5 ms·

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 m

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 17y ago
> 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 17y ago
  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 17y ago

> 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 17y ago
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.