The Planned Community
The early planning movement reflected a sincere belief that the physical environment could (1) change/affect individual attitudes, behavior and values to reflect desired social ends and (2) that economic growth and community prosperity could be achieved through the provision or modernization of the physical structures, infrastructure and land use patterns of urban areas. The emphasis, obviously, was upon the built environment of a city. The idea that the built environment can shape human values and self-capacity continues today with every new school constructed and every whiteboard that replaces a blackboard.
Community development is an important economic development approach in this history. Better said, community development an important economic development “style”[1]. With the caveat that the label “community development” can be somewhat misleading in post-2000 economic development dialogue, this history presents a more rigorous vision of that style. Community development usually merges both place and people-based economic development goals. In a nutshell, the style attempts to revitalize place by developing and enhancing the physical-economic-social environment, the skills, and the access to political power of residents in distressed (variously-defined) neighborhoods. As shall be evident, community development will evolve throughout the twentieth century and will take different forms and stress different objectives and values in different eras. The roots of this style make manifest some congruence with both social reforms of the Progressive Era and with our Progressive political culture. Community development is not a derivative of a Progressive political culture; it can be applied with Privatist tools and values. But community development’s creative combination of place and people into a style of economic development more readily embraces Progressive political culture’s priority on assisting disadvantaged people and distressed places.
Planned Communities is a distinctive approach to city-building. City-building is an economic development strategy-approach which persists from colonial years to the present day. The original settlement and subsequent development of a community-jurisdiction is the obvious initial form of city-building. William Penn built Philadelphia and Ogden was the dominant personality behind Chicago’s explosive growth. City after city will trace their existence from an original leader, usually a speculative businessman, who is entitled as “city-builder”. In this chapter, several new forms will be presented: garden cities, planned communities, planned neighborhoods (Forest Hills, NY), as well as “company towns”. In the Progressive Era, it will be little surprise that several forms of city-building more congruent with a Progressive political culture and value system will dominate.
The Company Town
The 1857 Llewellyn Park NJ suburb (the Ramble), thought to be the nation’s first planned suburb (twelve miles from New York City), despite its garden city overtones, is more a Privatist gated community than a forerunner of the modern suburb, the Progressive planned city or even the Garden City itself. To me it is an expression of a high-income subdivision which housed the like of Thomas Edison, George Merck and the Colgate family. The first manifestation (1880’s) of a major company town–corporate elite Privatist city-building was that of George Pullman (Pullman Palace Motor Corporation). Securing a location ten-twelve miles from Chicago’s CBD-Loop (but now part of the South Side and one of Chicago’s seventy-seven community areas), Pullman, with the best of intentions wanted to establish “a suburb” in which to build suitable, clean and affordable worker housing adjacent to his Pullman car factories[2]. His ideas on how people should live their lives, what values and behaviors they ought to practice (no alcohol), permeated his suburban housing endeavor. Like most good intentions, things didn’t work out well. In 1894, during a great Panic (recession), worker and union resistance to large-scale layoffs and wage cuts culminated in the bloody Pullman Strike. Federal troops were called in to crush the strike and within a decade the Pullman suburb was incorporated into Chicago proper.
Not to be outdone, lumber king Turlington Harvey in 1891 started his own suburb. Harvey Illinois remains a suburb to this very day–with 25,000 residents. Modeling his designs after Pullman, he actively promoted his housing to factory owners and workers who shared his evangelistic Protestant values. Indeed, Harvey was a “temperance town” (for only a few years–ending in 1895) and Susan B. Anthony lectured there. The religious nature of the community was rejected in an 1895 referendum and that was that. The city continued and has evolved into a modern day suburb of Chicago. A final example of the Chicago area corporate elite city-building was the 1906 United States Steel Corporation’s founding of Gary Indiana–home of its Gary Works factory. US Steel acted more as a developer than a reformer in this city-building endeavor. The original plan was to create a grid-based privately marketed and developed city of hopefully 200,000. In 1960, Gary housed nearly 180,000 residents but today (2010) only 80,000 remain.
