"New Urbanism", Traditional Neighborhood Development, Smart Growth etc...

[DetroitPlanner]

Sorry- I disagree. New Urbanism is the culmination of concepts that CAN exist in either greenfield or infill development. There is obviously poorly done infill that would not be considered New Urbanism.

I suppose I can see your view here, but it really depends on where you come from. I have always lived in traditional neighborhoods that were built on a grid pattern. Everything developed within those neighborhoods no matter what year it was built was built within that context.

Are you coming from retrofitting suburban areas instead? Whenever I've seen this tried in these areas, it always seems piecemeal and out of context. I would not consider this to be infill as these are typically medium to large developments that have been recently bulldozed. In most cases these are suburban malls that are replaced with a new kind of suburban mall whose architecture better reflects the panara, pottery barn, sprawlmart, or starbux that it wants to attract.

[prana]

As a case point, most of the New Urbanism models I've seen featured a community commercial at the, well, core, of the community, but wouldn't it be much more practical to have the commercial "core" on the periphery of the community where the major road links are and where it could also serve residents of adjoining areas, instead of being hidden away?

I might be reading your response totally incorrectly, and if so, just laugh at my response below!

I think we have too many concpets trying to be discussed in one conversation. I see what you are saying, but if you draw this in very simplistic diagrams, I think you will get a series of figure eights. Each half of the 8 represents a neighborhood. Your commercial core would be placed at the intersection of the two halves of the 8, on the periphery of the neighborhood. Am I right so far? Eventually, your neighborhood circles are going to migrate (in a GIS/demographic perspective) to be centered around the commercial core via the number of users of each core and where they come from. Won't they? Thinking of the traditional neighborhood pub, market, etc...people will use the closest one, especially if within walking distance. Your periphery commercial area intended to serve multiple neighborhoods will eventually become the center of the neighborhood.

[docwatson]

As a case point, most of the New Urbanism models I've seen featured a community commercial at the, well, core, of the community, but wouldn't it be much more practical to have the commercial "core" on the periphery of the community where the major road links are and where it could also serve residents of adjoining areas, instead of being hidden away?

This sounds like the neighborhood model advocated by Perry in the plan for the NY region - only churches and schools were permitted within residential areas, while the commerce had to be (auto oriented) on the arterials. I think this works if you are building an auto-oriented community and if the community is not growing so large that the arterials become severely congested. The ultimate expression eventually being the hgihway-supported "edge city" employment concentrations. But we are seeing changes - urban big boxes proliferating in places like Arlington County, VA, and the planned retrofit of edge cities like Tyson's corner into transit-supported, walkable nodes.

On the other hand, in communities served by transit, with employment located at the core(s), the core(s) are hardly "hidden away".

I agree few retail areas survive by neighborhood traffic alone, unless it is a truly denser urban fabric. This is why NU retail has tended to underperform. One thing I've noticed in the "conventional" local-collector-arterial network is that there are few if any streets that support walable commercial districts - i.e. streets that are walkable to their adjoining neighborhoods, carry 5,000 - 10,000 ADT (perhaps up to 20,000), have on street parking, and permit commercial/mixed use development. Major arterials with 20,000 - 50,000 ADT seem more supportive of the strip/big-box and parking lot model, although the proliferation of commerce and turning movements along arterials leads to further congestion.

[prana]

Portland is still one of the best examples of successful neighborhood retail that I have experienced. Everything in the city is referred to by its neighborhood and then in minutes by bike to downtown. It's pretty amazing.
portlandneighborhood.com

[ColoGI]

Portland is still one of the best examples of successful neighborhood retail that I have experienced. Everything in the city is referred to by its neighborhood and then in minutes by bike to downtown. It's pretty amazing.
portlandneighborhood.com

Seattle is like that as well, except the bike ride is a little longer to downtown. But with strong neighborhoods, you don't necessarily need to go downtown.

Nonetheless, we all know roads, infra, and natural features drive the pattern of the urban fabric. Everything else comes off of those. If your roads are gridded with short blocks, there's the backbone for walkable/bikeable/strollerable. After that, you can control some of it.

[TradArch12]

I guess when I think of New Urbanism, I think of the "traditional" model.


As I posted in another thread, an excellent example is Downtown Alexandria, VA.

As well as Downtown Annapolis, MD.

You also have many of the European models...

Luxembourg city:
http://photos.igougo.com/images/p492..._Into_Town.jpg

Antwerp:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WAeDG-WHta.../antwerp_1.jpg

Rome:
http://carrentalsofiaairport.com/wp-...med_12p.h2.jpg

Now, I would argue that those cities are way to big, cities should be a maximum of 150,000 people. But otherwise, the form of the buildings, the layout of the streets, etc... is just fine.

