j i don't know what the hell was up with that blurb about umich. i think that article was shit. do you know any of the planners? i could definitely tell you there isn't one single architect there who "agrees with the principles of new urbanism," for the good or the bad of it. i think its generally because it is somewhat of a post-modern phenomenon.
Okay, while we're at it I might as well post some personal insight into the role of new urbanism in the MD graduate curriculum circa 2002. Three or four faculty were official members of the new urbanism. One seminar course was offered. For students without a pre-professional degree, there was not a new urbanist-oriented studio. For those with a pre-professional degree, there was - although it might be better described as simply being neo-traditional and form-oriented. Hope that helps - best thing of course is to visit the schools and talk to the students.
One more thing. Kos, you've titled the thred "New Urbanism" but asked about schools that focus on urban design... which is it? That opens up a whole different type of discussion...
The methodology of the New Urban News study leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, when you ask a number of Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk's friends which school has the best New Urbanist program, of course they are going to say Miami, where she's the dean...
It's also rather silly that the survey just focuses on the design side of new urbanism and not the planning, policy, financial and real estate development aspects of new urbanism. New Urbanism is being discussed in real estate schools, something largely ignored in the article.
Additionally, a lot of transportation research, being done at Berkeley, MIT and Rutgers is having a huge impact on New Urbanism. These studies showing how higher densities could work with lower-cost mass transit systems will be incredibly important for urbanism, both new and old.
Additionally, several planning schools are really doing incredible work on studying the relationships of regulations and form, going beyond the pattern books and transcect of New Urbanism. Once again, the article didn't mention these aspects of research.
mm: When you get a chance can you post the names of some of the real estate programs and planning programs that you are referring to (aside from Berkeley, MIT and Rutgers)?
The California planning schools (UCB, UCLA, and I believe USC as well) have pretty well-defined transportation tracks. In fact, at UCLA (where I received my planning degree), the transportation track is particularly strong. I am not sure about MIT, but I know that Rutgers' Voorhees Institute (which is affiliated with the Urban Planning program there) is exceptional. USC's real estate program is also incredibly strong, and I believe they do a lot of work in the financing of smart growth initiatives. I am not sure about other schools like Portland State, U of Oregon, or U of Washington ... perhaps someone out there can provide more info on those schools.
mm's comments are on point ... there is a world of difference between someone like Peter Calthorpe and Andres Duany. Although New Urbanist ideas are ripe with problems, it's best to engender a critical attitude to it, and not dismiss it simply as a resurgence of vernacular architecture. On the West Coast, for example, as mm has suggested, regional planners like Peter Calthorpe have been labeled "New Urbanists", when in reality, they look to the formation of transit-oriented developments (TOD's) as a viable form of densification.
Consider this: in the New Urbanism volume of the Michigan Debates on Architecture, a volume that features a pretty interesting debate between Lars Lerup and Peter Calthorpe, Robert Fishman is quoted as saying that the New Urbanists represent the first architect-led social movement since the days of the Regional Planning Association of America (I think I mentioned that quote in another post here on archinect). I find that comment a little misleading because (1) it not only overdetermines the importance of New Urbanism's design principles, or for that matter, the role of design in New Urbanism, but (2) it ignores the work of 60s groups like Archigram, Superstudio, Archizoom, SI, et cetera, who were part of what I would consider an extant (if not unified) social voice that consisted primarily of architects and urbanists.
I've been under the impression that although the planning programs referred to in the last few posts work with some of the same concepts/values as the New Urbanism, they can't accurately be labeled NUist. Also, that many of the faculty at these programs are either ambivalent about or critical of the NUism. Am I in left field? Can the planning crew comment on this?
rspnino, I would imagine that most schools would shy away from any label, be it "new urbanist" or "brutalist" or "post-modernist" or "supercalafragilisticexpalidocist." Eventhough Gropius taught there, Harvard's GSD wouldn't label itself a "modernist" architecture school.
