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

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

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.

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.

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!