings showed a connection between sense of community and quality of life, but no connection with place attachment. Other findings showed that living in a small town enhances the environmental, psychological, and relational quality of life (811).
This article, though not generalizable, supports the hypothesis that belonging affects health and well-being. The data may also support the hypothesis that place attachment enhances a sense of community, but the authors did not ask that question so Ill have to look closer at the data.
Gomy, Agata, and Sabina Torunczyk-Ruiz. Relative Deprivation and the Diversity Effect in Explaining Neighbourhood Attachment: Alternative or Complementary Mechanisms? Urban Studies 52.5 (2015): 984-990. 0-usj.sagepub.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web.
Goudy, Willis J. Further Consideration of Indicators of Community Attachment. Social Indicators Research 11.2 (1982): 181-192. Print.
61


Hampton, Keith N., and Barry Wellman. Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood: Early Results from Canadas Wired Suburb. Digital Cities. Springer, 2000. 194-208. Google Scholar. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
Hyde, Mary, and David Chavis. Sense of Community and Community Building. Handbook of
Community Movements and Local Organizations. Ed. Ram A. Cnaan and Carl Milofsky. Springer US, 2008. 179-192. O-link.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research.
Kasarda, John D., and Morris Janowitz. Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological Review 39.3 (1974): 328-339. JSTOR. Web.
Oktay, Derya, Ahmet Rustemli, and Robert W. Marans. Neighborhood Satisfaction, Sense of Community, and Attachment: Initial Findings from Famagusta Quality of Urban Life Study. ITU A/Z Journal 6.1 (2009): 6-20. Print.
Sundblad, Daniel R.Sapp Stephen G. The Persistence of Neighboring as a Determinant of Community Attachment: A Community Field Perspective. Rural Sociology 76.4 (2011): 511-534. EBSCOhost. Web.
Tayebi, Ali. Communihood: A Less Formal or More Local Form of Community in the Age of the Internet. Journal of Urban Technology 20.2 (2013): 77-91. Print.
See under Place Attachment
Tonnies, Ferdinand. Gemeinschaft Und Gesellschaft. English. Trans. Charles P. Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957. Print.
This foundational work in sociology was originally written in German in 1887. Here Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft is translated as Community and Society, concepts which are based on ideas of natural will and rational will. According to Tonnies, all social relationships are created by human will, (4). Natural will is the original element in any process of willing which is derived from the temperament, character, and intellectual attitude of the individual, (5). In this case the relationship is perceived to be valuable as an end in and of itself. Rational will is prevalent when the means and ends of a relationship are distinct, and the individual engages in it for the purpose of achieving a goal beyond the relationship itself. These categories are described by Loomis as ideal types that neither exist empirically nor could be extracted from a real society. Both types are present in all human interactions, though some are motivated more strongly by one than the other. These types can be used to describe change and to compare elements over time and space. Tonnies classified three social entities: social relationships (resulting from physical, willed relationships and conditioned by the consideration of others), collectives (groups which lack the ability to express or represent the collective wills of those who compose them), and social organizations or corporations (groups that have the ability to express or represent the collective wills of those who compose them). He classified three types of social norms: order (seen as basic and universal), law, and morality. These norms give regularity to the social entities. Tonnies also divided social values and systems of human endeavor into three: economic, political, and intellectual or spiritual. For Tonnies the end and meaning of any social order was peaceful relationships among men.
Wasserman, Ira M. Size of Place in Relation to Community Attachment and Satisfaction with Community Services. Social Indicators Research 11.4 (1982): 421-436. Print.
62


Place Attachment
Altman, Irwin, and SethaM. Low. Place Attachment, lsted. Vol. 12. Springer US, 1992. Print. Human Behavior and Environment.
This is volume 12 of a series that explores the then emerging field of environment and behavior studies. It contains articles written by experts in a diverse range of fields including architecture, landscape architecture, psychology, marketing, folklore, sociology, anthropology, environmental studies, gerontology, and family and consumer studies. They investigate place attachment at a variety of scales from small-scale objects to large-scale regions. They list their assumptions: [1] place attachment is an integrating concept comprising interrelated and inseparable aspects; [2] the origins of place attachments are varied and complex; [3] place attachment contributes to individual, group, and cultural self-definition and integrity, (4). They describe it as a complex phenomenon that incorporates several aspects of people-place bonding. The contributors to this volume are apparently in agreement that affect, emotion and feeling are central to the concept. Additionally many writers conclude that these qualities are accompanied by the way people think about a place and the things they do there. Also integrated into the concepts are patterns of places that vary in scale, specificity, and tangibility; different actors (individuals, groups, and cultures); different social relationships [between and among these actors]; [and] temporal aspects [that can be linear or cyclical in nature], (8). Four processes are mentioned in the formation or maintenance of place attachments: [1] biological, [2] environmental, [3] psychological, and [4] sociocultural. Also addressed in this volume are the roles and purposes of place attachment, including security, exploration, predictability, control, and individual, group, and cultural identity, (12).
Comstock, Nicole et al. Neighborhood Attachment and Its Correlates: Exploring Neighborhood
Conditions, Collective Efficacy, and Gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30.4 (2010): 435-442. ScienceDirect. Web.
This journal article published in the field of environmental psychology examines neighborhood attachment (a socio-psychological process that captures ones emotional connection to his or her social and physical surroundings [435]) in relationship to neighborhood conditions, social processes, and recreational gardening as indicators and mechanisms of health behavior change. This study used a combination of data sources that include face-to-face surveys, neighborhood audits, measured crime and demographic data (440). They find that length of residence and collective efficacy correlate with neighborhood attachment. Additionally they examine community gardening to find that participation also correlates with neighborhood attachment. They even go so far as to suggest that the implementation of this environmental element could enhance place bonding.
The authors argue that participating in this type of social activity and experiencing the subsequent deepening of place attachment can motivate individuals to more positive health behaviors.
Costa, Sandra, Richard Coles, and Anne Boultwood. Special Places and Attachment as Drivers for
Cultivating Well-Being. Landscape: A Place of Cultivation. Porto, Portugal: University of Porto, 2014. 131-133. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. ECLAS.
This short article takes a landscape perspective on place and place attachment. The writers developed a study with the intent of producing a greater understanding of the relationships individuals have with place, memory, and a sense of well-being. Their methodology involved outfitting individuals with a gps, camera, and voice recorder and allowing them to engage in a self narrated walk through a built, outdoor environment like a park or a garden. This process allowed individuals the take their time and move themselves toward their own most positive experience of the site. The conclude, when place qualities are aligned with peoples interests and expectations they become special and part of their lives, and thus, the mediate, cultivate and reinforce well-being experiences, which are crucial to generate dialogues with and long lasting attachment with landscapes (132).
63


This article suggests a methodology for examining individuals experience of place. It is relevant to my research because it addresses this question of how a place contributes to the well-being of individuals. Most of their data came from solo walks in a landscape. However, a large part of the senses of enjoyment and well-being that was produced these walks actually resulted from positive associations created by memories of experiences with loved ones. As Brehm et al. suggests it may be impossible to separate the social from the physical experience of a place. This article suggests that positive social experiences contribute to attachment to place. Perhaps also positive place experiences contribute to social attachment.
Cuba, Lee, and David M. Hummon. A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region. The Sociological Quarterly 34.1 (1993): 111-131. JSTOR. Web.
This sociological article explores place identity in Cape Cod, MA. For the purpose of this study, place identity is expressed as at-homeness. They explored this attachment across three scales which the authors distinguish as dwelling, community, and region. Their research questions address the extent to which individuals identify with place in one or more locations, the factors that enhance place identity across scales, and whether these factors associated with one location support identity at another scale. They find that the answers are complex and at times contradictory. Respondents were likely to report identification with one or all scales. This suggests that the nested model of place is not sufficient to capture place identity. Also, they show how much place identity if mediated by a range of social factors. Only dwelling-related factors like home ownership and variety of personal possessions resulting in increased identification across scales. Otherwise, self, family, friend, community, and organization-related factors influenced identity and one or another scale. Some factors have contradictory effects that strengthen place identity at one scale but diminish it at another. Limitations include not being able to define the intensity of place attachment; the only definition of place attachment is at-homeness; the study was conducted in one location; and does not compare between lifetime residents and migrants.
This article is useful in providing a framework for understanding peoples identification with place. Their use of place identification defined by a sense of at-homeness corresponds to my idea of place attachment. Interestingly, their questions revolve around socio-cultural activities and states of being and do not include interaction with the environment, land, or natural assets where they live.
Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge; London: The MIT Press, 1997. Print.
This urban history focuses on communities in Los Angeles
Hidalgo, M. Carmen, and Bernardo Hernandez. PLACE ATTACHMENT: CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL QUESTIONS. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21.3 (2001): 273-281. ScienceDirect. Web.
Hull, R. Brace. IMAGE CONGRUITY, PLACE ATTACHMENT AND COMMUNITY DESIGN.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 9.3 (1992): 181-192. Print.
Kashef, Mohamad. Sense of Community and Residential Space: Contextualizing New Urbanism within a Broader Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Architectural Research 3.3 (2009): 80-97. Print.
Lalli, Marco. Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement, and Empirical Findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12.4 (1992): 285-303. ScienceDirect. Web.
64


Lekies, Kristi S. Connection to Place: Exploring Community Satisfaction and Attachment among Rural Youth. Children, Youth and Environments 21.2 (2011): 77-99. Print.
Manzo, Lynne C, and Douglas D. Perkins Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20.4 (2006): 335-350. CrossRef. Web.
This article published in the planning literature seeks to make a connection between environmental and community psychology research on place attachment and the corresponding literature from urban and community planning.
This article demonstrates that place attachments, place identity, sense of community, and social capital are all critical parts of person-environment transactions that foster the development of community in all its physical, social, political, and economic aspects. In particular, affective bonds to places can help inspire action because people are motivated to seek, stay in, protect, and improve places that are meaningful to them. Consequently, place attachment, place identity, and sense of community can provide a greater understanding how neighborhood spaces can motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to preserve, protect, or improve their community and participate in local planning processes (347).
Milligan, Melinda J. Interactional Past And Potential: The Social Construction Of Place Attachment. Symbolic Interaction 21.1 (1998): 1-33. JSTOR. Web.
Poortinga, W. et al. Neighborhood Quality and Attachment: Validation of the Revised Residential
Environment Assessment Tool. Environment and Behavior (2016): n. pag. CrossRef. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. Print.
This book written by a geographer is in response to his perception of the over simplified discussion of environmental issues that ignored the subtlety and significance of everyday experience, (preface). Relph argues that access to places with structure and meaning are a human need and that they should be made with authenticity (a commitment to personal authority and values). Authentic place-making allows us to develop and appreciate places for what they are rather than for their economic or technical value.
Rodman, Margaret C. Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality. American Anthropologist 94.3 (1992): 640-656. Wiley Online Library. Web.
Rollero, Chiara, and Norma De Piccoli. Place Attachment, Identification and Environment Perception: An Empirical Study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010): 198-205. Print.
Scanned, Leila, and Robert Gifford. Personally Relevant Climate Change The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environment and Behavior 45.1 (2013): 60-85. eab.sagepub.com. Web.
Tayebi, Ali. Communihood: A Less Formal or More Local Form of Community in the Age of the Internet. Journal of Urban Technology 20.2 (2013): 77-91. Print.
Tayebi argues for an end to the binary and deterministic approaches that social science researchers have been using to describe and predict the effects of information technology on community and neighborhood: a binary approach in distinguishing community versus neighborhood based on their
65


attachment to location, and a deterministic approach where information technology is seen as active while society is passive, (77). Instead he argues for a third-space definition of communihood as a more inclusive concept that better reflects reality. Here, information technology is described as a tool for social communication that enables the three main concepts that define communihood. Location-based identity describes when members location in space influences the identity of the group. Here, Tayebi argues that shared physical space is necessary for building trust and transferring knowledge, but online space is useful for maintaining connections and sharing informations. Hybrid diversity of communihood allows members to keep their individual identities and contribute to a new, multicultural society. Place-based powef uses information technology to empower individuals where they are externally to the physical social ties they have or do not have in the place where they live. He argues that communihood is a context for human and social life in the twenty-first century, (89).
Tilley, Christopher. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1994. Print.
Vaske, Jerry J., and Katherine C. Kobrin. Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 32.4 (2001): 16-21. Print.
Vorkinn, Marit, and Hanne Riese. Environmental Concern in a Local Context The Significance of Place Attachment. Environment and Behavior 33.2 (2001): 249-263. eab.sagepub.com. Web.
Wilson, Ben. What, Why, How; Humans and Their Multiple Relationships to Multiple Environments. Masters Thesis. University of the West of England, 2015. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
Intentional Communities
Chapin, Ross. Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale World. Newtown, CT: The Taunton Press, 2011. Print.
This book about an architect who retrofits intentionality in existing communities by creating engaging shared space for the residents. It is anecdotal and autobiographical. It contains a series of documentations of neighborhoods hes designed.
Christian, Diana Leafe. Creating a Life Together. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2003. Print.
This non-academic text, written by a layperson with decades of experience working with and living in intentional communities, gives advice on the creation of intentional communities by residents rather than designers. It focuses on establishing and maintaining social ties but does advise on the selection of land and the construction of the community. This book is anecdotal and unreferenced.
Francis, Mark. Village Homes: A Community by Design. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press, 2003. Print. Land and Community Design Case Study Series.
Fromm, Dorit. Collaborative Communities: Cohousing, Central Living, and Other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. Print.
Holloway, Mark. Heavens on Earth: Utopian Communities in America 1680-1880. 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966. Print.
66


This book recounts the histories of many of what the author considered to be, the most important and typical American communities (back cover) that existed during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Holloway argues that while few of these utopian experiments lasted more that 100 years and many lasted only months, their history retains instructive value. Holloway briefly describes the origins of utopian communities beginning with the Paleolithic Age, moving rapidly through ancient Greece, Syria, and concluding with the early Christian sects whose persecution in Europe encouraged them to seek their homes in the new world. The following chapters explore the earliest American communities, influential women, the rise and fall of communities in response to the social and political contexts over the next 200 years, and finally the rise of scientific socialism in the late 1800s that gradually displaced many of the residual utopias. At the end of the book, Holloway concludes that the quality of life for residents of these communities was unequivocally superior to those of similar station but exterior to the community. The disadvantages he noted included a stolid practicality among the residents who had little appreciation for Art and Beauty, rigid moral codes and social rules enforced among many of the communities, and a necessary austerity due to economic conditions that many found difficult to bear. In order for a community to succeed, members must share some fundamental belief that can keep them together through personal and environmental hardships.
Holtzman, Gilo. Community by Design, by the People: Social Approach to Designing and Planning Cohousing and Ecovillage Communities. Journal of Green Building 9.3 (2014): 60-82. Print.
Lyndon, Donlyn, and Jim Alinder. The Sea Ranch: Fifty Years of Architecture, Landscape, Place, and Community on the Northern California Coast. Revised. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2014. Print.
McCamant, Kathryn, and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities.
Canada: New Society Publishers, 2011. Print.
McCamant, Kathryn, Charles Durrett, and Ellen Hertzman. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. 2nd ed. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press, 1994. Print.
Meltzer, Graham Stuart. Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model. Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2005. Print.
Miles, Malcolm. Urban Utopias: The Built and Social Architectures of Alternative Settlements. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
This book written by a professor of cultural theory in the UK attempts to merge research on literary utopias with lessons learned from alternative societies (intentional communities, retreats, activist movements etc.) in an effort to develop a more complete understanding of what has been done by those driven to create a more perfect world for humankind to live in.
Norwood, Ken, and Kathleen Smith. Rebuilding Community in America: Housing for Ecological Living, Personal Empowerment, and the New Extended Family. Berkeley, California: Shared Living Resource Center, 1995. Print.
These architects and intentional community activists wrote this book as a guide for designers and laypersons interested in developing their own intentional communities. It advocates for building communal living as an alternative to the consumerism, exploitation, and individualism of contemporary American neighborhoods. As an intentional community development guide, this book is comprehensive and includes dozens of diagrams, illustrations, plans, and resources. While somewhat earthy in tone and certainly not academic in nature, it is highly detailed and useful.
67


Pitzer, Donald E., ed. Americas Communal Utopias. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Print.
This collection of history essays uses the perspective of developmental communalism to place Americas communal utopias in the context of the historic circumstances that influence them. Developmental communalism examines whole movements and how they change over time, from their idealistic origins to their communal stages, and beyond, (12). These essays claim to tell the stories of how and why groups choose communal living and how their ultimate commitment or departure from this way of life progressed.
Shaffer, Carolyn R., and Kristin Anundsen. Creating Community Anywhere. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Putnam, 1993. Print.
Site and Home Design Issues. Fellowship for Intentional Community. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Sullivan, Esther. Individualizing Utopia: Individualist Pursuits in a Collective Cohousing Community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (2015): 1-26. Web.
Village Design and Planning Permaculture and Patterns. Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. N.p., 6 Jan. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Snatial Design
Alexander, Christopher. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print.
This book is volume 2 of a work that provides a language for planning and construction and the theory behind the language. This volume describes the detailed patterns for towns and neighborhoods, houses, gardens, and rooms (ix). Volume 1, The Timeless Way of Building, provides the instructions for the practice of design using the language provided in volume 2.
Alexander, Christopher. The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print.
ASLA Code of Professional Ethics | Asla.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Brebner, John. Environmental Psychology in Building Design. London: Applied Science Publishers LTD, 1982. Print. Architectural Science Series.
Busbea, Larry. Topologies: The Urban Utopia in France, 1960-1970. Cambridge; London: MIT Press, 2007. Print.
This book, written by an assistant professor of art history at the University of Arizona, attempts to narrow the study of the experimental architectural movement that swept many countries during the 1960s. By limiting the scope to the avant-gardist utopian work in France during this period, Busbea is able to include deeper historical context to the research as well as reveal subtle distinctions between French programs that are commonly grouped together. The book focuses on the development of spatial urbanism and mobile architecture and includes the external context within which these concepts were created. Busbea argues this period in France ... represents the last modernist attempt to decipher the spatial culture it was a part of (189).Canter, David. The Psychology of Place. New York: St. Martins Press, 1977. Print.
Galster, George C. How Neighborhoods Affect Health, Well-Being, and Young Peoples Futures.
Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation (2014): n. pag. Google Scholar. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
68


This short, urban studies policy research brief summarizes how the neighborhood context of the places where teens grow up affects their health and wellbeing. The strongest factors found were social cohesion, social control, spatial mismatch, and environmental hazards (1).
Hester, Randolph T. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006. Print.
Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print.
This book argues that the most far-reaching influences of architecture are not in appearance rather in the forming of space. Hillier and Hanson argue that it is the purpose of a building is the organization of space rather than as an object in itself. Buildings are not just objects, but transformations of space through objects, (1). By doing this structuring of space, design has a direct impact on social life; it provides the material preconditions for the patterns of movement, encounter and avoidance which are the material realization as well as sometimes the generator of social relations, (ix).
The authors argue that the most fundamental fact of space is that the ordering of space through the construction of our physical world is social behavior.
Kaplan, Stephen, and Rachel Kaplan. Humanscape: Environments for People. Michigan: Ulrichs Books, Inc., 1982. Print.
Katz, Peter, ed. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994. Print.
Larco, Nico, Kristin Kelsey, and Amanda West. Site Design for Multifamily Housing: Creating Connected Neighborhoods. Washington DC: Island Press, 2014. Print.
Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System: Program Manual. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Natural Design Solutions, Landscape Architect, Landscape Design. Natural Design Solutions, Landscape Architect, landscape design. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Pitz, Maijorie. How Do We Protect Public Welfare and What Is It Exactly? Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Schatz, Alex P. Regulation of Landscape Architecture and the Protection of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. Lafayette, CO: The American Society of Landscape Architects, 2003. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Stitt, Fred A. Ecological Design Handbook: Sustainable Strategies for Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Interior Design, and Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Print.
Thayer, Robert L. Jr. Gray World, Green Heart: Technology, Nature, and the Sustainable Landscape. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994. Print. The Wiley Series in Sustainable Design.
Watson, Georgia Butina, and Ian Bentley. Identity by Design. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007. Print.
69


70


Full Text

PAGE 1

BUILDING BELONGING: HOW SPATIAL DESIGN INFLUENCES THE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL FACTORS OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING AT HOME by MAKENA ROESWOOD B.A., University of Northern Colorado, 2009 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture Landscape Architecture Program 2017

PAGE 2

ii 2017 MAKENA ROESWOOD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Master of Landscape Architecture degree by Makena Roeswood has been approved for the Landscape Architecture Program by Jody Beck, Chair Esther Sullivan Bryan Bowen Date: May 13, 2017

PAGE 4

iv Roeswood, Makena (MLA, Landscape Architecture Program) at Home Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Jody Beck ABSTRACT bonding in neighborhoods. There is evidence that belonging, place attachment, and community attachment contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and that the physical environment plays a role in the identity, bonding, and rootedness of people in place. Research from multiple disciplines is examined to develop a broad understanding of the relationships at play when bonding in place. Intentional communities are used as a model for building neighborhoods that prioritize social relationships. This thesis attempts social bonds that sustain community. This position suggests enhancing belonging and attachment through shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and transitional space that creates a cozy distance between private and shared spaces. Finally, this model is illustrated through the design of a tiny house community in Colorado. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Jody Beck

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Project ...................................................................................................................... 1 Health, Safety, and W elfare and W ellbeing ................................................................................ 2 Intentional Communities ............................................................................................................ 4 II CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY .................................................................................. 6 Belonging ................................................................................................................................... 7 Community Attachment ........................................................................................................... 11 Place Attachment ...................................................................................................................... 14 Professional Perspectives on Creating a Sense of Community Through Design ..................... 17 III APPLYING THE CONCEPTS TO DESIGN ........................................................................... 20 The Community Empowerment Model .................................................................................... 20 Conceptual Design ................................................................................................................... 21 River V iew at Cleora Design .................................................................................................... 33 River V iew at Cleora Re-design for Sense of Community ...................................................... 38 IV CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 48 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX A Landscape Architecture Public W elfare Impact Evaluation .......................................................... 52 B. Partially annotated Bibliography by subject .................................................................................. 59 Belonging ................................................................................................................................. 59 Community Attachment ........................................................................................................... 60 Place Attachment ...................................................................................................................... 63 Intentional Communities ......................................................................................................... 66 Spatial Design ......................................................................................................................... 68

PAGE 6

vi DEFINITIONS Belonging: A personal sense of rightness and at-homeness that one feels in a certain place or with in a place, and the experience of being an appropriate part of a certain context. Community attachment: An emotional reliance on the people, social networks, or lifestyle of a self people. Intentional Community: A collaboratively planned neighborhood composed of individuals who share a common vision for their lifestyle and are dedicated by intent (Meltzer 2). Place: A location or space that has meaning for an individual or group. Place attachment: An emotional reliance on a space or location because of the meaning it has and the Wellbeing: a holistic state of health, happiness, and the ability to thrive.

