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.

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...

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

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

you ain't from around here, are ya?

www.grist.org

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.

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.