New Urbanism

New Urbanist goals seem practical and environmental alike. 2

You can't read about cities and urban planning for too long before you come across the concept of New Urbanism, which recently held its 13th annual congress in Pasadena, Calif. The movement gained notoriety after The Truman Show was filmed in the New Urbanist town of Seaside, Fla.

If that was all there was to the movement, given the plot to the movie, people might have jumped ship on the idea a long time ago, since from what I remember, the town seemed, well, quite scary. Too planned, and too controlled. You might even say centrally planned.

But the fiction of the movie doesn't quite match up with the facts and the ideas of New Urbanism. While there may be a whiff of central planning in some of the designs, the concepts of the movement are simply that, concepts. The developers that test out the ideas out are private companies, so if the concepts are poor or infeasible (in other words, if they don't attract people and clients), they get refined or tossed out, not rammed through to serve some greater purpose.

Speaking of those concepts and ideas, some of them are very attractive, both to me personally and to some of the goals of environmentalism (of all varieties). Walkability is a great example, as is the related idea of transit-oriented development. And, of course, the concept of New Urbanism itself is a reaction to that dreaded sprawl of suburbia.

It's tough to say exactly where New Urbanism falls on this new sliding scale in my head that has the aesthetic, architectural elements of cities on one end and the practical, logistical elements of cities on the other end. That might be the best feature of the movement, that it manages to gracefully shift between these two extremes and address both of them very well.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. apn76 Posted 9:10 pm
    16 Jun 2005

    KunstlerJames Howard Kunstler's books do a good job of explaining New Urbanism.  (The Geography of Nowhere)  Living in Suburban DC, I get to see plenty of fouled up New Urbanist developments, most notably the Kentlands and King Farm.  Kustler points out that the planners never really quite get to do what they want because the financiers won't let them to do any thing too strange or potentially off-putting to the affluent people they want to attract as owners or tenants.  While a nice idea, having a grid of streets on former farmland is not much butter than having the usually winding corkscrew of streets on former farmland when it comes to sprawl.

    Permalink

  2. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:18 am
    19 Jun 2005

    A critiqueWhen Seattle adopted the urban village concept,  zoning laws forced developers to put little shops at street level in all new buildings.
    Everytime I drive down Aurora Ave, I marvel at the hundreds of empty shops. They have been that way for years now; an example of what can happen when governments decide what develolpers will build instead of allowing the free market to do so. Those empty shops are an example of centralized planning and why communist governments always fail in the end.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement