
New Urbanism - MikeCapone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism
======
pchristensen
New Urbanism was one of the things that got me to take a hiatus from computers
to get a degree in urban planning - I've read way too much about it and
visited many of the featured communities. (My wife is a doll - "You want to
visit a neighborhood outside of Gainesville? O...K...")

To address the major criticism (affordability and lack of economic mixing):
each NU development requires haggling over special zoning, density, and street
engineering, so there's a greater up front cost and risk for the developer
which gets passed on to buyers. Second, there are very few NU housing units
relative to standard suburban houses so demand outstrips supply, keeping
prices high. Third, they make a conscious effort to be attractive and
pleasant, both in the houses and neighborhood as a whole, so people are
willing to pay higher prices. With explicit zoning approval, developers could
build more units and there would be more competition so prices would go down.
The end result would probably be prices about the same as standard houses,
with a smaller lot, slightly smaller house, but in a more attractive, liveable
neighborhood.

The biggest weakness I see is that they have only been done on the scale of a
subdivision so it hasn't really effected shopping or employment patterns.
Sure, many of them have pleasant town centers, but they get low traffic and
are therefore much more suitable for professional offices or a few local
things like a dry cleaner or child care.

New Urbanism is useful mainly as a showcase of how residential development
could be. The work that has the potential to change the built environment much
more are form-based zoning codes, also by Duany Plater-Zyberk. It basically
specifies the envelope you're allowed to build in based on where you are but
doesn't specify function. So in a dense district where 6 story buildings are
allowed, it doesn't matter whether they are offices, condos, light
manufacturing, etc, just as long as they're consistent with the form of the
neighborhood and the road and transit capacity. Form based codes actually deal
with the entire economy of residential, commercial, and office/light-industry,
while New Urbanism only (in practice) deals with residential.

If a fast-growing municipality were to adopt these, it would give a good feel
for what level of density and urbanity people were actually willing to buy.
Urbanity and density that is a) low crime and b) has acceptable schools is
extremely high priced because zoning has made it illegal to build almost
everywhere.

~~~
anamax
> If a fast-growing municipality were to adopt these, it would give a good
> feel for what level of density and urbanity people were actually willing to
> buy. Urbanity and density that is a) low crime and b) has acceptable schools
> is extremely high priced because zoning has made it illegal to build almost
> everywhere.

Huh?

It's easy to find places in the US that will let you build something like
that. It's only hard to do it inside a core city.

Yes, it's probably true that no one is willing to let you run their whole
city.

FWIW - I've found that ideas that only work on an unattainable scale have
other problems that are often fatal on smaller scales.

~~~
arebop
Zoning codes in much of the US do indeed prohibit mixed uses and urban
densities and prioritize automotive infrastructure over human-scale street
design. The cost for obtaining the necessary adjustments and exemptions by the
usual permitting process could be prohibitive, but the law is just the most
obvious obstacle.

There are entrenched business interests who fight vigorously to maintain the
status quo. From site preparation crews to homebuilders to civil engineers to
government bureaucrats, many people have invested over half a century in
learning to do things in a certain, profitable, way and they do not want
expensive and risky change.

Then there are ordinary people, who will oppose "cut through" traffic and
dense (or any) neighboring development and commercial uses (next door though
not across town). When they think retail, they think strip mall, and who can
blame them for not wanting to live next to that? They want to preserve their
property values by only permitting (more expensive and lower density) houses
and green space on adjacent parcels. Most people don't care about things on
non-adjacent parcels, although they will tend to dislike elitists or outta-
towners who want to do something unusual in their regional vicinity.

We have an elaborate, comprehensive, uniform set of ideas and practices that
are very well established in this country. Their scope is huge, governing
everything from the (non)existence of street trees to the geometry of
interstates. Although it's true that urban site designs complement each other,
the problem with new urbanism is not that planning or design cannot work on
larger scales. Pre-industrial towns and cities evolved urban design locally
and without specialized professional oversight. Suburbia may not seem
thoughtfully designed, but it is an existence proof that even ideas that do
not work well at scale can nonetheless be widely adopted and carry enormous
momentum.

~~~
anamax
> Zoning codes in much of the US do indeed prohibit mixed uses and urban
> densities and prioritize automotive infrastructure over human-scale street
> design.

The vast majority of the US has no zoning.

You're seeing obstacles because you're only looking at existing areas. It's
quite reasonable for the current inhabitants to resist your takeover attempt.
And yes, that's what it is.

> Suburbia may not seem thoughtfully designed, but it is an existence proof
> that even ideas that do not work well at scale can nonetheless be widely
> adopted and carry enormous momentum.

Suburbia works quite well for the vast majority of its inhabitants. This
"scale" claim is just your attempt to try to convince them why they're wrong.

And yes, suburbia is "thoughtfully designed" - it just isn't designed to
accomplish the goals that you value.

Your values are not universal. If suburbia doesn't work for you, get out.
There are options.

But, stop trying to force people into your vision. And if you can't, at least
stop complaining that they resist.

------
evanrmurphy
It's fascinating how much positive-sounding language can amount to basically
saying, "We fucked up on the whole suburban sprawl thing. It's pretty lame.
Undo."

(Please note that, despite my tone in the above, I am very excited about the
movement. :)

------
ugh
Sounds like what you can still get in many European cities. Luckily. It’s a
sad day whenever some ugly shopping monster is built outside old city centers.
Sprawl is a blight which has to be fought vigorously.

~~~
pchristensen
I'm no fan of sprawl, but once a critical mass of households own a car, it's
economically much more efficient because people can travel point to point
rather than fixed paths.

Sprawl can be made much nicer and less economically competitive by eliminating
or raising maximum density limits, eliminating or lowering minimum parking
limits, and channeling development into designated areas so that transit is
easier.

For instance, look at Skarholmen, outside of Stockholm
([http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q...](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=skarholmen,+stockholm&mrt=all&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sk%C3%A4rholmen,+Stockholm,+Sweden&ll=59.267372,17.8969&spn=0.060091,0.154324&t=h&z=13))
. It's Stockholm's sprawl, built in the 60's to handle population growth as
Sweden urbanized.

The subway runs parallel to the highway, with regional draws (factories for
employment, big shopping like Ikea) by the highway and local shopping like a
grocery store, a small mall (Skarholmen Centrum), post office, etc clustered
around the subway stop (the "T" on the map). There are apartments (3-6
stories) clustered around the Centrum, then townhouses beyond that and some
houses beyond that. Nearby stops have small grocery stores (similar to a CVS
or Walgreens) and apartments around them, and if people need more stuff they
ride the train to Skarholmen. For specialized stuff they ride into Stockholm
or drive/bus to the big stores by the highway. So most people don't need cars
even for work or shopping.

Overcrowding? No, apartments are very affordable so people don't need to pack
into them. Concrete jungle? Hardly, there are parks between every apartment
building and raw forest less than a mile away.

So what's missing from here? That's not rhetorical, I'd really like to know
what is bad about this compared to American-style suburbia. The only thing I
can really think of is that very people have a private yard or an apartment
big enough to entertain a lot of people.

~~~
evanrmurphy
It sounds like most people are driving cars instead of walking or cycling and
small businesses are virtually nonexistant. This seems like a problem to me.

~~~
pchristensen
No, most people are walking or riding trains. Very few people have cars.

Small businesses were about as common as in US suburbs.

~~~
evanrmurphy
> No, most people are walking or riding trains. Very few people have cars.

I guess I misinterpreted your "once a critical mass of households own a car"
comment.

> Small businesses were about as common as in US suburbs.

Virtually nonexistant in the US suburbs I come from. I think this quality is
representative of suburbs in general, but mine may also be an extreme case.

~~~
pchristensen
I started out saying that auto-burbs are economically efficient once enough
people own cars, then gave Skarholmen as an example of how it could be.

