New Urbanism: A Salve or Bane to Urban Wounds?
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
Loading ...New Urbanism, an urban design concept that began in the United States over 20 years ago, has created ripples and division of opinions there and in many developed worlds over the years, including Australia. It has also found favour in certain parts of UK, Australia and United States, with New Urbanism principles found in urban areas such as Park DuValle in Louisville, Summerset in Pittsburgh, Sherford in South Devon, Upton in Northampton, Claisebrook Village in East Perth, and Beacon Cove in Port Melbourne (Victoria).
New Urbanism has been defined as “a movement that promotes neo-traditional neighbourhood-based urban design” (Kelbaugh, D, p.1), with an emphasis on a pedestrian based town centre and on sustainability. It was initially a reaction to sprawl and is now a basis for addressing physical health and social well-being and for sustainable urban growth and smart growth (Morris, 2006).
The basic element is of a walkable neighbourhood which, besides a variety of housing choices, can consist of a corner store, child care centre, post box, bus stop and several small businesses which provide a walkable focus for the local community (Morris, 2006). Generally, the neighbourhood has a 400 metres walkable radius (Morris, 2006) and its design provides for chance meetings and privacy (Carter, 2004).
Supporters of New Urbanism have found many merits in the concept, namely:
- Its ability to accommodate people in life-cycle housing, allowing them to go from raising children to retirement years without having to move from the community in which they have established roots and friends (Carter, 2004);
- A concern for the environment is integrated into community design in various ways such as through regional and local connections to transit (Carter, 2004);
- An emphasis on public space, which results in an ease of pedestrian access and the provision of a well-defined and high quality public realm (Hulme, 2005);
- A variety of housing designs as exemplified in the city of Bahcesehir in Turkey where there were a variety of houses, small mid-rise flats, and villas, with a nod to its history through the employment of traditional Turkish and Ottoman styles (Miller, 2000);
- New Urbanist developments often can overcome opposition (such as Not In My Backyard [NIMBYism], environmental restrictions, and attitudes and laws opposing growth) through strong master plans and design codes exhibiting sensitivity to the community, the environment, and the historic context (Carter, 2004); and
- Compact and dense development also can preserve land, and buildings, parks, trails, and conservation areas can be sited to preserve prime environmental assets such as wetlands, woodlands, and animal habitats (Carter, 2004).
However, there are detractors of the concept who question the fervour with which it has been embraced. Some of the criticisms levelled against the concept include:
- Its solutions are sometimes considered too formulaic and physically deterministic, relying too much on design to generate desired forms of community and patterns of behaviour (Marshall, 2003);
- An ongoing challenge is the viability of vertical mixed use, with apartments or officers ground-floor retail (Carter, 2004);
- It is not clear that a preference for neighbourhood and community will easily displace America’s (and Australia’s) love affair with the car even if such a displacement is economically feasible (Harvey, 1997);
- In the absence of employment and government largesse, the ‘civic’ claims of the new urbanism come across as weak (Harvey, 1997);
- New Urbanism and Smart Growth opposes ‘sprawl’ which is a North American term and misused in Australia, which has development control systems, regional and local infrastructure planning mechanisms and public transport networks that American New Urbanism would dream of (Gleeson, B, 2006); and
- Community has always meant different things to different people, and doubts are raised over a uniform definition of community defined by New Urbanism (Harvey, 1997).
Having personally visited Claisebrook Village in East Perth as part of the Young Planners Conference in April this year, I was impressed by its close (walkable) proximity to shops, beautifully designed apartments and units, open green spaces and a lake, which made it a scenic neighbourhood. However, its compact housing design and the high cost of each unit (which I was told was at least $1 million each), putting the choice of such an ideal neighbourhood out of the reach of the average family, made me baulk at the idea of being a part of it . The design of each dwelling looked very much like each other with very limited ability of each home owner to put his own design stamp on his house.
Some pics of Claisebrook Village taken when I was at the conference:
Therefore, do you think New Urbanism currently has a place in urban design and is it the way you would plan your urban areas?
Does it adequately address urban problems such as traffic congestion, lack of a backyard or open spaces, and high density urban areas?
If not, what aspects of New Urbanism would you ditch and what aspects will you incorporate, as a planner?
Do you agree with the merits and flaws cited above? What other weaknesses or merits do you find in New Urbanism?
Are there other planning and design concepts, besides New Urbanism, that adequately address the increasing urban density of our towns and cities?
References
1) Carter, D., “New Urbanist Tenets” in Urban Land, Vol. 63, no. 5, May 2004, p. 62-64.2) Gleeson, B., “Towards a new Australian suburbanism” in Australian planner, Vol. 43, no. 1, 2006, p. 8-16.
3) Harvey, D., “The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap” in Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 1997, No. 1, p. 1-3.
4) Hulme, J., “New Urbanist Spaces” in Green places, no. 17, Summer, 2005, p. 18-20.
5) Miller, R., “Suburbia Mixed” in Urban Land, Vol. 59, no. 11/12, November/ December 2000, p. 48-51, 128-129.
6) Morris, W, “Sustainable Development and Urban Planning – Sharing the Agenda towards more Active and Healthy Communities”, presented in the Urbanism, Environment and Health Conference held in Melbourne on 25 May 2006 [Link]
Posted in Housing |
The way to evaluate whether or not the new urbanism benefits or damages the urban communities is to evaluate the relationship between its theory and practice. Continual evolution of planning theory to satisfy the contexts is necessary. Planning theories need to be placed in the material and cultural contexts (Sandercock 1998, p.103-104). Nonetheless, social concerns seem to be central to planning theories. Davidoff (1965, p.331) has identified the demand for social equality central to the need for pluralistic planning. Arnstein (1969) has also emphasised the importance of redistributing the power to planning through the ladder of citizen participation and the indicated benefits of achieving the highest form of citizen participation – citizen control. Planning of high cost housing unit of $1 million are certainly unlikely to serve the needs in the majority of the global population. But certainly no planning is going to fit all contexts. The merits of new urbanism deserve further exploration to find ways of serving a much larger population. Compact housing is not a new idea. It has to be compact if it is designed to be walkable. But at the same time there are certainly some constraints on individualised design because of its the compact nature. The new urbanism has the answer to its own problems. If there is flexibility to reduce its cost and increase its adaptability to local contexts in terms of environmental, social and economic factors the real value of new urbanism to the society may be increased. Therefore, it is new urbanism rather than the society need to adapt itself to the environment and contexts. If new urbanism is ready and flexible enough to serve the social needs, its solutions would not be considered formulaic.
References
Arnstein, Sherry (1969) “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” AIP Journal , vol. 35, July, pp. 216-224.
Davidoff, Paul (1965) “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning” AIP Journal, vol. 31, November, pp. 331-38.
Sandercock, Leonie (1998) “The Difference That Theory Makes”, ch. 4 in Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities, John Wiley, Chichester & New York, pp. 85-104.
It seems that many of the developments inspired by New Urbanism principles are in the upper price bracket. I wonder why that is?
It’s also hard to tell whether this fact is a negative or a positive. One side says, once you start regulating everything you reduce supply and squeeze out affordable housing. While the other side says, the demand is there for this type of development. There aren’t enough New Urbanist neighborhoods to meet demand. That is why they are so expensive.
The latter answer seems correct to me. There is nothing intrinsic to New Urbanist theory that requires high value real estate.
Thank you Yang Yu and Daniel for your comments.
As you both rightly said, the high cost of New Urbanist developments has more to do with its supply not meeting the demand, especially in a current climate of wanting to be sustainable when everyone is striving to reduce their carbon footprint. The market demand due to the attractiveness of New Urbanist development against limited supply is one of the reasons for the high prices.
Generally, most of the New Urbanist developments I’ve read about are led by private developers who rightly sees the potential for a higher than average priced New Urbanist house due to the demand for them. Therefore, they would price their New Urbanist development at a higher price because they know they can get it.
However, one of the design aspects of New Urbanism is its variety of housing choices, whether it is apartment style, a smaller sized dwelling, or a mix of retail and housing with the dwelling located above a shop. I did not see that variety in East Perth (Claisebrook Village) but in one of my readings by Miller, R., on “Suburbia Mixed”, that variety was indeed achieved in the city of Bahcesehir in Turkey, with different classes of people living in the same neighbourhood). But one reason some developers may not choose to offer that variety is perhaps the high price per square metre that they can’t get if they were to offer that variety.
Would you live in a New Urbanist neighbourhood? Why or why not?
New Urbanism is based on a number of concepts to try and address multiple problems. The idea behind the principle is to help provide solutions to global warming, climate change and peak oil while also provided more choices for how and where people want to live (New Urbanism).
The main principles of New Urbanism address walkability, connectivity, mixed use and diversity, mixed housing, quality architecture and urban design, traditional neighbourhood structure, increased density smart transportation, sustainability and quality of life.
One principle of New Urbanism that doesn’t seem to be addressed as well is mixed housing which is supposed to provide a range of types, sizes and prices of houses in closed proximity to activity centres. It has been shown though that the housing prices for places in these areas are not affordable to the average income earner especially for families. Typically places closer to activity centres are relatively expensive especially if more than two bedrooms is required.
The principles also don’t provide for safety of residents. For those people with families looking to relocate to a more central area there isn’t the space for children or places where they can play safely. Where the norm used to be to let children into the back yard for play, this is now not an option. For children to be outside they need to walk to the nearest open space, which in an activity centre area and in the world today isn’t safe for them to do on their own and needs supervision.
While quality of life may be improved for singles or elderly due to the close location of services, for families the quality of life is reduced due to safety and space issues.
References
Morris, W, “Sustainable Development and Urban Planning – Sharing the Agenda towards more Active and Healthy Communities”, presented in the Urbanism, Environment and Health Conference held in Melbourne on 25 May 2006 [Link]
New urbanism. Creating Livable Sustainable Communities.
http://www.newurbanism.org/
Hi JMB
Thanks for your comments and valid ones too.
In your note of the mixed housing principle offered by New Urbanism which results in higher priced housing, would you say that this trend (of expensive houses) is particular to New Urbanism or is it the general trend in most urban housing in developed nations?
With regards to your note on New Urbanism not being conducive to families, would that be a social phenomenon about having to watch over your kids (in any urban neighbourhood) and the lack of a backyard due to general rising urban housing costs?
Although Jane Jacobs wasn’t inclined towards New Urbanism, in her introduction to her book, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, she mentioned that the interaction between residences and commercial uses allowed one to look out for each other, with nothing going unnoticed. With New Urbanist developments being built close to each other, do you think that improves the perceived level of safety and therefore decreases the temptation for criminals to act on their intentions with residents looking out for each other in a convivial neighbourhood like a New Urbanist neighbourhood?
References
Jacobs, Jane (1961) “Introduction” The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, New York, pp. 5-34.
Hi there,
New urbanism, a Melbourne perspective:
In metropolitan Melbourne the ideas of ‘New Urbanism’ were seen as another way to approach urban consolidation. Traditionally, urban consolidation has meant single use medium density development dispersed anywhere across the metropolitan area (proving itself to be a highly controversial practice) (RMIT, 2006).
However, New Urbanism offered a new way to achieve urban consolidation which is planned, contained and aimed at designing sustainable cities. M2030 adopted its ideas and came up with the ‘urban villages’ initiative which involves building up around activity centres in the existing metropolitan area and new development areas (RMIT, 2006). Urban villages would consist of the following:
• mixed use areas
• a density of 25-40 dwellings per hectare
• high local employment
• retail and service functions
• close to public transport
• High degree of street connectivity and “walkability”.
Personally, I believe planners on Melbourne’s metropolitan fringe will be able to benefit most, and be the most creative with new urbanism. It gives them an opportunity to take the message of sustainable development that is conveyed by new urbanism and translate it into policy that can guide Greenfield developments (Gleeson, 2005).
It will mean that instead of the ad-hoc low density developments, planners can take larger areas of land and plan whole new suburbs/towns. This would ensure the provision of services, that way over coming the lag that usually follows development on the fringe; provide a variety of housing types (with allocated areas of affordable housing); and variety of housing densities (aimed at reduce housing energy use, transport energy use, and infrastructure costs and energy use, water use etc) (RMIT, 2006).
Overall, I think planners should be focusing on the sustainable development message of new urbanism and using this to develop policy for their specific context.
Reference:
RMIT Univeristy (2006). Week 7 The self contained city. New urbanism, urban villages and integrated land use planning. Course notes from Managing Contemporary Planning Issues. RMIT University: Melbourne
Gleeson, B. (2005). Towards a New Australian Suburbanism. Griffith University.
The planning objective of higher densities
The American concept of ‘New Urbanism’ has seemingly been incorporated in many ways into Melbourne 2030. Medium density around activity centres, walkable catchments, increased public transport usage, housing choice etc are all directed toward the ultimate objective of creating self-contained cities. A move away from the urban sprawl of the past. However, in practice, similar to Perth attempts at urban consolidation, this in Melbourne has not necessarily been a success (see the article in The Age below).
Perhaps though expectations are too high in the timeline in which Australian’s, who have over a number of generations considered the ¼ acre block to be the Great Australian Dream, are to get used to living in higher densities. Developers complain that higher densities are too expensive to build this statement needs to be questioned: Is the quality of our detached housing too low? Are our inner city land prices too high? New Urbanism by its nature means that the housing is to be expensive as it is built on land near activity centres and train stations. (There is a reason why no Westfield’s are built near train stations – the land was too expensive).
There are many seemingly successful examples locally and internationally of New Urbanism development, incorporating TOD’s. Vancouver, Canada is considered a world class example of TOD. More locally Kensington Banks in Melbourne seems to work. Do we need to simply wait for generational change?
Millar, R and Schneiders, B. ‘2030 becomes an out-of-space odyssey’, The Age, 6 October 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/2030-becomes-an-outofspace-odyssey/2007/10/05/1191091367540.html
The words ‘Truman Show’ seemed to appear frequently in my Google search of ‘New Urbanism Critique’, and indeed from Vic’s photos of Claisebrook Village, and my recent drive through of Beacon Cove, the perfectly manicured lawns (despite the drought?) and giant Starbucks dollhouses made me cringe.
New Urbanism preaches to strive for environmental balance, social integration and a true sense of community, or as described by one of the early proponents of the theory, it is ‘Planning the American Dream’ (Katz, 1994). The rigidly formulated design of such developments seem to attempt to squash or ignore cultural diversity, therefore how do planners ensure that ‘social integration’ doesn’t become a formulae for ‘uniformity’. And can such developments cater for societies where not all their citizens have the same cultural expectations? The current Australian and American examples seem to attract a particular demography, and while people from minority groups may be welcome, it would appear that they would be expected to conform to this uniformity. So is there a place for areas such as Victoria Street Richmond and Lygon Street Carlton in such communities? Could New Urban areas develop around such culturally intense activity hubs?
Katz also talks about how such developments can foster an ‘Intelligent Community’ who are ‘born in consensus and with citizens playing a key role in the ongoing shaping of physical forms and laws, self perpetuating’ (2001). Therefore while there may be community building and an interconnection between inhabitants, they too seem to be expected to conform to the one ideal.
Katz, Peter (1994), The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, McGraw-Hill Inc, USA
Katz, Peter (2001) - speech given to the Cities For The New Economy Leadership Summit at the Marriott Hotel, Surfers Paradise, 23-24 April 2001 - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1964
Victoria - great issue for discussion.
An aspect of New Urbanism that does not seem to have been mentioned thus far is the substantial reinvigoration of traditional inner suburban neighbourhoods seen in Australia, over the past 25 years (Scheurer, 2005).
Scheurer describes these areas as being
…characterised by medium to high urban densities and a fine-grained diversity of residential and non-residential land uses…their walkable layout and the presence of reasonable public transport services produce patterns of movement that are similar to those found in many European cities (Scheurer, 2005).