PAGE 7

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of Project The spatial design disciplines have long been concerned with the physical world. It is easy to recognize that architectural constructions will have impacts on the human experience of space and place. What is less tangible is the impact that spatial design has on the social experience of individuals and their social-emotional health. However, research from anthropology, sociology, psychology, geography, architecture, and intentional communities indicate that an individuals sense of community (their feeling health and sense of wellbeing. So, how do we as designers create homes and landscapes that enable and enhance an individuals sense of community? This question is made more complex when health and wellbeing of entire social groups is also considered. As a future landscape architect, I want to create places where people feel good about themselves and their role in the world, feel comfortable spending time among their neighbors, and know that their participation in the community is valued. I want to know how the design of buildings and outdoor spaces connection to each other; whether feeling emotionally rooted in a place makes people want to know and get and feelings of happiness and success; and how to design places that encourage people to love and support each other. Ultimately, how can landscape design and community planning enhance the social factors that contribute to individual health and wellbeing? These questions are increasingly important due to the nation-wide increase in depression and social isolation America has been experiencing over the last 50 years. There is a growing body of research showing that social-emotional experiences of belonging, community attachment, and place attachment are important for personal growth, emotional wellbeing, and long-term health. Hyde and Chavis report that is strongly associated with lower levels of mental, social, and health disorders, (179). Despite these

PAGE 8

2 trends, landscape architects, architects, urban planners, and neighborhood developers continue to neglect this opportunity (perhaps their obligation) to use evidence-based design to improve the social-emotional experience and quality of life for the people who use the places they have designed. All too often, the health of the community that lives there. Health, Safety, and Welfare and Wellbeing Licensed landscape architects are subject to professional regulation. They are ethically and legally obligated to protect public health, safety, and welfare. According to a 2003 report published by the American Society of Landscape Architects, professional boards view their essential role as prevention of harm (Schatz 7). This report discusses harm as, landscape architecture practice that may cause serious Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards (CLARB) accepted the legal requirements to the stewardship of natural environments and of human communities in order to enhance social, economic, psychological, cultural and physical functioning, now and in the future (Landscape Architecture and Public W elfare 13). The study listed seven impact areas where landscape architecture can improve public welfare through design that: 1. Enhances environmental sustainability, 3. Promotes public health and well-being, 4. Builds communities, 5. Encourages landscape awareness/stewardship,

PAGE 9

3 clearly includes the social-emotional health of both individuals and groups. This report describes building community as creating attractive and functional places (15). They say this encourages people to engage in their surroundings, strengthening social cohesion, which in turn results in healthier, more dynamic, description, though I think that describing something as functional begs the questions: functional for what, There is a potential for developing a rating system for community or health and wellbeing similar to how LEED or SITES rates for sustainability, but that is not within the purview of this thesis. I use the term wellbeing often in this thesis. While frequently used synonymously with welfare, and ability to function. It is my opinion that while, as landscape architects, we are legally obligated to protect welfare, and wellbeing is listed as an impact area of welfare in the study above, as fellow human beings in For this purpose, home includes the physical features and neighborly relationships in ones immediate of domestic life and interests, (home A.I.2.a.) and as a refuge, a sanctuary; a place or region to which one naturally belongs or where one feels at ease, (A.I.4.). Having adequate shelter is obviously necessary for survival, but having a comfortable home is a necessary foundation for meeting higher level needs like safety, belonging, and self-esteem. It is for this reason that this thesis focuses on home rather than places of work or recreation. Since the goal of this thesis is to examine how landscape architecture can be used to improve not only the physical experience of home, but the social-emotional experience as well, I will focus on three important aspects of health and wellbeing at home: belonging, community attachment, and place

PAGE 10

4 attachment. These psychological experiences bridge the gaps between place and social bonding. It is my intention to ultimately distill design strategies from the research that will enhance belonging, community attachment, and place attachment in order to facilitate and deepen social bonding between neighbors. Intentional Communities analyzes intentional communities (ICs) rather than neighborhoods in general. Contemporary American ICs (including cohousing, ecovillages, communes, and co-ops) have evolved over the last 60 years in reaction to the trends toward urban and suburban sprawl, gated communities, and the dramatic increase of singlefamily housing size and resource use despite the overall decrease in family size (Sullivan 2). Prior to W orld of people who live near to each other where members support the physical and social well-being of the they can be productive and maintain the social order, (11). Since then, globalization, job-related mobility, and urbanization have compounded to create what Christian describes as, an increasingly fragmented, shallow, venal, costly, and downright dangerous society, and reeling from the presence of guns in the school conscious communities that are increasing in number and popularity in the U.S. These groups, incorporate many social and survival aspects of functional community, but also emphasize members needs for personal to start an IC are successful in completing their development. As Sullivan discovered in her ethnography of one group, even if a community is successful in maintaining group cohesion and completing the construction of their community, it may come at the cost of their initial values. In this example, this group came together to reverse the isolationism found in typical U.S. residential arrangements and to create a neighborhood that promoted, common space, increased social interaction, and collective decision making, ultimately conceded these goals in favor of individual autonomy, privacy, and personal rewards

PAGE 11

5 (Sullivan 1). However, despite these challenges, groups continue to embark on this collaborative venture to build a place to live where they can experience a sense of belonging and community. composed of people who are already interested in developing the social relationships in their neighborhood. They have already experimented with and documented design solutions that serve to support their social relationships. However, there are also complications with ICs that traditional development communities do not have. Money (meeting initial infrastructure costs and juggling continued shared expenses) is a huge barrier and social strain that is frequently the cause of failure. Living in an intentional community is not easy, especially for Americans whose dominant cultural trait is individualism. This is why the spatial design of these communities is so important: whatever can be done in the setting to passively facilitate community including more traditional neighborhoods, the generalizable lessons learned from researching ICs can apply the health, welfare, and wellbeing of residents. Chapter II will discuss the research on three concepts of sense of community (belonging, community attachment, and place attachment), their importance to peoples health, wellbeing, and quality of life, and past to create a sense of community through models, town planning, and intentional communities. Chapter IV will distill the research into design guidelines that are applied to an abstract model and the design of a tiny house neighborhood in Colorado. This thesis attempts to connect the evidence based research on community feeling with the experience based guidelines for building sociability into neighborhoods. This health and wellbeing at home.

PAGE 12

6 CHAPTER II CREA TING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY Archbishop Desmond T utu said, Y ou are not human because you think. Y ou are human because you participate in relationships... A person is a person through other persons, (Big Questions). Hyde and Chavis argue in their sociological article, ...whether it be called social capital, social support, neighborhood cohesion, place attachment, or sense of community; that feeling of connectedness with others, the feeling that we are part of community, is one of the most basic human needs, (179). Indeed, love and belonging is level three in Maslows hierarchy of needs. Figure 1. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Image by Finkelstein, J. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Digital image. File:Maslows Hierarchy of Needs.svg. W ikimedia Commons, 27 Oct. 2006. W eb. 18 Oct. 2016. Over the last 70 years neighborhood structure and suburbanization has trended away from sociability and toward individualism. Houses are on private property with large interior square footage, six foot fences around the backyards, and two car garages. Y ou can actually live in these neighborhoods, driving to and from work everyday, for an entire lifetime and never actually come face to face with a neighbor. How could anyone develop a sense of community if they never interact with the people around them? In this scenario,

PAGE 13

7 position. W ith so many people being overworked or over-committed, who has time or energy for this? Our many modern conveniences actually limit our opportunities for neighboring. Going to the village well for water, walking to and from work, and even watering the lawn were all times when we could interact with and get to know the people around us. Each time we eliminate one of these chores, we lose access to our communities. Americans move around a lot these days too. Neighboring relationships are reset with each move to a new house. The disconnection and isolation that results from these common modern conditions So what can be done about this? Research into aspects of community feeling like belonging, community attachment, and place attachment illuminates some of the many elements that are necessary for a sense of community to develop. These aspects, while distinct phenomena, seem to be intrinsically linked. One study found that a sense of bondedness, or feelings of being a part of ones neighborhood, and a sense of rootedness to the community are two communal dimensions of attachment (Manzo 338). This suggests that the emotional bonds (belonging) to a neighborhood experienced by individuals are not only the result of internal processes (place attachment) but also social processes (community attachment). The following sections will explore these aspects of community feeling and how they are expressed in the design of intentional communities. Each section will conclude with a list of design concepts distilled from of the ways professional designers have attempted to create a sense of community in their designs. Belonging the position of deciding what belongs somewhere and what does not. W e attempt to create a place where

PAGE 14

8 people, but only certain people, feel that they themselves belong, How do we make those decisions? What do we do to cultivate that sense of rootedness or at-homeness in the population we wish to invite? The concept of belonging has been discussed in numerous disciplines that illuminate and thicken its meaning so these questions can be addressed. The Dictionary of Geography describes belonging as [being] making) simultaneously constructs a sense of socially recognized membership (Mayhew). The Dictionary of Human Geography discusses the subjectivity of belonging as the result of years of immersion in a narratives of identity (202). Leach, writing on architecture, describes belonging as, an ever provisional, rhizomatic model of attachment to place, (81). He argues its usefulness as a framework for understanding Clarkson, a journalist and public servant, argues that we must strive to satisfy our competitive instincts as well as the desire for cooperation (41). Belonging, she says, is our interdependence with others. Social ideals of a place are established (1). This creates loyalty and individual and collective identity. This research will use the term belonging to describe the experience of being an appropriate part of going into a drawn out theoretical argument, landscape, at the very least, will always be a foundational part of a context if not the entirety of it. From this the argument can be made that making changes in a landscape In ICs belonging is visible in shared activities (group meals, communal worship, shared work like gardening, or shared recreation like playing board games). It is important to do things together. Isolated

PAGE 15

9 activities like watching television do not reinforce social bonds. W ithout a sense of belonging, trying to live experience belonging in every environment. It is important to have interests and values in common with others. Otherwise an individual can feel odd and left out. It is also important to have a role in experience belonging when one feels useless or redundant. There is a paradox in belonging: the need to be seen and valued for ones individuality and the need to feel in common: to see ones self in others. This is one reason why belonging is so variable. Shared activities give group members things in common and Designing for Belonging Safety: A reasonable expectation of safety is a prerequisite for feelings of belonging. This is already a tenet of design for built space. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Francis; and McCamant Figure 2. Community Activity. Image by Community Garden 01. Digital Image. www.rcc.edu. Riverside City College, n.d. W eb. 2 Dec. 2016.

PAGE 16

10 Shared activities: Shared activities like maintenance, gardening, community meals, play, recreation, relaxation, meetings, celebrations, rituals, and spontaneous gatherings can all contribute to a sense of belonging. Someone once told me that the strength of a community can be judged by how many times a week they eat together. People must do things together regularly to maintain their sense of connection. Development communities probably wont schedule regular community meals, but by providing things to do in the shared spaces, people will naturally come together to get to know each other. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Christian; McCamant and Durrett; and Balance individual and common identity: Hugh Mackay said, W e are individuals with a strong sense of our independent personal identity and we are members of families, groups and communities with an equally strong sense of social identity, fed by our intense desire to belong, (qtd. in Minter). Develop a cohesive pallet that contains enough diversity and opportunity for customization to represent both place, and express that in the design. Use style, color, and symbolism to create a feeling of groupness. Provide opportunities for variation on the theme to allow individual units to express their uniqueness. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Hester; Kaplan and Kaplan; Lovell; Mason; and W atson and Bentley. varying perceptions of individual identity. Units should have equal access to shared space and equal value to the neighborhood. Depending on the expected resident population, include as many opportunities for inclusion and acceptance as possible. Providing options for individualization within the identity of the group may be one way to accomplish this. This may include everything from distribution of space to materiality. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Hester; Lovell; Mason; McCamant and Durrett; and Meltzer. People feel more comfortable in spaces where they know what the expected includes treatment of boundaries and creating messages indicating who belongs, what they do here,

PAGE 17

11 temporal use, sense of location, and the meaning of the place. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Canter; Francis; Hayden; Lovell; and W atson and Bentley. Interdependence, socially recognized membership, and roles for members are also important for creating a sense of belonging, but are weak motivators for design decisions. Community Attachment Community Attachment is an emotional reliance on the people, social networks, or lifestyle of a selfus feel good and safe, (179). Manzo and Perkins add that community attachment includes an emotional connection based on a shared history, as well as shared interests or concerns, (339). As landscape architects we may not have control over who lives in our neighborhoods, but we must provide the setting for these attachments to develop. In a quantitative study exploring the natural environment as an element of community attachment, as being bound up with the social context of a lifestyle resulting from a natural environment. In 1974, Kasarda and Janowitz wrote a well known and thoroughly reviewed study which examines two models of community attachment: one that focuses on population size and density and the other on length of of community (community attachment/belonging) on the health and quality of life of residents. Findings showed a connection between sense of community and quality of life, but no connection with place and relational quality of life (811). This may be because of the shared history, culture, or identity of those living in a small town, or the opportunities for neighboring that running into the same people at the grocery store brings, or merely the fact that most of them have lived in the same town for a long time, but it is clear that all of these things are diluted in large cities. people. A real community does not exist without some kind of emotional glue that bonds people together.

