Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course not. But New Urbanism appears to have as one of its principles that "sprawl" (meaning suburbia) is bad. And a lot of New Urbanists want to make it go away, either by banning it or arranging things so it is much harder and/or more expensive to build and/or live in suburbia.
There are any number of problems with New Urbanist planned communities. One is they are simply not comprehensive enough and cannot be; a century ago you could build a town around a transit stop and pretty much everyone could do everything they needed either in town, and the few remaining things could be done in the city the transit led to. That's just not so any more; even if you could get everything you _needed_ within one New Urbanist planned community, people wouldn't be willing to limit themselves to that. And once outside the bubble, they have to get around... which means a car.
Why couldn't a New Urbanism planned community be built like that? Cities should be focusing on allowing for multiple sources of transportation rather than just one. If a planned community is built around a light rail station and within that community is a number of daily need things that one could easily walk to, then one doesn't need to depend on a car for daily use. That doesn't mean one won't own a car, most people that live in any urban development probably own a car as well but don't need to rely on it for everything.
Orenco Station in Hillsboro, Or is a great example of this kind of New Urbanism development that is focused around a light rail stop and has been a very successful project.
Wow - I'll take this a piece at a time since it's so utterly wrong in every respect.
1. New Urbanists seek to eliminate private space.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And - where in the world do you people dream this stuff up or get this from? New Urbanists are in no way, shape or form opposed to private space. New urbanists aren't concerned with that in the least. New urbanists do believe in providing a mix of housing options (choice) and are not fixated on the SFD as the be all and end all of housing options. But SFD are only a part of the housing mix that should be available to everyone and which should also include SFA homes, MF condos and apartments, accessory dwelling units, etc.
Well, the OP wants front porches, but no back decks! What does that tell you? You're even supposed to eat out front, even if the barbecue is in back. You're supposed to be on display to your neighbors at all times.
Of course not. But New Urbanism appears to have as one of its principles that "sprawl" (meaning suburbia) is bad. And a lot of New Urbanists want to make it go away, either by banning it or arranging things so it is much harder and/or more expensive to build and/or live in suburbia.
There are any number of problems with New Urbanist planned communities. One is they are simply not comprehensive enough and cannot be; a century ago you could build a town around a transit stop and pretty much everyone could do everything they needed either in town, and the few remaining things could be done in the city the transit led to. That's just not so any more; even if you could get everything you _needed_ within one New Urbanist planned community, people wouldn't be willing to limit themselves to that. And once outside the bubble, they have to get around... which means a car.
The ONLY reason you can't develop as they did 100 years ago is land use codes and regulations that have made such development illegal. The Codes and Regs can (and most definitely should) be changed to accommodate mixed use communities that are walkable, close, compact, connected and lovable.
Coding is the DNA of cities. Code for crap, get crap. Code for great communities, get great communities.
I've really enjoyed the debate that's been generated by this question. You know my position on the topic already, but I think any neutral person coming into this debate would see an alarmingly sarcastic, antagonistic and snarky attitude on the part of the "suburbanists", contrasted with a more factual and reasonable approach by the "urbanists", regardless of who's actually right. Again, I'm obviously biased, but I believe what I've just said is plain to observe.
So what is the reason for this? How did anyone come to the conclusion that New Urbanism was out to take away their car(s), their large house on their large lot, or threaten their lifestyle in any way? Can anyone give me one example of a suburbanite who has suffered this fate at the hands of New Urbanism?
I would say not. Because the question being asked is not "What should we tear down?" It's "What should we build next?" If anything, comfortable suburbanites should be in favor of New Urbanism, for two reasons that are obviously very important to suburbanites:
1. PROPERTY VALUE, and 2. TRAFFIC
PROPERTY VALUE
I don't think anyone can argue that the demand for large homes on large lots is going to increase over the next few decades. Currently, I believe we have more than enough stock of these properties for anyone who wants one. So if city governments are asking, "What should we build next?" suburban home-owners should be dead-set against another gated community right next to their own. (And this is largely the case. It's what we call the NIMBY, or "Not In My Back Yard" factor. The last thing suburbanites want is more development like their own, because it increases the supply without a guaranteed corresponding increase in demand. Thus, their own property value is threatened.) So why not back more clean urban development in the areas you love to visit for ballgames, concerts, art exhibits other urban amenities? Such improvements will only make those places more safe, lively and attractive.
