Yes...But...

A Daily Dose of Architecture says about New Urbanism:

"I don't want to argue for or against New Urbanism since personally I think the movement has many positive aspects but just as many shortcomings"

That's an interersting statement -- I would like to hear more why/how NU's shortcomings seem to balance out its positive aspects.

UPDATE: Actually, I was curious why Daily Dose thought NU has any shortcomings; however I see others are of a like mind! The more the merrier!

But the comments left here so far have been unconvincing, even puzzling. The objections seem more straw-man than flesh-and-blood and/or are a reflection of unrealistic expectations engendered by over-enthusiastic NU-supporters.

For example, why should anyone expect NU to produce more affordable housing? Drywall is drywall and it costs the same no matter where you hang it.

Likewise, why should anyone be critical of NU because some developer may (or may not) make his own excess claims that his project is "true NU" when it is not?

That it is "trendy and exclusive"? I am not sure what that even means.

The fact that people can make such criticisms seem to me to be a lesson for the organized forces of NU (e.g. CNU) that it is better to "Promise less and deliver more." Global implications that NU can solve every problem leads inevitably to global disappointment when it becomes obvious that NU can do no such thing.

Comments

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

It's hard to discuss the shortcomings of NU without understanding what problem NU is designed to solve, and I don't.

I'm living the NU dream, apparently. My wife and daughter and I live walking distance from two supermarkets, dozens of restaurants, great movie theaters, and decent transit. We don't own a car--if we did, it would sit idle, sucking money down the drain 99% of the time. But we don't live in a DPZ subdivision: we live in Seattle, in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

If you want a walkable neighborhood with all of these things, why not mine? Why a new development? Some friends of ours have four young kids and live in Seattle's university district. They bought a big old house for much less than they would have paid in an NU development, and again, they can walk to the movies, shops, and the best farmer's market in Seattle. (They do own a car.)

Choice is good--if someone wants to live in a three-car-garage McMansion, I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't interfere with my lifestyle. So I guess being able to choose an NU subdivision over a traditional one is an improvement. But from what I've seen, these NU suburbs, while better than the usual alternative, totally suck compared to my neighborhood. The density is way too low to support the kind of services I take for granted, and people use their cars all the time.

What NU subs have that my neighborhood doesn't is cachet among a certain type of buyer. They're the kind of subdivisions you can tell your friends about and seem cool. Which is exactly how subs have always been sold. This has been a big win for DPZ, and if people enjoy their NU housing, that's great. But I read Suburban Nation and it seems to me they were promising a lot more than a moderately nicer suburb. Whether this constitutes a shortcoming or just an overly spirited sales pitch, I couldn't say.

[Laurence Aurbach]

First off, let's acknowledge that Capitol Hill is 100 (or in some sections 125) years old, and the average new urban development is a few years old and still under construction. Capitol Hill has had more than a century to develop a rich fabric of homes, shops, churches, transit, etc. In order to compare apples to apples, Capitol Hill at age 5 would be the appropriate case study.

On to the next question: What problem is NU designed to solve? There are a whole host of conditions extant today that were not in play when Capitol Hill was built. We have an enormous built base of suburbs providing competition to the cities. Ninety-five percent of new construction is in the suburbs. How do we respond to that? We can a) ignore it, b) stop it, or c) improve it, or at least parts of it. The first is irresponsible, the second is politically and legally unfeasible, the third is what new urbanism attempts to do.

Another problem NU addresses is urban design in existing cities. From the 1950s until recently, new construction in cites has generally been hostile to pedestrians. The proposals for the Olympic Village show that this philosophy is alive and thriving. New urbanism redevelops and revitalizes urban neighborhoods and main streets with a focus on pedestrian-friendly design. About half of all new urban projects are infill or brownfield/greyfield redevelopment.