Sydney based examples of these inner suburban neighbourhoods include Surry Hills, Darlinghurst and Pyrmont; however this is not to say that these are ‘perfect’ communities. A reality of this reinvigoration is in fact gentrification, which eventually pushes low income households out of area as the typically young and well-paid professionals move into their ‘renovation waiting-to-happen’.
From my own experience, the diversity that often remains in these communities ends up being the affluent professionals and residents of local public housing. To be honest, I’m sure whether this is really the social diversity New Urbanism intends.
References
Scheurer, Jan (2005), “New Urbanism in Australian Suburbs - a critical appraisal - Abstract”, from papers presented at the ECOMM Conference in Lyon and the AESOP 2004 Congress in Grenoble, March 2005, Urban Design Forum, Australia (online)
Available:
http://www.udf.org.au/archives/2005/03/new_urbanism_in.php
[Accessed: 16/10/2007]
Thank you rewa, TMB, Kchau and Emmajane for your very useful comments and perspectives on New Urbanism! It really helped broaden my understanding and view on New Urbanism. I appreciate them!
One of the issues raised was the lack of diversity in the neighbourhoods of New Urbanism. I’m not sure it was the intent of the New Urbanism to exclude certain groups of residents over others. Its aim was to be inclusive and encouraging diversity by seeking to provide a variety of housing. But from theory to practice, some neighbourhoods in America and the ones I saw in Perth at Claisebrook Village at least seemed to cater to the middle to upper class white households.
An interesting and funny article I came across was written by Harmon Leon who took on a social experiment by acting as what we will term a “bogan” and attempted to buy a property in a New Urbanist neighbourhood Evergreen Village in San Jose and also speak to his potential neighbours. The responses he received was as expected - stony, cold glares and disdainful looks.
However, is this the flaw of New Urbanism or do most desirable neighbourhoods (New Urbanist or not) generally occupied by residents who can afford them, namely middle-class to upper class workers, some of whom have a certain class consciousness about them and who tend to exclude what they call “bad elements”?
As shown in Harmon’s article, like-minded people generally attract each other as manifested in the San Jose neighbourhood he visited.
Reference:
Leon, H., “New Urbanism, Mon Amour!” in Metroactive, 6-12 November, 2003, accessed on 15 October 2007 (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.06.03/evergreen-0345.html)
A very interesting discussion all round guys…
It would appear to me from reading the above comments that it is more-or-less agreed that the New Urbanist principles of walkable neighbourhoods, high-quality architecture and public realm, and a variety of housing types are all worthy design concepts. However the question remains about New Urbanism’s ability to support real social diversity within it’s planned neighbourhoods. Is the observed social uniformity commented on above the result of the design of the projects themselves or is it due to other social factors such as the desirability of the neighbourhoods created and their resulting high price?
As a related side note I would like to point to another ‘criticism’ I have heard of New Urbanism that is it is not actually anything new. Mixed-use, walkable, compact neighbourhoods certainly predate sprawl suburbia, as evidenced by many old European cities and older neighbourhoods such as Carlton and Fitzroy in Melbourne. I place criticism in inverted commas above because I do not see this as a problem. Basing new designs on obviously successful precedents that have stood the test of time would appear to me to be a sensible strategy. I would also submit that the rapidly proceeding gentrification of the inner suburbs of Melbourne is to the detriment of social life in those suburbs and is caused by the success of their design and its resulting desirability rather than being inherent in the architecture.
Finally, you might be interested in this book:
The Australian Council for New Urbanism has now released the 2006 edition of the guide to projects across Australia regarded as demonstrating the principles and practice of New Urbanism. There are 87 projects featured in this edition. Each project is summarised on one page, with a brief description, plans or photos, and key project details, including location. A key purpose of the Guide is to enable people to visit these projects and study the built outcomes. For copies, request an order form from esdesign@netspace.net.au or acnu@netspace.net.au. Cost is AUD$35. International orders will be charged additional postage costs.
Also, the Australian Council for New Urbanism Annual Congress will be held in Bribane in Febuary. For details see http://www.acnu.org