Why New Urbanism Fails

Mr. Byfield wrote:

"IF there were “really” a demand (read effective demand) for the new urbanist type of dwellings would the market (i.e. real estate developers) not be providing this product to the consumer?"

In addition to the zoning issues that Dan Zack mentioned, the mechanics of the development/banking system are another obstacle that makes it difficult to produce New Urbanist communities. Bankers, for the most part, are very risk averse and will only provide loans for developments that are proven money makers - i.e. the suburban sprawl type residential and commercial projects of the last 50 years. Thus New Urbanism with its emphasis on density, mixed use, and diversity of housing types is viewed by the banking industry as somewhat radical and thus financially risky. Developers, as with the issue of zoning, look for the least path of resistance and choose to build developments that they know they won't have trouble financing. Slowly this is changing, especially in the last few years when it became obvious that there was a large portion of the market not only demanding a genuine alternative to suburbia, but also willing to pay a premium for it.

-Matt Lyons

It is rather disappointing to find that if one is not a nationally known guru or has at least 500 years experience in a specific sub set of (planning) skills one is treated as if he has no right to comment on issues. I guess it is this same ARROGANCE among us planners that led our great successes of urban renewal in the 1960s/70s and the present effort in the stemming of suburbanization. I hope that we are still in the field to help people achieve what they envision for themselves and not tell them what is best for them (reinforcing our tradition of elitism)…BUT

To answer questioned asked or respond to issues raised.

Misplaced anger: I hold nothing against those who subscribe to a particular viewpoint I am asking them to always see what others who disagree have to say. They alone cannot have all the answers.

Blame: Yes, as a planner I blame myself for allowing us to continue heaping misery upon our fellow citizens.

Black Communities remaining black: It is enough to say that whether it be race or ethnicity this is the single most dominant (often suppressed to a subconscious level) factor determining community profiles.

If there were a level playing field, New Urbanism would dominate the market. WHAT A HAUGHTY ASSUMPTION.

Thank you all edifying me about the virtues of new urbanism

PS…. Like a true arrogant planner I ask that those in the new urbanist sphere to not to draw erroneous conclusions about matters with which they have little experience or knowledge. Global warming.

As someone who works professionally with low income and minority communities, and as somebody who is currently evaluating the performance of a HUD HOPE VI project (as a HUD mandated outside evaluator), I have to say that Mr. Byfield's apparent enthusiasm for ideas about redlining and institutional racism have led him to a somewhat misplaced anger at the New Urbanists.

Yes, many of the New Urbanist projects are expensive. In fact, the market has responded to New Urbanist development by valuing houses in a New Urbanist development at $20k more than comparable product in nearby subdivisions. That's a problem with the development industry and the real estate market, not with New Urbanism. Many New Urbanists are working directly on issues of racism and social equity, however. These are big problems, and they are obviously not to be resolved by good urban design. Blaming New Urbanists for persistent racism and classism is like blaming them for global warming. Mr. Byfield might as well blame himself, while he's at it.

He is right to express concern over the persistence of a wide range of manifestations of racism. The segregation of the population by race and class is something against which many New Urbanists are working, most directly by way of the effort to change standard suburban development patterns based on segregation of "product type."

It is indeed expensive to buy a house in Seaside, but it is far cheaper to rent a cottage for a week in Seaside than it is to vacation in Hilton Head. It is quite affordable, given the vacation budget of many middle class families. I've seen more black families at Seaside than I did in a comparable visit to Hilton Head.

I've also seen the Seaside Institute work closely with a black neighborhood in Gainesville, helping to encourage appreciation of the assets of their neighborhood. I've attended conferences at the Seaside Institute, co-sponsored with HUD, focused on the problem of housing policy and practice, and specifically the problem of building mixed income communities.

I've seen the data on HOPE VI projects that have been successfully turned into mixed income neighborhoods. They don't tend to be as diverse in race, but that's because predominantly black neighborhoods tend to stay predominantly black, even as they welcome the black middle class.

I am currently working as part of a consultant team that is helping a small Florida town to develop a plan for an Enterprise Zone. We have been using New Urbanist principles to organize an economic development program that will benefit the local low income communities, including both an African American community and a community of Hispanic migrant workers. The key to transfering the benefits of economic development to the local population is creating a mixed use neighborhood that provides services and amenities to the residents as well as visitors, and contributes to an environment where businesses will locate and develop a sense of commitment to place. Do you think it is easy to get a local business community to think about addressing issues of racism and class inequality? To commit to the idea of investing in a place, in a way that benefits the people who are already there, and doesn't just generate profits by gentrification? If the pattern of racism that is built in to our inner city neighborhoods is to be overcome, it is going to be through a process of making healthier neighborhoods and community. Good urban design is part of this, and the New Urbanists have developed a compelling and useful set of tools to achieve this end.

I would encourage Mr. Byfield to keep being concerned about racism, and to keep learning more about its various manifestations in our neighborhoods and towns. I would also encourage him not to jump to hasty conclusions based on a superficial familiarity with a few projects.

Asks Mr. Byfield: "IF there were "really" a demand (read effective demand) for the new urbanist type of dwellings would the market (i.e. real estate developers) not be providing this product to the consumer?"

Have you ever read a zoning ordinance? New Urbanism is literally ILLEGAL in 95% of the country. It is amazing that any new urbanist projects have been built at all. If there was a level playing field, New Urbanism would dominate the market. Anyone trying to build office parks, strip malls, and income sorted housing pods recieves the red carpet at most planning departments, while someone wanting to build an actual neighborhood (ie New Urbanism) is treated like someone trying to open a nuclear waste dump. Most developers aren't sadists. THAT'S WHY MORE DEVELOPERS AREN'T PROVIDING THIS PRODUCT TO THE CONSUMER.

While I am no fan of fads purporting to be panaceas for the ills’ of the world cities I have no motives in challenging the present thinking on new urbanism. The goals of the ‘movement’ are idealistic in the least BUT what has translated into reality is far different from intentions.

I am not saying that new urbanism is intentionally separatist/racist but ultimately it is. To think that because red lining has been made illegal the very same practices do not continue today is ludicrous. If the playing field were level would we not see each community represented in a consistent demographic pattern as was so clearly elucidated by a previous post. To think that racism in its institutional form does not exist in this country is to bury one’s head in the sand. Every element of who you are in this country is first categorized by your race, but I digress.

What new urbanism intended (hopefully I will continue to use it in the past tense) and what it has produced thus far are far different. To move us from Econ 101 to hopefully Econ 201 or maybe the last class of Econ 101….. IF there were “really” a demand (read effective demand) for the new urbanist type of dwellings would the market (i.e. real estate developers) not be providing this product to the consumer? I just do not understand that in the world’s Mecca of capitalism.

Intent and reality are worlds apart as far as new urbanism is concerned and until the protagonists of this god sent solution see that, it will be one of those passing trends that will be studied in Planning 101 (hopefully as soon as 2010).

PS. The article does not fail. At no point does he give the impression that he is the authority on the subject but I am glad somebody is willing to stand up and commit blasphemy against the this holier than thou doctrine

I'm frankly surprised that anybody would give much credence to this author's arguments. The article is littered with many misconceptions and errors of fact. (Many of the readers’ responses are indicative of a similar lack of real understanding of what the New Urbanists have done and what they haven’t, what principles they represent, what they struggle against, and, in general, the realities of trying to get anything vaguely urban built under current conditions. )

This is a good example of one of the problems of the Internet. Mr. DeWolf’s article is being circulated as if he were some kind of authority on the failures of the New Urbanism, when it is clear to anybody who really knows something about New Urbanist projects that he has not done much research on the topic at all. The editor of Planetizen needs to hold to higher standards than this.

First, if you look at the body of work done by New Urbanists, it is simply not true that the are "nostalgic." The marketing often uses nostalgia, it's true, but the principles of traditional design are not nostalgic, nor can they be summed up in terms of front porches and central squares.

Second, Sorkin was wrong, too, when he argued that New Urbanism promotes a universal style and is "overly reliant on visual cues to produce social effects." The architecture of New Urbanist developments is more varied than the architecture of conventional developments, and among New Urbanists there has been an explicit rejection of “style” in favor of an understanding of building typology as the basic material out of which the qualities of urban space is made. Furthermore, nobody is really claiming to produce social effects with architecture or urban design, as if by some direct causal magic. This is a misconception that I was drawn 3 years ago to investigate, as a sociologist, and I can say with conviction that it is indeed a misconception of New Urbanist intentions and New Urbanist practice. Nobody claims that aesthetic qualities create either community or urbanity. They do claim that design matters, that place-making is an important cultural art and an important medium for building healthy communities. This has nothing to do with imposing a universal style. It has everything to do with understanding the underlying grammar and syntax of meaningful, useful, and attractive public space.

Third, it is simply ridiculous to argue that New Urbanist developments commit the sin of segregating zones. In so far as the segregation of zones persists in New Urbanist projects, it is either because the jurisdiction insists on adherence to existing zoning patterns, or because the developer has a failure of nerve and falls back into conventional suburban patterns (segregating, for example, real estate products types). This is not a failing of the New Urbanism, but whenever it is apparent, simply a failure of New Urbanists to win the battle that they are constantly fighting against the inertia of conventional development and real estate practice. There are some badly designed projects in which the mix of uses is not finely grained, but it is a serious logical mistake to criticize a whole category of people working to recover a lost art for the failure of some projects. There is a difference between taking a wrong-headed approach, and simply failing to live up to one’s ideals in the face of practical constraints. To criticize people as if the former were the case, when in fact what you mostly are seeing are sad failures in the face of hard-fought battles, is a cruel and cheap shot.

Fourth, it is true that the New Urbanism has done better at the scale of the neighborhood than they have at the scale of the region. It is true that there are huge problems of transportation to be addressed. Again, this is not because the principles have been proven wrong, but because the politics of the region make it difficult to address the very large issues of the kind of transportation networks necessary to overcome dependence on the automobile. If the “heart of suburbia” continues to beat, as DeWolf has it from (of all people) Wendell Cox, it isn’t because the New Urbanists are wielding a defibrillator. It should be noted that many of the limitations on New Urbanist work are not the result of New Urbanist principles or intentions, but the result of constraints imposed by the development industry AND by a certain unfortunate translation of environmentalism into rigid bureaucratic regulation.

The final paragraph is the most disturbing: that the New Urbanism has led us to neglect the old urbanism. I don’t know what would lead him to think this, but it is patently not true that “most New Urbanist neighborhoods are Greenfield developments built without context.” A quick glance at the Charter should have given him a clue. Even half-hearted research into the work being carried out by card-carrying members of the Congress for

Whoa! Mr. Byfield, you are way out of line. I appreciate a good healthy discussion, and there is nothing wrong with dissention and disagreement, but you are just plain wrong and I question your motives.

It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that New Urbanism is racist. Matt Lyons stated it well, but apparently you didn’t listen, so at the risk of being redundant I will repeat it. By allowing and encouraging a mix of housing types, the New Urbanism is very unracist. It is attempting to be as inclusive as possible, in fact. By mixing uses and laying out their neighborhoods in a way that makes transit and walking viable modes of transportation, the New Urbanism is trying as hard as it can to be inclusive.

The average vehicle costs about $7,000 per year to operate, and the average American household has about 2.5 of them. By segregating uses and smearing our population into a low density mess all over the countryside, we have made automobile ownership practically mandatory for citizenship in the US. Anyone that lives in suburbia and tries to walk or take transit either a) has a hole in his head; b) considers it his moral obligation to take transit/walk on principle, however miserable it might be; or c) is poor (and thus quite possibly a minority) and has no choice and just has to suffer through the miserable experience.

You are also wrong when you claim “racism here is institutional racism. In this context this cannot be separated from ‘classism’ (in this case read exclusionary) based on price.” Yes it can. Unfortunately, a much higher percentage of the minority population is poor than the white population in America. Sadly, often times poor does mean minority. Here are the numbers: according to the 1990 census (2000 census information for income is not yet available) 12.85% of the white population was considered below the poverty level, while 32.12% of Blacks and 44.41% of Asians were below the poverty level. So when a yuppie suburban community decides to zone out apartments and small lots, they are zoning out a large portion of the minority population. The average suburban zoning ordinance is a more effective segregation tool than the Jim Crow laws, whether it intends to be or not. Current trends in suburbia are only exacerbating this problem.

