Has anyone seen this? In the vision section DPZ steps forward as the culprit. Evidently ground broke a couple of years ago on the first homes, and just this past March on some of the institutional bldgs...
sweet :) Ever wondered that the architecture progressive people push nowadays is just not the how it should be? Is moving forward always better? Is architecure today really moving forward from what DPZ dpes or is it just a bunch of side steps? I dont know...
this solution, and others like it, do very little to address suburban sprawl. Also, even if you don't agree with that statement, it's difficult to argue that most, if not all, NewUrban developments cater to the upper-middle class, and are therefore exclusionary to the majority of the population. Case in point, home at Westhaven start at $350,000.
bLayer, not sure what you're actually saying. DPZ is an alternative, and urban re-vitalization / infill (whatever that is defined as) is also an alternative. Both have their ugly sides...There are surely better alternatives to the product being pushed by DPZ. The Co-Op housing that was produced in Denmark, especially in the 70's, represents an excellent alternative for this type of community development, and they were far more "sustainable."
why is sprawl so bad? should we all live in highrises? Cant i have a nice big back yard if I can afford it. Nothing's cool if you're poor. If you look at it that way architecture is only for the select few. Most people couldnt care less about what we design "for them". If cheap is the operative word here then they need engineers.
Okay that was a loose string of thoughts up there.
It's the master planning that is largely a problem with sprawl - you have to drive far to get anything. NU tries to address this by decentralizing things, although that's a dumbed down version of it. FLW tried to do this, as I am sure countless others did.
The idea is good, but there needs to be some densification to make it workable. I would love to have an office and a home within walking distance, but I have my own business, so I don't need to be in a highrise.
And that's not getting into the problems inherent with sprawl - traffic, pollution, crime. Things need to be decentralized, but it's not as simple as adding a few stores.
You know, what's really interesting to me is how active these guys are down in the gulf coast. As far as architects addressing the aftermath of Katrina, these guys seem to be the only ones doing anything significant. Sure, plenty of architects have made comments or suggestions. But the new urbanists are the only ones who seem to have the will and the ability to speak the same language as the developers, traffic engineers and municipalities... I think that's unfortunate.
they are the only ones that anyone can name. They do have some good ideas about planning, it's just the architecture usually stinks. It's also a 'catch phrase', almost like 'prefab' is now. The developer that I am working with is using it as part of his description, although he is not doing any developments that require 'planning'.
But let's not forget that the are speaking 'planning', not architecture. While they are architects, NU is mostly about planning, at least as far as I understand it. I can't think of one other architect that even has a solid opinion about residential development.
Overall, though, they have contributed more than any other architect to the actual future of residential development. Some of it sucks, but it's at least bringing awareness to the masses.
I hate to say it, as I think most of NU for whatever reason, the architecture is horrendous, but they've done more for the built world than any architect of and more of an impact on society. Maybe it's time for our stararchitects to pick up a FLW or Corbu book and look at how they used their talent in more ways than winning high profile clients and competitions.
Trace - I can't help but take issue with your stance on planning vs. architecture. Where do you draw the line between planning and architecture?
These disciplines should not be as separate as they have become over the years. And it is very important for architects to be involved in the reconstruction efforts - not just at the scale of the building but at the scale of communities and landscapes. One of the reasons our profession becomes increasingly marginalized is because we design fewer building types for fewer people at fewer scales.
It would be great if there were other architects working at the scale of the neighborhood/city/region. And I think there are plenty of architects with "solid opinions" about residential development!!!
rpsnino, it is unfortunate that the DPZ and their charter have spoken most clearly and strongly to the audiences that are in position to effect change. And, as you said, they have done so in a language that is comprehendable and agreeable.
This fact outlines one of our generations primary challanges, IMHO. If we can, as architecturally minded people of the generatin following D and PZ, learn from the effective communication of the NewUrbs, but apply more creative and inclusive strategies, future development will thank us. In this sense, one may look back at New Urbanism as a needed impetus along the continuum, an inspiration to develop an alternative, a veiled call to action.
trace, i think we had the same undergrad education, but I never got the impression while there that any of this was outside the realm of consideration for the architect. In fact, it was studying at UF that made me realize the scope of issues that should be addressed via the "architectural" form of knowledge, or way of seeing.
actually, on that note, one design prof, during the 3rd year, brought in the NU Charter, asked if we knew what it was etc. (Our project was sited in Charleston, SC). He lauded its clarity as a documented set of cohesive ideas. He then made it clear that he disagreed with it, but left us to decide for ourselves how we felt.