Company-planned city-building sprang up across the United States in surprising frequency. Carnegie Steel and McDonald Ohio, Hershey PA, Alcoa Tennessee, Sugar Land TX, all sorts of mining and railroad towns, satellite cities in the South and West (Birmingham Al, for example) are common sub-types. Sporadically, they still appear (Lake Buena Vista—Disney World and Ybor City-cigars) and occasionally they appear in the news (Millinocket, Maine) when their company closes down (2014). There are literally several hundred still in some level of existence at the time of writing.
In an unconscious anticipation of what was to come, Olmsted Sr. ventured into garden city-building. In 1869 he and Vaux planned and incorporated the Riverside Improvement Company to build a new residential community nine miles north of Chicago. Embracing 1600 acres, linked to the central city by commuter train, they platted 2500 individual, half-acre lots on which they proposed construction of single family detached housing located on winding, tree-lined (non-grid) road system with several parks sprinkled within the overall development. They called Riverside a “garden city” and it was meant for workers as much as anyone, and was advertised as “a perfect village in a perfect location”. The project went into bankruptcy in 1873 and was incorporated into a Cook County village in 1875[3]. Olmsted also worked with a New York City suburb, Staten Island. He developed a plan-proposal to transform “that malaria-ridden swamp into a system of winding tree-lined roads and parks suitable for residential speculators”.[4]
Garden City Movement
Olmsted Sr. did not get credit for inventing the “garden city”; the originator of the garden city is credited to Sir Ebenezer Howard, a Brit, who in 1902 founded a company that built the first real garden city, Letchworth (England). Howard titled this suburban development as the Garden City, the name derived from Chicago’s motto, Urbs in Horto, or “city in a garden”[5]. For the purpose of this history, the key defining characteristic of the garden city was that it rejected the central city/the industrial city as the desired community of the industrial age. “The function of Letchworth and the garden cities that followed–indeed their chief attraction–was to serve as alternatives to the crowded industrial city.[6] This rejection is fundamental and is a clear support for the poly-nuclear metropolitan area which is an important theme in our history of economic development. Make no mistake about it the garden city was a “do-over”; whatever else it was, the garden city was a planned suburb which rejected the central city.
Howard’s garden city was a giant leap forward for urban planning evidenced by his “Garden City Association” in short order becoming Britain’s Town and Country Planning Association. The linkup of garden cities with the rise of American planning was similar, with the added dimensions that it came over from Britain in the middle of the Progressive Era and it was seized upon by a prominent social reform Progressive, Frederic C. Howe, as a break with the Privatist themes of the City Efficient. For these and other reasons to be developed, our vote for initial theoretician of American community development goes to Howe. Howe described his garden city as much more than a rejection of the industrial city, or a planned suburb/subdivision. Howe saw his garden city as a complete rejection of the nightmare of private profit[7] at the expense of human well-being.
Frederic C. Howe
Howe was an interesting fellow whose impact and prominence has been largely lost in the mists of American history. A student of Wilson at Princeton where he earned his Ph.D, he eventually became a lawyer and joined a Cleveland law firm. He quickly became Secretary of that city’s Municipal Association and then served a term on the city council (1901-1903). That began an off and on-again political career—a career closely associated with the social reform mayor, Tom Johnson. He was influential in Cleveland’s hiring of Burnham and Burnham’s “Group Plan” which transformed Cleveland physical form. He wrote several influential works, and dozens of articles. Moving to New York City in 1911, he was one of the principal founders of the National Progressive Republican League dedicated to the election of La Follette. He served in both the Wilson administration and in FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Agency and as a special advisor to Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace, FDR’s future Vice-President and presidential candidate. Howe in the course of his life infused direction and content into urban planning, and in his writings encapsulated the core principles of what would later become community development.
Howe, without question, saw the garden city as a new, more humane urban form which could be created through planning. His was not an attempt to reform the industrial city; he intended to replace it with his garden city suburb.
generations of urban living had produced physical and moral decay in the fibre of [Britain so that] it initiated the garden city movement. Howe believed that garden suburbs would not only urbanize the American countryside, but would revitalize the city as well, for they represented a shifting of emphasis from property to people … a garden city, Howe claimed, offered the first escape from tenements and cramped apartment lives…[8]
But his garden city was not primarily based upon integrating nature with human residence, but with using planning to create a new urban form built without the destructive features injected into the industrial city by profit and developers and their ilk. He saw the evils and human depravities created by the industrial city as “economic in nature”.
