The Public Open Space Quality in a Rural Village and an Urban Neighborhood: A Re-Examination after Decades

Abstract

In this article, we examine two settlement types: a rural village and an urban neighborhood. Both settlements were built on state-owned lands, pre-planned, established over three generations ago, informed by the same planning theory, and inspired by the same national ideology. Given these similarities, we compare the values of their constructed environments. Through these values, we examine whether a village planned as a city retains its rural values, and whether an urban neighborhood can contain village construction values. The aim of this article is to examine whether the original planning has stood the test of time, in terms of rural and urban renewal. The research method involved the analysis of urban plans and observations of the built environment as a basis for evaluating the quality of the built environments. The findings and main contributions suggest that village and neighborhood planning based on optimal walking distances from the rural/urban centers and the high connectivity and visibility of both internal and external landscapes has provided both the village and neighborhood with a sound infrastructure for future changes, even decades later, and given a different set of needs. Nevertheless, whereas the village is based on a community, the neighborhood seeks to create one and, if it fails to do so, the open areas might become neglected, and the neighborhood might deteriorate. In such a case, only local activism or public intervention can improve the neighborhood’s situation. This research constitutes an additional layer to studies examining the quality of the built environment, both in general and in Israel in particular, in cities and rural settlements. The case studies are Neighborhood D in Beersheba and the moshav Nahalal, Israel.

1. Introduction

In this article, we discuss the planning of city and rural/agricultural village construction within the broader field of human geography [1,2], focusing on the genre of articles dealing with optimal planning—as Talen [3] suggested—which is used to evaluate the physical urban form of inner-city neighborhoods to understand how it impacts the neighborhood quality, and how cities approach livability from diverse perspectives from around the world [4]. More specifically, we evaluate the built environment within the field of urban planning in relation to diverse qualities of the built environment [5,6]. A background on the relevant literature on this topic is provided in the Methodology Section.

Our research relied on studies and methods presented in the literature, using the same qualitative and quantitative methods and tools for evaluating qualities of the built environment. In this article, we intend to examine quality aspects in rural villages as well as urban neighborhoods.

In this article, we address the selection of the best planning principles that can be applied to urban or rural renewal for urban neighborhoods and community villages, such that they remain relevant decades later. The conclusions of this article are essential for contemporary planners who are involved in planning but have neglected to plan for future changes, as well as urban and rural planners who are involved in redevelopment plans.

In this section, two case studies are discussed: Nahalal, an ideological and cooperative agricultural village, and Beersheba, an almost-new city. Both settlements are located in Israel, were designed by different architects, and were founded between 75 and 100 years ago, when the government and physical conditions were different. Still, the construction of both embodied the same ideology, which emphasized the importance of preliminary planning and the attachment to the land. The sources for this writing are historical, as much as possible, to achieve an accurate depiction of the events. Along with physical descriptions, the planning sources and the ideology behind them are also discussed, as well as how the planning expressed the ideology.

A detailed discussion of the relevant literature for evaluating the built environment quality follows in the research questions and Methodology Section, which delves into the relevant tools used in this study to examine the quality of the case study environments.

The results are discussed in the Results Section, while the Discussion and Conclusions Section presents the research questions and summarizes the main conclusions.

This research constitutes an additional layer to studies examining the quality of the built environment in cities and rural settlements, both in general and in Israel in particular, and to an understanding of the history, ideology, and theory behind planning and construction, as well as the quality of space [7,8,9]. We use case studies to revisit old textures and examine the ideology that fueled their planning and its international sources, and we compare them to the current ideology and values, which require urban and rural renewal. The case studies highlight the advantages that should be preserved and the failures that require correction. Although the case studies were conducted in Israel, the insights are comprehensive and applicable to urban and rural settlements worldwide.

1.1. The Garden City Theory and Its Historical Impacts

The Garden City theory, informing the plans of both the village and city, was first presented by Ebenezer Howard in 1898 in his short and highly influential book Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, republished four years later under the title Garden Cities of Tomorrow. This book elaborated on the applicability of a new approach to urban development. According to Ebenezer, the construction of a new and “corrective” city must begin with preliminary studies on the property to be purchased. The number of its inhabitants must be limited to 32,000 in order to prevent an endless sprawl but must, nevertheless, enable size-dependent cultural and community life. Land ownership must be cooperative in order to neutralize the real estate market [10].