Is it far fetched to say that suburbia is racist? Maybe, maybe not. It is well known that in the initial stages of mass suburbanization the FHA subsidies (without which Levittown would have been impossible) were not available to people of color. Concurrently, the policies of the time of insurance companies and bankers were intentionally concentrating minorities into designated “redlined” inner city neighborhoods. The federal Urban Renewal program was critically called “Negro removal” by many people at the time. Those blatant racist policies are no longer in effect, but zoning mandated income sorting has a similar effect.

New Urbanism seeks to reverse these trends. As said before, their designs (when not compromised by NIMBYs, zoners, and traffic engineers) relieve the need for auto ownership, freeing up huge amounts of the household income for more important things, like shelter. By providing a fine-grained mix of housing types within very close proximity to each other, they are making a sincere and heartfelt attempt to bring people of all incomes, professions, ages, and colors together.

You are quick to point out how expensive homes in many New Urbanist communities are. This is not intentional. By being designed at a higher density, new urbanist neighborhoods make more efficient use of infrastructure and land than wasteful low density suburban projects. The reason for the premium price of New Urbanist homes goes back to Econ 101. Supply and demand. These are great communities, and many people want to live in them. Unfortunately, due to very restrictive zoning, uncooperative bankers, and uninformed NIMBYs these great places are still tough to build. Pro-sprawlers love to gripe about how New Urbanism is taking them over, but the truth is that 99% of everything built in America today is still NOT New Urbanist. I live in a city of nearly ½ million, and there isn’t a single New Urbanist project here, nor any “old urbanism.” The WHOLE place is suburban. Since a lot of people want to live in these places, and there’s not enough to satisfy the demand, the prices go up. Not because it is racist in design, but because there isn’t enough to go around!

One final note: Seaside was never intended to be anything other than a resort. Even so, by being walkable, and offering apartments and granny flats for the people who work there, it is 10,000 times for inclusive than your typical strip of beach houses.

I just wanted to clarify again Mr. Byfield makes some good points. What about solutions?

1) How do you get a comprehensive plan in line with concerns expressed by Mr. Byfield? For example, most folks are convinced that multi-family housing drives down the value, of single family housing. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate this is not the case. These studies go back nearly 20 years, yet the myth persists. Seems to me that good public policy would bring this issue up front and center for consideration by people frightened of lower income groups or people with special needs.

2) When mixing income groups, what sort of support might a community need to provide people on public assistance with the means of keeping up their property? (There are public school implications here that I wont go into.) Different income groups are unlikely to live in close proximity if basic maintenance issues are addressed. (something about fearing the poor comes to mind) I'd imagine all sorts of creative community solutions could be brought to bare on this problem, but it is one that would have to be solved. What pragmatic lessons have been learned in places where its been done already?

3)Are there particularly effective approaches of fundraising for community land trusts in a new urbanist community?

4)Are there particularly effective ways of conveying the public benefits of reversing the spatial separation of income groups that the APA and others identified in the early 1990s.

5) Dozens of other questions and issues follow...

I'm not blind to the fact that some NU communities are upscale. New ideas are often started by those with the money to implement them. Daemonizing CNU is not going to get me to where I want to go. I assume we all need pragmatic, on the ground solutions to difficult problems.

Mr. Byfield asked several questions surrounding affordability and New Urbanism. Perhaps this will help.

He could phone the Louisville Real Estate Development Company and ask about their New Urbanist community that has 1/3 public housing, 1/3 subsidized housing, and 1/3 market rate housing. The way in which the financing was layered will certainly be of interest to anyone attempting to do this elsewhere. It's a pretty successful project.

Another recent example can be found in Chaska, Minnesota. I'm sure the planning department would be happy to explain how they've set up a Community Land Trust to provide affordable home ownership in their new urbanist communities. The use of HUD's subsidies for rental is also an interesting subject to spend some time with.

One could call Ms. Crowly at the National Low Income Coalition and ask about numererous programs regarding new urbanism and low income housing projects. Their phone number is 202-662-1530.

Ms. Arigoni, at the National Neighbhorhood Coalition would be more than please to talk about her work on these issues. Phone 202-260-2750.

There is a HOPE VI project manager by the name of Ms. Pierson working with the Department of Community Services in Tucson who could provide a couple examples of how income groups are being mixed.

Actually, smart growth cannot be separated from new urbanism. It is essential that metropolitan policy be aligned with new urbanist community building so that affordable housing programs can in fact be integrated with development. The layering of these financing programs complicates things a fair bit. Folks are working this issue however - including people at CNU. The intent of smart growth agendas is to see that places like Kentlands do in fact meet a range of needs. Whether these agendas succeed, depends entirely on the folks involved with the process.

I thank Mr. Byfield for his comments. They bring up points that are very worthy of discussion. I for one do not want new urbanist communities to resemble a gated community in every way but name. There are tremendous forces working against NU/Smart Growth ambitions, but I've got to look to myself to understand and solve these problems. Again, thank you to Mr. Byfield. Good points.

I will ignore the other glossy coated exclusionary terms like smart growth (and its cohorts) and stick with the discussion about new urbanism that offers itself as a form of an equitable sustainable solution. Part of why I will continue to say new urbanism is elitist, exclusionary if not racist is outlined below.

To make sure we are on the same page

Racism here is institutional racism. In this context this cannot be separated from ‘classism’ (in this case read exclusionary) based on price. If certain groups of people are unable to access jobs and financing that will facilitate their inclusion, the product by it very nature (i.e. pricing) is exclusionary, class oriented and maybe racist in orientation. We must be clear that we are not talking about items that are ostentatious but something basic, shelter and community.

Any ‘movement’ that offers itself as the panacea for our social ills must be viewed with great skepticism as is the case with the information from Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) and newurbanism.org which state among other things… NEW URBANISM is the most important planning movement this century……New Urbanism is the revival of our lost art of place-making…. New Urbanism promotes the creation and restoration of diverse, walkable, compact, mixed-use communities. MY FAVOURITE though has got to be the tenet of new urbanism that cites diversity….. Diversity of people - of ages, classes, cultures, and races.

I ask you to juxtapose that with any of the 500 attempts (their quote) being undertaken in the USA at the moment. Vaunted examples (as I have highlighted for all) include.

· Southern Village: Chapel Hill, NC. Available home now on sale, starting at $345,000. Located south of this mostly upscale town. An almost self-contained complex except for the imports of EVERTHING.