PAGE 18

12 This is community attachment. W ithout this, people are just residents of a neighborhood, or a group of people who share some trait. However, the purview of this research does not include an argument for research focuses on the role of landscape in community attachment, which is to say providing a suitable context in which community attachments are easily developed. IC members are often brought together by shared values and interests. They typically design their homes to provide as many opportunities for neighboring as possible by grouping laundry and mailboxes, sharing over a community is present in their welcomed input at the regular meetings and collaborative planning structure of ICs. Designing for Community Attachment Create opportunities for neighboring: Create passive opportunities for neighbors to see each other, and spent time together. This seems to be one of the most important concepts in this research. In order for people to engage with their communities there must be convenient, open invitations to do so. Creating these opportunities includes limiting the number of units per community: having fewer than 12 households puts too much pressure on individuals to socialize while more than 35 households overwhelms both shared spaces and individuals ability to know all of their neighbors (McCamant and Durrett 249). The sweet spot seems to be around 20 households per community. Provide shared spaces where residents share ownership and can socialize (248). Common spaces often include: common houses for community meals, meetings, and recreation; a shared lawn, plaza, or play structure; and community gardens. The key to common spaces is that residents should have a practical reason to go there on a regular basis. A common house that no one has to go to will rarely get used. Putting the mail boxes there will ensure an almost daily visit from residents. Common spaces should have prominence in the community and each unit should have line of sight to the play structure at least. The more shared space that can be seen from a unit, the more invitation the resident has to join in. A cozy distance between houses (no more than 40) allows neighbors to greet

PAGE 19

13 each other (256). Consolidate footpaths from parking to houses to maximize casual encounters (Christian For more information see sources: Hester; and Lovell. Length of residence is shown to predict the level can be swapped between units or multi-level units that can be converted into two separate units as family structures and needs change. Shared spaces could be converted per the current needs of the community. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Brebner; Hester; and McCamant and Durrett. Highlight shared history, values, and interests: If the community comes fully formed to the designer, this will be easy. If not, the designer must make some educated guesses about the values and architecture while individuals who value independence and the idea of a single family home may prefer free standing units. This concept motivates design more or less depending on the type. For more W atson and Bentley. Neighborhood satisfaction: People are more likely to develop attachment to their communities noise, and crowding are all important considerations for people. There are many other sources that talk about the tenets of design. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see source: Hester. People need to feel like they matter and can have an impact on the world around them. Provide space for residents to make their neighborhood their own: perhaps a platform for residents to express or share their voices. See also Ownership under place attachment.

PAGE 20

14 This concept moderately motivates design. For more information see sources: Christian; Fromm; Lovell; McCamant and Durrett; and Norwood and Smith. Other concepts that contribute to community attachment like a common lifestyle or culture, a mutual commitment to the environment, a supportive social structure, and self identifying as a group are important Place Attachment Place attachment is an emotional reliance on a space or location because of the meaning it has and directed toward a certain locality. Place attachment appears to be less of a direct cultivator of social bonds but more of a motivating factor for interaction. An individual who is emotionally invested in a place should be motivated to work with and interact with others who share and invest in that place. If a person dislikes their neighbors because they wouldnt mind just packing up and moving. The role of landscape in place encourage place attachment. Place attachment is a varied and integrating concept. As Altman and Low suggest, place attachment aspects, origins, and purposes, (12). There are many aspects of place that create patterns of attachment including those based on emotional, cognitive, and practical reasons (8). Attachment can exist across scales. For example, one can experience attachment to their country, their region, their state, their city, their attachment can occur in individuals, groups, and entire cultures. It could develop because of the physical landscape, the climate, the seasons, or any part of a place that is meaningful. People often associate emotions they experienced in a place with the place itself, and in that way it becomes meaningful. These patterns of experience in a place ultimately become linked with the identity of individuals, groups, or cultures who use them (11).

PAGE 21

15 T illey argues that it is the day-to-day familiarity of a landscape that imbues it with placeness (2627). People use their knowledge of their locality to give meaning to their lives. This process works to create people who are of that place. This in turn engenders belonging, rootedness, familiarity, and a power to act. Relph argues that access to places with structure and meaning are a human need and that they should be made with authenticity and a commitment to personal authority and values (preface). He considers it important to appreciate the place for what it is, rather than what it can provide economically. In a study of individuals relationships with place, memory, and a sense of well-being, Costa et al concluded when place qualities are aligned with peoples interests and expectations they become special and part of their lives, and thus, they mediate, cultivate and reinforce well-being experiences, which are crucial to generate dialogues with and long lasting attachment with landscapes (132). Manzo and Perkins sought to make a connection between environmental and community psychology through urban planning. They argue that place attachments, place identity, sense of community, and social capital all contribute importantly to the interactions that aid in community development (347). Most notably, place attachments primarily interested in place attachment that is generated from added value in the landscape rather than mere familiarity with a place. This process has two sides: a positive one and a shadow side. In the past, these attachments unequally creating power imbalances that allow opportunities for domination and exploitation. However, studies have shown that residents who experience greater attachment to their neighborhood also enjoy greater social cohesion, social control, and maintenance of the appearance of their neighborhood while their fear of crime goes down. Place attachment is visible in intentional communities through the collaborative design process and the way they mark their place with representation of themselves. Members contribute regularly to the maintenance and appearance of their neighborhood, and they often have opportunities to contribute to the decision process over future changes to the neighborhood. Designing for Place Attachment

PAGE 22

16 Give people a sense of privacy. Privacy is a human need. W ithout it people feel threatened and are unlikely to develop a sense of security and long term attachment. This is one of the most frequently heard hesitations from people considering intentional community. They are afraid that they will have to be around other people all the time and everyone will know all their secrets. However, people who have lived in ICs for years explain that this doesnt have to happen and the design of the neighborhood has a lot to do with it. One solution is to provide an appropriate balance of shared, private, and transitional space for each community. A transitional zone of 10 between the shared walkway between houses and each dwelling space (Christian 149). Each dwelling should have somewhere to sit outside in seclusion (ex. back patio) and somewhere to sit outside that is available to neighbor interaction (ex. front porch). Dwelling windows should not face directly into neighboring windows. Dwellings should be separated by a cozy distance (i.e. 25 to 40) that is not too close to feel crowded and not so far that you cant say hello (McCamant and Durrett 256). This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; and Anundsen. Give the place a structure. Providing a recognizable structure prepares peoples expectations and helps them to feel comfortable in the knowledge of what a place is used for, who uses it, and when it should be used. It gives cues for where to go and how long to linger. This concept strongly motivates design. For Give the people some serenity. Instill a sense of peace and calm into the place that allows people to feel restful and rejuvenated in their neighborhood. This is strongly tied to beauty. People should want to spend time there. Each neighborhood should have comfortable places to rest in every season and time of day. Make it beautiful. Make it comfortable. Give people options. Include access to elements like water, Brebner; Lovell; Hester; Thayer; and W atson and Bentley.

PAGE 23

17 Program ongoing or repetitive activities. Program activities that give people recurring opportunities to engage in the place. Shared maintenance is an option, but also include opportunities that are fun, meaningful, and unique to the place. This concept strongly motivates design. Security: This basic tenet of design is both necessary for place attachment, its important to have a reasonable expectation of safety, and increased by place attachment. Knowledge of a place and the people of that place creates an increased sense of security regardless of the actual crime data. Appropriate lighting, conscious access, and visibility must all be considered. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Francis; and McCamant and Durrett. Use symbols: Provide symbols of the unique community experience of each neighborhood. This provides a sense of shared identity. Individuals have the opportunity to adopt the unique culture and express their membership in the tribe. This concept strongly motivates design. For more information see sources: Altman and Low; Hester; and Thayer. Ownership: A sense of ownership is important to peoples willingness to commit to something. space. The degree to which this should be done will depend on the values of the unique population of options in each unit for individuation or personal display. Assigning community responsibilities to each unit regardless of ownership status might work. Or provide renters opportunities to contribute to the community process. This concept motivates design depending on the neighborhood type. For more information see sources: Christian; Fromm; Lovell; McCamant and Durrett; and Norwood and Smith. People have expectations of what their place of residence should be like. Some of those expectations can be gently redirected. Some however, must be respected. This is more a designer knows their target population the stronger this concept will motivate the design. For more information see source: Christian. Professional Perspectives on Creating a Sense of Community Through Design

PAGE 24

18 mention cultural ecology (the interaction of technologies and resources), geomorphological regionalism (the adaptation to environmental challenges and opportunities), and environmental determinism (the environmental impacts on human habitation), but ultimately argue that it is the narratives and symbols Alexander had a holistic and integrated world-view of the relationship between people and place. He said, when you build a thing you cannot merely build that thing in isolation, but must also repair the world around it, and within it, so that the larger world at that one place becomes more coherent, and more whole; and the thing which you make takes its place in the web of nature, as you make it, (Alexander xiii). It was this world-view that inspired him to create an extensive list of design standards aimed at creating places with identity where people can have positive relationships with and within their environments. In the 1970s, Alexander developed a theory for building and planning in an attempt to understand the nature of the building process, (ix). Simultaneously he developed a pattern language (an extensive, scalable list of design elements and standards) designed to satisfy the lessons of his theory. He developed a language that would be vibrant, cohesive, and coherent and allow the towns and buildings to become those things as well (x). He believed this language to be dialectical and that new languages should be developed for each individual, group, project, and region. His goal was to help create places that would make people feel alive and human, (xvii). Like Alexanders theory, examples of intentional community design standards are dialectical Marsh, a resident of Earthaven Ecovillage with 25 years experience in permaculture design according to earthaven.org, is quoted in Christians book talking about designing for conviviality, (Making a for conviviality involves placing our access ways and building in patterns that allow for, and in fact encourage, quality human interactions as we go about our daily activities, (Christian 149). Patterns listed are: visual connection (line of sight to the community building and others homes); cozy distance (about

PAGE 25

19 ten feet from front porches to common pathways); prominence (give the community building centrality); social interaction). Additionally they list standards for the community building: put most amenities in the yourselves. neighborhoods according to his books website. Pocket neighborhoods are a form of intentional communities that focus on the form of the space rather than the social structure of the people who live 4 and 16 households (Chapin 8-9). In this example, the most important element of the landscape is the feeling of identity and security. It encourages casual interaction in the hopes that those relationships will develop into long-term friendships and community attachments. This chapter discussed sense of community and three primary aspects of it. Several design concepts were described for each aspect. Finally several designers were discussed to explore some of what has been done for sense of community in the design profession. The next chapter follows how the author applied

