Let’s! (Just some friendly devil advocacy…)
What do you think the median income is of the typical new urbanist dweller? Where is the working class in those utopias? (Do they bungee in & out to sweep the streets while the lucky inhabitants sleep? Like at Disney World?) Sure it’s a wonderful place to live… if you can afford it. But it’s not organic.

The desire for these perfect communities, “Kinkade’s Syndrome,” is apparently woven into our DNA. I’m afflicted by it too. I want to live in Bagend and eat seven meals a day with my neighbors, and tend my garden, then enjoy some longbottom leaf… I want the thatched cottage by the misty glade, but I also want urban conveniences and amenities.

I’m not saying that New Urbanism shouldn’t happen, or that it’s not appropriate for OKC’s C2S. It would probably be a good thing and could be a dynamic and successful community that other cities would want to study and copy. Let’s do it! (Please don’t confuse my cynicism with discouragement.)

I am saying that it’s probably not for everyone. Especially those that prefer to decide for themselves the color of their front door. Or those who’d like to plant a tree without obtaining approval from the commissar.

Dennis, where in the video are you perceiving that no one can choose the color of their front door or can’t plant a tree? Other than that, your comments are spot on, because many new developments have been faux-New Urbanism – new homes and upscale communities without income mixes. The people interviewed have written extensively that true New Urbanism requires a mix, but that didn’t get discussed in the video.

Paul,

Manufactured utopias always seen to require homogeneity, or at least rigid control to maintain conformity to the designer’s ideal… My spoof on colors & plantings was intended to highlight the fact that some controlling authority is always pulling the strings of new urbanism. If you’re into that version of “reality,” more power to you. When someone develops a good Bagend-on-the-Red-Dirt I’ll probably be the first to buy in!

The New Urbanism movement is unfortunately misunderstood and always thought of as trying to create Utopia. It is forever linked to Seaside and Kentlands because those are amazing and very successful DPZ projects and the first of their kind. I grew up as a child of a builder and remember asking my dad, while driving through classic pre WWII neighborhoods,why dont your houses and neighborhoods look like this? Why do new neighborhoods have big brick monument entrances, gates, no sidewalks, no porches? Why isnt anybody building architecturally appealing houses, close to cool shops in a tree lined walkable atmosphere? He really couldnt adequately answer the question for me. I am a builder now and have dedicated my career to trying to restore that pre WWII fabric. The builders/developers of that time created civic art. It can hardly be said of most of them now. The study of the New Urbanism to me, starting with visiting Seaside,reading Suburban Nation, hearing countless Duany lectures and just simply observing great and no so great places began to answer those questions for me. New Urbanism projects that have been successful to date are expensive because the antiquated zoning/approval process makes them difficult to construct therefore very costly for the developer, there has been a very large learning curve for bankers/appraisers/builders/realtors, and simply there is a demand for places that matter and will be here 100 years from now. As a builder/developer, i seek to create civic art and build the inheritable house. I have found those goals are impossible in a suburban context.

Chad, are you a builder here in OKC?

There is a problem in urban development that certain terms become associated with things that don’t necessarily match the ideals of the term. Mixed-use now means a one-mile square development with houses in one corner and a Walmart in the other. New Urbanism now means Seaside and Kentlands.

The way I see it, new urbanism is for the suburbs, and regular, organic urbanism (the distinction that Dennis makes) is for downtown.. Hopefully that’s possible.

No i am not in OKC, i live in Ga.

Shane,

I understand your points and why it has come to seem that way in the market place. Mixed Use has been promoted by the smart growth movement and true mixed use in its purest form is what makes a great city. What has happened though is that developers purchase large parcels of land, get it rezoned to mixed use. Zoning is where the problem lies. Zoning is what segregates uses and demands that civic life, residential, commercial, churches etc all be divided which requires the use of a car. So developers, per the land development ordinance,in a mixed use zoning are forced to cluster townhomes,single family residential, commercial etc. This creates a mix of uses on the given parcel but not a true mixed urban fabric which is the cornerstone of any great community. In a pre WWII city, the banker lived next to the hardware store owner who lived next to the preacher and the church, courthouse, pub, market and courthouse were within a five minute walk, if not next door or across the street. Pre WWII cities were not governed by our modern day zoning. Zoning although intended to be helpful is what has created the miserable environments we love to hate.