New urbanism responds to a huge variety of conditions that didn’t exist a century ago. Increased floor plate size. Larger homes with more amenities. Parking standards. Disability access. Retail visibility and signage. Contemporary financing structures. Requirements from fire, police and building inspection departments. Environmental regulations. Stormwater handling. NIMBY opposition. Thoroughfare engineering standards. Competition from malls, office parks and homeowners associations. The consolidation of the building industry. The list goes on... this is what makes new urbanism different from old urbanism.

[dave p.]

Here are my concerns about New Urbanism:

1. As pointed out on CoolTown, that New Urbanist communities tend to be among the most expensive places to live. If this is true, it goes against one of the CNU's goals of using New Urbanism to increase the supply of affordable housing.
2. The perception that New Urbanism is stifling creativity by creating overly-strict parameters regarding building size and look. For example, John Hill objects to the fact that modernist architecture is not welcome in New Urbanist communities.
3. New Urbanism seen as something trendy and attractive only to an exclusive group of people, causing those who aren't part of the group to shrug it off.
4. Some developers co-opting New Urbanism as an excuse to simply cram more houses onto a piece of land.
5. The cynical view that New Urbanism will never catch on because people are too used to the suburban way of living.

New Urbanism in its pure form perhaps doesn't have any shortcomings. All the problems related to it seem to be about perception and the improper application of its principles.

[Laurence Aurbach]

Well, let’s see if I can answer your concerns.

1. Several studies have shown that new urbanist developments have higher housing values than conventional suburban developments. I’m hearing the same thing about traditional neighborhoods in older, center-city locations. Meanwhile, standard ranch homes in cul-de-sac developments aren’t appreciating as much or are even staying flat in value. It seems that any traditional neighborhood that is reasonably safe and attractive is going to be bid up in the marketplace because of limited supply. The solution is to allow more traditional neighborhoods to be built, and to make existing ones more hospitable for families.

2. Some good examples of new urban development in the modernist style are:
Prospect, Colorado
Melrose Arch, Johannesburg
Karow-Nord, Berlin-Weißensee
101 San Fernando, San Jose (and nearly all other projects by Daniel Solomon)
Aqua, Miami (a gated community)
Järla Sjö, Stockholm
Baden Nord, Switzerland
Addison Circle, Texas
Mockingbird Station, Dallas
Downtown Dadeland, Kendall, Florida
Kirchsteigfeld, Potsdam
Round at Beaverton, Oregon
Mission Bay, San Francisco
Englewood City Center, Colo.

This is by no means a complete list.

3. Marketing studies indicate that at least 30 percent of householders would like a traditional, walkable neighborhood. That’s at least 40 million people -- hardly an “exclusive” group.

4. Density can be an important part of new urbanism, but density without good design leads to inferior living environments.

5. This contradicts #1 and #3. Judging from the literature of ULI, NAHB, and other professional organizations, new urbanism has already caught on.

There is no new urbanist project that is perfect, but good, clear standards that are as objective as possible can help separate the better examples from the hybrids and the misconceived projects. The New Urban News list (http://www.newurbannews.com/NewUrbanCommunities.pdf) and my links list (http://www.tndtownpaper.com/neighborhoods.htm) represent preliminary attempts to set standards. The CNU is considering this topic, and there are several work groups developing NU appraisal systems. I think these efforts will help a lot with the perception problem.

[dave p.]

Thank you for those explanations, Laurence. I need to point out that I am a big fan of New Urbanism and I want to see it succeed (I just wish I were in a position to be able to promote it). Any problems with New Urbanism are, I think, perceptions more than realities, and the concerns I brought up were more of what I see as the perceptions that need somehow to be changed.

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

I would also like to see NU succeed, if only so that when I have to visit someone in the suburbs, my experience will be less annoying. And I'll gladly concede that the popularity of NU is making it harder to get away with building suburban-style in city neighborhoods, which is a big win.

But I'm still not convinced.

"Ninety-five percent of new construction is in the suburbs. How do we respond to that? We can a) ignore it, b) stop it, or c) improve it, or at least parts of it."