PAGE 26

20 CHAPTER III APPLYING THE CONCEPTS TO DESIGN How does a designer begin to apply the lessons from the research and intentional communities? Canter suggests these steps: 1. Identify the major places. 2. Elaborate qualities and attributes of those places. 3. Relate those places where the qualities are combined into a hierarchical structure. (163). For this project, the author uses the design l essons from the research to develop a purely conceptual model before translating it onto the unique needs and conditions of a real site. This chapter goes through how the author applies the research concepts to design. Each section will describe the questions encountered throughout the graphic decision making process. The Community Empowerment Model Figure 3. Community Empowerment Model. Diagram by Graham, Meltzer Stuart. Figure 18.1 This is the Community Empowerment Model described by Graham Meltzer. He examines how sustainability. It is described as a cyclical and iterative process that strengthens over time. The inputs at

PAGE 27

21 circumstance. However, this model shows why it might be possible to tweak circumstances and expect to be able to create environments that achieve a desired outcome of a sense of community. It is worth noting that belonging and attachment are a few steps away from the place where design interventions can be made: circumstance. This could suggest one reason why these social-emotional factors have been largely ignored in the design professions. They can only directly intervene in the circumstance order to achieve a desired outcome, for this thesis, a praxis of social support and community wellbeing, the right inputs should be made at every stage. W ithout the right circumstances present, the desired outcomes through the process of creating desired conditions by applying the community based design concepts. Conceptual Design For the conceptual design, the process begins with an overall look at the organization of houses around a central space (see Figure 4). Changing the number of sides in the geometric shapes and sizing greater the area of the central space. The exception to this is the star shapes which have much smaller total areas. This provides a baseline for beginning to apportion space. The shape of the space also changes how individual houses relate to each other. Next is the application of the design concepts. This process starts at the small scale and moved up from there. The existing plan, the redesign of which is the ultimate culmination of this thesis, used 200 tiny houses. 20 foot tiny houses on wheels became the unit model used throughout this process. The most relevant concepts at this stage are: shared activity space; opportunities for neighboring including: line of sight, prominence of shared space, convenient access to shared space with daily the most direct way to provide line of sight to a prominent common house from units is to organize them

PAGE 28

22 Figure 4.

PAGE 29

23 facing each other should be separated by no more than 40 feet. T o accommodate both of these concepts, discourages a design that leaves certain units pushed back or removed from the circle. as 20 units organized around a common house, lawn, play set, etc. Several shapes are then formalized to get an idea of circulation and spacial relationships (see Figure 5). Opportunities for neighboring are increased by placing parking outside of the community so residents pass through the common space on the way to and from their cars. Community Option C in Figure 5 is preferred due to its superior relationships between units. This exercise reveals that inclusion of a pod scale maximizes scales of sociability, maintains cozy distance, and retains prominence/centrality of common space. A pod consists of four units. Units have a private/secluded back yard space and a more socially available front porch to provide scales of sociability even within each unit. They are organized around a small central space and a shared footpath that leads to the community space (see Figure 6). This allows these four units to maintain a cozy distance and develop a more intimate/exclusive scale of sociability. Figure 6 shows again that when pods are organized around shapes with fewer sides, they take up less space and retain a cozier distance. However, these shapes also have a narrower line of sight range to the common space. Therefore the options for pod orientation to the common house are more limited. The pods are then arranged around the common spaces (see Figure 7). This allows the common house to remain prominent and accessible to each unit. Each unit has line of sight, but they are not directly facing the common house. This provides a community scale of sociability. Figure 7 shows how is preferred because it feels more organic and like moving through the landscape as part of it rather than between separate sections of the landscape. Figure 8 tries to squeeze more houses into the community. By adding one more unit to each pod, the community space is severely curtailed. Units are cramped together preferred.

PAGE 30

24 THOW THOWTHOW THOWCOMMON HOUSE THOW THOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOW THOW THOW THOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOW THOW LAWN PATIOPLAY LAWN PLAY THOW PATIO THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW COMMON HOUSE THOW THOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOWLAWN COMMON HOUSEPLAY THOW THOW THOW THOW COMMON HOUSE THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW LAWN PATIO PLAY THOWTHOWTHOWTHOW THOWPATIO THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW THOW LAWN COMMON HOUSE PLAY THOWTHOWTHOWTHOWCOMMON HOUSE THOW THOWTHOW THOWTHOWTHOWTHOW THOW THOW THOWTHOWTHOWTHOW THOWTHOW THOW LAWN PATIOPLAYTHOWTHOWTHOWTHOW THOW PATIO Figure 5. Formalized community shapes for 20 tiny houses on wheels, common spaces, and parking. Option C was preferred. Option A. Option B. Option C

PAGE 31

25 Figure 6.

PAGE 32

26 Figure 7. Option A. Option B.

PAGE 33

27 Figure 8.

PAGE 34

28 The design needs to include a total of 10 communities to meet the goal of 200 units set by the existing plan. This provides an opportunity for an additional scale of sociability: the neighborhood scale. amenities like a larger lawn, playground, covered pavilion, market/cafe, farm, etc (see Figure 9). The organization of the neighborhood scale led to a contentious argument between the author and faculty advisors. The problem, as ever, is parking. In order to maintain the relationship between community and neighborhood that should logically mimic the relationship between pod and community, parking needs to be central to the layout. If parking is removed to the outside edges of the neighborhood, either communities have to be turned away from the neighborhood common space removing line of sight, prominence, convenient access, and daily invitations to the neighborhood, or residents have to walk all the way around the community and through the neighborhood common space to get to their community and house. The other option is to maintain the relationship between community and neighborhood and leave parking on the outside, but then residents have to park then walk through what is essentially the back door of the community to get to their house. This option is the worst as it removes the opportunities for neighboring at both community and neighborhood scales. The author recognizes that having to walk between parking lots to move from one shared space to another is not ideal. However, given the constraints of the concepts of sociability, it is preferable to the alternatives. T o make up for it, special attention must be given to the aesthetics and function of the parking lots. Figure 10 shows a variation on the neighborhood design in which every two communities are angled toward each other. This creates an additional scale of sociability between those two communities. Figure 11 opportunities for distribution and variety of shared spaces. Figure 12 shows the scales of sociability for this resident of this hypothetical neighborhood. This provides seven options for her to choose how many people shed like to encounter at any one time. This concludes the conceptual design exploration.

PAGE 35

29 Figure 9. Communities around a decagon.

PAGE 36

30 Figure 10. Communities angled together to create an additional scale of sociability.

PAGE 37

31 Figure 11. Merged hexagons also create an additional scale of sociability, but they create better opportunities for distribution of space.

PAGE 38

32 Figure 12. Scales of sociability. Green is more private. Orange is more social.

PAGE 39

33 River View at Cleora Design The site selected to test this model is a tiny house community currently in development 5 miles homes manufactured and on foundations, a community center building, a community garden, a restaurant, an area for storage units, and about 4.57 acres of private open space and a public trail along the river, (see Figure 15) (Crabtree Group Inc. 1). Critique of the Existing Plan While Sprout, Crabtree, and Salida are to be applauded for their willingness to attempt a novel rental development like this, and while the design does include some community features like a community center and community garden, the design lacks many key design concepts that would make the community spaces more usable and increase the overall sense of community at the site. A better understanding of the concepts of shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and privacy as described by the research would improve the function and sense of community for this neighborhood. One problem with the existing plan is that the community center and garden are separated from the housing, and there arent any daily reasons for people to go there so they are likely to be under utilized for community. 200 units is too many for this chore to be an opportunity to get to know the neighbors. The same problem goes for the community garden. If the laundry and garden are broken up into separate community spaces serving a smaller number of units, they can serve the additional purpose of allowing neighbors to spend time together thereby creating a sense of community. These smaller community houses could also contain other opportunities for neighboring like large kitchens or barbecues, spaces to have in the existing plan would likely not work well. They must be closer to the units, within line of sight, and residents need a daily reason to pass though or by them.

PAGE 40

34 Figure 13. Aerial of Salida, CO and River V iew at Cleora site. Image by Google, US Dept of State Geographer. 2016.

PAGE 41

35 Figure 14. Site photos of River V iew at Cleora site, May 2016.

PAGE 42

36 Figure 15. Current site plan for River V iew at Cleora. Image by Crabtree Group Inc. River V iew at Cleora Planned Development and Subdivision. Salida, CO: City of Salida Public Hearing, 2016. 17. Print.

PAGE 43

37 Figure 16. Scales of sociability for current site plan. Image by Crabtree Group Inc. River V iew at Cleora Planned Development and Subdivision. Salida, CO: City

PAGE 44

38 As Figure 16 shows, the plan has few scales of sociability. All the neighborhood amenities are concentrated on one side and the rest of the space is focused on privacy and independence. Few of the units have line of sight to any community space. The space around the shared walkways have no invitations to socialize. At the same time having no truly private outdoor space for each unit, shared walls between neighborhood. Also, the pods dont have a sense of groupness or opportunity for unique character. In sum, there is a lot of room for improvement of sociability in this plan. River View at Cleora Re-design for Sense of Community At this point, the sense of community design concept of shared history, values, and interests becomes relevant. The anticipated population for the neighborhood is young (21-45 years old), low wage, working class individuals in the outdoor recreation, service, and marijuana industries. These people are expected to be outdoorsy/rural/minimalist types that value independence, fun, and a good challenge. If they are outdoor sport guides and service providers they probably like people and relaxing outdoors. This analysis leads to a fun opportunities to relax and connect with neighbors while retaining the independence and privacy of detached tiny houses. Figure 17 shows an early attempt at applying the concepts from the research to the design of the site. This attempt prioritizes the integrity of the community layouts developed in the conceptual model. In this plan there are only 136 houses in 7 communities and one of them doesnt even have access to the neighborhood shared space. There is a lot of unused leftover space on the site. It is clear that the design must be more sensitive to the conditions of the site. The next attempt (see Figure 18) starts with the smallest scale of community: an optimum pod layout which balances the amount of space it takes up and concepts of community derived from the research. These pods are distributed around the perimeter of the site leaving space adjacent to the river for recreation an circular pathway between communities for increased connection throughout the neighborhood and

PAGE 45

39 136 UNITS 184 SPACES1:150 0 75 150 300 N Figure 17. Early attempt at applying concepts of community to River V iew at Cleora.

PAGE 46

40 28 28 20 262625 28 24 205 UNITS 294 SPACES AA' 1:150 0 75 150 300 N Figure 18. Final site plan for River V iew at Cleora re-design.

PAGE 47

41 perhaps delivery of privately owned tiny houses on wheels. Community houses are added in the interior ring wherever they make sense and pods are angled to maximize line of sight to the community spaces. style units of 250 sq ft are added as a second story to each community house. This changes the character of the vacation rentals from cabin-like to hostel-like. However, the young, transitory population intended for this neighborhood may provide the social conditions that would be uniquely suited for this situation. The vacationers would make frequent use of the common house. They may also provide a sort of vibrancy that this population would appreciate. It would also simplify house keeping duties. This creates eight communities varying in size from 20 to 28 units. Each community is unique and organically shaped from the site. There are 205 units and 294 parking spaces. The central neighborhood space could include: a larger lawn for soccer or frisbee, a covered pavilion for neighborhood picnics or music concerts, and a playground (see Figure 19). Community spaces could include: a shared kitchen or option in every season and at every time of day. The scales of sociability for this plan are comparable to the conceptual model (see Figure 20). A resident still has their privacy and the option to be alone, but there are many more options to interact with use of space. This plan rendering begins to show how pods can express their unique identities through their shared space and transitional space. The beauty and comfort of the spaces provide many options to interact with the people and the place. Figure 24 shows the character of the planting zones and how they might This design gives people options and invitations. It provides an environment where people can get who live around them. In an environment like this, people can belong.

PAGE 48

42 28 28 20 262625 28 24 205 UNITS 294 SPACES AA' 1:150 0 75 150 300 N Figure 19. Programming for shared spaces.

