Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The neighborhood council: Where �top-down� engages with �bottom-up�
Einat Yinon-Amoyal & Rachel Kallus*Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion, Haifa, 32000, Israel (E-mail: [email protected]); *Authorfor correspondence (E-mail: [email protected])
Key words: neighborhood planning, neighborhood council, municipal administration, local versus professionalknowledge
Abstract
The paper examines the neighborhood council from the perspective of its contribution to town planning. Within thecontext of planning in Israel, two distinct models of neighborhood council and their relationship to the municipalplanning administration in two different towns are considered. Their potential as a new arena of planning at theneighborhood level is evaluated, including the ability to mediate between �bottom-up� and �top-down� planningprocesses, and to offer a planning framework that combines local with professional knowledge.
Introduction
The neighborhood council, as mediator between muni-cipal authorities and local residents, offers a uniqueplanning framework, combining �bottom-up� and �top-down� planning processes, and connecting localized andprofessional knowledge. Are the planning administra-tors aware of this potential? Other studies have investi-gated the social and administrative characteristics ofneighborhood councils. This study examines them in thecontext of urban planning, focusing on two cities,Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, investigating three neighbor-hood councils in each city, and comparing and evalu-ating their activities as related to two different municipalsystems. The study reveals dissimilar urban planningadministrations that clearly affect the two models ofneighborhood council, not only in regard to organiza-tional structure, but also as concerns their planningactivities and interaction with the municipal planningsystems.
Results indicate that, in both cities, neighborhoodcouncils have reinforced the importance of local com-munities in city planning. They also support the con-cept of planning at the neighborhood level as aseparate activity, and suggest a need to integrate top-down and bottom-up approaches based on the uniquescale of each neighborhood. Unfortunately, in Israeltoday, the neighborhood as a planning unit and thestatus of the neighborhood council in regard to plan-ning are not clearly defined.
Planning of/with the neighborhood
The neighborhood has continuously occupied planningand architectural imagination (Brower, 1996; Kallus andLaw Yone, 1997, 2000). Since the 20th century priorityhas been given to finding (and often inventing) a sub-urban unit adaptable for organization of the urbansystem, and mediating between the single house andthe city.1 Compared with this functional approach, thecurrent focus on the socio-cultural attributes ofthe neighborhood recognizes that city dwellers areentitled to create and define their own community. Thisrecognition of the community as a self-defined socio-cultural unit parallels the struggle of urban movementsfor human rights, ecologic balance, or historical pres-ervation (Castells, 1983; Rohe and Gates, 1985; Morris,1996).
Planning in Israel, especially at the neighborhoodlevel, has traditionally helped to foster a national(Israeli) identity (Kallus, 2005), and to erase ethnicinclinations of individuals and groups, especially of newimmigrants.2 In recent years there has been a growingrecognition of the necessity for self-defined groups toestablish their own identity in the city.3 Nonetheless, theattempt to turn the Israeli city into mosaic of cultures isnot only late, but also not entirely free from politicalintentions to strengthen some groups at the expense ofothers, and to reap economic benefits from the com-mercialization of communities� socio-cultural identities4.However, the neighborhood has meanings which cannot
GeoJournal (2005) 64: 91–104 � Springer 2006DOI 10.1007/s10708-005-4092-1
be defined �top-down� by planning, or enforced by themunicipality. The neighborhood, as an expression oflocal forces, is especially valuable in a contested urbansituation, in which individuals and communities defineand defend their identity day by day.
Neighborhood planning implemented �top-down� isusually imposed by external decision makers and plan-ners, who view the neighborhood as an object (Sadan,1997). This is planning of the neighborhood, not with it.But, as a �bottom-up� process neighborhood planningattempts to empower the residents and allow them toparticipate in the planning (Friedmann, 1992; Davido-vic-Marton, 1996; Sadan, 1997). The link betweenneighborhood and community, in both conceptual andphysical terms (Davis, 1991; Knox, 1995; Brower, 1996;Carmon, 2001), differentiates between the neighborhoodas a spatial system – a place – and as a social system – acommunity,5 suggesting a connection between theboundaries of a place and the group associated with it. Itrecognizes the sense of belonging to a place as whatcoheres a vital and meaningful community, and stimu-lates a thriving neighborhood (Clay and Hollister,1983).
One can argue that in the modern, dynamic city,social ties are no longer based on physical proximity, oron belonging to a specific locale, but on commoninterests beyond the boundaries of place (Webber, 1963;Sassen, 1994). In our networking society, technology iscreating communities, not in the context of geographicalproximity, but in regard to the common interests andconcerns of their members (Castles, 1996). However,even in a trans-global virtual urban space (and perhapsthere especially), the importance of local identity asdefined by place of residence, is paramount (Hall and duGa, 1996; Holston and Appadurai, 1999; Harvey, 1989).Thus, neighborhood planning becomes doubly impor-tant, especially in regard to the needs and desires ofindividual members of a community, as opposed toplanning that assumes an a priori correlation between aplace and a social group.
Despite many doubts and much opposition, the ideaof change fostered from below, though still conflictingwith more traditional planning attitudes, is graduallygaining support (Yiftachel, 2002). Bottom-up planningis usually associated with progressive approaches like�advocacy planning� (Davidoff, 1996) in which theplanner represents the interest group; or �communicativeplanning� (Healey, 1996, 1997; Forester, 1989), whereplanning is interactively negotiated between differentgroups (Innes, 1994). This view of planning as anongoing process of exchange and communication seespolicy-making as a result of mutual learning (Friedman,1987). Based on theories of social change, it adheres tothe belief that groups with conflicting interests canunderstand and cooperate with each other (Habermas,1984).
Planning with the neighborhood is based onmutual consent regarding spatial action, i.e. collabora-tion between policy makers, planners, and users. But
primarily it derives from the legitimacy of planning thatincorporates local interests, even if such interests are notalways known to the planner (Fenster, 2001). Examplesof planning with the neighborhood are not common.The Community Development Corporation (CDC),started in the 1970s in the USA, sought to foster com-munity-based neighborhood growth, and its initiativeswere supported by government funding since its activi-ties were oriented towards alleviating social problems,especially poverty, by working with local communities(Keating and Krumholz, 1998).6 But in regard to thedeterministic nature of planning (Huxley and Yiftachel,2000), building a neighborhood together with its com-munity should entail both �top-down� and �bottom-up�processes. As argued by Innes (1994), knowledge iseffective for planning, only when it is socially con-structed and absorbed by its users. Can the neighbor-hood council acquire such knowledge? Can it enableresidents, planners and public officials to share anongoing dialogue and mutual involvement based onrelevant everyday experience?
