New Urbanism

Writing for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 1996, William Fulton announced that New Urbanism had captured the American public's interest. Stories on the covers of Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, and The Atlantic Monthly supported his conclusion as they described the promise of neo-traditional design principles as a correction to the sprawled landscape of post–World War II America. New Urbanists argued that correcting the waste and monotony of an automobile-oriented landscape through the creation of pedestrian-friendly, compact, mixed-use neighborhoods would also rebuild civic life and a sense of community. As [Page 540]such rhetoric captured the public's imagination, New Urbanism (NU) received institutional validation with the incorporation of New Urbanist principles in state- and federal-level government policy as well. For example, in the mid-1990s the federal government's Department of Housing and Urban Development drew upon NU neighborhood design concepts in the reconstruction of public housing projects, and neo-traditional design standards became an integral part of Smart Growth legislation in states such as Maryland and Wisconsin.

Despite this planning movement's successes, a degree of controversy surrounds it as it draws criticism from the right and left. Critics to the left describe it as conservative nostalgia that is aesthetically and socially anachronistic, while those to the right condemn it as liberal social engineering. Others simply note that there has been limited analysis of the impact of neo-traditional design, and thus its claims cannot be effectively evaluated. Further complications in the debate of New Urbanist principles rest on the umbrella-like character of the planning movement. Encompassed in the movement are references to neotraditional planning and concepts of sustainable living such as transit-oriented development. New Urbanism cannot be easily reduced to a single agenda or a single standard of evaluation. Its literature draws upon at least three critiques of conventional modern planning and consequently needs to be evaluated by acknowledging these distinct albeit entangled arguments. First, should its emphasis on compact development and, in some cases, its transit orientation be considered a response to sprawl and evaluated in terms of environmental benefits? Second, by increasing the proximity of homes, mixing types of land uses, and providing such amenities as sidewalks and porches, can physical planning support greater social cohesion? Simply put, can the built environment influence social interaction and thus build a sense of community? Third, to what extent will a return to vernacular traditions reflecting pre–World War II communities create emotional bonding with place? As critics of New Urbanism's communitarian goals inquire, to what extent is there a normative “sense of place” appealing to a broad spectrum of the population?

Against a background of debate, including Emily Talen's 2000 article “New Urbanism and the Culture of Criticism,” this ascendant planning movement has over several decades drawn support from a coalition of architects, urban designers, planners, engineers, journalists, and concerned citizens. During the 1960s and 1970s, a critique emerged that the planning and design of the modern city was a blueprint for placelessness with massive structures facilitated by the automobile creating a decentered modern city. Within this context, nostalgia for cities of the past spurred the growth of the historic preservation movement and suggested opportunities for the market to produce new developments with the character and appeal of traditional villages and towns. Several future leaders of New Urbanism experimented with the construction of “livable communities,” finding theoretical inspiration in the Garden City and City Beautiful movement of the early 20th century. During the late 1970s, Michael and Judy Corbett developed the 60-acre Village Homes project in Davis, California, combining residential, commercial, and agricultural elements in their effort to develop a model of ecological living. In 1981, Andreas Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk designed the 80-acre resort town of Seaside in the Florida panhandle using neo-traditional planning principles. Often referred to as the first New Urbanist town, Seaside proved an economic success as well as becoming famous for the quality of its architecture, streets, and public space. Its neo-traditional design reflected the use of a historic neighborhood model adjusted to serve contemporary needs.

...