The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The New Urbanism
saggio
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The New Urbanism
Now that the 41st General Election has concluded, I've had some time on my hands to contemplate other, more important things. For some time, I've considered myself to be a New Urbanist. I've read many of the important and seminal texts in the history of urban planning and architecture, and even had the opportunity to do some activism in my local community to improve transit. But with the 19th meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism fast approaching, I've begun to reflect on what urbanism has come to be in the previous century and where it will be going in the second decade of this new century.
Let's talk urbanism.
What is the New Urbanism?
New Urbanism is what Wiki calls an 'urban design movement,' one that is dedicated to creating walkable, mixed-use spaces in our towns and cities that are beautiful, diverse, and worth caring about. It stands in contrast to the architectural and design movements of the 20th century which, especially after the Second World War, emphasized the motor car and/or suburbia as the preferred mode of building and living. Many of these movements, such as the Garden City or the Radiant City (advanced by Le Corbusier, the most overrated and dangerous architect of the 20th century) are still very influential in the minds of planners and developers. Most of our major urban environments in North America reflect these trends to a greater or lesser extent, and are often reinforced by the disaster that is Modernist architecture.
The principles of the New Urbanism are contained in the Charter of the New Urbanism which was adopted by the Congress for the New Urbanism at its creation in 1993.
Influential Works in Urbanism and Design
Although the New Urbanism was a product of the late 20th century, the single most influential thinker about urbanism and the one that continues to inspire many (including myself) is Jane Jacobs. Originally from the United States, she lived in New York until she decamped to Toronto, Ontario in the mid-1960s. The last book she published before she died five years ago, Dark Age Ahead contemplates the decay of North American society in five very specific ways. It's well written, but certainly not her most influential work. That title belongs to The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Another writer who has written extensively on urbanism is the somewhat vitriolic James Howard Kunstler. Originally a fiction writer, his most recent work of non-fiction is the thoroughly depressing The Long Emergency. But it is his trio of books written in the 1990s that has made him a notable figure within the Congress for the New Urbanism. The first, and most influential, is the Geography of Nowhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
For some reason, A Pattern Language is really popular amongst computer programmers. Christopher Alexander, a rather obscure architect from California, wrote this work in the 1970s as part of a series which includes The Oregon Experiment and The Production of Houses. In A Pattern Language,he sets out a formal system that allows all people, not just architectures and developers, to design buildings and spaces which are beautiful and harmonious. The two other works (The Oregon Experiment and The Production of Houses) are different accounts of putting his system to use, and illustrate how utterly subversive architecture and design can be. Especially so when it is ordinary people designing sensible things for themselves and their communities, rather than planners and developers doing so.
Towards a New Urbanism?
I've drunken the kool-aid some time ago, so I'm completely convinced that New Urbanism has the power to change significantly our built environments for the better. And I'm also convinced that architecture and design and the resulting environment around us has profound aesthetic and moral implications for everyone involved, but especially those who must use the spaces every day. And if that is the case, then obscure and mundane things like planning bylaws and development meetings are suddenly as important as debates about abortion or capital punishment or foreign policy.
But what do you think? Does our environment have a moral dimension? Even if it doesn't, what do you all think of the urbanism that you live in? Are you satisfied with it? Do you want to change it? If you do, how would you change it?
Although I'm not living there right now, the city where I spend most of my time is Abbotsford, British Columbia. As far as urbanism goes, it's completely fucked. Sprawling suburban style tract-homes, with ugly single storey malls and strip malls characterize most of the city. But there are a few glimmers of good design. There's at least one neighbourhood with mixed use buildings of varying ages, good shopping on the ground level with housing above it. There's been an increase in transit service, and the municipal government is contemplating doing radical things like building new libraries. I'm hopeful that in the next 10 years, there will be a New Urbanist revival. At least, that's what I'm going to be working for.
What's happening in your city?