The paper is an attempt to enrich urban planningtheory and practice by looking at the neighborhood as acontested arena of power struggles attempting to shapethe city. Its premise is that the neighborhood could be asocio-cultural and physical entity, not merely as a resultof planning or administration, but one that also incor-porates meaningful local processes.
Neighborhood: idea and practice
There is no clear definition or consensus, regarding theterm �neighborhood� in the theoretical or professionalliterature (Kallus and Law Yone, 1997). However, thereis a common acknowledgment of the neighborhood�scohesiveness, its own similarities or homogeneity withinits social or physical setting, which defines the neigh-borhood as a unit of a larger system (Kallus and LawYone, 2000). Researchers refer to physical aspects of theneighborhood, especially in relation to housing andinfrastructures (Calthorp, 1993), its social attributes asa community (Kotler, 1969; Knox, 1995) and/or itsorganizational and administrative qualities (Clay andHollister, 1983).
The neighborhood, as a sub-urban system, is oftenregarded as inferior to the city. In spite of the impact ofthe city on the neighborhood, it is clear that they aremutually dependent. Rohe and Gates (1985) define thecity as a mosaic of communities, and see urban �well-being� as dependent on its many neighborhoods. Thus,although the neighborhood depends on the city and isunder its control, its influence on the city is undeniable,so that changes at the neighborhood level will obviouslymake a difference at the urban level, as a source of urbandynamics (Goldhaber, 1998). Researchers agree thatethnic diversity and the multiple socio-cultural aspectsof the city, the freedom, and opportunities generated byurban life, draw people back to their familiar locale. As
92
Hayden (1995) points out, this is not a passive associa-tion with a known environment, but an active social,economic and political exchange that further emphasizesthe uniqueness of a place. It has been argued thatcommunities are created in a world where blurring dif-ferences between places is a result of global culture(Hall, 1991; Appadurai, 1996). Even if this differentia-tion between places is partly due to commodification,attempts by global markets to derive economic benefitsfrom the pseudo-uniqueness of places, it is impossible toignore the vitality of local socio-cultural processes andtheir impact on the identity of people connecting to theirliving places.
The neighborhood as a sub-urban unit – a �ward�(Howard, 1898), �unit� (Perry, 1929) or �quarter� (Krier,1984), has served modern city planning, and in its neo-traditionalist version, it still serves an ordering device inthe postmodern city. These newer attempts at what isoften termed New Urbanism (Katz, 1994) have inte-grated pedestrian and vehicular movement systems,combined it with multiple land use and mixed housing,and fostered local identities derived from historicalprecedents (Duany and Plater-Zyberg, 1991; Calthorpe,1993). Regardless of their new approach, they, likeearlier examples of prescribed neighborhoods, suggestsub-urban unites that will foster otherness and detachaffluent communities from the rest of the urban mass(Till, 1993; Audirac and Sherrmyn, 1994).
Neighborhood planning, as distinguished by a spe-cific scale and requiring appropriate planning practicesand measures, is still not clearly defined. A multiplicityof definitions, approaches and attitudes emphasizes thecomplexity of the neighborhood as a suburban unit, notonly in regard to identity and meaning, but particularlyas a unit of planning. Is this a planning process of theneighborhood, a discrete object defined by the planner;planning for the neighborhood, for the needs andinterests of its residents; or perhaps planning with aneighborhood, a process that will also involve the resi-dents? Bearing this questions in mind, the paper exam-ines neighborhood councils in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.The neighborhood is seen at the intersection of multipleforces that shape a city. It is not simply a tool forworking the city �top-down�, nor a �bottom-up� processderiving only from local knowledge. It is a meetingpoint.
Neighborhood planning in Israel
The status of neighborhood planning – its definition, itstools and its role – is symptomatic of the unclear orga-nization and function of town planning in the context ofIsrael�s comprehensive planning system. Despite recentchanges in municipal administration and its supportinginfrastructure, planning at the neighborhood level is stillunrecognized and its status is unclear, complicating therelationships between two closely connected planningscales – the city and the neighborhood. Strengthen by a
central governing structure, the Israeli planning systemis unable to address local political forces. Often it doesnot support municipalities in their attempt to relate tothe requirements of local communities according to theirchanging conditions and diverse needs. The requiredplanning procedures at the neighborhood level tend toundermine place-bound identity and neglect local needsand aspirations.7
The essential aim of urban planning in Israel, ratifiedin the 1965 Planning and Construction Act, is to regu-late land and its use, by maintaining a balance betweenthe current and future needs, rights, and interests, ofdifferent agents (Vernasky, 1992). Elazar and Kalhiem(1987) argue that planning at the regional and nationallevels is on the rise. This is evident in the metropolitanmaster plans supervised (and sometimes even initiated)at the regional or national level. The power of municipalauthorities to determine the character of their locality isin local master plans. Preferred populations, quality oflife, types of housing and services could all be regulatedby the municipality in detailed local master plans, thushelping to demarcate land use for housing and publicservices and to schedule development (Ben Elia, 1995).However, such plans must be approved by a regionalcommittee, so that even though master plans are offi-cially recognized, their outcome neighborhood planning,as determined at the local level, must be legally ratifiedby the regional committee. A neighborhood plan dealswith a specific area, demarcated in a city�s master planand usually addressed in terms of services provision.Although indicating a social unit, the design of theneighborhood is usually a by-product of the town planand it purpose is to further define what is delineatedthere. Thus, planning at the neighborhood level is in factdirectly connected to regional and national planning.
The complex interaction between town and neigh-borhood planning, as defined and practiced within theIsraeli planning system, creates what could be describedas a �planning vacuum�. It points to a problem that existsnot only when attempting to gather relevant data basedon professional and/or local knowledge, but mainly inrelation to �voices from the field� that express interestswhich might contradict those of planners and publicofficials. This lack of recognition of, and inaccessibilityto, local concerns is exacerbated by deficiencies inplanning at the neighborhood level. The planning sys-tem is not equipped to deal with local conflicts oraddress the residents� needs. Here the neighborhoodcouncil could make an important contribution to plan-ning solutions. But unfortunately it has only beenimplemented in few cities in Israel.
This paper is an attempt to examine the relevancy ofthe neighborhood council to planning at the neighbor-hood level and how it confronts planning issues at thatlevel. Two different models of neighborhood councils intwo different urban settings are compared. There is nouniversal model or one definition of neighborhoodcouncil. Culture, values, previous experiences and powerstructures direct the organizational structure of the
93
neighborhood council. Therefore, each of the neigh-borhood council models is a product of its local envi-ronment. Town planning also varies in its localinterpretation of national processes and administrativeand official guidelines. Thus, we discuss not only thedifferences between two types of neighborhood council,but also how each model is integrated in its specificmunicipal system.