The city scheme is concentric. Public services—institutes and parks—are located at the center. In the inner perimeter are residential buildings, and in the outer perimeter are factories and the agricultural hinterland. The city contains streets and boulevards, as are common in European city planning, but the construction density is low, as in villages [10]. In other words, as its name suggests, the Garden City combines the advantages of the city, with its streets and boulevards connecting all its parts, and those of the village, with its low density, communality (designed to be concentric in the city), and anonymity. In addition, it “corrects” the industrial city through shared property ownership and zoning, or the separation of uses.

These values—closeness to the land, communality, and rational and beneficial planning through zoning—reappeared more than forty years later in the new British towns developed during WWII to meet contemporary needs, such as the housing shortage expected after the war, and to “correct” the sprawling industrial city [11] in a manner similar to the turn-of-the-century Garden City.

Patrick Abercrombie’s (1945) Greater London Plan [12] became the prototype for the new British towns. Here, too, as for the Garden City, surveys and studies informed the decisions regarding the locations of the new towns [13]. Furthermore, the planning approach was based on the zoning concept, communality, and an abundance of green areas. The population was also limited in this case (this time, to 60,000 people), and the construction density remained low. However, the urban spaces were taken away from the new town: open areas separated the disjointed neighborhoods, connected through main traffic arteries. According to Abercrombie, the main urban unit was the neighborhood unit. This had to fit in 5000–10,000 people and be well defined using clear markers, such as main roads, railways, rivers, or natural open territories.

Apparently, Abercrombie (1945) [12] integrated the ideas of American city planner Clarence Perry (1929) [14] regarding the neighborhood unit into his Garden City theory and, in this spirit, he stated that the final size of this unit had to be determined based on the capacity of the elementary school serving its population. He also seems to have adopted Perry’s philosophy, according to which the large city is alienated such that the neighborhood is the inhabitant’s social “home”. As a result, and in order to create an overlap between the neighborhood and the human community forming within it, Abercrombie proposed that the main roads should pass outside the perimeters of the neighborhood units to prevent any damage to their spatial integrity. He also suggested that the internal road system should serve the inhabitants of the neighborhood unit alone. Green belts were to separate—and, in fact, isolate—the neighborhood units [12,15]. As mentioned, these planning principles informed the first wave of the new British towns. From 1946 to 1950, 13 such towns were built in the U.K., 8 of them around London [16].

The Garden City theory and the specific precedent of the new British towns inspired the planning of the village and town addressed in this paper. From the perspective of their planners, they embodied the same values: attachment to the land, communality, and rational planning. State ownership of the land was eventually added, as both the town and village were part of the ideological effort to constitute a nation-state in a specific territory through settlement.

Attachment to the land became a value to be actualized through settlement and farmwork [17], and it espoused another value: belief in the positive power of rational planning. As mentioned, these values also undergirded the Garden City theory. Finally, the value of communality, also included in the Garden City concept and the values of the new British towns, was embodied in the ambition to create a cooperative and egalitarian society in the pre-statehood era [18] and an integrated, united society after statehood [17].

1.2. The Cooperative Agricultural Village of Nahalal

The ideals of an improved society and the establishment of a nation-state were embodied in the villages built by Jewish settlers before Israel became a state in 1948. A new settlement pattern conceived in 1921, in the early days of the British Mandate (1918–1948), was the moshav, the physical outline and management of which both translated national ideology into practice [19]. This article focuses on the first moshav ever planned during the British Mandate, Nahalal, by German–Jewish architect Richard Kaufmann.

The choice of Nahalal as a case study arose from its pioneering nature and the fact that it epitomizes the communal, egalitarian, and agricultural ideology in its purest form, as will be detailed below. Furthermore, its circular layout and the central location of public institutions can be attributed directly to the Garden City theory.

Regarding land management, it was decided that the moshav lands were to be owned by the Jewish collective during the British Mandate and leased to the moshav. Regarding the management of daily life, it was determined that the moshav would be managed by a cooperative association uniting all farmers. This association would be in charge of an equal division of plots among the farmers, an equal division of the means of production, the marketing of farm products, and the establishment and running of communal institutions. Regarding the moshav’s physical outline, the public buildings and public officials’ houses were to be built in the center, with the farmers’ residences built in the perimeter, from which elongated and equal-sized family plots would extend outwards. To create a productive and self-sustaining society, intimate enough to serve as a community and small enough to enable the provision of social and communal services, the number of families was limited to 80–100, and the total population size was limited to 350 people [19] (see Figure 1). The residents of Nahalal chose to settle there because they identified with the ideologies that guided its management and planning.

