Post on 21-Sep-2020
transcript
Original Article
The essence of neighbourhood community centres(NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
Primoz Medved
Interdisciplinary Doctoral Programme in Environmental Protection, University of Ljubljana,Kongresni trg 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.E-mail: primozmedved@yahoo.com
Abstract This paper analyses an often underestimated and ignored urban design element: the neighbourhoodcommunity centre (NCC). The aim is to define, describe and highlight the multidimensional effects that aneighbourhood community centre (NCC) has on a local urban community, and to examine the possible corre-lation between the level of the NCC’s development and the neighbourhood’s ‘‘social urban sustainability’’ (socialcohesion, local identity, sense of place etc.). The main research effort involves exploring and comparing theimplementation and development of NCCs in ‘‘exemplary urban systems’’—the best and most well-knownsustainable neighbourhoods in Europe. The final international comparative analysis of NCCs in Europeansustainable neighbourhoods offers very specific, valuable propositions that can be transferred to future NCCs,with an adaptation to local urban specifics.URBAN DESIGN International (2017) 22, 150–167. doi:10.1057/s41289-016-0037-1;published online 22 December 2016
Keywords: neighbourhood community centre (NCC); sustainable neighbourhoods; social sustainability;sustainable urban design; urban community
Introduction
The role of cities in sustainable development hasbecome more prominent due to the growingurban population; we are now living in an erawhere over half of the world’s population areurban dwellers (United Nations Population Fund,2007). It is time to acknowledge that many of thedifficulties of the city are in effect the conse-quences of inadequate urban form (Frey, 1999).Therefore, today’s society requires fundamentalreconsideration and a search for new urban forms(Friedman, 2015). The spiral of decline can onlybe arrested by a concerted effort on the part of allinvolved stakeholders, not least the local (urban)residents themselves. Community planning exer-cises in particular could provide momentumtowards a co-ordinated strategy (Barton et al,2003).The formation and manifestation of the local
urban community in cities are strongly influencedby the urban design of the neighbourhood (Talen,
1999; Park, 2014). The neighbourhood urban cellrepresents a crucial dimension of contemporaryurban life and influences the processes that shapesocial identity and life chances (Forrest and Kearns,2001). Therefore, the neighbourhood urban unitmust be regarded as a vital block of society in orderto include a social perspective in the planningprocess, in addition to economic success andenvironmental considerations (Friedman, 2015).Unfortunately, even by the standards of a rela-tively underdeveloped field (Dempsey, 2009),comparatively little attention has been directedtowards ‘‘social sustainability at neighbourhoodscale’’ (Hamiduddin, 2015). ‘‘Social sustainability’’encompasses notions of equity, empowerment,accessibility, participation, sharing, cultural iden-tity and institutional stability (Kahn, 1995). Dave(2011) pointed out that ‘‘access to facilities andamenities’’, ‘‘community spirit and social interac-tion’’, and ‘‘mix of use of building form’’ are theaspects that heavily influence and determine theurban social sustainability1 of a neighbourhood.
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167www.palgrave.com/journals
All these aspects are strongly correlated with theconcept, essence and manifestation of neighbour-hood community centres (NCCs). This article tries todemonstrate that, if a neighbourhood really aspiresto be ‘‘socially sustainable’’, it should not avoidintegration of an NCC. The purpose of this article isto provide evidence that a properly developedneighbourhood community centre is one of themostpowerful urban design elements to achieve socialsustainability at neighbourhood scale, because of itsimportance to, influence on, and positive socialexternalities towards the local community.One of the main impetuses for this article
derives from the fact that neighbourhood commu-nity centres (NCCs), and especially NCCs insustainable neighbourhoods, have never beencompared and fully analysed in scientific litera-ture. Therefore, it is essential for future research toopen a new focus on this important urban designelement, which has (as shown below) a significantinfluence on a multitude of social aspects relatedto the neighbourhood’s community.
Research Aims
Public urban spaces represent a democratic forumfor citizens and can bring communities together,provide meeting places and foster social ties(Giddings et al, 2011). The neighbourhood com-munity centre (NCC) represents a fundamentalpublic urban design element that has a stronginfluence on community identity, social cohesionand ‘‘social sustainability’’ in general (see ‘‘Defini-tion, Role and Characteristics of (Ideal) Neigh-bourhood Community Centre’’ section for furtherdetails). At the same time, the ‘‘sustainable neigh-bourhood’’2 represents an urban–social formthrough which to achieve social sustainability(Rudlin and Falk, 2009) and is often described asthe ideal urban unit for the 21st century. Conse-quentially, it could be expected that exemplaryurban systems, such as the best and most well-known sustainable neighbourhoods, have alreadydeveloped NCCs in order to enforce social sus-tainability. Therefore, this article tries to discoverhow (and whether) NCCs are adequately imple-mented in the best sustainable neighbourhoods.The implication is the following: If a sustainableneighbourhood represents the optimal sustainablecommunity-oriented urban design form, it shouldalso develop a multifunctional neighbourhoodcommunity centre, which is one of the main urban
design elements to activate, stimulate and enforcelocal community manifestation.First, ‘‘Definition, Role and Characteristics of
(Ideal) Neighbourhood Community Centre’’ sectiontheoretically explains the ideal role, contribution,essence and manifestation of neighbourhood com-munity centres. In the international comparativeanalysis3 the author compares the characteristics,implementation processes, development typologiesand other features of the neighbourhood communitycentres in seven selected case studies including thebest and most well-known/cited/developed exam-ples of European sustainable neighbourhoods(Table 1, ‘‘Implementation of Neighbourhood Com-munityCentres in European SustainableNeighbour-hoods (Case Study Analysis)’’ section). The analysisis focused on the manifestation of NCCs in threeGerman (Vauban and Rieselfeld in Freiburg, Krons-berg in Hannover), two Dutch (EVA Lanxmeer inCulemborg, GWL Terrein in Amsterdam) and twoSwedish (Western Harbour in Malmo, HammarbySjostad in Stockholm) sustainable neighbourhoods.This section presents an in-depth interdisciplinaryinternational comparative analysis of each NCCfrom different perspectives, identifies (social) char-acteristics of each NCC and tries to point out thecorrelation between the NCCs’ development leveland social (community) aspects/urban socialsustainability.The aim of this article is to highlight, define and
analyse a particular urban design element—theneighbourhood community centre (NCC)—and toprovide a complete overview of the NCC’s essenceas manifested in the most well-known/acclaimedsustainable neighbourhoods. The theoretical pre-sumption is that, if sustainable neighbourhoodsare holistically sustainable from environmental,economic and social perspectives, they shouldhave also implemented and integrated an exem-plary multi-functional NCC. The main researchquestion (research focus) is therefore: Have themost well-known sustainable neighbourhoodsdeveloped vivid, active, heterogeneous, multifunc-tional community-oriented NCCs?Although this research focusses on a geograph-
ically, socially and economically relatively homo-geneous territory (northwestern EU cities), theselected sustainable neighbourhoods have beendeveloped as ‘‘urban sustainable laboratories’’,having a global impact on sustainable city design.European sustainable neighbourhoods havealready demonstrated that they can transfer theirenvironmental know-how and technical solutions
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 151
to other cities across the world (e.g. the energy,waste and water management of HammarbySjostad, i.e. ‘‘the Hammarby model’’, was trans-ferred to and implemented in China’s CaofeidianEcocity), and urban planners from all over theworld have come to Vauban, Kronsberg, WesternHarbour etc. to learn about sustainable solutionsimplemented in the European ‘‘urban labs’’.On the other hand, their NCCs have never been
analysed and compared. Therefore, it is importantto analyse and discover how the ‘‘top’’4 Europeansustainable urban cases implemented their NCCsin order to open a discussion about the underes-timated social role of NCCs and to discover somenew social capabilities of this specific urban designstructure, which could eventually represent asource of inspiration or at least a point of referencefor future NCCs.At the same time, this article avoids the ten-
dency toward empiricism, where usually general-istic conclusions are drawn from best practices(Fainstein, 2010). ‘Although the ‘‘best practices’’approach of pragmatism would seemingly implya judgement as to outcomes, it finesses the issue byavoiding the development of a guide to what is‘‘best’’ or ‘‘competent’’.’ (Fainstein, 2010, p. 26). Theaim of this article is to analyse case studies todefine and explore the potentiality of NCCs, asexpressed in the most sustainably advancedEuropean urban contexts, in order to open newpossible hypotheses and new discussions, ratherthan to create an ideal urban design prototype.
Methodological Approach
The methodological process is divided into twostages (Figure 1). In the first stage, after a detailedliterature review and analysis of case studies, theauthor visited all the analysed sustainable neigh-bourhoods, interviewed the main stakeholders5
and collected audio-visual data. In the firstmethodological stage, the detailed literature anal-ysis of the cases, the site visits, and especially theaforementioned interviews allowed the author togain an inside perspective on the neighbourhood’ssocial sustainability (strength of local identity,sense of community and social cohesion, andconnectedness between neighbours in each neigh-bourhood). Based on this methodological processin the first stage, the author could determine thedevelopment level of social sustainability for eachcommunity.
In the second methodological stage in December2015 and January 2016, the author re-contacted andsent a special questionnaire only to the mainstakeholders6 who are directly responsible orstrongly connected to the neighbourhood commu-nity centres in each sustainable neighbourhood.7
All of the stakeholders contacted in the secondmethodological stage were given the same struc-tured and open-question questionnaires, focussedespecially on the NCC’s social engagement (activ-ities, associations etc.). The author had the oppor-tunity to collect very specific, relevant data toenable an extensive and innovative internationalcomparative analysis of NCC manifestation in themost well-known sustainable neighbourhoods inEurope (Table 2, Implementation of Neighbour-hood Community Centres in European SustainableNeighbourhoods (Case Study Analysis) section).
Definition, Role and Characteristicsof (Ideal) Neighbourhood CommunityCentre
A fundamental obstacle in interpreting the ‘‘neigh-bourhood’’ concept lies in the dual definition of theterm: a ‘‘district’’, i.e. a physical construct, describ-ing the area in which people live, and a ‘‘commu-nity’’, a social construct, describing the people wholive there (Jenks and Dempsey, 2007). The terms‘‘community’’ and ‘‘neighbourhood’’ are ofteninterchanged because of the social and spatialcharacteristics inherent in both. It is almost impos-sible to separate the social activity from thephysical setting in which it inevitably takes place(Dempsey et al, 2011).Because the terms ‘‘neighbourhood’’ and ‘‘com-
munity’’ are sometimes interchangeable concepts,it follows from the literature review that the‘‘neighbourhood centre’’ also often becomes syn-onymous with the term ‘‘community centre’’. Thepurpose of this article is to address the urbandesign implementation of a central neighbourhoodbuilding (where the ‘‘neighbourhood centre’’ def-inition would be adequate) that preserves andenforces the essence of the community manifesta-tion, which is activated through citizen activitiesand local associations (closer to the term ‘‘com-munity centre’’). The local community is theinseparable soul of the neighbourhood as a phys-ical environment. Therefore, to overcome thisintertwining terminology, this article uses andpromotes a definition that is in a way a synthesis
Medved
152 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
of both terms, viz. ‘‘neighbourhood communitycentre’’ (NCC).Before the international comparative analysis of
NCCs, it is necessary to define theoretically whatconstitutes an (ideal) NCC and what are the maincharacteristics and functions of an NCC. Bartonet al (2003, p. 22) conceptualize an ideal neigh-bourhood community centre, which should covera wide variety of uses and activities necessary forresidents’ immediate requirements, while at thesame time fostering the sense of a lively andsociable place. Urban researchers who have anal-ysed the essence of neighbourhood communitycentres (NCCs) have pointed out many urbandesign- and community-related social factors thatcharacterize an NCC. These characteristics, whichalso define a neighbourhood community centre(NCC), can be summarized in three main corepoints (Fleming et al, 1985; Kellogg, 1999; Carleyet al, 2001; Hall and Portefield, 2001; Barton et al,2003; Grant, 2006; Dave, 2011; Friedman, 2015):
• Transportation accessibility, closeness and ‘‘cen-trality’’ of the NCC
NCCs should be placed centrally and act asarchitectural anchors. The NCC should be locatedat the convergence of foot, cycle and bus routesfrom residential streets—at the point of maximumconnectedness. Placing the main amenities (shop-ping facilities, civic services, recreation centres,post offices etc.) in the centre of a neighbourhoodand in close proximity to each other and to theNCC will make the urban area walkable andlively. The ‘‘one-stop destination’’ will encouragetransit use and bring down auto-dependency.
• Liveliness, sociability and community involve-ment (self-managed NCC)
NCCs should be open and accessible for as muchof the time as possible (night and day, weekdaysand weekends), and there should be overlaps inutilization of space and time. A well-developedNCC offers variegated (cultural, sports, social andeducational) activities for residents, stimulatinginformal social contact and creating strong socialcapital. An NCC offers a space for social interac-tion, where people can meet with each other andcreate community bonds. Therefore, an NCCrepresents a neighbourhood holder for socialsustainability values. It is also fundamental tobuild and engage local community-based organi-zations (CBOs). CBOs are non-profit organizationsthat operate in urban neighbourhoods to benefitneighbourhood residents and address theirconcerns.
• Multi-purpose development and integration ofthe NCC
Local residents could use the centre as a singledestination for all their basic requirements (civicinstitutions, cinema, leisure activities, shops, school,library, health facilities, employment centres, the-atre, commercial activities etc.). Concentrations ofcivic, institutional and commercial activity shouldbe embedded in NCCs and not isolated in remote,single-use complexes. The social focus of an NCC iscomplementary to the educational, recreational andentertainment aspects, which together reinforce thesense of destination and ‘‘place’’ that serves com-munity needs.
Selection of case studies –7 sustainable neighbourhoods
First stage (7 sustainable neighbourhoods):
Literature and case studies analysis, site visits, interviews with the main stakeholders, collection of audio and visual data Establishing the urban social sustainability level of each sustainable neighbourhood (Table 1)
Neighbourhood community centre (NCC) within the neighbourhood?
Yes (5)
No (2)
Second stage (5 sustainable neighbourhoods):
Case study analysis; special questionnaire to NCCs’ stakeholders (additional interviews)Creating an international comparative analysis of sustainable neighbourhoods’ NCCs (Table 2)
Figure 1: Methodological process.Source: Author (2016).
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 153
Implementation of NeighbourhoodCommunity Centres in EuropeanSustainable Neighbourhoods (Case StudyAnalysis)
An NCC represents the central ‘‘emblem’’ of thelocal community, and often the NCC and itsmanifestation reflect the local community’s socialsustainability. Therefore, it is important to under-stand how (and whether) concrete NCCs have beenimplemented in the analysed case studies onEuropean sustainable neighbourhoods (Table 1),how they function, and what is their concreteessence. The factors of interest (Table 2) researchedas part of the international comparative analysisfocus on the basic characteristics, functioning andactivities of each NCC, with special interest insocial/community-oriented aspects.It is very important to point out that, because of
their extremely different history, geographic andclimatic predisposition, regional mentality, politicalsystem, micro- and macro-environment etc., andbecause of the different local structural urbanpredispositions of all the neighbourhoods, theNCCs were built, implemented and developed invery different ways. However, comparative analy-sis is still necessary to understand the potential ofNCCs, to show and compare all the features of agiven NCC, to highlight this particular and oftenunderestimated urban design element, and toanalyse deeply its beneficial functions for the localcommunity. For this reason, this section brieflypresents each sustainable neighbourhood andthe implementation process, background and
characteristics of each NCC, with a special focuson the NCCs’ activities and associations. At the endof this section, Table 2 presents a complete over-view of the essence and (social) manifestation of theNCCs in the studied sustainable neighbourhoods.
