Suppose one day, gasoline will jump in price again—this time, to a price unaffordable to most people. Suppose it jumps to ten dollars a gallon. The US has had jumps in fuel cost and fuel shortages before, so we know that there will be more stealing, food prices will increase, that general mayhem will occur. But beyond this initial catastrophe, supposing the price never went back down again, what would happen to our landscape? Many Americans live and prefer to live in suburb areas. The convenience of driving to get groceries, to church, knitting club, grandma and grandpa’s, school, and work, would no longer be convenient. Many families would not be able to afford living in their houses, because to get out of their houses at all, even for a gallon of milk, they must drive.
The United States rebuilt its economy after the Great Depression and World War II in large part using the automobile industry. The nation needed to be rebuilt. “Everyone wanted everything to be new,” city planner of Holland, Mark VanderPloeg, explained. Since cars were mass produced and cheaper, they were a financial miracle for farmers, and they redefined life and leisure for all working Americans. They enlarged horizons and gave more independence. Roads were built—millions of dollars went into highways and parking lots and wider roads with more lanes—all in homage to the liberator of the people: the car. This fifty-year-old tradition is wearing out in the new millennium. Oil dependence has become a political danger, car pollution wears on the environment and atmosphere, and, most insidiously, communities have crumbled and people find themselves with road rage and depression, partly due to their living environments. Even scarier, the rights of mobility for people who cannot drive are incredibly restricted—what does freedom mean for a nation that requires a car for each citizen? To change our landscape from a home for cars back to a home for people will take a comprehensive change in thought across our nation. Architects, developers, and planners have caught onto and named this new school of thought New Urbanism. It is also called Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), which ironically contradicts the name “New Urbanism.” What is this new idea, a nostalgic overhaul or a completely new way of living? I will try to answer this later. We will also examine New Urbanism: its vision, flaws, and strengths. The only way to prevent ourselves from reacting too strongly to the last generation’s mistakes is to self-criticize and discern what we will keep and what we will change for our future home.
The main principle of New Urbanism or TND is that towns should be built on a human scale, not a car scale. To build towns and cities for humans again, New Urbanists put garages and driveways in the backs of houses, build radiating streets from a town center, mix public, private, commercial, and institutional uses to be within walking distance, create public greenspace, control traffic by narrowing streets and reducing car speed, and set buildings closer to the roads. It can be called Traditional Neighborhood Development because back before cars, many of these elements were naturally built into towns to ease the movement of people who walked and used slower vehicles: the horse and carriage. Some of these towns still exist, and TND is there to recognize the merits of spaces such as these. Andres Duany, in his book called Suburban Nation, lists some rules of TND: “1. The center….The five-minute walk….The street network….Narrow, versatile streets….Mixed use….Special sites for special buildings” (Duany et al 15-17). These rules would put a sense of place back into our towns, which lack special places and special buildings.
New Urbanism has undergone scrutiny by developers and planners. There are considerable dangers with building and revising our towns and cities. One problem that people find with New Urbanism is the most visible: the architecture. James Kunstler describes Seaside, a town on Florida’s east side that was created by a developer named Robert Davis from 80 acres of land his grandfather left him when he died, and planned by Andres Duany, a large player in the New Urbanism movement, as a place where “all the houses are made of wood with peaked tin roofs and deep porches. No two are alike, but all share a congruity of design that is soothing to the eyeballs….The pastel-colored houses stand along a coherent network of narrow streets paved with brick” (Kunstler 253-4). Architecture, at first glance, can give strong impressions. The danger is getting carried away with how a house or building looks and ignoring how it operates with the mixed uses of the neighborhood. The writers of Suburban Nation, the comprehensive look at our nation’s development and its problems, strengthen this point: “it is the architectural style of most Traditional Neighborhood Developments that causes them to be dismissed as ‘nostalgic’ by much of the design profession” (Duany, et al 209). This prejudgment could cloud a nation’s perspective on New Urbanism, associating it with the pushing of ideals. Duany explains that “style takes on moral overtones” (209). By building houses that look like older houses, it may look like America is retrogressing and not moving forward, as a name like New Urbanism suggests.
This focus on architecture is also tricky because New Urbanist have put strict regulations on how houses should be built. Mark Vanderploeg says the restrictions are necessary to keep new houses from looking like current houses with garages sticking out, among other problems. These rules are as minutely detailed as the codes and ordinances guiding the development of today’s suburbs. It is generally enforced that garages should take up one third of a houses’ frontage. Typical housing standards force new houses to be set back twenty-five feet from the sidewalk, even in neighborhoods where the older houses are breaking these rules. No exceptions allowed. No blanket code works for every area. New Urbanism must be careful of this, too—their prized deep porches and stairs are not handicap-accessible. Diversity in buildings, including residential buildings, is a must.
Kunstler quotes Randall Arendt, who says “The law is the major problem with the development pattern. Developers don’t fight it, they go with the flow” (Kunstler 263). Zoning laws and ordinances are unique to America and encompass everything from how houses look to where they can be built. They are blind to the unique places that make up our nation—they make our towns homogenous. This is an existing problem, but it is also a danger for New Urbanism, which requires throwing out suburban codes writing completely new ones. Could this merely create a new-looking homogeny, barring us from creative solutions to specific problems?
This homogeny is hard to avoid when creating new communities. A major problem is the word “new,” of which urban prophet Jane Jacobs warns us is a downfall of neighborhoods. When no old buildings exist in a neighborhood, she argues, no one will want to be there. It will be blighted and boring (Jacobs 258). Also, Jacobs points out that old buildings serve as incubators. They keep new businesses safe with their established walls. The sense of history gives a sense of place. Also, creating completely new towns is risky. There is a chance no one will move to them due to poor placement or timing. There is also a chance that everyone will move to them, out of love for new things, and leave existing cities behind, as if we have not been already doing that for the past five decades. Development is necessary, but when it eats up green space without economic reason, it is a waste. The government gives subsidies to those developing on vacant lots, sites that have been built on before. New Urbanism never claimed to only build brand new towns like Seaside, but is it flexible enough to work with existing development?
One of the largest reasons development needs to turn away from suburban zoning is the distance it puts between economic classes. In our system, one can live wherever they can afford to live. Developers set up suburbs so that houses of certain value stick around other houses of the same value: “one cluster consists entirely of houses that sell for $350,000 and up. The second cluster contains houses costing about $200,000. The third cluster is made up of apartments priced at less than $100,000….we are now experiencing ruthless segregation by minute gradations of income” (43). This, coupled with the fact that one can only drive to get to these houses, is a deliberate separation from the inner city. It is more than white flight, for other races that can afford to move to the outskirts do, too. It is an attempt to forget the problems of the city, and to focus inward on the nuclear family.
The law may attempt to protect people who are left behind by this system, and therefore fall short economically, but there is no law stopping those with enough money from getting almost anything they want. The wealthy buy old apartment buildings in large cities with more money than the owners had ever seen. The residents are then told they must move out and find new places to live. The old buildings are torn down and rebuilt: part of the process of gentrification. New Urbanism, which celebrates diversity in building use and value, makes an effort to abolish this compartmentalization of economic class. Affordable housing is one of the keys to a New Urbanist town. Duany gives two rules of affordable housing, learned from a rocky history of attempting this in the US: do not experiment on the poor, and do not concentrate affordable housing in too large of quantities (Duany et al 53). It is a challenge to imagine Duany’s idea of “market-rate housing” being sparsely interrupted by affordable housing. A college town can be a good indicator of this: Hope College runs into problems by mixing its student cottages with citizen houses—the college students are loud and disrespectful, letting the historic houses deteriorate. The neighborhood gets lower in value—it becomes less of a neighborhood and more of an extension of the campus.
In the same way, the poor’s inability to do their own expensive upkeep of their housing and differences in lifestyles may create friction within newly-mixed neighborhoods. New Urbanist towns like Seaside, which have seen much success and proven good places to live, gain popularity and thus become competitive places to live. Prices will naturally rise, especially when supply is much smaller than the growing demand. How do we keep these places affordable? In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs spells out a plan for a hypothetical program that works naturally with the ecosystem of a city neighborhood.