I would also argue that no buildings (except churches and monuments) should be over 4 stories tall.

I also argue against the regular grid pattern. A grid should be the basic layout, but then you need to overlay it with streets organized according to squares, monuments, terrain contours, etc... Upon that, you make sure the grid doesn't have long, straight streets by interrupting them with intersections to terminate the vistas. Upon that the blocks ought to be small, probably about 150ft by 150ft (or around there) with alleyways running down the middle of the sites.

That is my vision of New Urbanism, or rather, traditional urbanism as I define it.

(and yes, I know modern European cities have sprawled out, I'm referring to their older, pre-sprawling models)

[prana]

You've got a lot of arguments there, and frankly, have even dropped me from supporting your total vision of planning...let alone New Urbanism.

[TradArch12]

You've got a lot of arguments there, and frankly, have even dropped me from supporting your total vision of planning...let alone New Urbanism.

Could you explain?

I'd definitely say that I don't think of NU as being Seaside, FL.

The places I saw in Greece are really nice, except most of the urban buildings are ugly, and Athens/Thessaloniki are way too big & sprawling. The grids are also too regular, but thankfully the mountains cut off the horizon and terminate the vista.

I would also say that New Urbanism has evolved since the 1980s and 1990s. Many of the key NU figures have started to take a more "agricultural" "agrarian" position, mainly thinking in terms of small villages that are "urban" in character, but self-supporting. From what I've seen as well, NU figures are starting tO draw closer to the traditionalist crowd like Notre Dame.

[DetroitPlanner]

I'd definitely say that I don't think of NU as being Seaside, FL.
The places I saw in Greece are really nice, except most of the urban buildings are ugly, and Athens/Thessaloniki are way too big & sprawling. The grids are also too regular, but thankfully the mountains cut off the horizon and terminate the vista.

Theres the rub Seaside is 100 percent NU. Its the poster-boy.

Greece? Yeah I can see a lot of old greek guys shopping at the pottery barn to decorate thier victorianesque cottage house with the garage in the back yard.

[TradArch12]

Theres the rub Seaside is 100 percent NU. Its the poster-boy.

Greece? Yeah I can see a lot of old greek guys shopping at the pottery barn to decorate thier victorianesque cottage house with the garage in the back yard.

Seaside WAS the posterchild, it may still be in some circles, but that was 20-30 years ago, New Urbanism has changed since then.

As for Greece, what the heck are you talking about? I never, ever, ever said; nor ever implied ANYTHING like that. I was saying Greece is a relatively good model, like the rest of Europe. There are some problems but overall its a good model.

I think the last century has shown how wrong we are, and despite our technology, how much we've been making ourselves and our world more and more screwed up each day.
Even European cities (and especially the countries) are becoming mire and more messed up. We need to return to traditional values, methods, forms etc... And then mold them with our technologies.

[TerraSapient]

Now, I would argue that those cities are way to big, cities should be a maximum of 150,000 people. But otherwise, the form of the buildings, the layout of the streets, etc... is just fine.

I would also argue that no buildings (except churches and monuments) should be over 4 stories tall.

You say you are against sprawl, yet your ideal urban area is only 150,000 people with buildings under 4 stories. You do realize that there isn't enough space on the planet to support this type of urban scenario for the 7 billion and growing number of persons in the world without serious ecological disasters, right?

Regardless of that, as Linda and ColoGl pointed out in the other thread we have running over NU (and safety), traditional neighborhoods developed the way they did due to the technology available and economic conditions of the times. And it appears as though the neighborhoods you are referring to as "traditional" were mostly considered suburban at the time they were built. They were more or less on the periphery of cities in their respective times and mostly housed upper and middle class families. Poor people in 1920 didn't live in the same houses and neighborhoods you are romanticizing.

Like has been mentioned over and over again in this thread and others, NU design makes sense in context. It is not the answer to all of our urban and suburban woes. More importantly, you cannot force people to move, give up their lives, toss out their dreams, give up their homes because you have had a vision.

This conversation reminds me of a statement made by the former mayor of the city of Toledo, OH, "Let's just move all the deaf people by the airport".

[TradArch12]

You say you are against sprawl, yet your ideal urban area is only 150,000 people with buildings under 4 stories. You do realize that there isn't enough space on the planet to support this type of urban scenario for the 7 billion and growing number of persons in the world without serious ecological disasters, right?

Regardless of that, as Linda and ColoGl pointed out in the other thread we have running over NU (and safety), traditional neighborhoods developed the way they did due to the technology available and economic conditions of the times. And it appears as though the neighborhoods you are referring to as "traditional" were mostly considered suburban at the time they were built. They were more or less on the periphery of cities in their respective times and mostly housed upper and middle class families. Poor people in 1920 didn't live in the same houses and neighborhoods you are romanticizing.

