If New Urbanist Communities Are Being Built in the Suburbs is it Sprawl? (metro, Baltimore)
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.
Most new urbanism communities are being built in the suburbs and away from the cities. Most people define sprawl as suburbia with low density. What if a new urbanism community is built in the suburbs? Is it still sprawl?
For example:
Gaithersburg MD- suburb of D.C.-Baltimore, many new urbanism communites.
New Town St. Charles- a good 20-30 minute drive from St. Louis
Yes. If the neighborhood is built on greenfield and functions primarily as a residential suburb from which people commute in cars, it is sprawl. Technically, any outward growth counts as "sprawl," but it is largely a matter of degree. Part of the problem of sprawl is quantity: a certain amount of outward growth is inevitable, a certain amount of traffic is inevitable. The question is, can we manage and control it to minimize greenfield development while maintaining a better quality of life? If these NU communities can manage some of those goals (ex: if the overall neighborhood density is relatively high, if there are mixed uses so not everyone has to commute downtown, if there are other transportation/transit options) then they may well be contributing far less to sprawl than the traditional auto-centric model.
Most new urbanism communities are being built in the suburbs and away from the cities. Most people define sprawl as suburbia with low density. What if a new urbanism community is built in the suburbs? Is it still sprawl?
For example:
Gaithersburg MD- suburb of D.C.-Baltimore, many new urbanism communites.
New Town St. Charles- a good 20-30 minute drive from St. Louis
Your thoughts?
I would ask if its A. Transit oriented B. If its internal layout is amenable to walking/cycling C. If it follows other desirable neotraditional design principles that support appearance, community, and efficiency.
If sprawl only means "development in the suburbs" than most of what we say we dislike about sprawl is not necessarily true of all "sprawl" There is a valid debate to be had about how much development should take place on the edge vs in the center. However many issues that we raise with respect to sprawl, like walkability, diversity of transportation options, appearance, etc, etc, are seperate issues.
In a way, as it will be a bit auto-dependent as a result of its suburban location. Such a community will not contain everything one needs or wants, and a car will be the only form of transportation out to the surrounding sprawled jungle. A new urbanist community in a true urban area can combat this more easily. However, the negative effects of suburban sprawl will be significantly lessened from within the community, and some could be cut entirely.
To me they are. They are Disneyland Cities. We have perfectly good actual cities, with history, beautiful architecture, sturdy homes just waiting to be restored, vibrant art scenes, mature parks, and established neighborhoods.
Many were left during the post war period and many have homes that can be bought for very reasonable prices. Why build some faux urban areas exist? With homes that have original wood work, fireplaces, frontporches, stand up attics, pocket doors, plaster walls and stained glass windows.
There are cities like this! Why build more? Yes it is sprawl and hypocrisy of the highest order.
Cities and homes like this already exist. I know. I live in one and I love it!
No of course not. One way or the other, development of new communities is going to make place outside of the city boundaries mainly because of population growth. And if we are going to expand we may as well do it in a more sensible manner that minimizes or does away with wasteful sprawl which is what new urbanism is designed to do. That is, to utilize limited land and natural resources in a much more efficient manner. New urbanism is the opposite of sprawl.
Though I find it sad that there has to be a "movement" for walkable neighborhoods rather than the concepts behind NU being a given, it is better than the alternative. Disneyland cities or an endless sea of subdivisions and strip malls? I know which I'd choose.
You're right in that existing "breathing cities" are the preferred option. However, they had to start somewhere, and so does the alternative to an endless sea of subdivisions and strip malls.
For actual cities to develop, they must be expanded upon. I'd much prefer Sleeping Beauty's castle plopped in and around them than a brand new Wal-Mart.
No of course not. One way or the other, development of new communities is going to make place outside of the city boundaries mainly because of population growth. And if we are going to expand we may as well do it in a more sensible manner that minimizes or does away with wasteful sprawl which is what new urbanism is designed to do. That is, to utilize limited land and natural resources in a much more efficient manner. New urbanism is the opposite of sprawl.
New Urbanism is designed mostly to make money for the developer. We had a family discussion about this last night, on our way to the fireworks. Stapleton, that highly vaunted NU development in Denver, built over the old Denver Stapleton airport, is full of cookie cutter houses and has lots of internal traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interrobang2rd
Though I find it sad that there has to be a "movement" for walkable neighborhoods rather than the concepts behind NU being a given, it is better than the alternative. Disneyland cities or an endless sea of subdivisions and strip malls? I know which I'd choose.
You're right in that existing "breathing cities" are the preferred option. However, they had to start somewhere, and so does the alternative to an endless sea of subdivisions and strip malls.
For actual cities to develop, they must be expanded upon. I'd much prefer Sleeping Beauty's castle plopped in and around them than a brand new Wal-Mart.
At least at Wal Mart, you can buy something practical. Stapleton actually has a Wal Mart, so NU is no preventive for the chain. Most smaller NU developments have yoga studios, restaurnats, bakeries, bars, dry cleaners and the like; businesses you would find in a strip mall. You have to leave the compound to buy your clothes and food.
At least at Wal Mart, you can buy something practical. Stapleton actually has a Wal Mart, so NU is no preventive for the chain. Most smaller NU developments have yoga studios, restaurnats, bakeries, bars, dry cleaners and the like; businesses you would find in a strip mall. You have to leave the compound to buy your clothes and food.
Suburban NU is sprawl. It could be much worse.
It appears that Stapleton has at least some semblance of plan, mixed forms of housing, "central businesses areas" within walking distance, abundant greenery, and a bit of variety. The residential areas nearby are on a grid. I prefer that and a Wal-Mart over what appears to lie to the northwest.
Neither Stapleton nor the extreme sprawl areas of Denver appeal to me. However, NU really is what our outer rings suburbs should realistically be striving for. It may not stop one from driving to Wal-Mart, but at least it has positive benefits that make doing so mildly OK.
Last edited by Interrobang2rd; 07-05-2011 at 03:30 PM..
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.
