![]()
1 So, what is a neighborhood?
As the Orlando resident quoted in the Introduction aptly explained, the city is synonymous with tourism, especially theme parks. In 2017, more than 72 million visitors came through Orlando, becoming the first U.S. destination to surpass 70 million visitors (Shelton, 2018). In a press release announcing the statistics, Visit Orlando â the Cityâs official tourism branding association â lauded all the new theme park rides opening at Disney World, Universal Studios, LEGOLAND, and SeaWorld. The release also mentioned tourist hotspots such as the ICON (essentially a large Ferris wheel akin to the London Eye), the Orlando City professional soccer team, and the new Lake Nona neighborhood developments (Shelton, 2018). It is no surprise, then, that Orlandoâs global brand image is strong (Fallon & Schofield, 2004).
But what else is there to Orlando? I thought the answer could come in its unique neighborhoods so set out to explore the concepts of neighborhood identity, image, and branding through the Orlando case study. As this chapter explains, there is little yet known about neighborhood branding, given much of the place branding research focuses on countries, states, and cities. Neighborhoods, whether in Orlando or Amsterdam or Sydney, have personalities of their own, for good or ill.
Why study neighborhoods?
In other words, neighborhoods are important units of study because of the inherent ambiguity. People make up the neighborhood, so that was my task in asking people their why â why there?
The remainder of the chapter highlights the research on neighborhoods, trying to offer a common ground based on existing literature. Next, I define neighborhood identity, image, and brand. Not surprisingly, there are myriad definitions of all the terms, especially when it comes to understanding what exactly a neighborhood is. Finally, I conclude with literature on place attachment, as it is germane to the remainder of this project. Place attachment helps explain why people select, or deselect, a place such as a neighborhood.
But what is a neighborhood?
This question seems like an easy one, but there is little agreement even among experts (Campbell et al., 2009). âIndeed, âneighborhoodâ is a vague, difficult-to-define, concept. Scholars investigating the significance of neighborhood for individualsâ behavior and well-being often do not provide the term with an explicit definitionâ (Gou & Bhat, 2007, p. 32). Campbell et al. (2009) explain that neighborhoods not only include physical boundaries but also are created through neighborsâ spatial interactions â or lack thereof. As such, more precision is needed when it comes to defining neighborhood, especially given the geo-boundary constraints inherent in neighborhood design and conceptualization (Siordia & Seanz, 2013). Typically, a neighborhood is thought about as a defined geographical space with dwelling units and people linked together through social bonds. Chaskin (1998) notes a neighborhood can be a spatial unit, a social unit, and a relational network. These are not mutually exclusive so make the study of neighborhoods both interesting and challenging.
Typically, the U.S. Census tract is used to define a neighborhoodâs physical boundaries as a Census tract is a
Yet studies using only these tracts often leave out what people perceive as their neighborhood boundaries (Coulton et al., 2001), given those perceptions might differ from official geographical boundaries. Chaskin (1997) is surer of his definition of neighborhood, writing a neighborhood is âclearly a spatial construction denoting a geographical unit in which residents share proximity and the circumstances that come with itâ (pp. 522â523, emphasis added). Given the complexity in the definition, Gou and Bhat (2007) argue that we should measure neighborhoods by what matters to the people in them. That is the task of this book. I am less interested in the physical boundaries of a neighborhood and more in how people perceive their neighborhood identities or those identities found in other neighborhoods.
Synthesizing the literature, Gou and Bhat (2007) find that neighborhoods seem to share some similar characteristics. First, neighborhoods are geographically bound, but meaning depends on the function and domain of the space. For instance, people should take into account what is being done and studied in the neighborhood rather than generalizing that something happening in one section of a neighborhood applies to another. (To illustrate what Gou and Bhat (2007) mean by neighborhood sections, where I live, in Baldwin Park, there are ten distinct neighborhood regions within the larger geographical area that is Baldwin Park. People who live closer to the Winter Park side might have a different experience than those living closer to the city center, which is on the other side of the neighborhood.) Second, neighborhoods have both fixed and subjective elements (Guo & Bhat, 2007). A roadway or lake might be fixed, but how people use and interpret those features is up for debate. And third, oftentimes administrative definitions of neighborhoods (such as Census tracts or city maps) are imperfect but offer a start for studies and government operations.