We have generally assumed that the city problem was a personal one: that it was a problem of men, of charters, of political machinery…. Reform has been directed to securing efficient honest officials…. The city problem [however] is primarily an economic not a personal problem. Our failure to see this is far more costly than the inefficiency and dishonesty about which so much has been written [the city efficient movement and anti-machine]…. The basis of the city is physical. The health, comfort, convenience, happiness of the people is intimately bound up with the material side of the city. Much of the poverty is the product of our neglect to control the economic foundations of the community. The houses we live in, the streets …, the air and sunlight …, distribution of wealth, the cost of living and the vice and crime of the community …. are intimately connected with the way the city is built.[9]
And for Howe the city was being built badly by Privatist forces intent of making money from the design and construction of the industrial city:
…a million men are thinking only of their individualist lot lines, of their inviolable right to do as they will with their own, irrespective of its effect on the community. We do not think beyond our own doorsteps, we do not think in city terms. We have exalted the rights of the individual above the common weal. Our cities have been permitted to grow with no concern for the future and with no thought of the community or the terrible costs which this uncontrolled development creates[10]…. There has been no community control, no sense of the public as opposed to private rights. …our cities have been planned by a hundred different land owners each desiring to secure the quickest possible speculative returns…. Streets are worthy of as much thought as a cathedral, which is to endure for centuries. They should be planned with a far-sighted vision of the future. Every bit of land should be allocated and planned by the city rather than by the owner, in order to insure the harmonious growth of the community.
It was left to Frederick Law Olmsted the younger[11] to design and construct Howe’s first American garden city concept: Forest Hills Gardens (in Queens, New York) started in 1908[12]. Forest Hills was funded by the newly-created Russell Sage Foundation which within one year of its birth earmarked one sixth of its endowment to the Forest Hills project. With no restrictive covenants, the 142 acre site, linked to Manhattan by the new Long Island electrified rail (a fifteen minute ride from Penn Station), projected a population of 5000, housed in mostly detached single-family homes, with some apartment buildings, row houses and twins. The town square was the commercial center, behind which was a village green and then curvilinear tree-lined parkways “snaked their way” to the periphery. “The overall effect recalls a medieval Bavarian town”.[13] Similar style garden cities were subsequently constructed over the next several decades.[14] From these garden city experiences, a “new planned cities’ FDR New Deal economic development initiative would take the Planned Communities approach to its next level.
Neighborhood Planning: Neighborhood-Based Community Development
Community development bifurcated into a Planned Communities (suburban) approach and a central city Neighborhood-Based Approach at its theoretical conception by Howe. Today, the dominant community development paradigm is the Neighborhood-Based approach. Progressive social reformers whose principal concern was for individuals, immigrants, the victims of mental health disease, and the poverty-stricken were the earliest pioneers in Neighborhood-Based community development. Social reformers were interested in “distressed people” and distressed people often clustered in concrete, specific geographic areas. The first example of “place-based people-development” relevant to economic/community development was the settlement house movement which started in the 1880’s.
Jane Adam’s Chicago Hull House is the best known example of this movement, but the reality is every major city in the North had its settlement houses. Graham Taylor (Chicago Commons), Robert A. Woods (Boston’s South End House) and Stanton Coit in New York City are other examples of note. The settlement house “was an effort to build a bridge of understanding between the [upper] middle classes and the inner-city poor”.
Reformers from the periphery of the city settled in a house in the slums where they encouraged cooperation and mutual respect among the various groups of local inhabitants through cultural programs and neighborhood improvement campaigns. Emphasizing preventive social work and neighborhood reconstruction, settlement workers… believed their work would lay the foundation necessary to further the city’s coherence and prosperity, and rehabilitate the urban poor.[15]
This is the real birth of neighborhood-based economic development and it chiefly a distressed area redevelopment which focused on people as well as the built environment. Tenement house reform joined with the settlement movement and a social reformer focus on housing also appeared in these years. Housing reformers advocated building codes and zoning as solutions and they allied themselves with the rising planning movement. The mostly suburban, small city civic association movement inspired counterparts in central city neighborhoods and federations of neighborhood associations quickly appeared to advocate neighborhood-relevant interests and concerns. School reform and use of school facilities for the surrounding communities seemed a natural extension of the momentum behind neighborhood-based initiatives in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Neighborhood-based planning was another. A key leader in this neighborhood planning sector was Clarence Arthur Perry.
