The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in...

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: [email protected]

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).



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


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



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


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 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


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 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


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



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


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



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


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



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


http://www.freiburg.de/


http://www.unige.ch/

http://www.kcap.eu/

http://en.white.se/

http://www.jrf.org.uk/

http://bygg.stockholm.se/

http://bygg.stockholm.se/

http://www.gwl-terrein.nl/

http://www.gwl-terrein.nl/

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.



http://www.kcap.eu/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.091

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.091

http://www.hannover.de/


http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/PUBLICATIONS/Case_Studies/Urban_NEXUS_cs04_Hannover_ICLEI-GIZ_2014.pdf



http://www.carstensperling.de/pdf/dubai-submission.pdf

http://en.white.se/

http://www.unige.ch/

The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in...

Documents

Transcript of The essence of neighbourhood community centres (NCCs) in...