• It's easy to sign up and post! Register with a working email address (we won't give it to others, or spam you), or through Facebook, Twitter, or a Microsoft ID. Google and LinkedIn coming soon. 🙂

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

What is your position on traditional style planning/development?

  • Supportive

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • Opposed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Indifferent

    Votes: 9 39.1%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
2,610
Likes
0
Points
0
#41
So we should just adopt a free for all, live and let live attitude that says there is no such thing as objective truth or there is no right and wrong?
Man, we are in trouble if everyone in the world adopts such an attitude...
Actually, when you lay it out like that it sounds like Utopia to me; however, that is not what I am advocating at all. I'm not trying to promote anarchy. I'm just saying that if you want to make any progress - any progress at all - you need to form your arguments so that they are rational, logical, and can be backed up with facts. Telling people that living in suburbia is equal to shooting heroine and engaging/enabling other dangerous activities is an argumentum ad hominem at best. Saying "your choice to live in suburbia is killing our society and our environment" is not only irrational, it is unsupportable by any stretch of the truth, and it certainly will not win you any supporters- except maybe crazy wingnuts that no one takes seriously.

I'm a supporter of TND, TOD, NU, blahblahblahblah, when it makes sense, when it represents what people want, when it promotes environmental and fiscal responsibility. I am not a supporter of people trying to force their beliefs on other people, particularly when it is done using irrationality, fear, ad hominem attacks.
 
Messages
55
Likes
0
Points
0
#42
Ewwps! Strawman. No need to resort to logical fallacies or mischaracterization if the assertion isn't withstanding scrutiny. Frreals. No need. None.



Of course not. No community of any size is this way. Welcome to the human condition, to reality on the ground.
It ain't a straw man, TSs statement in the post before that is saying exactly that. The planning schools should leave people alone and not push any one idea on them, to teach them all ideas are potentially right and not to seek one right answer.
 

Blide

Cyburbian
Messages
1,186
Likes
0
Points
0
#43
Sure it's a strawman. No one here is advocating no regulations or anything of the sort. They're just saying different planning techniques should be used based on the appropriate context.

New Urbanism is just a tool in a planner's toolbox, not the whole toolbox.
 
Messages
55
Likes
0
Points
0
#44
Sure it's a strawman. No one here is advocating no regulations or anything of the sort. They're just saying different planning techniques should be used based on the appropriate context.

New Urbanism is just a tool in a planner's toolbox, not the whole toolbox.
That wasn't what I was suggesting, I was talking about in ideas, opinions, education etc... I wasn't referring to a free for all in regulations.

In my opinions, you shouldnt have sprawl Or suburbia anytime or anywhere, no matter the context or circumstances.
 

Blide

Cyburbian
Messages
1,186
Likes
0
Points
0
#45
I don't disagree with that opinion personally but many people obviously have different preferences. As a planner, you should respect those preferences even if you happen to disagree with them. You can try suggesting other things but it's ultimately not your call how things will develop in your jurisdiction.
 

ColoGI

Cyburbian
Messages
2,576
Likes
0
Points
0
#46
That wasn't what I was suggesting, I was talking about in ideas, opinions, education etc... I wasn't referring to a free for all in regulations.

In my opinions, you shouldnt have sprawl Or suburbia anytime or anywhere, no matter the context or circumstances.
You're all over the place. Either your strawman was as plain as the nose on your face, or you'll want a rhetoric class before you graduate to be able to frame a cogent argument.

Nonetheless, its, like, great that you think there shouldn't be sprawl. Good for you. Welcome to the human condition: resistant to our wishes. As TO said, just because you think its a good idea doesn't mean you can force it on people who don't care about your ideas.

Your job is to show them, not cram it down their throats. Which, frreals, is how you're coming off to thick-skinned planners. Maybe there's a kernel of something in there if you want to receive it...

[killfile]
 
Messages
55
Likes
0
Points
0
#47
You're all over the place. Either your strawman was as plain as the nose on your face, or you'll want a rhetoric class before you graduate to be able to frame a cogent argument.

Nonetheless, its, like, great that you think there shouldn't be sprawl. Good for you. Welcome to the human condition: resistant to our wishes. As TO said, just because you think its a good idea doesn't mean you can force it on people who don't care about your ideas.

Your job is to show them, not cram it down their throats. Which, frreals, is how you're coming off to thick-skinned planners. Maybe there's a kernel of something in there if you want to receive it...

[killfile]
I don't speak to non-architects and non-planners the same way I do to those within the profession. I realize that I shouldn't cram it down people's throats, but I feel that we have a need to really emphasize these values to those within our own professions so they can better educate others. It isn't going to do anything if only a handful of architects/planners educate their clients, it's going to take a much larger number.
If the relatively low number of "New Urbanists" have caused this many ripples in the national spectrum, imagine what could be done when we get all the schools and firms to change and teach this as well.
 
Messages
6,247
Likes
0
Points
0
#48
That wasn't what I was suggesting, I was talking about in ideas, opinions, education etc... I wasn't referring to a free for all in regulations.

In my opinions, you shouldnt have sprawl Or suburbia anytime or anywhere, no matter the context or circumstances.
New Urbanism does not exist without sprawl. In established neighborhoods its called infill.
 

prana

Cyburbian
Messages
565
Likes
0
Points
0
#49
New Urbanism does not exist without sprawl. In established neighborhoods its called infill.
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.
 
Messages
433
Likes
0
Points
0
#50
So....how should people live?

You are from Kansas City so I presume you're familiar with the Southside neighborhoods such as Brookside and along Ward Parkway? Lovely area, isn't it? When they were built they were very much considered "suburban."

There's much about modern suburban that is indeed ugly, but there's also much about urban areas that are ugly as well. Highrise towers aren't always pretty. Many cities are filled with urban neighborhoods of tiny, cramped, cheaply built houses. Sure, they may be "old" and in a "historic and walkable" area, but they're hardly attractive.

As for New Urbanism, I'm not opposed or even indifferent to its principles, but I find it strangely flawed in many ways. It's based on an urban development model that rarely, if ever, existed and more or less ignored the economic fundamentals that underpins any land development. 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? All the NU developments are just as isolated from the surrounding context as a typical suburban development. But they are admittedly prettier.


In my opinions, you shouldnt have sprawl Or suburbia anytime or anywhere, no matter the context or circumstances.
 
Messages
6,247
Likes
0
Points
0
#51
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

Cyburbian
Messages
565
Likes
0
Points
0
#52
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! :D

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.
 
Messages
219
Likes
0
Points
0
#53
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

Cyburbian
Messages
565
Likes
0
Points
0
#54
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

Cyburbian
Messages
2,576
Likes
0
Points
0
#55
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.
 
Messages
55
Likes
0
Points
0
#56
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/p49276-Luxembourg_City_Luxembourg-A_View_Into_Town.jpg

Antwerp:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WAeDG-WHta8/SwWbiPS3LzI/AAAAAAAAAV4/XtGiUcRYtSk/s1600/antwerp_1.jpg

Rome:
http://carrentalsofiaairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/061215_romeStreets_hmed_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

Cyburbian
Messages
565
Likes
0
Points
0
#57
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. ^o)
 
Messages
55
Likes
0
Points
0
#58
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. ^o)
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.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,247
Likes
0
Points
0
#59
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.
 
Messages
55
Likes
0
Points
0
#60
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top