'Is New Urbanism still the devil of traditional design? Some say that the biggest criticism is that it's neither new nor urban...'
I agree with archtopus' original post. To this point one of the most resounding critiques of the New Urbanist movement has been its refusal to abandon traditional aesthetics. Another is that it is simply a less intensified version of suburban America. Until today, all of the New Urbanist planned communities that I'd been to did nothing but add fuel to these critiques.
However, today I visited my first truly urban-planned, aesthetically eclectic New Urbanist community in Prospect New Town (Longmont/Boulder, CO!
The greatest part of the whole complex was this retro-looking pool house (complete with view of abandoned building with vast potential as future home of hole-in-the-wall mexican restaurante)!
It was truly a refreshing experience!
'Although planned by DPZ, the individual units are designed by a variety of architects, who are encouraged to experiment with styles.'
isn't "new urbanism" really more a question of density and pedestrian focused community building rather than what the buildings look like? Of course, design guidelines tend to push for the historic look, but if you were a developer and decided to make a new town you could use all the new urbanist philosophy and still have houses made from shipping containers and use corrugated metal siding and cnc formed spidery looking gazebos if you wanted to.
+ the most dense (as close to half of the dwelling units were multifamily; had narrow, mature-tree lined streets)
+ most connected (a lot of the rear entries were linked by a communal catwalk; see first picture-there are exterior walkways that run along the second floor perpendicular to the catwalks shown)
+ and best integration of uses (see pictures 6,7 & 8; all retail, restuarant and green space on the interior of the community) that I've seen in a New Urbanist development...
...so yes, to answer your question Vado; New Urbanism is really more of a question of density and pedestrian-scaled building, but it also generally appeals to the younger, more progressive demographic (those who don't care to maintain a lawn, drive massive SUV's and are generally more conscious of resource consumption), which in my opinion lends itself to a Modern aesthetic.
what a bunch of modern whitewash. the problem with new urbanism is not aesthetic. the problem with new urbanism is an uncritical application of a formula to all planning applications. formulaic planning is dumb planning.
new urbanism has become (always was?) dogma. there may be places where it is absolutely appropriate, but there are many places it is absolutely not. this is where the planner needs to be critical. new urbanists have a hard time seeing beyond their own dogma. a modern sheen cannot change that.
are all highways evil? is all mixed use better than single use? should every street have an alley?
it's not that i think new urbanism is inherently bad. far from. there are instances i love it, think it's great, but there are many where it's not. i'd like to hear a new urbanist say the same thing.
in terms of a specific criticism, it's cookie cutter. in all of its attempts to be diverse, it is actually far from. i'd like to see how a new urbanist community would fair in detroit, or better yet, mumbai.
i think i saw the plans for the colorado thing at some point. my problem is that ultimately it's a suburban development placed at the outskirts of boulder, CO.
more often you see the ideas of new urbanism simply used as a marketing tool to downplay the evils of suburban developments. i doubt that many architects would disagree with the tenets of NU wrt to planning etc. but their attention to aesthetics seems heavy handed and overly dogmatic...
from the "Charter of New Urbanism" The economic health and harmonious evolution of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors can be improved through graphic urban design codes that serve as predictable guides for change.
duany, plater-zyberk, and rybcsyzinski were interviewed for cbs sunday morning's piece on new urban developments yesterday morning. complete with footage from 'the truman show' and old newsreels of black-and-white small town life. it had all the right pieces to be an interesting show, but - since it was covered in about 4 1/2 minutes - overall it was pretty empty coverage.
the theme of the show was '...by design' yesterday. much more inspiring was the segment on dyson and his vacuum.
We have a theme and concept to design a unique VHC - Vertical Health City, eco friendly development based on new urbanism in high rise environment on 20 acres. IBC subsidiary is principal owner of minimum 3.5 million square feet buildable mixed use project. Anything and everything you can think of related to the health of mind and body under the same roof is planned under VHC umbrella. The land is strategically located beside various key facilities with Markham-Stouffville Hospital as one of them.
The New New Urbanism
archtopus, i am not certain that new urbanism is failing exactly, only that some of the things they claim are hard to prove.
there is infrastructural interconnectivity and social integration up the wazoo here in japanese suburbs, but it doesn't make things sustainable.
T1 and T5 not together is counterintuitive perhaps but not bad. much good urbanism is counterintuitive...which is why it is attractive perhaps...
'Is New Urbanism still the devil of traditional design? Some say that the biggest criticism is that it's neither new nor urban...'