The European origins of the early Jewish planners and settlers may explain their sources of inspiration: European concentric villages [20] and the Rundling village model created by emancipated peasants in Eastern Europe in the late Middle Ages after they left feudal mansions and moved to frontier areas [21]. However, the most important influence was the Garden City. We are dealing here not just with a concentric model but with zoning: public services are located at the center of the Garden City, as in Nahalal, and factories and the agricultural hinterland are located in the outer perimeter. The Garden City theory also inspired the population limit. Indeed, in 1922, Kaufmann, who planned Nahalal, went on a tour of garden cities in Britain and wrote that “For our country [during the British Mandate], no more appropriate form of settlement is conceivable, both practically, and socially, health-wise, morally and artistically” (Kaufmann, 1922 in [22]).

Nahalal became a national icon, not only for being the first moshav but also for its perfect shape. However, this planning perfection was quickly identified as problematic: Nahalal’s public area was too large and too vacant (see Figure 2), and the perfectly shaped ring would obstruct future growth. Thus, in the next moshav settlements, Kaufmann avoided the planned round and perfect outline [19]. In later years, the ideology was no longer such a key factor, as the acute need for attachment to the land was not so strongly felt after 75 years of independence. Finally, egalitarianism became completely eroded in the now-capitalist state, as did the value of communalism, which was replaced by individualism. Thus, the ideology inspiring the outline was no longer relevant.

Figure 1. Nahalal as planned by Richard Kaufmann (1921). The public area covered 200 dunams (50 acres), of which one-half were designated for public officials’ houses [23]. The size of the public area was derived from the width of the agricultural courtyard entrances and determined by farming equipment considerations, rather than functional needs [19]. Source: courtesy of the Nahalal Archive.

Figure 1. Nahalal as planned by Richard Kaufmann (1921). The public area covered 200 dunams (50 acres), of which one-half were designated for public officials’ houses [23]. The size of the public area was derived from the width of the agricultural courtyard entrances and determined by farming equipment considerations, rather than functional needs [19]. Source: courtesy of the Nahalal Archive.

1.3. The Desert City of Beersheba

Soon after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, its State Planning Department consolidated spatial planning authorities on all levels: national, regional, urban, neighborhood, and housing [24]. New cities and neighborhoods were planned by the department on state lands and built by the State Housing Department. The planning and housing met quantitative problems, such as the need to provide shelter to immigrants who trebled Israel’s population within a decade, and qualitative–ideological problems, such as the need for the new immigrants to form an attachment to the land and become part of an egalitarian society [25].

The ability to plan an entire new city or neighborhood on state lands, without issues related to private ownership, existing construction, or local economic constraints, contributed to the ideological totality and coherence at the urban and neighborhood levels. This was the case in the planning of the desert city of Beersheba, the principles of which were consistent with those informing the other new cities of the time, regardless of the geographic location or climatic conditions [26].

The choice of Beersheba as a case study was motivated by its planning alongside the establishment of the state, which expressed the planning ideology in such a pure manner that it overshadowed the desert landscape conditions. The urban plan emphasized the ideological themes of community and proximity to the land, while the neighborhood plan embodied the ideological elements of community, proximity to the land, and egalitarianism (through the construction of identical houses by the government). Moreover, like Nahalal, Beersheba was also influenced by the Garden City theory, albeit indirectly.

As in the other new cities, Beersheba’s neighborhoods were planned to be disjointed and teeming with greenery, and parks were planned within them, attesting to the planners’ ideological aspiration to attach the new immigrants to the land. The housing was planned to be highly sparse (about two housing units per dunam, gross), and the neighborhoods looked like small villages with red roofs around public parks (see Figure 3), embodying the ambition to create communality within each disjointed neighborhood. The urban center was planned between the neighborhoods and was also drenched in green, and a few isolated, winding roads connected the neighborhoods to each other and to the urban center [26]. Thus, Beersheba was planned like an oasis, ignoring its desert climate and the remains of the pre-1948 Arab town, planned by the Ottoman rulers in 1990 [27]. It was to consist of peripheral and excentric Jewish housing neighborhoods.

As in the case of Nahalal, the planning precedent was essentially European: the new British towns. These were also based on sparse construction, winding roads, and neighborhoods separated by green belts. Egalitarianism was embodied in the uniformity of the houses. As in Nahalal, the new model failed immediately, and even more so in Beersheba. The green belts remained stubbornly yellow and kept the residents apart instead of bringing them together, and the internal fractures denied the city its urban pulse (see Figure 4). Furthermore, unlike Nahalal, whose residents chose to live there out of identification with the idea and ideology, the residents of Beersheba did not settle there as a result of an alignment with the planning goals. Some were new immigrants settled in the city by the authorities, while others lived there in order to earn a living. As with Nahalal, the ideology changed with time, making the planning irrelevant.

1.4. Quality of the Built Environment

Over the last few decades, environmental quality and performance have become fundamental in urban planning and design [6,28,29,30,31,32], where the aim is to evaluate and measure diverse aspects of environmental quality and performance separately, such as security [33], visibility [34,35], and walkability [36,37,38].

Methods and tools for evaluating the environmental quality of neighborhoods have been further developed since the beginning of the 21st century. However, currently, there is no comprehensive evaluation process for physical master plans [39,40,41].

Several researchers have measured visibility for different purposes in the built environment. For example, Marcus and Sarkissian [42] describe observation situations for viewing and monitoring inner gardens for security purposes. Van Nes and López [43] found a correlation between spatial characteristics and the geographic distribution of residential burglaries based on visibility measurements. Shu [44] argued, based on visibility measures, that crimes tend to occur in segregated areas with fewer dwellings and short viewing distances. Shach-Pinsly [31] developed visibility analysis models for measuring the extent of the view seen from windows and the sense of privacy achieved in a neighborhood for use as evaluation tools during the design process.

At present, several models and tools with which to separately measure diverse qualities in the built environment already exist and are being developed, the results of which can be visualized in mapping and design plans and calculated with numbers and codes. Regarding walkability, Frank et al. [45] developed the Walkability Index for understanding quality of life. Leslie et al. [36] developed a model for discovering environmental attributes relevant to the walkability of local communities. Gehl [46] searched for architectural elements to make better sense of personal security in the city. Shach-Pinsly [33] developed the Security Rating Index (SRI) for analyzing secure and insecure urban areas based on urban parameters and integrating these outcomes into the planning process.

2. Methodology

Four generations after the establishment of Nahalal, and three after the founding of Beersheba, the ideology guiding their planning is no longer relevant, which gives rise to the following questions: What is the quality of the built environment now, after decades? Have the settlements held up to the test of time? Can they still offer spatial qualities on the rural and neighborhood scales? How can these be preserved and leveraged in contemporary planning? Can the ideological values embodied in both villages and cities contribute to the quality of future space in a time of rural and urban renewal? Which characteristics should we adopt in contemporary planning, and which should we beware of, since there is no remedy in the future? Finally, can we distinguish between spatial qualities suitable for rural versus urban development?

To answer these questions, we used various tools for a physical and spatial assessment of the built environment. These tools were originally developed to evaluate urban fabrics, but we adapted them to evaluate rural fabrics as well. Specifically, we applied the tools to Nahalal and Neighborhood D in Beersheba, combining the modernist housing units and values informed by Howard’s Garden City and Perry’s neighborhood unit.

2.1. Quality Tools in This Research

In this research, we measured the following values: the distances between the buildings, visibility of the view, walkability, connectivity, and sense of security in public open spaces. The values of the distances between the buildings and visibility of the view are informed directly by the Garden City theory, which glorifies the attachment to nature. The walkability and connectivity values are derived from Perry’s neighborhood unit, with its limit of one-quarter-mile walking distances between the neighborhood’s center (and its public buildings) and its edges, marked by main streets. According to Perry, a reasonable 10-min walk sustains communality. The value of a sense of security is derived from communality, as this is a basic condition for wandering around the neighborhood and randomly meeting others, which enhances one’s sense of belonging. These values are described in detail below.

2.1.1. Distances between Buildings

The design of the building layout has a considerable effect on several qualitative and functional values. Greater distances have a positive impact on visibility of the view and privacy but reduce walkability and security [47]. When the buildings are packed closely together, the fabric is more compact, allowing for walkability between the buildings, a greater sense of security, and improved accessibility and connectivity.

