Abstract
This paper offers a normative definition of what a neighbourhood should be. Normatively defined, a neighbourhood has identity, a place that functions as its centre, everyday facilities and services, internal and external connectivity, social diversity within it or an openness to its
enabling, and a means by which residents can be involved in its aff airs and speak with a collective voice. This paper argues that there are four reasons why this normative de finition is a worthy goal. First, neighbourhoods that meet this normative definition do exist and are in high demand,
which is evidence that more are needed. Meeting demand has become a significant problem over the last few decades, and cities struggle to find ways to sustain whatever supply they are fortunate to have. Second, normative neighbourhoods are able to foster a sense of ownership and caring. Neighbourhood
tangibility forms the basis of self-governance, evident in the historical record and a century of discourse. In the absence of an explicit definition, neighbourhood is an abstraction, weakening residents' ability to control or change it. Third, normative neighbourhoods cultivate social and
economic connection because they root connectivity in daily experience. From small business success to neighbourhood-based surveillance, to efforts to combat social isolation among the elderly, to increasing success among high-risk children in school, neighbourhood-based engagement is regularly
cited as a factor in addressing social challenges. Fourth, the normative neighbourhood substitutes place for homogeneity as the basis of neighbourhood definition. Place, instead of class or race, forms neighbourhood consciousness and is the basis of collective identity, one capable of transcending
the desire for social sameness, the fear of others, and the distrust of institutions. Social identity based solely on class, race or ethnicity has been harmful because of its exclusionary effects, so an alternative identity basis is needed.