The organizational structure and administration ofthe planning systems of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, espe-cially as related to planning at the neighborhood level,were studied. Three case studies of neighborhoodcouncils in each of these cities were analyzed, planningmaterial was examined, both at the neighborhoodcouncils and the municipalities, and interviews withofficials and professionals were also conducted in bothof them.8 The interviews with city officials were used toacquire information about the municipal planning andadministrative system, as connected with the neighbor-hood councils. The material was categorized into threetypes of planning in the physical and socio-culturalcontexts. This allowed evaluation of the activities ofeach neighborhood council in terms of planning prac-tices relevant to the neighborhood level, after which acomparative assessment was made of their variousactivities.
Neighborhood council and town planning
The two main stages of intervention in municipal plan-ning in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are short term and longterm (or strategic) planning. Planning decisions per-taining to the neighborhood occur at both stages, withinthe overall context of town planning. In Jerusalem, thereis no special department for neighborhood planning.The town planning department has seven referents, eachresponsible for several neighborhoods in the city, as wellas a special neighborhood consultant to the Mayor. TelAviv also has no specific neighborhood planningdepartment. Relevant matters are dealt with by the townplanning division of the Engineering Commission,according to geographical areas. The inclusion ofneighborhood planning as a part of town planning limitsthe ability to deal with each neighborhood individually,so that the statutory town plan dictates the rules, withno specific attention to local needs of each neighbor-hood. It can be argued that consideration of andeven-handedness to each neighborhood would be cum-bersome and give rise to inequalities. Nonetheless,ignoring the needs of each neighborhood negates theirindividuality and their specificity.
Neighborhood councils developed in Israel becauseof social movements, changes in local administrationorganization, and the demand for more public partici-pation (Hasson and Ley, 1997; Shehori, 1997; Hasson,1999). They were initiated mainly by mayors and othermunicipal and government officials, professionals, andacademics. According to Adiv et al. (1995), the goal
was always to connect the municipality and the public.In both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the neighborhoodcouncils� raison d�etre was the inability of local gov-ernment to cope with the demands of the residents.However, while in Jerusalem the local governmentwanted to find new ways to increase its legitimacy(Dabra, 1997), its counterpart in Tel Aviv was mostlyconcerned with three issues: effective administration andservices; the continuous challenge of city officials; andgrowing disapproval and lack of support from residents(Hasson, 1993; Nahmias, 1993).
Jerusalem
The 1970s in Jerusalem were characterized by politicalactivism organized mainly around the Mizrahi protest.Demands for better housing, employment, and publicservices created openings for residents to participate inphysical and social processes, and thereby express thecity�s cultural diversity. Since 1978, the neighborhoodrenewal project has promoted neighborhood activism byintegrating residents in local governing systems (Hassonand Zaltzberg, 1989). By the end of the 1970s, there wasa growing interest in problems related to ecology andquality of life in established urban organizations thatwere not mere sporadic local protests (Dabra, 1997).With the new reality of the �unified city�, following the1967 war, the municipality was confronted with thedisparity between comprehensive town planning andindividual local situations. Growth in area and popu-lation further exposed these differences. This, in turn,drew attention to the needs and requirements of distinctareas. It was soon realized that, to deal with the newreality, a different planning approach was required(Hasson and Zaltzberg, 1989). The idea of the neigh-borhood councils was proposed and developed in theDepartment of Social Work at the Hebrew Universityand subsequently adopted and further developed by theMayor and the municipality. The neighborhood coun-cils experiment started in 1973 at the neighborhood ofTalpiot as a pilot project.
The Jerusalem model of community council
The dynamic Jerusalem neighborhood council devel-oped under social, economic and political conditionsthat changed it over the years.9 Throughout these phasesit has always maintained two operative levels – of staffand field (Adrai, 1997; Shehori, 1997). At the staff level,all councils operate under the roof of the JerusalemSociety for Community Centers and CommunityCouncils (The Jerusalem Society), headed by the mayor,with a community leader as deputy. Staff is responsiblefor operation and development, supported by profes-sional personnel, and for strategic planning and liaisingbetween the community councils and the municipality(Ganor and Witenburg, 1997; Shehori, 1997). At thefield level the community council is an independent legalassociation, operating in accordance with the 1980
94
Associations Law. Its board, comprising memberselected by residents, although not legally constituted, isintegral to its principles. Paid professional experts co-operating with the board include the council head, aphysical co-coordinator, (planner), a social co-coordi-nator, and other officials. Sub-committees on variousother aspects are formed as required.
Tel Aviv
By the 1990s, Tel Aviv had become a boomingmetropolis that provided services, not only to its resi-dents, but also to some million daily commuters,necessitating expansion of all its infrastructures andcommercial and employment facilities. Increasedawareness both of quality of life and ecological issuesgave rise to residents� movements that constantly chal-lenged the municipality (Hasson, 1993; Nahmias, 1993).As in Jerusalem, conflicts of interests between localgroups and appointed officials exposed tensions betweenthe city as a whole and the needs and requirements of itsspecific areas. City planning was not flexible enough. Ithad to deal with the complex urban reality in order tostabilize the pressures of its incremental growth, but itonly applied itself at the macro-level, without payingadequate attention to the micro-level. Its comprehensivestrategic plan lacked the means to address the plan�sconsequences at the local level. This conflict exposes thediscrepancy between urban and suburban planning, andthe necessity to develop a planning and administrativesystem influenced by ideas developed in Jerusalem andin other cities, both in Israel and abroad. The develop-ment of the councils was initiated by the municipalityand was followed by clashes between the municipalityand the residents. Opposition grew when the munici-pality announced its intention of combining severalneighborhoods into a single quarter. Local residentsfeared that the needs of each specific neighborhoodwould be disregarded. Affluent neighborhoods alsorejected the combining of low and high income areasinto a single administrative unit, fearing that this wouldaffect real estate values.
The Tel Aviv quarter council
Quarter councils are town hall divisions whose officialpurpose is the provision of services. Currently there arefour such councils in Tel Aviv, each serving 40,000residents in a couple of neighborhoods (The Tel Avivmunicipality, 1992; Nahmias, 1993). As in Jerusalem,there are two distinct staff and field levels. The staff level,operating from city hall, consists of a steering committeeand the headquarters of the council. The latter isresponsible for integrating the councils into the munici-pal system. The staff, headed by an elected city official,includes management and council representatives, allof whom are city employees (Hasson, 1993). The
professional staff is responsible for implementing thesteering committee�s resolutions, coordinating councilactivities with city departments, organizing develop-ment, and directing the council according to the overallneeds of the quarters and the interests of the municipality(Tel Aviv Municipality, 1992).
