A study of building footprints in large U.S. cities has revealed five distinct types of neighborhoods with differences in footprint size, shape, and location. These types are statistically linked to varying socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the neighborhoods. Noah Durst and his team from Michigan State University in the U.S. presented these findings.The research was published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on April 10, 2024. People have been studying the shape and placement of human settlements, also known as “neighborhood morphology,” to help with urban planning and management. Recent technological advancements, such as high-resolution satellite imagery and more powerful computational tools, have opened up new possibilities for this field. In their recent study, Durst and colleagues utilized a set of open-source computational tools that were recently developed, in part, by one of the coauthors for analyzing building footprints. They used these tools, collectively known as FThe research team used an analysis of building footprints in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles to study neighborhood patterns. They found that there are five distinct types of neighborhoods based on the size and orientation of buildings. For example, class 1 neighborhoods have smaller, cookie-cutter residential buildings and make up a high of 31 percent in Boston and a low of 19 percent in Los Angeles. The team also found connections between the different types of neighborhoods.The distribution of neighborhoods in urban areas is influenced by sociodemographic factors such as population density, homeownership, and car commuting. Class 5 neighborhoods, for example, are typically found in older, central urban areas with high building density and a mix of renters and homeowners. On the other hand, class 1 neighborhoods are often recently built suburbs with a high rate of homeownership. Class 2 neighborhoods, characterized by low building density and variability in building size, shape, and placement, are typically located on the urban outskirts.The researchers discovered that Foot can be a valuable tool for informing housing policy, infrastructure investment, and residential segregation due to the significant differences in neighborhood morphology across metropolitan America. The study also suggests that neighborhoods of different types vary in terms of key socioeconomic indicators, indicating that neighborhood morphology may be a link between urban space policies and the effects of neighborhoods on important societal issues.
The study examined the relationship between neighborhood morphology and various social and spatial factors, such as housing density and residential segregation.
Journal Reference:
- Noah J. Durst, Esther Sullivan, Warren C. Jochem. The spatial and social correlates of neighborhood morphology: Evidence from building footprints in five U.S. metropolitan areas. PLOS ONE, 2024; 19 (4): e0299713 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299713