New Urbanism isn't a field in-and-of itself. It's a mutlidiciplinary practice, a pattern of development, a style, and arguably, an ethos. A good school will teach about New Urbanism in those terms and not "new urbanism as the answer."
Yes, throughout the US, the fields of planning, urban design, and real estate development (and arguably architecture) have been greatly influenced by New Urbanism and therefore all responsible planning, urban design, and real estate development schools would have some of their cirriculum influenced by the ideas of New Urbanism.
In most larger planning and real estate development schools, there are lots of classes where you can learn about the ideas and practice of new urbanism. There are also lots of classes where you can learn about the ideas and practice of lots of other architectural/urban movements.
Interestingly, it seems that most Masters in Urban Design programs shy completely away from New Urbanism and focus much more on contemporary forms and the city-as-art.
Smokety, I would argue with Fishman in that CIAM had a larger influence on the planning world than even the RPA. The tower-in-the-park, esposed by CIAM, was the prevelant form of urban development, particularly for public housing for close to 40 years. Granted, CIAM wasn't a US-based organization, but its effects were far-reaching.
wow...i'm surprised to see ol' bobby fishman gettin this much attention on archinect.
a friend of mine once compared robert fishman to splinter from the teenage mutant ninja turtles...an image that i haven't been able to shake ever since. judge for yourself:
New Urbanism
I know of Miami. Maryland, and Notredame that offer Urban Design in their Grad program. Anybody know any other schools?
This the THE straight dope straight from the source:
http://www.newurbannews.com/NUBestSchoolsJanFeb06.html
Looks like you might want to add U. of Michigan, Andrews University, UC Berkeley and Georgia Tech to your list.
j i don't know what the hell was up with that blurb about umich. i think that article was shit. do you know any of the planners? i could definitely tell you there isn't one single architect there who "agrees with the principles of new urbanism," for the good or the bad of it. i think its generally because it is somewhat of a post-modern phenomenon.
Perhaps I should have prefaced the link with a more obvious "consider the ource before reading".
Still, I think for the uninitiated it does touch on the few schools that are connected to the NUism in some capacity.
*make that "source"
Okay, while we're at it I might as well post some personal insight into the role of new urbanism in the MD graduate curriculum circa 2002. Three or four faculty were official members of the new urbanism. One seminar course was offered. For students without a pre-professional degree, there was not a new urbanist-oriented studio. For those with a pre-professional degree, there was - although it might be better described as simply being neo-traditional and form-oriented. Hope that helps - best thing of course is to visit the schools and talk to the students.
One more thing. Kos, you've titled the thred "New Urbanism" but asked about schools that focus on urban design... which is it? That opens up a whole different type of discussion...
Rpsino, Sorry about that. I will clarify on my next post.....The topic was about New Urbanism schools. Thank you for the info though
The methodology of the New Urban News study leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, when you ask a number of Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk's friends which school has the best New Urbanist program, of course they are going to say Miami, where she's the dean...
It's also rather silly that the survey just focuses on the design side of new urbanism and not the planning, policy, financial and real estate development aspects of new urbanism. New Urbanism is being discussed in real estate schools, something largely ignored in the article.
Additionally, a lot of transportation research, being done at Berkeley, MIT and Rutgers is having a huge impact on New Urbanism. These studies showing how higher densities could work with lower-cost mass transit systems will be incredibly important for urbanism, both new and old.
Additionally, several planning schools are really doing incredible work on studying the relationships of regulations and form, going beyond the pattern books and transcect of New Urbanism. Once again, the article didn't mention these aspects of research.
mm: When you get a chance can you post the names of some of the real estate programs and planning programs that you are referring to (aside from Berkeley, MIT and Rutgers)?
