The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community

Rating:
Summary: how to design urban spaces in small communities
Review: A very good appraisal of design examples of new communities with also a consistent theoretical approach to New Urbanism concepts. This is a necessary reading to those that want to be updated with the best design practices of integrated urban spaces.

Rating:
Summary: Community is not Architecture
Review: I grew up in what new urbanists would probably call a paradise. It was a real community in which neighbours were really neighbours. People did sit on their verandahs and converse with their neighbours on the street. There was an understanding that one could borrow things if the owner wasn't using them. It was considered polite to tell the owner if he was there but if he was away one could just borrow the thing and tell him when he came home if one was still using it. In short it was everything new urbanism wants. This was in a moderately large city in Canada.

There were two things wrong with this paradise:

a) it was not about verandahs, facing the street etc. It was about control and conformity. The neighbourhood protected itself by frowning on unexpected behavior. There was an expected range of interests and an expected range of activity. If someone went out of this range, one could expect social sanctions unfailingly. The dark side of Jacobs 'eyes-on-the-street' is Foucault's 'gaze.' The neighbourhood worked as an exercise in power. The verandahs and street life were instruments of that power. Heaven help anyone who had non-standard interests.

b) the neighbourhood was unsustaining. With the growth of the personal rights ethos, the ability of the neighbourhood to control its inhabitants fell away. No longer could the neighbourhood fathers take action to control petty teenage misbehaviour. Instead personal rights and social policy took these controls away from the neighbourhood and gave them to government agencies. As a result the neighbourhood is now perhaps not unsafe but definitely uncomfortable. No one leaves tools or equipment out now in case a neighbour needs to borrow it. Everything is locked up. The doors are firmly closed and neighbours now complain to the police instead of discussing thier joint problems.

New urbanism seems to miss this point. Neighbourhoods are about local power. For some people this produces a comfortable paradise. For those slightly different it creates a jail of conformity. Some people thrive in it. Some peole will be stifled. Neighboourhoods are an exercise in hopefully beneficent control. Architecture does not create this control. It can destroy it certainly and make it impossible but it cannot create it.

Rating:
Summary: Every library in the country should have this book!
Review: I have only had the book a day and already it has given me great pleasure and joy. I love the fantastic pictures and diagrams. The computer digitalizations on a few existing towns today and what they could be like were truely fasinating. I couldn't help not liking the indepth descriptions of numourous cities, towns, and villages from around the country and canada as well. This book had colorful photos and diagrams, this book to me is pure genus!

Rating:
Summary: Every library in the country should have this book!
Review: I have only had the book a day and already it has given me great pleasure and joy. I love the fantastic pictures and diagrams. The computer digitalizations on a few existing towns today and what they could be like were truely fasinating. I couldn't help not liking the indepth descriptions of numourous cities, towns, and villages from around the country and canada as well. This book had colorful photos and diagrams, this book to me is pure genus!

Rating:
Summary: Milestone book quickly becoming coffee-table classic
Review: In the first half of the 1990s, this book culminated the beginning of the most influential postwar stream of thought about American cities and city life, New Urbanism. It was intended to be the coffee-table conversation starter for suburban yups feeling just uncomfortable enough with their time-stressed lives to admit that, yes, their street is bleak, their house a cartoon, their strip-malled "planned community" a joke.

By starting the national conversation, the book has succeeded spectacularly, and continues to serve the purpose. With solid, workmanlike graphic design, it shows the way forward by depicting and decoding a handful of places both designed and built as successful alternatives to suburban sprawl.

Behind the scenes, the book became the flagpole around which a genuinely new intellectual movement rallied. At the time of publication, several of these projects were just on the drawing board. Today, only a few years later, over 150 such projects are blooming nationwide. New Urbanism today is the organizing question in the serious architecture and planning schools, in the development community, and in land-use "smart growth" politics. Developers are either running scared of it, or ripping it off, or putting big money into it. New Urbanism is a powerful set of ideas, and you can find them all here. This is the book that focused the disparate efforts of a score of highly talented, individualistic practitioners into a coherent beam. This is the book with the irrefutable visual argument in favor of building good places to live.

It is good, then, that the book's examples have been outrun. The book appears now almost quaint to those who, on the front lines of the land-use wars, have internalized New Urbanism's basic principles. The book is silent on, for example, the practical, tough, messy, political imperatives needed to reverse a half-century of mad sprawl. Reading "The New Urbanism", one would conclude that healthy places to live are bestowed as if by magic from the brow of one or another luminary planner. A second edition, incorporating successes and lessons learned, will be needed soon. The Playa Vista example in particular appears likely to vanish embarrassingly from the drawing board into the thin air where good ideas go.

However, the basic visual argument remains solid, almost timeless. I use the book constantly to introduce new allies to the cause and to silence critics. I recommend it to anybody interested in America's lousy excuses for cities, which are, after all, our civilization itself.

Rating:
Summary: New Urbanism: This is how/where I want to live
Review: The basic principles presented in this book are the stuff that dreams are made of. I have shared the ideas presented in this book with many of my friends and they all want to live in communities such as this. We've been strip-malled, mega-malled and automobilized to near-death. New Urbanism as presented here is like a million breaths of fresh air.