He then charged us with the responsibility of creating such a clear and holistic framework to act within (not that semester, of course).
...the Charter asserts a position, but it does so without jargon and with a wide perspective.
AP - beautifully and elegantly stated... there is much to learn from the NUists but many opportunities for more innovative and inclusive approaches. In your opinion, is there anybody practicing along these lines right now?
not that I can think of. That doesn't mean they're not there. A few designers that create interesting suburban enclaves (smaller than the typical NewUrb project, both in scale and scope) exist...I'm thinking of Jonathan Segal, Pugh+Scarpa, David Baker + Partners, Steven Ehrlich Architects...
as I list them, I realize that these offices all have their specific agendas, but at least they devise thoughtful solutions to the existing condition. One strength of NewUrbanism is that it kinda creates its own situation, while still considering many factors. Not sure if that's a strength, but it allows their masterplans to exercise a degree of control that the acupuncture-esque strategies of the firms listed above do not.
instead of debating the merits and flaws of new urbanism, i think the vital issue in the rebuilding efforts for the gulf coast is to have a more inclusionary team of planners and architects be involved than just dpz and other new urbanists, who were invited by the state governments to lead the planning efforts, maybe because they believe that rhetoric. I'm sorry but IMO, that NU Charter is bullshit.
That Mike Davis article hits the mark on everything that's wrong with the whole deal.
Lot of cheap shots in this thread that demonstrate ignorance on the subject. If anything, NU is becoming a victim of its own success. Developers are bastardizing NU concepts, often missing critical urban principles, because they know that NU projects command a premium on the market. So you see a life-style center with a Pottery Barn, J-Crew, and a Whole Foods, that's supposed to be pedestrian-friendly, yet is backed by a 6000 car parking garage, and situated on a 8 lane right-of-way highway and you think NU is tacky, disney-esque, misled. That's not NU.
DPZ didnt conduct the charette in Mississippi. It participated, but Duany himself made explicit that, for the charrette to have public legitimacy, it wasnt a private venture but rather it drew upon several hundred architects, planners, developers, community organizers. The common bond was that, yes, all of the participants to a certain extent hold a view on architecture and urbanism that's commensurate with the NU Charter.
Read here a (balanced) article by Blair Kamin, architectural critic for the Chicago Tribune about the Katrina Charrettes:
To be certain, no NU development is flawless. But the bottom line- somehow missed in the discussion already on this thread - is that there hasnt been a Decon charrette in the Gulf precisely b/c Decon (or however you want to classify the contemporary avant guard) architects dont do business that way. The charrette process is inherently a bottom-up exercise of seeking to find tangible solutions to a fragmented community fabric through the contributions of the residents themselves. This entails having some faith and respect in individuals of knowing what works for their neighborhood, what their likes and dislikes are, and what would fit for their neighborhood. The opposite approach that dominates today, patterned from the theoretical utopias of Corbu & FLW, for example, is that of a top-down, tyrannical, architect-as-hero that entails a sense of both alienation and disrespect for the unenlightened masses. Hence, the disasters of the 20th Century 'urbanism': public housing tower projects, urban renewal, and the metathoetsis of automobile dependent suburbs.
Modernist urbanity failed. History will be increasingly clear on that subject. Even once staunch supporters of modernism, and post-modernism, such as Vincent Scully, have recognized the inherent failures of an architecture that denies its civic and community context.
Its not a question of style- but one of approach/philosophy. There are plenty of examples of brilliant modernist, post-modernist, and contemporary architecture- but they almost always are situated in a site of sound, traditional (classic) urbanism (e.g. the streets of London, or Manhattan, can absorb modernist expressionist architecture. Indeed its a tribute to the flexibility and genius of those respective plans).
