Neighborhoods of Affinity

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Planners have traditionally focused on how the physical characteristics of neighborhoods influence people's activity and travel -patterns, overlooking an equally important factor: the social nature of neighborhoods. We focus on one kind of neighborhood characterized by strong social ties: gay and lesbian -neighborhoods of affinity. Gay men living in a neighborhood of affinity—those with a high percentage of coupled gays and lesbians—take shorter work and non-work trips. The mix of local activity sites and social connections results in some gay men conducting a substantial share of their lives within these neighborhoods and nearby. These results are independent of the design or density of the neighborhood. We do not, however, find similar results for lesbians, perhaps because they have less residential mobility. Takeaway for practice: Gay and lesbian neighborhoods of affinity represent the kinds of supportive communities where local travel is possible for many activities, behavior that planners seek with so many public policies. Planners must explore how the social and physical environments of neighborhoods interact with one another when they focus on the impacts of physical design and infrastructure on community outcomes. Research support: None.

[1]  Tracey P. Lauriault.  The Gay and Lesbian Atlas , 2005, Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization.

[2]  R. Crane,et al.  Sex Changes Everything , 2009 .

[3]  Lowell J. Taylor,et al.  Why Do Gay Men Live in San Francisco , 2002 .

[4]  Gill Valentine,et al.  Queer country: Rural lesbian and gay lives , 1995 .

[5]  Xiu-jing Cao.  Disentangling the influence of neighborhood type and self-selection on driving behavior: an application of sample selection model , 2009 .

[6]  G. Gates.  Same-Sex couples in US Census Bureau Data: Who Gets Counted and Why , 2010 .

[7]  Adam Easterbrook,et al.  No Room for New Families? : A Field Experiment Measuring Rental Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples and Single Parents , 2011 .

[8]  G. Valentine.  Introduction: From Nowhere to Everywhere: Lesbian Geographies , 2000 .

[9]  Randall Crane,et al.  The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review , 2000 .

[10]  J. Gieseking.  Queering the Meaning of ‘Neighbourhood’: Reinterpreting the Lesbian-Queer Experience of Park Slope, Brooklyn, 1983–2008 , 2013 .

[11]  S. Rosenbloom.  Understanding Women's and Men's Travel Patterns: The Research Challenge , 2006 .

[12]  Lowell J. Taylor,et al.  The Measurement of Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Couples in the 2000 U.S. Census , 2007 .

[13]  S. Adler,et al.  Gender and Space: Lesbians and Gay Men in the City* , 1992 .

[14]  C. Nash.  The age of the “post-mo”? Toronto’s gay Village and a new generation , 2013 .

[15]  Michael Frisch.  Planning as a Heterosexist Project , 2002 .

[16]  G. Valentine.  Out and About: Geographies of Lesbian Landscapes* , 1995 .

[17]  Linda Peake,et al.  ‘Race’ and Sexuality: Challenging the Patriarchal Structuring of Urban Social Space , 1993 .

[18]  T. Arentze,et al.  Social Networks, Social Interactions, and Activity-Travel Behavior: A Framework for Microsimulation , 2008 .

[19]  Xinyu Cao,et al.  Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies , 2008 .

[20]  A. Gorman‐Murray.  Intimate mobilities: emotional embodiment and queer migration , 2009 .

[21]  R. Aldrich.  Homosexuality and the City: An Historical Overview , 2004 .

[22]  S. Handy.  Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Nonwork Travel Behavior , 1995 .

[23]  G. Gates.  Same-sex Couples in Census 2010: Race and Ethnicity , 2012 .

[24]  Marlon G. Boarnet,et al.  Travel by design : the influence of urban form on travel , 2001 .

[25]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment , 2010 .

[26]  H. Higgins,et al.  The Demise of Queer Space? Resurgent Gentrification and the Assimilation of LGBT Neighborhoods , 2011 .

[27]  A. Collins.  Sexual Dissidence, Enterprise and Assimilation: Bedfellows in Urban Regeneration , 2004 .

[28]  Susan Hanson,et al.  Gender and mobility: new approaches for informing sustainability , 2010 .

