Can New Urbanism Save America?

Most of the public spaces that define the American landscape today foster a sense of loneliness, isolation and fundamental discontent -- at least according to New Urbanist Andrés Duany. Many cities and their surrounding suburbs have been constructed in such a way as to discourage public interaction, thereby engendering a fundamental sense of alienation that inspires wanton consumption and an increasing withdrawal from society. This problem, Duany says, is manifested in the McMansion. These distinctly American homes, "are a surrogate of what we are missing from the public realm," he says. We build entertainment centers, personal spas and mini-health clubs in our basements and by our bedrooms, if only to avoid seeking these services in public.

"The American private realm is the best in the world," Duany said recently at a lecture in Houston, Texas. "And the public realm is the worst in the world." Think about it: aside from thriving metropolitan centers that emphasize a pedestrian culture, like New York or San Francisco, there are few spaces that resemble the villages of former societies, where public experiences were a pervasive part of daily life.

Now, cities and their outliers -- the sprawling, strip-mall and highway lined suburbs -- repress public interaction. Virtually the only time Americans linger in public space is when there's occasion to consume. Fewer and fewer public spaces are built to encourage lingering for the sake of lingering. European cities and villages are constructed differently: church, school, markets and offices surround a central square that encourages foot traffic and community interaction. Most of America's cities and suburbs don't have that. Instead, public spaces are built in isolated pods. In the event that you don't have a gym in your basement, you can always go from your house, into your car, to the elliptical then get back in your car to get home. Very little interface is required for this ritual -- or a host of others, from grocery shopping to buying coffee or clothes.

While our automotive way of life may seem convenient and efficient, a total lack of public interplay creates a host of problems and a fundamental discontent that can't be assuaged by fitness, fine food, fancy clothes or comfortable homes and cars. In order to fill a social void caused by the lack of public interface, people turn increasingly to consumerism. Of course, argues Duany, this only perpetuates the cycle.

It's not just consumerism that results. Another, even more dire consequence -- though certainly a related one -- is the environmental impact of suburban America. Sprawling roads that need to be driven, single-family homes that need to be heated and cooled, and the constant development of new shopping centers and mega-malls have lasting environment consequences. Water cannot drain, ecosystems and habitats are destroyed and greenhouse gasses are emitted in great quantities. Climate change and urbanism are closely related. The suburban way of life, Duany argues, "Is destroying the Earth." Furthermore, the car has liberated geographic rules of traditional urbanism: communities and individuals are segregated like never before, creating an even more fragmentation and isolation in American society.

Fortunately, this long list of problems can be fixed in a relatively straightforward way. Simply put, American developers need to spend more time constructing public spaces that foster pedestrian activity, diversity and human interaction. Developers need to create spaces that encourage urban and suburban agriculture, thereby both mitigating environmental damage and stimulating community interaction among diverse groups of people -- especially among young and old, an essential component to continuing the health of neighborhoods and communities. Anyone who studies culture, society and environmentalism can agree in one fundamental fact: diversity in habitats is key. This fact is no different in human communities than it is in natural habitats.

New Urbanism is an essential theory, as it allows for the loss of space. The more people America produces and absorbs, the more space will be taken up by development and humanity. This is an inevitable fact: but continued sprawl and social fragmentation need not be set in stone. New Urbanism encourages the integration of a variety of groups of people -- and the social interaction of all. If urban planners and developers were to focus on creating towns that encouraged -- even mandated -- the growing of food by the community, while also providing ample street life, they could recreate the public experience of old world villages.

Duany's firm, Duany Plater Zyberk & Company (DPZ) has created several master-planned communities that embody the principals of New Urbanism, a theory that describes itself as working against, "disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society's built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge," according to a charter published by the Congress for the New Urbanism.

Duany does not argue that consumerism or suburbia are inherently detrimental to society, but rather that their current manifestation is destructive. Inevitably, cities will encourage growth outside of their urban boundaries, just as the economy depends on continued consumer activity. However, by pushing up the efficiency of single-family suburban homes; by restoring existing urban centers to encourage public interaction, diversity, street-life and greenery in order to attract and retain a diverse population; by encouraging the use of pedestrian life as well as public transportation and by shaping cities and towns around universally accessible public space and community institutions like universities, libraries and museums, we can change the way American society moves forward, while mitigating the effects of urbanism on the environment. What's more, we'll be happier and healthier people.

 

Follow Isabel Cowles on Twitter: www.twitter.com/breadandcourage

Comments

[luziannagirl]

DUH!

It's about time, after countless communities, regions, and individual developers eagerly adopted Duany's "New Urbanist" models, models which nearly completely omitted development's role in sustaining the environment and preserving biodiversity.

How many "New Urbanist" developments are now located on what used to be open pastures and woodlots, with little or no public transportation connections, nearly "0" open space for pedestrian residents to enjoy, no regional wildlands or rural farmland mitigation, and miles from already established (and infrastructured) urban centers?

Should we all thank Mr. D for finally seeing the light, or burn him in effigy for coming to this green realization (actually to something known as "Smart Growth") with too little, too late?