BLayer - look into the concept of the 'transect'. Nothing in NU suggests a uniformity of context. NU is the exact opposite: build towns where you would want towns, at various levels of density corresponding to the municipal/civic relevance of the location, so that you can preserve the country and open space for those prefer a more rural setting. The current paradigm forces into one, limited, homogeneous pattern of semi-rural, auto-dependent blah (perhaps with a few life-style centers sprinkled about.)
On the argument that NU is only for the rich. No. In the 1990's, due in a large part to the influence and action of NU supporters, the Clinton admin initiated HUD's Hope VI plan to rebuild the 1950's era, public housing hell-holes such as Chicago's Cabrini Green with mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods. Almost all of the architecture firms involved happened to be NU (e.g. Torti Gallas). Mayor Brown in Oakland has used NU architects extensively to rebuild blighted neighborhoods in Oakland, CA. The redevelopment of inner-city Milwaukee, WI was guided by John Norquist, now the head of the NU.
The fact that NU developments are targets of gentrification is a sign that, gee-wiz, the market is being underserved for pedestrian-friendly, urban environments. That doesnt mean that the gentrification should continue unrestrained, but just perhaps, people in the architectural/development/planning world will start to connect the dots between the attributes of the most valuable real estate (London's West End, Chelsea, and Kensington, Back Bay in Boston, Manhattan, Wash DC's Georgetown-DuPont Circle, Chicago's Lincoln Park, San Francisco (most of it), etc) and the attributes of the NU developments.
"Nobody proposes an anti-classical chianti" Leon Krier
If you want to see a more contemporary interpretation of NU - by an architect who somewhat distinguishes himself in opposition to DPZ's approach, check out Jiame Correa & Associates:
Guffman - very nice to see some support for the NU on archinect. And very impressive to see a such a wholehearted defense - and all in one post.
I've been following comments from Duany, Polyzoides and others on the CNU listserv - and feel confident that I have a solid understanding of may aspects of the gulf coast charrette.
Obviously developers are bastardizing the success of NU principles (that is only one of many issues!). But I challenge you to name one NU project that is successful in meeting the goals of the Charter. They (the NUists) have a very hard time measuring up to their own goals.
Sure there hasn't been a decon approach to the gulf coast disaster. But shouldn't there be other approaches than the NUist approach from the architecutre community? I'm not sure where you're pulling this notion of a "decon" approach from... perhaps from the Eric Own Moss comments... but this is certainly not what I was suggesting in previous comments.
Okay, I'm not going to respond to every detail of this anti-modernist manifesto. Obviously, this has already been done by Rowe, Rossi, Krier and countless others. It's a waste of time.
I think you're missing the point of the previous comments. Some of us in the architectural community are looking for a THIRD WAY. An approach that is somewhere betwen the "avante-garde" and the New Urbanists. An approach that is both creative and inclusive. An approach that is both bottom-up and top-down (how could a successful approach be either/or?).
Having said all of that, I do agree with much of what you say Guffman, but it is VERY disappointing to me that you're comments sound as if they are straight from the CNU Charter itself.
Let's have a discussion instead of a manifesto. Let's have a conversation.
*And for the record, despite my criticism, I'm sincerely grateful to see someone take a pro-NU stance in this discussion forum!
AP + rpsnino - I am not suggesting that I agree with how it's being done, quite the opposite. It's just my observation. They are not only successful in marketing themselves and sweet talkin' the deal, but they are saying 'hey, you can still build your spec-crap and it'll work!' Any developer will love that.
NU has so much press, books, etc., that it's hard to ignore. They are providing 'solutions', for better or worse, that address large communities, not just a block or two.
It's all powerhouse marketing that I think should send a wake up call. Unfortunately, it takes tons of resources to put together a comprehensive solution, give it a identity, then push it.
And yes, planning and architecture should be intertwined, but it doesn't happen that often.
It'd be cool to see some of these smaller, progressive firms get together to offer strategic alternatives. But for now it's an easy sell, to developers, to cities, and to buyers. Let's not forget, everything has to be paid for somehow.
AP - Those you mentioned do some very good work, some great work (I am huge P+S fan, doesn't hurt Scarpa is a UF grad, either).
Thank you for your comments. Admittedly- I'm a bit sheepish about my response- perhaps a bit much at once. I follow the boards regularly, and usually hold-back when the NU debate arises, for, as was noted above, the lines of debate have well-worn and there's no need to rehash them.