The lack of small businesses is typical of suburbs, which are primarily places
to live without a specific local economic purpose. Exceptions are typically
hair salons, small restaurants, dry cleaners, etc.

------
mscantland
I've been going to Seaside FL
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaside,_Florida>), one of the early NU towns
for many years, and just had my wedding there.

The highway 30A coast, which includes Seaside has at least four examples of
New Urbanist towns within a 20 mile stretch that is all bike-able. If you're
into this kind of thing, it makes a great vacation spot.

If you want activities or restaurant recommendations, check out my wedding
website which is still up: <http://mattandmeara.com/more/>

------
lobo-tuerto
I have been longing for the ideas of Christopher Alexander to be put to good
(world wide) use. Or at least wishing for them to be noticed outside the
little circle of minds that "get it".

------
Sukotto
This reminds me of a wonderful site from a few years back:
<http://carfree.com/>

The basic premise being to deliberately create small, architecturally distinct
neighborhoods with swaths of greenspace separating them, then joining them all
together with a highly efficient public transit system.

It's an interesting read.

------
MikeCapone
For a lot of great videos about what new urbanism is all about (mostly for
walking/biking/transit infrastructure), check out the excellent:

<http://www.streetfilms.org/>

They're part of the Livable Streets organization..

------
rwhitman
Anybody who's interested in this and lives in the Bay Area should take a drive
over to Hercules on the east bay. They build a whole town complete with mixed
use urban center

------
j053003
I think a lot of us played SimCity when we were little.

------
patrickgzill
NU is the pretty face of the death of private property in America. If you own
something, you have control of it; zoning removes your control over property
you own.

~~~
MartinCron
"Old" or "New" -Urbanism has never been about absolute property rights. City
dwellers have, for generations, traded the conveniences of density over pure
private property rights.

How would you feel about your next-door neighbor turning their home into a
slaughterhouse or paper mill or adult bookstore?

~~~
patrickgzill
Can you point to examples in Houston, TX, where this has happened? Houston has
no formal zoning code.

~~~
MartinCron
Zoning is just one of many ways that people, through democratically elected
governments, restrict private property rights in cities.

While Houston doesn't have formal zoning, a quick Google search (I've never
been there) shows they do have extensive land-use regulation, including
minimum lot size for single family homes (5000 sq feet) and requirements for
parking for businesses.

So, if I wanted to place two single-family homes on my 9000 sq feet of land,
or open a retail shop without providing parking, my private property rights
would be infringed.

------
anamax
New Urbanism comes from a belief that cars and lawns are bad.

If you agree with that premise, it might be okay although it's not clear that
it's a significant win over other urban forms.

If you disagree with that premise, it's a total disaster.

The typical response by new urbanists to folks who disagree with the premise
is ridicule.

Note that the folks who disagree with the premise are perfectly willing to let
the new urbanists do their thing.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"New Urbanism comes from a belief that cars and lawns are bad."_

I like how you coupled something a lot of people think is bad, with something
few people think is bad, and present it as an all-or-nothing choice.

> _"Note that the folks who disagree with the premise are perfectly willing to
> let the new urbanists do their thing."_

I disagree. Suburban developers, along with the people who live there, are
currently in the process of torpedoing a new mass transit rail system in
Seattle - this is something that will take a _lot_ of cars off the road,
create new residential and commercial corridors with excellent transit
coverage, and make communities more connected. Suburbanites fear the
accessibility will destroy the exclusivity of their enclaves (which is
probably true), and thus are trying to prevent this from being built.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the concept of effective mass
transit, there's no way you can claim that pro-suburb folk are a-ok with
urbanist policies. American cities are littered with stories of urban
initiatives torpedoed by people in fear of the destruction of their suburban
lifestyles.

~~~
anamax
> I like how you coupled something a lot of people think is bad, with
> something few people think is bad, and present it as an all-or-nothing
> choice.

It's not my coupling - it's the new urbanists' coupling.

I don't know what a "hate cars, like lawns" or "like cars, hate lawns" vision
would be, but neither is relevant if we're discussing new urbanists.