· Seaside Florida: (THE MECCA of New Urbanists) with tennis and swim club membership. Cozy One bedroom Cottage on sale for $545,000 or for a little more space the $1.675 million 3 bedroom unit

· Kentland’s Gaithersburg MD. No public listing of available units but clear indications that club memberships are available.

· HUD & CNU have found principles for its Hope VI effort. But how have these translated into actual communities. If principles of new urbanism were applied, I would love to be told of ONE community that has gone from the ‘projects’ to mixed use with cross sections of economic groupings living there. THEY EITHER REMAIN THE SAME or become GENTRIFIED and again EXCLUSIONARY!

WHERE IN HERE IS THIS TYPICAL AMERICA……or typical America that I know….America is more than RICH and WHITE with annual sailing club memberships. Who are we trying to fool? The people we are “planning for” or is it ourselves. We do a complete disservice to the society as whole if we think that these new urbanist communities are anything but UPSCALE, ECONOMICALLY & PSYCHOLOGICALLY GATED COMMUNITIES!!

We the Planning Community as a Group need to stop being party to this farce and at least help HUD get away from the “do-gooders” “status-quo defenders” CNU and like minded individuals.

A parting quote from

Norman Krumholz: No doubt the "New Urbanism" will be oversold and likely will do little for distressed central cities or poor neighborhoods…

I'm 13 and and i have lived in places in japan and places like in the united states.the problem i see is that we need to make or living areas mixed with low and high income. The Japanese do this and it is very sucessful. They have 7 elevens right by a house. Now when i'm in a place like Jacksonville, FL and like Washington D.C there are urban centers but they also have miles of surburbia like all american cities. We need to learn how to live together and that the rich can live with the lower income families.

Talk about defensive tone - yes you are right Mr. Boland, criticism is good - what do you think most of us were writing - criticisms. 'Criticism' can only be good if accompanied by potential solutions and a positive attitude. Mr. DeWolf did not express 'positive criticism'.

Mr. DeWolf did write a pretty good article though, good information, but nothing most of us didn't already know. Tell us something that we can do about it - we need better alternatives, not just a seemingly negative critique of the 'movement'. It seems that many want to spout off at how New Urbanism has gone drastically down the wrong path but I think most, at least those who have written in this forum, would wholeheartedly disagree. Lets make New Urbanism, a potentially positive addition to urban and rural development, work.

Addressing Mr Byfield's assertion that New Urbanism, as a movement "best seems to be Separatist, Elitist.. if not racist in its underlying mantra" I must thoroughly disagree. If anything its post-WWII suburban sprawl type development that is separatist and elitist. Not only does that type of development require car ownership as a condition of citizenship, it segregates housing by income level thus prohibiting true mixed income neighborhoods(i.e. neighborhoods consisting of single family homes, row houses, apartments, etc).

New Urbanism, if anything, attempts to address this inequality by producing true mixed income neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing choices to a wide range of income groups. Furthermore mixed use-zoning allows both residential and commercial properties to be built side-by-side thus minimizing the need to use automobiles. This is a key point since suburban sprawl, with its focus on the automobile as the soul form of transportation, disenfranchises the elderly, the disabled, as well as those who are too young or unable to afford the cost of car ownership.

In addition, New Urbanism supports the notion of a public realm and the development of public spaces that cater to society as a whole. In suburbia such spaces, if they exist at all, are typically reserved only for the residents of private subdivisions, or in the form of such pseudo public spaces as the mall(freedom of speech? what's that?).

Unfortunately due to the mass subsidization of suburbia(through the construction of excess roads, schools, sewer lines, police/fire services) most municipalities can not afford to provide genuine public spaces. Not only cannot they not afford them, they are being forced to cut money from education, the arts, and other social programs just to keep up with the maintainance and expansion of the gold plated infrastructure of suburban sprawl.

Unfortunately, in the era of "Big Guberment" only a free market solution such as New Urbanism has any chance of providing a real, sustainable alternative to the suburban sprawl/growth machine. If it appears elitist, its only because at the moment the demand for such developments is outpacing the supply and people are willing to pay a premium price for such "amenities" as walkable streets and a real sense of community.

Should New Urbanism attempt to address the problems of racism and poverty? Certainly, but those problems also have deeper connections to the larger issues of globalization and education that need to be addressed as well. As Patrick Moan indicated in his response, HUD's public housing program today is largely being influenced by New Urbanism thought, which is amazing considering the movement as a whole has only come to the forefront of the public consciousness within the last decade or so.

As others have stated here, New Urbanism is more evolutionary than revolutionary and its failings, whatever they may be, are being taken seriously and addressed over time. Meanwhile the suburban growth machine continues to churn out strip malls and McMansions with a "What me Worry? attitude while responding lamely to any sort of criticism or demand for an alternative as if it were an attack on freedom itself.

Just my two cents worth..

-Matt Lyons

the haughty, defensive tone of some of these comments is alarming. mr. dewolf offered a critique that anyone who takes the *urbanist* part of new urbanist seriously should embrace: that it could come closer to its stated goals. yes, it's difficult w/ financing and zoning, etc. etc. and no, mr. dewolf did not cover, in his thousand or so words, hope VI or other infill projects; and no, he didn't offer an alternative for greenfields. but guess what, folks: criticism is healthy and good. and mr. dewolf's criticisms are valid. or are you satisfied w/ strip malls, segregated uses, auto dependency etc.? if so, you're not a new urbanist. you're just a plain old *sub*urbanist.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development would be very interested to hear Mr. Byfield elaborate on his ideas regarding new urbanism and racism. HUD's public housing program is largely informed today by new urbanist thought. Projects have been built that mix income groups, provide affordable home ownership, and other socials services.

Outside the realm of HUD, other municipalities with smart growth agendas are providing affordable home ownership in new urbanist communities through the use of density bonuses and community land trusts.

Again, it will take a great deal of innovative thought and work to overcome limitations of greenfield and infill NU, but there are people out their today making some major changes.

While the arguments of the author have varying degrees of validity, there are some wider issues that he did not delve into (by choice or not) although they underlie the new urbanist movement.

If it can be classed a movement, whose movement is it anyway? By whom? For who? and to what ends? While it would take a much longer discourse to answer all the questions in detail

The movement at best seems to be Separatist, Elitist.... if not Racist in its underlying mantra. Where are these 'settlements' built? What are the costs of the units? How are they accessed? What are their racial profiles? Economic profiles? If fact what part of Old Town America or Old big city urban communities do they represent?

In principle I agree: many new urbanists do not understand the anatomy of old urban areas.

But they can be forgiven, because the circumstances are so difficult today. Automobiles, mortgages, the decline of the nuclear family, the service economy, television, the internet-- it can be a challenge to find economic and political similarities to the era that spawned old urbanism. I have lived in a few differe "old urban" neighborhoods. When you research an old house you find that not only was the method of construction very different, but the method of finance, permitting, and real estate practices in general are completely changed. How do we foster new "urban" neighborhoods in an era when people move every two years, when capital is attracted to large, standardized real estate schemes, and when pedestrian and transit accessibility is automatically subordinated to auto accessibility? Especially when, as someone else pointed out, there is no scarcity of available land in many cities (unlike, say, Vancouver).

While I love living in older neighborhoods (which are so adaptable to change), how do we create new urban districts from scratch? Isn't improving the aesthetics of suburbia a worthy goal in itself, so long as we are honest about it?

By the way, I love the urbanphoto.org website!

I appreciate the commentary on "new urbanism" although I think a couple of comments are cheap shots. First of all, I think new urbanism despite all its flaws, is still better than typical suburban development. Second, the car, especially in suburban locations, has to be accounted for. As the writer aptly notes, most suburban new urbanist communities are isolated, without access to alternative forms of transportation. Is hiding parking behind structures really so bad? At least new urbansim attempts to create alternatives.

What concerns me the most about new urbanism is that its preoccupied with the suburbs. If the suburbs become "urban"-and I use that term loosely- what will happen to "old urban" areas? I fear that so called "town centers" and "lifestyle centers" in the suburbs will ultimately hurt burgeoning efforts to revitalize downtowns and traditional "main street" commercial corridors because they attempt to emulate what already exists, in a suburban setting.

New urbanists would be wise to focus more efforts on successful infill development and the design of downtown development to reinforce traditional urban patterns. In many cities, there is plenty of land available for redevelopment that is being "suburbanized" with dreadful results. In addition, I know that we have all seen large urban shopping complexes or malls that have transplanted the suburban model to downtown in an attempt at revitalization. Too often, however, what has occured has been the death of street life and the resulting "suburbanization" of downtown. Particular examples that come to mind include St. Louis Centre and Columbus, OH City Center, both of which are now perceived as being a failure (in St. Louis) or struggling (in Columbus).

New urbanist should work to ensure that new in town and downtown developments do not weaken the urban fabric but rather strengthen it. By focusing on true urban sites, they would enhance their urban credentials. Otherwise, perhaps a better name for the movement is "new suburbanism".

I enjoyed the critique by Chris of the New Urbanist movement in the United States and Canada. It touches nicely upon the shortcomings of most new developments passing themselves off under this ubiquitous label. However, reading the article gave me the distinct impression that he feels these problems are a result of poor design and a flaw in the thinking of the developers and designers. I submit that the blame comes equally with the cities and counties in which they locate.

Developers and designers work within the parameters of the zoning designations and guidelines provided to them by the municipality where the project is located. Often the segregation of uses, homogeny of building design, and poor street layout is required for approval. In all cases the lack of adequate public transit and inflexibility of buildings is a direct result of the public planning process. Indeed there are even more shortcomings of New Urbanist neighborhoods that go beyond the neighborhood itself, such as the lack of connectivity between neighborhoods and poor access to institutional services, which derive equally from a lack of foresight on the part of both the designer and municipal planner.

It will take many more tries and many more years before these developments achieve the goals that they attempt to espouse, but when it does come it will require evolution in the mindsets of both parties.

Is it possible that there are lessons from neighborhoods that work, that can be applied to today's developments. It is the very essence of the "new urbanist" movement to find these elements and apply them in the context of today's social and fiscal realities. No easy job as the shortcomings so appropriately pointed out demonstrate. Instead of banning "new urbanism" to the trash heep, I suggest we encourage the valiant effort to rediscover and apply design and planning principles to our modern society. And admittedly we have a ways to go. But let's support the effort and build on our successes and failures.

Let me also suggest that "new urbanism" does not just apply to cities, but to the principles in whatever population density we are constructing a community or life style. Whether a rural agricultural environment, small village or town, or the most densily urban city, each has elements of design that are unique and make it function well for its inhabitants. And conversely,there are elements of design that are to be avoided if we care about a well functioning community.

It is the intent of the "new urbanist " movement to discover the principles that make for neighborhoods that "work" and apply them to today's development needs. As we try and learn we will have relative successes and failures. But let's not discard the "movement" based on relative failure. Let's honor the effort and the learning that the movement is generating.

I thank Chris DeWolf for provoking a good discussion, but agree with his critics that (1) you don't condemn a movement simply because there's bad examples and exploitation, and (2)there are far too many other forces at work in determining what gets built - financing and the general conservative nature of financers and real estate developers being one of the more critical - to suggest that sloppy new urbanism is at fault. Yes, there are kitschy designs; yes, there is often no room for affordable housing; yes, people still use their cars, etc. But anyone who takes this profession of planning seriously sees these as the problems they are and wrestles with ways to address them without destroying our planet's life-support systems in the process. And "new" urbanism ideas are very positive contributions to this effort. As an aside, who cares what you call it? New urbanism, old urbanism, TND, or even that old oxymoron, neotraditionalism - its the principles, stupid, not the label.

One point missing in the discussion thus far is the need to plan and design metro areas or regions so that the use of these principles has a context. Not every new urbanist development is going to have a downtown because it is going to be designed as a neighborhood, not a complete community. Even outlying "villages" which have a certain level of completeness to them will be relying on the downtown of their central city for additional goods and services. In the incremental way we develop, a seemingly anomolous piece of new urbanism may ultimately be surrounded by the rest of the mix to evolve into a structured whole. None of this will happen accidentally and we also need good regional planning to provide the larger matrix.

Our job is enormous and we are trying to do it in the context of a market-driven financial and political environment which throws up innumerable barriers. Some of us, like those of us in New York State, wrestle with planning and zoning laws and a system of local governance that is poised to bring us into the 18th Century. We are dealing with a generation that has been raised by television and who actually think malls are cool places. We have created such auto-dependent communities that people get in their cars to go from one store in a shopping center to another.