Vauban and its NCC ‘‘HAUS 37’’
Vauban represents one of the best examples of thebottom-up approach in sustainable urbanism. TheVauban sustainable neighbourhood is a brownfielddevelopment, built on the area of a former Frenchmilitary barracks. In the early 1990s, the Municipal-ity of Freiburg wanted to build a high-densityresidential area in the Vauban area (Delleske, 2013).At the same time, concurrently with the cityplanning for the neighbourhood’s revitalization, agroup of young students (in the selbstorganisierteunabhangige siedlungsinitiative (SUSI) movement)occupied the empty Vauban military building andcreated the initial cues for an innovative greenpolicy for the local urban space. SUSI (in laterphases in collaboration with the Forum Vaubanresidents’ association) established a long-termsocially and environmentally sustainable vision forthe entire neighbourhood (Sperling, 2002; Delleske,2013). Today, Vauban is known for its cohesive localcommunity with a strong local identity, for numer-ous multi-residential passive houses created bybottom-up cooperatives (Baugruppen), for its solarenergy cooperatives, innovative green technologies,and for its ‘‘car-free’’ zoning. Around 5000 citizenslive in Vauban today in an area of 41 ha.
Table 1: Introductory overview of the selected sustainable neighbourhood case studies
Factors of interest Sustainable neighbourhood
Vauban Rieselfeld Kronsberg WesternHarbour
HammarbySjostad
GWL Terrein EVALanxmeer
Country Germany Sweden The NetherlandsCity Freiburg Freiburg Hannover Malmo Stockholm Amsterdam CulemborgNeighbourhood’spopulation (approx.)
5000 11,000 15,000 20,000a 25,000a 1400 800
Urban social sustainability(level)b
***** **** **** * *** **** ******
Presence of NCC Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes NoNCC’s development level Very
developedVerydeveloped
Verydeveloped
— Not verydeveloped
Not verydeveloped
—
aPopulation estimated for the time of completed construction of the neighbourhood.b‘‘Urban social sustainability’’ level determined based on case studies, scientific literature analysis, interviews with main stakeholders(see ‘‘Methodological Approach’’ section), number and development of local (social) activities, typology of local community-basedorganizations, neighbourhood community-oriented local services (Table 2), identified connectedness between residents, local identityand other perceived community-related ‘‘urban social sustainability contributory factors’’ (see Footnote 1; Dempsey et al, 2011).Source: Author (2016).
Medved
154 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
Tab
le2:
Internationa
lcompa
rativ
ean
alysis
ofne
ighb
ourhoo
dcommun
itycentresin
theselected
Europ
eansu
staina
blene
ighb
ourhoo
ds
Neighbourhood:
Vauban
Rieselfeld
Kronsberg
Ham
marby
Sjostad
GWLTerrein
Nam
eof
NCC
Haus37
Glashaus
Krokus
GlashusEtt,
environm
ental
inform
ationcentre
The
GateHouse
(Toegang
shuis)
Factorsof
interest
Yearof
creatio
n/ye
arof
usag
eas
NCC
Occasiona
lus
efrom
1993,
offic
ialstart2001
1996
2000
2002
1997
Size
Intotal2
050sq.m
.,ab
out40
room
sMorethan
20ha
lls,m
any
meetin
groom
s,kitche
nsetc.
Seve
nmeetin
groom
sof
40–100
m2(for
10–100
person
s),o
ne250m
2ha
ll
The
‘‘pub
lic’’sp
aces
are
abou
t200sq.m
.(tw
opresen
tatio
nroom
s)
App
rox.
100sq.m
.
Cen
trality
/accessibility
Yes/ye
sYes/ye
sYes/ye
sYes/ye
sYes/ye
sNCC
(brownfield
orgreenfield)
Brownfield,former
military
barracks
Green
field
Green
field
Green
field
Brownfield,g
ateh
ouse
ofform
erwater
compa
nyInitial
idea,implem
entatio
nprocessof
theNCC
(bottom-upor
top-dow
n)
Bottom-up(started
with
the
SUSI
association,
continuing
with
Forum
Vau
ban)
Top
-dow
n(Freiburg
Mun
icipality
)Top
-dow
n(H
anno
ver
Mun
icipality
)Top
-dow
n(Stockho
lmMun
icipality
)Bottom-up(lo
calactiv
istof
Staatslie
den
buurtDistrict)
Local
citiz
ens’
participation
inNCC
urba
ndesign
Yes,w
orksho
ps(aesthetics,
energy
conc
epts
etc.)
No
No
No
Yes,the
ydecided
toke
epthe
NCC
intheoriginal
form
Com
mun
icationwith
local
citiz
ens(com
mun
ication
platform
)
Local
newsp
aper
Vauban
Actuel,web
sites,
newsletters
Local
newsp
aper
Stadtteilzeitung
Rieselfeld,
web
sites,
liftbo
ard,
newsletters
Local
newsp
aper
Kronsberg
Nachrichten,b
ulletin
board,b
roch
ures,‘‘you
thgu
ide’’,mailin
glist
Somelocalne
wsp
apers,
notic
ebo
ard,w
ebsite
Flye
rs,w
ebsite,n
ewsletters
Library
inNCC
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Cafe/
restau
rant
inNCC
Yes,restauran
tSu
den
Yes,C
afeim
glasha
usYes,Jug
endcafe
No
No
Ren
tableroom
orha
llfor
localcitiz
ensin
NCC
Yes;itcanbe
rented
for
social
andcu
ltural
activ
ities
forfree
aslong
thereis
noen
tran
cead
mission
fee
Yes;m
anyha
llsan
dsp
ecializ
edroom
s(for
youths,m
usic
room
,kitche
netc.);mem
bers
have
adiscoun
t
Yes;s
even
meetin
groom
s,on
eha
ll;forcitiz
ensor
conferen
ces,
galas,sp
ecial
even
tsetc.
Yes;a
ssociatio
nscanrent
outtw
oroom
sin
the
even
ing(freeforno
n-commercial
activ
ities)
Yes;freeformeetin
gsan
dexhibitio
ns
NCC
integrated
with
the
‘‘plaza’’(pub
licsqua
re)
Yes,the
NCC
also
hosts
restroom
sforfarm
ers’
marke
t-go
ersan
dtourists
Yes,the
plazais
used
forthe
summer
cafe,w
eeklyfood
marke
tfestivalsetc.
Yes
No
No
Local
festival
inne
ighb
ourhoo
d(in
/directly
correlated
with
NCC)
Yes,the
summer
district
festival
Yes,the
summer
district
festival
Yes,the
kite
festival
Yes,the
Sjostadsd
agen
Yes,the
yearly
summer
festival:d
inne
run
der
the
water
tower
Peop
leem
ploy
edat
NCC
(part-tim
e/full-tim
e)1pa
rt-tim
e(paidby
the
mun
icipality
andthe
Vau
banassociation)
5–6full-tim
ean
dap
prox
.10
part-tim
e(allpa
idby
the
mun
icipality
)
14full-tim
ean
dsomepa
rt-
time(allpa
idby
the
mun
icipality
)
2full-tim
eem
ploy
ees
(paidby
theStockh
olm
Water
Com
pany
)
1full-tim
ene
ighb
ourhoo
dcaretake
r(paidby
the
contribu
tionpe
ople
payto
thelocalum
brella
association)
Educ
ationor
training
facilities
Educ
ationa
lseminars,
exhibitio
nsetc.
Con
ferenc
es,s
eminars,
exhibitio
ns,trainingetc.
Educ
ationa
lev
ents,
lang
uage
courses,
conferen
cesetc.
Stud
ents
comeforthe
‘‘ene
rgysaving
prog
ramme’’
Seminarsfor
neighb
ourhoo
dsvisits
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 155
Tab
le2continue
d
Neighbourhood:
Vauban
Rieselfeld
Kronsberg
Ham
marby
Sjostad
GWLTerrein
Nam
eof
NCC
Haus37
Glashaus
Krokus
GlashusEtt,
environm
ental
inform
ationcentre
The
GateHouse
(Toegang
shuis)
Social
activ
ities/associations
(intergen
erationa
lan
dothe
rs)in
NCC
Twoch
ildday
-caregrou
ps,
room
sforyo
uths,y
outh
workassociation,
nursery,
endch
ildprostitutionan
dtraffic
king
(ECPA
T)
association,
man
ybe
nevo
lent
associations,
social
worke
rs’offic
e,family
initiatives
Social
worke
rs,K
JK(children
andyo
uthkiosk)
grou
p,med
iacentre
forch
ildren
andyo
uths,s
eniorgrou
p,Rikikich
ildren’scine
ma
grou
petc.
