Man on horseback ain't gonna be no New Urbanist

Is Catesby Leigh arguing for a man on horseback? That's how his article on new urbanism in City Journal seems to conclude .

As planner-architect Angelo Alberto observes, to transform fast-growing Washington Township in New Jersey’s Gloucester County from a metastasizing urban blob into a city, you would need a founder—a leader who recognized that traditional urban blueprints were more conducive than sprawl to an enhanced quality of life as well as to the embodiment of a community’s civic ideals. Such a leader would have the guts to scorn the bureaucratic minutiae of “process” politics and stake his authority and prestige on a principled judgment: “This is how we should build here.” Grounded in vision and culture, such leadership could build a community for future generations informed by the noble achievements of the past. Its wellsprings would run deeper than “cool,” deeper than “green.”

The New Urbanists, though, worry about inanities: whether the phrase “gizmo-green” is pejorative, for example. They need to get beyond marketing strategy, eco-hype, and trendy buzzwords, and focus on the formidable task of cultivating political leaders across the ideological spectrum who have the gumption to redeem the nation’s urban landscape—one community at a time.

I share Leigh's frustration at the slow pace of progress. But I am skeptical whether it's a matter of leadership. We  have a thing called democracy. And the sort of people who emerge to become leaders reflect the common will. Unfortunately, Americans — decent people that we are — have been living amidst dreck for the last three generations and the vast part of our population (I have no doubt the majority)  have no idea or understanding of "cityness." So a turn to a better build environment is not a hook by which a great leader can attract them. If we get any sort of man on horseback, he will be more along the lines of a know-nothing (and proud of it!) Rush Limbaugh.

Consider the Madrona travesty I discussed here yesterday. It's a perfect example of new urbanism. Nay, it's better. It's genuine old urbanism. in a neighborhood of high demographics — lawyers, doctors, architects, university professors etc etc. Yet even in such a neighborhood we have people who have no understanding of any kind of urbanism whether old or new.

What compounds matters is that the New Urbanists, as an organized group, have made things entirely too complicated for people to understand. Rather that attempting to simplify by using the "Three Rules" or something like it, they launch themselves into what many of them think is a wholesale social transformation and come up with intellectual systems (accurate as they may be) with names like The Transect. The only sound-bite which has been attached to New Urbanism has been by its enemies and it is a destructive one: "white picket fences."

No, I fear the problem is far deeper than lack of "leadership." Leaders can only lead when people are willing to follow and I see no sign of that if you use Seattle as a model.

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

I haven't gotten a chance to read the Catesby Leigh article yet, but it seems to me that that one of the problems involved with pretty much any discussion involving "New Urbanism" is that "New Urbanism" never seems to be adequately defined in the first place. What PRECISELY is "New" Urbanism -- especially as it relates to whatever "Old" Urbanism might be and also to what might be called Jane Jacobism. In what ways is New Urbansim the same as "Old" Urbanism and "Jane Jacobism" (or what I like to call "True" Urbanism) -- AND IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT DIFFER FROM THEM?

I say this because it seems to me that, when you really look at it, New Urbanism is more accurately understood as "New Sub-urbanism" and it is very superficial and full of ambiguities and "half-baked" ideas when compared to what might be called Jane Jacobism (or "TRUE Urbanism).

[David Sucher]

My overall take on New Urbanism is that Duany and PLater-Zyberk (et al, of course but it clearly started with them) have done something really marvelous. I have some mild criticism of organized New Urbanism but on balance I think it's great stuff — momentous, really, in the history of the USA — and I am pleased to call myself a new urbanist.

But you have hit on something, Benjamin, and that is that NU has not clearly-enough explained that good New Urbanism is really Old Urbanism adjusted for the automobile.

The criticism that NU take place at the urban edge (i.e. the suburbs) doesn't impress me as Old Urbanism also took place there. Next door to the apartment building in the urban neighborhood in which I grew up there was the old farm-house (perched dramatically on a rocky knoll) of the people who had once owned the farm on which I lived. The building was constructed in the 1920s. Urban expansion is ancient and by definition it happens at the urban edge.

Yes, DPZ and their crowd have "aided and abetted" suburban expansion and for that they should receive NO (or little) criticism, so far as I can see. The fact that the public is not building mass transit of any kind out to those suburbs (as it did simultaneous with the development of my neighborhood around 1900) is not the fault of New Urbanism.

[Will Cox]

It seems to me that Leigh's description is correct:

The New Urbanists, though, worry about inanities: whether the phrase “gizmo-green” is pejorative, for example. They need to get beyond marketing strategy, eco-hype, and trendy buzzwords

But I agree with you that his prescription is not. I don't see a need to cultivate leaders. I see a need to avoid jargon and any sense of a patronizing attitude, and emphasize the small changes to zoning codes that would increase my comfort.

[Thom Shepard]

Benjamin/David,

One of the main tennents of New Urbanism is preservation of existing Urbanism, "Old Urbanism" as Jane Jacob loved. While part of the "New" would be accomodating the automobile, I would argue it is substantially that much of old urbanism has become simply illegal to build. That zoning codes were not allowing the very fabric that Jane Jacobs loved so much. The SmartCode and the related Transect are simply tools to allow communities, builders, designers, and planners to create great places once again. So while New Urbanism is based in historic precedent, it is also based in the reality of the modern world and all the codes and regulations this often entails.

Without changing these codes we find the suburban model is often the default, even in the city. Simply look at the new McDonalds on Canal street in New Orleans, it is legal while the classic village style structures around it could not be built new without exceptions to the code. Most New Urbanists believe it is time to replace these outdated codes that have promoted so much sprawl and begin fresh with form based codes which clearly and visually define what is allowed from building design, to streetscape, based on local precedent and the desires of the community.

More and more today we are seeing streetcars, TOD, and urban development under new codes that allow the fabric of the urban village, and while this is often done by a diversity of groups from historic preservationists to transit advocates, this is all considered very important work by the New Urbanist community and to the health and vitality of great cities and urban places.

But I personally feel that those communities that choose to invest their efforts in the SmartCode and the Transect, and similar tools, will find they are able to achieve a lot of the goals they are already expressing as important to them. From land conservation to wonderful urban villages, so many communities are striving today towards sustainable efforts and walkable, liveable places and I feel the New Urbanism is working to provide them the best possible tools to implement their vision. And these tools will open the door for all those in the community, from individual builders to developers, to build by urban village standards, not simply those with the finances or political influence to get exceptions to surburban based zoning rules.

The most important thing is that a great diversity of people today are supporting common beliefs that the health of our cities, towns, villages, and hamlets, and the farmland, countryside, and wilderness that surround them, is very important to our quality of life and the more people and groups who are working towards conservation and building great places the better our future will be.

[jon]

I really wish there was more attention given to what I call "urban new urbanism" which are the large scale urban infill projects very close to the heart of cities in old rail yards or former industrial neighborhoods (pearl district-portland, south lake union-seattle, yaletown-vancouver, south waterfront-portland, lodo-denver, mission bay-san francisco, victory park-dallas, battery park city-new york, etc). in my opinion these are by far the best and most successful new urbanist projects and they are projects where there is transit and people walk around. unfortunately most of the attention within the congress for the new urbanism is towards suburban greenfield bedroom communities with little if no transit which just reinforces the "new suburbanism" title. i hear very few prominent new urbanists or NU newsletters say much about or give any awards to portland yet the portland region is probably the most pro-new urbanism place in the country, most of the public policy in the entire portland area including exurban communities is shaped entirely by new urbanist principles. vancouver bc is another example. but all you seem to hear about at CNU congresses and publications are individual greenfield projects in the southeast US. and as someone who is a cnu member this really irritates me because it seems that the cnu leaders arent helping to change perception away from the new suburbanism label. also in my opinion it needs to be less focused on the founding "leaders" like duany.

while i am big fan of traditional architecture including in today's new buildings, i really dont think all new urbanist projects should be traditional especially if there isnt the money to do it correctly and also i wish when traditional architecture is done in these projects it also have somewhat of a contemporary feel and not use past period styles of traditional architecture like art deco or victorian. its that having a brand new streetscape with an art deco movie theater, a second empire drug store and a richardsonian library on it that makes it look and feel fake, which NU opponents exploit. i think seaside is very successful in using the traditional language of architecture in a contemporary way but i havent seen other NU projects be as successful architecturally. in my opinion it is the architecture of new urbanism that is one of the biggest things holding it back.

i believe i heard a prominent new urbanist perhaps it was duany describe new urbanism as old urbanism that addresses the automobile and a concern for the environment but i agree this point needs to be driven home. i'd say its also a response to the 20th century built environment: suburbanism and modernism. while architecture plays a major part, i think it is important to drive home the point that NU is an urban design movement and is really not about architecture.

of course there are so many sub groups (anti-sprawl, placemaking, trad/classical architecture, regional planning, mass transit, urban revitalization, sustainable building, etc) that fall under the new urbanism umbrella that I agree it can be hard to pin point exactly what NU is.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Jon wrote:

"I really wish there was more attention given to what I call "urban new urbanism" which are the large scale urban infill projects very close to the heart of cities in old rail yards or former indiustrial nieghborhoods . . . "

Benjamin writes:

I'm not familiar with most of the projects mentioned, but I am familiar with a number of other "large scale urban infill projects very close to the heart of cities in old rail yards or former industrial neighborhoods," and my question is, "Why should such projects be considered 'urban 'new urbanism' ' -- rather than just plain urbanism or Jane Jacobism?" In such projects, what does "new urbanism" supposedly bring to the table that wasn't already put there earlier by Jane Jacobs and others (who pre-date "New Urbanism")? And where these projects do, in fact, depart from a Jane Jacobs approach, is this good or bad?

[Benjamin Hemric]

(I hadn't seen Thom Shephard's post when I sent in my last post.)

Thom Shephard wrote:

One of the main tennents of New Urbanism is preservation of existing Urbanism, "Old Urbanism" as Jane Jacob loved. While part of the "New" would be accomodating the automobile, I would argue it is substantially that much of old urbanism has become simply illegal to build. That zoning codes were not allowing the very fabric that Jane Jacobs loved so much. The SmartCode and the related Transect are simply tools to allow communities, builders, designers, and planners to create great places once again. So while New Urbanism is based in historic precedent, it is also based in the reality of the modern world and all the codes and regulations this often entails.

Benjamin writes:

This comment, while it may be well-intentioned, seems to me to reflect common misperceptions about Jane Jacobs and what she was writing about.

Also I'm not sure if I understand what is meant by "has become illegal to build." What things about traditional cities have become "illegal" to build -- and why? Was this a good move or a step in the wrong direction? If it was a step in the wrong direction, why not just rewrite the law to correct it? And why would rewriting the law and otherwise removing impediments to healthy urbanism be considered "new urbanism" rather than just plain urbanism or Jane Jacobism?

[Stranger]

If we know better than to let "democracy" make our cars, why do we accept its monopoly on making cities?

Leadership is what you get from private enterprise, when one man does what a million men say can't be done. That's the only way any progress is possible. That's why Dubai is going to be the city of the future, and why American cities are hopeless. Cities are public enterprises, like the postal service. You don't give ignorant people the right to run things. It's not "democracy". It is communism. Who can be shocked that the landscape is a wreck?

[Thom Shepard]

Benjamin,

In the early 1900s problems with sooty factories, next to homes, sewage problems and related disease epidemics, and fire issues prompted the creation of what has become commonly refered to as Euclidean Zoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning

This prompted the large setbacks and spacing, separation of uses, which led to a planning model with heavy road infrustructure separating residential, commercial, and office.

It was very well intentioned but had the effect of promoting sprawl, as we now know it, and making restoration or building of cities, like Jane Jacobs loved, illegal. There have been multidudes of efforts from historic preservationists, to PUDs (planned urban developments), to overlays, exceptions granted to individals, etc. to try and allow what many consider great urbanism. The result is often a jumble of codes with multiple layers and contradictions that make it incredibly difficult for average builders and smaller developers to do much of anything that resembles traditional urbanism.

This is a large reason you see a lot of mega-projects, but it is very hard for places to grow more organically, as the neighborhoods Jane Jacobs loved were created. Evolving over time responding to different aspects of human nature and needs.
Big developers can get exceptions to the existing codes, thru lengthy and costly process, but it is often cheaper just to build sprawl, as so many communities don't realize they are asking for with their codes.

Modern society will not throw out the saftey and health issues, and should not. So we need modern codes that can allow for all of the code requirements necessary while still allowing great urbanism in its many different styles.

It is a matter of writing a code from the ground up with consideration of all that we have learned, good and bad over the last 100 years of modern codes, particularly since the advent of industry and the automobile. I feel the SmartCode is a remarkable example of such a code, particularly since it scales to the regional level and includes mechanism to promote land conservation for the land outside the city, town, village and hamlet.

There was much bad during the early industrial age, despite some great urbanism. I don't think we want to go back to the fires, epidemics, soot and general nastiness of our cites of that period. But modern technology will allow us all of the beauty and liveablity of great urbanism, as well as the potential benefits of reduced resouce use and ecologial footprint of great cities.

Great codes will allow more people to be part of this city building experiment, and will allow cities to have a lot of creativity in how they build. But it really does not matter if you call it New Urbanism or simply Great Urbanism, I think there is a growing concensus of what we find to be destructive of the land and the spirit of cities and what is sustainable and creates the kinds of places people love and want to live and can thrive in an efficient manner.

The greater question, of which there are many possible different solutions, is how do we get from our current mess that much of this country is in, and to begin to move towards better, healthier, more enjoyable communites.

And there are a multidude of different tools and solutions, and different things will work in some communities better than others.

But there is one common denominator, bad codes promote sprawl and the destruction of walkable communites, and whether it is "3 rules" or the SmartCode I feel many of us are united in addressing the problem. The more communities learn what is promoting sprawl the better their chance of choosing the right tools to correct it.

Some problems, in some communites, require rather simple tools and solutions, for others the challenge is greater and requires more community involvement, professional expertise, and more sophisticated tools.

But first you have to know what you are trying to preserve, what you are trying to fix, and what you want your community to look like and in my personal opinion it is important from the city or urban village, to the edge of the city, the rural areas and the wilderness beyond.

The sprawl between the city and the country damages both and creates ever more distance between great "urban villages" and the natural realm. And yet most of our current codes are designed to produce sprawl to the detriment of the village, city and countryside. We have to decide as a society what our priorities are and what we want our built future to look like because right now it is the result of our codes, as they are the rules that are followed most of the time.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Thanks, Thom, for your very extensive response!

Here are some of the ideas I disagree with in your answer:

1) That the zoning that is needed to deal with "sooty factories, next to homes, sewage problems and related disease epidemics, and fire issues" NECESSARILY promotes sprawl (e.g., that it necessarily prompts ". . . large setbacks and spacing, separation of uses, which led to a planning model with heavy road infrustructure separating residential, commercial, and office.").

Much of New York City (both Manhattan and the outer boroughs) was built after the city adopted its 1916 zoning code, and the 1916 zoning code did not seem to dictate suburban sprawl in New York City.

2) That the zoning necessary to deal with "sooty factories," etc. NECESSARILY makes "restoration or building of cities, like Jane Jacobs loved, illegal."

Again, this didn't seem to be true in New York City, although in certain instances some re-mapping and minor revisions may have been helpful.

3) That efforts to fix bad zoning NECESSARILY results ". . . in a jumble of codes with multiple layers and contradictions that make it incredibly difficult for average builders and smaller developers to do much of anything that resembles traditional urbanism."

Again, not true in New York City.

4) That attempts to fix anti-urban zoning ". . . is a large reason you see a lot of mega-projects, but it is very hard for places to grow more organically, as the neighborhoods Jane Jacobs loved were created."

Again, this doesn't seem to be true.

5) That reworked zoning codes are a radical departure from not only conventional zoning but from what Jane Jacobs advocated and they are pretty much the sole invention of New Urbanists.

Jane Jacobs (and perhaps others) advocated such revisions as early as 1961 in "Death and Life of Great American Cities," and Jacobs also spoke about them during the 1960s, and 1970s -- before New Urbanism even came into being.

6) That without New Urbanism we would be going "back to the fires, epidemics, soot and general nastiness of our cites of that period."

Again, it was possible for New York City -- and many other cities too -- to successfully deal with "fires, epidemics, soot and general nastiness" without New Urbanism.

[jon]

apparently jane jacobs had some issues with NU. i'd say the difference between jane jacobsism and urban new urbanism is that you can't really build a true jane jacobs neighborhood from scratch, it has to have old buildings in addition to new buildings so its really talking about an existing neighborhood. urban new urbanism is an old railyard or other large piece of urban underutilized land that is platted and laid out from scratch with streets and infrastructure oriented to pedestrians. urban new urbanism is the typical new urbanism that comes to mind but instead of single family houses its all higher density like apartment buildings and office towers.i agree though that there are many similarities.

p.s. david, i bought city comforts at the brown university bookstore. it was in stock for use in one of the urban studies classes.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Jon wrote:

i'd say the difference between jane jacobsism and urban new urbanism is that you can't really build a true jane jacobs neighborhood from scratch, it has to have old buildings in addition to new buildings so its really talking about an existing neighborhood. urban new urbanism is an old railyard or other large piece of urban underutilized land that is platted and laid out from scratch with streets and infrastructure oriented to pedestrians.

Benjamin writes:

What about Grand Central Terminal "City" -- which may have been the first (and probably the best) from "scratch" development built over railyards? It was built from scratch (over the New York Central's mid-Manhattan railyards) in the early part of the 20th Century (1900s, 1910s) -- resulting in Grand Central Terminal, a bunch of apartment houses, hotels and office buildings AND new streets, including a glamorized extension of Park Avenue.

Also, Rockefeller Center (1930s) was built from essentially from scratch -- although about three large blocks of buildings had to be demolished first.

And then there is also Tudor City (1920s) -- although it too involved the demolition of a number of buildings.

All three seem to me to be excellent illustrations of Jane Jacobs urbanism -- they certainly seem more illustrative of the urbanism of Jane Jacobs than that of New [Sub]-Urbanism. Jacobs was NOT just about Greenwich Village -- either in "Death and Life . . . " or in her subsequent books.

[David Sucher]

Moreover, let's not forget that EVERY neighborhood that we now love was 'built from scratch.' Name one, if you will, which was handed down by God. Just about every one of them was built by (horrors) a developer. That includes places like Bath, England.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Good point David. (I was originally hoping to say something along those lines too, but, in my haste to post, forgot.)

I also want to add that, although the infra-structure was laid out in the 1900s and 1910s, Grand Central Terminal City was actually built -- and rebuilt, and rebuilt, and rebuilt -- over a good many years. (For instance, the Waldorf-Astoria, built in the early 30s [?], replaced a power plant that was part of the original development, "completed" in 1913.)

Same is true, to a lesser extent, with Rockefeller Center (e.g., a major office building [circa 1954] replaced one of the original theaters [circa 1933]).

And some of the old buildings in the Tudor City development (e.g., four "brownstones") are leftovers from what was there before Tudor City was built.

[David Sucher]

Interesting that you mention it but I have always thought that one of JJ's blind-spots was her reference to great urban neighborhoods as having grown "organically" and "naturally." She seems to glide past the market process which built the neighborhoods.Am I incorrect?

[Benjamin Hemric]

David wrote:

". . . I have always thought that one of JJ's blind-spots was her reference to great urban neighborhoods as having grown 'organically' and 'naturally.' She seems to glide past the market process which built the neighborhoods . . . "

Benjamin writes:

I don't see why you feel that way. To me, even her first book, "Death and Life," is largely an examination of market processes shaping city districts and cities -- and that's not to mention, "Economy of Cities," "The Question of Separatism" (which contains more economics than one might think), "Cities and the Wealth of Nations," "Systems of Survival," "the Nature of Economies," and "Dark Age Ahead," etc.

Actually, it's her intellectual adversaries whom I see as usually ignoring economic processes.

[Thom Shepard]

Benjamin,

First I feel that the combination of your comments with partial quotes of mine created comments that I did not make. As I did not make the comments you created I will not respond to 1) 2) 3) 4) but will stand by my original comments, and refer to the NYC planning website history and 1993 article from city journal.

I did not make the statement you implied in 6) and clearly implied that it is modern technology that will allow us to have classic urbanism without the perils experienced in dense cities of the early 1900s.

To look at NYC as a case study:

NYC's early zoning codes in many ways differed from many of the typical zoning codes around the country that directly promoted the models of sprawl and became known commonly as Euclidean Zoning.

In fact in NYC one of the biggest issues at this time was the shadow of tall buildings which led to some good intentions in zoning, the concept of not letting the highrise impose on a zone not suited for such.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.shtml (quotes below from)

"the familiar context of three- to six-story residential buildings found in much of the city."

later...

"the 1961 zoning....emphasis on open space has sometimes resulted in buildings that overwhelm their surroundings, and the open spaces created by incentive zoning provisions have not always been useful or attractive"

It seems that the city of NY considers the separation of uses to have become a problem worth addressing.

"In the past 10 years, among other initiatives, the Department of City Planning has taken a more flexible approach to the strict segregation of uses, encouraging a mix of uses that helps create livable neighborhoods and lively urban streetscapes."

I think this speaks directly to the issues Jane Jacobs advocated.

From: http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1149 (quotes below from)

"But New York, the city that invented zoning in 1916, is today burdened with a zoning ordinance—enacted in 1961 and encrusted with thirty years and six hundred pages of amendments—that has become one of the chief impediments to the city’s physical regeneration outside the prime commercial sections of Manhattan."

To return to your comments:

Benjamin said:

"5) That reworked zoning codes are a radical departure from not only conventional zoning but from what Jane Jacobs advocated and they are pretty much the sole invention of New Urbanists."

I in no way meant to imply what you have said. The New Urbanist movement is all about promoting the best practices throughout history. To study that which has been done well as well as that which has been done poorly and to promote the best examples while always realizing new solutions are possible. The efforts of all of these activist striving to improve zoning ordinances around the country is the foundation of a broad movement to preserve great urbanism and is highly lauded by New Urbanists and a foundation of the movement.

That said, Form Based Codes and the SmartCode are not "reworked zoning codes" they are codes written from the ground up to promote great urbanism, drawing on the best historic examples and an effort to avoid the worst examples. They are designed for zoning reform, empowering activists to be involved in promoting great urbanism with customized local codes, instead of fighting projects at the last minute.

Many of the cities that have old zoning ordinances that have been re-worked and allow good urbanism are measured in inches of thickness and are highly complicated to deal with both for land owners and the cities. I simply feel there are better solutions than this.

[Benjamin Hemric]

The original questions posed in my April 21st and April 26th posts were the following:

1) "What PRECISELY is "New" Urbanism -- especially as it relates to whatever "Old" Urbanism might be and also to what might be called Jane Jacobism. In what ways is New Urbansim the same as "Old" Urbanism and "Jane Jacobism" (or what I like to call "True" Urbanism) -- AND IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT DIFFER FROM THEM?

2) ". . . I'm not sure if I understand what [Thom Shephard] . . . meant by 'has become illegal to build.' What things about traditional cities have become 'illegal' to build -- [who made them illegal] and why? Was this a good move or a step in the wrong direction? If it was a step in the wrong direction, why not just rewrite the law to correct it? And why would rewriting the law and otherwise removing impediments to healthy urbanism be considered "new urbanism" rather than just plain urbanism or Jane Jacobism? (The words that are contained within brackets have been added to clarify the original meaning.)

The responses in Thom Shephard's April 29th post were thus interpreted in light of the original questions that were asked in my April 21st and April 26th posts. If the interpretations of these answers were incorrect, I think it would be helpful to have an explanation of what was really meant instead. While it is certainly possible that my interpretations of these answers were not what was meant, then how were these responses really meant to address / answer the questions that were originally asked?

- - - - - - - - - - -

Looking at the responses in the May 1st post, it's again hard to see how they respond to the original questions.

1) The "case study"

Yes, NYC's 1916 zoning code dealt with shadows. Yes, the 1961 zoning code encourages tower-in-the-park buildings. And, yes both the 1916 and 1961 codes SOMETIMES (but not always) overdid separation of uses. (And, yes, Jane Jacobs criticized this.) However, it's unclear how any of this relates to the original questions that were asked.

2) Similarly, the statements following the quote of point "5" from my previous post, also do not seem to address the issues brought up in my original questions.

[Benjamin Hemric]

(Please pardon my hurried writing, but I'm typing from a public machine that is about to close shortly.)

Rereading Thom Shephard's May 1 post, I think I now see how at least part of it was intended to address my original questions.

Thom wrote:

"Many of the cities that have old zoning ordinances that have been re-worked and allow good urbanism are measured in inches of thickness and are highly complicated to deal with both for land owners and the cities. I simply feel there are better solutions than this."

Benjamin writes:

If I understand Thom correctly, he is expanding upon Peter Salin's comments in the "City Journal" about how complicated NYC's revised 1961 code has become and is suggesting (at least indirectly) that one of the things that New Urbanism uniquely brings to the table (that "old" urbanism and Jane Jacobism supposedly don't) are zoning codes that deal more simply with the complications of modern life.

First, I believe Thom may be misunderstanding the point of Salin's article (which I, admittedly, haven't fully read in a long time). Salins argues (in other forums, if not in this article) that zoning is too complicated because we have too much of it. He is in favor of minimal -- almost no -- zoning.

Second, just because a particular revised zoning code is complicated and poorly written doesn't mean that any and all codes that are revised have to be complicated or poorly written. It just may be that the revisions to a particular zoning code were often poorly written (which I think is the case with the NYC zoning code), or that the original code itself was poorly written or conceived (which I believe is also partly the case with the 1961 code). And, of course, codes written by New Urbanists can also be complicated and poorly written too, if not done right.

Third, the fact that revisions to the 1961 zoning code are complicated and confusing has nothing to do with the reforms that were advocated by Jane Jacobs.

Fourth, I still think the main point of my original questions is being entirely missed and has not being addressed. The point isn't one particular zoning code versus another, or revising a zoning code vs. writing a new one from scratch, etc. The point is, "What exactly is New Urbanism WHEN COMPARED to "old" urbanism, Jane Jacobism or True Urbanism, and what does it supposedly bring to the table that is new and different from "old" urbanism, "Jane Jacobism" or "True Urbanism"? And is what is truly new and different with New Urbanism better or worse than "old" urbanism or Jane Jacobism?

It seems to me that much of what New Urbanists claim to be uniquely their's is 1) not really unique to them (e.g., has already been suggested or done by Jane Jacobs or others), 2) and when, in fact, it is unique to them, it is not really as good or useful as "old" urbanism," "Jane Jacobism" or "True Urbanism."

While perhaps not intended, earlier posts above seem to be saying in response to these points that "old" urbanism and Jane Jacobism were impractical or impossible until New Urbanism came along and made them practical -- which is clearly untrue, in my opinion.

[jon]

when they built both terminal city and rockefeller center they were all new buildings, hence not a jane jacobs neighborhood. you can not build an old building.

btw i've personally never heard of these referred to as neighborhoods and I certainly wouldnt call them neighborhoods. rockefeller is the first self-contained city within a city and is bordering on being labeled a megastructure (albeit a good one) but hardly a jane jacobs neighborhood with its underground passageways, private streets, master planned, single owner and single architectural style. would you call detroit's renaissance center or the original world trade center a jane jacobs neighborhood? i wouldn't. terminal city is master planned in the city beautiful movement, need i say more.

[Benjamin Hemric]

I think it's very important here to separate out the stereotypes and myths about Jane Jacobs from what Jane Jacobs actually wrote and said in "Death and Life" -- and in her other books (e.g., "the Economy of Cities," "the Nature of Economies," etc.) and interviews, too.

- - - - - - - -

jon wrote:

when they built both terminal city and rockefeller center they were all new buildings, hence not a jane jacobs neighborhood. you can not build an old building [as Jane Jacobs (supposedly) insists you must if you are to have good urbanism]. (The added words are mine. I'm guessing that this is what was meant. -- Benjamin)

Benjamin writes:

In "Death and Life" Jacobs was concerned with what works in cities and what doesn't work. She was also concerned with how to fix those things that didn't work. Jacobs pointed out that, contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the time, "all at once" developments -- including organically grown "all at once" neighborhoods like brownstone Harlem -- were usually not as good as they were initially made out to be (e.g., they rarely had sufficient diversity for healthy urbanism, etc.) and they were also prone to certain specific problems (e.g., they became obsolete all at once; they were difficult to remodel and update in order to accomodate changing times; etc.). And Jacobs pointed out ways in which such problems might be successfully addressed.

She did NOT say, as many people seem to believe, that urban districts without old buildings ("all at once" developments) were hopeless, not even worth discussing, etc. -- just that they were not the "solution to urban problems" that orthodox planners and others were making them out to be; that they they, in fact, usually created problems rather than solved them; and that their problems could (and should) be addressed.

So it's a gross oversimplification of Jane Jacobs's work to say that "all at once" neighborhoods can't be Jacobean. And Jane Jacobs has, in fact, praised "all at once" Rockefeller Center a great deal, including statements in "Death and Life." (I don't have my copy handy, but for a quick reference look up Rockefeller Center in the index.)

And not only has Jacobs praised Rockefeller Center's density and (to a lesser degree) its diversity -- she also, of course, used Rockefeller Center as a prime illustration of the usefulness of extra streets (and the resulting short blocks).

And since Rockefeller Center was planned and built on a practical (not utopian) basis, so that it could be incrementally altered over time -- as, indeed, it has been -- I think it's fair to say that it is a PRIME example of Jane Jacobism.

- - - - - - - - - -

jon wrote:

btw i've personally never heard of these referred to as neighborhoods and I certainly wouldnt call them neighborhoods.

Benjamin writes:

Another misconception about Jacobs seems to be that she was in love -- and exclusively so -- with "neighborhoods" (as though she couldn't care less about urban areas that weren't "neighborhoods"). Actually Jacobs opens one of the chapters of "Death and Life," if I remember correctly, with a "put down" of the term "neigbhborhood" -- calling it something like a silly valentine of a word.

Contrary to what apparently is the conventional wisdom, what Jacobs was really concerned with was the successful functioning of urban districts -- be they primarily residential or commercial -- some of which districts happened to be most commonly referred to in everyday speech as "neighborhoods" (a word that she, as noted above, had mixed feelings about).

- - - - - -

jon wrote:

rockefeller is the first self-contained city within a city and is bordering on being labeled a megastructure (albeit a good one) but hardly a jane jacobs neighborhood with its underground passageways, private streets, master planned, single owner and single architectural style.

Benjamin writes:

Although Rockefeller Center is very dense and contains a fair amount of diversity, it is not, and never has really been, a "city within a city" -- that's just public relations hype.

Jacobs was not concerned, per se, with megastructures, underground passageways, single ownership, etc. She was only concerned with such things WHEN they caused problems, which they usually -- but not always -- did.

- - - - - - - - -

jon wrote:

would you call detroit's renaissance center or the original world trade center a jane jacobs neighborhood? i wouldn't.

Benjamin writes:

Part of the wonderfulness -- and Jane Jacobness -- of Rockefeller Center is that unlike (apparently) Renaissance Center or the original WTC, it is NOT isolated or walled off from the surrounding neighborhoods or districts. It is both different from and an integral part of the surrounding city!

- - - - - - - -

jon wrote:

terminal city is master planned in the city beautiful movement, need i say more.

Benjamin writes:

While the City Beautiful movement likes to CLAIM Grand Central Terminal City as its own, "Terminal City," especially as it was eventually built, has actually very little to do with the City Beautiful movement -- thank goodness!!! On the other hand, Terminal City does indeed provide a wonderful illustration of real life Jane Jacobs urbanism -- including its having a master plan that was so vague, open and flexible that it wasn't really any master plan at all. (And when one reads the history of Rockefeller Center, one can see that this is also somewhat true of Rockefeller Center, too.)

- - - - - - -

In sum, I think many common beliefs about Jacobs and "Jane Jacobism" actually have very little basis in fact, but are based instead upon what people (many of whom have never really read much of Jacobs) SAY she said.