PAGE 49

43 Figure 20. Scales of sociability for re-design. 28 28 20 262625 28 24 205 UNITS 294 SPACES AA' 1:150 0 75 150 300N 28 28 20 262625 28 24 205 UNITS 294 SPACES AA' 1:150 0 75 150 300 N

PAGE 50

44 Figure 21.

PAGE 51

45 Figure 22. Perspective rendering showing scales of sociability between community house and a pod.

PAGE 52

46 Figure 23. Zoomed in plan rendering of pods, a community, and neighborhood transitions.

PAGE 53

47 Figure 24. Experiential sections for planting zones.

PAGE 54

48 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION This thesis provides an interdisciplinary theoretical foundation for research and design into creating sociability and a sense of community in neighborhoods. Why is it important to have a sense of community around places of residence? It increases social stability. Stable societies are functional, productive, self perpetuating, and adaptable to change. In America today, many people live in social conditions that are broken, destructive, self sabotaging, and crumbling in the face of the massive climatic and social changes happening across the world. This lack of stability is contributing to the volatile political and social conditions the country is facing. From a more practical perspective, it makes sense to have a sense of community at home rather than online or through activity based groups. It increases security in the neighborhood when people know who is supposed to be there and who is not. It is convenient. Finally, it is a source of power. Local investment and in neighborhoods. There is evidence that belonging, place attachment, and community attachment contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and that the physical environment plays a role in the identity, bonding, and rootedness of people in place. Research from multiple disciplines is examined to develop a broad understanding of the relationships at play when bonding in place. It shows that certain design concepts like shared activities, opportunities for neighboring, and privacy are vital for developing a sense of community. Intentional communities are used as a model for building neighborhoods that prioritize social relationships. Intentional communities, built to enhance sociability in built space, teach that line of sight to prominent community space, cozy distance between housing units, and transitional space help to build a sense of community by creating invitations to engage in community activities and scales of sociability. These concepts provide options for people to choose how theyd like to experience their community and they enhance opportunities to connect with neighbors and the place.

PAGE 55

49 enhance and deepen the social bonds that sustain community through the design of a conceptual model and a tiny house community in Colorado. The design process showed that creating levels of sociability through the relationships of units to each other, to the community, and to the neighborhood maximizes the scales of sociability and options for residents. The re-designed River V iew at Cleora plan doesnt take into account some of the practicalities of building these developments like utilities. However, the human need for belonging is more basic than to make the infrastructure happen. Designers and planners dont have to wait for a group of people to come asking for a socially designed community. They can start providing people with community focused neighborhoods now. The author intends to continue this research. She would like to dive into a series of case studies for intentional communities and developments prioritizing sociability like Radburn, Baldwin Hills, and Lafayette Park. This would round out the research nicely. The search for community feeling has been part of the human condition for a long time. Going forward, this research will continue to develop into a more comprehensive understanding of how people are able to bond in place, and designers will hopefully learn from this. Then building belonging will become more of a priority in the development of built space.

PAGE 56

50 REFERENCES Altman, Irwin, and Setha M. Low. Place Attachment. 1st ed. V ol. 12. Springer US, 1992. Print. Human Behavior and Environment. Big Questions: Desmond T utu, T empleton Prize 2013. N.p., 2013. Film. Brehm, Joan M. Community Attachment: The Complexity and Consequence of the Natural Environment Facet. Human Ecology 35.4 (2007): 477. Print. Castree, Noel, Rob Kitchin, and Alisdair Rogers. belonging. A Dictionary of Human Geography. : Oxford University Press, 2013. Oxford Reference. 2013. Date Accessed 7 Sep. 2016. Christian, Diana Leafe. Creating a Life T ogether. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2003. Print. Clarkson, Adrienne. Belonging: The Paradox of Citizenship. T oronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2014. Print. Costa, Sandra, Richard Coles, and Anne Boultwood. Special Places and Attachment as Drivers for Cultivating W ell-Being. Landscape: A Place of Cultivation. Porto, Portugal: University of Porto, 2014. 131. W eb. 13 Mar. 2016. ECLAS. Crabtree Group Inc. River V iew at Cleora Planned Development and Subdivision. Salida, CO: City of Salida Public Hearing, 2016. Print. Gattino, Silvia Piccoli Norma Fassio, Omar Rollero, Chiara. Quality of Life and Sense of Community. a Study on Health and Place of Residence. Journal of Community Psychology 41.7 (2013): 811. EBSCOhost. W eb. home, n.1 and adj. OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. W eb. 18 October 2016. Hyde, Mary, and David Chavis. Sense of Community and Community Building. Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations. Ed. Ram A. Cnaan and Carl Milofsky. Springer US, 2008. 179. 0-link.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. W eb. 13 Mar. 2016. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Kasarda, John D., and Morris Janowitz. Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological Review 39.3 (1974): 328. JSTOR. W eb. Landscape Architecture and Public W elfare. Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards, 2010. W eb. 24 Apr. 2017. Leach, Neil. Belonging. AA Files 49 (2003): 76. Print. Lovell, Nadia, ed. Locality and Belonging. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. European Association of Social Anthropologists. Manzo, L ynne C., and Douglas D. Perkins. Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20.4 (2006): 335. 0-jpl.sagepub.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. W eb.

PAGE 57

51 Mayhew, Susan. belonging. A Dictionary of Geography. : Oxford University Press, 2015. Oxford Reference. 2015. Date Accessed 7 Sep. 2016 OGorman, Emily. Belonging. Environmental Humanities 5.1 (2014): 283. 0-environmentalhumanities.dukejournals.org.skyline.ucdenver.edu. W eb. Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. Print. Schatz, Alex P Regulation of Landscape Architecture and the Protection of Public Health, Safety, and W elfare. Lafayette, CO: The American Society of Landscape Architects, 2003. W eb. 17 Oct. 2016. Putnam, 1993. Print. Sprunt, David, and Michael W eir. ASLA Colorado Public W elfare Research Study. Denver, CO: American Society of Landscape Architects, Colorado, 2015. W eb. 24 Apr. 2017. Advocacy through Research. Sullivan, Esther. Individualizing Utopia: Individualist Pursuits in a Collective Cohousing Community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (2015): 1. W eb. T illey, Christopher. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1994. Print. Y uval-Davis, Nira. Belonging and the Politics of Belonging. Patterns of Prejudice 40.3 (2006): 197. T aylor and Francis+NEJM. W eb.

PAGE 58

52 APPENDIX A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PUBLIC WELF ARE IMPACT EVALUA TION This is the ASLA Public W elfare Impact Evaluation T ool developed by ASLA Colorado in 2015 in questions were developed directly from the seven impact areas described in the 2010 CLARB report on public welfare. I copied the text of the questions directly from ASLA Colorados 2015 report (Sprunt and W eir 35-43). Site Evaluation Questions Public Welfare Impacts of Landscape Architecture REMINDER: IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION The seven impact categories and their questions are designed to provide a framework for communicating information about the landscape architecture design and process. Answers to some questions may be more pertinent than others to understanding the story of landscape architectures public Impact 1 Enhancing Environmental Sustainability Landscape Architecture contributes to environmental sustainability by responding to development challenges with solutions that involve sensitivity towards natural systems. have access to common resources and are involved in active conservation of those resources. Questions 1-A) How did the landscape architect(s) integrate sustainability measures into the design? 1-B) How does the landscape design and/or how did the design process enhance environmental sustainability by being sensitive toward natural systems? Describe natural systems that were enhanced or protected from harm because of the involvement of landscape architects.

PAGE 59

53 (people, plants and animals) have access to common resources (water, food, fresh air, etc.)? 1-D) How does the landscape architecture design or design process protect natural systems and resources by helping community members become involved in actively conserving those resources? 1-E) Describe how an individual or group of individuals in the community became engaged in sustaining the environment because of the landscape architecture design or the design process. 1-F) How did involvement of landscape architects in the design process shape or guide development that preserves and protects natural systems? COMMENTS IMPACT 1 QUESTIONS Provide any comments or suggestions about the above Environmental Sustainability Impact questions: Impact 2 landscape architects assist policy makers and others to improve the marketability and long-term value of Questions 2-A) How does the landscape architecture and/or how did the design process contribute to economic sustainability in the local community, state, or region? 2-B) How did the landscape architect(s) assist policy makers in developing economic and planning

PAGE 60

54 2-C) How has the landscape architecture improved the marketability and long-term value of residential/commercial housing/property? Provide before-and-after stories and/or data of real estate values if available. 2-D) How has the landscape project reduced crime in the area? Provide anecdotal stories and/or before-and-after data if available. 2-E) How did involvement of landscape architects in the development process contribute to development solutions that enhanced economic growth in the local community, state or region? Describe 2-F) How does the landscape architecture improve air and water quality? Provide anecdotes and/ or data. What aspects did the landscape architect(s) consider in developing the design? Describe air/water quality before-and-after the implementation of the design. 2-G) How does the landscape architecture enhance and reduce energy consumption (electricity, gas, gasoline, etc.)? What aspects of energy conservation did the landscape architect(s) consider and implement when developing the design? 2-H) How does the landscape design enhance the quality of life and health of members of the local the landscape design. 2-I) How does the landscape design improve access to culture and recreation? How have individual COMMENTS IMPACT 2 QUESTIONS Impact 3 Promotes Public Health and W ell-Being Landscape Architecture is increasingly grounded in the growing body of research in public health. This research makes connections between human health and well-being and the conditions of the outdoor environment. Landscape Architecture projects can:

PAGE 61

55 Questions 3-A) How does the landscape architecture contribute to the mental and physical health of landscape architecture. Before-and-after comparisons are often useful. 3-B) How does the landscape architecture contribute to the mental health of the community? 3-C) How does the landscape architecture contribute to the physical health of the community? COMMENTS IMPACT 3 QUESTIONS Impact 4 Building Community life. By creating attractive, functional places, Landscape Architecture encourages people to engage in their surroundings, strengthening social cohesion, which in turn results in healthier, more dynamic, more resilient communities at the local, national and global levels. Questions 4-A) How did the landscape architecture process help to build community and improve quality of life? 4-B) How does the landscape architecture design serve to bring members of the community together and build social cohesion? 4-C) How does the landscape architecture design and design process encourage people to come together to enjoy and participate in community activities? Focus on what was happening in the community before implementation of the design/design process, and what has happened since the site was built. COMMENTS IMPACT 4 QUESTIONS Impact 5

PAGE 62

56 Encourages Landscape A wareness and Stewardship Landscape Architecture stimulates our awareness of the landscape and increases our understanding of the role that humans play in it. Landscape Architecture: cultivating a symbiotic and iterative relationship between people and their environment. Questions 5-A) How does the landscape architecture and/or the design process engage citizens to gain an appreciation for and awareness of the landscape? Provide stories of how individuals use the space. 5-B) How do individuals in the community participate in processes that shape the landscape and how did landscape architects create the opportunity for this engagement? Are there any aspects of the design that 5-C) How has the landscape architecture cultivated an interactive, symbiotic and iterative (repeating) protection, stewardship and understanding of the landscape? 5-E) How did the landscape architecture design or design process deepen community members COMMENTS IMPACT 5 QUESTIONS Impact 6 experience of landscape. properties, buildings, structures, districts, cultural landscapes, artistic objects and archeological

PAGE 63

57 elements. Questions 6-A) How does/did the landscape architecture and/or the design process engage citizens to experience enjoyment, contentment, stimulation or pleasure through the aesthetic experience of landscape? 6-B) How does the landscape architecture help preserve cultural heritage by preserving and protecting historic structures, districts, cultural landscapes, artistic objects and archaeological elements? 6-C) What aspects of sensory experience did the landscape architect(s) consider when developing the design? 6-D) How do visitors to the site engage in creative activity because of the landscape architecture design? 6-E) What aspects of historic preservation did landscape architects consider when developing the design, and how were these considerations implemented in the built project? 6-F) How does the landscape architectural design engage the visitor to consider former uses of the site and build an understanding of its historical context? COMMENTS IMPACT 6 QUESTIONS Impact 7 practical, day-to-day level, landscape architecture facilitates many human activities and functions such as: Questions 7-A) How does the landscape architecture and/or how did the design process help people by