The quarter councils operate at the field level andconsist of a managing committee, made up of residentsrepresenting the different neighborhoods, representa-tives of service providers and city hall departments, aprofessional team, and heads of area committees. Themanaging committee�s responsibility is to guide quarterpolicies, ensure resident representation, approve areacommittee programs and mitigate conflicts. Area com-mittees comprise residents� representatives, city officials,and service providers. The professional team is made upof the quarter manager, a social developer, a physicaldeveloper (planner) and an administrative assistant, allof them city employees. Its role is to guide the activitiesof the steering committee and the area committees(Hasson, 1993).
Comparative analysis
Residents� action, although similar in both cities, wasinitiated for different reasons and expressed differently.In Jerusalem it was more institutionalized, based on thecity�s traditional geographical and topographical orga-nization in defined neighborhoods. In Tel Aviv it was anad hoc reaction to urban development projects. Resis-tance to city authority in Jerusalem was ethnically ori-ented and linked to social movements in the country. InTel Aviv the opposition to municipal initiatives wasmainly class-oriented, stimulated by the speed of TelAviv�s development as an economic and commercialmetropolitan center. In Jerusalem, residents� councilsare organized around their social and political activitiesas connected to their identity. In Tel Aviv, on the otherhand, the quarter council responds to commercial pro-jects that affect the city at large, not necessarily inrelation to specific neighborhoods.
The councils� initiation and organization processes,in both cities, clearly show a tendency to develop �top-down�. However, in Jerusalem the process also involvesexternal agents, while in Tel Aviv development occurssolely in and through the municipality. The organiza-tional structure of the different councils is also con-nected to professional and voluntary input (see Table 1).In Jerusalem appointments are usually based on pro-fessional ability, especially as concerns planners. In TelAviv the selection is often connected to internal politicsand the promotion of municipal employees, or to cre-ating changes by appointing city personnel. At the vol-untary level, the differences are even more marked, andare related to the residents� position in the council. InJerusalem, policy is decreed by the residents. In Tel Avivit is subject to municipal interests and goals.
95
Planning activity in neighborhood councils
The three cases studied in each city allow evaluation ofneighborhood councils� planning activities. There areconsiderable differences among the neighborhoodsexamined in Jerusalem – Gilo, Neve Yaacov and HarNof – in terms of physical and social characteristics, ascompared to the quarters examined in Tel Aviv – BneiDan, North East, and East.
In order to evaluate the neighborhood councils�planning activities and to understand the differencesbetween them in each city and between cities, the socialfeatures and spatial characteristic of each neighborhoodwas examined. The findings are summarized hereby andin Tables 2 and 3.
Jerusalem
All neighborhoods are Jewish, differing from each otherin the socio-economic level of their residents, their reli-gious orientation and ethnic background. Residents ofGilo are mostly secular and of middle income level. InHar Nof they are ultra-orthodox and national religiousof high to middle income level. In Neve Yaakov they areorthodox of low to middle income level.
Gilo – a residential quarter in the south east ofJerusalem (see Map 1), built as part of the Israelizationof Jerusalem after the 1967 war. Its palm-like structure,defined by the topography and the attempt to form anew border for the city, consists of three housing clus-ters �fingers� sloping down towards the city center, a
wall-like housing facing the Palestinian town of BeitJalla, and the neighborhood center at the intersectinghigh point Housing density is fairly high, but units aresmall, with more than half of them less than 60 squaremeter and most containing 3–4 rooms.
Gilo�s population is about 40,000 residents, most ofthem of middle to low socio-economic level. Themajority of the population is of immigrants fromFrance, Iran, South America, Syria and the formerUSSR. Since the events of the second Palestinian Intif-ada there is a tendency to leave the neighborhood,although those seeking better housing to move also tothe neighboring Har-Homa built also in a denselypopulated Palestinian area.
Har Nof – a residential neighborhood on a mountainin the western limits of Jerusalem (see Map 1) separatedfrom nearby neighborhoods. It is densely built, mostlyof medium-rise residential buildings. Population size isof about 25,000 people, of which almost 60% are ultra-orthodox and the rest are national religious (with con-tinuous conflicts between these two groups). Most of theresidents are of high socio-economic level. About 50%of them are children at the ages of 0–14 and about 25%are at the ages of 5–44, indicating that Har Nof is ayoung neighborhood. Har Nof is very attractive for thehigh income ultra-orthodox community, which ismarked by a continuous positive migration to theneighborhood.
Neve-Yaakov – a Jewish residential neighborhood atthe north part of Jerusalem (see Map 1) in an areapopulated mainly by Arabs. The neighborhood is
Table 1. Comparative analysis of the three research neighborhoods in Jerusalem
Neve-Yaakov Har Nof Gilo
Location in the city North West South-East
Description of built
up areas, open spaces
and public facilities
Mixture of buildings
along main streets and
large separate compounds,
especially in the ultra
orthodox area of the
neighborhood
Clear border defining
the neighborhood from
other built up areas.
Buildings along main roads
of building varying in heights
and one area of single
detached buildings.
Shortage of open spaces
Mixture between
buildings along main
roads and cluster
buildings defining public
open space. Some large
public open spaces
and parks
Building types High rise buildings Likeness of building types,
mainly high rise
Variety of building types
from the 1970s fit for
the unique topography
Density High High High
Number of residents 23,000 25,000 40,000
Ethnic and socio-economic
characteristics
Ethnically mixed community.
Lower class with high
percentage of dependants
and population in need
of welfare services
Ultra orthodox community
and national religious community
of middle to high class
Positive migration
Ethnically mixed community
mostly of middle class with
areas of lower middle class
population Negative
migration
Population age groups High percentage of age
group 20–64 and
children 5–14
High percentage of children High percentage of elderly
and small children
96
density built with small housing units (65% of thehousing units are 41–62 square meter), many of whichundergoing expansion. Real estate value in the neigh-borhood is very low compared to other neighborhoodsin Jerusalem. The population, of about 23,000 residents,is of middle to low income level. The neighborhoodsuffers a negative migration due to households movingout, mainly to the neighboring Pisgat Zeev.
Tel Aviv
Bnei Dan – located in the central part of Tel Aviv (seeMap 2) and is part of the financial, cultural and socialhub of the city. Thus it has no neighborhood structureand no exact boundaries between neighborhoods. Mostof the buildings are medium height (3–6 floors) andfairly old. Population is of about 42,000 residents, fromtwo main age groups: 27% are 64+ and 30% are 25–44,mostly of middle income level, although there is a smallminority of residents of high income level and of lowincome level.