The other reason for the NIMBY factor in Suburbia is the potential increase in...
TRAFFIC
And if traffic is a concern, why not back efforts in your metro to expand, improve and encourage mass-transit? No one wants to take away your car, or your highway, but when other people choose to sell theirs (or never buy one in the first place) then that's one less car you have to battle with at rush hour. And it's one less car that will require an eventual street-widening, which is wildly expensive and requires massive construction projects which temporarily make traffic even worse. (Note: widening a freeway, mile for mile, is invariably more expensive than building a light-rail line.)
One more thought about cars. I like cars. I own one (which I share with my wife, who drives it to work, while I commute by bicycle.) I think cars are extremely important to our economy and society, and always will be. But they can play that vital role without being necessarily owned by a single individual.
When I said that no human being could have ever dreamed that 3000 pounds of steel would convey a single person a handful of miles on a daily basis, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with driving cars. It's the scale of the situation that causes problems, including traffic jams, urban smog and our dependency on foreign oil. I'm not hoping for cars to go away, but I am watching with interest as companies like ZipCar encourage a "rentership" culture, as opposed to mandatory ownership. I believe this will represent a greater and greater segment of the future of automobiles.
Re: separation of uses, I suppose you mean you'd like to see the steel mill down the street, such as in the mill town where I grew up. We had steel trucks going up and down our neighborhood street. My mom used to tie my brother and I up to the front porch when we were little so we wouldn't get hit by a semi. It's also really nice to have your high school football stadium (actually a small college stadium) next to a cork works where they let off a blast of hydrogen sulfide every little bit.
Silly example, couldn't find something a bit more typical?! Most places don't have steel mills in them, and plenty of things don't need as much separation as a steel mill (small offices, shops, etc.)
Quote:
Yes, no one can entertain themselves. Everyone has to be entertained by streetscapes, coffee shops, movies at 3 AM, etc. Micro-retail is so cost effective, not!
Huh? Personally, I'd like to streets with people on them and some public instead of just cars and strip parking lots. It's nice to be a town or city that feels lived and I would want to linger rather than drive in and out. What that has to do with being entertained at 3 am I have no clue.
Quote:
You would be hard put to find many (take note of that word, nei) people in the snow belt of this country who would not want a garage. That is roughly north of I-40, excluding the west coast. However, you might want one in the PNW b/c of all the rain.
Noted. But few have garages here and I can think of many similar places. Of course, if you drive for every single trip, the benefit of a garage increases. But still referring to a need sounds like a huge stretch to me.
Quote:
Large lots are also in the eye of the beholder. Here in metro Denver, a 10,000 sf lot (~ 1/4 acre) is considered huge. Our lot is about 8000 sf and also considered large. My daughter just bought a house in the depths of the burbs with a lot of ~7000 sf.
And the first house I grew up in had a lot of 5000 sf.
Well, the OP wants front porches, but no back decks! What does that tell you? You're even supposed to eat out front, even if the barbecue is in back. You're supposed to be on display to your neighbors at all times.
New Urbanism doesn't stop anyone from having a rear deck. We have a rear patio that we love. It's great for entertaining, or just for eating outside. But we also have a front porch, which, even when not in use, gives our house a more inviting feel. A row of houses featuring front porches, in my opinion, is more likely to encourage street life, and interaction amongst neighbors. This results in, among other things, improved neighborhood watch and a decrease in crime
(Don't try to tell me about some high-crime neighborhood you know that's littered with front porches. The porches themselves do not discourage crime. But they can contribute to its decrease, if combined with other factors.)