PAGE 64

58 7-B) How does the landscape architecture and/or how did the design process enhance or encourage 7-C) How does the landscape architecture manage water use and drainage issues? Provide anecdotal information and/or quantitative information about water management (precipitation, storm water, ground water, city water, waste water, etc.). environment by addressing air quality issues? How has air quality improved because of the landscape architecture design? Provide beforeand-after examples if possible. COMMENTS IMPACT 7 QUESTIONS Thank you Overall Comments and Suggestions

PAGE 65

59 APPENDIX B P ARTIALLY ANNOT A TED BIBLIOGRAPHY BY SUBJECT Belonging Castree, Noel. Belonging. A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. geography term. It describes belonging in terms of attachments derived from lengthy immersion in a architecture, and globalization. Clarkson, Adrienne. Belonging: The Paradox of Citizenship. T oronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2014. Print. Cohen, Anthony P Belonging: Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1982. Print. Leach, Neil. Belonging. AA Files 49 (2003): 76. Print. This article published by the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London and authored by Leach (a British architect and architectural theorist) addresses the relationship between the built environment and cultural identity. Leach describes belonging as a model for understanding citations and notes. How does it contribute to the research conversation? Lovell, Nadia, ed. Locality and Belonging. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. European Association of Social Anthropologists. marinavelez. Symposium in Action. Cambridge Sustainability Residency. N.p., 24 Mar. 2016. W eb. 16 Sept. 2016. This is a blog post for the Cambridge Sustainability Residency (a project for artists working on sustainability) describes a symposium convened on discussing belonging and the boundaries it creates. It describes the motivation of and questions discussed, focusing on inclusion and exclusion in the geopolitical context. The post is short and doesnt describe the conversations that took place at the symposium. However, it does present the questions of belonging as they pertain to sustainability and a contributor of interesting questions. Mason, Andrew. Community, Solidarity and Belonging: Levels of Community and Their Normative Mayhew, Susan. Belonging. A Dictionary of Geography. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015. W eb. 6 Sept. 2016. Mayhew, Susan. Belonging, Geographies of. A Dictionary of Geography. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015. W eb. 6 Sept. 2016.

PAGE 66

60 OGorman, Emily. Belonging. Environmental Humanities 5.1 (2014): 283. 0-environmentalhumanities.dukejournals.org.skyline.ucdenver.edu. W eb. Wheatley, Margaret J. The Promise and Paradox of Community. The Community of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. W eb. 17 Oct. 2016. Y uval-Davis, Nira. Belonging and the Politics of Belonging. Patterns of Prejudice 40.3 (2006): 197. T aylor and Francis+NEJM. W eb. Community Attachment Brehm, Joan M. Community Attachment: The Complexity and Consequence of the Natural Environment Facet. Human Ecology 35.4 (2007): 477. Print. environment as an important element of community attachment. It was preceded by a quantitative analysis that suggested that natural environment may be a distinct dimension from the social. The results of this qualitative study using narratives of community members did not fully support this position and suggested that the elements may be more realistically integrated. Findings also reveal community attachment as reliant on the natural environment as well as being bound up with the social context of a lifestyle resulting from a natural environment. In growing communities, while networks) they may share connections over their attachment to the natural environment. Brehm exploring community attachment. This article supports the consideration of what Brehm calls the natural environment (a concept which seems to include the location, climate, situation, landscape, and natural amenities of a place). This is social bonding within a community. It may also support the idea that place attachment could serve as a motivating factor in the establishment and maintenance of social bonds. The limitations of the study include generalization (the study is based on interviews within one rural community with particular elements that are especially treasured). However, it appears to be a reliable source with good citations. Buttel, Frederick H., Oscar B. Martinson, and E. A. W ilkening. Size of Place and Community Attachment: A Reconsideration. Social Indicators Research 6.4 (1979): 475. Print. Journal article critiques the theories of Kasarda and Janowits. Comstock, Nicole et al. Neighborhood Attachment and Its Correlates: Exploring Neighborhood 435. ScienceDirect. W eb. See under Place Attachment Crenshaw, Edward, and Craig St John. The Organizationally Dependent Community A Comparative Study This study explores the relationship between neighborhood organizations and community attachment have weak social ties and are therefore dependent on neighborhood organizations to engage in

PAGE 67

61 the community). This article may not be useful since their focus is on the social mechanism by which community attachment is enhanced rather that the mechanisms in the physical environment. However, it does show how new communities can begin to develop attachment and cohesion through this process. Flaherty, Jeremy, and Ralph B. Brown. A Multilevel Systemic Model of Community Attachment: Assessing the Relative Importance of the Community and Individual Levels. American Journal of Sociology 116.2 (2010): 503. JSTOR. W eb. This sociology article written by a PhD student and a rural sociology professor at Brigham Y oung University improves on Sampsons multilevel approach to Kasarda and Janowitz systemic model of community. Their data came from the 2004 Iowa Rural Development Initiative Project that surveyed 150 households in each of 99 Iowa rural towns. Community attachment is measured in this survey through two sentimental questions: one that rates how much one feels at home in their community, and one that rates how sorry to leave one would feel if they had to. There is also a cognitive attachment question that asks how much one is interested in the goings on of their community. Independent variables measured include: length of residence, children, marital status, age, social position, education, income, race, sex, population size, miles to metro, residential stability, mean SES, density of acquaintanceship, and density of friendship. Though at times repetitive and awkwardly written, the authors show general support for the systemic model but suggest that the This article suggests that the social context of a community has little to do with an individuals community attachment and supports Kasarda and Janowitz conclusions that length of residence is the most important determinant of community attachment. However, they talk about community context but neglect almost entirely the physical attributes of a community. This seems to be a completely separate from their physical environment. The only gesture they make toward a physical variable is miles to metro, but really they mean miles to their friends and jobs. Gattino, Silvia, Norma Piccoli, Omar Fassio, and Chiara Rollero. Quality of Life and Sense of Community. a Study on Health and Place of Residence. Journal of Community Psychology 41.7 (2013): 811. EBSCOhost. W eb. of place attachment and sense of community on the health and quality of life of residents. Findings showed a connection between sense of community and quality of life, but no connection with psychological, and relational quality of life (811). well-being. The data may also support the hypothesis that place attachment enhances a sense of community, but the authors did not ask that question so Ill have to look closer at the data. Neighbourhood Attachment: Alternative or Complementary Mechanisms? Urban Studies 52.5 (2015): 984. 0-usj.sagepub.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. W eb. Goudy, W illis J. Further Consideration of Indicators of Community Attachment. Social Indicators Research 11.2 (1982): 181. Print.

PAGE 68

62 Hampton, Keith N., and Barry W ellman. Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood: Early Results from Canadas W ired Suburb. Digital Cities. Springer, 2000. 194. Google Scholar. W eb. 16 Feb. 2016. Hyde, Mary, and David Chavis. Sense of Community and Community Building. Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations. Ed. Ram A. Cnaan and Carl Milofsky. Springer US, 2008. 179. 0-link.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. W eb. 13 Mar. 2016. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Kasarda, John D., and Morris Janowitz. Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological Review 39.3 (1974): 328. JSTOR. W eb. Oktay, Derya, Ahmet Rstemli, and Robert W Marans. Neighborhood Satisfaction, Sense of Community, and Attachment: Initial Findings from Famagusta Quality of Urban Life Study. ITU A/Z Journal 6.1 (2009): 6. Print. Sundblad, Daniel R.Sapp Stephen G. The Persistence of Neighboring as a Determinant of Community Attachment: A Community Field Perspective. Rural Sociology 76.4 (2011): 511. EBSCOhost. W eb. Internet. Journal of Urban T echnology 20.2 (2013): 77. Print. See under Place Attachment T onnies, Ferdinand. Gemeinschaft Und Gesellschaft. English. T rans. Charles P Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957. Print. This foundational work in sociology was originally written in German in 1887. Here Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft is translated as Community and Society, concepts which are based on ideas of natural will and rational will. According to T onnies, all social relationships are created by human will, (4). Natural will is the original element in any process of willing which is derived from the temperament, character, and intellectual attitude of the individual, (5). In this case the relationship is perceived to be valuable as an end in and of itself. Rational will is prevalent when the means and ends of a relationship are distinct, and the individual engages in it for the purpose of achieving a goal beyond the relationship itself. These categories are described by Loomis as ideal types that neither exist empirically nor could be extracted from a real society. Both types are present in all human interactions, though some are motivated more strongly by one than the other. These types can social entities: social relationships (resulting from physical, willed relationships and conditioned by the consideration of others), collectives (groups which lack the ability to express or represent the collective wills of those who compose them), and social organizations or corporations (groups that have the ability to express or represent the collective wills of those who compose them). He norms give regularity to the social entities. T onnies also divided social values and systems of human endeavor into three: economic, political, and intellectual or spiritual. For T onnies the end and meaning of any social order was peaceful relationships among men. W asserman, Ira M. Size of Place in Relation to Community Attachment and Satisfaction with Community Services. Social Indicators Research 11.4 (1982): 421. Print.

PAGE 69

63 Place Attachment Altman, Irwin, and Setha M. Low. Place Attachment. 1st ed. V ol. 12. Springer US, 1992. Print. Human Behavior and Environment. landscape architecture, psychology, marketing, folklore, sociology, anthropology, environmental studies, gerontology, and family and consumer studies. They investigate place attachment at a variety of scales from small-scale objects to large-scale regions. They list their assumptions: [1] place attachment is an integrating concept comprising interrelated and inseparable aspects; [2] the origins of place attachments are varied and complex; [3] place attachment contributes to individual, that incorporates several aspects of people-place bonding. The contributors to this volume are many writers conclude that these qualities are accompanied by the way people think about a place and the things they do there. Also integrated into the concepts are patterns of places that vary in relationships [between and among these actors]; [and] temporal aspects [that can be linear or cyclical in nature], (8). Four processes are mentioned in the formation or maintenance of place attachments: [1] biological, [2] environmental, [3] psychological, and [4] sociocultural. Also addressed in this volume are the roles and purposes of place attachment, including security, exploration, predictability, control, and individual, group, and cultural identity, (12). Comstock, Nicole et al. Neighborhood Attachment and Its Correlates: Exploring Neighborhood 435. ScienceDirect. W eb. attachment (a socio-psychological process that captures ones emotional connection to his or her social and physical surroundings [435]) in relationship to neighborhood conditions, social processes, and recreational gardening as indicators and mechanisms of health behavior change. This study used a combination of data sources that include face-to-face surveys, neighborhood audits, to suggest that the implementation of this environmental element could enhance place bonding. The authors argue that participating in this type of social activity and experiencing the subsequent deepening of place attachment can motivate individuals to more positive health behaviors. Costa, Sandra, Richard Coles, and Anne Boultwood. Special Places and Attachment as Drivers for Cultivating W ell-Being. Landscape: A Place of Cultivation. Porto, Portugal: University of Porto, 2014. 131. W eb. 13 Mar. 2016. ECLAS. This short article takes a landscape perspective on place and place attachment. The writers developed a study with the intent of producing a greater understanding of the relationships individuals have with a gps, camera, and voice recorder and allowing them to engage in a self narrated walk through a built, outdoor environment like a park or a garden. This process allowed individuals the take their time and move themselves toward their own most positive experience of the site. The conclude, when place qualities are aligned with peoples interests and expectations they become special and part of their lives, and thus, the mediate, cultivate and reinforce well-being experiences, which are crucial to generate dialogues with and long lasting attachment with landscapes (132).

