Simmel Moves to a Different Neighbourhood

  • Jennifer WilkinsonEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)


This chapter discusses three cases of contemporary neighbouring initiatives: community housing and co-living; friendship-driven living choices (where people move into a neighbourhood in order to live near their friends); and neighbourhoods of common interest (e.g. gay neighbourhoods), along with the resistance to this. These cases all suggest the possibility that we can choose our neighbours as we choose our friends. The chapter also points out that friendship networks do not depend on location (neighbourhood), or even on obvious signs of common interests (e.g. sexual orientation). They tend to be more like personal communities, formed of personal attachments and interwoven connections across different settings, of which neighbourhood is only one, along with family, work and informal social groups of all kinds.


  1. Adams, R.G. (1998). The Demise of Territorial Determinism: Online Friendships. In R. Adams and G. Allan (1998). Placing Friendship in Context (pp. 153–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, D. (1982). The Homosexualization of America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1999). On the Way to a Post-Familial Family: From a Community of Need to Elective Affinities. Theory, Culture and Society, 15(3–4), 53–70.Google Scholar
  4. Berube, A. (2005). Mixed Communities in England: A US Perspective on Evidence and Policy Prospects. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Budgeon, S. (2006). Friendship and Formations of Sociality in Late Modernity: The Challenge of Post Traditional Intimacy. Sociological Research Online, 11(30), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulmer, M. (1986). Neighbours: The Work of Phillip Abrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A., and Wright, T. (2007). Equality and Diversity Policies and Practices at Work: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Workers. Equal Opportunities International, 26(6), 590–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crouch, M. and McKenzie, H. 2006. The Logic of Small Samples in Interview-based Qualitative Research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499.Google Scholar
  9. Crow, G.P., Allan, G., and Summers, M. (2002). Neither Busybodies nor Nobodies: Managing Proximity and Distance in Neighbourly Relations. Sociology, 36(1), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feld, S., and Carter, W.C. (1998). Foci of Activity as Changing Contexts of Friendship. In R. Adams and G. Allan (Eds.), Placing Friendship in Context (pp. 136–152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fernandez Arrigoitia, M. (2015). Islington Park Street Community: A Model for Alternative Housing in London. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, C.S. (1976). The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, C.S., Merton, R.K., and Merton, Robert K. (1976). The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ghaziani, A. (2014). Introduction. In There Goes the Gayborhood? (pp. 1–32). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goff, C. (2005, 24 July). Britain’s First Purpose Built Commune. The Independent. Retrieved from:
  17. Ham, L. (2016, 26 October). Meet the Australians Living in ‘Intentional’ Communities. Retrieved from:
  18. Kasperkevic, J. (2016, 20 March). Co-Living: The Companies Reinventing the Idea of Roommates. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
  19. Kelly, B.C., Carpiano, R.M., Easterbrook, A., and Parsons, J.T. (2014). Exploring the Gay Community Question: Neighborhood and Network Influences on the Experience of Community Among Urban Gay Men. The Sociological Quarterly, 55, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kippax, S., Connell, R.W., Dowsett, G.W., and Crawford, J. (1993). Sustaining Safe Sex: Gay Communities Respond to AIDS. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lein, L. (1983). The Ties That Bind: An Introduction. In L. Lein and M.B. Sussman (Eds.), The Ties that Bind: Men’s and Women’s Social Networks. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  22. Living in the Future. (2014, 26 February). Murundaka Co-housing Community. Retrieved from:
  23. Moorhead, J. (2010, 1 May). It’s Like a Mini Centre Parcs! The Guardian. Retrieved from:
  24. Morse, J.M. (2000). Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moss, H. (1982, 30 May). Neighbors, Friends, Collaborators, Enemies. New York Times: Book Review. Retrieved from:
  26. O’Connor, P. (1992). Relationships Between Women. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  27. Pahl, R. (2005). Are All Communities, Communities in the Mind? Sociological Review Monograph, 4(53), 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rawstorne, P., Holt, M., Kippax, S., Worth, H., Wilkinson, J., and Bittman, M. (2009). e-Male Survey 2008: Key Findings from a National Online Survey of Men Who Have Sex with Men in Australia. MONOGRAPH 3/2009 (pp. 1–54). Sydney: National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenblum, N.L. (2016). Good Neighbors: The Democracy of Everyday Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rumens, N. (2008). Working at Intimacy: Gay Men’s Workplace Friendships. Gender, Work and Organisation, 15(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rumens, N. (2010). Firm Friends: Exploring the Supportive Components in Gay Men’s Workplace Friendships. The Sociological Review, 58(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rumens, N., and Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay Men at Work: (Re)Constructing the Self as Professional. Human Relations, 62(5), 763–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scanlon, K., and Fernandez Arrigoitia, M. (2015). Development of New Cohousing: Lessons from a London Scheme for the over 50s. Journal of Urban Research and Practice, 8(1), 106–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spencer, L., and Pahl, R. (2006). Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tan, S. (2016, 23 March). Know Your Neighbours, Buy Cheaper Apartment: Co Housing Is the Next Big Thing. Financial Review. Retrieved from:
  36. Wardill, J. (2017, 23 August). Leeds Housing Focus: Cohousing Time to Go European. Yorkshire Evening Post. Retrieved from:
  37. Wellman, B. (1979). The Community Question. The American Journal of Sociology, 8(84), 1201–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wellman, B. (1983). Network Analysis: Some Basic Principles. Sociological Theory, 1, 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wellman, B., Craven, P., Whitaker, M., Stevens, H., Shorter, A., DuToit, S., and Bakker, H. (1973). Community Ties and Support Systems: From Intimacy to Support. In L.S. Bourne, R.D. MacKinnon, and J.W. Simmons, The Form of Cities in Central Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Geography Research Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Wellman, B., and Leighton, B. (1979). Networks, Neighborhoods, and Communities Approaches to the Study of the Community Question. Urban Affairs Review, 14(3), 363–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wellman, B., and Wortley, S. (1990). Different Strokes for Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 558–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Widdicombe, L. (2016, 20 May). Happy Together. The New Yorker. Retrieved from:
  43. Willmott, P. (1986). Neighbours, Social Networks, Informal Care and Public Policy. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  44. Wilkinson, J., Bittman, M., Holt, M., Rawstorne, P., Kippax, S., and Worth, H. (2012). Solidarity Beyond Sexuality: The Personal Communities of Gay Men. Sociology, 46(6), 1161–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations