I am puzzled

Why the ongoing undercurrent (that's mild) of hostility to New Urbanism from bloggers I perceive as urbanists to the core? From The Gutter and PIXEL POINTS, for instance? One would think that they should be New Urbanism's loyal (if critical - as am I) supporters.

I can't quite understand why such obviously perceptive people aren't able to separate urban site plan -- which is the core of New Urbanism -- from "architectural style" (the white picket fence criticism at the basest level) which is really somewhat irrelevant to it.

Would they really prefer to have Rem Koolhaas and Frank Gehry -- as opposed to Andres Duany et al -- taking lead roles in helping Mississippians in their rebuilding? Are there annoying things -- a sometimes excess of enthusiasm about NU from young acolytes? Should CNU be chided for naivete for giving an urban design award to Gehry? Is Duany sometimes a bit overly-certain of his position? Of course. And we are all human. But look at the big picture, folks: Who has more to say -- and give me an example, please, if you think otherwise -- about rebuilding Mississippi? Duany or Gehry/Koolhaas? (These names are more stand-ins for ways of looking at the world than real personalities. For all I know Gehry and Koolhaas may indeed have something to offer urbanism -- but they haven't demonstrated it.)

I hope these bloggers will read this and respond as I can understand anti-Seaside design cant from a generalist like Christopher Lydon. But I expect better from The Gutter and especially from Pixel Points. Her suggestion that""New possibilities for sustainability...aren't as easily sketchable as neo-quaint cottages and homey front porches, but they'll give us a lot more to debate" is a sad and disingenuous distortion of New Urbanism.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

Might I suggest that both camps are utterly irrelevant? The Mississippi Coast will be rebuilt in the same mind-numbing, but profitable, soul destroying pattern of sprawl and automobile-ortiented crap as existed pre-Hurricane. Profit and Property rights are the only things that matter. And why worry about building quality anyway-it's a hurricane zone, gosh darn it, and should probably not be rebuilt at all.

[Dave]

I'm not familiar with Pixel Points, but I'm a pretty loyal reader of the Gutter, and I think you're misunderstanding their point. As far as I can tell, the writers of the Gutter have no real stated opinion on New Urbanism (neither the urban site plan, nor the architectural style). But they have a very strong opinion about the cult of personality that seems to surround many 'starchitects". Indeed, attacking the egos that surround the starchitects seems to be their priamry raison d'etre. I think the Gutter's pot shots at Duany have less to do with anything philosophical and more to do with the cult surrounding him, which I'm sure you can appreciate.

[David Sucher]

Yes, Dave, I too am well-aware of cults and destest them.

The only problem is that there is far more to New Urbanism than Andres Duany (as he would easily admit) and to knock New Urbanism because the media feeds upon stardom is destructive to useful conversation. To put things in perspective, while Duany has some attributes of a 'starchitect,' his media glamour pales in comparison to Koolhaas or Gehry.

Conversely, the intellectual content of the movement which surrounds Duany is very real and long-lasting, The same cannot be said of Gehry much less Koolhaas. The former at least has the sense not to try to present himself as an "design theorist." The latter, especially, will be seen as an intellectual nobody in ten years.

[Luthe]

See, my problem with New Urbanism is that it is often difficult to tell where the site plan ends and the architecture style begins. For example, most New Urbanist doctorine dictates not only the layout of a neighborhood, but also the appearence of the houses in the neighborhood. Yes, some prevailing architectural theme helps when trying to unify a neighborhood, but when your regulations about architecture style get longer than your rationale for your site plan, you've lost track of your original point.

Beyond that, I still remain a little skeptical that a site plan can change human behavior in absentia of the communal forces that usually develop in a neighborhood that grows over time. But then, I have not yet had a chance to research the matter.

[Urbanist]

I've touched on this at the New (sub)Urbanism blog. I won't reiterate my commentary here, but if anyone is interested: http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/10/rebuilding-gulf-coast.html

[dave]

Right - but that's my point too. The Gutter is knocking Duany, but I don't really see where they knocked New Urbansim. I've looked at the post you referenced, and I don't see it. In fact check out this posting: http://gutter.curbed.com/archives/2005/11/01/the_gutter_salutes_the_neutered_urbanism.php