> > "Note that the folks who disagree with the premise are perfectly willing
> to let the new urbanists do their thing."

> I disagree. Suburban developers, along with the people who live there, are
> currently in the process of torpedoing a new mass transit rail system in
> Seattle

Not so fast - they're refusing to pay for it. That's very different. If it was
such a great idea, if there actually were people who placed as much value on
these things as they cost, you wouldn't need funding from other people.

> this is something that will take a lot of cars off the road, create new
> residential and commercial corridors with excellent transit coverage

These are things that you value - they don't.

> Suburbanites fear the accessibility will destroy the exclusivity of their
> enclaves (which is probably true), and thus are trying to prevent this from
> being built.

"exclusivity of their enclaves" sounds like projection.

> American cities are littered with stories of urban initiatives torpedoed by
> people in fear of the destruction of their suburban lifestyles.

Not at all. They're merely refusing to pay for the lifestyle that you'd
prefer.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Not at all. They're merely refusing to pay for the lifestyle that you'd
> prefer."_

That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in
denser, more urban areas. Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost
for buses is _three times higher_ in suburbs than it is in urban areas. Us
urban folk are paying for your excesses too - garbage generation, water usage,
the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into
the air... practically all resource usage on a per-capita basis is much higher
in suburbs. This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we
have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.

It's hard to say where the balance lies - whether, after all is said and done,
the suburbanites are subsidizing the urban lifestyle, or vice versa. Whichever
it is, the truth is far less clear-cut than you're trying to project.

> _"It's not my coupling - it's the new urbanists' coupling."_

I've met many urban planning proponents, and none are against lawns. I think
this is projection on your part, more alarmist "they hate our way of life"
shit.

> _"I don't know what a "hate cars, like lawns" vision would be"_

Then you haven't learned enough about this. Urbanism is not solely the idea of
high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about
walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit. None of this
precludes, for example, townhouses where you can maintain your yard and
private spaces. There are _many_ ways to be sustainably urban _and_ maintain
many of the main perks of the suburban lifestyle (backyard BBQ? check). To
suggest that you can't IMHO is fearmongering amongst suburbanites who think
that removal of the automobile from their life would mean wholesale
destruction of their lifestyle.

~~~
anamax
> That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in
> denser, more urban areas.

And you see the savings. Since suburbs pay for their infrastructure....

> Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times
> higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas.

You're confusing your numbers. The operating costs-per mile (consumables,
employee salaries, capital costs, maintenance) should be roughly the same to
lower in suburbia (slightly higher mpg and lower maintenance because not as
much stop and go). The ridership is probably lower, but that's not operating
costs.

Then again, it's mostly dumb to run buses in suburbia. We do it because
urbanites think that doing so benefits them and/or because they insist on
"regional funding" and suburbia says "if we're paying, you're serving us too".

If the cost of buses in suburbia bothers you, don't do it, and don't ask them
to pay for urban transit either. (Take all you want at the fare box.)

> the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into
> the air

Cars in the garage don't pump anything into the air.

The pollution costs are in the noise. And suburbia pays for gas.

> This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay
> to support the roads you insist on clogging up.

If we're talking about suburbia's roads, those roads are paid for by gas taxes
and developer fees and "donations" in the suburbs. (I've been involved in some
development. The land for roads is typically "donated" by the developer, which
means that the home owners actually pay for it. The roads themselves are built
by developers.)

If you're talking about urban roads, shut them down and do transit your way.
Since you're paying, do as you will.

And no, you can't have gas tax money if you're not serving cars.

> Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel,
> it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on
> mass transit.

It's interesting that "new urbanists" seem to think that live-work and the
like is new. It isn't; it's actually quite old. More to the point, one can
find it in most major cities.

New urbanists come in saying "let me run things and we'll all have free
ponys". They don't bother explaining why this time will be different.

I've seen the pitches. They're heavy on the asserted benefits and light on
explaining why they'll actually happen, especially given the actual
experience.

Goals aren't arguments.