New Urbanism, just like ‘mixed use’ has been given a bad name by people who do not approach it as building community or civic art but purely as a profit motive. Certainly nothing wrong with profit but if it is the only motivating factor a great place will not result.

If you study the work of Andres Duany, founder of New Urbanism, you will find that his work is based upon the concept of the rural to urban transect, which helps clarify what types of development are appropriate where. An example of New Urbanism in a downtown environment is building buildings in keeping with the existing urban fabric on infill lots. A one story Walgreens with a parking lot in the front would not be appropriate, but a Walgreens at the street level touching the sidewalk, with multiple story residential above would be. It is true that Kentlands and Seaside are model projects for a suburban setting. They create a true mixed use environment complete with a town square, and all of your daily essentials are within a 5 minute walk, which is impossible in conventional suburbia. A great example of a model development in a rural setting is called Serenbe. It is a 900 or so acre development, where 700 acres are preserved permanently and multiple artisan and organic farming hamlets are built around a tiny downtown complete with restaurants,shops,galleries,lofts and this project is located in what seems is the middle of nowhere, but 45 minutes to Atlanta.

The concepts of New Urbanism, if used in conjunction with Transect based planning, via a form based code like the SmartCode are appropriate from the most rural to the the urban core.

New Urbanism, in my opinion, requires a certain amount of seediness. It’s eclectic enough to make you just a tad bit uncomfortable. This kind of living is what the 20s-30s demographic is looking for. The video seemed to highlight more of an idyllic hub for baby boomers.

So the big question for me is…where is the urbanism in all of this?

Ding, ding, ding! Kris, you have asked the question I’ve been waiting for. There is a tie, I believe. I’ll address it tomorrow.

If you confuse the New Urbanist principles of planning and urban design with the architectural aesthetic of many of the NU communities, it is easy knock them as contrived. In truth, New Urbanism is a complete framework of steadfast, proven, and effective planning principles that (in most places) can be utilized within the current regulatory and developmental contexts.

It can be applied at every scale, from downtown to the outer fringe, using the transect approach that Chad mentioned.

Most of the criticism comes from modernist architects that feel the framework limits their creative freedom. In truth, what New Urbanism tries to do is bring up the urban design caliber of the average building designed by the average architect. Most buildings are designed, not by Louis Kahn, but by people that try to be him without the same God given abilities and without the high profile projects. The lack of contemporary architectural solutions that offer pedestrian-scaled design detail is part of the reason developers have to rely on older styles.

The other branch of criticism comes from reactionaries that paint NU as an elitist group that only builds communities for rich people. In truth, the planning principles push for mixed-income communities; and the density and development mix should make housing more affordable in the long run (as soon as the regulatory framework makes things easier and the home builders adapt). That said, so far many of the communities have been so popular that housing prices have escalated, making many of them out of reach for the average home buyer.

Nothing is more utopian than the ideal of an “organic city.” The only thing that keeps the whole idea from crashing down is that the definition of what constitutes an “organic city” is never provided. Is Paris an “organic city”? No. Is Chicago an “organic city”? Certainly not.

I am sure when we are all dead and gone people will be criticizing some new development concept because it is not “organic” like Seaside and Kentlands.

Suburban Nation is an excellent read and nice overview for anyone interested in getting NU straight from the source.

Or for free you can check out the Smart Code to see New Urbanist planning principles in detail.

http://www.smartcodecentral.org/index.html

[...] Lackmeyer has been blogging an ongoing series related to all things planning. Digging through topics like Jane Jacobs vs. Robert Moses, talking about William Whyte, and opening [...]