Community Well-Being in Neighbourhoods: Achieving Community and Open-Minded Space through Engagement in Neighbourhoods

A Correction to this article is available

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article identifies an opportunity to reinvigorate our theoretical understanding of community well-being at the neighbourhood scale as increasing numbers of cities around the world turn their attention to neighbourhood scale redevelopment of model sustainable communities. We identify three primary theoretical axes for this reinvention of the notion of the neighbourhood scale community, all oriented toward a philosophical approach derived from American pragmatism. First is the reorientation of older ideas of the political project of building the Great Society toward an alternative project of building the Great Community, via the work of “commoning,” which respects the value of diversity, democratic participation and communication. Second is the work of not merely placemaking but also politically constituting the public sphere within public spaces at the neighbourhood scale. Third and finally is the reinvention of our theories of social and political engagement in the public sphere as not only serving representative democratic process, nor distinguishing simply between classes of active versus inactive participants in public life, but as identifying the actual regimes of engagement directing and mediating participation in the neighbourhood community sphere.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 20 May 2019

    This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A3A2924563) and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through an��Insight Grant.

References

  1. Adger, W. N., & Jordan, A. (Eds.). (2009). Governing sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agrawal, A. (2002). Common resources and institutional sustainability. In E.Ostrom (Ed.), The Drama of the Commons, 41–86. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Agyeman, J., & Evans, T. (2003). Toward just sustainability in urban communities: building equity rights with sustainable solutions. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amin, A. (2008). Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barcelona Urban Ecology Agency. (2015). Conceptual model: Superblocks. http://bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblocks. Accessed 31 Aug 2015.

  7. Barrington-Leigh, C. (2017). Sustainability and well-being: a happy synergy. Great transition initiative. Online http://well-being.ihsp.mcgill.ca/publications/Barrington-Leigh-GTI2017-Sustainability-and-Well-Being.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017.

  8. Blok, A. (2012). Greening cosmopolitan urbanism? On the transnational mobility of low-carbon formats in northern European and east Asian cities. Environment and Planning A, 44(10), 2327–2343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blokker, P., & Brighenti, A. (2011). An interview with Laurent Thévenot: on engagement, critique, commonality, and power. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(3), 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bresnihan, P., & Byrne, M. (2015). Escape into the city: everyday practices of commoning in the production of urban space in Dublin. Antipode, 47(1), 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chatterton, P. (2010). Seeking the urban common. City, 14(6), 625–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cuthill, M. (2010). Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid growth urban region in Australia. Sustainable Development, 18, 362–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Davies, W. (2012). The emerging neocommunitarianism. The Political Quarterly, 83(4), 767–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. De Angelis, M. (2007). The beginning of history: Value struggles and global capital. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. De Angelis, M. (2012). Crises, capital and cooptation: Does capital need a commons fix? In D. Bollier & S. Helfrich (Eds.), The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state. Amherst: Levellers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt & Co..

    Google Scholar 

  19. Diez Roux, A. V., & Mair, C. (2010). Neighborhoods and health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186, 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. EcoDistricts. (2014). Policy framework for local governments. Portland: EcoDistricts.

    Google Scholar 

  21. El Din, H. S., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E., & Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. Housing and Building National Research Center Journal, 9(1), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Etzioni, A. (1994). The spirit of community: The reinvention of American society. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fainstein, S. (2005). Cities and diversity: should we want it? Can we plan for it? Urban Affairs Review, 41(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fournier, V. (2013). Commoning: on the social organisation of the commons. Management, 16(4), 433–453.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Frank, L.D., Kerr, J.K., Rosenberg, D., & King, A. (2010). Healthy aging and where you live: community design relationships with physical activity and body weight in older Americans. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7(Suppl.1), S82–S90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gans, H. (1968). People and plans: Essays on urban problems and solutions. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gardiner, M. (2004). Everyday utopianism: Lefebvre and his critics. Cultural Studies, 18(2-3), 228–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gilroy, R. (2012). Well-being and the neighbourhood: Promoting choice and independence. In S. Atkinson, S. Fuller, & J. Painter (Eds.), Well-being and place (pp. 73–88). Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gilroy, R. & Booth, C. (1999). Building an infrastructure for everyday lives. European Planning Studies, 7(3), 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Groth, J., & Corgin, E. (2005). Reclaiming urbanity: indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42(3), 503–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53(Sept/Oct), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hirsch, J. A., Moore, K. A., Barrientos-Gutierrez, T., Brines, S. J., Zagorski, M. A., Rodriguez, D. A., & Diez Roux, A. V. (2014). Built environment change and change in BMI and waist circumference multi-ethnic study of artherosclerosis. Obesity, 11, 2450–2457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Holden, M., Li, C., & Molina, A. (2015). The emergence and spread of ecourban neighbourhoods around the world. Sustainability, 7(9), 11418–11437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Holden, M., Li, C., Molina, A., & Sturgeon, D. (2017). Crafting new urban assemblages and steering neighborhood transition: actors and roles in ecourban neighborhood development. Articulo Journal of Urban Research, 14.

  38. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jeffrey, A., McFarlane, C., & Vasudevan, A. (2012). Rethinking enclosure: space, subjectivity and the commons. Antipode, 44(4), 1247–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Joseph, M. (2002). Against the romance of community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Linebaugh, P. (2008). The magna carta manifesto. Liberties and commons for all. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. Harcourt. New York: Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pagano, M. A. (Ed.). (2015). Return of the neighborhood as an urban strategy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Perry, C. A. (1939). Housing for the machine age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Petrescu, D., Petcou, C., & Baibarac, C. (2016). Co-producing commons-based resilience lessons from R-urban. Building Research and Information, 44(7), 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Project for Public Spaces. (2015). Our approach. http://www.pps.org/about/. Accessed 31 Aug 2015.

  50. Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society, 25(3), 327–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Talen, E. (2008). Design for diversity: Exploring socially mixed neighborhoods. London: Architectural Press (Elsevier).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tonkiss, F. (2013). Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City, 17(3), 312–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tonnies, F. (1887). In: C. P. Loomis (Ed., transl), Community and society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (pp. 223–231). Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

  56. UK Urban Task Force. (1999). Towards an urban renaissance. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  57. Walzer, M. (1986). Pleasures and costs of urbanity. In P. Kasinitz (Ed.), Metropolis: Center and symbol of our times (pp. 320–330). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2054622) and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through Insight Grant 435-2014-0465. The author also gratefully acknowledges the feedback received on an earlier draft from other participants at the 4th International Forum on Community Well-being in Brisbane, Australia, and the research assistance of Ana Molina.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meg Holden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holden, M. Community Well-Being in Neighbourhoods: Achieving Community and Open-Minded Space through Engagement in Neighbourhoods. Int. Journal of Com. WB 1, 45–61 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-018-0005-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Community
  • Public interest
  • Commons
  • Community well-being
  • Neighborhood