there's a recent blog post by Witold Rybczynski that takes yet another idiotic pot shot at New Urbanism. He's basically asking what other projects have the New Urbanists done since celebration or seaside - he's having trouble finding a single good urban project that he can point to and say "that's a new urbanist project." I think the problem is that in reality, New Urbanism has largely been about changing POLICY to make places more "livable" - it was never really about creating some kind of weird truman-show-esque faux-historical town that exists in a bubble. Things like complete streets, TOD, mixed use zoning - all have their roots in the early CNU meetings.
I know that in the past much hand-wringing has been made about the faux-historicism of many new urbanists' aesthetic tendencies, and the cult of personality surrounding Duany, but how many of us - especially those who are intrigued by the ideas of landscape and ecological urbanism, are actually working on using this knowledge to affect policy?
Let's face it, it’s not about a trophy. It’s about making places for people and changing the literacy of what 'urban' is. In many cases, it’s not sexy. It’s not on a cover of a magazine. But he should agree that the trend of urban-core disinvestment has stopped, the movement of people to the core has taken place, and though sprawl hasn't fully stopped, it is dealt with better (and more skeptically) than before the CNU.
I'm also posting this as a counter to this increase in incredibly brain-dead and megalomaniacal "urban form" proposals we've been seeing over the past few years; the "in the future people will live this way" parasitic nonsense. or this absurd belief that what we do is somehow apolitical.
As designers we're in a unique position to see just how these policies affect built form and the human experience - but instead of just blindly accepting snob zoning or bad planning policy, the public is relying on us to be the ones to say "wait a minute, this sucks - and he's why - and here's how it can be better." If we aren't critical of the parameters we're being asked to use, then we aren't really "making the world a better place" - which, I'm sure, is the reason most of us got into the profession.
I just read Witold's blog post. Several million brain cells were vaporized in the process. Ugh.
Nice post, toast. I'm in agreement with you. and I'm working on a little exhibition project that will show how architects are able to critique and hopefully improve the policies that affect the built world.
The new urbanists have generally mounted their attack on two fronts: private development and projects on the one hand, and form-based code writing (and illustrating) for (often small) municipal planning agencies. The developments actually built are far fewer than those designed, of course, but still get more attention than the code-writing because they're things/places to see and publish, hence better known and more readily critiqued.
I agree that the policy (and larger cultural value) offensive of the New Urbanists is their larger mission. Minds need to be changed for a larger, long-term transformation. I also agree that the reputation for religious-like fervor (some earned, some not) of the NU's turns off many people, as does the seeming insistence on architectural nostalgia. Both annoy me, too, and I think those obscure some very good planning ideas.
Overall, I see the "smart" growth model as more useful as a concept. It's far from perfect, but its multiple concepts include the important tenets of NU as well as TOD, is more policy-oriented on its face, and nicely omits the problem of a "fearless leader."
Having lived nearby Seaside in Fort Walton Beach I can say that Seaside and it's clones (Watercolors, Aly's Beach, ect.) have made traffic along route 30A a living nightmare during the season. The low density developments on sand dunes in the historical path of hurricanes seems particularly Ill-advised. These resort "communities" are just elitist tourist suburbs of Fort Walton. Why these developments are touted as the end-all and be-all of residential development is a mystery to me. for one thing if you live in the first rank of dwellings facing the beach you do have a pleasant site with onshore breezes. By the time you get to the fourth and fifth ranks from the beech you get to experience unbelievable humidity and mind-bending heat along with no breeze at all. h
Thats more of a cause due to circumstance though, wouldn't you say Volunteer? The fact that tourists want to see the development is mainly a result of the fact that it IS radical from a planning perspective (in the sense that they are advocating something of a militant urbanism to combat the status-quo), and to build on that, are just not something you would see everyday...
The breezes are another story; it could be argued that those factors of siting would be limiting in every scenario though.
