The Five Cs of Neighborhood Planning

I live in a city that is currently updating its Community Plans. This is an historically difficult planning job because Community Plans transcend both broad policy statements (such as the amorphous “New development should be in harmony with surrounding development…”) and specific development regulations (“Front yard setbacks shall be 25 feet deep from property line…”). An issue with updating Community-scaled plans is the personal sentiment people feel for their homes and the difficulty we have in expressing such emotion within conventional 2D planning documents. The source of most conflicts and confusion I see occurring during these updates is due to the confusion over the scale and size difference of a ‘Community’ versus a ‘Neighborhood’ unit.

A community is defined as, “a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.” Many places have different communities inhabiting them, such as an elderly, or arts, or ethnic community living and/or working in close proximity to one another. Even the internet can be considered a place inhabited by many diverse communities. So the scale, parameters, and character of a community-scaled planning effort is difficult to define.

Usually, community planning areas are defined by political boundaries, or historic development plats and, in some deplorable cases, old insurance red-lining practices that gave a city its initial zoning districts. This being the case, I contend that the neighborhood unit is a better tool to define, plan, and express policies and regulations necessary to preserve, enhance and, yes, build great places.

The neighborhood is a physical place — varied in intensity from more rural to more urban — that many different communities inhabit. At its essence, whether downtown, midtown or out-of-town, its health and viability (in terms of both resilience and quality of life) is defined by certain basic characteristics. Easily observable in neighborhoods that work, these characteristics have been articulated a variety of ways over the years — most notably for me by Andrés Duany and Mike Stepnor. Combined, they form what I like to call the 5 Cs:

1. Complete

Great neighborhoods host a mix of uses in order to provide for our daily need to live, work, play, worship, dine, shop, and talk to each other. Each neighborhood has a center, a general middle area, and an edge. The reason suburban sprawl sprawls is because it has no defined centers and therefore no defined edge. Civic spaces generally (though not always) define a neighborhood’s center while commerce tends to happen on the edges, on more highly traffic-ed streets and intersections easily accessible by two or more neighborhoods. The more connected a neighborhood is, the more variety of commercial goods and services can be offered, as not every neighborhood needs a tuxedo shop or a class ‘A’ office building.

Photo by Liz Griffen

2. Compact

The 5-minute walk from center to edge, a basic rule-of-thumb for walkability, equates to approximately 80 to 160 acres, or 9 to 18 city blocks. This general area includes public streets, parks, and natural lands, as well as private blocks, spaces and private buildings. This scale may constrict in the dead of winter and/or heat of summer, and expand during more temperate months. Compactness comes in a range of intensities that are dependent upon local context. Therefore, more urban neighborhoods, such as those found in Brooklyn, are significantly more compact than a new neighborhood located, for example, outside Taos, New Mexico. Remember, the ped-shed is a general guide for identifying the center and edge of a neighborhood. Each neighborhood must be defined by its local context, meaning shapes can, and absolutely do, vary. Edges may be delineated by high speed thoroughfares (such as within Chicago’s vast grid), steep slopes and natural corridors (as found in Los Angeles), or other physical barriers.

3. Connected

Great neighborhoods are walkable, drivable, and bike-able with or without transit access. But, these are just modes of transportation. To be socially connected, neighborhoods should also be linger-able, sit-able, and hang out-able.


Great neighborhoods have a variety of civic spaces, such as plazas, greens, recreational parks, and natural parks. They have civic buildings, such a libraries, post offices, churches, community centers and assembly halls. They should also have a variety of thoroughfare types, such as cross-town boulevards, Main Streets, residential avenues, streets, alleys, bike lanes and paths. Due to their inherent need for a variety of land uses, they provide many different types of private buildings such as residences, offices, commercial buildings and mixed-use buildings. This complexity of having both public and private buildings and places provides the elements that define a neighborhood’s character.

5. Convivial

The livability and social aspect of a neighborhood is driven by the many and varied communities that not only inhabit, but meet, get together, and socialize within a neighborhood. Meaning “friendly, lively and enjoyable,” convivial neighborhoods provide the gathering places — the coffee shops, pubs, ice creme shops, churches, clubhouses, parks, front yards, street fairs, block parties, living rooms, back yards, stoops, dog parks, restaurants and plazas — that connect people. How we’re able to socially connect physically is what defines our ability to endure and thrive culturally. It’s these connections that ultimately build a sense of place, a sense of safety, and opportunities for enjoyment… which is hard to maintain when trying to update a community plan without utilizing the Neighborhood Unit as the key planning tool.

