Nostalgia, Community and New Housing Developments: A Critique of New Urbanism Incorporating a New Zealand Perspective

How ideological migration geographically segregates groups

“…Understanding how people make these residential migration decisions is complex (Greenwood, 1985;Oishi, 2010). Employment, family, finances, personality, and temperament all influence migration (Jokela, 2009;Jokela, Elovainio, Kivimaki, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2008;Winstanley, Thorns, & Perkins, 2003). People likely make these decisions in ways that help them pursue their goals.…”

Encountering the Multiplicity of Community in Planning and Designing New Neighbourhoods

“…The second trend is found in scholarly work that rejects the idea that communities are defined by places and instead views them as dynamic entities based on relational ties operating across various scales (Winstanley et al, 2003;Cass et al, 2005;Rosenblatt et al, 2009). Relational community ties arise from social relations such as those found in workplaces, family and friendship networks, hobbies and virtual or online communities.…”

“…Beyond the provision of housing MPCs can include streetscapes, landscaping, parks and open space, recreational and other facilities for community use and support for community development (Winstanley et al, 2003;Gwyther, 2005;Costley, 2006), and developers often play key roles in negotiating the provision of educational facilities, retail outlets and opportunities for local employment (Bajracharya & Khan, 2010;Johnson, 2010). As the market for MPCs intensifies and competition between developers increases, some developers may sponsor residents' groups and online forums and support regular events for different age groups and interests (Walters & Rosenblatt, 2008;Bajracharya & Khan, 2010).…”

“…To appeal to prospective buyers attracted by idealistic lifestyles leading developers in Australia and New Zealand heavily promote new housing estates on the promise of readymade and thriving communities (Winstanley et al, 2003;Walters & Rosenblatt, 2008;Rosenblatt et al, 2009). Beyond the provision of housing MPCs can include streetscapes, landscaping, parks and open space, recreational and other facilities for community use and support for community development (Winstanley et al, 2003;Gwyther, 2005;Costley, 2006), and developers often play key roles in negotiating the provision of educational facilities, retail outlets and opportunities for local employment (Bajracharya & Khan, 2010;Johnson, 2010).…”

Master Planned Estates: Pariah or Panacea?

“…These new agendas joined earlier problems of poorly serviced, unplanned suburban development to generate a powerful opening for new ways of delivering better suburbs. Australian planners and the new crop of globally engaged land and housing development companies were therefore open to American models of New Urbanism and MPEs with their idealisation of suburban villages, urban communities and higher density planned neighbourhoods (see Calthorpe, 1993;Katz, 1994;Talen, 1999;Winstanley et al, 2003;Gleeson, 2006a). Faced with the costs and ills of suburbia and the depopulation of the inner city, the solution to the many ills of late 20th-century Australian suburbia became urban containment, consolidation and master planning (Logan, 1986;O'Connor et al, 1995;Troy, 1996).…”