2.1.2. Visibility of the View

The ability to view the open landscape contributes to health and quality of life [48,49,50]. In recent decades, various tools have been developed to evaluate and measure this variable from a variety of aspects, such as the extent of the view from windows [31], or the perceived quality of the visible landscape [51,52].

2.1.3. Walkability

Walkability is a key parameter in defining an environment as sustainable, as it allows for a better experience of it, produces socializing opportunities [46,53], and contributes to physical exercise [54,55]. Quantitatively, it was found that multiple junctions promote walkability [56,57], as does easy access to public transportation [58]. Several studies have found that distances of 400–800 m are walkable and thus create a neighborhood, since they enable random encounters and encourage communality [59,60].

2.1.4. Accessibility and Connectivity

Accessibility and connectivity are among the significant functional parameters of the environment, serving as indicators of the traffic network quality [58,61]. High accessibility and connectivity are achieved through a large number of junctions that encourage walkability, allowing for the greater free choice of paths and enabling shortcuts [57,62].

2.1.5. Sense of Security

The level of security in the built environment increases with the number of people, and with it, so too does the extent of social oversight [46] (“eyes on the street”, as Jacobs (1961) puts it [63]). Studies have shown that physical maintenance also increases a sense of security [64], and that spaces attractive for lingering and walking increase the potential level of human usage and, hence, the sense of personal security [33,65]. In recent years, several methods and tools have been developed to assess the sense of security in space. One of them is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) [66], which offers guidelines to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to improve quality of life. Another tool, developed by Shach-Pinsly [33], measures the sense of security in public spaces by evaluating urban elements, including the degree of mixed uses, the proximity of junctions and buildings, and lighting, and enables the charting of raster maps pointing to specific areas with the potential for high or low levels of security. These studies find that in order to improve the sense of security in space, structural changes must be made to the urban environment.

3. Results

To understand the differences between a rural space and a sparse urban space, the present fabrics in Nahalal and a neighborhood in Beersheba, Israel, were analyzed. Below, we describe the present situation and go on to evaluate the built environments and their public open spaces. The data for collecting the findings were derived from the implementation of the evaluation tools previously detailed, through the analysis of plans and evaluations we conducted.

3.1. Nahalal

The moshav was originally built as a circle 800 m in diameter and crossed by two main intersecting traffic routes, with 75 agricultural plots in the perimeter. Within this circle, areas were allocated for public buildings and the houses of public officials. Today, Nahalal includes 150 farms and 1350 inhabitants.

With the years, rural renewal occurred in Nahalal in two major respects: the addition of plots for housing for members of the moshav and their second generation (1) in the perimeter and (2) in the center (see Figure 5). The rural renewal in the perimeter involved the addition of 75 new plots for housing and agriculture, with each new plot serving as an extension of the old one. The housing is for the sons and daughters of the founding farmers, who also work in agriculture (see Figure 6). The rural renewal of the round center is based on a combination of preserving the original scheme and historical buildings and new construction and the introduction of diverse uses. Most of the public buildings have been preserved (see Figure 7), and 25 housing units have been added at the center for non-farmers of the second generation, covering an area of about one-quarter of the central circle (see Figure 8). A recent initiative seeks to convert industrial buildings to a center for the sale of farm products, the development of future agricultural technologies, as well as “softer” uses, such as medical services, a hotel, and a project for developing freelance and academic workspaces.

3.1.1. Distances between Buildings

The average distance between the buildings in Nahalal is about ten (10) meters, both in the older plots and the peripheral extensions (see Figure 9). In several areas where the main traffic routes pass, the distance is about 30 m. These distances are typical of the Garden City theory, as they contribute to integration with the natural landscape and privacy. They also contribute to planning flexibility, as they enable widening the buildings or condensing the construction by adding new ones. Moreover, they enable walkability, accessibility, and good connectivity to various areas in the moshav and an increased sense of security in the built area [31,33].

3.1.2. Visibility of the View

The traffic routes crossing the central moshav space are about 20 m wide, enabling distant views from the driving/walking routes to the landscape (see Figure 10). The farming plots are crossed by walking paths that connect the distant peripheral road to the heart of Nahalal, creating open vistas to the landscape outside the moshav and to its center. The length of the extended boundaries of each plot is 300–350 m. These lines are directly continued to serve as the boundaries between the newly added plots. Maintaining this continuity enables the maintenance of the views to the landscape between the plots and from various areas in the center of Nahalal (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). One of the strengths of a rural community is the large spaces between the buildings that provide views of open, agricultural landscapes from multiple locations. This contributes to the rural experience and to the place’s agricultural DNA and identity, lifting the spirit.