–Howard Blackson

If PlaceShakers is our soapbox, our Facebook page is where we step down, grab a drink and enjoy a little conversation. Looking for a heads-up on the latest community-building news and perspective from around the web? Click through and “Like” us and we’ll keep you in the loop.


Filed under Back of the Envelope, Planning and Design, Public Policy, Theory and Practice

17 responses to “The Five Cs of Neighborhood Planning

  1. Another GREAT post! Thank you!!!

  2. Pingback: The Five Cs of Neighborhood Planning | APA News Feed

  3. Excellent, thought provoking article. I have often thought that well-planned communities should be high on the list of sales pitch items for realtors – even those in small towns such as mine.

  4. Simple, yet effective.

  5. Callie

    I fully agree with the 4 dimensions of good neighborhoods. My struggle comes with their translation into local regulation – I’m an urban designer working for a suburban county with an old fashion Eucledian zoning Code. Is there anything we can do? When each small parcel is individually owned and, making it even more complicated, when said parcels are already developed, how can we create a better place to live?

  6. Callie,
    Please find the following: Galina Tachieva’s “Sprawl Repair Manual,” Ellen Dunham-Jones’ “Suburban Retrofit,” as well as her TED Talk on the topic. And, find Jeffrey Tumlin’s “Sustainable Transportation Planning,” and Robert Gibb’s “Principles of Urban Retail.” The Tactical Urbanism (Mike Lydon, Dan Bartman, and Russ Preston) may have a few sooner than later interventions to making lemonade from suburban lemons. Thank you for reading and asking. Good luck!

  7. The 5 C’s a an excellent framework. Who came up with this?

  8. John, I stole the first three C’s from Andres Duany, the fourth is all mine (as I’m reading JHKunstler harp on the evils of complexity), and the fifth from Mr. Michael J. Stepner, FAIA, FAICP. So, I used a vulcan mind meld to figure it out… except that now Brian DiSabatino added a 6th, Catalyst. Needing a catalyst for improvement (either a person or a project). So, back to the drawing board!

  9. Oh, and I forgot to add that Scott Doyon made it into the title… So, essentially it takes a village to blog for Howard Blackson (or a neighborhood).

  10. Howard

    I was reminded that Andres Duany presented these same 5 C’s for neighborhood building. And, I also want to credit Mr. Mike Stepner for promoting our need to be convivial. So, I stand on the shoulders of giants and give them credit for this blog entry.

    Image Credis:
    DPZ made the neighborhood diagram.
    Liz Giffen took the Little Italy photo.
    Geoff Dyer drew the ped shed plans.
    Leon Krier drew the public/Private diagram.

    Thank you all!

  11. Pingback: Cultural Inclusion as an Element of Neighborhood Planning - Intercultural Urbanism

  12. Blackson’s best is the phrase “convivial”. We can all recognize importance in planning (or individual building structures) of complex, connection, compact and complete as necessary for successful planning (or building) efforts. Yet his addition of the culturally important – and ethicially imperative – “convivial” helps brighten, enlighten and affirm our stake for succsess in humanity.

  13. The neighborhood diagram looks very much like the one produced by Clarence Perry in 1929. See the Wikipedia article at —

  14. Tigran Haas

    The neighborhood diagram is a redux of Doug Farr from Sustainable Urbanism Book. I think Andres Duany has, more or less, said it all on the issue of urbanism….we can add bits and pieces but he got the big and small picture and was there ahead of many, especially in the ability to synthesize all the key issues and elements…
    BTW, where is this little Italy? San Francisco or? Sorry for the ignorance…

  15. The Neighborhood Unit image in the article is DPZ/Andres Duany, and (surprising to me) came from the AIA/Wiley Architectural Graphic Standards 10th edition (2000). Yes, Perry’s was the first (20’s I believe). ULI Community handbook (1940’s) Andres/DPZ updated the graphic (90s), and then Doug Farr updated the unit image afterwards (2008). BTW, Tigran, you and I wrote chapters for Sebastian Loew’s “Urban Design Practice” book published earlier this year. Sebastian was my thesis advisor in London. Cheers!

  16. And, the Little Italy image is from… San Diego! That is our airport and bay in the background. The height is regulated by the FAA.

  17. Pingback: The Five Cs of Neighborhood Planning - Oxnard Community Planning Group ( :: PLACEMAKING :: Oxnard Planning - City Planning in Oxnard

Shake things up:

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s