Bad schools and even the perception of disorder drive people from the city more effectively than bad urban form, and keeping people in the city is more important than the form the city takes.
Cityism is differentiated by a commitment to join high density and intensity of uses with a congenial urban landscape, and this requires heroic efforts to deal with parking.
Because the rebuilding of cities is so important, the effort to do so, if that effort is based on recognizable principles, deserves recognition as something special.
The developments in these three cities are based on maximizing and capturing the economic value of city real estate. They all represent intensification of uses.
If conventional suburban development is our civilization, it has had its discontents for a long time. It's worth considering what the alternatives are.
New Urbanism is an elastic concept, and an elastic movement. On one hand it's pragmatic, on the other, it's got a Charter with principles.