The
atre
forch
ildrenan
delderly,m
anyfamily
,yo
uthan
dch
ildren
activ
ities,m
usic
grou
pactiv
ities,d
ance
courses
foryo
uths,o
rgan
ized
grou
pdeb
ates,
prog
rammes
forsocial
inclus
ionof
foreigne
rs/
lang
uage
coursesfor
migrants
Boy
scou
tsareregu
lar
usersof
theNCC
common
room
;you
ngscho
olch
ildrencometo
learnmoreab
out
sustaina
bilityan
dab
outthewater
and
waste
treatm
ent
processes
Not
(directly
)in
NCC
Entertainmen
tactiv
ities/
associations
inNCC
Art
worksho
ps,the
atre,
conc
erts,c
inem
a,festivals,
lectures,y
ogaclasses,
med
itatio
nclasses,
man
yothe
rcu
lturalev
ents
etc.
Cinem
a,disco,c
heeseday
s,jazz
loun
geev
enings,flea
marke
t,bo
ardga
me
nigh
ts,c
apoe
iracourses,
self-defen
cecoursesetc.
Mus
icgrou
ps,the
atre,
literatureev
enings,film
even
ts,p
aintingan
ddan
ceclasses,
fleamarke
t,self-
defen
cecoursesetc.
Not
(directly
)intheNCC
Soccer
tourna
men
t,pa
intin
gexhibitio
n,su
mmer
party,
New
Year’spa
rty
(organ
ized
/man
aged
atNCC
meetin
gs)
Env
iron
men
talactiv
ities
in/
associations
orga
nized
from
NCC
Car-freeassociationVau
ban,
environm
entalinitiative—
Reg
iowasser
Urban
garden
inggrou
p‘‘Springcleaning
actio
n’’,
‘‘green
care’’activ
ities
(organ
ized
/man
aged
atNCC
meetin
gs)
Collectionpo
intfor
‘‘spe
cial
bioba
gs’’,
exhibitio
ns,a
nddiscu
ssionto
inform
abou
twater,w
aste
anden
ergy
issu
es
Plan
tingday
,clean
ingday
,cu
ttingan
dpluc
king
appletreesday
s(organ
ized
/man
aged
atNCC
meetin
gs)
Impo
rtan
tcommun
ity-based
orga
nizatio
n(C
BO)
associationen
titiesin
NCC
The
mainCBO
Stad
tteilvereinVau
ban;
localmag
azineVauban
Actuel,ne
ighb
ourhoo
dworkgrou
petc.
The
mainCBO:K
.I.O.S.K.;
othe
rworking
grou
psetc.
The
mainCBO:K
roku
sStad
tteilarbeit—
thecentral
forum,v
olun
teer
associationKromit,
‘‘neigh
bourho
odgrou
ps’’,
etc.
The
mainCBO:H
S2020
(not
basedin
theNCC;
itjust
occasion
ally
rentsthemeetin
groom
s);S
tockho
lm’s
local(district)
authorities
have
their
plan
ning
meetin
gin
theNCC
The
mainCBO:T
helocal
umbrella
orga
nizatio
nGWLTerrein
(not
basedin
theNCC,b
utthey
have
theirmeetin
gin
theNCC)
Source:A
utho
r(2016).
Medved
156 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
A very large multifunctional neighbourhoodcommunity centre, called ‘‘Haus 37’’, was alsoimplemented in Vauban. The building had origi-nally been part of the barracks site, built in thetimes of fascism (1937), then used by the Frenchmilitary until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Haus 37 isbrownfield, and according to an old militarydesignation, it was a casino building (Bachtold,2013). The local community started using it in 1993,after the French army left the building. TheMunicipality of Freiburg wanted to destroy thebuilding, but the grassroots SUSI association nego-tiated a future NCC from the German governmentand reconstructed it together with the local citizensassociation Forum Vauban. Today, Haus 37 ishome to various associations and activities, includ-ing a meditation room, an art workshop, manybenevolent associations, a kindergarten, a socialworkers’ office, rooms for youths, a cafe–restaurant,theatre, concerts, cinema, festivals, lectures, confer-ences, a youth working group, neighbourhood
working groups, children’s groups, family initia-tives, yoga classes, many environmental and socialinitiatives etc (Delleske, 2015). The redaction of theVauban Actuel local newspaper and the Stadtteil-verein Vauban main local association, which tookover the legacy of Forum Vauban, also have theiroffices at Haus 37. The Vauban neighbourhoodcommunity centre is a perfect example of a centralneighbourhood multi-functional facility withheterogeneous use of public space, which strength-ens the identity of the local citizens and offers thema space to meet and communicate.
Rieselfeld and its NCC ‘‘Glashaus’’
Rieselfeld is, unlike the other sustainable neigh-bourhood in Freiburg – Vauban, a typical greenfield(built on former farming land), top-down develop-ment project led by the Municipality of Freiburg.The municipality appointed a special team called
Picture 1: Vauban’s NCC: Haus 37.Source: Author (2013).8
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 157
the Rieselfeld Project Group to carry out theimplementation of the sustainable neighbourhood,which started in 1994. The new Rieselfeld district,situated in the western part of Freiburg, providesabout 4200 residential units for approximately11,000 inhabitants in an area of 70 ha (FreiburgMunicipality, 2009). From the earliest stages ofplanning, equal attention was paid to the district’ssocial and cultural life as to technical and ecologicalaspects, marketing and urban building (FreiburgMunicipality, 2009). All the sustainability goals ofthe neighbourhood, such as compact urban plan-ning with high-density living, easy access to publictransit hubs and reduced traffic, low-energy andaffordable homes, access by proximity, cooperativedesign and ownership, and cultural diversity, allwithin a 15-min tram ride from the city centre, havebeen achieved (Daseking, 2013). Rieselfeld hasachieved social and cultural diversity with manyactive sports, cultural, educational and other social
associations. Most of them are concentrated in theNCC ‘‘Glashaus’’.For Rieselfeld, the municipality planned and
developed a monumental structure for its NCCcalled ‘‘Glashaus’’. The main neighbourhood asso-ciation KIOSK9 organizes, networks, manages andhelps most of the social neighbourhood activitiesand has its offices in the local NCC. KIOSK is alsoimportant as a basic communication platform forthe neighbourhood (newspaper, website, newslet-ter etc.) and for organizing district meetings as anopen citizens’ forum. It supports participation ofresidents in developing the social life of the districtand has built a very strong social and culturalnetwork (Karovic-Kersting, 2013). Glashaus hasmany rentable multifunction halls, including alarge kitchen, and is home to a varied range of localsocial activities and associations, including a mediaresource centre for children and youths, a citylibrary, a disco group, a senior group, flea markets,
Picture 2: Rieselfeld’s NCC: Glashaus.Source: Author (2013).10
Medved
158 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
Christmas markets, various festivals, a districtnewspaper, discussion forums, an urban garden-ing group, a jazz lounge group, exhibitions andconcerts, a film club etc. (Karovic-Kersting, 2015).