I'm certainly very critical of the NU, but I agree with the general approach, and particularly so, as it represents a departure from what appears to be the more popular/dominant approach to architecture and urbanism in contemporary practice. If my comments above came across as a template refrain, if anything, its because I was handling the subject at 10,000 ft. I do have some bones to pick with the NU - mostly how its being applied rather than its underlying tenets (I am particularly taken by Benny's comment that the "NU charter is bullshit" as I like to hear a more reasoned critique). Also, the knee-jerk treatment that NU gets from certain corners of the architectural community inherently draws a seige-like, reactionist response. Its frustrating that a more well-reasoned dialogue cant be conducted (its not uncommon for forum contributors to make, cheap, trite remarks about NU without any backing or reasoning.)
There's a list-serv called the NextGen, comprised of current architecture students and young professionals, who to a varying degree adhere to the fundamental principles of NU. Because energy isnt spent defending its basic tenets, the NextGen contributors have been able to achieve a more provocative, self-critical analysis of NU. Hopefully those disscussions and others will lead to a higher synthesis of classical urban principles and modern techniques, styles, technologies and expression.
A note about Andres Duany and how it relates to DPZ doing projects like Westhaven. Intellectually, he's incredibly nimble. Whereas most of the CNU members lean left politically, 3-5 years ago Duany started to explore the ties between NU principles and libertarian and more conservative positions- with the aim being to demonstrate the universality of certain traditional urban/architectural principles (as outlined in Vitruvius, Alberti, Palladio...) Where he has seemingly arrived (and what he's been speaking/writing along with Oscar Machado most recently) is the notion of "American Pragmaticism" as the main philosophical contribution of the US experiment in history. Its in this pragmatist approach that Duany has rationalized he's involvement with the volume house builders, developers,etc as he sees it as the means to have the largest, if somewhat diluted, impact on changing the shape of development in the US. I pose to AP - what would have Westhaven looked like if it had been proposed 15 years ago, in the cul-de-sac spirit of the age? Which is worse? That's not to say either is ideal, but at least the NU attempts to deal with the manifold failures of contemporary sprawl.
Here's an essay in which Duany in his own words tackles the subject:
Rpsino, I agree with that I wish these issues were investigated at a higher level of rigor. I myself am attracted to some of the ideas of Christopher Alexander, and several physicists and biologists who are researching the emergence of fundamental forms throughout nature.
E.F. Schumacher's, "Guide for the Perplexed" is a great read, a brilliantly lucid means to begin to (re)unite the seemingly disparate strands of philosophy, pyschology, the physical sciences and architecture that have been blown apart by modernist thought in the 20th Century.
Great comments guffman. I agree... it is very frustrating that the archinect community and many of the academic communities seem incapable of intelligent debate when it comes to the NUism. Almost just as frustrating as the canned responses that frequently pour from the mouths of the NUists themselves.
But I think some of this dates back to the early days of the CNU invite-only conferences and a desire among the early members to establish measurable goals and standards, rather than asking the 'big questions'. I really enjoy some of the comments from people like Kaliski and Krieger in the Seaside Debates book for this reason. Also, it seems like there were some interesting discussions at the Harvard and Berkeley conferences but I'm not sure where to learn more about them...
Two questions for you about the NextGen: where to find more info about it? Also, Duany, Polyzoides and others have not been very open -historically- to allowing new, younger leaders to participate in leadership aspects of the organization - does this NextGen group acknowledge this? Are they critical of this aspect of the 'administration'?
Doesn't look like there's much discussion/debate there... While searching for the NextGen group, I found a random web page online from 2 years ago that dicusses their foundation:
You know, this is one of the main problems with many of the new urbanists... just like the modernists before them there is an unreasonable desire to make bold and dramatic statements and gestures when they are not necessarily appropriate. A manifesto? I think a purpose statement and some goals would suffice.
Westhaven, TN - DPZ strikes again
Has anyone seen this? In the vision section DPZ steps forward as the culprit. Evidently ground broke a couple of years ago on the first homes, and just this past March on some of the institutional bldgs...