I'd argue that a combination of A and B is a better approach--this is the approach taken by Portland, which allows a certain amount of traditional suburban developments, but not an unlimited amount (through the UGB). The result of this (and I realize it's far from the only factor) is that in Portland, you can choose a suburb, one of many great city neighborhoods, or even an NU development.

But NU is still playing games with density. "Marketing studies indicate that at least 30 percent of householders would like a traditional, walkable neighborhood," no doubt, but do they really want the shortcomings of such a neighborhood? In traditional, walkable neighborhoods it's hard to park, hard to use a car in general. It's loud. You have to deal with lots of people you don't know. If you don't mind these things, you have any number of existing traditional, walkable neighborhoods to choose from, many of which are far less expensive than a DPZ development.

On the other hand, if you do mind these things, if you want a traditional, walkable neighborhood that's easy to drive in, with plenty of parking and shops and friendly neighbors, you may also be interested in some land I have for sale in Florida (sorry, bad joke). I don't believe NU can provide this, because it's not possible. People occasionally call for the construction of a parking garage in my neighborhood to ease the parking problem, not realizing that the fact that my neighborhood is great and the fact that it's hard to park go hand-in-hand. ("In the best neighborhoods in the world, it's hard to get a parking spot," I often say.)

Laurence, you say that "density can be an important part of new urbanism," but I think it's more than that: density is always part of urbanism, period. You cannot support a diverse array of services without density, and the NU developments I've seen (with some exceptions) don't have enough density--not nearly enough--and have no plans to add it.

Really, there's a lot I like about NU; I'm on one of the committees that will be revising Seattle's right of way manual (our design guidelines, in a sense), and much of what goes into that revision, many of us hope, will be heavily informed by the work of DPZ and Peter Calthorpe and so on. Mostly I'm skeptical of the greenfield developments, which to me promise urbanism and deliver a nicer subdivision.

[David Sucher]

Matthew.
What NU subdivisions in the Seattle area do you find so distatestful?

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

I don't, actually. I think New Holly is quite nice, but it's more of an urban development, and I couldn't name another Seattle NU development at gunpoint. Are there any I should look at? My criticism, again, is not with NU's style or site design principles, which I think are sound, but with the "let a thousand pretty suburbs bloom" mentality that, if the posts here are any indication, is on the wane.

[David Sucher]

MAB. There are very few, period. The best projects simply blend in and look like old Seattle neighborhoods. And fewer which one could identify as such and that's why I was curious about your criticism.

Trendy? Exclusive? I just don't get it.

In general, I am at a loss to understand the views offered. There is a tremendous demand for new housing. It cannot be satisfied by people moving into an old house in the U District. There will be new building in outlying areas. The only question is whether such development creates neighborhoods with long term value.

[debritto]

The only question is whether such development creates neighborhoods with long term value.

It can't unless the development can control employment, property values and a myriad of other outside factors. Pick any neighborhood in Manhattan and check its long history over a period of, lets say 25 years, and you will find widely varying social and economic conditions are in play.

NU is just another name for a project based development activity. There is, generally, no long term awareness of job trends and location, or any other determinant of neighborhood health. Development is a short term goal predicated on short term gains. I don't see how this kind of activity, no matter its appearance or arrangement factors into good neighborhoods in the long term.

[David Sucher]

It can't? Do you mean that developers cannot create value by their efforts?

I'd suggest that an examination of existing neighborhoods might suggest otherwise.

Every great neighborhood without exception was produced by "greedy developers." :) Bath, England is perhaps the most striking example.

(And I wouldn't call 25 years very long; I am talking about 50 or 100 years or more.)

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

Let me go on record as saying that I am in favor of greedy developers. :) And let me admit, as I admitted to David by email, that my thinking on NU is probably several years out of date. Many of the comments here indicate that New Urbanist developers are thinking hard about some of the issues that were neglected in the early days of the movement.