I agree with archtopus' original post. To this point one of the most resounding critiques of the New Urbanist movement has been its refusal to abandon traditional aesthetics. Another is that it is simply a less intensified version of suburban America. Until today, all of the New Urbanist planned communities that I'd been to did nothing but add fuel to these critiques.
However, today I visited my first truly urban-planned, aesthetically eclectic New Urbanist community in Prospect New Town (Longmont/Boulder, CO!
The greatest part of the whole complex was this retro-looking pool house (complete with view of abandoned building with vast potential as future home of hole-in-the-wall mexican restaurante)!
It was truly a refreshing experience!
'Although planned by DPZ, the individual units are designed by a variety of architects, who are encouraged to experiment with styles.'
Has anyone been? Impressions?
Nice photos, ryanj!
It looks like they really are loosening up on the aesthetic thing. Some really interesting spaces and juxtapositions there.
Thanks for posting those!
isn't "new urbanism" really more a question of density and pedestrian focused community building rather than what the buildings look like? Of course, design guidelines tend to push for the historic look, but if you were a developer and decided to make a new town you could use all the new urbanist philosophy and still have houses made from shipping containers and use corrugated metal siding and cnc formed spidery looking gazebos if you wanted to.
Who are you and what have you done with vado retro?
It was also:
+ the most dense (as close to half of the dwelling units were multifamily; had narrow, mature-tree lined streets)
+ most connected (a lot of the rear entries were linked by a communal catwalk; see first picture-there are exterior walkways that run along the second floor perpendicular to the catwalks shown)
+ and best integration of uses (see pictures 6,7 & 8; all retail, restuarant and green space on the interior of the community) that I've seen in a New Urbanist development...
...so yes, to answer your question Vado; New Urbanism is really more of a question of density and pedestrian-scaled building, but it also generally appeals to the younger, more progressive demographic (those who don't care to maintain a lawn, drive massive SUV's and are generally more conscious of resource consumption), which in my opinion lends itself to a Modern aesthetic.
Did I mention that much of it is wind and solar-powered .
what a bunch of modern whitewash. the problem with new urbanism is not aesthetic. the problem with new urbanism is an uncritical application of a formula to all planning applications. formulaic planning is dumb planning.
couldn't one argue that the development of the formula is the critical application?
new urbanism has become (always was?) dogma. there may be places where it is absolutely appropriate, but there are many places it is absolutely not. this is where the planner needs to be critical. new urbanists have a hard time seeing beyond their own dogma. a modern sheen cannot change that.
jafidler - what do you disagree with in the NU dogma, besides the style stuff?
are all highways evil? is all mixed use better than single use? should every street have an alley?
it's not that i think new urbanism is inherently bad. far from. there are instances i love it, think it's great, but there are many where it's not. i'd like to hear a new urbanist say the same thing.
in terms of a specific criticism, it's cookie cutter. in all of its attempts to be diverse, it is actually far from. i'd like to see how a new urbanist community would fair in detroit, or better yet, mumbai.
I think Duany is playing games, unsure of the message but desirous of delivering it
i think i saw the plans for the colorado thing at some point. my problem is that ultimately it's a suburban development placed at the outskirts of boulder, CO.
more often you see the ideas of new urbanism simply used as a marketing tool to downplay the evils of suburban developments. i doubt that many architects would disagree with the tenets of NU wrt to planning etc. but their attention to aesthetics seems heavy handed and overly dogmatic...
from the "Charter of New Urbanism"
The economic health and harmonious evolution of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors can be improved through graphic urban design codes that serve as predictable guides for change.
"graphic urban design codes" scary.
duany, plater-zyberk, and rybcsyzinski were interviewed for cbs sunday morning's piece on new urban developments yesterday morning. complete with footage from 'the truman show' and old newsreels of black-and-white small town life. it had all the right pieces to be an interesting show, but - since it was covered in about 4 1/2 minutes - overall it was pretty empty coverage.
the theme of the show was '...by design' yesterday. much more inspiring was the segment on dyson and his vacuum.
We have a theme and concept to design a unique VHC - Vertical Health City, eco friendly development based on new urbanism in high rise environment on 20 acres. IBC subsidiary is principal owner of minimum 3.5 million square feet buildable mixed use project. Anything and everything you can think of related to the health of mind and body under the same roof is planned under VHC umbrella. The land is strategically located beside various key facilities with Markham-Stouffville Hospital as one of them.
Cornell Gates , Markham, Ontario, Canada
good for you.
haha,..shameless thread revival for personal gain
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.