Now that the 41st General Election has concluded, I've had some time on my hands to contemplate other, more important things. For some time, I've considered myself to be a New Urbanist. I've read many of the important and seminal texts in the history of urban planning and architecture, and even had the opportunity to do some activism in my local community to improve transit. But with the 19th meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism fast approaching, I've begun to reflect on what urbanism has come to be in the previous century and where it will be going in the second decade of this new century.
Let's talk urbanism.
What is the New Urbanism?
New Urbanism is what Wiki calls an 'urban design movement,' one that is dedicated to creating walkable, mixed-use spaces in our towns and cities that are beautiful, diverse, and worth caring about. It stands in contrast to the architectural and design movements of the 20th century which, especially after the Second World War, emphasized the motor car and/or suburbia as the preferred mode of building and living. Many of these movements, such as the Garden City or the Radiant City (advanced by Le Corbusier, the most overrated and dangerous architect of the 20th century) are still very influential in the minds of planners and developers. Most of our major urban environments in North America reflect these trends to a greater or lesser extent, and are often reinforced by the disaster that is Modernist architecture.
The principles of the New Urbanism are contained in the Charter of the New Urbanism which was adopted by the Congress for the New Urbanism at its creation in 1993.
Charter of the New Urbanism wrote:The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society’s built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.
We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.
We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector leaders, community activists, and multidisciplinary professionals. We are committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the making of community, through citizen-based participatory planning and design.
We dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our homes, blocks, streets, parks, neighborhoods, districts, towns, cities, regions, and environment.
Influential Works in Urbanism and Design
Although the New Urbanism was a product of the late 20th century, the single most influential thinker about urbanism and the one that continues to inspire many (including myself) is Jane Jacobs. Originally from the United States, she lived in New York until she decamped to Toronto, Ontario in the mid-1960s. The last book she published before she died five years ago, Dark Age Ahead contemplates the decay of North American society in five very specific ways. It's well written, but certainly not her most influential work. That title belongs to The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Another writer who has written extensively on urbanism is the somewhat vitriolic James Howard Kunstler. Originally a fiction writer, his most recent work of non-fiction is the thoroughly depressing The Long Emergency. But it is his trio of books written in the 1990s that has made him a notable figure within the Congress for the New Urbanism. The first, and most influential, is the Geography of Nowhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
For some reason, A Pattern Language is really popular amongst computer programmers. Christopher Alexander, a rather obscure architect from California, wrote this work in the 1970s as part of a series which includes The Oregon Experiment and The Production of Houses. In A Pattern Language,he sets out a formal system that allows all people, not just architectures and developers, to design buildings and spaces which are beautiful and harmonious. The two other works (The Oregon Experiment and The Production of Houses) are different accounts of putting his system to use, and illustrate how utterly subversive architecture and design can be. Especially so when it is ordinary people designing sensible things for themselves and their communities, rather than planners and developers doing so.
Towards a New Urbanism?
I've drunken the kool-aid some time ago, so I'm completely convinced that New Urbanism has the power to change significantly our built environments for the better. And I'm also convinced that architecture and design and the resulting environment around us has profound aesthetic and moral implications for everyone involved, but especially those who must use the spaces every day. And if that is the case, then obscure and mundane things like planning bylaws and development meetings are suddenly as important as debates about abortion or capital punishment or foreign policy.
But what do you think? Does our environment have a moral dimension? Even if it doesn't, what do you all think of the urbanism that you live in? Are you satisfied with it? Do you want to change it? If you do, how would you change it?
Although I'm not living there right now, the city where I spend most of my time is Abbotsford, British Columbia. As far as urbanism goes, it's completely fucked. Sprawling suburban style tract-homes, with ugly single storey malls and strip malls characterize most of the city. But there are a few glimmers of good design. There's at least one neighbourhood with mixed use buildings of varying ages, good shopping on the ground level with housing above it. There's been an increase in transit service, and the municipal government is contemplating doing radical things like building new libraries. I'm hopeful that in the next 10 years, there will be a New Urbanist revival. At least, that's what I'm going to be working for.
What's happening in your city?
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
saggio on
0
Posts
but they're listening to every word I say
Are we talking about skyscrapers with trees on their roofs, or is it more complex than that?
Also, this may not be too related, but I thought it was cool when I saw it:
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/case-studies/case-studies/termite-inspired-air-conditioning.html
but they're listening to every word I say
This city went from a bustling centre of commerce and trade in the first half of the twentieth century, to a large but ambition free area. People want an NHL hockey team here again, which would be fine, but I don't see an infrastructure to support it. The Northern district of Winnipeg, known as the North End is basically a write off in terms of livability, in that it's overrun with gang activity. Leadership here takes the usual useless strategy in dealing with this(get tough on crime) and has even thought of bringing in crimestat as a placebo.
On the positive side, there is an interesting district with early twentieth century architecture that is fairly popular and has a strong arts community. Like most of those communities it's slowly becoming gentrified however.
Really though, it's the exceedingly poor public transit that gets to me the most. It took decades to even get a rapid transit proposal going and even then it's still as slow as ever in its implementation. There's conflict over a bus based system or LRT.
There's also a lot of brain drain going on, in that skilled professionals such as doctors, lawyers, etc, leave en masse. I'm going for a photography career myself, and am likely moving in a few years.
As I said though, there is a great arts community, although it is kind of insular. Probably one of the best arts centres in Canada. Fairly decent(if small) film industry, and some great local venues for music.
Also, the cost of living is pretty low for a large city.
And the reason is that there are, invariably, some types of businesses and residential properties that people would prefer not to live near to, even if they accept that their presence somewhere would be a good thing - low-income housing, for instance. Or bars, or restaurants, or convenience stores. Conversely there are businesses and residences that people do prefer to live near to.
With neighborhood self-government, areas with a paucity of undesired properties vote to keep it that way. It's just NIMBY in action. But even without that, simple assortative movement will do, since property prices will drive de facto neighborhood segregation into income classes. The natural political interest force, and economic market force, is for mixed-use neighborhoods to become less mixed-use, and for each neighborhood to erect barriers to mobility by those other (invariably poorer) people.
The only way to stack up the political deck is to arrange for a polity so large that they cannot vote to have someone else tolerate all the bars and 24-hour pizza shops - that there would be none within reasonable driving distance - and this is necessarily an area much, much larger than a neighborhood. If you want city planning, it must be at the level of a city.
Enough with that tangent, though.
The main problem with our issues with cities is that they are effects of our larger sociological issues. There's a reason we have the term "white flight" - in the first half of the 20th century, the mainly white middle class fled urban centers to set up suburban enclaves that excluded undesirables, and we are still feeling the repercussions of that even today. ronya also points out that NIMBY/YIMBY sentiment also drives the dynamics as well (and that's had some odd repercussions, like making our problems with DUI worse.)
Jebus, the concept of arcologies have been kicking around for years, but I think even designers have realized they are mostly a dead end, as there are reasons why people don't want to live near commercial and/or industrial sectors. (That particular issue has forced some states to pass "you knew what you were getting into" laws to prevent newcomers from shutting down existing working farms.)
Over the years I've found myself sad at just how depressing out communities are, but I don't know what we can really do to change it.
Here are some highlights... remixed by an idiot that likes techno and i apologize for that. But it highlights what is missing in today's urban/suburban life. Simple things such as places for people to sit, places for people to watch people, water features that work, shade, places for people to occupy space. In todays designed cities it is removed from the ground level and we go up into our fortresses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Qnkq6nIwA
edit: found the full thing on Vimeo, highly recommend you watch this (dont worry it has no stupid techno remix):
http://vimeo.com/5298850
Here is a quick highlight on Viemo part of it: http://vimeo.com/6821934
First thing to point out, they knew about these problems in the 70s... the fucking 70s.
