...has little to do with CNU or their philosophy, which we all know - at best - is a re-hashing of our fundamentalist understandings of what makes "good" urbanism. At worst, it's merely a marketing scheme for developers to sell units or charge higher rents (like the recent gimmick of golf course communities).
What I'm talking about, however, is the fact that what is "new" urban form is not our vaunted paradigm of human-scaled, pedestrian communities. What IS new, after all, is sprawling development. Los Angeles, not Greenwich Village.
I'm not sure what it is exactly, which is why I'm posting. I know sprawl (i grew up in it) and I know Greenwich Village (I live in it); I learned about all this in 6 yrs of planning education, and working in policy for a bit, and master planning new communities. And what I learned, and all I hear about here, is the party line that 1) sprawl is bad and 2) old urban forms are good.
But what I wonder is, is that true? Of course, in the past, that's been true. There are costs to sprawl, to be sure. I mean, everybody knows them, to the extent that politicians RUN on anti-sprawl and "smart" growth (never thought I'd see the day).
Why can't LA and Vegas, and so many HUGE cities in developing countries, why can't these places be studied objectively and why don't we really ask "why do millions of people PREFER this," what is it that drives (no pun intended) this development to be THE choice for people? Are we planners arrogant enough to think that millions of happy people are just dumb, and that we know what's best for them?
Why are we always talking about the "New Urbanism" here? We all know what it really is, I think. Let's talk about what is really happening, what really ARE new urban forms out there, that may be counter to what we feel is intuitively right, but I think it's about time we accepted that this is what's happening, this is what people like, and how do we make it work instead of just not thinking about it...
I mean, I used to hate LA because it was counter to a lot of what I learned was good urban form, good regional governance, etc. We made fun of LA in planning school. We joked about it at APA. Now that I've been there a few times, I do like it, for what it is. In fact, tens of millions of people love LA, besides Randy Newman. So what I'm saying is, we should study LA, not vilify it.
Thanks for listening. It's 4:20 in the morning and I tend to ramble.
-steve
What I'm talking about, however, is the fact that what is "new" urban form is not our vaunted paradigm of human-scaled, pedestrian communities. What IS new, after all, is sprawling development. Los Angeles, not Greenwich Village.
I'm not sure what it is exactly, which is why I'm posting. I know sprawl (i grew up in it) and I know Greenwich Village (I live in it); I learned about all this in 6 yrs of planning education, and working in policy for a bit, and master planning new communities. And what I learned, and all I hear about here, is the party line that 1) sprawl is bad and 2) old urban forms are good.
But what I wonder is, is that true? Of course, in the past, that's been true. There are costs to sprawl, to be sure. I mean, everybody knows them, to the extent that politicians RUN on anti-sprawl and "smart" growth (never thought I'd see the day).
Why can't LA and Vegas, and so many HUGE cities in developing countries, why can't these places be studied objectively and why don't we really ask "why do millions of people PREFER this," what is it that drives (no pun intended) this development to be THE choice for people? Are we planners arrogant enough to think that millions of happy people are just dumb, and that we know what's best for them?
Why are we always talking about the "New Urbanism" here? We all know what it really is, I think. Let's talk about what is really happening, what really ARE new urban forms out there, that may be counter to what we feel is intuitively right, but I think it's about time we accepted that this is what's happening, this is what people like, and how do we make it work instead of just not thinking about it...
I mean, I used to hate LA because it was counter to a lot of what I learned was good urban form, good regional governance, etc. We made fun of LA in planning school. We joked about it at APA. Now that I've been there a few times, I do like it, for what it is. In fact, tens of millions of people love LA, besides Randy Newman. So what I'm saying is, we should study LA, not vilify it.
Thanks for listening. It's 4:20 in the morning and I tend to ramble.
-steve