New Suburbanism
In architecture and planning, New Urbanism seems to be the hot new trend. While it is good in theory (who doesn't like walkable tree-lined streets?) in reality it's a superficial community that ironically causes more of the same problems it claims to remediate.
In reality, New Urbanism is superficial and deceptive in that they are marketed under the pretense that they are better than suburbs when in actuality it preys on the public's ignorance of planning. Perhaps the biggest downside is how it doesn't allow for future organic growth; rather everything is planned from day one. Some of the most historical places I've been to in the world haven't had a comprehensive plan for the city, but evolved through time as it was seen necessary.
New Urbanism has been a good critique of our cities to this point, challenging automobile-centered designs. But by planning an entire town all at once, it strips the community of it's ability to grow naturally. They are usually isolated communities that don't blend into the adjacent communities. In Seaside, it's very apparent when you leave it, and immediately feels different outside of it. The benefits of the planned communities are exclusive to only those who live in it, essentially creating expensive gated communities for a certain demographic. The public can buy into the idea while planners convince them it is innovative, healthy, and the better alternative to suburbs.
New Suburbanism shouldn't be a style, but instead a set of principles. Currently, it can be seen as a victim to capitalism. We should look at other successful movements like the City Beautiful movement of the early 1900s and treat it like that. Set up standards for new communities and allow older neighborhoods to adopt these strategies. It will allow for the customization needed to differentiate between different demographics requirements and be a more honest form of planning.
In reality, New Urbanism is superficial and deceptive in that they are marketed under the pretense that they are better than suburbs when in actuality it preys on the public's ignorance of planning. Perhaps the biggest downside is how it doesn't allow for future organic growth; rather everything is planned from day one. Some of the most historical places I've been to in the world haven't had a comprehensive plan for the city, but evolved through time as it was seen necessary.
New Urbanism has been a good critique of our cities to this point, challenging automobile-centered designs. But by planning an entire town all at once, it strips the community of it's ability to grow naturally. They are usually isolated communities that don't blend into the adjacent communities. In Seaside, it's very apparent when you leave it, and immediately feels different outside of it. The benefits of the planned communities are exclusive to only those who live in it, essentially creating expensive gated communities for a certain demographic. The public can buy into the idea while planners convince them it is innovative, healthy, and the better alternative to suburbs.
New Suburbanism shouldn't be a style, but instead a set of principles. Currently, it can be seen as a victim to capitalism. We should look at other successful movements like the City Beautiful movement of the early 1900s and treat it like that. Set up standards for new communities and allow older neighborhoods to adopt these strategies. It will allow for the customization needed to differentiate between different demographics requirements and be a more honest form of planning.
Comments
Post a Comment