3.1.3. Walkability, Accessibility, and Connectivity

When examining the spatial quality in Nahalal, it appears that its concentric form (informed by the Garden City and previously criticized as too closed) and optimal walking distances to the center of 300–350 m from the houses of the first-generation farmers and about 600 m from the houses of the second-generation farmers have reduced the need for parking spaces and increased the accessibility and walkability. The two intersecting main routes that extend to the perimeter (that is, to the extension area and beyond) provide added connectivity to the heart of the moshav, where the public buildings are concentrated. Overall, the short segments on which walkability, accessibility, and connectivity in Nahalal are based, and which also tie into the extension area, contribute to wandering, random encounters, and commonality [67] (see Figure 6).

3.1.4. Sense of Security

The high levels of accessibility and walkability contribute to the sense of security in Nahalal [47,68]. Increasing the moshav’s density by adding housing units and densifying uses at the center, two processes that have occurred over the years, have increased the number of inhabitants and community oversight. The mixture of soft uses extends the time spent in the public space and also contributes to a sense of security. The interconnected walking paths extending to all parts of the moshav contribute to the general sense of security as well, creating the potential for optimal functioning [69]. In turn, the improved security has a significant positive effect on the sense of communality, especially in a relatively small community such as a moshav, one of the constitutive values of which is communality.

3.2. Beersheba

Today, Beersheba is home to 215,000 people. Since 1948, neighborhoods, a regional hospital, and a university have been added to its small urban core. Until recently, the older neighborhoods remained as they had been built, and apart for provisional housing extensions by the tenants, no urban renewal was undertaken. The city developed through the construction of new neighborhoods around its perimeter. In general, the newer the neighborhood, the higher and denser its houses. In other words, a sparsely built core was planned in the early years, as opposed to a naturally developing city with a dense and multiple-use core.

In the mid-1960s, a new plan was drawn for the neighborhood, which sought to increase its density. The plan was to replace the vacant lots between the neighborhoods with wide roads [70] and was approved in 1971. The excessively wide roads that divided the city into pieces are still there (see Figure 11). The current plan for Beersheba by Mann Shinar Architects, no. 605-014576313.1.2021, envisions its growth to 280,000 inhabitants by 2030, and seeks to connect the disjointed neighborhoods by turning these roads into walkable, shaded boulevards with mixed uses (see Figure 12). To rejuvenate the urban pulse, the plan calls for greater density, particularly in the sparse historical neighborhoods at the heart of the city [71].

While it is obvious to the city’s current planners that the dissected city concept has failed on the whole—Beersheba is not seen as a living, integrated city but as a collection of disjointed neighborhoods—the qualities of its older neighborhoods are unclear. One of them, Neighborhood D, whose spaces are evaluated below, was planned and built in the mid-1950s. It was denser than the earlier core neighborhoods, made up of elongated four-story housing complexes with a density of five–six housing units per dunam, gross, with two–three-bedroom apartments. Nevertheless, as a product of Howard’s Garden City theory and Perry’s neighborhood unit, as embodied in the new British towns, and of the modernist city construction and free plan [72], it is rich in open spaces. Moreover, as a product of the disjointed neighborhood concept, it is surrounded by artery roads, which keep it isolated (see Figure 13). Neighborhood D is adjacent to Ben-Gurion University of Negev and Soroka Hospital and contains two elementary schools and one high school. Today, it is home to 6400 inhabitants in 4500 housing units.

Figure 12. Reger Road according to the New Urban Outline Plan. The plan seeks to turn it into an urban road with transit-oriented development (TOD) while expanding and renewing the housing units along its route and adding ground-floor commercial uses in order to produce a cohesive and contiguous fabric. Source: Mann Shinar website [73].

Figure 12. Reger Road according to the New Urban Outline Plan. The plan seeks to turn it into an urban road with transit-oriented development (TOD) while expanding and renewing the housing units along its route and adding ground-floor commercial uses in order to produce a cohesive and contiguous fabric. Source: Mann Shinar website [73].