Full disclosure: I began my undergrad degree in UP/UD before finishing in the architecture school; though it rarely came up in my architecture studies, the cult of personality around Duany was something I found first-hand in the UD stream (I'll even go as far to say that my first couple encounters with it swept me up in the frenzy). However, I think that most people truly trying to understand it lose the shine of that frenzy fairly quickly (again, myself included) and are able to grasp the core message/underlying concepts quite readily. The fact is that the ideas are genuinely good; implementing them, as with all grand ideas, is another game. I'm very happy that those lines of thinking are being pushed in UP/UD academia.
It has it's merits in terms of actually being able to take apart code and make actual change (reminds me of Hugh Ferriss and his skyscraper drawings?) - though the effect of pattern books on developments where they're enforced with fervor without understanding makes me cringe.
They have good ideas, and the changes they make can be good, though some of their points lack specific local cultural phenomena and to a large effect disregard local and regional natural processes.
I remember seeing an article on the success of one of these developments in Savannah (mostly an economical analysis.
Back when I worked in planning, we'd often master plan a development out with mixed use and higher densities to file for rezoning of properties (the developer often deviated from the 'pretty picture' development and take the rezoned property to maximum profits, but it was still better than the original zoning restrictions.
BenC, if you look closely at Seaside houses you will see that many away from the first line of homes beach have been built with, or have added, two, three, or four story towers. Why? To actually see the beach and the water! Or at least a sliver of it that is not blocked by the tower of your neighbor in front of you. So the owner pays an ungodly amount of money for a beach house, but to actually SEE the Gulf of Mexico he has to add a tower? This is not a hillside in Greece or Italy spilling down to the sea where your patio is your neighbors's roof and everyone has a view. Not sure what the answer is but Seaside, while an interesting stab at the a perceived problem, seems to come up short.
Given this thread's origin, it's interesting to note that local elected officials talk about planning issues much more often than architecture per se. For them, it's about (land use and transportation) policy.
Of course, politicians are born blatherers, and talk isn't even cheap any more, it's free. It's decisions on policy and implementation that count.
It's about Policy, Stupid.
there's a recent blog post by Witold Rybczynski that takes yet another idiotic pot shot at New Urbanism. He's basically asking what other projects have the New Urbanists done since celebration or seaside - he's having trouble finding a single good urban project that he can point to and say "that's a new urbanist project." I think the problem is that in reality, New Urbanism has largely been about changing POLICY to make places more "livable" - it was never really about creating some kind of weird truman-show-esque faux-historical town that exists in a bubble. Things like complete streets, TOD, mixed use zoning - all have their roots in the early CNU meetings.
I know that in the past much hand-wringing has been made about the faux-historicism of many new urbanists' aesthetic tendencies, and the cult of personality surrounding Duany, but how many of us - especially those who are intrigued by the ideas of landscape and ecological urbanism, are actually working on using this knowledge to affect policy?
Here's a better response to Witold's comments:
Let's face it, it’s not about a trophy. It’s about making places for people and changing the literacy of what 'urban' is. In many cases, it’s not sexy. It’s not on a cover of a magazine. But he should agree that the trend of urban-core disinvestment has stopped, the movement of people to the core has taken place, and though sprawl hasn't fully stopped, it is dealt with better (and more skeptically) than before the CNU.
I'm also posting this as a counter to this increase in incredibly brain-dead and megalomaniacal "urban form" proposals we've been seeing over the past few years; the "in the future people will live this way" parasitic nonsense. or this absurd belief that what we do is somehow apolitical.
As designers we're in a unique position to see just how these policies affect built form and the human experience - but instead of just blindly accepting snob zoning or bad planning policy, the public is relying on us to be the ones to say "wait a minute, this sucks - and he's why - and here's how it can be better." If we aren't critical of the parameters we're being asked to use, then we aren't really "making the world a better place" - which, I'm sure, is the reason most of us got into the profession.
I just read Witold's blog post. Several million brain cells were vaporized in the process. Ugh.
Nice post, toast. I'm in agreement with you. and I'm working on a little exhibition project that will show how architects are able to critique and hopefully improve the policies that affect the built world.
The unmentioned 8,000 lb gorilla in the room is corporate development.
Interesting post, Toaster.