The playground movement , Wilson p. 81 Clarence Arthur Perry
Perry was deeply involved in with the 1909 Forest Hills Gardens project. Satisfied that Forest Hills preserved the balance between the physical and the social (individual), Perry, an employee of Russell Sage, moved into the community center–recreation movement[16]. Perry’s 1910 book, Wider Use of the School Plan became the movement’s bible and it was supplemented by many additional pamphlets and monographs over the years. Perry described the community center movement as “but an extension of the settlement movement”[17] and perceived neighborhoods and neighborhood facilities as the link between individuals-residents, their overall well-being, and an effective democracy.[18]
In the more fluid period of their history, before planners attempted to establish as separate discipline, social and recreation workers were active participants in planning circles, thereby interjecting many of their special concerns into planning proposals. The neighborhood approach to those civic concerns can be traced to a 1907 St Louis plan. While other cities, following the inspiration of the 1893 Columbian Exposition, were proposing centralized civic centers as part of their efforts to promote the city beautiful, the Civic League of St Louis suggested formation of a half-a-dozen civic centers in various parts of the city that could combine semi-public and private facilities around a common center.[19]
At that time, the notion that “physical changes in the urban fabric … could improve social life and enhance citizenship”. These links were supported by a 1909 work by Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organization, in which he argued that the family, the play group, and the neighborhood or community group of elders were the three most important factors in the socialization process–he saw the neighborhood as the nursery for what he called the primary ideals, such as loyalty, truth, service and kindness”.[20] For these early neighborhood activists and planners, the neighborhood, if planned correctly, could recreate in urban America the small town and the virtues associated with small town living. In 1924 Perry wrote that a planned neighborhood
…with its physical demarcation, its planned recreational facilities, its accessible shopping centers, and it’s convenient circulatory system … would furnish the kind of environment where vigorous health, a rich social life, civic efficiency, and a progressive community consciousness would spontaneously develop and permanently flourish.[21]
How do these social reforms tie into economic development?[22] In the minds of these social reformers it worked this way: for example a park and recreational system in Birmingham Alabama in 1911 was defended by its planner, our earlier-noted Charles Mulford Robinson in the following way:
To an increasing degree, the better class of labor chooses its abode, and chooses the city where it secures the most for a given wage. Undoubtedly also opportunities for wholesome recreation increase the efficiency of labor and its contentment. When the offices of the National Cash Register Company, a few years ago were asking a city in which to locate anew their plant, one of the first questions asked was regarding the park acreage, its accessibility and the opportunity for recreation.[23]
As we shall discover in a future chapter planners and housing advocates moved toward slum clearance and housing projects as their solution to deteriorated housing and slums. Some social reform advocates abandoned the neighborhood concept as “obsolete” (Jesse Steiner, President of National Community Center Association). These revisionists argued that for neighborhoods to achieve their version of revitalization, the neighborhood itself needed to be more than less, homogenous–and that Depression era neighborhoods had become too heterogeneous and too dense to achieve the desired effects. Neighborhoods had, they argued, become “pseudo-neighborhoods”.
The issue of homogeneity or diversity of residents would eventually be resolved by new conceptions of neighborhood based on their replication of American diversity at the neighborhood level—but this reconciliation was thirty years or more in the waiting. In the pre-Depression period, social reformers either joined with housing planners and moved toward public housing and slum clearance or were pretty much shoved aside. Some like Mary Simkhovitch retained their sympathy for and commitment to settlement house style neighborhood planning and Daniel Carpenter, Hudson Guild Neighborhood House in New York City stuck to his early concepts well into the 1950’s. In general after the 1920’s, this approach to community and economic development descended into a very lean period which would last through the end of the fifties. The first phase of community development ground to a halt and the action moved into other policy areas, principally housing and planning.