However, the density issue is still out there like a scary puppet. The development discussed on Daily Dose offers 3000 residences on 1121 acres, or 2.7 residences/acre. Now, that's not quite fair, since some of the land is devoted to a park, a "prairie," and a golf course. According to the master plan PDF, the land set aside for residences is 206 acres, for an effective residential density of 14.6 residences/acre.

That kind of density is just plain nuts. Here is Jane Jacobs, talking about exactly this density:

"Between ten and twenty dwellings to the acre yields a kind of semisuburb, consisting either of detached or two-family houses on handkerchief plots, or else of generously sized row houses with relatively generous yards or greens...[t]hey will not generate city liveliness or public life--their populations are too thin--nor will they help maintain sidewalk safety." Furthermore, "densities of this kind ringing a city are a bad long-term bet, destined to become gray area." There are cases where she's wrong, but no one ever won big betting again Jane Jacobs in the long run.

The kind of density that is necessary to promote urban liveliness is well known. It starts at around 100 residences per acre. You could argue that, no, it's more like 50 or 150, but can you really argue that it's 14.6? That is a major shortcoming of The Glen, and of every other suburban NU development I know of.

I hope that in 100 years, the average NU subdivision will have built on its initial seed of diversity and will have grown more dense, more like a city neighborhood. I don't think it would be pure pessimism to suspect that this will not be the fate of most of them, however: the countryside is littered with yesterday's "new suburb," today's failing urban neighborhood.

Does anyone know of a NU development with density of around 100 units/acre? Just because I don't know of one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I would be intensely interested in the fate of such a place.

[David Sucher]

"The kind of density that is necessary to promote urban liveliness is well known. It starts at around 100 residences per acre"

I wonder about that number; that would be equivalent to a 22 unit apartment building on a 10,000 SF lot. That's is urban; it's fine but NU is not just about high density but also about lively lower-density neighborhoods.

Matthew, please consider the density of most Seattle neighborhoods.

My own, Maple Leaf, is zoned Single Family 5000 i.e. minimum lot size of 5000 SF. Even without the vast area allocated to ROW, that's 9 dwellings/acre; it's probably 6-7 units/acre if you add back in the sidewalk/street area. There are some apartment buildings which raise the ratio but it's still not very high. But our neighborhood supports a reasonably successful commercial street, although it is evolving. But as our apartment-zoned land is built-up, I am sure it will provide support for more business. Nearby, amidst this same overall zoning is Northgate, some of which serve a regional population but much of which serves the surrounding low-density neighborhoods.

Northgate's urban form is terrible but there are sufficient residences (both single and multi-family) surrounding it to support quite a bit of business. The issue is form.

One hundred units/acre is high density...more toward Bell Town than Capitol Hill. Most of the U District is maybe 50-60 units/acre. Such density is not coincident with a lively place.

The mantra of density places the cart before the horse. Density is a byproduct, not a cause, of an urbanity. You start by creating interesting places where people want to be. Density follows; it does not precede.

[Laurence Aurbach]

Matthew,

Where did you get this number, that 100 dwellings per acre are necessary for urban liveliness? Can you provide a citation?

The French Quarter in New Orleans seems to provide an adequate level of liveliness for most people, and its density is 20 dwellings to the acre. See http://users.erols.com/aurbach/DelightfulDensity.htm

Besides, many people want a semi-suburb with a generous yard and less urban liveliness. Most transit experts say that 8 dwellings per acre is the minimum to support regular transit service.

Anyhow, DPZ's Liberty Harbor in Jersey City is one of the densest NU projects. It's around 87 dwellings per acre, along with one million square feet of hotel space, 750,000 square feet of retail space and 4.5 million square feet of office space. It has received approval from the planning board, but of course is getting NIMBY opposition, and the 9/11 destruction of the PATH line hasn't helped matters.

http://www.jcedc.org/new/lhnjj110703.html

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

Laurence, as you say in your (excellent) article:

"Census Bureau figures were used to determine the density as measured in dwelling units per acre of land. Non-residential elements such as streets, parks, and commercial and civic buildings are included. If they were subtracted, the density figures would be higher."

