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

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.