[n1colas]

Andres Duany was once asked how he can say that new urbanism, as he describes it, can effectively save American cities and curb sprawl when every new urbanist project is located either in the suburbs or as a new town. How can he say that new urbanism is saving cities when his own projects are located in the very same parts of the city he says are bad for American cities. Duany's deflection was that the new urbanist ideals are transitional ideals that can be applied to both new developments and re-developments in suburb and urban areas. This could be true but so far it's yet to be proven. No doubt the communities he designs promote the ideals he says but it's ridiculous to claim new urbanism as American's urban savior. Instead of creating pedestrian communities on the periphery of the city he should strive to design new projects that redevelop the core of cities and change its character to draw people into its center. this will save the city. Essential Duany's design is up to the user, a product, and you essentially a consumer. If you like it, then live there. if you don't then, obviously, don't. But don't kid yourself that new urbanism is saving American cities. The name itself is a misnomer. "New" urbanism is in fact nothing new. Just old ideas recycled to fit modern real estate markets. Please read Jane Jacobs for the original source of these ideals, at least in American literature.

[VTHokies04]

Great article! I lived in Aspen, Colorado and loved it. While it isn't "New Urbanism" per se, it had a lively downtown mixed with restaurants, movie theaters, skiing, grocery stores, etc. I loved walking from my home and rarely driving, bumping into friends on the street. It made life richer and made me happy. I live in Virginia Beach now and miss that way of life so much - as I find myself driving everywhere I need to go....unfortunately always to suburban strip malls. We should encourage more New Urbanism development.

[BlueGrama]

I actually live in a New Urbanist community in Colorado designed by Duany's firm (DPZ). Although the neighborhood is in the suburbs, I can walk to 15 different restaurants and many other stores and services such as dentists and doctor's offices. Because the design of the community fosters social interaction with its walkability, front porches, and many pocket parks, I know all my neighbors (seriously, all--not just the ones on my street--almost all my neighbors on every street) so I don't have to drive to visit with friends either. There are many days I do not ever get in my car and when I do, everything is close.

This neighborhood is in the suburbs but is integrated with existing big box developments so you can have direct walking access to them, and is a good example of how to have all the benefits of suburban living with some of the social and environmental benefits of urban living. People are not going to stop wanting to live in the suburbs (or for that matter, stop shopping at big box stores)--many people want their own single family home with good schools at a price they can afford but also want to know their neighbors and be able to walk to things. New urbanist neighborhoods can provide that, and the sense of community so many places in America lack and so many Americans seem to pine for.

[jpaget]

Check out the video "Built to Last" on youtube, which makes a succinct case for new urbanism in an entertaining 3-minute short film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI

[David Yoon]

The "Built to Last" also blasts suburban features like cul-de-sacs, which were ironically the only places we (as kids growing up in suburban Southern California) could congregate to play games without worrying about getting run over by cars. But otherwise, did people hold farmer's markets, or impromptu concerts, or block parties in these dead ends? Nope. They were mostly used by lost drivers to make U-turns, and eyed with suspicion as they did. Talk about isolation!
--
narrowstreetsLA.blogspot.com

[horhay]

The answer to the question is a resounding yes, new urbanism can save America. Not only will we be happier and healthier people, but many unemployed Americans will be working again or can be retrained to learn the skills needed to build a more modern America. There needs to be more foresight and common sense about bulldozing & paving over farmland/pastures so more tract homes/strip malls can be built(one of the only good things about the real estate meltdown is that over development & sprawl has slowed down).

Many Americans look back at what FDR did to put Americans back to work during his presidency as a good example of how we can rebuild America. But soon after the U.S. & Allies won WWII, collusion between automakers, oil companies, tire companies, even numerous politicians allowed major trolley lines/light rail systems to be ripped out.

During the Eisenhower administration, the modern interstate system was created. Major metropolitan areas developed freeways that radiated out towards the suburbs/rural areas, away from the cities. This was developed because the threat of nuclear war & annihilation of entire cities was a constant fear during the Cold War. Supposedly, once an urban area had been destroyed, the surviving population would get in their cars and get the hell out of dodge. Just remember Katrina, where one's car was useless because the freeway was underwater, or the traffic came to a standstill because everyone was trying to get out at the same time.

[horhay]

I want to add that local agriculture is something that needs to be supported and integrated into urban existence. Not only do we have to make sure some land around cities/suburbs needs to be kept for the purpose of feeding the local population, but we need greenbelts for our physical & psychological health. We need to allow wildlife and native vegetation to exist in our new urban America.

American cities need to be modernized and redesigned, but we have to give thanks to the visionaries that created vast expanses of parks and open spaces. Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is such an integral part of that city, as I imagine Central Park in NYC is too. I feel lucky to live in the Bay Area were a lot of wilderness & open space has been preserved. There is a multi-county agency where I live, East Bay Regional Parks District, that maintains and acquires agricultural & wild lands. Most of these parks and open spaces are multi-use, meaning that livestock can graze, people can walk, bike or hike the trails, and wildlife thrives because there is still undeveloped land very close to our urban & suburban homes.

In many cities, old railroad right of ways, have been converted into multi-use trails too. Some of these trails are 30 miles or more long. They connect cities and towns so that people can walk or bike somewhere without having to use a car, which is another part of new urbanism.