3.2.1. Distances between Buildings

An observation of the neighborhood on foot (conducted by the authors on 26 March 2024) indicated that it includes a variety of open spaces of different sizes, either adjacent to or not far from the buildings. These spaces are enabled by the distances between the buildings. The average distance between the buildings in the neighborhood is about 20 m (see Figure 13). The open spaces are mostly more than 100 square meters in size (see Figure 14 and Figure 15). These distances and spaces provide for multiple qualities, such as open views, connectivity, walkability, spaces for lingering and sitting, privacy, and planning flexibility enabling structural changes and densification. In the planning of urban renewal for the neighborhood, it is advised to retain the current building layout with the distances between the buildings to preserve the high-quality built environment.

3.2.2. Visibility of the View

The open spaces between the buildings in Neighborhood D provide continuous views of the internal landscape from multiple observation points (see Figure 14 and Figure 15). The ability to look afar from the walking paths enables walkers to understand their surrounding areas mainly during the daytime, as well as where the road leads and what the next viewpoint is. This orientation contributes to a personal sense of security [46]. The parking bays at the edge of the neighborhood, with sizes that vary from one area to another, provide views to open landscapes farther from the neighborhood (see Figure 16). The ability to view internal and external landscapes reduces the perceived crowdedness [31], contributing to the inhabitants’ satisfaction with the neighborhood [51].

3.2.3. Walkability, Accessibility, and Connectivity

Neighborhood D is characterized by wide open spaces and walking paths between the buildings. Some of them are well maintained, but most are neglected and dirty (see Figure 16). Walking around the neighborhood indicates that the walking distance segments between the various path junctions and viewpoints are very short (50–100 m). These distances, combined with the open spaces and the paths that connect all parts of the neighborhood and a variety of lingering/sitting areas, promote connectivity, walkability, and accessibility. In turn, this contributes to a sense of community by facilitating random encounters or longer durations spent in the diverse neighborhood spaces. Nevertheless, it appears that very few people walk on the neighborhood paths or cross the open spaces. Most of the paths are neglected, with wild vegetation or sandy and dry land (typical of the local desert climate). Sometimes, these paths are blocked by illegal, improvised fencing at the expense of public land. It appears that the derelict condition of the paths and open spaces deters the inhabitants from using them.

To conclude, the current state of connectivity in the neighborhood increases its walkability and the potential for communality. However, the fact that the paths are not maintained and that some of them are blocked prevents this potential from materializing. This should be taken into consideration when planning the neighborhood’s renewal, in order to retain its high walkability and connectivity with well-maintained public open spaces.

3.2.4. Sense of Security

Many studies indicate that neglect, dirt, and a lack of maintenance affect the experience of wandering in the city and make walkers feel much less secure in the built environment [66]. Indeed, this is the condition of many walking paths and open areas in the neighborhood (see Figure 16). An observation in the neighborhood on 26 March 2024 indicated that relatively few people walk around or spend time in the public spaces. The lack of a structured definition of open spaces in the built environment adds to the sense of insecurity [46], as does the lack of adequate lighting.

Conversely, thanks to the peripheral parking bays, the inner spaces are free of vehicles and, hence, safer, and the ability to look afar from the walking paths makes for better orientation and, hence, security. An effort to enhance personal security is evident in the improvement in street lighting. Currently, it covers only the main open spaces and major paths. Out of the same motivation, neighborhood residents fence parts of the open area and assign them independently (and not always legally) to a building or a ground-floor apartment (see upper right photo in Figure 15). These spaces appear to be better maintained. Indeed, studies have found that well-bordered areas contribute to a sense of security [46].

To conclude, clearly defined areas, improved lighting, and enhanced maintenance increase the sense of personal security in the built environment. Paying attention to these aspects can easily improve the quality of life in the neighborhood for everyone.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This study contributes to the research associated with human geography [1,2] and urban studies that examine how the physical built environment contributes to creating more livable cities, enabling higher-quality built environments [3,4,46]). Moreover, we define the qualities of the built environment after decades, and whether it is possible to distinguish between spatial qualities suitable for rural development and those suitable for urban neighborhood development.

In this article, we presented two old built environments—one urban and one rural—the planning of which was based on the Garden City and neighborhood unit theories. We examined a cooperative village based on an urban plan and an urban neighborhood planned as a collection of disjointed villages. We asked what the qualities of the built environment are after years, and whether it is possible to distinguish between spatial qualities suitable for rural development and those suitable for urban neighborhood development. To do so, we analyzed spatial qualities highlighted in the literature: distances between buildings; visibility of the view; walkability, accessibility, and connectivity; and sense of security. Therefore, the conclusions of this article highlight characteristics of the built environment that urban and rural settlements should acquire during construction, such that they remain beneficial even after decades and incorporate elements that facilitate renewal.