What sucks is that developers frequently... ok always... ignore or greenwash or fake the tenants that the Jane Jacobs book aspires to. Look at any architecture sketch and its full of people walking around, benches, people talking to each other, eating in small food kiosks, shady trees, playing games on the street. And the first thing that gets value engineered out is the benches, food kiosks are removed in favor of a starbucks, and cars take over the street, (both because of living codes and the whole "everyone needs a car" lifestyle,) and trees get torn up every 2 years because if a tree gets too big it "interrupts the newness of a place"
Honestly if you want to live in an "new urbanism" environment move to a first generation subub. A burb right outside of the city that was built around WW2, or pre WW2, and you will find the design of those areas much more set up for walking space, places that are wonderfully public, and see human interactions. It is because those 1st generation suburbs were built one house at a time, with parks, old growth trees for shade and greenery, with schools, with large streets and cafes in mind. The current suburbs do not provide this.
Heck, look at that TEDTalks you posted, every single one of his examples of shitty design has ZERO public to street interaction.
Another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Je6Dko6mm4
I'm petty sure my area is based on those design principals (plus garden suburbs) with a century's growth. It's all train suburbs with all the amenities and jobs opportunities most people need within a short drive or a long walk, arranged around Boston, Cambridge, and Sommerville.
My plan has almost come together...
Also, it isn't like you would live right on top of a bar. A bar might be clustered with other shops in a certain section of the development. There are workarounds so that such inconveniences aren't that bad.
I think a major problem is that poor people are seen as undesireable. But, frankly, if you have a community set up in which there are real opportunitys for people to move up in the world, a place where there are businesses and people to fund the bussinesses/create opportunities so they can get jobs, instead of cloistering them all into a pit of poverty with no opportunity, then you aren't going to have a major crime problem. Why risk robbery when you have a steady job that has opportunity for advancement?
but they're listening to every word I say
A lot of people might try to fight that under the idea that adding a lot of people paying below the current average tax will dilute the amount of money going to people per capita, therefor making stuff like schools worse.
If you doubt that people fight to keep their neighborhoods undefiled by business, imagine this: you read in the news that your local planning board has granted, say, Walmart permission to open a store nearby. I think you can fill in the rest of the community response yourself.
Pure market forces tends to make businesses chase after residences, which partially ameliorates the effects of residential flight (it doesn't do anything about income segregation, however). But at least it discourages endless suburbia. Zoning is, on the other hand, very good at making suburbs stay suburban.
I wouldn't rate the influence of market forces too highly in enabling mixed-use; land use there operates in far from a free market. It is worth taking into account in income and race segregation, however.
Should be balanced by the people that like it because they are going to get better schools. Personally I find local funding of schools to be totally insane and repugnant, effectively solidifying class structure by education, but that is another thread.
but they're listening to every word I say
You would have to break the local funding of schools - probably hand out a fixed sum of funds per head at a national level, for administration at a local level, if one wanted to make concessions to federalism.
This is actually Main Street, USA from Disneyland. Irony of ironies, it's an amazing example of good urban design. It's walkable, has multi-story buildings (with good architecture!), and shopping in the lower storeys.
And then there's Portland, Oregon. Probably the finest example of New Urbanist development on the West Coast of North America.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks!
Yeah, seriously. That video you posted about plazas is really interesting and informative. In my town, there is literally no semblance of a public square or meeting place that is both (a) walkable (and doesn't require a car to get to), and (b) has basic things like sitting spaces or cafes. There was even a new development recently that they built atop a local mountain. The developer had the tag line, "my home town." I visited there one time, and it was the most disgusting and and terribly designed space ever. Roads that were extra curvy, ugly suburban homes with vinyl siding, and no services or amenities whatsoever. Developments like that really ought to be outlawed. It's a total waste of resources.
I think that's a whole separate issue, but I definitely agree with you.
