Urban Planning
Fatemeh Shams; Mohammad Reza Pourjafar; Seyed Mahdi Khatami; ali soltani
Abstract
Highlights- The prevailing understanding of neighborhoods has lacked a dialectical perspective and has been devoid of social and semantic layers.- Over time, the concept of a neighborhood has evolved from a purely physical entity to a more complex semantic, perceptual, and mental construct.- The traditional ...
Read More
Highlights- The prevailing understanding of neighborhoods has lacked a dialectical perspective and has been devoid of social and semantic layers.- Over time, the concept of a neighborhood has evolved from a purely physical entity to a more complex semantic, perceptual, and mental construct.- The traditional neighborhood, as an identifiable civic entity, comprises four key elements: space, time, citizen, and activity.- Revisiting the core themes of the social ontology of traditional neighborhoods can contribute to the revitalization of contemporary urban neighborhoods.- The social capacities and sociability of a neighborhood form the fundamental themes of the social ontology of traditional neighborhoods.IntroductionOver the past decades, numerous discussions have attempted to define the concept of a neighborhood. Initially, the definition of a neighborhood was rooted in the principle of separation, emphasizing the presence of social boundaries. However, as urban development advanced, the transformation of neighborhoods in the modern era signaled the emergence of new conceptualizations, where planning and design often preceded social structures.Despite extensive academic discourse, a universally accepted definition of a neighborhood remains elusive. Examining the spatial aspects of neighborhoods requires a well-defined theoretical framework that captures the lived experiences of residents and the interrelationship between people, activities, and spaces. The ambiguity in defining neighborhoods stems from the absence of a standardized conceptual framework, resulting in varied interpretations and applications across disciplines. This challenge has hindered the ability of urban scholars to fully grasp the implications of neighborhood effects on social interactions and urban cohesion.Theoretical FrameworkNeighborhoods have long been a focal point of social science research. Sociologists have regarded neighborhoods as "genuine phenomena" with intrinsic social significance. The scientific study of neighborhoods as independent subjects gained traction in the late 19th century. By the 1960s, the concept of the neighborhood had gained prominence within professional communities, yet definitions increasingly overlooked its locational aspects.In the 21st century, social theorists revisited early neighborhood conceptualizations, such as those formulated by the Chicago School, which emphasized demographic characteristics as defining factors. This approach viewed neighborhoods primarily through socio-economic, moral, and racial transformations. However, the perception of neighborhoods gradually shifted from being purely physical constructs to more perceptual and mental entities, characterized by four key dimensions: space, time (history), citizens (individuals, groups, and institutions), and activities or functions.Historical research suggests that the concept of a neighborhood is best understood as a dynamic and evolving process. The "accumulation of similar behavioral patterns" and a "valued perception of a fixed territory" contribute to the neighborhood's identity. Modernity has introduced additional complexities, reinforcing the importance of reevaluating traditional neighborhood frameworks.MethodologyThis study is classified as fundamental research with a qualitative approach. Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method, it employs a systematic review and thematic analysis technique to analyze 36 primary sources. The research follows a six-step process:Immersion in the dataGeneration of primary codesIdentification of themesExamination and refinement of themesDefinition and naming of themesReport preparationResults and DiscussionThe research findings indicate that the social ontology of traditional neighborhoods revolves around two main themes:Capacities of Local Communities, encompassing:Social attachment, which includes attitudinal and behavioral attachment, neighborhood satisfaction, emotional investment, preservation of neighborhood assets, social belonging, pride, and the willingness to defend neighborhood boundaries.Social cohesion, which involves fostering deep interpersonal bonds, shared traditions, community participation, and a collective sense of kinship.Community Neighborhood Acceptance, comprising:Social obligations, which include collective goals, participatory social practices, neighborhood honor, tolerance, mutual trust, crisis unity, and resident engagement in shaping the neighborhood’s future.Public good and empowerment, which pertains to the enhancement of interpersonal resources, skill development, neighborhood loyalty, social support systems, local entrepreneurship, and the sustainability of cultural and economic self-sufficiency.These thematic elements highlight the critical role of neighborhood sociability in fostering cohesive, resilient, and sustainable urban communities. The study underscores that social attachment and cohesion serve as foundational elements for the vitality of traditional neighborhoods.ConclusionThis study aimed to reinterpret the concept of the traditional neighborhood and examine its transformation across different historical periods. By exploring the social aspects of traditional neighborhoods, it identified four primary components that shape their ontology: space, time, citizen, and activity. These elements interact dynamically, influencing both urban structure and citizenship practices.Over time, the understanding of neighborhoods has transitioned from being purely physical constructs to more semantic, perceptual, and mental entities. However, despite this conceptual evolution, neighborhoods remain tangible manifestations of social and spatial dynamics. The increasing divergence between social and physical structures, coupled with enhanced mobility and technological advancements, has complicated the definition and lived experience of neighborhoods in contemporary urban contexts.The findings suggest that revitalizing urban neighborhoods requires a return to the foundational principles of traditional neighborhood design. By integrating social ontology into modern urban planning, policymakers and designers can cultivate more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable urban environments.
