The bossman draws my attention to a story in the NYT that rather tragically illustrates the struggle over new urbanism I mentioned in the post below. Really, really interesting stuff.
There's probably no place in the U.S. where new urbanism has a better shot at taking hold than the Gulf Coast. By getting wiped out, many of the towns and cities along the coast have a chance to start over -- to reimagine what their communities can be. Lots of people seem to have the right idea:
Gov. Haley Barbour's rebuilding commission and many small-town officials advocate a planning approach known as New Urbanism, which supports pedestrian friendly, historically themed developments where people of mixed incomes share the same neighborhoods and are closely linked by public transportation. Given a rare chance to redesign their landscapes, many residents and officials want to see towns designed around trolley cars, pedestrian walkways and open spaces.
And of course, lots of people seem to have the wrong idea:
But critics here mock New Urbanism as being impractical and ignorant of the preference of most Americans for privacy over community, and as creating towns that often look like film sets rather than real communities.
What do "real communities" look like?
"Biloxi is going to be high-rises and condos," said Duncan McKenzie, president of the Chamber of Commerce and a vice president of the Isle of Capri casino. "People refer to what happened here as a tragic opportunity." Even before the storm, casinos were Biloxi's second-largest industry after the military, employing 15,000 people and generating $19.2 million in taxes.
The hook of the story is that Biloxi -- committed to casinos and high-rises -- is connected by bridge to Ocean Springs, which is committed to preserving its quaint, walkable character. The bridge was wiped out by the hurricane. Now Biloxi officials want to replace it with a behemoth eight-lane expressway, while Ocean Springs officials want a four-lane drawbridge, complete with bike lanes.
One of the interesting aspects of the conflict is the language people use to criticize the new urbanist faction. Like this:
"A lot of people there are more into the arts and come from other areas," said Mayor A. J. Holloway of Biloxi, speaking of Ocean Springs and its preference for a smaller bridge with a bicycle lane. "And I don't see people riding bikes 85 feet in the air."
... Officials deride the idea of trolleys replacing cars on busy roadways and suggest that such ideas are preferred by people who come from, as they say here, "away."
"More into the arts," are they? "Come from other areas," do they? Let me read between the lines for you: Yankee homos! Yankee homos! Real men gamble, you see, and they by God drive to get there.
So, as I see it, new urbanism faces two main challenges:
- Big box stores, big casinos ... bigness. Bigness makes money. Bigness spends money. And bigness brings money, in the form of taxes. You may have noticed that the public interest has trouble duking it out with bigness.
- Big money is immeasurably assisted by the stereotype that new urbanism is an affectation of liberal elites. Advocates have not done the work connecting new urbanism to the concerns and values of traditional, conservative (by temperament, even if not politically) Americans.
Comments View as Flat
Icelander Posted 11:18 pm
14 Mar 2006
Why "New" Urbanism?
What's the obsession with "new" urbanism? Why not "old" urbanism, also known as "urban renewal?" Seems awfully wasteful to build new communities when there are plenty out there that need revitalization.
And I can't be the only one who thinks "privacy" and "space" aren't all they're cracked up to be. I mean, who wants to mow a huge freaking lawn?
I'll just hope my city gets a trolley. A real one.
Permalink
rh Posted 4:02 am
15 Mar 2006
the last line
Did you catch the last line of the article?
"We should go back to what it was. Nothing like Katrina will happen again in my lifetime anyway."
Hmm...gambling in casinos apparently isn't the only gambling going on...
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:20 am
15 Mar 2006
Coastal Buffers & Wetlands
There should be absolutely no development immdiately along the coast. These areas are wetlands and are completely destroyed by "development." That was one of the problems in New Orleans: developers destroyed wetlands by building levies, which kept out water that should be there. When the levies burst, the "developments" were destroyed.
Instead, we need to save all wetlands. There is only a small percentage of the wetlands that existed when Eurpeans invaded left. Any development that requires levies should be nixed.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Payton Chung Posted 9:20 am
15 Mar 2006
Mississippi and urban renewal
Mississippi doesn't have levees -- the affected cities are located on sandbars. It's no less logical a location for settlement than, say, Brooklyn, which also sits on a coastal island.
It's all well and good to say that humans should retreat to pre-European settlement boundaries, but keep in mind that the Mississippi coast has had permanent settlements for thousands of years; Biloxi was settled around 1710.
Why not "old" urbanism, also known as "urban renewal?"
Not quite. "Urban renewal" usually refers to the wholesale bulldozing of old urbanism that took place in the postwar years, particularly the 1950s-1970s. As one friend of mine says, "it's the Congress for the New Urbanism because no one would go to a conference about Old Urbanism." (Maybe, maybe not, but most architects want to think of themselves as new and cutting edge.) The "new" doesn't refer to neglecting the old; it's about learning from the old while including, say, the New Plumbing and the Slightly Updated Parking Ratios.
critics here mock New Urbanism
Yes, but what do said critics propose other than rebuilding and extending the existing urban fabric? These critics sound like paper tigers to me.
.pc, Yankee homo
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:30 am
15 Mar 2006
Payton,
you ain't from around here, are ya?
www.grist.org
Permalink
cmpuppies Posted 3:46 pm
15 Mar 2006
New Urbanism's Nemesis
The design principles of new urbanism are inherently undermined by the "American dream" of owning a big house on a large lot, driving an SUV everywhere, and dealing with neighbors as little as possible. In a survey undertaken by the Washoe County (NV) Parks Department, one of the highest-rated priorities indicated by respondents was "providing activities to interact with neighbors and area residents." Sadly, we have gotten away from the 1940's-style natural community fabric of a more intimate, higher-density neighborhood (ala N.U.) and look to government entities to provide ways for us to talk to each other instead.
Permalink
Payton Chung Posted 1:55 pm
16 Mar 2006
Davey Bob,
Ah lived in th' South for two thards of mah laaafe, livin' downhome raaaght near, um, Research Triangle Park. Nope. Not from 'round here.
In any case, I don't think that most Americans necessarily need to want a big lot with two SUVs. We've just created a system (see other post) where that's the choice that's already made for most people. As alternatives begin to break through and as the costs of that lifestyle begin to sink in, I think we'll see more interest in alternatives -- we just have to give them a chance, which does not seem to be high on Washington's list of priorities.
Permalink