North East – located in the north east part of TelAviv (see Map 2) with neighborhood structure but noclear boundaries between the neighborhoods. There ishigh percentage of new buildings, some high rise andsome single level detached units, undergoing urbanrenewal processes. The population is of about 38,500residents, dominated by the age groups of 25–44 and64+ in the older parts. Sections of the quarter belong tothe very high income group level and other parts consist
of middle and low income groups with the polaritybetween these two groups very distinct.
East– located in the south east part of Tel Aviv(see Map 2) with a defined neighborhood structure.Housing stock is of variety of styles (high rise slabs andsingle detached units). Population is about 36,000residents, most of them of the age group of 25–44 andof middle income level. Nevertheless, the quarter het-erogeneity has increased in the last few years due tourban renewal processes taking place in some areas inthe quarter.
The evaluations of the activity of the neighborhoodcouncils are based on data gathered through interviewswith council heads and physical planners, and reviews ofplans, reports and programs. The physical and socialanalyses each relate to three aspects of intervention: thephysical aspect refers to housing, infrastructure, andland use; the social aspect refers to culture, education,and local leadership. These are classified according tothree planning activities in each area, i.e. physical initi-ation, regulation and prevention; and social promotion,provision and operation. Tables 4 and 5 present theoverall analysis of the findings according to these clas-sifications. The following discusses the analysis andoffers some examples.
Jerusalem
Based on analysis of the data in Table 4, it is clear thatin the physical area the councils are more involved in
Table 2. Comparative analysis of the three Research Neighborhoods in Tel-Aviv
North-East East Bnei Dan
Location in the city North-East South-East Center
Description of built
up areas, open spaces
and public facilities
Neighborhood structure
but no physical borders
between neighborhoods
Clear neighborhood
structure with
neighborhoods separated
from each other by
main roads
No clear neighborhood
structure low percentage
of open and green areas
Building types High percentage of new
buildings, some high rise
buildings and some single
detached units. Building
standards varies.
Some urban renewal
Mixture of housing types:
some slab buildings along
detached single family units
signs of urban renewal
Old apartment buildings
of 3–6 stories high
Density High Medium High
Number of residents 38,500 36,000 42,000
Ethnic and socio-economic
characteristics
High class along lower class
(this dichotomy is the
neighborhood�s
main characteristic)
Middle class with some areas of
lower class and other, in which
there is a beginning of
gentrification process
some higher class
Middle to high class
Population age groups Varies with the age group of
25–44 being dominant and
in the older part high
percentage of elders
Varies with the age group
of 25–44 being dominant
About 28% elderly and the
rest of the age group of 25–44
97
regulative and preventive planning. Regulative plan-ning is evident in the ongoing supervision of all plansconcerning the neighborhood, by the neighbor-hood council. The physical planner is responsible forgathering all relevant information and discussing theplans with the residents, as well as for supplying themunicipality with a professional opinion. The councilsalso maintain contact with the regional planningcommittee and obtain updated information about allplans concerning the neighborhood. For example, afollow-up by the Gilo Council of an expansion plan foran area adjacent to the neighborhood prevented theconstruction of a new access road to the neighborhood(Gilo Council, 2000). Preventive planning is achievedthrough appeals against plans that can have negativeconsequences for the neighborhood, and often bynegotiating for a compromise. Alternative physicalplanning processes, headed by the physical planner,enable the neighborhood council to review other solu-tions and include the residents in an open dialoguewith the authorities. Another example of such a pro-cess is Har Nof. Here, the neighborhood councilobjected to Road 16, which was planned to cross the
Jerusalem Forest and would affect the neighborhood�simmediate environment. The neighborhood councilclaimed that the road would be detrimental to theneighborhood�s quality of life. In Neve Yaacov, thecouncil refused to allow an illegal dumping site.Consistent opposition and demonstrations finally led toa court appeal, won by the neighborhood councilassisted by The Association for Man, Nature and Law,and the site was closed. In Gilo, an initiative by theIsrael Land Authority and the Jerusalem Municipalityto develop tourist attractions in the Wadi Ilan adjacentto the neighborhood initially met with opposition.However, an alternative provision for a green area,developed in co-operation with the neighborhoodcouncil, was accepted by the residents. Planning ini-tiatives are not yet among the council�s activities,although the situation is improving. This aspect ofplanning varies according to the neighborhood agen-das. For example, in Gilo the council has initiated aplan for public institutions based on residents� needs.In Har Nof a plan to reduce road accidents is beingimplemented, and in Neve Yaacov they are trying toincrease the number of cultural centers.
Table 3. Differences between models of neighborhood council
Tel Aviv Jerusalem
Initiation Decision and implementation
by the municipality
Academic experiment adopted
by the municipality
Staff level d Part of the municipal
administration
d External to the municipality.
Part of The Jerusalem Society for
Community Centers and
Community Councils
d Under the responsibility of
the Mayor�s Planning and
Supervision Deputy
d Partnership, municipal and
community delegation
d No residents� representation
in staff level at city hall
h Assistance by professional staff
h Assistance by professional staff
Professional team dConsists of director, physical
coordinator, social coordinator
d Director, planner, coordinators
(of area committees)
d Background of physical
coordinator in planning
d Background of planner in
planning and/or architecture
d Background of social coordinator
in public administration, education,
or community work
d Background of director in
informal education or public
administration
d All appointments by municipality�s
internal notification and promotion of
professional and officials working
in the municipality
d Director appointment by
public notification
d Professional team�s activity is not
compelled by area committees
d Policy and administration are
subject to the approval of residents�
representation
Voluntary level d The steering committee consists
of residents and representatives from
the municipality
d The managements consists
of residents and is headed by
elected resident
d Area committees are made by
the residents
d Area committees are
made by residents
98
There is an increase in promotional planning, espe-cially in regard to local leadership. In Gilo, a project foradvancing Jewish and Arab women leadership alsoinvolves women from other areas, and since 1995,despite the tense situation, attempts continue to extendthe dialogue between communities. In Har Nof andNeve Yaacov courses for community activists encouragevoluntary participation in area committees. Culturalinitiatives are diverse, in accordance with each neigh-borhood�s specific character, but in all three neighbor-hoods the council provides activities based on availablefunding and residents� requirements.
Tel Aviv
Analysis of the planning activity in the three examinedquarter councils in Tel Aviv, as presented in Table 5,shows considerable involvement in regulation, mostlyconcerning infrastructure. For example, in the North-East quarter, continuous supervision of the imple-mentation of plans for neighborhood developmenthelps to identify problems and gain the residents�approval. In the Bnei Dan quarter, regulative planningincludes alternative planning, and the council tries tomediate conflicts and reach agreement on developmentplans that previously were not approved by the resi-dents. When neighbors opposed a helicopter landingsite and extension of the Ichilov Hospital, the trafficcommittee of the Bnei Dan Quarter Council set up aforum together with the city�s traffic department, to
discuss the issue. Alternative solutions involvedchanges in the project that satisfied the residents.Regulative planning also involves land use and hous-ing, especially for new projects. Follow-up is based oninformation from the municipal town-planningdepartment. The East Quarter Council seems to bemost involved in housing, assistance with renovations,extensions, and mediation with professional bodies. Inall councils there is a growing tendency to initiateplans for issues affecting their quarter. For example,in the North-East Quarter attention was paid toinfrastructure, in the Bnei Dan Quarter new housinghas aroused interest, and in the East Quarter thesewage system, parks, and gardens have becomepriorities.
A common characteristic of all three councils is thedisregard for preventive planning. In such contingencies,the council usually mediates between residents� andmunicipality concerns, but no encouragement or assis-tance is given to the residents when it comes to lodgingplanning appeals. The council may provide information,but will never sponsor a legal objection in the planningcommittees. In fact, since the council�s professionals areall municipal employees and hence subordinate tomunicipal administration, they cannot represent theresidents in any dispute with the city. Needless to say,this does not make for a planning body that offers theresidents adequate representation.
Socially, and especially in terms of culture, thequarter councils participate in all three levels of
Map 1. The three research neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
99
planning – promotion, provision and operation. Theyorganize a variety of cultural activities connected tocelebrations and other events, according to interest andavailable resources. However, educational activities arefar less conspicuous, and mainly find expression inmaintenance of school facilities. It seems as if leader-ship development is on the increase, although only theNorth-East Quarter holds regular elections for councilrepresentatives in some of its neighborhoods, withseveral residents on the steering committee. In the BneiDan Quarter, there are task committees, and thecouncil provides workshops both for building com-mittees and for volunteer counseling. Similar activitiesare provided by the East Quarter Council, who assistsingle mothers, and also offer various courses andworkshops.
Planning activities: comparisons
The differences in the councils� planning activities derivefrom the locus of each model in the overall municipalsystem. While in Jerusalem the neighborhood councilsare outside the municipal system and independent of citycouncil decisions, in Tel Aviv the quarter councils are
part of the municipal system and subordinate to muni-cipal administration. Thus, in Tel Aviv any oppositionby the quarter council is considered as internal rebellion.The distinction between the two local council models ismost apparent in regard to preventive planning thatshould enable residents to express opposition to plansthey see as endangering their neighborhood. While inJerusalem preventive planning predominates, in TelAviv it is virtually non-existent. In Jerusalem thecouncils are actively involved in legal appeals concern-ing disagreement with official plans, but in Tel Aviv thecouncils may mediate or negotiate, but will neverintervene or interfere.
Another difference derives from the relationshipbetween the city planning departments and the councils.In Jerusalem the councils� involvement depends onphysical and social variables and the local characteristicsof a neighborhood. Successful co-operation with the citydepartment can reinforce involvement or lead to theinitiation of joint activities, thus increasing the legiti-macy of planning at the council level, and providingbacking where necessary. In Tel Aviv, activities arecentrally controlled by municipal policy which deter-mines the council�s role and the content of to its activity.
Map 2. The three research neighborhoods in Tel Aviv.
100
Professional ties between the council and the munici-pality�s town planning and other departments dictate theissues on the agenda. Connection with the Town Plan-ning Department, the Traffic Department and theDepartment for City Improvement is especially appar-ent. Planning is regulated and usually directed by themunicipality. These differences derive, of course, fromthe councils� goals. Although similar in Jerusalem andTel Aviv, control and resistance are greatly influencedby timing, and by the status of each city in the national,social and economic context. While in Tel Aviv thecouncils� goal was to assist economic development in the1990s by enabling conflict resolution, in Jerusalemthe goal was to increase political control and decreasemovements against urban authority.
The contribution of neighborhood councils to planning
The neighborhood councils in Jerusalem and Tel Avivpresent new planning arenas. These two dissimilarmodels, based on historical, political and social circum-stances, and different municipal town planning systems,have revealed the importance of the neighborhood in theoverall urban system. Awareness of the lacuna between acity and its parts has also drawn attention to the
uniqueness of specific areas. The councils define theneighborhood as both a place and a community, pre-senting this as an appropriate planning scale, thus con-firming the neighborhood, not only as a by-product ofthe urban system, but also as a system in its own right.Another important contribution is the council�s rein-forcement of the socio-cultural aspects of planning.Although physical aspects are still paramount, especiallywith regard to land use, infrastructure, and housing,these are now considered in relation to the community,making planning more sensitive to residents� needs andaspirations. Thus, by generating space for local initiative,the councils extend traditional planning and make itreceptive to other areas of knowledge.
The councils have also contributed by creating anadditional level that is very involved in actual planningin a variety of ways. In Jerusalem the councils provideup-to-date information for the municipality, and oftenenable informal discussion with the residents. However,since opposition to official plans can lead to delay and tolonger approval processes, the councils in Tel Aviv assistin �preparing the field� by presenting the municipality�sintentions to the residents before they are officially for-malized.
The councils have also been quite useful to residents,providing them with an arena for public participation
Table 4. Planning activities of community councils in Jerusalem
Physical area: High involvement in regulative and preventive planning. Increasing involvement in initiative planning according to the main areasof each neighborhood.Social area: High involvement in promoting cultural activities and local leadership. Relatively low involvement inpromoting activities related to education, in Gilo and Har-Nof, fairly high involvement in Neve Yaakov. High involvement in developing localleadership at all levels.
101
and, to some extent, even self-government. This is morenoticeable in Jerusalem, where residents� involvement inpolicy-making and strategic development has increased.Tel Aviv residents� participation is mainly confined toobjection, with far less participation in decision-making.To date, Tel Aviv residents have not been allowed totake responsibility in directing processes with themunicipality. Lately, they have gained some responsi-bility for preparing the city�s strategic plan through thequarter councils.
Conclusion
This paper examines the meaning of neighborhoodplanning as related to the neighborhood council. Itsuggests a two-way approach to the affinity between cityand neighborhood. It attempts to suggest a planningarena that allows for the encounter and co-operation ofmultiple forces. Study of the neighborhood council�scontribution to planning has shown that the council cansuccessfully include urban residents� interests in thetown-planning agenda, allowing them expression.However, as the example of Tel Aviv demonstrates, itcould also silence them.
There is a need to base planning on local knowledge,as derived from lived experiences, especially whereprofessional know-how, at the neighborhood level, is
frequently inadequate. The study demonstrates theinstrumentality of the neighborhood council in creatinga dialogue between urban and local planning. Althoughthis dialogue has taken a somewhat different form ineach city, the role that councils play in the municipalarena indicates that it is necessary to detach the plan-ning of an entire city from the planning of a specificarea. The study also confirms the need to rely on pro-fessional practice that focuses on the community, inorder to create a better socio-cultural and physicalenvironment. Within the complex power relations of theurban environment, this practice should effectivelyintegrate �top-down� and �bottom-up� processes, andprovide for negotiation and mediation.
Despite the councils� effective role in town planning,and their involvement in numerous planning issues, theplanning authorities fail to acknowledge them. Profes-sional practice, authorized by the Planning and Con-struction Act to take planning initiatives, has not so farrecognized the neighborhood�s relevance to planning,and the neighborhood council has no legal standing inthe planning system. In both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv,the councils are established with no functional ororganizational adjustment of the planning system.However, the council�s de facto identification, as a validprofessional body that can effectively articulate localinterests, requires attention. Town planning systemsmust evaluate their functional and organizational
Table 5. Planning activity of quarter councils in Tel Aviv
Physical area: High involvement in regulative planning, especially as related to infrastructure. Increasing involvement in initiative planning inaccordance with the main areas of each quarter. Low involvement in preventive planning.Social area: High involvement in cultural activities at all levels. Increasing involvement in developing local leadership at all levels.
102
structure and find ways to integrate the councils. It goeswithout saying that further investigation of the struc-tural, functional, organizational and legal consequencesof these steps is required, especially in light of thegrowing importance of local government and thedemand of local groups to shape and determine theirown destiny. The neighborhood is a valid planning unit.The neighborhood council can embrace a wide varietyof subjects linked to the needs and demands of localgroups, which not only determines the potential of theneighborhood for planning, but also establishes itsimportance.
Notes
1. The Neighborhood Unit (Perry, 1929) serves as themost outstanding example of these attempts toorganize the urban system For discussion of theuse, misuse and abuse of the neighborhood idea bymodern planning/architectural efforts to organize thecity see: Kallus and Law Yone, 1997, 2002.
2. The most vivid example of this approach is theplanning, construction and population of the Glik-son neighborhood in Kiryat Gat in the 1960s. Fordetails see: Kallus, 2004; Marans, 1978, 2004
3. The 1990s immigrats from the former Soviet Unionfor example, were not offered public housing indesignated neighborhoods, but were given housingsubsidies and were left to find their own housingsolutions in the private market. However, with theEthiopian immigrants the strategy was slightly dif-ferent as there was an attempt to supply them publichousing.
4. Here the holiday festival �The Hag of the Hagim�,organized by the Haifa monicipality in the Arabneighborhood of Wadi Nisnas, is a good example.
5. The dictionary defines neighborhood both in terms ofits proximity: �the people living near one another�,and its vicinity: � a section [of the city] lived in byneighbors� (Merriam Webster Dictionary on-line:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). Anotherdefinition talks about the neighborhood devoide ofits social meaning, as �group of houses which makeup a distinct region� (Babylon on-line).
6. In Israel the interest in public participation developedgradually and was influenced by examples from theUSA. Although it was first embraced by the acad-emy, lately it has been adopted professionally alsoand few recent planning processes adopt publicparticipation measures. On the Israeli approach topublic participation see: Alterman et al., 1987;Churchman and Sadan, 2003.
7. For example, during the preparation of neighbor-hood renewal plan for the Hadar neighborhood inHaifa (Shenar and Mann, 2002), there was noexpression of its socio-cultural diversity. Althoughthe plan identified the neighborhood�s heterogeneityand diversity and preliminary social study based on
interviews with focus groups addressed the needs ofits various communities, the actual planning stepsadopted traditional measures and did not refer to thecharacteristics of these communities.
8. All sampled neighborhoods in both Jerusalem andTel Aviv are Jewish.
9. The name neighborhood council used in the initialstages has been changed to community council in theearly 1990s, when it was agreed that the councilswould be united with the community centers (Societyfor Culture, Youth and Sport, or as it is called inHebrew Matnas). This was the result of an on-goingstruggle over domination of neighborhood activityand functional and organizational crises in bothinstitutions (Dabra, 1997).
References
Adiv H., Hasson S. and Shehori N., 1995: Neighborhood Council: Ideaand Method. Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Adrai D., 1997: Elected public administration in the communitycouncil. In: Schmid H. (ed.), The Community Council – Trends andChanges. The Community Center Society, Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Alterman R., Churchman A. and Law Yone H., 1987: Guide to PublicParticipation. Technion Center for Urban and Regional Planning,Haifa(Hebrew).
Appadurai A., 1996: Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions ofGlobalization. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Audirac I. and Shermyn A.H., 1994: An evaluation of neo-traditionaldesigns: social prescription, postmodern placebo, or remedy forsuburban malaise? Journal of Planning Education and Research 13:161–173.
Ben Elia N., 1995: Towards a Differential Decentralization Policy. TheFloresheimer Institute, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Brower S., 1996: Good Neighborhoods. Prager, New York.Calthrop P., 1993: The next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community
and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Pres, New York.Carmon N., 2001: Neighborhood, International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, New York.Carmon N., 1997: Renewal Policy for Deteriorated Urban Areas –
Analysis of Solutions from Israel and the World and Lessons for theFuture. Technion Center for Urban and Regional Planning,Haifa(Hebrew).
Castells M., 1983: The City and the Grassroots. Edward Arnold,London.
Castles M., 1996: The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell,Cambridge.
Churchman A. and Sadan A., 2003: Participation: Your Way to Havean Influence. Hakibbutz haMeuhad, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Clay P.L. and Hollister R.M., 1983: Neighborhood Policy and PlanningLexington. Heath Publishers, Mass.
Dabra R., 1997: Jerusalem - Trip to a Different Urban Administration.In: Schmid H (ed.), The Community Council – Tendencies andChanges Community Center Society, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Davis J.E., 1991: Contested Ground: Collective Action and the UrbanNeighborhood. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Davidovic-Marton R., 1996: Happening and context: a theoreticalapproach to man-environment-planning. unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, Technion, Haifa (Hebrew).
Duany P. and Pater-Zyberk E., 1991: Towns and TownmakingPrinciples. Rizzoli, New York.
Elazar D. Kelhiem H.(eds.), 1987: Local Government in Israel. Centerfor Public and State, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Fenstr T., 2001: Tribal Society – Ashkenazi Man, Ethiopian Woman.In: Rozental R. (ed.), The Gap – Israeli Society between Tearing andMending Yediot Aharonot, Tel Aviv(Hebrew).
103
Forester J., 1989:Planning in the Face of Power. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.
Friedmann J., 1992: Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Devel-opment. Blackwell, Cambridge.
Friedmann J., 1987: Planning in the Public Domain. PrincetionUniversity Press, NJ.
Goldhaber R., 1998: Neighborliness in the Internal Metropolis in the90s: the example of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, unpublished M.Sc. thesis. TelAviv University (Hebrew).
Ganor M. and Witenberg I., 1997: Staff Operation in the CommunityCouncil. In: Schmid H. (ed.), The Community Council – trends andchanges Community Center Society, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Gilo Neighborhood Council, (2000). Planning program. Unpublishedmonograph, Jerusalem.
Habermas J., 1984: The Theory of Communicative Action. BeaconPress, Boston.
Hall S., 1991: The Local and the Global: globalization and ethnicity,and old and new identities. In: King A. (ed.), Culture, Globalizationand the World-system Contemporary Conditions for the Representa-tion of Identity. pp. 19–68. University of Minnesota Press, Minne-apolis.
Hall S. and du Ga P. (eds), 1996: Questions of cultural identity. Sage,London.
Harvey D., 1989: The Urban Experience. Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore.
Hasson S., 1993: Quarter Councils in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. In: Nahmias D.and Menahem G. (eds), Tel Aviv–Jaffa Research: Social Processesand Public Policy Ramot, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Hasson S., 1999: A historical perspective of neighborhood organiza-tion. In: Nahmias D. and Menahem G. (eds), Public Policy inIsrael Israel Institute for Democracy, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Hasson S. and Ley D., 1997: Neighborhood Organizations, theWelfareState and Citizens� Rights Urban Affairs Review 33(1): 28–57.
Hasson S. and Zaltzberg L., 1989: Neighborhood Councils inJerusalem: turning of an idea City and Region 19–20: 75–90.
Hayden D., 1995: The Power of Place : Urban Landscapes as PublicHistory. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Healey P., 1996: The communicative turn in planning theory and itsimplications for spatial strategy formation Environment and Plan-ning B: Planning and Design 23: 217–234.
Healey P., 1997: Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in FragmentedSocieties. Macmillan, London.
Holston J. and Appadurai A., 1999: Cities and citizenship. In: Holston J.(ed.),Cities andCitizenship. pp. 1–18.DukeUniversityPress,Durham.
Howard E., 1898: Tomorrow, a Peaceful Path to Social Reform. SwanSonnenschein & Co, London.
Huxley M. and Yiftachel O., 2000: New paradigm or old myopia?Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory Journal ofPlanning Education and Research 19(4): 333–342.
Innes J., 1994: Planning Theory�s Emerging Paradigm: communicativeaction and interactive practice Journal of Planning Education 14:183–189.
Kallus R., 2005: A place for a national community: Glikson�sintegrative habitation unit and the political construct of theeveryday. Journal of Architecture 10(4): 365–385.
Kallus R., 2004: Humanization of the environment: Glikson�s archi-tecture and the poetic of the everyday Journal of Architectural andPlanning Research 21(2): 152–170.
Kallus R. and Law-Yone H., 1997: Neighborhood – metamorphosis ofan idea Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 14((2): 107–125.
Kallus R. and Law-Yone H., 2000: What is a neighborhood? thestructure and function of an idea Environment and Behavior B:Planning and Design 27: 815–826.
Kallus R. and Law-Yone H., 2002: National home/personal home:public housing and the shaping of national space, EuropeanPlanning Studies 10(6): 765–779.
Katz P. (ed.), 1994: The New Urbanism: Toward Architecture ofCommunity. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Keating D. and Krumholz N., 1998: Neighborhood CollaborativePlanning (NCP): American Planning Association Survey, The Stateof the Art in Planning Education, APA Survey Report, ClevelandState University.
Knox P., 1995: Urban Social Geography – An Introduction 3Longman,London.
Kotler M., 1969: Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations ofPolitical Life. Bobbs–Merrill, Indianapolis.
Krier L., 1984: The City within the City Architectural Design 54(7–8):70–105.
Marans R., 1978: Kiryath Gat, Israel: A New Town. In UnitedNations (ed.), The Role of Housing in Promoting Social Integration.pp. 79–125. United Nations, New York.
Marans R.W., 2004: Neighborhood planning: the contributions ofArtur Glikson Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 21(2):112–124.
Morris E.W., 1996: Community in theory and practice: a frameworkfor intellectual renewal Journal of Planning Literature 11: 127–150.
Nahmias D., 1993: Municipal reform in urban administration. In:Nahmias D. and Menahem G. (eds), Tel Aviv–Jaffa ResearchSocial Processes and Public Policy Ramot, Tel Aviv(Hebrew).
Perry C., 1929: The Neighborhood Unit, a scheme of arrangement forthe family-life community, Reprint In: Neighborhood and Commu-nity Planning, Regional Survey of New York and its Environs, Vol.VII, 1974.
Rohe W. and Gates L.B., 1985: Planning with Neighborhoods.University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Sadan E., 1997: Empowerment and Community Planning. HakibbutzhaMeuhad, Tel Aviv(Hebrew).
Sassen S., 1994: Cities in a World Economy. Pine Forge Press,California.
Shehori N., 1997: Community councils in Israel – a comperative view.In: Schmid H. (ed.), The Community Council – Trends and ChangesThe Community Center Society, Jerusalem(Hebrew).
Shenar A. and Mann A., 2002: Hadar Renewal Plan Reports andPresentation (plan in preparation).
The Tel Aviv Municipality., 1992: Principles and Guidelines for QuarterCouncils. Tel Aviv–Jaffa Municipality, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Till K., 1993: Neotraditional towns and urban villages: the culturalproduction of geography of �otherness� Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space 11: 709–732.
Varneski A., 1992: Approaches to Conflict in Urban and RegionalPlanning. Technion, Center for Urban and Regional Studies,Haifa(Hebrew).
Webber M., 1963: Order in Diversity: Community without Propin-quity. In: Wingo L. (ed.), Cities and Space: The Future Use ofUrban Land. pp. 23–54. John Hopkins University Press,Baltimore.
Yiftachel O., 2002: Outlining the Power of Planning. In: Yiftachel O.,Little J., Hedgecock D. and Alexander I. (eds), The Power ofPlanning States, Communities and Social Change. pp. 1–20. Kluwer,London.
104