Well, the OP wants front porches, but no back decks! What does that tell you? You're even supposed to eat out front, even if the barbecue is in back. You're supposed to be on display to your neighbors at all times.
I don't know any new urbanist and have never read any new urbanist (and if one did exist I would disagree with her) who is opposed to private space or a back deck. That is absurd on its face and a complete red herring.
Where are you people getting this from? It isn't from any of the people who are prominent in the New Urbanist movement.
Perhaps you can find some affirmative statement somewhere that states that "private space" or "back decks" are opposed by new urbanist somewhere in the massive amount of literature, lectures or presentations available at the Congress For New Urbanism's website CNU.org.
And if you can't find that - stick around and read a bit - maybe you'll learn something about New Urbanism from, you know, actual New Urbanist, instead of weird conspiracy hacks.
I recently got into a bit of a debate about New Urbanist principles in the Kansas City forum. As a result, I ended up trying my hand at a personal paraphrase of those principles. This represents about an hour's work, and not the time I would spend on a thesis, but I was curious what sort of discussion it might generate, and how other people on this forum would approach the question.
So here is New Urbanism in my own words. How would you describe it?
1. Integral Community Life: Cities and Neighborhoods should be built in such a way that meaningful interaction amongst neighbors is encouraged. This includes close build-to lines, front porches, walkability and moderate to high density, and mostly precludes wide streets, large lots, garages, rear decks, cul-de-sacs, gated entrances, separation of uses and socioeconomic segmentation
2. Appropriate Density: Neighborhoods should be built in a range of densities, generally reflecting the proximity of that neighborhood to the City Center. It is wasteful for neighborhood density to fall below certain limits (the exact definition of which is debatable) unless the land is being put to productive use. The result of inappropriately low density is an inefficient use of public infrastructure (more miles of streets and utility lines per capita) and the preponderance of the residential lawn, which is one of the most environmentally wasteful entities in history, especially when maintained well.
3. Conservation of Resources: Cities should be built in such a way that makes efficient use of the materials required to build them. They should also avoid "sprawl" which gobbles up productive farmland at the fringe. Although urban areas often labeled as the environment's "most wanted" polluters, it is actually the converse which is true. If the population of an urban area were re-distributed into suburban or rural settings, their resource usage and pollution production would skyrocket. Human beings who are not producing food or other products from the land, are most efficient and conservative when grouped in urban settings.
4. Mass-Transit: Human beings never dreamed of commandeering 3000 pounds (or more!) of steel in order to convey a single individual a handful of miles on a daily basis. Even if we had imagined the technology, we could not have imagined the hubris of a common person exercising such a wasteful habit. Technology enables us to travel farther, faster AND more efficiently than at any time in history, but these three elements are only combined in the form of mass transit. Cars, and especially the gasoline that runs them, are becoming expensive to the point of being a non-option for many members of upcoming generations, and Cities should not be designed to presume ubiquitous car ownership. Because every year that presumption becomes increasingly false.
5. Architecture for posterity instead of expediency: I have mostly addressed this issue in previous comments. But to put it briefly, Cities (and the buildings that comprise them) should be designed in a way that is likely to have value for many generations to come. This necessarily presumes quality construction that will withstand the elements for at least 100 years. This precludes the suburban trend of expecting buildings to last 30-50 years, and employing architectural styles which are either too faddish to be appreciated by anyone in the future, or too bland or monotonous to be appreciated by anyone, ever.
6. Vibrant Street Life: The spirit of a City can be discerned from those who occupy its streets, sidewalks and public spaces. Therefore, Cities should be built to encourage positive interaction in these areas. This necessitates mixed-use development, walkability, narrow streets, wide sidewalks, close build-to lines, public art, mass transit, moderate to high density, micro retail and a diverse population mix.
7. Beauty and Balance: In order to achieve lasting value and sustainable growth, a City should be built with classic principles of civic beauty and design balance in mind. This is true of virtually all cities which people love to visit, but for some reason we've decided it cannot be true of the cities we inhabit. This principle includes: public art, thoughtful architecture, proportionate street-walls (taking setbacks, building height and street width into account), abundant and well-designed parks and plazas, street trees and other vegetation, and locally relevant materials and styles. It precludes large or ostentatious parking lots, cookie-cutter developments, tract housing, and any project designed solely for the purpose of a quick profit.
8. Quality Public Space: By now this has been pretty well described in principles numbered 1-7.
But let me just add that a healthy city must view itself as a shared community, and not an agglomeration of adjacent private properties. Our modern society is the first in history to see it as the latter, and we are currently witnessing the fallout from this folly.
Correction: Some of us are witnessing the fallout. Others are naively assuming that the status quo will continue onward and upward, reminding me of the attitude immediately preceding 1929’s Black Tuesday, 2000’s Dot-Com bust, or 2008’s Housing Crisis. I’ll bet those people wish they would have heeded the warnings, and I imagine something similar (but hopefully less sudden and tragic) in our suburban communities.
Do you read a lot of Richard Florida and Joel Kotkin.
I've really enjoyed the debate that's been generated by this question. You know my position on the topic already, but I think any neutral person coming into this debate would see an alarmingly sarcastic, antagonistic and snarky attitude on the part of the "suburbanists", contrasted with a more factual and reasonable approach by the "urbanists", regardless of who's actually right. Again, I'm obviously biased, but I believe what I've just said is plain to observe.
So what is the reason for this? How did anyone come to the conclusion that New Urbanism was out to take away their car(s), their large house on their large lot, or threaten their lifestyle in any way? Can anyone give me one example of a suburbanite who has suffered this fate at the hands of New Urbanism?
I would say not. Because the question being asked is not "What should we tear down?" It's "What should we build next?" If anything, comfortable suburbanites should be in favor of New Urbanism, for two reasons that are obviously very important to suburbanites:
1. PROPERTY VALUE, and 2. TRAFFIC
PROPERTY VALUE
I don't think anyone can argue that the demand for large homes on large lots is going to increase over the next few decades. Currently, I believe we have more than enough stock of these properties for anyone who wants one. So if city governments are asking, "What should we build next?" suburban home-owners should be dead-set against another gated community right next to their own. (And this is largely the case. It's what we call the NIMBY, or "Not In My Back Yard" factor. The last thing suburbanites want is more development like their own, because it increases the supply without a guaranteed corresponding increase in demand. Thus, their own property value is threatened.) So why not back more clean urban development in the areas you love to visit for ballgames, concerts, art exhibits other urban amenities? Such improvements will only make those places more safe, lively and attractive.
The other reason for the NIMBY factor in Suburbia is the potential increase in...
TRAFFIC
And if traffic is a concern, why not back efforts in your metro to expand, improve and encourage mass-transit? No one wants to take away your car, or your highway, but when other people choose to sell theirs (or never buy one in the first place) then that's one less car you have to battle with at rush hour. And it's one less car that will require an eventual street-widening, which is wildly expensive and requires massive construction projects which temporarily make traffic even worse. (Note: widening a freeway, mile for mile, is invariably more expensive than building a light-rail line.)
One more thought about cars. I like cars. I own one (which I share with my wife, who drives it to work, while I commute by bicycle.) I think cars are extremely important to our economy and society, and always will be. But they can play that vital role without being necessarily owned by a single individual.
When I said that no human being could have ever dreamed that 3000 pounds of steel would convey a single person a handful of miles on a daily basis, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with driving cars. It's the scale of the situation that causes problems, including traffic jams, urban smog and our dependency on foreign oil. I'm not hoping for cars to go away, but I am watching with interest as companies like ZipCar encourage a "rentership" culture, as opposed to mandatory ownership. I believe this will represent a greater and greater segment of the future of automobiles.
1. Darn right you're biased! To hear some of the urbanists, we suburbanites are all shallow isolationist types who whip into the house through the garage at night to watch "DTWTS" while you urbanists are all gathered at someone's house for a communal meal, after which you either a) go to the local theater to see a play or b) go to the neighborhood homeless shelter to help out.
2. Quote ONE post where a suburbanite is expressing any of those concerns. You'll not find any by me.
3. Who is talking about large houses on large lots, in gated communities? Why the urbanists, in their superiorism.
3. How clever. Like we never heard of that before! One poster on here has talked about NIMBY-ism in the city as well. It's not just us evil suburbanites.
4. Who is opposed to mass transit? Show me a post where a suburbanite said that there should be no mass transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Silly example, couldn't find something a bit more typical?! Most places don't have steel mills in them, and plenty of things don't need as much separation as a steel mill (small offices, shops, etc.)
Huh? Personally, I'd like to streets with people on them and some public instead of just cars and strip parking lots. It's nice to be a town or city that feels lived and I would want to linger rather than drive in and out. What that has to do with being entertained at 3 am I have no clue.
Noted. But few have garages here and I can think of many similar places. Of course, if you drive for every single trip, the benefit of a garage increases. But still referring to a need sounds like a huge stretch to me.
And the first house I grew up in had a lot of 5000 sf.
Why is my example silly? It's the reality that I grew up with. That's why people in mill towns wanted to move to suburbia. While you urbanists were busy pointing fingers at us, many suburbs and newer cities have been using PUD (mixed use) zoning for decades. Planned unit development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There have been many posts here from urbanists who find the suburbs "boring" b/c there's 'nothing going on outside'. (Sounds like middle school students complaining to me.)
You live in an older area, where homes were built w/o garages, b/c people didn't have cars at the time, or with one car garages. In newer areas, virtually every single family home has a garage, generally for two+ cars. They also make good storage spaces for power tools, a freezer, an extra refrigerator, garbage cans, bicycles, and general storage.
The first house I grew up in has a lot of 1700 sf. That's where we were tied to the front porch. The second house my parents owned has a lot of 7800 sf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
New Urbanism doesn't stop anyone from having a rear deck. We have a rear patio that we love. It's great for entertaining, or just for eating outside. But we also have a front porch, which, even when not in use, gives our house a more inviting feel. A row of houses featuring front porches, in my opinion, is more likely to encourage street life, and interaction amongst neighbors. This results in, among other things, improved neighborhood watch and a decrease in crime
(Don't try to tell me about some high-crime neighborhood you know that's littered with front porches. The porches themselves do not discourage crime. But they can contribute to its decrease, if combined with other factors.)
Well, you're the one who said NO REAR DECKS! What's the reason for that? I can remember decades ago, probably around 1970, the urbanists of the day lamenting the demise of the front porch in favor of a rear deck. In point of fact, the older,pre-WW II homes had BOTH a front and back porch. The bold sounds good in theory, but it doesn't hold up in practice, IMO.
I don't know any new urbanist and have never read any new urbanist (and if one did exist I would disagree with her) who is opposed to private space or a back deck. That is absurd on its face and a complete red herring.
Where are you people getting this from? It isn't from any of the people who are prominent in the New Urbanist movement.
Perhaps you can find some affirmative statement somewhere that states that "private space" or "back decks" are opposed by new urbanist somewhere in the massive amount of literature, lectures or presentations available at the Congress For New Urbanism's website CNU.org.
And if you can't find that - stick around and read a bit - maybe you'll learn something about New Urbanism from, you know, actual New Urbanist, instead of weird conspiracy hacks.
The hell it's not. I got it from the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
1. Integral Community Life: Cities and Neighborhoods should be built in such a way that meaningful interaction amongst neighbors is encouraged. This includes close build-to lines, front porches, walkability and moderate to high density, and mostly precludes wide streets, large lots, garages, rear decks, cul-de-sacs, gated entrances, separation of uses and socioeconomic segmentation
I don't know any weird conspiracy hacks, though I did see Elvis this morning at church. He was next to me at communion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
