Rob.. first, thanks for the article.. it is a good piece.
second.... aaaarrrrrrrrrgggggguaaahhhh....
huh. New Urbanism (or neo-traditional if you will) is a great idea in theory IMHO (insert obligatory Jer style communism/theory joke here) It takes the only actually intelligent thing Jane Jacobs ever said (that being that you have no community without connection and without 'eyes on the street' and marries it with the good ideas from Ebenezer Howard and his garden city (i.e. makes it a little more practical) and then blends in the reality of modern life.
I think it is a great idea to produce communities instead of just housing in a subdivision. I think it is great to think of transit connections and basic infrastructure as the basis of the plan, not try to cram it all in after you have come up with your lot sizes (of course to maximize profit... we are capitalists after all). You end up with a community that affords the opportunity to live and work close to each other. You also have a pedestrian friendly landscape with shorter front yards allowing for a connection between the public space (the street) and the semi-private space (the front porch) it brings the community together and allows for better interaction. The rear laneways are somewhat of a necessary evil to get rid of the garage centric housing that has been the product of haphazard planning and honestly just shoddy design since... hell, since the late 70's and early 80's.
Ok, in the real world it is unlikely that the people are going to work in their community (until telecommuting becomes more prevalent and/or the concept of satellite work space catches on.) the hard facts are that the commercial that goes into developments like this is generally low grade retail (like a convenience store, postal outlet, that sort of thing) There generally isn't the density to support restaurants or even higher function commercial (doctors, lawyers etc.) unless you insert it into a pre-existing community (like the development at Highway 10 and Lakeshore in Port Credit. Horrible design but in theory a smart concept)(well except the commercial space on Lakeshore is live/work space so you actually own the townhouse over top of it as well... but I digress) If you can get yourself into a pre-existing village setting like that then you can have people living and working in the same neighbourhood. If you then have them close to transit then when they need to visit others or want something that may not be available to them locally then with a half-way decent transit system you can get where you need to go without relying on your car.
Now the problems come in... The housing it too expensive because the developers bite of more than they can chew and the market values dictate that the housing prices be higher than the retail/commercial space can support. Then it becomes a kitsch bedroom community (read Cornell) that exists as a stunted testament to what New Urbanism could be if the different layers of government go on board and the developers started caring less about money and more about social planning (I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth typing that just now....) (I know, I know.. it's not fare to say that... the developers are in this to make money and that is their right in a free market economy... that doesn't mean the government can't tax the rich bastards to provide subsidies and bonuses to the developers to make more affordable units within the communities they build)(oh God... I could have sworn I slept through social planning... all three courses... I hated it!!!)
Then you get into the atrocity that is Seaside I mean shit... where the hell do you start with that one...? It has product testing written all over it... I mean shit!, the residents are all allowed to have a tower on their house for God's sake.. I mean yes there are limitations so that you don't mess with other people's views of the water and whatnot but that is a bastardization of the actual form... As far as I am concerned it is more of a case study on why the United States of America needs to take property rights out of the constitution and work out a better planning system than restrictive covenants and give up their precious gated communities and neighbourhoods run by committee.... Anyway, enough bashing of the states (but I mean seriously! ok ok, it was Walt Disney after all but come on... Celebration? What the hell were the thinking with that one?) And who could forget Windsor... I mean who thought that a gated community build around a golf course with matching polo pitches on wither side of the front gate was neo traditional in any way...?
Ok ok, enough blabbering from me.... let the commentaries commence... Dick..? Cap Thug...? Anything to add...
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Andrès Duany, Riverfront Gambler
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I really should respond more...but instead, i am just going to visit Celebration when i go to florida at the end of February and taunt you while i enjoy the great american dream as built by the Walt Disney Corporation.
I've never had the pleasure of visiting a New Urbanist community for a length of time, but my feeling is that yes, they are nice in theory. Like you say, they fall down because of market forces, generally. Developers realize that there are well-to-do people who want some sort of urban setting that they can foist these toy communities on, so they naturally focus on that, rather than a broader (less profitable) version. Until we change our planning regime to recognize better design principles, they are always going to be atypical and won't work properly because usually you have to fight current zoning bylaws to even get them built. Our zoning doesn't generally support much beyond sprawl outside the core.
The flip side is that consumers also have to learn to be more discerning. Outside of the right-wing ideologues who also think that Alberta is the ideal, few will proclaim that sprawl is a good thing. Yet it hasn't stopped a whole wack of people from buying... subruban monster sprawl houses. Maybe with the environment becoming a bigger issue in Canada we will see some change. However, unless we force a regime of conservation on people, it's going to be an awful uphill battle to get people into more sustainable housing.
I think I got off topic, but I feel better.
You and your damned Ebenezer Howard... always with the Ebenezer Howard!
Frankly, I kind of like New Urbanism. I like it's form and I like its massing. The problem is with all the trinkets 'market researchers' think are necessary to sell a project.
Good Post!
Post a Comment