It is best to read the basic principles presented in the front of the book first. It may look like dry reading at first but as you get into it, your interest will be piqued at first, then grabbed, and you won't want to put it down till you've read it all. Having read this part you will be armed with the knowledge that, to date, no development or developer has had the guts to follow the principles completely. All of the projects presented include some elements of New Urbanism but none of them have it right. One of the other customer reviewers of this book, Ken Wing, missed this entirely. Hey Ken, there is no people in the Seaside pictures because they want the reader to see the architecture! Those who don't get it, or are afraid of change, tend to trivialze New Urbanism and mis-represent it.

Once you have read this book, you, like myself will want to immediately pack up and move to a New Urbanist community. Better ones are coming out of the ground each year and I hope to see one near me real soon.

Rating:
Summary: Dangerous Ideas That Must Be Read
Review: This is a good book about bad ideas which-because of their influence-simply must be read. The problems with New Urbanism stem from five implicit premises it shares with other approaches to city planning. Consider them in turn.

1. The same design approach is appropriate for both cities and suburbs.

Peter Calethorpe claims the application of urban design principles "regardless of location: in suburbs and new growth areas as well as within the city" is a "simple but unique contribution of this movement." City planning, however, has often applied suburban principles-such as buildings as islands in a sea of grass-in both cities and suburbs. New and old share the underlying belief that the design problem of cities and suburbs is similar. Yet 40 years ago, Jane Jacobs showed us that cities were places where people had to feel safe amidst strangers, which fundamentally distinguished them from suburbs and small towns. The result when premise meets reality is laughable.

For example, the chapter on the upscale, private golf community of Windsor, FL devotes four full pages to the castle-like entrance building where visitors must pass a security checkpoint. Perimeter walls form an important design element of South Brentwood Village, CA. The text and captions don't mention them, but they show clearly in the illustrations. Unless New Urbanism's model is the medieval walled city, it is hard to see these as urban.

2. Community is primarily a matter of buildings and their arrangement.

Those who have not received years of professional training easily fall into the trap that community has to do with people. Planners know better. Community is about buildings and the spaces they enclose. The planners' view is most apparent in the illustrations they choose. Seaside, FL's chapter is typical. Seaside requires front porches, because they supposedly encourage sociability. Seaside's front porches appear in 17 photos. Exactly one porch is in use. Of the six photos showing Seaside's public pavilions and gazebos, but one is in use. The photo of the pedestrian-friendly sand walkway is empty. The planners are proud of their porches, pavilions, paths and gazebos. They constitute "community." Who needs people?

3. Appearance is more important than functionality.

Planners design and evaluate with primary reference to aesthetic standards. The design must work at some level, but that limits rather than drives what the planner does.

For example, the proposed conference center entrance in Montreal is a grand staircase, but it is hard to imagine anyone using it except joggers seeking a challenging exercise regimen. A large stair is also proposed for a park in Communications Hill, CA, not to get up and down, but to "terminate the view from a nearby street."

The plan for part of Brooklyn, NY, shows a seven block length of Atlantic Avenue taken up by five buildings with nearly identical facades, three one-block long, and two two-blocks long, blocking two cross streets. The centerpiece of this stretch? A two-block-long parking garage. Does anyone really believe vibrant street life could exist here?

4. Inside the boundary, plan. Outside, ignore or conquer.

A convention of the planning field concerns how the area surrounding that planned for is portrayed in plans and renderings. Of course, the planner's work is always shown in living color and full detail. Two basic approaches are followed in showing surroundings. In one, surroundings are simply left out, as if the planned area were a space station, or the sole settlement on a virgin continent. In the second, surroundings appear in monochromatic outline, making the viewer aware there is a context, but giving little information about it. Whether this convention is cause, effect, or coincidence, what is clear is that it strongly parallels planners' values and thought process.

This premise can be seen in action in what is perhaps the worst single design feature in the book. A "major goal" for the Clinton area of New York City was preservation of the few remaining low-rise buildings, including a corner gas station. To the planner, this meant the gas station was "outside" the planning area. Not content with surrounding it with an eight-story building taking the rest of the block along both street frontages, the planner proposed building a canopy on air rights over the gas station, thus engulfing it, amoeba style. Such bizarre design makes sense only when one starts from the planner's premise that what is outside the plan is at best something to be ignored, and at worst an obstacle to be overcome.

5. Give planners complete control. They know best.

The desire of planners for complete control is evident from the opening essays, where the wants and ideas of "businesses and public officials" are referred to as "hurdles," and the changes a planner makes to incorporate others' ideas are called "accommodations" and "compromises." Examples of building codes to limit architects and builders to the planners' vision grace several chapters. The pinnacle of control is achieved in Mashpee Commons, MA, where the developer retained ownership of streets to avoid zoning setback requirements.

The premise that we would all be better off if we would just do what the planners want stems from their deep seated belief that they know best. I hope it is apparent by now that this hubris has no basis in ability or performance.

As horrifying as these five premises are, it hasn't stopped New Urbanist planners from getting plenty of work, and in many cases getting their plans built. For suburban developers trying to create a simulacrum of pre-WWII, small-town America ala Disneyland's Main Street, the New Urbanism is probably harmless. For cities, the stakes are considerably higher. Cities have already suffered immensely at the hands of planners, and in their current state can hardly afford another round of arrogant ignorance. New Urbanist planners have already been to work on New York, Los Angeles, and Montreal. Read this book before they come to a city near you.