In most cases, much, much higher. Also, I'd say that the French Quarter is a special case, but that sounds like a cop-out. The Jersey City development is terribly exciting.

The 100 figure comes from Jane Jacobs, and she is talking about genuine big-city neighborhoods. That's why I said you could argue it's closer to 50. Naturally, you can't achieve that in a new neighborhood all at once, but is there even any intention of providing anything close to that sort of density in the average NU suburb? The density of Celebration is something like 1 unit per acre.

Actually, a minute on Google tells me there is such an intent for at least one NU development, Kentlands:

From New Urban News Jul/Aug 03: "The plan calls for steady densification and more mixed uses in Kentlands’ downtown. Washington Post architecture critic Benjamin Forgey called the result “radical.” Gone, in the plan for the next 15 years, are the single-use buildings, large parking lots, and big-box stores of Kentlands’ current downtown. In their place are a “grid of streets defined by buildings of five stories or more,” Forgey writes. “It would become, in other words, more a city center than a town center.”"

See? My campaign is already paying off.

[Laurence Aurbach]

I agree with David about this: Making density the primary concern does little or nothing to ensure better-quality living environments. Some people want lofts and cafés; others want rec rooms and vegetable gardens. The challenge is to provide for many types of lifestyles while creating compact, diverse and walkable neighborhoods. There are plenty of very walkable and dearly-loved neighborhoods that average 8-12 dwellings per acre.

It's critical to keep an eye on the long term, and to maximize adaptability and flexibility. That's why I proposed the title "Ideals to Reality: The Evolving City" for last year's CNU congress and that's why the CNU board adopted it. Several new urbanists have developed mechanisms to periodically evaluate the goals of a community and alter the neighborhood's codes for built character if so desired.

The original 1988 Kentlands planning team returned last spring for a pro bono retrofit charrette. It was pretty interesting watching them correct their original designs as well as dealing with some wrongheaded implementations. Now if the residents can vote in a more supportive city council -- as supportive as the council of 15 years ago -- they'll be in good shape. You can find more details about the retrofit plan at http://www.towncourier.com/images/KentlandsCharretteInsert.pdf

[dave p.]

David: "The objections seem more straw-man than flesh-and-blood and/or are a reflection of unrealistic expectations engendered by over-enthusiastic NU-supporters."

I am guilty of straw-man creation, because, actually, I see no shortcomings with New Urbanism. I do see, as I said earlier, problems with its acceptance, though I'm confident they will change in time; that developers are even acknowledging NU at their annual gatherings is a huge step in the right direction.

One of my early perceptions of NU was that it was trendy and exclusive because the only NU projects I was aware of were Seaside and Celebration. I've been to Seaside a few times and I love it and hate it at the same time; it's a wonderful place with fascinating architecture, but it is dreadfully trendy. Of course, I understand that, being basically a resort town, it is a special case.

I hate bringing semantics into any discussion, but it seems like Matthew's objections may stem from the fact that it's called New Urbanism, a misleading term because most of the projects out there do not fit the definition of "urban."

Nevertheless...

David: "The only question is whether such development creates neighborhoods with long term value."

I agree. And New Urbanism seems able to do exactly that.

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

This has been a fantastically educational experience for me--while I can't say I've made a 180-degree turnaround, my opinion on NU is starting to evolve as a result of this conversation. Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to respond to my original comment. I only stumbled across this blog a few days ago, and I can see it's going to be a major resource and time sink.

[Brian Miller]

My 2 cents: I agree with David that moderate density "suburbs" built according to New Urbanist principles may not satisfy a Jane Jacobs, but they represent a vast improvement and reflect what many people want. I'm sorry, even as a single guy, I don't want to live on the seventh floor of an apartment building in a small 800 square foot flat. As long as people have a choice, most won't-especially with families. That's not the Anglo-American way.

