Community design bibliography

  • Beatly, Timothy, and David J. Brower. 1994. “Representation in comprehensive planning: An analysis of the Austinplan process.” Journal of the American Planning Association 60, no. 2: 185. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2008). Analyzes the representativeness of the Austinplan process implemented in Austin, Texas involving citizen participation in city planning. Importance of representation; Policy differences between participants and the general public; Austin residents as naive populists.
  • Day, Diane, 1997.Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: An Essentially Contested Concept?” Journal of Planning Literature 51, no. 11: 421-434. Sage Journals Online (accessed November 12, 2008). This article contains a brief survey of the history of civic engagement in the United States and some of the theories about civic participation in public affairs. One of the goals of the article is to examine the citizen participation poses for the planning process
  • O’Connell, Kim A. 2006. “Building diversity.” American City & County 121, no. 13: 44-47. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost(accessed November 13, 2008). The article focuses on the efforts of U.S. local government and private organizations to include affordable housing into their city revitalization projects. According to a report by Smart Growth Network and the National Neighborhood Coalition, redevelopments often unintentionally force lower-income residents to move away to find affordable housing. Thus, city leaders are factoring in affordable housing of which its benefits have been proven. Home ownership have been an ultimate goal of many municipal housing efforts.
  • Greco, JoAnn. 2008. “Old Tool New Uses.” Planning 74, no. 6: 38-43. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2008). The article reports on the growth of cities establishing comprehensive plans for community development in the U.S. It states that the plan focuses on carrying out redevelopment in urban areas and the construction of infrastructure that will address the needs and demands of local residents. These include Planning Raleigh 2030 in North Carolina, housing development in New Orleans, and reform in commercial business in Washington, D.C. It reveals that comprehensive plans play essential role in identifying the issues facing communities and develop solutions that will help promote the growth of towns and cities across the country.
  • Lipow, Hershell. 2005. “Living Cities: Using Focused Investment to Develop and Revitalize Communities.” Journal of Housing & Community Development 62, no. 3: 24-29. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 14, 2008). Discusses the emergence of the comprehensive community initiatives, a potential model that created and empowered sustainable communities in the U.S. Efficiency of the system in promoting urban revitalization; Role in uniting financial institutions, foundations and government with committed stakeholders on for urban investments; Citation of organizations with successful comprehensive community initiatives.
  • Community Design Collaborative.
  • Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century.” Planning Theory & Practice 5, no. 4: 419-436.Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2008). Makes the case that legally required participation methods in the US not only do not meet most basic goals for public participation, but they are also counterproductive, causing anger and mistrust. Both theory and practice are dominated by ambivalence about the idea of participation itself. Both struggle with dilemmas that make the problems seem insoluble, such as the conflict between the individual and collective interest or between the ideal of democracy and the reality that many voices are never heard. Cases are used to draw on an emerging set of practices of collaborative public engagement from around the world to demonstrate how alternative methods can better meet public participation goals and how they make moot most of the dilemmas of more conventional practice.
  • Toker, Zeynep. 2007. “Recent trends in community design: the eminence of participation.” Design Studies 28, no. 3: 309-323.Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2008). This paper reports a recent study asking current community design practitioners to identify the most influential people and key issue leaders in the community design field and to define the concept itself. The results of the study show that in addition to the continuing concepts such as participation, there are new concepts such as new urbanism and sustainability which are now associated with community design. The most important conclusion, however, is that community design field is in fact in search of new perspectives.
  • Manzo, Lynne C., and Douglas D. Perkins. 2006. “Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning.”Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4: 335-350. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2008). Draws connections between the environmental and community psychology literature on place attachment and meaning with the theory, research, and practice of community participation and planning.
  • Vidal, Avis C., and W. Dennis Keating. 2004. “Community Development: Current Issues and Emerging Challenges.” Journal of Urban Affairs 26, no. 2: 125-137.Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 12, 2008). The emerging issues in the community development movement with an emphasis on the work of community development corporations in the U.S. Factors affecting the sector’s ability to continue their tasks; Contributions of leadership and seasoned practitioners in community development projects; Implications of the future of community development corporations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s