PRIMER: New Urbanism

What is New Urbanism?

New urbanism is an urban design movement intended to produce the physical
environment necessary for diverse, strong communities. It supports a pattern of urbanism
based on historic neighborhoods, incorporating diversity and walkability in order to allow
for personal interaction and an active lifestyle. The ultimate goal is a better quality of life,
enabled by a functioning urban framework.
New Urbanism is also an example of how "green" works in sync with broader ideas of
sustainability. Reducing the use of the automobile in favor of pedestrianism not only
facilitates social interaction but also benefits the environment, and denser housing
patterns can conserve land. The capacity to achieve these sustainable goals
simultaneously is one of the strengths of the New Urbanist approach.
The Response of New Urbanism
Car-dependent urban sprawl has long been criticized for causing environmental
degradation, social isolation, and being financially unsustainable in the long term. In the
1980s architects began combating sprawl with a defined movement known as the New
Urbanism, and notable developments were built along its principles. The neighborhoods
that were built are based on pre-war and European models of urbanism, and are often
recognized as a modern version of the typical American small town, or of a historic inner
city neighborhood. They are sometimes referred to as traditional neighborhood
developments (TNDs) for this reason. In 1993 the Congress for the New Urbanism
(CNU) was founded for the purpose of promoting this style. The fundamental planning
principles are:
Mixing of uses: Commercial, civic, and institutional spaces are located in community
centers and corridors surrounded by nearby housing, providing access to jobs and
services without car use. This often takes the form of a main street or town square.
Encouragement of walking: Walking benefits health, the environment, and community.
Daily interaction with neighbors and other local acquaintances are thought to build a
supportive social network. New Urbanism encourages walking through its mixing of uses
and ensuring that sidewalks are wide and plentiful, the streetscape is well designed,
blocks are compact, and curb cuts are minimized. Other transportation options such as
bicycling and mass transit are also important, in order to connect pedestrians with the
broader urban region.
Diversity: Sprawl has been found to lead to a fine separation of people by income level.
The New Urbanist response is to provide for a variety of housing within a single area,
from low to high cost. This is accomplished by mixing apartments, townhouses, and
detached single family homes within a neighborhood. Also promoted is the inclusion of
affordable housing units.
Definition of the public space: Streets are thought of not merely as functional devices, but
also as a type of space vital for public life, where daily community interactions take
place. Materials, lighting, landscaping, and other aspects of the streetscape are carefully
detailed to make this area attractive. Public parks and squares are also highly esteemed.
Complementary Architecture: A major factor that defines the public space is the
composition of facades of private property abutting them. New Urbanists recognize the
importance of a strongly defined street wall of attractive, close-up buildings offering
useful services and spaces. Houses in TNDs are typically set closer to the street, and in
downtown areas buildings are built to the lot line. Front porches are a common feature on
houses, as they are thought to allow for greater public interaction. Many New Urbanist
developments employ specific architectural dimensions, materials, and details that
reference historic architecture, with the intent of providing a human scale and asense of
place rooted in the history of the site.
There are now at least 252 New Urbanist developments in the U.S.
1
, and New Urbanism
has played a strong role in formulating LEED-ND, the green rating system for
neighborhood design, and has influenced public policy form local zoning codes to federal
housing programs. The Congress for New Urbanism has grown in membership and
continues to have popular annual meetings.
New Urbanism in Existing Cities
In practice, the majority of New Urbanist projects have been built on previously
undeveloped land. This is criticized as contributing to the pulling of population and
economic activity away from existing inner city neighborhoods, defeating the ultimate
purpose of stronger communities. New Urbanists, however, do advocate for infill
development and the revitalization of inner city areas, and there has been an increasingly
large number of urban TNDs constructed. Because New Urbanism is based on the
attractive qualities of historic urban neighborhoods, applying its principles in these places
is a matter of building on historic roots.
New Urbanism is an attractive approach for redeveloping industrial sites, public housing
projects, highways, or other land uses that do not provide a human scale into infill
neighborhoods. When engaging in such a development, of particular importance is the
manner in which the new project connects with the surrounding urban fabric. Advantages
are the ability to locate the site near existing transit, public services, and civic institutions.
Retail components can also benefit from attracting customers from not only within the
infill, but also from the adjacent neighborhoods. Developers can work with the public
sector to build new transit centers within the infill that connect to existing networks.
The federal government has sponsored the redevelopment of public housing projects into
mixed-income communities based on New Urbanist principles. This has been done under
the Hope VI program, which is now being joined by the Choice Neighborhoods program.
These redevelopments are believed to address social problems unsolved by the old
projects through introducing the benefits of New Urbanism, including greater access to
jobs.
2
Defensible space plays an important role the design of such projects - the New
Urbanist streetscape is conducive to safety, as the presence of pedestrians and occupied
porches provides a policing presence that the stacked-up apartments of high rises cannot
achieve. Critics argue that the program has resulted in a net loss of affordable housing
units, which is true. However, New Urbanists believe that the tradeoff is worthwhile, and
that the loss indicates the need for greater funding of affordable housing construction.
Criticism
Despite the financial success of many New Urbanist developments and its being
embracement by federal policy, New Urbanism remains a controversial subject in urban
planning circles. Criticisms focus on three main areas.