So, the real question is: better, higher density suburbs. I would not be so quick to dismiss townhouse neighborhoods (I love mine!) or "streetcar suburbs."

[clew]

I'm pretty sure Jacobs' 100 households/acre number was for very urban neighborhoods - the densest in New York or Toronto, even. I'll have to go reread and check.

If there's a public streetcar from the city to a suburb, the suburb will become a city neighborhood. That's often what anti-transit people fear; cf. Moses and Long Island.

About NU neighborhoods in Seattle - there are dense, very 'cute' developments in Winslow and Poulsbo. I'm told they sold very well. I think I'll like them better when they've grown a bit more variation and oddity, but their youth isn't their fault.

Personally, I try to judge places not explicitly by their urbanity and walkability, but by how much stuff, fuel and stress they cost to keep an inhabitant happy. Ruburbs where most people grow their own food and fuel, and telecommute or work seasonally, would also make me happy. Harder to preserve, though - one needs Swiss levels of social conditioning to keep the first person from selling out and poisoning the well for everyone else. Also, I don't know if such a ruburb is more or less greedy of total resources than a city using efficient division of labor, but more transportation.

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

As long as those better, higher density suburbs come with transit and are willing to grow, I'm prepared to set aside some of my skepticism. Did anyone read the article in this week's Seattle Weekly:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0411/040317_turf_redmondridge.php

about Redmond Ridge? It sounds like an NU style development near Seattle that I should have known about before spouting off, but you need to get to the end of the article for the punchline: horrible traffic, as this denser development butts up against traditional suburban patters of auto use.

[Laurence Aurbach]

Hmm... fragmented plan, disconnected street network, and auto-oriented frontages. Redmond Ridge doesn't clam to be NU and as far as I can tell, it's not.

But your point is well taken: Even the best-designed bedroom suburb will cause a traffic mess if it's in the wrong location.

[Nicholas Weininger]

One recent criticism of NU I've seen, advanced by Randall O'Toole in the April 2004 _Liberty_, is that New Urbanist developments tend to have higher crime rates, because the residential spaces they create are inherently more attractive to criminals. O'Toole supports his point with some data from England comparing NU developments to those built according to an alternative philosophy (which I'd not heard of before) called Defensible Space. I'd be interested to see comment on this blog on O'Toole's objections, or on the Defensible Space philosophy.

[David Sucher]

Nicholas, Is the article online?

If it's the same story as discussed on this blog at "Crimogenic?" No, Bunkogenic. then it's nonsense.

If O'Toole is still pushing such distortion he should be embarrassed and you can please tell him that I said so. NU deserves criticism but it has to be criticism founded in reality.

[Nicholas Weininger]

The article is not online-- _Liberty_ is very bad about putting its stuff online-- but following your links, it looks to be basically the same story. In particular, the data he cites are from the Operation Scorpion study you criticized earlier, and he does not seem to have taken your criticisms into account. Which certainly undermines the credibility of his empirical claims.

Nevertheless, it is intuitively plausible that cul-de-sacs and separated uses should indeed provide somewhat better crime prevention than mixed-use developments with no cul-de-sacs. Is there an empirical investigation of this question which you hold in higher regard than the Operation Scorpion study?

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

The Space Syntax Lab did a similar study a couple of years ago and found the precise opposite result, that houses whose doors were passed by the largest number of people had the least crime. I can't find the citation now, but it specifically set out to debunk aspects of the Defensible Space thesis. On the other hand, if you haven't read Oscar Newman's original book on Defensible Space, I recommend it. It's not about building fortresses.

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

Ah, here it is:

http://www.spacesyntax.com/housing/BillCrimePaper/BillCrimePaper.html

"Space Syntax" is a terrible name, but they do some really interesting research. I was accepted into their graduate program at UCL but sadly couldn't attend (read: it costs gobs).