The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community [Hardcover]

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.