Like has been mentioned over and over again in this thread and others, NU design makes sense in context. It is not the answer to all of our urban and suburban woes. More importantly, you cannot force people to move, give up their lives, toss out their dreams, give up their homes because you have had a vision.

This conversation reminds me of a statement made by the former mayor of the city of Toledo, OH, "Let's just move all the deaf people by the airport".

TS, you can maintain a density even greater than Manhattan, even with buildings only 4 stories tall.

In 500 BC, Athens had a population of about 600,000, and an area of only 1 square mile.
In 200 AD, Ostia had a population of about 75,000, and yet only occupied about .15 square miles.
In 150 AD, Paris had about 80,000 people, but occupied only about .18 square miles.
In about 10 AD, Rome had about 2,000,000 people, yet it occupied only 5 square miles. (keep in mind, this population was about 40% of the whole Roman Empire)
In 2000 BC, Ur had about 65,000 people. Yet it was only about .25 square miles.
In 70 AD, Jerusalem had about 200,000 people. But it occupied only .8 square miles.

If you want to go more "modern", Moscow, in 1638 AD had a population of 200,000; yet occupied an area of just 1.2 square miles.
In 1550 AD, Paris had about 275,000 people in an area of just 1.7 square miles.
In 1567 AD, Antwerp had about 105,000 people in an area of just 1 square mile.
In 1789 AD, Paris had about 630,000 people in an area of just 7 square miles.

All of these have densities greater than both modern Manhattan and the loop in Chicago. Yet their buildings weren't any greater than about 7 stories. (the more ancient ones would have been much shorter)

In the most extreme example of ancient Athens, the urban population of the world would only occupy 5,000 square miles. (though that definitely isn't realistic)
In the lowest example, it would only be 50,000 square miles. (which the top 20 urban areas in the world occupy greater than that currently)

Height of the buildings doesn't necessarily matter, we can see that our cities sprawl with 1-2 story buildings. Athens current sprawls out with buildings over 7 stories. Asian cities are capable of sprawling out with buildings over 20-30 stories. It's all sprawl regardless.

For at least 4,000 years, our urban populations have occupied densities far exceeding Manhattan. It's only in the last couple centuries that we have stopped.

[TerraSapient]

I would comment but I just cannot.


Proceed with your dictatorship.

[TradArch12]

I would comment but I just cannot.


Proceed with your dictatorship.

It isn't a dictatorship. And keep in mind, I do believe in democracy, but I also believe in constitutional monarchy (alongside a democracy), as well as a socialist form of economy.
There is a difference between individual rights and the community. We need to be doing what is best for the community and the environment.

If you want to think about it... If you take into consideration all of human history, "traditionalism" is in the vast majority. Who are we to say they are all wrong and that we should abandon them?

[Blide]

For at least 4,000 years, our urban populations have occupied densities far exceeding Manhattan. It's only in the last couple centuries that we have stopped.

The reasons we stopped were largely what established modern urban planning in the first places. The living conditions in those cities were just wretched for most people.

[TradArch12]

The reasons we stopped were largely what established modern urban planning in the first places. The living conditions in those cities were just wretched for most people.

do you have proof of this?

the ancient societies weren't full of disease and conditions weren't always like they were in Western Europe after the fall of Rome. nor were conditions always like they were at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.

We need to stop assuming that our ancestors were wrong and that we know better than them. I think we've actually been proving that they were right in (almost) everything.

[TerraSapient]

do you have proof of this?

the ancient societies weren't full of disease and conditions weren't always like they were in Western Europe after the fall of Rome.

Try a history book sometime TradArch12. There is a reason why our population boomed in the early 20th century and not before. In these ancient cities of which you speak, the average life span was about 35 years of age.

[TradArch12]

Try a history book sometime TradArch12. There is a reason why our population boomed in the early 20th century and not before. In these ancient cities of which you speak, the average life span was about 35 years of age.

Actually TS, while that may have been the "average" lifespan, it was still fairly common for people to live beyond that. We have many, many records of people living much longer than just 35 years old.

It also depended on where you were in the world. For example, in the so-called "Dark Ages", it would have been pretty bad conditions to live in Western Europe. Yet, if you crossed to Eastern Europe, to the Roman Empire, conditions would have been much better.,

Besides, life expectancy isn't entirely related to our modern urban design situation. Our medical technology has gotten better, and we've made industry healthier. But as the last century has proven, our urban/suburban situation has actually made us very unhealthy, and if it weren't for modern technology, we would be in bad shape.

[TerraSapient]

Actually, many diseases were spread throughout Europe and North America prior to the invention of plumbing, regulations that mandated windows and proper lighting and air flow, etc. Suburbia (modern day "traditional neighborhoods") are a direct result of people fleeing these conditions. Bubonic plague, small pox, typhoid, dysentery, major outbreaks of fleas and lice carrying other diseases.

These were frequently caused not only from lack of hygiene and substandard medical practices, but from urban form.

[Blide]

So you don't consider sewer and sanitation systems to be a part of modern urban design? Sewer is the only thing that allows for higher densities in modern development. You need at least a half acre lot if you're not on sewer in order to have a septic system. No sewer and high densities is just a recipe for disease.

[TradArch12]

Actually, many diseases were spread throughout Europe and North America prior to the invention of plumbing, regulations that mandated windows and proper lighting and air flow, etc. Suburbia (modern day "traditional neighborhoods") are a direct result of people fleeing these conditions. Bubonic plague, small pox, typhoid, dysentery, major outbreaks of fleas and lice carrying other diseases.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that the urban form wasn't to cause for that. Keep in mind, plumbing existed way before modern times. It was extremely common (and very sophisticated) in the Ancient Roman Empire.
Have you ever read Vitruvius? He goes into depth about the proper way to site cities and orient buildings to minimize health problems.

Yes, disease was much more common. I am not denying that. Look at modern-day slums, they have very high densities, but are horribly unhealthy and even deadly.

I'm not saying just because something is old makes it better. There are certainly ancient examples that aren't good examples.

Blide, I consider sewer and sanitary systems a part of ancient urban design that modern technology has improved.

As I mentioned before, we need to return to the traditional forms, but expand and mold them to modern technologies. It's time to start rejecting and throwing away some of the innovations of the last century. Technology is good as long as it supports traditional values. But we should never have abandoned those traditional forms and values.

[btrage]

This thread is THE example of why professional planners can't get anything accomplished in the "real world".

[Linda_D]

TS, you can maintain a density even greater than Manhattan, even with buildings only 4 stories tall.

In 500 BC, Athens had a population of about 600,000, and an area of only 1 square mile.
In 200 AD, Ostia had a population of about 75,000, and yet only occupied about .15 square miles.
In 150 AD, Paris had about 80,000 people, but occupied only about .18 square miles.
In about 10 AD, Rome had about 2,000,000 people, yet it occupied only 5 square miles. (keep in mind, this population was about 40% of the whole Roman Empire)
In 2000 BC, Ur had about 65,000 people. Yet it was only about .25 square miles.
In 70 AD, Jerusalem had about 200,000 people. But it occupied only .8 square miles.

If you want to go more "modern", Moscow, in 1638 AD had a population of 200,000; yet occupied an area of just 1.2 square miles.
In 1550 AD, Paris had about 275,000 people in an area of just 1.7 square miles.
In 1567 AD, Antwerp had about 105,000 people in an area of just 1 square mile.
In 1789 AD, Paris had about 630,000 people in an area of just 7 square miles.

All of these have densities greater than both modern Manhattan and the loop in Chicago. Yet their buildings weren't any greater than about 7 stories. (the more ancient ones would have been much shorter)

In the most extreme example of ancient Athens, the urban population of the world would only occupy 5,000 square miles. (though that definitely isn't realistic)
In the lowest example, it would only be 50,000 square miles. (which the top 20 urban areas in the world occupy greater than that currently)

Height of the buildings doesn't necessarily matter, we can see that our cities sprawl with 1-2 story buildings. Athens current sprawls out with buildings over 7 stories. Asian cities are capable of sprawling out with buildings over 20-30 stories. It's all sprawl regardless.

For at least 4,000 years, our urban populations have occupied densities far exceeding Manhattan. It's only in the last couple centuries that we have stopped.

Athens had a population of 600,000 in 500 BC? Really. Got a citation for that or any of the other figures you have in this post?

I looked up Ancient Athens: max population 120,000-180,000 around 430 BC. (Ancient Athens):

Towards the end of the Peloponnesian war, it contained more than 10,000 houses, which at a rate of 12 inhabitants to a house would give a population of 120,000, though some writers make the inhabitants as many as 180,000.

What happened to the other 420,000-480,000 people in the century between 500 BC and 400 BC (end of Peloponnesian War)?

[Blide]

Well Athens did lose a third of its population at that time to a plague...

[TradArch12]

Athens had a population of 600,000 in 500 BC? Really. Got a citation for that or any of the other figures you have in this post?

I looked up Ancient Athens: max population 120,000-180,000 around 430 BC. (Ancient Athens):



What happened to the other 420,000-480,000 people in the century between 500 BC and 400 BC (end of Peloponnesian War)?

http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/P...Population.htm

That shows it was at least 315,000 in 431 BC.

I do have dyscalculia so that may reflect the incorrect number.

It could be possible the 600,000 number was actually more than just the city, or it could be my mistake.