[29]  Melanie A. Rapino,et al.  Commuting, Gender Roles, and Entrapment: A National Study Utilizing Spatial Fixed Effects and Control Groups , 2011 .

[30]  Nathaniel M. Lewis.  Queerying planning: challenging heteronormative assumptions and reframing planning practice , 2013 .

[31]  A. Páez,et al.  A Discrete-Choice Approach to Modeling Social Influence on Individual Decision Making , 2008 .

[32]  Evelyn Blumenberg,et al.  Travel In the ’Hood: Ethnic Neighborhoods and Mode Choice , 2009 .

[33]  D. Bell,et al.  ‘And She Told Two Friends’: Lesbians Creating Urban Social Space , 2003 .

[34]  S. Handy,et al.  Transportation Experiences of Mexican Immigrants in California: Results from Focus Group Interviews , 2007 .

[35]  Julie A. Podmore.  Lesbians in the Crowd: Gender, sexuality and visibility along Montréal's Boul. St-Laurent , 2001 .

[36]  Lowell J. Taylor,et al.  Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources , 2011, Demography.

[37]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels , 2007 .

[38]  Sandra Rosenbloom,et al.  Women’s Travel in Developed and Developing Countries: Two Versions of the Same Story? , 2010 .

[39]  T. Healy,et al.  Flagrantly Flaunting It? , 2000 .

[40]  Nathaniel M. Lewis.  Ottawa’s Le/The Village: Creating a gaybourhood amidst the ‘death of the village’ , 2013 .

[41]  Evelyn Blumenberg,et al.  Brother can you Spare a Ride? Carpooling in Immigrant Neighbourhoods , 2014 .

[42]  C. Reed.  We're from Oz: Marking Ethnic and Sexual Identity in Chicago , 2003 .

[43]  G. Gates,et al.  How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender? , 2011 .

[44]  S. Raudenbush,et al.  Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity , 2003, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[45]  G. Dubrow.  Lavender landmarks revisited: Advancing an LGBT preservation agenda , 2011 .

[46]  John L. Renne,et al.  Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS , 2003 .

[47]  A. Santos,et al.  Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey , 2011 .

[48]  Michael J. Smart.  A nationwide look at the immigrant neighborhood effect on travel mode choice , 2015 .

[49]  R. Crane,et al.  Is There a Quiet Revolution in Women's Travel? Revisiting the Gender Gap in Commuting , 2007 .

[50]  Steven Farber,et al.  My car, my friends, and me: a preliminary analysis of automobility and social activity participation , 2009 .

[51]  Dowell Myers,et al.  CHANGES OVER TIME IN TRANSPORTATION MODE FOR JOURNEY TO WORK: EFFECTS OF AGING AND IMMIGRATION , 1997 .

[52]  B. Ruting.  Economic Transformations of Gay Urban Spaces: revisiting Collins’ evolutionary gay district model , 2008 .

[53]  Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 23 Cfr Part 515 Asset Management Plan Background , 2022 .

[54]  Amy L. Spring,et al.  Declining Segregation of Same-Sex Partners: Evidence from Census 2000 and 2010 , 2013, Population research and policy review.

[55]  T. Pratt.  Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect , 2013 .

[56]  Discrimination Against Female-Headed Households in Rental Housing: Theory and Exploratory Evidence , 1991 .

[57]  Manuel Castells,et al.  The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements , 1983 .

[58]  G. Gates,et al.  LGBT Parenting in the United States , 2013 .

[59]  Michael P. Brown,et al.  Places or polygons? Governmentality, scale, and the census in the Gay and Lesbian Atlas , 2006 .

[60]  G. Valentine.  From Nowhere to Everywhere: Lesbian Geographies , 2000 .

[61]  Julie A. Podmore.  Gone ‘underground’? Lesbian visibility and the consolidation of queer space in Montréal , 2006 .

[62]  Daniel G. Chatman,et al.  Explaining the “immigrant effect” on auto use: the influences of neighborhoods and preferences , 2014 .

[63]  L. Knopp,et al.  TOWARD AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF GAY COMMUNITIES IN THE URBAN RENAISSANCE , 1985 .