In this environment, we don't need to throw rocks at those who are at least propounding ideas that address these concerns and we certainly don't need to get into bed with the Wendell Cox's and Unreason Institutes. We need to support each other and keep working on those common objectives - and keep our eyes on the big picture.

Mr. DeWolfe doesn't get it. He criticizes New Urbanism because it doesn't meet its aspirations. What alternative does he offer? Return to the real older neighborhoods. Yes, Chris, we like to do that too. From where do you think we are drawing our inspiration? Then what? Is everybody supposed to live in these existing neighborhoods? Assuming we need to build anew what form will it take? You seem to agree with the New Urbanism goals, right? This is what practitioners are trying to do; we are all very well aware of these shortcomings and are working on them. Each generation of (authentic) New Urbanism projects is better than the last. This is an exciting, dynamic, real movement seeking to improve our built environment. Other than New Urbanism, Mr. DeWolfe, and others who have submitted their criticisms here, I ask - what other movement is seeking to do this? Where else are you going to turn? To the conventional suburban slop? This is the path baby. If these are the right principles help us do it optimally. If not, tell us what.

We are quite aware thank you of all of the ways that these new communities may be inferior to the Nantuckets, Marbleheads, Savannahs, Charlestons, Santa Fes. Yes, Orenco Station has one building on the side of the street for a section of the downtown. We would prefer it be multiple smaller buildings, each with its own quirky design and owner. Sometimes it is not easy to do that. At least we are wrestling with the obstacles and working to make something better. What are the critics doing? Not to mention that most authentic New Urbanist projects are truly beautiful, highly functional, and successful. Is there some jealousy at work here?

Several responses to Mr. DeWolf’s provoking commentary have essentially said that it’s more productive to explain the dynamics that shape a new urbanist community than it is to simply criticize the result. Criticism of new urbanists and the communities they create is essential if planning is to move forward, however the nature of such criticism seems equally important.

The talent behind new urbanism is considerable, and I highly doubt that in 50 years time people will look back on many of their efforts and lament the fact people were trying to build human scaled communities. I do not subscribe to the view that every generation of planners is condemned to make the “next great mistake.” With this in mind, I am grateful to the work of new urbanists and their influence on American planning policy and practice today. This is different from saying that I’d want to live in every new urbanist community that is being built. They are however, offering up concrete and well thought out ideas with which to work.

It seems reasonable to expect that critics of new urbanism offer up concrete approaches to moving us in a different direction. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. DeWolf’s desire to create more communities that are truly urban. The abandonment of older urban communities is heartbreaking. To place the blame, however, for the disinvestment in older communities at the feet of new urbanists building greenfield projects seems disingenuous. Also, contrary to Mr. DeWolf’s editorial, new urbanism is very much involved in the inner cities. He might investigate HUD’s Hope VI program. Lafayette Courts or Park DuValle are two projects he might consider relevant to this discussion. Although it may not be practical, I hope that in the future Planetizen can run their Op-Eds through some sort of editorial process to prevent misleading statements from being offered as fact. Hope VI expenditures in inner cities accounts for a tremendous percentage of all new urbanist development in the United States.

Over the next 50 years the population of my country will grow by approximately 130 million more people. Ideally, functional smart growth agendas will direct much of the development to older communities, and at the same time deal constructively with a myriad of other complex dynamics (e.g. social equity, brownfield reclamation, jobs/housing imbalance). The reality, however, is that the majority of this population will be accommodated in a greenfield project. What are we to do then? Continue to trivialize and simplify the work of people who are actually attempting to improve suburban form?

In the future, I hope critics of new urbanism will help to understand the limitations and do the hard work to come up with innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. We could look at a new urbanist community from any number of angles to try to get at a deeper understanding of what shapes these places.

True mixed-use new urbanist communities are very difficult to build, if for no other reason than financing. As some of the other responses to Mr. DeWolf have pointed out, the financial element cannot be ignored (nor can numerous other factors).

Today, real estate is a standardized commodity. In fact, the vast majority of development projects fall into one of nineteen different classes of real estate that are understood by investors. This all ties into changes over the past 20 years in how real estate is dealt with by Wall Street – which I will not go into here. The point is that standardized real estate products stand a much better chance of getting the financing they need than do new urbanist projects, which tend to have unique elements that make them difficult to evaluate using the formula driven discounted cash flow methodology that every developer is all too aware of. All of this has an impact on what actually gets built.

People are actively working on these sorts of problems. Downtown Albuquerque for example is being redeveloped along the lines of new urbanism using a very creative financing scheme that involves New Mexico’s largest charitable foundation. Why didn’t Mr. DeWolf mention the amazing things that are taking place in that city, or any number of other places for that matter?

The dynamics that shape communities are so very complex. It’s heartening to see that so many other responses to Mr. DeWolf’s editorial drive home this essential point.

If you call New Urbanism's current condition "failure," I challenge you to demonstrate "success." I grew up in 1960s sprawl, and it was a misery of loneliness, isolation, and environmental destruction. I have visited dozens of sites of 1970s, 80s, and 90s sprawl, and it gets worse with every decade. Until the Charter for the New Urbanism came along, the historic cities were generally doing just as bad. They invited in huge convention centers, new airports, cold plazas, and in-town motorways to destroy the commons. (And yes, most of these awful projects are started and built by the municipality, not by "developers," Chris Hardwicke's disingenious straw man.)

The author of this op-ed seems to want things both ways. On the one hand, he says that New Urbanism is prefab, and tries too hard to be authentic. On the other hand, he wants projects to be as good in 3 years as Greenwich Village has become in 300. You can't have it both ways. If you want OK urbanism to become great urbanism, you need some patience. If you want new places to be "real" in an instant, you are demanding Disneyland. Go back to a New Urbanist neighborhood in 100 years and compare it to 100-year-old sprawl. (Of course, the experiment will be difficult, as more and more sprawl suburbs are retrofitting in New Urbanist downtowns.)

Finally, I wonder how many New Urbanist neighborhoods the author has actually visited, and how much of his critique is aped from Alex Marshall and Michael Sorkin. They, at least, have been to Congresses for the New Urbanism, visited projects, and talked to residents. (Like DeWolf, however, they offers no alternative, other than "move to Manhattan.") CNU members have applied the principles of New Urbanism to infill (and no, Mr. Hardwicke, that does not just make them "urbanists," a label that even Rem Koolhas applies to himself), to regional plans, to historic districts, to existing suburbs, and to greenfield developments. You might look at the 2001 Charter Awards, which show the full breadth and strength of the New Urbanist movement. In the future, I strongly recommend learning about a topic before publishing an op-ed on it.