AP - am I missing something? What's so surprising about this?
no surprise, just a somewhat numbed version of outrage...
sweet :) Ever wondered that the architecture progressive people push nowadays is just not the how it should be? Is moving forward always better? Is architecure today really moving forward from what DPZ dpes or is it just a bunch of side steps? I dont know...
interesting. i grew up less than a mile away from this...
this solution, and others like it, do very little to address suburban sprawl. Also, even if you don't agree with that statement, it's difficult to argue that most, if not all, NewUrban developments cater to the upper-middle class, and are therefore exclusionary to the majority of the population. Case in point, home at Westhaven start at $350,000.
bLayer, not sure what you're actually saying. DPZ is an alternative, and urban re-vitalization / infill (whatever that is defined as) is also an alternative. Both have their ugly sides...There are surely better alternatives to the product being pushed by DPZ. The Co-Op housing that was produced in Denmark, especially in the 70's, represents an excellent alternative for this type of community development, and they were far more "sustainable."
why is sprawl so bad? should we all live in highrises? Cant i have a nice big back yard if I can afford it. Nothing's cool if you're poor. If you look at it that way architecture is only for the select few. Most people couldnt care less about what we design "for them". If cheap is the operative word here then they need engineers.
Okay that was a loose string of thoughts up there.
this is more about planning than architecture.
It's the master planning that is largely a problem with sprawl - you have to drive far to get anything. NU tries to address this by decentralizing things, although that's a dumbed down version of it. FLW tried to do this, as I am sure countless others did.
The idea is good, but there needs to be some densification to make it workable. I would love to have an office and a home within walking distance, but I have my own business, so I don't need to be in a highrise.
And that's not getting into the problems inherent with sprawl - traffic, pollution, crime. Things need to be decentralized, but it's not as simple as adding a few stores.
You know, what's really interesting to me is how active these guys are down in the gulf coast. As far as architects addressing the aftermath of Katrina, these guys seem to be the only ones doing anything significant. Sure, plenty of architects have made comments or suggestions. But the new urbanists are the only ones who seem to have the will and the ability to speak the same language as the developers, traffic engineers and municipalities... I think that's unfortunate.
they are the only ones that anyone can name. They do have some good ideas about planning, it's just the architecture usually stinks. It's also a 'catch phrase', almost like 'prefab' is now. The developer that I am working with is using it as part of his description, although he is not doing any developments that require 'planning'.
But let's not forget that the are speaking 'planning', not architecture. While they are architects, NU is mostly about planning, at least as far as I understand it. I can't think of one other architect that even has a solid opinion about residential development.
Overall, though, they have contributed more than any other architect to the actual future of residential development. Some of it sucks, but it's at least bringing awareness to the masses.
I hate to say it, as I think most of NU for whatever reason, the architecture is horrendous, but they've done more for the built world than any architect of and more of an impact on society. Maybe it's time for our stararchitects to pick up a FLW or Corbu book and look at how they used their talent in more ways than winning high profile clients and competitions.
Trace - I can't help but take issue with your stance on planning vs. architecture. Where do you draw the line between planning and architecture?
These disciplines should not be as separate as they have become over the years. And it is very important for architects to be involved in the reconstruction efforts - not just at the scale of the building but at the scale of communities and landscapes. One of the reasons our profession becomes increasingly marginalized is because we design fewer building types for fewer people at fewer scales.
It would be great if there were other architects working at the scale of the neighborhood/city/region. And I think there are plenty of architects with "solid opinions" about residential development!!!
rpsnino, it is unfortunate that the DPZ and their charter have spoken most clearly and strongly to the audiences that are in position to effect change. And, as you said, they have done so in a language that is comprehendable and agreeable.
This fact outlines one of our generations primary challanges, IMHO. If we can, as architecturally minded people of the generatin following D and PZ, learn from the effective communication of the NewUrbs, but apply more creative and inclusive strategies, future development will thank us. In this sense, one may look back at New Urbanism as a needed impetus along the continuum, an inspiration to develop an alternative, a veiled call to action.
trace, i think we had the same undergrad education, but I never got the impression while there that any of this was outside the realm of consideration for the architect. In fact, it was studying at UF that made me realize the scope of issues that should be addressed via the "architectural" form of knowledge, or way of seeing.
actually, on that note, one design prof, during the 3rd year, brought in the NU Charter, asked if we knew what it was etc. (Our project was sited in Charleston, SC). He lauded its clarity as a documented set of cohesive ideas. He then made it clear that he disagreed with it, but left us to decide for ourselves how we felt.