The new urbanists have generally mounted their attack on two fronts: private development and projects on the one hand, and form-based code writing (and illustrating) for (often small) municipal planning agencies. The developments actually built are far fewer than those designed, of course, but still get more attention than the code-writing because they're things/places to see and publish, hence better known and more readily critiqued.
I agree that the policy (and larger cultural value) offensive of the New Urbanists is their larger mission. Minds need to be changed for a larger, long-term transformation. I also agree that the reputation for religious-like fervor (some earned, some not) of the NU's turns off many people, as does the seeming insistence on architectural nostalgia. Both annoy me, too, and I think those obscure some very good planning ideas.
Overall, I see the "smart" growth model as more useful as a concept. It's far from perfect, but its multiple concepts include the important tenets of NU as well as TOD, is more policy-oriented on its face, and nicely omits the problem of a "fearless leader."
Having lived nearby Seaside in Fort Walton Beach I can say that Seaside and it's clones (Watercolors, Aly's Beach, ect.) have made traffic along route 30A a living nightmare during the season. The low density developments on sand dunes in the historical path of hurricanes seems particularly Ill-advised. These resort "communities" are just elitist tourist suburbs of Fort Walton. Why these developments are touted as the end-all and be-all of residential development is a mystery to me. for one thing if you live in the first rank of dwellings facing the beach you do have a pleasant site with onshore breezes. By the time you get to the fourth and fifth ranks from the beech you get to experience unbelievable humidity and mind-bending heat along with no breeze at all. h
Thats more of a cause due to circumstance though, wouldn't you say Volunteer? The fact that tourists want to see the development is mainly a result of the fact that it IS radical from a planning perspective (in the sense that they are advocating something of a militant urbanism to combat the status-quo), and to build on that, are just not something you would see everyday...
The breezes are another story; it could be argued that those factors of siting would be limiting in every scenario though.
Full disclosure: I began my undergrad degree in UP/UD before finishing in the architecture school; though it rarely came up in my architecture studies, the cult of personality around Duany was something I found first-hand in the UD stream (I'll even go as far to say that my first couple encounters with it swept me up in the frenzy). However, I think that most people truly trying to understand it lose the shine of that frenzy fairly quickly (again, myself included) and are able to grasp the core message/underlying concepts quite readily. The fact is that the ideas are genuinely good; implementing them, as with all grand ideas, is another game. I'm very happy that those lines of thinking are being pushed in UP/UD academia.
It has it's merits in terms of actually being able to take apart code and make actual change (reminds me of Hugh Ferriss and his skyscraper drawings?) - though the effect of pattern books on developments where they're enforced with fervor without understanding makes me cringe.
They have good ideas, and the changes they make can be good, though some of their points lack specific local cultural phenomena and to a large effect disregard local and regional natural processes.
I remember seeing an article on the success of one of these developments in Savannah (mostly an economical analysis.
Back when I worked in planning, we'd often master plan a development out with mixed use and higher densities to file for rezoning of properties (the developer often deviated from the 'pretty picture' development and take the rezoned property to maximum profits, but it was still better than the original zoning restrictions.
BenC, if you look closely at Seaside houses you will see that many away from the first line of homes beach have been built with, or have added, two, three, or four story towers. Why? To actually see the beach and the water! Or at least a sliver of it that is not blocked by the tower of your neighbor in front of you. So the owner pays an ungodly amount of money for a beach house, but to actually SEE the Gulf of Mexico he has to add a tower? This is not a hillside in Greece or Italy spilling down to the sea where your patio is your neighbors's roof and everyone has a view. Not sure what the answer is but Seaside, while an interesting stab at the a perceived problem, seems to come up short.
donna just tweeted this:
the relationship between architects and mayors
I guess something's in the air...
Given this thread's origin, it's interesting to note that local elected officials talk about planning issues much more often than architecture per se. For them, it's about (land use and transportation) policy.
Of course, politicians are born blatherers, and talk isn't even cheap any more, it's free. It's decisions on policy and implementation that count.
The fact that tourists want to see the development
Is not a fact.
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.