The University of Chicago: The Policy World of Community Development
The Chicago School of Sociology had been established in 1892and by the second decade of the twentieth century was held in high regard. By 1925, however, it had become the foremost school in Sociology and the output from this first Chicago School of Sociology exerted a critical influence not only in sociology, but urban geography—and through this policy world, economic development. The personification of the first Chicago School of Sociology was Robert E. Park. Arriving in 1914, Robert E. Park produced his classic, The City in 1925[24]. A student of Georg Simmel and John Dewey, a compatriot of William James, former Harvard professor, and journalist, Park had just completed a seven year stint with Booker T. Washington at Tuskegee Institute. He joined with scholars such as Ernest Burgess (his office mate), Homer Hoyt and Louis Wirth—together they constituted the core of the first Chicago School of Sociology.
The Chicago School conceptualized the city as an ecosystem that evolved in a Darwinian-like manner (urban ecological approach). Competition, between social groups over physical space, they asserted, produced distinctive geographies (an example would be a neighborhood) populated by individuals associated with particular social (usually ethnic and racial) groups. Class and income status dominated neighborhood competition, resulting in a hierarchy of neighborhoods. This hierarchy manifested itself and was driven by differentials in rental and housing prices. Older housing characterized the low end of housing-neighborhood hierarchy and the poorer groups would “filter” into the oldest housing and the wealthy into the newest. In this manner neighborhoods sorted themselves out by class and income into specific neighborhoods.
Based on this conception, an approach to housing and neighborhoods, neighborhood succession, followed. Neighborhood succession argued that the addition of new housing, destruction of older housing and/or the introduction of additional social, ethnic and racial groups would launch a population flow (invasion) from one neighborhood to the next–creating a new hierarchy of neighborhoods and an accelerated deterioration of the poorest into slums. As such The city and its neighborhoods would “evolve” a pattern of neighborhood succession over time and distance—the furthest out, the periphery, would be the youngest most expensive housing and the home of the affluent. The most central neighborhoods, the home of the poorest were the most distressed. The city could be viewed as a series of concentric rings each distinguished by its particular income, housing and class characteristics. Variations of this Chicago school theme were subsequently used to explain suburbanization[25] as well as the evolution of central city neighborhoods and the normal operation of the residential real estate markets. The impact of the School in the field of urban geography was also considerable and will be discussed in later chapters.
[1] The distinction between style and approach is somewhat semantic. By the use of “style” I wish to convey a more philosophical preference for the entirety of a jurisdiction’s economic development policy outputs, than the adoption of one practical approach with its specific tools and structures in combination with strategies. A jurisdiction which follows a community development style will reshape its economic development goals-strategies and tools to reflect the philosophical rationale of community development. In contemporary economic development, the distinction can be seen through HUD-based community development programs—often administered in its particular EDO—and physical/assistance to private corporation programs (such as EDA-based programs) implemented in their distinctive EDO. Sometimes the two styles are included within one structure; sometimes only one style is dominant. The two styles can coexist, albeit with some tension.
[2] The North Pole architecture of the Allsburg-Tom Hanks Christmas movie Polar Express is based on Pullman worker housing design. Today, the neighborhood has achieved Landmark designation, houses about 7,000 residents and is listed as one of Illinois seven wonders. Pullman’s conversion from a horrible paternalistic corporate suburb to a wonderful, gentrifying urban neighborhood is quite remarkable.
[3] Today, the village of Riverside is headed by a village manager and economic development lead is performed by its chamber. A Main Street program is in operation.
[4] Boyer, op. cit. p. 41. We also should mention that Olmsted laid out Brooklyn in an essentially grid pattern, with a CBD housed in a distinctive architectural focal point (the Crystal Palace) and a walkable scale.
[5] Rybczynski Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas About Cities, op cit. p. 30. Howard’s path-breaking book was titled “Garden Cities of To-morrow“.
[6] Witold Rybczynski, Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas About Cities (New York, Scribner, 2010) pp. 31-32. However, none of the garden cities that were built achieved the economic autonomy that Howard envisioned. Instead, they invariably depended for employment on a nearby metropolis.
[7] Notice Howe’s discomfort with the “city efficient” movement and its Privatist roots and values.
[8] Boyer, op. cit. p. 41.
[9] Frederic C. Howe, “The City as a Socializing Agency: The Physical Basis of the City: the City Plan” American Journal of Sociology, volume 17 (March 1912), pp. 590-601.
[10] IBID. pp. 590-601.
[11] Olmsted Jr. established the nation’s first graduate landscape architecture program at Harvard, first President of the American City Planning Institute and a private architect and author.
[12] Home of the West Side Tennis Club which hosted the U.S. Open until 1978 and in 2007 voted by Cottage Living as the “best cottage community. Residence of Anthony Weiner; see Mel Scott, American City Planning since 1890 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969) pp. 90-91.
[13] Rybczynski, op. cit., pp. 33-36. The Curmudgeon senses some compatibility with these designs and those of the New Urbanism of the 1990’s. Forest Hills German theme was inspired by Howe’s love of German cities-acquired during his study in Germany.
[14] Some examples of future imitation of the garden city include: Kohler Wisconsin, industrial villages in Camden, New Jersey, Worcester, Massachusetts, Erwin, Tennessee, Wilmington, Delaware, John Nolen’s garden suburb of Mariemont Ohio (outside Cincinnati) and several in Bridgeport Connecticut. Other examples are Venice, Florida, Shaker Heights in Cleveland, the County Club District in Kansas City and the well-known Palos Verdes Estates south of Los Angeles. In the late 1920, planners Clarence Stein and Henry Wright used garden city concepts to build Sunnyside Gardens in the Queens and Radburn in suburban New Jersey. See Rybczynski, op. cit., pp. 37-39.
[15] Zane L. Miller and Patricia M. Melvin, the Urbanization of Modern America (2nd Ed), op. cit. p.144.
[16] This movement was very active through World War I, formed a national association, the Community Center Association, and attached itself to the newly emerging discipline of sociology (most associated with the Chicago School of Sociology). The American Sociological Association and the Community Center Association met jointly in 1923. The movement started by urging public schools in neighborhoods to let their playgrounds be used for general neighborhood resident use and then moved onto the construction of community centers which could serve a variety of resident needs including neighborhood meetings, adult education, and recreation. “Every school house [was to be] a community capital, and every community a little democracy” was its public goal. See Howard Gillette, Jr., “The Evolution of Neighborhood Planning: From the Progressive Era to the 1949 Housing Act”, Journal of Urban History, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1983, pp. 421-444.
[17] The settlement movement’s golden years were between 1880 and 1920. The idea was to build “settlement houses” in poor neighborhoods where middle class volunteers would live, share values, alleviate poverty and provide health services, daycare, education and serve as role models to neighborhood residents. By 1913, it was claimed that 413 such settlement houses were in operation in 32 states (H. Husock, “Bring Back the Settlement House“, Public Welfare, Volume 51 (1993), Number 4). Jane Adam’s Hull House is a prominent example and the PBS-BBC “Call the Midwife” is a visual depiction of an English urban facility much like a settlement house. Dorothy Day’s Catholic Workers hospitality houses continued this tradition through the Depression years.
[18] Gillette, Jr. op. cit. p.423.
[19] Gillette, Jr. op. cit. pp. 423-424. Henry Wright was intricately involved with this St Louis plan. Charles Mulford Robinson endorsed civic center movement and by the 1920’s the movement was very much included in planning journals and the profession. Boston’s Mary Follett and Robert Woods were also prominent advocates of this movement.
[20] Gillette, Jr. op cit. p. 425.
[21] Quote in Gillette Jr., p.427 from Architectural Record (January, 1932), p. 41.
[22] Joseph L. Arnold, “The Neighborhood and City Hall: The Origin of Neighborhood Improvement Associations in Baltimore, 1880-1911”, Journal of Urban History, Vol. 6, (November 1979), pp. 3-30; Patricia M. Melvin, the Organic City: Urban Definition and Neighborhood Organization, 1880-1920 (Lexington, University of Kentucky Press)
[23] Cited in Boyer, op. cit., p. 36
[24] There are today two schools of Chicago sociology. We refer, of course, to the first which was in its heyday before the 1940’s. Robert Park, Ernest Burgess and Roderick McKenzie, the City (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1925) is the focal point of our discussion. Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson’s, City Politics carried that perspective into the sixties and extended it to political science. One can perhaps argue that this approach took a turn with Roger S Ahlbrandt, Jr. and James V. Cunningham, A New Public Policy for Neighborhood Preservation (Praeger, 1079) and with Anthony Downs, Neighborhoods and Urban Development (Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press, 1981) who plugs in an “arbitrage” model to neighborhoods succession.
[25] See for example, Hanlon and Hanlon and Vicino.
Ron W. Coan 