He then charged us with the responsibility of creating such a clear and holistic framework to act within (not that semester, of course).
...the Charter asserts a position, but it does so without jargon and with a wide perspective.
AP - beautifully and elegantly stated... there is much to learn from the NUists but many opportunities for more innovative and inclusive approaches. In your opinion, is there anybody practicing along these lines right now?
not that I can think of. That doesn't mean they're not there. A few designers that create interesting suburban enclaves (smaller than the typical NewUrb project, both in scale and scope) exist...I'm thinking of Jonathan Segal, Pugh+Scarpa, David Baker + Partners, Steven Ehrlich Architects...
as I list them, I realize that these offices all have their specific agendas, but at least they devise thoughtful solutions to the existing condition. One strength of NewUrbanism is that it kinda creates its own situation, while still considering many factors. Not sure if that's a strength, but it allows their masterplans to exercise a degree of control that the acupuncture-esque strategies of the firms listed above do not.
instead of debating the merits and flaws of new urbanism, i think the vital issue in the rebuilding efforts for the gulf coast is to have a more inclusionary team of planners and architects be involved than just dpz and other new urbanists, who were invited by the state governments to lead the planning efforts, maybe because they believe that rhetoric. I'm sorry but IMO, that NU Charter is bullshit.
That Mike Davis article hits the mark on everything that's wrong with the whole deal.
Lot of cheap shots in this thread that demonstrate ignorance on the subject. If anything, NU is becoming a victim of its own success. Developers are bastardizing NU concepts, often missing critical urban principles, because they know that NU projects command a premium on the market. So you see a life-style center with a Pottery Barn, J-Crew, and a Whole Foods, that's supposed to be pedestrian-friendly, yet is backed by a 6000 car parking garage, and situated on a 8 lane right-of-way highway and you think NU is tacky, disney-esque, misled. That's not NU.
DPZ didnt conduct the charette in Mississippi. It participated, but Duany himself made explicit that, for the charrette to have public legitimacy, it wasnt a private venture but rather it drew upon several hundred architects, planners, developers, community organizers. The common bond was that, yes, all of the participants to a certain extent hold a view on architecture and urbanism that's commensurate with the NU Charter.
Read here a (balanced) article by Blair Kamin, architectural critic for the Chicago Tribune about the Katrina Charrettes:
http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2005/10/katrina_quotes.html#more
To be certain, no NU development is flawless. But the bottom line- somehow missed in the discussion already on this thread - is that there hasnt been a Decon charrette in the Gulf precisely b/c Decon (or however you want to classify the contemporary avant guard) architects dont do business that way. The charrette process is inherently a bottom-up exercise of seeking to find tangible solutions to a fragmented community fabric through the contributions of the residents themselves. This entails having some faith and respect in individuals of knowing what works for their neighborhood, what their likes and dislikes are, and what would fit for their neighborhood. The opposite approach that dominates today, patterned from the theoretical utopias of Corbu & FLW, for example, is that of a top-down, tyrannical, architect-as-hero that entails a sense of both alienation and disrespect for the unenlightened masses. Hence, the disasters of the 20th Century 'urbanism': public housing tower projects, urban renewal, and the metathoetsis of automobile dependent suburbs.
Modernist urbanity failed. History will be increasingly clear on that subject. Even once staunch supporters of modernism, and post-modernism, such as Vincent Scully, have recognized the inherent failures of an architecture that denies its civic and community context.
Its not a question of style- but one of approach/philosophy. There are plenty of examples of brilliant modernist, post-modernist, and contemporary architecture- but they almost always are situated in a site of sound, traditional (classic) urbanism (e.g. the streets of London, or Manhattan, can absorb modernist expressionist architecture. Indeed its a tribute to the flexibility and genius of those respective plans).
BLayer - look into the concept of the 'transect'. Nothing in NU suggests a uniformity of context. NU is the exact opposite: build towns where you would want towns, at various levels of density corresponding to the municipal/civic relevance of the location, so that you can preserve the country and open space for those prefer a more rural setting. The current paradigm forces into one, limited, homogeneous pattern of semi-rural, auto-dependent blah (perhaps with a few life-style centers sprinkled about.)