Kronsberg and its NCC ‘‘Krokus’’
Kronsberg is a greenfield, top-down-driven projectinitiated by the HannoverMunicipality.When facedwith a growing housing shortage in the early 1990s,the City of Hannover responded by using theWorldExpo 2000 as an opportunity to unveil a pioneeringsocially inclusive eco-district (Price, 2014). Con-struction of the Kronsberg settlement started in1996, and today it is one of the most acclaimedsustainable neighbourhoods. The uniqueness of theplanning of Kronsberg was the establishment (in1997) and founding of a special entity: the Krons-berg Environmental Liaison Agency (KUKA).KUKA assisted in the building process to ensureonsite skilling and quality assurance, and supported
residents with facility and systems usage (Price,2014). KUKA worked as an intermediary institu-tion between all stakeholders involved, such asurban planners, building companies, residents,media etc. The main sustainable urban implemen-tation features that characterize the neighbour-hood are: a compact, high-density urban structure(15,000 residents on 140 ha), a unique green spaceconcept, grass roofs, special stormwater systemswith ponds, efficient public transport, low-energybuildings, large district energy systems that inte-grate solar collectors and wind turbine generatorsetc. A special focus in the district was also placedon social sustainability issues through the ‘‘Fokus’’project (a housing project for the disabled),‘‘Habitat’’ (an initiative aimed at better integrationof foreign citizens) and especially with severalsocial activities initiated and managed by theKrokus neighbourhood community centre.The Krokus centre, inaugurated in 2000, was
implemented as a sub-project within the EXPO coreproject ‘‘City as Social Habitat’’ and was opened as
Picture 3: Kronsberg’s NCC: Krokus.Source: Author (2015).11
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 159
the central facility for the networked communitywork. Today, Krokus is a central meeting point andinformation centre, and at the same time representsthe social and cultural community centre (Munic-ipality of Hannover). In Krokus, local citizens canparticipate in extremely varied youth and chil-dren’s activities, theatre classes, cinema sessions,music-related activities, literature events, paintingclasses, dance classes, language courses etc. Krokusoffers many offices to local associations; there areseven rentable halls for meetings, conferences,festivals etc.; there is a ‘‘Youth Cafe’’, a playhousefor children, a media room and a large library(Municipality of Hannover). The available multi-purpose social areas in the immediate vicinity makeit possible for local citizens to create a variety ofsocial and cultural activities and enforce the localidentity of Kronsberg.
Western Harbour, without an NCC
Western Harbour is a top-down-driven (from theMunicipality of Malmo) brownfield redevelop-ment, which has been transformed from anindustrial park (shipyard, auto factory) into alively district focussed on knowledge (Universityof Malmo) and sustainable living. The applicationand selection by SVEBO12 to host Sweden’shousing exposition was the most important firststep towards implementation of this sustainableneighbourhood. The Bo01 district,13 the first sus-tainable area to be implemented within WesternHarbour, was the first sustainable area in theworld that could claim to be supplied 100 % byrenewable energy (Bachtold, 2013, p. 80). WesternHarbour also represents a space for green innova-tion in areas other than energy, especially waterand waste management (e.g. rainwater is reusedfor washing clothes, watering gardens and flush-ing toilets; domestic waste is transformed into anew energy source through a waste system withanaerobic vacuum digestion, organic waste isconverted to biogas, etc.). Western Harbour hasbecome a very popular area for other citizens ofMalmo as well as tourists, who are attracted by thepleasant public green spaces, cafes, restaurants,the promenade by the sea and the beach in thesummer. Western Harbour demonstrates thatmodern development can be both environmentallyconscious and attractive (Foletta, 2011). Whenfully developed, Western Harbour (140 ha) willaccommodate 20,000 people.
Although Western Harbour can be regarded assuccessful in terms of ecology and technology, theaspects of social and economic sustainability tendto be weaker (Holgersen, 2014; Karrholm, 2011).There are not many local citizens’ associations inWestern Harbour, and the local identity of thecommunity is relatively weak in comparison withthe other analysed sustainable neighbourhoods.There is no community centre for the local pop-ulation in Western Harbour. This partly derivesfrom the fact that the entire area was designed bythe top-down approach. However, from the inter-view with the initial project manager of Bo01, EvaDalman, it was clear that a community centre wasnot introduced in part because the future residentshad not expressed the need for such a communalspace (Dalman, 2014).
Hammarby Sjostad and its NCC ‘‘GlashusEtt’’
Hammarby Sjostad is a typical brownfield devel-opment constructed on reclaimed industrial land.The initial impetus for the urban development ofHammarby Sjostad began in the early 1990s as thedemand for housing in Stockholm rapidlyincreased (Pandis Iverot and Brandt, 2011). Ham-marby Sjostad represents a very good example ofthe top-down approach in sustainable urbanism.The city established the Hammarby Sjostad ProjectTeam, an organization within the Stockholm CityPlanning Administration, which controlled, man-aged and delivered the entire planning andimplementation of the area (Fraker, 2013). Ham-marby Sjostad, which was initially meant to be the‘‘athletes’ residential village’’ (in the context of theStockholm Olympic Games’ candidacy), is anexemplary sustainable neighbourhood today,known especially for the worldwide acclaimedand copied ‘‘Hammarby eco-cycle model’’ of inte-grated environmental solutions.14 Once fully built,Hammarby Sjostad will have 11,000 residentialunits for more than 25,000 people, concentrated on160 ha (City of Stockholm, 2007).Similarly to the neighbourhood GWL Terrein,
Hammarby Sjostad also does not have a typicalneighbourhood community centre, but it has aspecial small ‘‘environmental information centre’’,called ‘‘GlashusEtt’’,whichcovers some functionalityof a ‘‘typical’’ NCC. However, because GlashusEtt isvery small and is not primarily designed for socialactivities, many typical NCC (social) functionalitiesare located in different neighbourhood loca-tions (Larsson, 2014).
Medved
160 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
The NCC GlashusEtt was first established toinform residents about innovative environmentalsolutions and teach them to contribute to achiev-ing environmental goals (Karlsson, 2015). Thecentre also functions as a showcase space toexhibit technical solutions about waste, waterand energy (Cederquist, 2015; Gaffney et al,2007). GlashusEtt is therefore clearly first of allan educational information centre, and the ‘‘socialfunction’’ comes after that. However, its publicspaces (conference/meeting rooms) are extremelyimportant for local neighbourhood citizens. InGlashusEtt, the community rooms are available tothe Hammarby Scout association (three times aweek); there is a meeting place for the ‘‘HammarbySjostad’’ association, for the ‘‘People’s House’’association and also for the Stockholm districtsrepresentatives. The building also embodies animportant referential function for the neighbour-hood’s practical needs.15 Since 2014, GlashusEtt hasbeen run entirely by the Stockholm Water Com-pany. Consequently, the centre is now focussed on
a more specific point of interest: water treatment,wastewater and waste collection.
GWL Terrein and Its NCC ‘‘Toegangshuis’’(The Gate House)
In 1989, Amsterdam’s Westerpark municipaldistrict council decided to develop the formermunicipal water company area ‘‘GWL Terrein’’into a residential area. This sustainable neigh-bourhood is brownfield and is also considered abottom-up project, because it was driven, man-aged and dramatically influenced by the localresidents who already lived in the vicinity ofGWL Terrein. A special team of local residents—activists who first proposed the idea for thesustainable residential area—supervised eachstep of the urban planning and implementation(Pos, 2015a). Today, GWL Terrein is a truly car-free, environmentally friendly residential areawith generous public outdoor spaces, apartments
Picture 4: Hammarby Sjostad’s NCC: GlashusEtt.Source: Author (2014).16
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 161
with roof gardens, communal urban food gar-dens, and a green public space intended not onlyfor residents but also for those living in denselybuilt adjacent neighbourhoods (GWL Terrein).The communal space, fruit trees and small gar-dens are all well maintained by neighbourhoodresidents (Pos, 2015a). The local citizens aresocially cohesive and organize many activitiesthat strengthen the neighbourhood identity andcommunity connectedness, including footballtournaments, painting exhibitions, a summerparty, planting day, neighbourhood cleaningday, cutting and plucking apple trees, NewYear’s party etc. (Pos, 2015b). In GWL Terrein,1400 residents live in 6 ha, contributing to awider communal identity of the West Amsterdamarea.Unlike the analysed German sustainable neigh-
bourhoods, GWL Terrein does not have a typicalmulti-functional NCC. The main social role in the
neighbourhood is assumed by a special umbrellaorganization that networks and manages manylocal citizen associations and sometimes holdsmeetings in a building called ‘‘The Gate House’’17
(Pos, 2015b). There is also a permanent mainte-nance office for the neighbourhood caretaker inThe Gate House. There are rentable offices, whichare free for meetings and exhibitions. This pic-turesque refurbished building embodies a meet-ing place for its resident representatives. The GateHouse represents a reference point for localresidents, where they can go if they have ahousing problem or other residential inconve-niences. For these reasons, the author identifiedthis particular building as the NCC, even if thelocal residents do not perceive the building inthat way, because the selected NCC does notcover all the neighbourhoods’ social activities,which are spread out in different locationsaround the neighbourhood.