Ignorance of Consumer Preference
Free-market leaning critics argue that consumers simply do not want New Urbanism;
they want conventional suburbia otherwise the market would have built New Urbanism.
Of course, this ignores 70+ years of public subsidies for automobile infrastructure, urban
renewal, and other government policies favoring sprawl-style development and resulting
in disinvestment in cities. In order to be intellectually credible in explaining sprawl as a
free-market choice, proponents must do so without using the existing state of U.S. cities
as evidence.
Aesthetic Criticisms
Architects often criticize New Urbanist developments for introducing strict design
controls that stunt architectural creativity with little social benefit. The mandated historic
detailing of many New Urbanist buildings is dismissed as a wishful, nostalgic
reincarnation of the past that does not authentically represent the modern world. Some
planners criticize New Urbanist developments as not appreciating that cities are
spontaneous orders
3
that can only be loosely guided, not decisively controlled in the
manner of New Urbanist design codes. New Urbanists describe the architecture in their
developments as actually quite innovative. They describe rules regarding orientations,
dimensions and general forms of buildings as creating a necessary discipline that stirs
creative solutions.
The bottom line is that New Urbanists believe that a cohesive urban design is more
important than any individual buildings uniqueness, while opponents believe that the
potential for visual diversity and individual expression in buildings is what cities are
really all about. Ultimately, however, many of the more contentious controls are actually
some of the more optional aspects of New Urbanism.
Failure to Achieve Goals
In practice, the social goals of New Urbanism have been unrealized in many New
Urbanist developments. They remain isolated suburban areas, built on previously
undeveloped land on the urban periphery, with limited economic and racial diversity, that
do little to encourage economic redevelopment of the inner city.
Car-dependence is one metric that New Urbanism does not seem to have altered. It seems
that higher densities and mixed uses do not lead to a reduction of vehicle use when such
areas are isolated within a surrounding context of sprawl. Street patterns, density, and
transportation systems must be improved throughout an entire metropolitan area for this
to take place.
Economic diversity has also not been attained in many of these neighborhoods, where
housing values are frequently less affordable than those of nearby conventional
developments. However, many Hope VI redevelopments have been widely considered
successful in providing higher quality affordable housing, strengthening communities,
and revitalizing surrounding neighborhoods
4, 5
. This suggests that the social goals of New
Urbanism are best achieved when they are made the explicit intent of the development
through public-private partnerships, the development builds upon the social and physical
capital of an existing urban context, and a high proportion of affordable units are
included.
The application of New Urbanism to a single development will have a limited social
impact by itself. An integrated community development approach must be used.
Eventually, New Urbanist principles must be integrated into large-scale land use planning
in order to provide for more sustainable cities in the future.
Conclusion
Like many movements, New Urbanism is somewhat difficult to define. The label New
Urbanism is derived from a specific group of urban thinkers, and is most often
illustrated by their iconic developments. However, the definition of New Urbanism
according to the CNUs charter could easily be applied to a broad spectrum of intelligent
urban planning that shares the same underlying principles, yet is not commonly referred
to as New Urbanism. Part of this semantic confusion is undoubtedly caused by the
tendency of many New Urbanist designers to use quite literal historic architectural forms.
This is ultimately a fairly superficial detail of an entire method of urbanism, but
highlights their projects as definitive of New Urbanism. Regardless of semantics, there is
a broad consensus on the long term social, economic and environmental benefits of New
Urbanisms basic principles, and the need to work towards them on a large scale. It is
important to understand, consider, and draw lessons from this thoughtful and influential
movement.
Resources
Congress for the New Urbanism
PBS Online Newshour on New Urbanism
New Urbanist Infill Projects Orange County, FL Growth Management Department,
Planning Division.
The Economic Return on New Urbanism Study Orange County, FL Growth
Management Department, Planning Division.
Form-Based Codes Institute
A Guide to Planned Unit Development NYS Legislative Commission on Rural
Resources
Miami 21 Example of Form-Based Code, Now Codified in Miami
From Despair to Hope - Housing and Urban Development Secretarys Speech on Hope
VI
New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals Cliff Ellis, Journal of Urban Design
The Importance of Design Article on New Urbanism in Urban Infill
Endnotes
1
Ellis, Cliff. The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design. Vol. 7 No. 3 (2002)
262. <http://vranas.typepad.com/paul_vranas_chicago_busin/files/CliffEllis.pdf> Accessed August 25,
2010.
2
Donovan, Shaun. From Despair to Hope: Two HUD Secretaries on Urban Revitalization and Opportunity"
Speech. National Press Club, Washington, D.C., July 14, 2009.
<http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/speeches_remarks_statements/2009/speech_07142
009> Accessed August 25, 2010.
3
Gordon, Peter and Sanford Ikeda. Does Density Matter? University of Southern California.
<http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/14407/DoesDensityMatter_.pdf> Accessed August 25, 2010.
4
Turbov, Mindy and Valerie Piper. Hope VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Urban
Renewal: St. Louis Case Study: Murphy Park. Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
<http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/StLouisCaseStudy.pdf> Accessed August 26, 2010.
5
Popkin, Susan et. al., A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges.The Urban
Institute and Brookings Institute. <http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411002_HOPEVI.pdf> Accessed
August 26, 2010.
Updated: 8-30-2010