Of having a mixture of private and public spaces in cities, arguing that the fleeting or momentary encounters that happen in public places sum to a larger whole, a “web of public respect and trust and a resource in time of personal or neighborhood need” (p.73). For Jacobs, an important aspect of the trivial encounters is that they take place naturally, in public, because while people enjoy a certain degree of contact, they don’t want to be overly committed to others in their private spaces. Bayview residents’ observations about the courtyard design suggest that a combination of public and private space in front of people’s homes contributes to repeated, casual interaction that may lead to supportive relationships in the long term. The neighborhood courtyards are shared spaces for observation and acquaintanceship, casual socialization without commitment, and they contain features that serve as focal points for initiating acquaintanceship; in these ways neighborhood courtyards serve as vital places that can facilitate social support, a wellestablished health mechanism. The courtyards are vital because of their shared nature, the casual opportunities for socialization, and the focal points that act as acquaintance opportunities. Each of these aspects contributes to the courtyards’ ability to enable the social support mechanism in the relationship of neighborhood structure to health (see Figure 1). The courtyards’ features that make them vital to health may be similar to other types of community gathering spaces, like barber shops and beauty salons (S chez-Jankowski, 2008), and “third places” (Oldenburg, 1989), like coffee shops and bookstores, that are used for social interaction away from home and work. Some recent work has investigated how, beyond providing a local source of healthy food, community gardens can cultivate healthy social HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 side effects processes, like collective efficacy (Teig et al., 2009). Similarly, Cattell and colleagues (2008) describe how regular,Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSoc Sci Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 April 07.WaltonPagemundane social encounters in a public market form the basis for sustaining bonding ties and bridging differences among neighbors. Conceiving of all these places (courtyards, barbershops, and third places) as vital for health in their ability to facilitate social support among residents provides an abstract category to organize the literature and conceptualize how neighborhood places influence individual health. Motivated by a desire for more complexity in the research and policy discussions related to urban neighborhoods, I investigate the anomalous case of an apparently-successful, yet lowincome neighborhood in this study. This research orientation aligns with a groupempowerment policy agenda (Briggs, 2005), which HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 web suggests that rather than move residents out of disadvantaged neighborhoods (Rubinowitz Rosenbaum, 2000), we might betterfocus our interventions with an understanding of the assets that already exist in the places they live (S chez-Jankowski, 2008). Because the neighborhood environment is particularly consequential for people with limited mobility and limited English proficiency, policies that build up the “vital” aspects of places in low-income neighborhoods might be a good way to improve quality of life while allowing residents to stay in the places in which they often have established strong social support networks (Keene Geronimus.Of having a mixture of private and public spaces in cities, arguing that the fleeting or momentary encounters that happen in public places sum to a larger whole, a “web of public respect and trust and a resource in time of personal or neighborhood need” (p.73). For Jacobs, an important aspect of the trivial encounters is that they take place naturally, in public, because while people enjoy a certain degree of contact, they don’t want to be overly committed to others in their private spaces. Bayview residents’ observations about the courtyard design suggest that a combination of public and private space in front of people’s homes contributes to repeated, casual interaction that may lead to supportive relationships in the long term. The neighborhood courtyards are shared spaces for observation and acquaintanceship, casual socialization without commitment, and they contain features that serve as focal points for initiating acquaintanceship; in these ways neighborhood courtyards serve as vital places that can facilitate social support, a wellestablished health mechanism. The courtyards are vital because of their shared nature, the casual opportunities for socialization, and the focal points that act as acquaintance opportunities. Each of these aspects contributes to the courtyards’ ability to enable the social support mechanism in the relationship of neighborhood structure to health (see Figure 1). The courtyards’ features that make them vital to health may be similar to other types of community gathering spaces, like barber shops and beauty salons (S chez-Jankowski, 2008), and “third places” (Oldenburg, 1989), like coffee shops and bookstores, that are used for social interaction away from home and work. Some recent work has investigated how, beyond providing a local source of healthy food, community gardens can cultivate healthy social processes, like collective efficacy (Teig et al., 2009). Similarly, Cattell and colleagues (2008) describe how regular,Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSoc Sci Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 April 07.WaltonPagemundane social encounters in a public market form the basis for sustaining bonding ties and bridging differences among neighbors. Conceiving of all these places (courtyards, barbershops, and third places) as vital for health in their ability to facilitate social support among residents provides an abstract category to organize the literature and conceptualize how neighborhood places influence individual health. Motivated by a desire for more complexity in the research and policy discussions related to urban neighborhoods, I investigate the anomalous case of an apparently-successful, yet lowincome neighborhood in this study. This research orientation aligns with a groupempowerment policy agenda (Briggs, 2005), which suggests that rather than move residents out of disadvantaged neighborhoods (Rubinowitz Rosenbaum, 2000), we might betterfocus our interventions with an understanding of the assets that already exist in the places they live (S chez-Jankowski, 2008). Because the neighborhood environment is particularly consequential for people with limited mobility and limited English proficiency, policies that build up the “vital” aspects of places in low-income neighborhoods might be a good way to improve quality of life while allowing residents to stay in the places in which they often have established strong social support networks (Keene Geronimus.