On the argument that NU is only for the rich. No. In the 1990's, due in a large part to the influence and action of NU supporters, the Clinton admin initiated HUD's Hope VI plan to rebuild the 1950's era, public housing hell-holes such as Chicago's Cabrini Green with mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods. Almost all of the architecture firms involved happened to be NU (e.g. Torti Gallas). Mayor Brown in Oakland has used NU architects extensively to rebuild blighted neighborhoods in Oakland, CA. The redevelopment of inner-city Milwaukee, WI was guided by John Norquist, now the head of the NU.
The fact that NU developments are targets of gentrification is a sign that, gee-wiz, the market is being underserved for pedestrian-friendly, urban environments. That doesnt mean that the gentrification should continue unrestrained, but just perhaps, people in the architectural/development/planning world will start to connect the dots between the attributes of the most valuable real estate (London's West End, Chelsea, and Kensington, Back Bay in Boston, Manhattan, Wash DC's Georgetown-DuPont Circle, Chicago's Lincoln Park, San Francisco (most of it), etc) and the attributes of the NU developments.
"Nobody proposes an anti-classical chianti" Leon Krier
P.S.
If you want to see a more contemporary interpretation of NU - by an architect who somewhat distinguishes himself in opposition to DPZ's approach, check out Jiame Correa & Associates:
http://www.correa-associates.com/
Guffman - very nice to see some support for the NU on archinect. And very impressive to see a such a wholehearted defense - and all in one post.
I've been following comments from Duany, Polyzoides and others on the CNU listserv - and feel confident that I have a solid understanding of may aspects of the gulf coast charrette.
Obviously developers are bastardizing the success of NU principles (that is only one of many issues!). But I challenge you to name one NU project that is successful in meeting the goals of the Charter. They (the NUists) have a very hard time measuring up to their own goals.
Sure there hasn't been a decon approach to the gulf coast disaster. But shouldn't there be other approaches than the NUist approach from the architecutre community? I'm not sure where you're pulling this notion of a "decon" approach from... perhaps from the Eric Own Moss comments... but this is certainly not what I was suggesting in previous comments.
Okay, I'm not going to respond to every detail of this anti-modernist manifesto. Obviously, this has already been done by Rowe, Rossi, Krier and countless others. It's a waste of time.
I think you're missing the point of the previous comments. Some of us in the architectural community are looking for a THIRD WAY. An approach that is somewhere betwen the "avante-garde" and the New Urbanists. An approach that is both creative and inclusive. An approach that is both bottom-up and top-down (how could a successful approach be either/or?).
Having said all of that, I do agree with much of what you say Guffman, but it is VERY disappointing to me that you're comments sound as if they are straight from the CNU Charter itself.
Let's have a discussion instead of a manifesto. Let's have a conversation.
*And for the record, despite my criticism, I'm sincerely grateful to see someone take a pro-NU stance in this discussion forum!
AP + rpsnino - I am not suggesting that I agree with how it's being done, quite the opposite. It's just my observation. They are not only successful in marketing themselves and sweet talkin' the deal, but they are saying 'hey, you can still build your spec-crap and it'll work!' Any developer will love that.
NU has so much press, books, etc., that it's hard to ignore. They are providing 'solutions', for better or worse, that address large communities, not just a block or two.
It's all powerhouse marketing that I think should send a wake up call. Unfortunately, it takes tons of resources to put together a comprehensive solution, give it a identity, then push it.
And yes, planning and architecture should be intertwined, but it doesn't happen that often.
It'd be cool to see some of these smaller, progressive firms get together to offer strategic alternatives. But for now it's an easy sell, to developers, to cities, and to buyers. Let's not forget, everything has to be paid for somehow.
AP - Those you mentioned do some very good work, some great work (I am huge P+S fan, doesn't hurt Scarpa is a UF grad, either).
Rpsino,
Thank you for your comments. Admittedly- I'm a bit sheepish about my response- perhaps a bit much at once. I follow the boards regularly, and usually hold-back when the NU debate arises, for, as was noted above, the lines of debate have well-worn and there's no need to rehash them.