The California planning schools (UCB, UCLA, and I believe USC as well) have pretty well-defined transportation tracks. In fact, at UCLA (where I received my planning degree), the transportation track is particularly strong. I am not sure about MIT, but I know that Rutgers' Voorhees Institute (which is affiliated with the Urban Planning program there) is exceptional. USC's real estate program is also incredibly strong, and I believe they do a lot of work in the financing of smart growth initiatives. I am not sure about other schools like Portland State, U of Oregon, or U of Washington ... perhaps someone out there can provide more info on those schools.
mm's comments are on point ... there is a world of difference between someone like Peter Calthorpe and Andres Duany. Although New Urbanist ideas are ripe with problems, it's best to engender a critical attitude to it, and not dismiss it simply as a resurgence of vernacular architecture. On the West Coast, for example, as mm has suggested, regional planners like Peter Calthorpe have been labeled "New Urbanists", when in reality, they look to the formation of transit-oriented developments (TOD's) as a viable form of densification.
Consider this: in the New Urbanism volume of the Michigan Debates on Architecture, a volume that features a pretty interesting debate between Lars Lerup and Peter Calthorpe, Robert Fishman is quoted as saying that the New Urbanists represent the first architect-led social movement since the days of the Regional Planning Association of America (I think I mentioned that quote in another post here on archinect). I find that comment a little misleading because (1) it not only overdetermines the importance of New Urbanism's design principles, or for that matter, the role of design in New Urbanism, but (2) it ignores the work of 60s groups like Archigram, Superstudio, Archizoom, SI, et cetera, who were part of what I would consider an extant (if not unified) social voice that consisted primarily of architects and urbanists.
Hope this helps.
I've been under the impression that although the planning programs referred to in the last few posts work with some of the same concepts/values as the New Urbanism, they can't accurately be labeled NUist. Also, that many of the faculty at these programs are either ambivalent about or critical of the NUism. Am I in left field? Can the planning crew comment on this?
rspnino, I would imagine that most schools would shy away from any label, be it "new urbanist" or "brutalist" or "post-modernist" or "supercalafragilisticexpalidocist." Eventhough Gropius taught there, Harvard's GSD wouldn't label itself a "modernist" architecture school.
New Urbanism isn't a field in-and-of itself. It's a mutlidiciplinary practice, a pattern of development, a style, and arguably, an ethos. A good school will teach about New Urbanism in those terms and not "new urbanism as the answer."
Yes, throughout the US, the fields of planning, urban design, and real estate development (and arguably architecture) have been greatly influenced by New Urbanism and therefore all responsible planning, urban design, and real estate development schools would have some of their cirriculum influenced by the ideas of New Urbanism.
In most larger planning and real estate development schools, there are lots of classes where you can learn about the ideas and practice of new urbanism. There are also lots of classes where you can learn about the ideas and practice of lots of other architectural/urban movements.
Interestingly, it seems that most Masters in Urban Design programs shy completely away from New Urbanism and focus much more on contemporary forms and the city-as-art.
Smokety, I would argue with Fishman in that CIAM had a larger influence on the planning world than even the RPA. The tower-in-the-park, esposed by CIAM, was the prevelant form of urban development, particularly for public housing for close to 40 years. Granted, CIAM wasn't a US-based organization, but its effects were far-reaching.
Well said, mm. I wish I had Fishman's quote in front of me ... it seemed misinformed or overly generalist.
wow...i'm surprised to see ol' bobby fishman gettin this much attention on archinect.
a friend of mine once compared robert fishman to splinter from the teenage mutant ninja turtles...an image that i haven't been able to shake ever since. judge for yourself:
seperated at birth???
robert fishman
versus
splinter
so that's where i've seen fishman...
during that lerup/calthorpe debate, lerup went a schpeel about not knowing what parisian suburbians do at night:
"or maybe they have sex"
unfortunately fishman edited this line out of the book. it was a really, really entertaining lecture though.
Puddles ... wait a second ... I thought the rat was named "Shredder", not "Splinter". Am i wrong?
no, Shredder was the one with the metal Samurai armor. the bad one. Splinter was the Ninja Turtles' sensei.
Yeah ... I don't agree with Calthorpe at all, but the guy is no dummy.
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.