Neighborhoods could promote or hinder citizen engagement, depending upon factors such as size, age, and type of housing (Haeberle, 1987). Income, at least in Haeberleâs (1987) study, is not a good predictor of neighborhood engagement. In Orlando, for example, the Parramore community is a lower economic-status neighborhood but recently gave rise to one of the cityâs most active neighborhood associations. Resident Vinny Carter reignited the Carter Street Neighborhood Association after being fed up with crime in her neighborhood. There is a push to make the neighborhood safer and more engaged thanks to Carterâs efforts in the community she has called home for more than 60 years (Giorgio, 2017).
Frankly, no question gave people to whom I spoke more pause than this one: what is a neighborhood? People literally took pauses to think or said things like âhmm thereâs a good questionâ or âwow, what is a neighborhood?â I did not expect that, but it makes sense and aligns with existing research on the topic (Gou & Bhat, 2007). Neighborhoods are often the unit of analysis in many studies, but the term seems to be taken for granted. I do not pretend to offer a definition, as that was not my goal. My goal was to better understand neighborhood and identity and branding through the people who live in Orlandoâs neighborhoods. While the results are germane to Orlando, other communities can learn lessons by asking their residents about branding and identity at this micro level.
When asked the question âWhat is a neighborhood?â, people responded in various ways. Some examples include:
These are just a sampling of answers to the question and some commonalties that carry throughout this book. First, one sees that respondents equate neighborhoods with people. This is where a sense of community becomes important for neighborhood identity. Some in this study bemoaned not knowing their neighbors and missing that sense of community. One local Realtor told me her neighbors keep their blinds closed, or people will pull cars directly into their garage to avoid saying hello to others. Second, there is a connection to place. Pragmatically, neighborhoods are geographic entities. They can be spatially measured and assessed. This is useful for many reasons, including but of course not limited to taxing, policy, and public service provision. Emergency management, too, can tell a lot about neighborhoods if they are in, say, a flood zone. Third, neighborhoods are about emotional ties such as safety, connection, and help. Whereas you can measure plots and land in a geographical spatial sense, these more emotive reasons are more difficult to capture. How do you measure nice, for instance? These qualities are no less important, though, when it comes to creating a neighborhood brand and identity.
Neighborhood identity, image, and branding
Brand identity in general is understood as how the organization creates and presents its brand (de Chernatony, 1999). The point is the brand identity originates from the organization itself (Nandan, 2004). Organizations then communicate brand identity through various marketing strategies. Related, brand image is how people perceive and understand the brand identity (Nandan, 2004). That is where brand subjectivity comes in, given people interpret the brand through their own lenses. We probably all know someone who loves a certain product brand or destination brand while having equally negative feelings about another. That is the embodiment of brand image and brand loyalty.
Trying to define a neighborhood brand is difficult as best, so I start first with what is a place brand. Not surprisingly, there is no agreed-upon definition of a place brand. Put simply, place branding refers to developing and communicating brands for certain geographic regions, ideally to create positive associations in peoplesâ minds (Eshuis, Klijn & Braun, 2014). Related, place marketing is the tools used to communicate that brand identity, such as a website, press release, or social media. Branding and marketing are active strategies used to define and promote a place, while the brand is the associations between the communicated identity and realized image.
Relating brand image to neighborhoods, each year the American Planning Association (APA) puts out a list of âAmericaâs Bestâ including neighborhoods, streets, and public spaces. Talen, Menozzi, and Schaefer (2015) analyze potential conflicts between the âgreatâ neighborhoods and social equity. In their article, the authors detail some of the APA criteria, including neighborhood characteristics (social activities, transportation, architecture, character), neighborhood form and location, personality, and sustainability, for instance. The APA selects from self-nominated neighborhoods, so the neighborhoods selected often present an idealized version of American neighborhoods (Talen et al., 2015). Granted, looking at the APA website listing for the great neighborhoods, there is diversity in rural versus urban, but all have elements of new urbanism, such as walkability, bikeability, sense of community, and complete streets. But Talen et al. (2015) found that many of the great neighborhoods are gentrifying and not accessible to those who are economically disadvantaged. âIt is also a call to come to grips with the reality that Americaâs best-loved neighborhoods may be increasingly out of reach to anyone but the affluentâ (p. 131).
What is most interesting about the great neighborhoods, streets, and public places is they are often ideal versions of what people have in their minds when they think of a neighborhood. The ideal is a key part of why people feel connected or disconnected to their neighborhoods. When I asked people their ideal neighborhood for this research, many mentioned walkability, bikeability, recreation, access to stores and restaurants, and safety. These kinds of neighborhoods do exist in practice but might leave out other conceptualizations of neighborhood living. Together, though, these great neighborhoods show the importance of identity and neighborhood branding.
There are few studies that explicitly look and neighborhood branding strategies. Wherry (2011) details neighborhood branding efforts in a Philadelphia barrio neighborhood called Centro de Oro. Wherry (2011) met and interviewed people he called cultural entrepreneurs who charged themselves with branding the neighborhood for social and economic development. As he explains, neighborhood branding is complex and includes many components, people, and activities. Branding activities can be both intentional and unintentional, by purposefully branding the neighborhood through logos, slogans, and events, to people becoming brand ambassadors promoting the neighborhood wherever they go. For Wherry (2011, p. 4),
Wherry (2011) studied a neighborhood that was stigmatized for its Latino culture and depressed economic status. A challenge, then, for purposeful neighborhood branding was to remain authentic without selling out. Sometimes, though, the narratives against the truth of the neighborhood became so powerful they drowned out negative perceptions. The problem, then, is the disconnection between promises and reality. There is a risk of exploiting ethnic neighborhoods, and âgoodâ marketing could drive out existing authenticity through gentrification (Wherry, 2011).
In their work, Masuda and Bookman (2018, p. 166) write:
Neighborhood branding primarily emerged as a tool for economic revitalization, but locals can join together to engage in counter-branding strategies in an attempt to preserve their right to the city and place (Masuda & Bookman, 2018). Given the hyper-local level, neighborhood branding often is more politically charged and contested than city or nation branding (Masuda & Bookman, 2018). At this level, branding strategies go beyond only economic outcomes to include social and political outcomes as well (such as feelings of safety, sense of community). As a result, âneighbourhood branding is entangled in and co-configurative of urban cultures and notions of place via a range of activity conducted by a host of actors with varying and often conflicting interestsâ (p. 171).
Similar to Wherry (2011), Johansson and Cornbiese (2010) also examine an ethnic neighborhood in Chicago for their neighborhood branding case study. They look at Andersonville, a predominantly Swedish enclave that is not an officially designated neighborhood by the city. They argue that neighborhoods take to marketing and branding as a way to build community while also potentially countering (or even embracing) market forces changing the neighborhood. They detail how brand managers and ambassadors came together to create events and celebrations that highlight Swedish culture. Realtors and neighborhood associations are powerful, shaping what the neighborhood wants to be (Johansson & Cornbiese, 2010). A challenge, though, is that Swedes are leaving the neighborhood, leaving the identity in question so leaders are exploring newer branding strategies.
In his study of Abbot Kinney Boulevard in Venice, California, Deener (2007) shows how through time the street, lined with local businesses, became a physical and psychological dividing line for the neighborhood brand. Based on interviews with shop owners and residents of the neighborhood, Deener (2007) found the street is a racial dividing line and serves as a source of nostalgia for many who lived near or along the street since youth. But for newer residents, the street was a way to reframe neighborhood identity. As Deener (2007) indicates, the street was renamed from West Washington Boulevard to Abbot Kinney after the areaâs original developer to give the street new life. Indeed, they marketed it as âthe newest street in Los Angelesâ (p. 298).
They also created a neighborhood association made up of business owners, and membership fees went toward street beautification projects such as benches and bike racks. The coalition tried to create identity by adopting festivals and a Bohemian feel along the street but also erased notions of gang violence that pervaded the area in the 1990s. Despite trying to erase the issue, racial division still is present along the street.
Using neighborhood reputation as the foundation for their study, Pais et al. (2014) explore neighborhood reputation in the wake of the housing crisis in the U.S., specifically the City of Las Vegas. They argue that neighborhoods with positive reputations are critical to creating overall healthy cities, and the relationship also works in the reverse. What is important to both, they note, is resident perceptions of neighborhood reputation. Findings indicate about an even split regarding resident perceptions of neighborhood reputation even after the foreclosure crisis hit hard. The mitigating effect was an already positive ...