If a household’s income improved, its proportion of the rent would go up, and the proportion provided by the subsidy would go down. If and when a household reached the point of paying a full economic rent, it would thereafter—for as long as this was true—be no concern of the ODS (Office of Dwelling Subsidies). Such a household or individual could stay on in the dwelling forever, paying economic rent. (Jacobs 425)
This only explains part of Jacob’s complex hypothetical program, but it illustrates a new way of housing those who want to work their way up economically. Place buildings with programs like these near private dwellings and apartment buildings with common commercial and institutional buildings, and you will have a diverse neighborhood in more ways than one.
New Urbanism’s largest hurdle to jump will be shaking its Seaside-associated reputation. It is the first town people think of when New Urbanism is mentioned. In a web-casted interview with James Kunstler, Kuntsler calls Seaside “the original iconic New Urbanist project,” explaining that “it became the model for what traditional neighborhood development would be.” This reputation has been taken too far, and the public has expected it to be a “coal miner’s town for the working class,” Kunstler explains. Diane Portfleet, an English professor at Hope College, lived in Seaside for awhile as part of a program in which she could live in one of the houses to write while its “residents” were at their other home. She said she did not feel comfortable living there—the kitchen was upstairs, the “corner grocery store” was too expensive to get real food, and she was starving for “real community” while there. It felt like an empty resort town to her. This is a frightening reaction to a place meant to encourage community and walking. Seaside gets a more widespread image-association with nonrealistic living with the film The Truman Show, which was taped partly in Seaside. Jim Carrey’s character lives in a perfect town called Seahaven, until he finds out that it is really a large set for a television show starring him, and even the sky is fabricated to ensure complete control over his life. What message does this send about Seaside, which claims to be a better form of community?
Perhaps it is unfair to ask for realistic and perfect answers to such a widespread problem. Kunstler argues for Seaside, in answer to popular criticisms which reflected Portfleet’s experience:
Its aim is to demonstrate how good relationships between public and private space may be achieved by changing a few rules of building. It never pretended to be anything else. It did make the important point that if you change the rules of building, you can reproduce these good relationships anywhere. (257)
Kunstler also stresses, “it’s a beach town. Of course people don’t live there year round,” and that Seaside never pretended to be a perfect community (KunstlerCast). In the end, Seaside is an illustration of what can be done (throwing aside zoning laws that encourage driving) and what to avoid (creating unrealistic houses that become too competitive and expensive) at the same time. Seaside should be, and is, followed by many other experiments and risk-takings. This is what differentiates New Urbanism from Traditional Neighborhood Development—it is a look into the future, into trying new things, instead of looking back nostalgically at the way things were.
Another praised example of New Urbanism is Kentlands, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which is fifteen miles north of Washington DC. This New Urbanist area is in the middle of the DC suburbs, rather than isolated like Seaside (Stoel). Comparing a photograph of Seaside to a photograph of Kentlands, one will see that the Kentlands look much more like a city and less like a resort town. Also, studies have shown that Kentlands real estate sells houses at comparable prices to houses in suburban districts—there is a demand for New Urbanist neighborhoods, whether or not the buyers know that there is a name to the charming neighborhood they are visiting (Tu). Examples like Seaside and Kentlands are the public’s first glance at New Urbanism.
As written before, first glance is important to Americans. Duany describes the McMansion in the current developer’s world as the twenty-minute house. These large, impressive houses use creative architecture and lots of space to win over the buyer within twenty minutes (Duany 76). New Urbanist communities, with less perceived space and privacy, may take more than twenty minutes for Americans to fall for, unless there is a shift in values and ideals for homebuyers, or developers find sneaky ways to trick buyers for these developments, too.
