New Urbanism (one view)

by VirtualCity

New urbanism occasionally encompasses other city planning systems such as smart growth, and is occasionally recognized as a separate entity. The idea claims to originate in the early twentieth century with the development of the neighborhoods it uses as models, though as a movement, it is responding to the perceived weaknesses in suburban development.

Whether or not smart growth is an offshoot of new urbanism, the two share a number of concepts. Both emphasize the important of a compact, walkable community center, and the assimilation of different types of housing and commercial buildings. An emphasis on environmentally-conscious building, the renovation of brown- or greyfield land, and historic preservation are other similarities.

However, because new urbanism was created as a specific theory for urban design rather than simply being based on a looser set of ideals, its definition is more concrete than that of smart growth. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk founded the Congress for the New Urbanism, inspired by the time the husband-and-wife team spent at Yale. Their guidelines for a ‘new urban’ neighborhood suggest the inclusion of most of these elements:

• A recognizable center for the town/city/community, such as a green square or distinctive intersection, in which the transit stop is also situated.
• Buildings in the neighborhood center placed close to the street, to form a well-defined space.
• A walk of not much more than 5 minutes from any home to the community center, or approximately 2,000 feet.
• Mixed housing types, including apartments, rowhouses and detached homes, to provide a suitable dwelling for people of all ages and all economic means.
• An auxiliary building for workspace or a garage apartment is allowed in the backyard of each home.
• Parking lots or garages in the back of homes and businesses, rather than fronting the streets.
• Shops and offices to sufficiently serve the weekly needs of residents on the edge of the community.
• An elementary school close enough for most children to walk from home.
• Small parks or playgrounds near every home, not more than a tenth of a mile away.
• Streets that create a linked network to disperse traffic.
• Relatively narrow streets, suitable for pedestrians and bicycles, preferably lined with trees.
• Some major spots in the neighborhood center reserved for buildings to facilitate community meetings and activities, or for religious, cultural, or educational purposes.
• A self-governing community, guided by a council that makes decisions on maintenance and change.

There are a number of complaints lodged against new urbanism—the first, a semantics issue, that the scheme is not actually ‘new,’ as it derives its inspiration from American towns of the pre-automobile era. Some argue, conversely, that this halcyon design is based upon a system that exists only in nostalgia. Either way, it has drawn criticism chiefly for emphasizing aesthetic values over practical design, especially as a new urban community might relate to the surrounding region. The delineation of design elements irks those who feel the plan undermines American property rights and civil liberties, while on the opposite side of the spectrum, some accuse it of being a gentrification plan that would force lower-income families from their neighborhoods. Though the transportation habits of new urban residents may improve, the communities tend to remain socially homogenous ones.