Michael Stumpf said:It isn't that hard to see its impact all around us. Consider even the amount of discussion and awareness of planning it has caused. Has planning ever been talked about so much by the general public as it has in recent years? New Urbanism has been a key generator of that debate.
I think Michael hit this one squarely on the head. More and more thinking people are looking at our entire living environment holistically. They are seeing the problems with the status quo. Everything from lack of physical exercise (fat kiddos), mammoth SUVs, crazed soccer moms forced to be chuffers for their kids, global warming, dependence on oil (funding al-Qaida), miserable long distance commutes, etc, etc, etc.
The current predominant CSD is not sustainable, and NU offers solutions to these problems. NU is not high-rise living, nor does it require one style of building. It is more about denser urban form that looks for alternatives to auto dependence while paying particular attention to livability for its occupants.
Those that pay homage to CSD need to shift to final respects (and respect is being generous).
I am not sure how this could be offensive or a bad thing. However, if a person finds fault w/ NU they might enjoy this little get together: http://www.ti.org/amdream.htmlRunner said:NU is not high-rise living, nor does it require one style of building. It is more about denser urban form that looks for alternatives to auto dependence while paying particular attention to livability for its occupants.
Runner said:As far as NU goes, a point made elsewhere:
"A wise man once said that great ideas follow three distinct phases:
2. Bitter opposition
3. Universal acceptance"
not new. not urban. discuss.