PAGE 70

64 This article suggests a methodology for examining individuals experience of place. It is relevant to my research because it addresses this question of how a place contributes to the well-being of individuals. Most of their data came from solo walks in a landscape. However, a large part of the senses of enjoyment and well-being that was produced these walks actually resulted from positive associations created by memories of experiences with loved ones. As Brehm et al. suggests it may be impossible to separate the social from the physical experience of a place. This article suggests that positive social experiences contribute to attachment to place. Perhaps also positive place experiences contribute to social attachment. Region. The Sociological Quarterly 34.1 (1993): 111. JSTOR. W eb. This sociological article explores place identity in Cape Cod, MA. For the purpose of this study, place identity is expressed as at-homeness. They explored this attachment across three scales which the authors distinguish as dwelling, community, and region. Their research questions address the extent to which individuals identify with place in one or more locations, the factors that enhance place identity across scales, and whether these factors associated with one location support identity by a range of social factors. Only dwelling-related factors like home ownership and variety of compare between lifetime residents and migrants. attachment. Interestingly, their questions revolve around socio-cultural activities and states of being and do not include interaction with the environment, land, or natural assets where they live. Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge; London: The MIT Press, 1997. Print. This urban history focuses on communities in Los Angeles Hidalgo, M. Carmen, and Bernardo Hernndez. PLACE ATTACHMENT : CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL QUESTIONS. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21.3 (2001): 273. ScienceDirect. W eb. Hull, R. Bruce. IMAGE CONGRUITY PLACE ATTACHMENT AND COMMUNITY DESIGN. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 9.3 (1992): 181. Print. Kashef, Mohamad. Sense of Community and Residential Space: Contextualizing New Urbanism within a Broader Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Architectural Research 3.3 (2009): 80. Print. Lalli, Marco. Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement, and Empirical Findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12.4 (1992): 285. ScienceDirect. W eb.

PAGE 71

65 Lekies, Kristi S. Connection to Place: Exploring Community Satisfaction and Attachment among Rural Y outh. Children, Y outh and Environments 21.2 (2011): 77. Print. Manzo, L ynne C, and Douglas D. Perkins Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20.4 (2006): 335. CrossRef. W eb. This article published in the planning literature seeks to make a connection between environmental and community psychology research on place attachment and the corresponding literature from urban and community planning. This article demonstrates that place attachments, place identity, sense of community, and social capital are all critical parts of person-environment transactions that foster the development of to places can help inspire action because people are motivated to seek, stay in, protect, and improve places that are meaningful to them. Consequently, place attachment, place identity, and sense of community can provide a greater understanding how neighborhood spaces can motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to preserve, protect, or improve their community and participate in local planning processes (347). Milligan, Melinda J. Interactional Past And Potential: The Social Construction Of Place Attachment. Symbolic Interaction 21.1 (1998): 1. JSTOR. W eb. Poortinga, W et al. Neighborhood Quality and Attachment: V alidation of the Revised Residential Environment Assessment T ool. Environment and Behavior (2016): n. pag. CrossRef. W eb. 13 Mar. 2016. Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. Print. (preface). Relph argues that access to places with structure and meaning are a human need and that they should be made with authenticity (a commitment to personal authority and values). Authentic place-making allows us to develop and appreciate places for what they are rather than for their economic or technical value. Rodman, Margaret C. Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality. American Anthropologist 94.3 (1992): 640. W iley Online Library. W eb. Empirical Study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010): 198. Print. and Local V ersus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environment and Behavior 45.1 (2013): 60. eab.sagepub.com. W eb. Internet. Journal of Urban T echnology 20.2 (2013): 77. Print. T ayebi argues for an end to the binary and deterministic approaches that social science researchers neighborhood: a binary approach in distinguishing community versus neighborhood based on their

PAGE 72

66 attachment to location, and a deterministic approach where information technology is seen as active group. Here, T ayebi argues that shared physical space is necessary for building trust and transferring knowledge, but online space is useful for maintaining connections and sharing informations. Hybrid diversity of communihood allows members to keep their individual identities and contribute to a new, multicultural society. Place-based power uses information technology to empower individuals where they are externally to the physical social ties they have or do not have in the place where they (89). T illey, Christopher. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1994. Print. V aske, Jerry J., and Katherine C. Kobrin. Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 32.4 (2001): 16. Print. Attachment. Environment and Behavior 33.2 (2001): 249. eab.sagepub.com. W eb. W ilson, Ben. What, Why, How; Humans and Their Multiple Relationships to Multiple Environments. Masters Thesis. University of the W est of England, 2015. W eb. 13 Mar. 2016. Intentional Communities Chapin, Ross. Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale W orld. Newtown, CT : The T aunton Press, 2011. Print. engaging shared space for the residents. It is anecdotal and autobiographical. It contains a series of documentations of neighborhoods hes designed. Christian, Diana Leafe. Creating a Life T ogether. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2003. Print. This non-academic text, written by a layperson with decades of experience working with and living in intentional communities, gives advice on the creation of intentional communities by residents rather than designers. It focuses on establishing and maintaining social ties but does advise on the selection of land and the construction of the community. This book is anecdotal and unreferenced. Francis, Mark. V illage Homes: A Community by Design. W ashington, Covelo, London: Island Press, 2003. Print. Land and Community Design Case Study Series. Fromm, Dorit. Collaborative Communities: Cohousing, Central Living, and Other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. New Y ork: V an Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. Print. Holloway, Mark. Heavens on Earth: Utopian Communities in America 1680-1880. 2nd ed. New Y ork: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966. Print.

PAGE 73

67 This book recounts the histories of many of what the author considered to be, the most important and typical American communities (back cover) that existed during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Holloway argues that while few of these utopian experiments lasted more describes the origins of utopian communities beginning with the Paleolithic Age, moving rapidly through ancient Greece, Syria, and concluding with the early Christian sects whose persecution in Europe encouraged them to seek their homes in the new world. The following chapters explore the in the late 1800s that gradually displaced many of the residual utopias. At the end of the book, Holloway concludes that the quality of life for residents of these communities was unequivocally superior to those of similar station but exterior to the community. The disadvantages he noted included a stolid practicality among the residents who had little appreciation for Art and Beauty, rigid moral codes and social rules enforced among many of the communities, and a necessary succeed, members must share some fundamental belief that can keep them together through personal and environmental hardships. Holtzman, Gilo. Community by Design, by the People: Social Approach to Designing and Planning Cohousing and Ecovillage Communities. Journal of Green Building 9.3 (2014): 60. Print. L yndon, Donlyn, and Jim Alinder. The Sea Ranch: Fifty Y ears of Architecture, Landscape, Place, and Community on the Northern California Coast. Revised. New Y ork: Princeton Architectural Press, 2014. Print. McCamant, Kathryn, and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2011. Print. McCamant, Kathryn, Charles Durrett, and Ellen Hertzman. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. 2nd ed. Berkeley, California: T en Speed Press, 1994. Print. Meltzer, Graham Stuart. Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model. V ictoria, BC: Miles, Malcolm. Urban Utopias: The Built and Social Architectures of Alternative Settlements. New Y ork: Routledge, 2008. Print. This book written by a professor of cultural theory in the UK attempts to merge research on literary utopias with lessons learned from alternative societies (intentional communities, retreats, activist those driven to create a more perfect world for humankind to live in. Norwood, Ken, and Kathleen Smith. Rebuilding Community in America: Housing for Ecological Living, Personal Empowerment, and the New Extended Family. Berkeley, California: Shared Living Resource Center, 1995. Print. These architects and intentional community activists wrote this book as a guide for designers and laypersons interested in developing their own intentional communities. It advocates for building communal living as an alternative to the consumerism, exploitation, and individualism of contemporary American neighborhoods. As an intentional community development guide, this book is comprehensive and includes dozens of diagrams, illustrations, plans, and resources. While somewhat earthy in tone and certainly not academic in nature, it is highly detailed and useful.

PAGE 74

68 Pitzer, Donald E., ed. Americas Communal Utopias. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Print. This collection of history essays uses the perspective of developmental communalism to place Developmental communalism examines whole movements and how they change over time, from their idealistic origins to their communal stages, and beyond, (12). These essays claim to tell the stories of how and why groups choose communal living and how their ultimate commitment or departure from this way of life progressed. Putnam, 1993. Print. Site and Home Design Issues. Fellowship for Intentional Community. N.p., n.d. W eb. 25 Oct. 2016. Sullivan, Esther. Individualizing Utopia: Individualist Pursuits in a Collective Cohousing Community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (2015): 1. W eb. V illage Design and Planning Permaculture and Patterns. Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. N.p., 6 Jan. 2011. W eb. 25 Oct. 2016. Spatial Design Alexander, Christopher. A Pattern Language. New Y ork: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print. This book is volume 2 of a work that provides a language for planning and construction and the theory behind the language. This volume describes the detailed patterns for towns and neighborhoods, houses, gardens, and rooms (ix). V olume 1, The T imeless W ay of Building, provides the instructions for the practice of design using the language provided in volume 2. Alexander, Christopher. The T imeless W ay of Building. New Y ork: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print. ASLA Code of Professional Ethics | Asla.org. N.p., n.d. W eb. 17 Oct. 2016. Brebner, John. Environmental Psychology in Building Design. London: Applied Science Publishers LTD, 1982. Print. Architectural Science Series. Busbea, Larry. T opologies: The Urban Utopia in France, 1960-1970. Cambridge; London: MIT Press, 2007. Print. This book, written by an assistant professor of art history at the University of Arizona, attempts to narrow the study of the experimental architectural movement that swept many countries during the 1960s. By limiting the scope to the avant-gardist utopian work in France during this period, Busbea is able to include deeper historical context to the research as well as reveal subtle distinctions between French programs that are commonly grouped together. The book focuses on the development of spatial urbanism and mobile architecture and includes the external context within which these concepts were created. Busbea argues this period in France represents the Psychology of Place. New Y ork: St. Martins Press, 1977. Print. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation (2014): n. pag. Google Scholar. W eb. 16 Feb. 2016.

PAGE 75

69 This short, urban studies policy research brief summarizes how the neighborhood context of the social cohesion, social control, spatial mismatch, and environmental hazards (1). Hester, Randolph T Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006. Print. Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge; New Y ork: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print. the forming of space. Hillier and Hanson argue that it is the purpose of a building is the organization of space rather than as an object in itself. Buildings are not just objects, but transformations of space through objects, (1). By doing this structuring of space, design has a direct impact on social life; it provides the material preconditions for the patterns of movement, encounter and avoidance which are the material realization as well as sometimes the generator of social relations, (ix). The authors argue that the most fundamental fact of space is that the ordering of space through the construction of our physical world is social behavior. Kaplan, Stephen, and Rachel Kaplan. Humanscape: Environments for People. Michigan: Ulrichs Books, Inc., 1982. Print. Katz, Peter, ed. The New Urbanism: T oward an Architecture of Community. New Y ork: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994. Print. Larco, Nico, Kristin Kelsey, and Amanda W est. Site Design for Multifamily Housing: Creating Connected Neighborhoods. W ashington DC: Island Press, 2014. Print. Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System: Program Manual. W eb. 17 Oct. 2016. Natural Design Solutions, Landscape Architect, Landscape Design. Natural Design Solutions, Landscape Architect, landscape design. N.p., n.d. W eb. 17 Oct. 2016. Schatz, Alex P Regulation of Landscape Architecture and the Protection of Public Health, Safety, and W elfare. Lafayette, CO: The American Society of Landscape Architects, 2003. W eb. 17 Oct. 2016. Stitt, Fred A. Ecological Design Handbook: Sustainable Strategies for Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Interior Design, and Planning. New Y ork: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Print. Thayer, Robert L. Jr. Gray W orld, Green Heart: T echnology, Nature, and the Sustainable Landscape. New Y ork: John W iley & Sons, Inc., 1994. Print. The W iley Series in Sustainable Design. W atson, Georgia Butina, and Ian Bentley. Identity by Design. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007. Print.

PAGE 76

70