An early criticism claims that New Urbanism does not address environmental concerns enough. Other than encouraging walkability and discouraging driving, what can New Urbanism do to protect the environment? New Urbanism started in the 80s, with Seaside. Back then, Duany and Davis were not concerned with public transportation, because it was unrealistic for Seaside and because gas was cheap—there was no predicted problem with cars. Most environmentalists, who were wary that any development should happen at all, have now adopted the anti-sprawl argument since we all have seen the land that is wasted, the pollution from cars, and runoff pollution from fertilizers and pavement. New Urbanism, especially if it uses sustainable materials and systems, is a good structure for decreasing driving, which in many ways is the number one concern, as it affects the atmosphere, the oil industry, and use of resources while creating massive waste. Today’s New Urbanists stress the necessity of public transportation systems being within a five-minute walk from any living space. New Urbanism represents a shift America would take, and it would be a shift in more than planning and development. It would be an overhaul of how things are done. The sprawling, international food system Americans are subject to, and the lack of cross-continental transportation will change, too. This kind of shift will make more of a difference than anything else an environmentalist can do.
The New Urbanism focus on architecture, zoning, and how things look also takes away focus from social, economic, and political problems which are truly at the heart of city and suburban issues. New Urbanism makes some bold claims at fixing problems of isolation simply by changing the buildings and roads of isolated communities. Dan Kaline, in a column discussing the book The Lost City, by Alan Ehrenhalt, writes
While these design ideas can help create a feeling of community, they represent just one aspect of solving the isolation problem. The core of a community is its people. Common values and a commitment to each other’s welfare are the keys to making an area look and feel like a community for the people who really live there. (Public Management)
New Urbanism cannot solve social issues of racial segregation, economic segregation, prejudice, isolation, crime, and homogeny any more than suburban planning did. Still, the shift in planning does reflect a shift in mindset, even if it is a minority mindset for now. Like most movements in our culture, changes happen physically, intellectually, and emotionally at the same time. The physical is the last to show change, but it does show change. If and when people decide they want community back, that they want to live in a pleasant place where they can walk and bike safely, only then will New Urbanism come into effect in a consuming way.
These criticisms recognized, the most dangerous part of redeveloping America will be striving for perfection. Americans must realize that they do not want to live in a perfect place. The Truman Show’s Seahaven cannot exist. We do not want it. Suburbia is the wasteland from years of developers trying to create perfect places for children to grow up, families to thrive, and privacy to endure. The result is tragic. Duany, the developer of Seaside and Kentlands, stresses that the roadblocks he has hit and the compromises he has had to make with car-oriented developers will not bring him down. Kunstler writes about him:
he argued that design imperfections would make the town more memorable, reflecting it is, after all, part of the real world. He cited nearby Annapolis as an example: ‘Annapolis is full of lessons. One of them is how imperfect urbanism can be and still make a really great town. Everywhere you look in Annapolis things are off, things are imperfect. Yet it all adds up to a really magnificent place.’ (258)
Who knew that the most magnificent places are full of imperfections and imperfect people? When people embrace their community and its quirks, putting their time and energy into it, they create a place of real worth. This rejection of perfection does not dismiss Daniel Burnham’s one-hundred-year-old slogan, “make no little plans.” Planning will need to be large, imaginative, and risky. Mistakes will be made. But the most important outcome is that we will be straying further away from the suburbs and turning back to our cities and towns—back to each other.
Works Cited
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point P, 2000.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 3rd ed. New York: Modern Library, 1993.
Kentlands. CoolTown Studios. 04 Aug. 2004. 30 Apr. 2009 <http://www.cooltownstudios.com/category/housing-lofts/P75/>.
“KunstlerCast #51: Seaside Revisited.” Interview with Duncan Crary. The KunstlerCast. 12 Feb. 2009. 1 May 2009 <http://kunstlercast.com/shows/KunstlerCast_51_Seaside_Revisited.html>.
Kunstler, James Howard. Geography of Nowhere The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape. New York: Free P, 1994.
Seaside. Chapter 10: Architecture. University of Evansville. 30 Apr. 2009 <http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/sp04/art105-10.html>.
Stoel, Thomas B., Jr. ”Reining in urban sprawl.” Environment 41.4 (May 1999): 6(1). General OneFile. Gale. Hope College Library. 30 Apr. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.lib.hope.edu/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS>.
Tu, Charles C., and Mark J. Eppli. ”Valuing new urbanism: the case of Kentlands.” Real Estate Economics 27.3 (Fall 1999): 453(2). General OneFile. Gale. Hope College Library. 30 Apr. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.lib.hope.edu/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS>.