Picture 5: GWL Terrein’s NCC: Toegangshuis.Source: Author (2015).18
Medved
162 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
EVA Lanxmeer, without an NCC
EVA Lanxmeer is a small sustainable neighbour-hood (24 ha, 800 residents) constructed in theMunicipality of Culemborg in The Netherlands.EVA Lanxmeer is a greenfield project built on aprotected zone for drinking water extraction. It is abottom-up project initiated in 1994 by a group ofenvironmental specialists who established a spe-cial entity called the EVA Foundation (Ecologicalcentre for education, information and advice). TheEVA Foundation, together with the Municipalityof Culemborg, decided to build a sustainableneighbourhood with a wide array of environmen-tally friendly solutions, including an organic per-maculture urban farm, collective gardens, solarcollectors, low-energy heating systems, a biogasproduction facility, a grey water purificationsystem etc. They also introduced a restrictionpolicy for car use in the district (Anquetil, 2009;Varnay, 2013). The future residents themselvescollaborated with the EVA Foundation multidis-ciplinary group from the beginning in the urbanplanning and in the construction process of theneighbourhood. The specificity of EVA Lanxmeeris that the residents have been responsible for theinitial urban plan, for the design and managementof the local district heating installations, andespecially for the communal public green spacesthrough the Terra Bella Foundation (Anquetil,2009). EVA Lanxmeer has perhaps the mostcohesive local community of all the analysedsustainable neighbourhoods, with very strongcommunity ties. They enforce their sense of com-munity through the EVA Lanxmeer residents’society (BEL), the Terra Bella Foundation, the cityfarm, the C4real neighbourhood festival, harvest-ing days (of collective fruit trees), the Thermo Bellosemi-cooperative local energy company, andthrough more than ten residents’ working groups(Verschuur, 2015; Anquetil, 2009).The EVA Lanxmeer neighbourhood (still) does
not have an NCC. A special, relatively large, veryinnovative multifunctional NCC called ‘‘EVACentrum’’ was planned in the initial urban plans,integrating a conference centre, hotel, commercialoffices and community spaces. However, EVACentrum was never realized (Verschuur, 2015).Without this centre, the relatively low-densityurban neighbourhood EVA Lanxmeer has aslightly more rural inclination.Since the Western Harbour and EVA Lanxmeer
sustainable neighbourhoods do not have an NCC
implemented, the analysis in Table 2 presents acomparison of the NCCs without these two cases.It should also be pointed out that the appointedNCCs in GWL Terrein and Hammarby Sjostadhave not been ‘‘officially’’ assigned as local NCCs.The author determined the structures ‘‘Toegang-shuis’’ and ‘‘GlashusEtt’’ as NCCs because bothcover many aspects of a typical NCC (‘‘Definition,Role and Characteristics of (Ideal) NeighbourhoodCommunity Centre’’ section) and in many waysfunction as an NCC (to a certain extent coveringall three core points that define an NCC), even ifthey do not have the ‘‘status’’ of an NCC.
Final Analysis and Conclusions
This article examines and analyses in depth themanifestation of NCCs in practice, from theperspective of European sustainable neighbour-hoods’ best practices. In ‘‘Implementation ofNeighbourhood Community Centres in EuropeanSustainable Neighbourhoods (Case Study Analy-sis)’’ section, it was pointed out that not all theanalysed neighbourhoods have implemented anNCC. EVA Lanxmeer planned to build a veryambitious NCC but has not implemented it (yet).On the other hand, Western Harbour had nointention of building one at all. It was also notedthat only the three German sustainable neighbour-hoods (Vauban, Rieselfeld and Kronsberg) haveimplemented very large, multifunctional NCCs.These three NCCs are truly multifunctional andoffer several different activities, services andamenities to their residents, including cafes,libraries, theatres, cinemas, activities for childrenand youths, activities for the elderly, environmen-tal activities, educational classes and much more(Table 2). However, there are some differencesbetween the three German NCC cases. Rieselfeld’sNCC (Glashaus) and Kronsberg’s NCC (Krokus)are much more similar in comparison withVauban’s NCC (Haus 37). In contrast to Haus 37,both Glashaus and Krokus are greenfield projects,were top-down driven from the municipality, andhave much greater support from the municipality.In both NCCs, there is an important local libraryand both employ many more people in compar-ison with Haus 37.In comparison with the German NCCs, Ams-
terdam’s GWL Terrein neighbourhood and Stock-holm’s Hammarby Sjostad have relatively smallNCCs that are consequently very limited
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 163
regarding meeting space. However, both neigh-bourhoods have developed social, sport andcultural spaces in different locations across theneighbourhood. Of course, it must be pointed outagain that these two smaller NCCs (The GateHouse –Toegangshuis and GlashusEtt) are notprimarily designed as NCCs and only cover NCCfunctions as a secondary purpose (also sponta-neously). Even if these two NCCs are notprimarily designed as such, they still achievemultifunctionality to a certain extent: from biobag collector points and scouts meeting place, toa seminar conference room. It is also necessary topoint out that, in both neighbourhoods, the mostdistinctive, characteristic, historical brownfieldbuildings (Luma at Hammarby Sjostad and theengine pump building –Machinepompgebouw atGWL Terrein) have been transformed into a cafeand restaurant rather than an NCC. These twobuildings (that the author did not appoint asNCCs) embody a special historical dimension inthe collective consciousness of local residents.The common characteristics of all five analysed
NCCs are: they are built in the core of theneighbourhood (see Pictures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), placedin the vicinity of public transport (tram and busstop) and accessible by foot (less than 15-minwalking distance from the edge of each neigh-bourhood). All five NCCs represent an importantreference point for the local community. Even ifthe NCCs in GWL Terrein and HammarbySjostad have not been developed as in theGerman cases, they are fundamental as a refer-ence point for the local community’s everydayneeds (organic bag collection point, maintenancecentre etc.). There is at least one person in all theanalysed NCCs who is there to ‘‘solve’’ residentialproblems, to answer any questions and to help ingeneral. This factor is very important in particularfor battling alienation, which is usually present intypical suburban non-sustainable low-densitydistricts, and for strengthening the sense of placeand the social cohesion.The analysis presented herein reveals a sort of
correlation between the level of development ofan NCC and the ‘‘social sustainability level’’ ofthe neighbourhood. Of course, such analysisbased on only seven case studies is insufficientto clearly (universally) determine a definitivecorrelation. However, the observed tendencycould open the way to further research and anew discussion.19 The only exception where thementioned correlation was not identified is EVALanxmeer. EVA Lanxmeer achieved the highest
level of social sustainability of all the analysedneighbourhoods without the presence of anNCC, although one was planned. However, it isalso worth mentioning that the EVA Lanxmeerneighbourhood is different from the otheranalysed neighbourhoods, being in a way a‘‘semi-urban neighbourhood’’. Culemborg itselfis a very small, low-density city, and its sustain-able district is very special, because it is morereminiscent of a rural rather than urban area.Contrary to the other analysed neighbourhoods,there are no cafes, restaurants or shops in theEVA Lanxmeer district and no ‘‘real’’ neighbour-hood centre; it is a low building density area andis placed in the middle of farming land. Thesecharacteristics enforce the perception of theneighbourhoods’ ‘‘semi-urbanity’’.Another important fact that emerged from the
comparative analysis is the positive correlationbetween social sustainability and community par-ticipation in urban design (bottom-up approach).The comparative analysis confirms the thesis ofBarton et al (2003) that, the more the local com-munity is involved in the design and developmentprocess of the neighbourhood, the greater likeli-hood there is of evolving a place that has localrelevance. The analysis also confirmed the find-ings of Frey (1999) that people in a neighbourhoodare more responsible for it if they have beeninvolved in shaping it. All the analysed bottom-upprojects (Vauban, EVA Lanxmeer and GWL Ter-rein) have a very strong local identity, strongsocial cohesion. In these three neighbourhoods,which evolved with the bottom-up approach, theresidents are also responsible for the managementand maintenance of common public spaces (fruittrees, urban gardens, playgrounds etc.).Overall, this study reveals that, because of the
multitude of the varied social activities andassociations that are connected to a (developed)NCC, the NCC represents a real hub for socialsustainability. The comparative analysis demon-strates that NCCs cover most of the factorsidentified as ‘‘urban social sustainability contrib-utory factors’’ (see footnote 1). The overviewpresented in Table 2 is in a way restrictive,because it takes into account more or less onlythe (social) features and activities related to theNCC and not activities taking place at otherneighbourhood locations. In this way, it waspossible to highlight just a single urban designelement—the neighbourhood community centre(NCC)—and its immense multimodal impact on acommunity’s urban social sustainability.
Medved
164 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
Multimodality really represents one of the keyfactors to achieving social, economic and envi-ronmental sustainability. The complete overviewof the NCCs’ manifestation presented in Table 2could provide many concrete ideas, approachesand propositions regarding what can be done toactivate a single building for future NCCs. Theinitial purpose of this analysis was to identifywhether the theoretical assumptions regarding anideal NCC have been fulfilled in practice in themost acclaimed European sustainable neighbour-hoods. The comparative analysis confirms theinitial thesis that (some) sustainable neighbour-hood’s NCCs have fully achieved/covered/ful-filled all three main core points in the NCCdefinition. Most of the analysed sustainableneighbourhoods have developed vivid, active,heterogeneous, multifunctional community-ori-ented NCCs. Finally, the sole implementation ofan NCC is not a magic wand for achieving astrong community. As Barton et al (2003) pointedout, physical urban design alone cannot entirelycreate a strong sense of community, but canreproduce the preconditions where a sense ofneighbourliness and belonging is more likely todevelop. Therefore, the formation of an NCCalone is not a guarantee for a stable and cohesivelocal community, but can represent a concretestimulating environment, where the local identityof a community/social sustainability could bemore likely to develop and evolve.In conclusion, European sustainable neighbour-
hoods have been recognized globally as exem-plary urban forms, and many (especially Asian)cities have transferred their urban design andenvironmental solutions. However, it must bepointed out that the transferability of thedescribed NCC solutions is more complicated,because of the specific, not reproducible local(social) characteristics—traditional urban forma-tion, local culture, mentality, history etc. Nonethe-less, the output of the research presented hereinadds a new perspective to sustainable urbandesign research in terms of the role of NCCs andtheir positive effects on the local community. Inaddition, beginning from the perspective of themost successful European sustainable urban cases,the presented research could represent a startingpoint to generate further discussion about theimportance of implementing fundamental urbandesign elements which activate ‘‘urban socialsustainability’’. However, it is clearly necessaryto consider that each geographical territory has adifferent perception and tradition regarding what
is ‘‘fundamental’’ in terms of sustainable urbandesign.
Notes
1 Dempsey et al (2011) identified and specified ‘‘urban socialsustainability’’ contributory factors, which are dividedbetween non-physical factors (education and training, socialjustice: inter- and intra-generational, participation and localdemocracy, health, quality of life and well-being, socialinclusion and eradication of social exclusion, social capital,community, safety, mixed tenure, fair distribution of income,social order, social cohesion, community cohesion, socialnetworks, social interaction, sense of community andbelonging, employment, residential stability versus turn-over, active community organizations, cultural traditions)and predominantly physical factors (urbanity, attractivepublic realm, decent housing, local environmental qualityand amenity, accessibility, sustainable urban design, neigh-bourhood, walkable neighbourhood: pedestrian friendly).
2 Carley and Falk (2012) define the sustainable neighbourhoodas: a sustainable living environment that is large enough tooffer a wide selection of different residential areas andservices, which could ensure a long-term balance in the localcommunity; well-connected and easily accessible with effi-cient public transport; designed to preserve and maintain asustainable usage of different natural resources; based on theparticipation of neighbourhood residents and responsiblelocal organizations, who together act in accordance with theprinciples of sustainable development.
3 The selected analysed sustainable neighbourhoods werechosen from a list of the ‘‘best sustainable neighbourhoodexamples’’, determined by scientific literature review ofrecent articles, books, sustainable neighbourhood guides,handbooks and case studies (Medved, 2016).
4 ‘‘Atypical or extreme cases often reveal more informationbecause they activate more actors and more basic mecha-nisms in the situation studied’’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 229).
5 In April 2013, the author visited Freiburg (Vauban andRieselfeld), where he had the opportunity to interviewAndreas Delleske (the leader of the former Forum Vaubancommunity initiative), Wulf Daseking (the urban planner ofthe Freiburg Municipality, who planned both of Freiburg’ssustainable neighbourhoods), Sigrid Gombert (the previouseditor of the Vauban Actuel local newspaper) and LejlaKarovic-Kersting (responsible for the ‘‘Intercultural Work’’department in Rieselfeld’s NCC ‘‘Glashaus’’). In May 2014,the author visited Western Harbour (Malmo), where heinterviewed Eva Dalman (the former project manager of theBo01–Western Harbour district) and Marial Loof (Environ-mental Department of the Malmo Municipality). In Ham-marby Sjostad (Stockholm) in June 2014, the authorinterviewed Helene Wintzel (co-planner of the HammarbySjostad 2020 community platform), Bjorn Cederquist (UrbanPlanning sector of Stockholm Municipality) and AlanLarsson (former European Commissioner and project man-ager of the Hammarby Sjostad 2020 local platform). In April2015, he visited Amsterdam, Culemborg and Hannover. InAmsterdam’s GWL Terrein neighbourhood, he interviewedDiego Pos (board member of the local GWL Terrein umbrellaassociation) and Joze van Stigt (initiator, activist and initialresident representative of the GWL Terrein community). InCulemborg’s EVA Lanxmeer, he interviewed Gerwin
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 165
Verschuur (member of the local district council of EVALanxmeer and director of the Thermo Bello local energycooperative company), and in Hannover’s neighbourhoodKronsberg, he interviewed Gerhard Kier (urban planner ofthe Kronsberg sustainable neighbourhood) and Inge Schot-tkowski-Bahre (Department of Environmental Protection,Hannover Municipality).
6 The author re-contacted Diego Pos, Lejla Karovic-Kersting,Andreas Delleske and Bjorn Cederquist. The author alsocontacted (for the first time) Malena Karlsson (InformationOfficer at Hammarby Sjostad’s NCC ‘‘GlashusEtt’’).
7 Two of the analysed neighbourhoods (EVA Lanxmeer andWestern Harbour) have not implemented any form of NCCand were therefore not relevant for the second methodolog-ical stage.
8 The bottom-right photo (aerial perspective) in Picture 1 wastaken from http://www.freiburg.de/ and modified by theauthor.
9 KIOSK (in German: K = Kontakt, I = Information, O = Or-ganisation, S = Selbsthilfe, K = Kultur; in English: Contact,Information, Organization, Self-help, Culture) was estab-lished in 1996 and relocated to the ‘‘Glashaus’’ in 2003.
10 The bottom-right photo (aerial perspective) in Picture 2 wastaken from http://www.freiburg.de/ and modified by theauthor.
11 The bottom-right photo (aerial perspective) in Picture 3 wastaken from http://www.unige.ch/ and modified by theauthor.
12 SVEBO (abbreviation in Swedish of Svenska Bostader) is anorganization formed by the Swedish National Board ofHousing, Building and Planning. The sustainable neigh-bourhood was also funded by the Swedish Local InvestmentProgram (LIP) and by the European Union (Fraker, 2013).
13 Western Harbour was developed in three stages: Bo01;Flagghusen – Bo02, Fullriggaren – Bo03. The area of WesternHarbour is still under construction.
14 The sustainable neighbourhood implemented very innova-tive technical solutions for energy supply and energy usage,a pilot sewage treatment plant facility and a practicalautomated waste disposal system for waste management(City of Stockholm, 2007).