I'm certainly very critical of the NU, but I agree with the general approach, and particularly so, as it represents a departure from what appears to be the more popular/dominant approach to architecture and urbanism in contemporary practice. If my comments above came across as a template refrain, if anything, its because I was handling the subject at 10,000 ft. I do have some bones to pick with the NU - mostly how its being applied rather than its underlying tenets (I am particularly taken by Benny's comment that the "NU charter is bullshit" as I like to hear a more reasoned critique). Also, the knee-jerk treatment that NU gets from certain corners of the architectural community inherently draws a seige-like, reactionist response. Its frustrating that a more well-reasoned dialogue cant be conducted (its not uncommon for forum contributors to make, cheap, trite remarks about NU without any backing or reasoning.)
There's a list-serv called the NextGen, comprised of current architecture students and young professionals, who to a varying degree adhere to the fundamental principles of NU. Because energy isnt spent defending its basic tenets, the NextGen contributors have been able to achieve a more provocative, self-critical analysis of NU. Hopefully those disscussions and others will lead to a higher synthesis of classical urban principles and modern techniques, styles, technologies and expression.
A note about Andres Duany and how it relates to DPZ doing projects like Westhaven. Intellectually, he's incredibly nimble. Whereas most of the CNU members lean left politically, 3-5 years ago Duany started to explore the ties between NU principles and libertarian and more conservative positions- with the aim being to demonstrate the universality of certain traditional urban/architectural principles (as outlined in Vitruvius, Alberti, Palladio...) Where he has seemingly arrived (and what he's been speaking/writing along with Oscar Machado most recently) is the notion of "American Pragmaticism" as the main philosophical contribution of the US experiment in history. Its in this pragmatist approach that Duany has rationalized he's involvement with the volume house builders, developers,etc as he sees it as the means to have the largest, if somewhat diluted, impact on changing the shape of development in the US. I pose to AP - what would have Westhaven looked like if it had been proposed 15 years ago, in the cul-de-sac spirit of the age? Which is worse? That's not to say either is ideal, but at least the NU attempts to deal with the manifold failures of contemporary sprawl.
Here's an essay in which Duany in his own words tackles the subject:
http://www.7res.com/saltmine_cnu/SNU_Review_fall2004.pdf
Rpsino, I agree with that I wish these issues were investigated at a higher level of rigor. I myself am attracted to some of the ideas of Christopher Alexander, and several physicists and biologists who are researching the emergence of fundamental forms throughout nature.
E.F. Schumacher's, "Guide for the Perplexed" is a great read, a brilliantly lucid means to begin to (re)unite the seemingly disparate strands of philosophy, pyschology, the physical sciences and architecture that have been blown apart by modernist thought in the 20th Century.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060906111/104-0443576-8762304?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Great comments guffman. I agree... it is very frustrating that the archinect community and many of the academic communities seem incapable of intelligent debate when it comes to the NUism. Almost just as frustrating as the canned responses that frequently pour from the mouths of the NUists themselves.
But I think some of this dates back to the early days of the CNU invite-only conferences and a desire among the early members to establish measurable goals and standards, rather than asking the 'big questions'. I really enjoy some of the comments from people like Kaliski and Krieger in the Seaside Debates book for this reason. Also, it seems like there were some interesting discussions at the Harvard and Berkeley conferences but I'm not sure where to learn more about them...
Two questions for you about the NextGen: where to find more info about it? Also, Duany, Polyzoides and others have not been very open -historically- to allowing new, younger leaders to participate in leadership aspects of the organization - does this NextGen group acknowledge this? Are they critical of this aspect of the 'administration'?
seems to be the forum...
bump
there are only 83 registered users on that forum, and not too much recent activity (it seems)...
Doesn't look like there's much discussion/debate there... While searching for the NextGen group, I found a random web page online from 2 years ago that dicusses their foundation:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/99
I love that they felt it necessary to write a manifesto. Ha!
You know, this is one of the main problems with many of the new urbanists... just like the modernists before them there is an unreasonable desire to make bold and dramatic statements and gestures when they are not necessarily appropriate. A manifesto? I think a purpose statement and some goals would suffice.
It is quite intentional that the New Urbanists called themselves the Congress of New Urbanism. It's a direct reference to CIAM.
of course... the irony... I love it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.