We found that the basic planning created 75 and 100 years ago (in the urban and rural cases, respectively) has provided good walking distances and high internal connectivity, combined with large open spaces and high levels of visibility of the view, both internal and external. These qualities have provided both the village and neighborhood with a good infrastructure for future renewal, despite the significant social changes in the interim.

Regarding walkability and connectivity, the rural renewal in Nahalal has transformed the original zoning by adding housing at the center and increased the population (despite its limitation in the original planning). However, the basic circular scheme remains, as does the walkability and connectivity. Regarding the distances between the buildings and the visibility of the view of the open landscape, in both the city and villages, distances of 10–20 m between the buildings and the open view from the houses, and especially from open spaces, provide privacy, structural and planning flexibility, and orientation and, therefore, also a sense of personal security and wellbeing. In these respects, there were no differences between the urban neighborhood and the village and, in both, these values are desirable when the open spaces can be filled with content: vegetation and diverse spaces dedicated to community encounters. The experience of the lockdowns during COVID-19 have added much to our confidence in this conclusion [74].

Nevertheless, the inner wide-open spaces serve different functions in the village and city. The construction of Nahalal involved a founding nucleus of ideologically driven individuals who chose to live collectively and engage in agricultural activities. In other words, it started as a planned community from the outset, with open spaces integral to its rural DNA. Thus, although many areas in the center of Nahalal remained vacant for years, this did not detract from the sense of communality. The community kept meeting regularly—for example, in the community center planned specifically for this purpose—and the open spaces were seen as part of the local qualities.

The situation is different in the urban neighborhood, where there is no predefined community. To the contrary, city residents seek to enjoy relative individuality and have the freedom to choose their social communities independently of their residential neighborhoods. Moreover, the urban DNA is not based on open areas—neither between the neighborhoods, nor within them. In the urban neighborhood, these spaces, despite having an inherent potential for positive qualities, can become “no-man’s lands” when not maintained properly by the tenants or the municipality, becoming neglected, vandalized, or illegally expropriated. Our examination of the sense of personal security highlights these differences: while it was maintained in the village for over a century, it deteriorated in the urban neighborhood, in keeping with the lack of public space maintenance.

Spatial and Planning Recommendations

Based on our findings, both rural villages and urban neighborhoods will benefit from reasonable walking distances, high connectivity, and extensive open spaces over the next few decades, as discussed in [53,54,55,56,57,58]. However, unlike villages, it is up to city authorities to manage public open spaces over the course of time. Without maintenance or regulation [64], these areas may become neglected, potentially detracting from the appearance of the neighborhood, as cities are based on individuality rather than cohesive communities, such as in villages, where open spaces are part of the neighborhood DNA.

In terms of urban neighborhood planning, what can be accomplished practically?

First, the planning of intra-neighborhood public open spaces should be accompanied by a municipal mechanism for their maintenance or, alternatively, large parts of these open spaces should be assigned to buildings and even some ground-floor apartments to ensure their proper maintenance. Providing regulations regarding permissible fencing (about 60 cm in height to allow for open space definition and ownership, on the one hand, and to preserve visibility, on the other hand) will help maintain the inherent qualities of the neighborhood. Such mechanisms and practical regulations can be learned from studies that highlight various urban elements and spatial characteristics that enhance visibility [49,50], walkability [51,52], and a sense of safety [47], among others. Our hope is that this study will contribute to the development of empirical evidence for the development of public interventions, with the aim of developing policy recommendations in the future.

Second, the research recommends preserving the spatial qualities in urban renewal projects that involve population growth, building densification, and the addition of new structures, as suggested in studies by Shadar and Shach-Pinsly [7,8]. Practical experience in neighborhoods with nearly identical textures in the bustling city of Tel Aviv demonstrates that, even when social ideologies change, such old and quasi-rural textures within the big city can continue to serve as a “community” home for residents, even after decades. Community spaces coexist with the urban pulse outside the neighborhood, with external communities that are not location-specific, and with the individuality and freedom that are prevalent in urban life (Figure 17).

To conclude, this research establishes a new layer in studies examining the quality of the built environment in cities and rural villages in Israel as a case study and, in general, explores the history, ideology, and theory behind their planning and construction, as well as the quality of the built environment.