Si son personas físicas:

Safa Al Husban, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Department of Architectural Engineering, Engineering Faculty,

Al-al Bayt University, Jordan,

Ahmad Al Husban, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Department of Architectural Engineering, Engineering

Faculty, the Hashemite University, Jordan,

Yamen Al Betawi, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Department of Architectural Engineering, Engineering Faculty,

the Hashemite University, Jordan

Abstract

Social capital is the glue that holds society together; it has a significant impact on individuals’ health and well-being. Currently, there is a changing discourse in social capital in urban communities correlated with the new way of life (more individuality); new forms of social interaction and communication tools and the increasingly urbanized population. In the current information age, the wired neighborhood suffers from a decline in social public health associated with the changing discourse in social capital. Researchers in health, social, and built environment disciplines insured that the traditional design of neighborhoods does not fulfill the new needs of the information age societies. Specifically, the specific processes and mechanisms of neighborhoods` design that can adopt new discourses of social capital are poorly understood.

This research aims at defining an innovative concept for built environment design in urban neighborhoods that can adopt the changing discourse of social capital by defining and merging the required design features with the new concepts of neighborhood design. This research followed a theoretical analytical descriptive approach driven case study method; twenty five articles were analyzed to conclude the required design features; and two new design concepts of urban neighborhoods with optimum conditions were studied and analyzed then synthesized to suggest new concept. Data collected by a historical theoretical approach from archival records, historical accounts, theoretical research, images empirical research, graphs and statistical information. Data analyzed in tabular displays by content analysis to be triangulated to construct sufficiently thick description of the neighborhoods` design. This research found that the required features for neighborhood design that can adopt the changing discourse of social capital are: flexibility, mix use, diverse affordances and materials, diverse colors, networks, meeting places, aesthetics, pedestrian friendly design, common house, and hybrid spaces. Additionally, this research found that those features are applied in two design concepts in different ways: the cohousing concept and the hybridization (diversification) concept. Based on synthesizing those findings; this research defined an innovative concept for built environment design in urban neighborhoods that can adopt the changing discourse of social capital, which is the heterotopic concept. The heterotopia concept which is based on the interdisciplinary design approach is the most suitable approach that fit with the current information age, it concerns designing a single real place made up of several spaces that are themselves heterogenic. When there is change of social fabric and roles, the heterotopic spaces will change their function and form. This research recommends focusing on the interdisciplinary design approach and the heterotopic spaces in new neighborhoods design to adopt the changing discourse of social capital and to protect our communities from the decline in social health and well-being.

Keywords: Cohousing, Hybridity, Heterotopic spaces, Neighborhood design, Social capital

Introduction

Just we interred the information age; new forms of social networks appeared eroded the traditional bonds of spatial proximity and kinship, this reflects a social change (Forrest and Kearns, 2001). Therefore, at the latest fifteen years, new forms and discourses of social relationships and social interaction appeared as a consequence of the

technological boom and wireless neighborhoods which changed the form and discourse of social capital. Researchers in health and social disciplines insured that there is a crisis in social connectivity, cohesion, and solidarity correlated with the changing discourse of social capital which may contribute to a decline in public health (Mesch and Talmud, 2010).

New discourse of social capital needs new built environment designs in urban neighborhoods that insure the community solidarity and cohesion which in turn promote public health because traditional design does not fit with the information age requirements (McCamant and Durret, 2011). However, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the design features of urban neighborhoods that should be followed on the light of globalization and information age.

Neighborhood-based research encouraged new and innovative concepts in designing every single place in the residential neighborhood in a way that can adopt the new forms of social interaction. This research scanned the up- to-date concepts and research of neighborhood design that concerned successfully the changing forms of social relationships in order to conclude some design features for neighborhood design that can insure promoting social public health and well-being.

Research Problem

The traditional design of neighborhoods does not fulfill the new needs of the information age societies (McCamant and Durret, 2011). Moreover, the specific processes and mechanisms of neighborhood design that can adopt new discourses of social interaction and social capital are poorly understood (Anthony and Nicotera 2008).

Research Objective

This research aims at defining an innovative concept for built environment design in urban neighborhoods that can adopt the changing discourse of social capital. This research tends to define the innovative concept by merging the required design features that will be concluded from literature content analysis with the new concepts of neighborhood design that will be analyzed in this research.

Literature Review

The following text reviews and sumarizes the letrature regarding social capital crisis and its relation to neighborhood design as following.

Social capital crisis

Social capital is the norms of trust and reciprocity and the concern for the well being of one’s community (Caughy, Campo and Muntaner, 2003). Social capital can be measured by sense of community, community competence, community empowerment, local organizations, voting behavior, attendance at public meetings, doing volunteer work, visiting friends, and knowing neighbors (Edmonson, 2003). Societies face a new crisis of social capital; because in this period the traditional ties of community which are shared space, close kinship links, shared religious and moral values were being replaced by anonymity, individualism and competition (Forrest and Kearns, 2001). Forrest and Kearns (2001) found that the lack of social cohesion caused by the new way of life, increasingly urbanized population and the lack of physical elements which produce and sustain social cohesion.

Social capital is strongly correlated to and can enhance public health. Many scholars have suggested that social capital is a promising strategy for public health promotion, including Mesch and Talmud (2010) and Lasker et al. (2011). Neighborhood-level research has focused on defining the health outcomes that can be produced by increasing social capital. For example, some literature linked social capital to diverse health outcomes such as self-rated health, mortality, depression, anxiety, obesity, and cardiovascular disease (Kim et al., 2006; Nogueira, 2009). Others found a clear causal pathway to public health; for example, Folland (2007) argued that social capital can be useful in reducing stress, heightening coaching or fitness training, providing information, and increasing responsibility for the well-being of others.

Neighborhood Design

Chaskin (1995) as cited inSpielman and Yoo (2009) identifies three ways of viewing neighborhoods: neighborhoods as social units, neighborhoods as spatial units, and neighborhoods as a network of associations. Currently, neighborhoods are viewed as the combination of these three meanings; neighborhood as a socio-spatial unit with

networks of associations. It is the effective neighborhood where the design strength the relationship between the environment and the human behavior (Walker and Hiller, 2007).

Social capital and neighborhood design

Neighbourhood environment is a potential source of stress and disease, or well-being and health. Promoting neighbourhood social capital can be a strategy for increasing total health (Nogueira, 2009). Neighbourhoods are context in which social capital can be fostered, accessed or destroyed, so people’s involvement, trust and relationships with others and their community are influenced by neighbourhood design and aesthetics (Wood and Giles-Corti, 2008). On the neighborhood- level research, there is an emerging evidence from interdisciplinary research that the neighborhood –built environment design affects directly the social interaction frequency, form, and quality (Spielman and Yoo, 2009). However, the neighborhood influences on people's experience still complex and not well-defined in research (Anthony and Nicotera, 2008).

Based on the notion of socio spatial schema (the neighborhood as a synthesis of multiple social and physical interactions) Dominguuuez & Aguilar (2002) stated that neighborhood design should have a social meaning and symbolic function. They concluded that social meanings can be insured through sharing common values and attitudes. Those common values and attitudes can be enhanced through the neighborhood built environment. In this context, Michaela, Greenb, & Farquharb, (2006) found that neighborhood context plays a major role in socializing, supporting, and in promoting active aging.

Wood, L., and Giles-Corti, B. (2008) through their research “Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place?” insured that social capital influences and is influenced by the context and characteristics of neighborhood environments. Even if the form of social relationships changed; there is intangible assets that should be constant to protect social capital such as good will, fellowship, sympathy, trust, mutual understanding, shared values and behaviors that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible (Cohen and Prusak, 2001).

Conclusion of Literature Review

As neighborhoods became a socio-spatial unit with non-kin networks such as friends, neighbors, and co-workers (Phan, Blumer & Demaiter 2009), there became a need for community designers to create more satisfying living arrangements (Rogersa and Sukolratanameteeb, 2009). Additionally, there is a need to create new bonds and new social places in our communities, for example, Butnam in his book better together suggested rebuilding the sense of community by creating a common goal in a common place in the community (Putnam and Feldstein, 2004). There is strong linkages between the subjective image of the neighborhood and the sense of belonging to the neighborhood and the social bonds, connectivity, and capital (Mannarinia et al, 2006). After reviewing the related literature of the flexible designs of neighborhoods that can accommodate any new conditions; this research found that there are specific features within the physical environments of neighbourhoods that can influence peoples` dynamics, interactions and sentiments. Those features are: restorative access to nature, housing design, safety measures, incivilities, local services, area history, affordances, aesthetics, buildings` envelops, and opportunities for meeting (Wood and Giles-Corti, 2008). Additionally, Zieersch et al (2005) defined the neighbourhood-based social capital, which is the neighborhood that accommodates any new types of people, behaviors, relationships, and attitudes. It is the flexible design neighborhood as features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

Research Methodology

This research followed a theoretical analytical descriptive approach driven case study method; twenty five articles were analyzed to conclude the required design features; and two new design concepts of urban neighborhoods with optimum conditions that adopted new forms of social interaction were studied and analyzed then synthesized to suggest new concept. Data collected by a historical theoretical approach from archival records, historical accounts, theoretical research, images empirical research, graphs and statistical information. Data analyzed in tabular displays by content analysis to be triangulated to construct sufficiently thick description of the neighborhoods` design.

This research studied and analyzed two neighborhoods` concepts that succeed in accommodating the transformation occurred in the social interaction forms. The two concepts are: cohousing concept and hybridization (diversification) concept.

The social capital level in the studied neighborhoods is high, it was measured in by previous research by assessing specific indicators defined by Geoffrey et al., (2006). The indicators are:

- social Interaction (people's relationship, shared values, common values)

- social cohesion (place attachment, social problems, defensible space, social support) - neighborhood stability (satisfaction, privacy)

- community sense (quality green open space, value of public spaces, territoriality) - architectural interest (space enclosure, defensible space, identity, accessibility)

Those indicators were measured by a structured questionnaire and face-to-face interviews with sample of the residents selected randomly. Onyx and Bullen (2000) developed a 36-item scale to measure social capital, it is the Social Capital Questionnaire (SCQ). The collected data were analyzed by a latent variable path analysis using Partial least- squares (PLS) regression procedures with the computer software PLSPATH. The conclusion of previous research found that the studied neighborhoods that have been design based on the cohousing and hybridization concepts have a high level of social capital even with the changing discourse of its role and meaning.

The two concepts were studied and analyzed in the following text to conclude the design features of neighborhood that can adopt the changing discourse of social capital and to be merged with the design features concluded from the literature.

Cohousing concept

Cohousing concept provides optimal conditions for social interaction in neighbourhoods, it uses design and formal social structures to encourage social interaction in neighbourhoods (Williams, 2005). Co housing concept is a community where homes clustered around common shared place and with extra facilities and affordances that encourage communication among residents as shown in Figure 1 ( Cohousing Association, 2015).

Figure 1. Common shared place at Southside Park Cohousing neighborhood Sacramento, CA

As traditional forms of neighborhoods do not address the new needs of the American community; cohousing concept appeared in many states in USA where the national policy requires creating livable communities (McCamant and Durret, 2011). Cohousing concept is guaranteed to encourage social interaction in neighbourhoods and to help rebuilding the local social capital. Currently there are about 100 cohousing neighborhood at the US (Cohousing Association, 2015). This in turn helps to build trust between residents, allows for exchanges to take place and creates social networks (connectedness) and common rules/norms which can be considered as sense of community (Williams, 2005).

There are common characteristics for cohousing neighborhood that offer many opportunities for residents to interact with each other. On the level of relationships; neighbors are part of the community for everyone`s benefit, there is a culture of sharing and caring, and design features promote frequent interaction and close relationships. On the level of balancing privacy, cohousing neighborhoods are designed for privacy and engagement in which cohousing model recognizes that privacy inside the houses can help support community life. On the level of participation, decision making is participatory. On the level of design; it is pedestrian friendly managed and maintained by residents as shown in Figure 2. In addition, cohousing neighborhoods includes common house for community activities and shared meals as shown in Figure 3 (Cohousing Association, 2015).

The design approach used in cohousing adopts most of the architectural and urban design principles as being crucial to high levels of social interaction in neighbourhoods, for example higher densities, good visibility, clustering, inclusion of defensible space and car parking on the periphery of communities (Williams, 2005). The principles of designing neighbourhoods that increase the potential for social interaction. These principles are proximity, walkability, use of buffer zones (semi-private spaces), shared bathways to activity sites, size of community and communal spaces. Observation of the communities in cohousing neighborhoods showed that in both cases most social interactions tended to occur in communal or semi-private spaces. These interactions were classified as being: formal or informal; frequent or infrequent; and sustained or brief.

Figure 2. Pedestrian friendly design in Drivhuset Denmark in which the community covers the street

Figure 3. Common home in Jamaica Plain Cohousing neighborhood in Poston MA

Hybridiization concept

As there is shift in social interaction forms; there became a shift in the architectural language in urban neighborhoods. In this area of research, Carnegie and Abell (2009) found that at the information age, there is a change in the architecture role and discourse which caused a shift in its design, space, form and function. The problem is that the traditional design for neighborhoods doesn’t meet the information age requirements, and there is a need for new designs.

In this context, the neighborhood can become a hybrid space that redefines its identity and navigate the information age. Currently, the new modes of social organizations change the perception of time and space, hybrid design insure the surviving of that perception (Fiss, 2009).

Globalization produced cultural hybridity even in our communities; this requires hybrid design and spaces to accommodate the stage. Therefore, Cultural homogenization and cultural authentication became traditional concepts that don’t fit with the global trends; instead hybridization is the suitable concept.

Hybridizing the material, colors, context, thoughts, activities, spaces, design, and landscape facilitate the environmental communication between the community and individuals (Quayle and Driessen, 1997) as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Hybrid neighborhood design can be a culture for the community and a base of sense of community (Fiss, 2009). Hybrid design reflects the ingenuity of individuals and the togetherness of the group. The community can find itself in the hybrid principles and elements, in its diversity and in its good attributes as shown in Figure 10 (Quayle and Driessen, 1997).

Figure 4. Hybridizing the colors and materials at Chapel Street District, New Haven, USA

The most related concept to hybridization is the diversification concept where diverse and mixed communities and environments can offer a lot of opportunities for meeting and socializing as shown in Figure 6.

UK housing policy focused on the importance of mixed communities as a key element for social health. In this area, Camina and Wood (2009) found that diversification is expected to improve stability, sustainability, and well-being. Wood (2003) has highlighted seven principal objectives of tenure diversification: promoting social interaction and social cohesion; encouraging the spread of mainstream norms and values; creating social capital; opening up job opportunities through wider social contacts; overcoming place-based stigma; attracting additional services to the neighbourhood; and producing sustainable regeneration.

At the diverse and mixed communities, the pattern of day-to-day activity is positive and healthy, and the nature and extent of social interaction is promoted (Camina and Wood, 2009) as shown in Figure 7. Additionally, in diversification –based neighborhoods, residents` satisfaction is higher regarding the quality of life because there are higher chances for casual contacts between neighbours and acquaintances (Talen, 2009).

Figure 5. Hybridizing the colors and materials at Chapel Street District , New Haven, USA

Figure 7. Patterns of day-to-day activities in most residential neighborhoods at the USA

The phenomenon of hybrid identities, designs, and spaces is a direct result of the restructuring of the architecture of neighborhoods (Vokic, 2009). Hybridization ( diversification) is related to change and newness, continuity and sameness, re-locating, re-appropriating and resignifying in a new context. In cultural patterns hybridity was applied to create new shape of urban environments such as neighborhoods (Wade, 2005).

The Results

The content of twenty five articles related to urban neighborhood design and concepts was studied and analyzed in tabular displays. The results show that there is a need for non-traditional designs for neighborhoods on the light of globalization, information age, and technological boom. Some articles suggest new concepts and others suggest new strategies for the neighborhood design. Many articles described the association between neighborhood design, health and well-being and the features that may contribute in promoting social capital.

The results of the content analysis show that to adopt new forms of social interaction and to accommodate the existing diversity of population, thoughts, ages, beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, and intentions in urban neighborhoods there are specific design features should be applied. This research defined the required design features which are: flexibility in design, mix use, diverse affordances and materials, diverse colors, networks, meeting places, and hybrid spaces. Those features will encourage the shared sense of morality, common purpose, and sense of belonging to