15 For example, GlashusEtt is also a neighbourhood collectionpoint where residents can get special bags for organic waste(Karlsson, 2015; Cederquist, 2015).
16 The bottom-right photo (aerial perspective) in Picture 5 wastaken from http://www.kcap.eu/ and modified by theauthor.
17 In Dutch Toegangshuis. This building was built in 1900 on topof the underground water cellar of the local water companyand gets its name because the control point for opening thecellar gates was once located there.
18 The bottom-right photo (aerial perspective) in Picture 4 wastaken from http://en.white.se/ and modified by the author.
19 Flyvbjerg (2006) emphasises the importance of case studyanalysis, because it can be used ‘‘in the preliminary stages ofan investigation’’ to generate hypotheses.
References
Anquetil, V. (2009) Neighbourhood Social Cohesion Through theCollective Design, Maintenance and Use of Green Spaces. A Case
Study of EVA-Lanxmeer Neighbourhood. Culemborg: TheNetherlands. Wageningen UR.
Barton, H., Grant, M. and Guise, R. (2003) Shaping Neighbour-hoods: A Guide for Health, sustainability and vitality. New York:Spon.
Bachtold, P. (2013) The Space-Economic Transformation of the City.Heidelberg: Springer.
Cederquist, B. (2015) (Second) Personal interview. Stockholm –Ljubljana (Registered telephone call).
Carley, M. and Falk, N., 2012. Sustainable urban neighbour-hoods – Building communities that last. Joseph RowntreeFoundation, York. http://www.jrf.org.uk/.
Carley, M., Kirk, K. and McIntosh, S. (2001) Retailing, Sustain-ability and Neighbourhood Regeneration. York: Joseph Rown-tree Foundation.
City of Stockholm. (2007) Hammarby Sjostad – a uniqueenvironmental project in Stockholm. GlashusEtt. http://bygg.stockholm.se/, accessed 10 December 2015.
Dalman, E. (2014) Personal Interview. Lund.Dave, S. (2011) Neighbourhood density and social sustainabil-
ity in cities of developing countries. Sustainable Development19: 189–205.
Daseking, W. (2013) Personal Interview. Freiburg.Delleske, A. (2013) (First) Personal Interview. Freiburg.Delleske, A. (2015) (Second) Personal Interview. Ljubljana,
Freiburg (e-mail conversation, questionnaire).Dempsey, N. (2009) Are good-quality environments socially
cohesive? Measuring quality and cohesion in urban neigh-bourhoods. Town Planning Review 80: 315–45.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. et al (2011) The socialdimension of sustainable development: Defining urbansocial sustainability. Sustainable Development 19: 289–300.
Fainstein, S.S. (2010) The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-sity Press.
Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion, social capitaland the neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38(12): 2125–2143.
Fraker, H. (2013) The Hidden Potential of Sustainable Neighbor-hoods. Washington: Island.
Frey, H. (1999) Designing the City: Towards a More SustainableUrban Form. London: Spon.
Friedman, A. (2015) Fundamentals of Sustainable Neighbourhoods.Basel: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-studyresearch. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245.
Gaffney, A., Huang, V., Maravilla, K. et al (2007) HammarbySjostad, Stockholm, Sweden: A Case Study. Berkeley: Universityof California.
Giddings, B., Charlton, J. and Horne, M. (2011) Public squares inEuropean city centres. Urban Design International 16: 202–212.
Grant, J. (2006) Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism inTheory and Practice. Royal Town Planning Institute LibrarySeries. London: Routledge.
GWL Terrein. GWL Terrein: an urban eco area. http://www.gwl-terrein.nl/, accessed 17 December 2015.
Fleming, R., Baum, A. and Singer, J.E. (1985) Social support andthe physical environment. In: S. Cohen and S.L. Syme (eds.)Social Support and Health. Orlando: Academic, pp. 327–345.
Foletta, N. (2011) Case study: Vastra Hamnen. In: N. Folettaand S. Field (eds.) Europe’s Vibrant New Low Car(bon) Com-munities. New York: IDTP, pp. 82–93.
Freiburg Municipality. (2009) The New District of Freiburg-Rieselfeld: A Case Study of Successful, Sustainable UrbanDevelopment. Rieselfeld Projekt Group in Department I.
Medved
166 ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167
Hall, K.B. and Portefield, G.A. (2001) Community by Design: NewUrbanism for Suburbs and Small Communities. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Hamiduddin, I. (2015) Social sustainability, residential designand demographic balance: Neighbourhood planning strate-gies in Freiburg, Germany. Town Planning Review 86(1):29–52.
Holgersen, S. (2014). The Rise (and Fall?) of Post-Industrial MalmoInvestigations of City-Crisis Dialectics. Lund: Lund University.
Jenks, M. and Dempsey, N. (2007) Defining the neighbourhood:challenges for empirical research. Town Planning Review78(2): 153–177.
Kahn, M. (1995) Concepts, definitions, and key issues insustainable development: the outlook for the future. In:Proceedings of the 1995 International Sustainable DevelopmentResearch Conference, Manchester, UK, pp. 27–28.
Karlsson, M. (2015) Personal interview. Ljubljana, Stockholm (e-mail conversation, questionnaire).
Karovic-Kersting, L. (2013) Personal Interview. Freiburg.Karovic-Kersting, L. (2015) Personal Interview. Ljubljana, Frei-
burg. (e-mail conversation, questionnaire).Karrholm, M. (2011) The Scaling of Sustainable Urban Form: A
Case of Scale-related Issues and Sustainable Planning inMalmo, Sweden. European Planning Studies 19 (1): 97–112.
KCAP Architects & Planners. http://www.kcap.eu/, accessed8 July 2016.
Kellogg, W. (1999) Community-based organizations and neigh-bourhood environmental problem solving: A framework foradoption of information technologies. Journal of Environmen-tal Planning and Management 42 (4): 445–469.
Larsson, A. (2014) Personal interview. Stockholm.Medved, P. (2016) A contribution to the structural model of
autonomous sustainable neighbourhoods: new socio-eco-nomical basis for sustainable urban planning. Journal ofCleaner Production 120:21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.091.
Municipality of Hannover. http://www.hannover.de/, acces-sed 17 December 2015.
Municipality of Freiburg. http://www.freiburg.de/, accessed 8July 2016.
Park, S. (2014) The social dimension of urban design as a meansof engendering community engagement in urban regenera-tion. Urban Design International 19: 177–185
Pandis Iverot, S. and Brandt, N. (2011) The development of asustainable urban district in Hammarby Sjostad, Stockholm,Sweden? Environment, Development and Sustainability 213 (6):1043–1064.
Pos, D. (2015a) (First) Personal Interview. Amsterdam.Pos, D. (2015b) (Second) Personal Interview. Ljubljana, Freiburg
(e-mail conversation, questionnaire).Price, L. (2014) Hannover, Germany Kronsberg District: scaling
up integrated planning with KUKA. Urban NEXUS casestudy. http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/PUBLICATIONS/Case_Studies/Urban_NEXUS_cs04_Hannover_ICLEI-GIZ_2014.pdf, accessed 17 December 2015.
Rudlin, D. and Falk, N. (2009) Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood:Building the 21st Century Home. Oxford: Architectural.
Sperling, C. (2002) Sustainable Urban District Freiburg – Vauban.http://www.carstensperling.de/pdf/dubai-submission.pdf,accessed 29 January 2014.
Talen, E. (1999) Sense of community and neighbourhood form:An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. UrbanStudies 36(8): 1361–1379.
Varnay, A.L. (2013) Circular Urban Systems: Moving TowardsSystems Integration. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technol-ogy, The Netherlands.
Verschuur, G. (2015) Personal Interview. Culemborg.White (architecture firm). http://en.white.se/, accessed 8 July
2016.United Nations Population Fund (2007) State of World Population
2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth. New York:UNFPA.
Universite de Geneve. http://www.unige.ch/, accessed 8 July2016.
The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in European sustainable neighbourhoods
ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 22, 2, 150–167 167