One way to fix some of what ails 'new urbanism' is to remove the 'new', and allow the evolutionary process that helped keep older urban neighborhoods operational. When the market calls for apartments over stores; great. But if that's not needed, let them be offices or storage or whatever the community surrounding the local commercial area is in need of. We also need to recognize that the family itself has changed since the 1950's; we have two income earners in many homes now, and they aren't all going to be working at a store downstairs from their apartment. To create a less auto-dependent residential area, design that residential area around a trolley line, local shuttle or other connection to a longer range mass transit system so one of the two income-earners has more choice...

And as far as any jealousy that critics of new urbanism may have (?), please take a look at the photos at Christopher DeWolfe's site (Urbanphoto.org). What most of us feel isn't jealousy, it's probably disappointment mixed with nostalgia and resignation......

Mr. DeWolfe doesn't get it. He criticizes New Urbanism because it doesn't meet its aspirations. What alternative does he offer? Return to the real older neighborhoods. Yes, Chris, we like to do that too. From where do you think we are drawing our inspiration? Then what? Is everybody supposed to live in these existing neighborhoods? Assuming we need to build anew what form will it take? You seem to agree with the New Urbanism goals, right? This is what practitioners are trying to do; we are all very well aware of these shortcomings and are working on them. Each generation of (authentic) New Urbanism projects is better than the last. This is an exciting, dynamic, real movement seeking to improve our built environment. Other than New Urbanism, Mr. DeWolfe, and others who have submitted their criticisms here, I ask - what other movement is seeking to do this? Where else are you going to turn? To the conventional suburban slop? This is the path baby. If these are the right principles help us do it optimally. If not, tell us what.

We are quite aware thank you of all of the ways that these new communities may be inferior to the Nantuckets, Marbleheads, Savannahs, Charlestons, Santa Fes. Yes, Orenco Station has one building on the side of the street for a section of the downtown. We would prefer it be multiple smaller buildings, each with its own quirky design and owner. Sometimes it is not easy to do that. At least we are wrestling with the obstacles and working to make something better. What are the critics doing? Not to mention that most authentic New Urbanist projects are truly beautiful, highly functional, and successful. Is there some jealousy at work here?

DeWolf's critique of New Urbanism is on target. I don't read him as calling for a return to suburbanism, but rather as asking for hard thinking about what is going on with Duany-inspired "traditional neighborhood developments."

His comments are in accord with those of Alex Marshall in How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken. Marshall calls transportation the real issue: these dense, quaint new "old" neighborhoods that, as Evan Lowenstein said, seem to have fallen out of an airplane are not well
integrated into efficient transportation systems.

As Marshall writes, such a development "is trying to . . . re-create an urban neighborhood without creating the transportation network that spawned such neighborhoods. Which is not possible. So what you get is a peculiar thing, an automobile-oriented subdivision dressed up to look like a small pre-car-centered town." They are designed to reject their dependence on the car, and yet they still are car-dependent.

The problem is easy to understand, because these "neighborhoods" (as if a neighborhood can be "developed") are manufactured: they are not arising logically and organically around a pre-existing transportation node. Easy to understand, but hard to solve.

Near me is a successful TND--successful except for transportation! Everybody drives everywhere, even to the neighborhood community center. They park on the street there, on streets that were designed assuming people would walk. So, it is almost always like an obstacle course to get around. Further, this neighborhood was not within city limits when developed, though it now is.

The city wants to put in bus service. A novel idea! Many residents reject the idea of such an incursion. Another thing: the alleys were designed for trash pickup. That was fine when the neighborhood had private trash service. But now, the city's new fleet of trash trucks are too big for the alleys!

Poor planning? indeed. Not to mention that virtually no one works in what passes for a commercial district. With few houses below $300,000, these are two-income homes in which both parties drive to high-powered jobs many miles away. It's hard to argue with folks who say these planned communities are not very different from planned communities of 50 years ago, except that those, sprawl and all, had more interesting architecture.

I think your commments are interesting, but I have a different viewpoint. I think New Urbanism is an improvement over typical suburban development. The thing you fail to understand is that a significant portion of the population likes to live in suburban areas. Why not design them to be more pedestrian oriented. Actually New Urbanism supports urban development in that it makes the very characteristics of urbanism in style rather than create a style of suburban development that then becomes imposed on the city, as has been the case over recent years. There is a place for both urban redevelopment and New Urbanism in suburban locations.

First of all, I would just like to say that Urbanphoto.org is my new second-favorite website. It is outstanding! (Planetizen is still my favorite).

I would also like to thank Mr. DeWolf for his well written op-ed. I have been to some of the largest New Urbanist developments, such as the Kentlands, Orenco Station, and Laguna West, and have noticed the same things that he has. Give me Greenwich Village over these places any day. As a fellow lover of great cities I truly appreciate this essay.

But I would like to add some other points of view to this discussion, in defense of the New Urbanism.

First, many of the flaws of New Urbanist developments are not due to the ignorance of their designers. Often they are the result of compromise forced onto them by either the local municipality's traffic engineers and zoners, or by local NIMBYs and their lawyers.

My second point is that despite the flaws and compromises, these places still are much better than the conventional suburban junk that comprises the vast majority of what is being built in America today. Should we strive to be better? Absolutely. Should we just give up on New Urbanism? No, I don't think we should.

Third, many of the places that fall short aren't even actual New Urbanist developments, but are phonies. Shams. They want to cash in on the trendiness of the neo-traditional look without having any intention of building a true urban neighborhood.

These points aren't meant to take away from Mr. DeWolf's essay, they are just meant to broaden the discussion.

One aspect of new urbanism of which I will not be so forgiving is its tendency, especially in the "town center" areas, to be the inside-out strip mall that Mr. DeWolf spoke of. In particular, I find it disturbing that the main streets of these places, as aesthetically pleasing as they may be, usually consist of one huge building that runs the entire length of the block. It may house multiple uses, but it is still just one building owned by one guy. A block of an "old urbanist" street might contain 5 or ten buildings, each owned by someone different. As time goes on, these buildings are usually more adaptive to change, as pointed out in the op-ed. Also, they can also be organically replaced or expanded one at a time gradually over time, without a massive redevelopment scheme, allowing the neighborhood to gradually densify and adjust to its changing circumstances over time. A block of a street in a truly urban neighborhood might have a couple of structures that are 80 years old, some that are thirty, and one that is brand new, each owned by someone different and each contributing different functions to the street. This essential urban function cannot happen on the main street of Orenco Station, for example.