Colorado Springs is similar in a lot of ways - it's basically impossible to live using public transit (unless you like waiting 2-3 hours to get to your destination) and the sprawl is incredibly awful. We use an interstate to connect all the divided parts of the city. There are major highways mere miles apart that don't connect for dozens of miles inbetween.
But i bet it has a super compact, super nice parking lot that the engineers are super proud of. :winky:
However I will add: Palmdale, California sucks all the butt imaginable
All the Californian desert communities suck butt.
It's true.
Also swamp/marshland communities.
Basically any community in California that has room to spread outward.
Exactly. All the pictures of what New Urbanism is supposed to look like looks like old small town cities.
Piss poor urban planning, it is hard to describe how soul-crushingly vapid these places are. Suburbia gone grungy. And yeah, you need a car to get anywhere.
I apparently live in a crummy, dangerous neighborhood in the Valley but I would rather continue to live here in a small home than a large home anywhere in Antelope Valley (especially if I would need to commute). Last I counted, I was at a minimum of 15 different food markets within 20 minutes walking distance from my house, I can walk to the shopping center, the library, the fire department, my school, plenty of places to eat at. It isn't exactly pretty but it is hells of convenient.
Something neat that is happening in my neighborhood:
http://westfield.com/topanga/thevillage/
My greatest concern is the traffic; Westfield Topanga otherwise features nice design. The current Westfield's biggest problem is entrance accommodations for people who come walking; hopefully they designate pedestrian walkways through the parking lots and such.
The Costco? There is one nearby but its lease is running up. I find that its being the anchor store to be funny but it is definitely better than a Wal-Mart and honestly, I wouldn't mind it. Once its there I can see my family using it often. Though it will mean being particularly conscientious with the design of the parkades.
They make mention of a lot of 'open space' and 'greenery' and a 'community center' and I would be very surprised for Westfield to not follow through. I've seen two other Westfield malls and the Westfield Topanga is really quite attractive. When I first went through upon its completion I was surprised at how spacious it was, and how much room there was for lounging and artwork.
Also - the fact that there is no residential space in there. If people aren't living amongst your retail, you're doing it wrong.
Play with me on Steam
"In a letter dated July 6 and sent to some households in Woodland Hills, Westfield executives blame the economic recession for their decision to eliminate the housing component and slash office and retail space at The Village at Westfield Topanga."
-LA Curbed
And while not explicitly stated, I am guessing Costco had something to do with it (it gained a lot more space). Costco only very recently came on board as the anchor store; whoever they had lined up before backed out and they were scrambling to find someone else.
Westfield isn't actually too happy to be working with Costco and Costco hasn't gelled to all of Westfield's requests either but they are both going through with it.
A you talking about the picture of the Champs-Élysées? I would not really call that one representative for new urbanism.
Vienna has some good and bad examples of urban planning:
Good - they removed all private car traffic from the inner city in the 1980s accompanied by a gigantic amount of bitching and "We're all doomed" cries of the businesses.
Here a picture from 1965:
Of course, we still have the 4 lane ring around the inner city and the North-South "Gürtel" cutting through the western part of the city.
Also, many dutch cities are closed to traffic and/or have huge parking fees, Groningen or Hilversum for example.
Fuck, where are my old sources? Coulda sworn they had some other anchor store at some point. Maybe I am wrong
More details:
I don't know if I have really payed attention to the housing in the immediate area, but losing all of that space mean eliminating a lot of the features they originally planned for. I am trying to find concrete details (scans of plans and pamphlets) but all I am finding is too recent. Such weak googlefu.
Also I should go to bed.
Play with me on Steam
Needs to go higher, or you may end up outbidding any residential property in there... 5 stories might be enough in a low-demand region, of course. But the uniform height strongly suggests that at least many of the buildings are bumping up against the legal limit on the density that would be optimal to build.
I've seen that condo-upstairs, business-downstairs phenomenon, myself, too. Sometimes it splits into condo, office space, and then a mall at the bottom.