One final note: No offense Mr. Carson, but the difference between you and Mr. DeWolf is that I clearly understand where Mr. DeWolf is coming from. Call me dumb, but even after combing through your websites I still can’t figure out what the heck it is that you stand for.

Interesting article by Mr. Dewolf. His views on the state of the New Urbanist movement ring true. 'Sentimentality' in design will surely destroy intense and diverse urban environments.

DeWolf's choice of MacKenzie Towne is a bad one. MacKenzie Towne is an attempt at New Urbanism but since it is the City of Calgary, a city of 800,000 - made up of strings of suburban neighborhoods, it is not a good representation of a strong attempt at making a significant New Urbanist community, it was never meant to be that, nor is Calgary meant to be an intense urban environment. With no land shortage and no expected curtailing of development, Calgary will continue to mushroom and build upon its land area that is already larger than ANY metropolitan city in Canada. MacKenzie Towne did not surprise anyone in its failures. It is just another suburb far away from the city core that provides housing for the SUV-driving families of four.

So yes New Urbanism has not lived up to its hopes and expectations. However, I see no one providing better alternatives, including Mr. DeWolf. In his article he has told us nothing we did not already know. How about providing the reader's with a better alternative for development. No new ideas come without their fair share of trials and tribulations. New Urbanism is a potentially powerful trend, it is time we start making it work on the ground.

So often, one hears people defend movements by claiming that any negative aspects are just imperfect copies of the ideal. Laurence Aurbach has resurrected this apology for the "new urbanism" in his critic of Mr. DeWolf as well as other diversionary arguments such as the claim that "new urbanists" also can do good infill urbanism. Of course, they can but that isn’t exclusive to "new urbanism". In fact there is nothing "new" about good urbanism.

The truth is that a downtown infill projects, whether they are designed by "new urbanists" or not, are just simply urban projects whose merit can be judged by urban design standards that were pre-existent to the "new urbanists" and are practiced by a wide variety of denominations of urban designers and architects. One simply has to look at the unplanned pre-war urban areas of most central urban areas in North America to see examples of dense, mixed use, main street, pedestrian friendly urban areas that were once suburbs. Some aspects of new urbanist rhetoric improve upon the pre-war suburbs such as their aspirations in environmental issues, but these aspirations have been simultaneously developed in other urban theories and movements and are not unique to "new urbanism".

What is unique to "new urbanist" practice is their preponderance for spawning bad copies on greenfield sites as Mr. DeWolf describes. Frankly, a movement should be judged by the quality of its bad copies not the idealism of its aspirations. The modern movement, as the "new urbanists" often have demonstrated, has taught us that lesson.

The alternative to "new urban" greenfield developments is not a movement. Movements by definition create ideals that will ultimately be badly copied. The alternative is for cities to take back the control of their rights of ways from the development industry and ensure that all roads (especially arterial roads) are designed as civic places that are interconnected with the city rather than transportation diagrams. New urbanists know how to do this on paper. If they spent less time defending their movement and more time saying no to developers and banks maybe they wouldn’t need a movement. Then they could be just simple "urbanists" with the rest of us.

Chris Hardwicke is an urbanist, critic, and editor of urbanism.org.

This is a great website

I like this guy. Now there are two people who can see the emperor has no clothes.

Starting a reform effort is a hazardous business. You might have the greatest ideals in the world, but should you ever fall short of perfection -- beware! Naysayers and critics leap up at the first opportunity, well-stocked with "I told you so" and "Shame on you."

In fact, New Urbanism works for many of the same goals as Mr. DeWolf. He writes, "Most New Urbanist neighbourhoods are greenfield developments built without context on urban peripheries." Well, no. The truth is that fully 50 percent of New Urban developments were infill in 2001, according to the industry journal "New Urban News." Leaders in the movement have been at the forefront of reform in federal public housing design standards, creating numerous successful neighborhoods in the nation's central cities. Other new urbanists are deeply involved in downtown redevelopment planning, mixed-use apartment towers, and smaller projects that re-knit neighborhoods shredded by highways and car-centric megastructures.

Yes, many New Urban developments lack the ideal mix of uses and housing types. Sometimes, sad to say, they are designed that way from the get-go. So, buyer beware! Don't be gullible: Just because a development calls itself New Urban doesn?t mean it really is.

However, New Urban projects are sometimes designed well but executed poorly. In some cases the municipality derails the designer's intentions. Sometimes the banks or developers reject mixed-use and mixed-income as a money-losing propositions. But give these developments time -- most are only a few years old. Many have a form and infrastructure that will, over the years, provide the capacity to evolve and improve. Just as every great city in the world has.

And what of the suburbs? For all his complaints, Mr. DeWolf has not provided a credible alternative to New Urbanism on the urban fringe. Should we ban all greenfield growth? It's not possible in the United States. Even Portland's growth boundary expands to accommodate new projects. In fact, over 95 percent of new growth occurs at the urban fringe. To simply abandon the fringe to standard suburbia is to give up entirely on the sprawl battle. It is the New Urban neighborhoods that establish the walkable, transit-accessible kernels for better patterns of growth.

Your piece reminded me of a "new urbanist" residential development recently erected here, in a suburb of Rochester, NY. It looks like it fell out of an airplane onto a pasture.

Chris DeWolf's comments are those that I have offered many times, as one who was born and raised in Pittsburgh. Another point that the new urbanists miss is that the success of older, thriving urban neighborhoods grew from their ability to evolve to meet changing needs. For example, at one point, down the street from my childhood apartment, there was a single family residence that was permitted to add a storefront pharmacy. When the pharmacist retired and moved away, the storefront became a small church served by the minister who lived in the home with his family; eventually, that congregation grew, the church relocated, and the storefront became a realtor's office. New urbanism freezes its uses at one point in their evolution and demands that everything not only look Disneyworld same, but continue to function as identical uses -- even if the market for apartments over stores dries up, or the neighborhood needs more bakeries and fewer cafes. What urban areas need most to survive is the ability to adapt. New urbanism does not allow for that.