New Urbanism: Social Aesthetic Planning of a Contradictory Movement - Research Paper Example

New Urbanism: the Social Aesthetic Planning of a Contradictory Movement Urbanisation has always been characterised by the trend of people living in a country to leave small cities, towns and villages and massively collect in big urban centers. This trend is known to dominate the needs and wishes of people mainly after major disasters, wars, transnational or civil, major earthquakes, extensive droughts, and of course due to accumulation of capital, the greater part of the wealth and productive power of the country. The culmination of the phenomenon of urbanisation began after the First World War and has culminated particularly after the second, when in most countries of Europe, the economic development turned completely to industrial production, already flowering from the period of war, this production required cheap labor and the residence of workers close to production units. Urbanisation is a variant of the internal migration that was until recently from the provinces to the large cities, since it was there that industrial plants were developed and there was a strong demand for labour. The culmination of the phenomenon of urbanization began after the First World War and has culminated particularly after the second, when in most countries of Europe, the economic development turned completely to industrial production, already flowering from the period of war, this production required cheap labor and the residence of workers close to production units. Urbanisation, from the midle of the 19th century and the begining of the industrial revolution, until the second half of the 20th century, when traditional heavy industry was slowly disapearing from the western countries and new production forms where apearing, adapted to modern technologies and asian production conditions, had good and bad consequences in the daily lives of the residences of large cities. Good consequences included the increase of industrial production and by extension the increase of public wealth, the wealth of the individual, the improvment of living conditions and their active involvement on the market economy. Furthermore, the gradual flexibility and improving educational standards of the second and future generations led to a change in previously conservative attitudes. While the development brought comfort to the populace and States benefited from the development, cities started spreading out. This trend increased decentralisation from the main cities and led to the creation of separated suburbs and urban sprawl. Urban planners and architects reacted to the situation. They strived to control the urban sprawl, reduce dependence on car, and create livable and walkable neighbourhoods with a densely packed array of housing, jobs and commercial sites. These efforts marked the birth of a new dimension of urbanisation – the New Urbanism. Although the idea promoted a return to the traditional town planning, it began to gain popularity in 1970s and 1980s. Architects started planning model cities in the U.S that contained an easily walkable main street, a down town park, shopping districts and a gridded street system. Later years saw more organised and stronger resolve towards New Urbanism as several conferences were held and committees were established to promote the new dimension of urbanisation. These efforts resulted in development of well-defined principles for land use planning that focused on the communities and their livability. Despite the fact that New Urbanism has gained acceptance over the past few years, the idea is often criticised for its design practices and principles. Critics highlight that New Urbanism offers expensive living and dense population thus limiting the diversity and privacy of the community. While a number of diversified opinions are being aired about New Urbanism, it becomes difficult to comprehend the issue without a thorough study of its evolution and a critical analysis of the ways it tends to develop cities that attempt to provide aesthetically and socially viable communities. The roots of New Urbanism lie in the heart of Urban Sprawl - the antithesis of the type of planning and living New Urbanites idealise. Until about the time of the economic crisis of 1929, in American cities as well as the cities of continental Europe, the model of structural development was the same. In existing urban centres other peripheral were added, neighbourhoods and districts succeeded one another with multi-storey buildings, somewhat anarchistically designed. This model began to change once the economic recovery started, particularly in the U.S., where private cars were becoming more luxurious and were the main means of transportation. The widespread use of cars, among other things, reduced distances between urban centres and peripheral areas of the city, and between central and suburban areas which were very often many miles away from the workplace. The suburban growth peaked after the Second World War, to the point that today the majority of people in the U.S. are resident in remote communities within the cities. The distances have created the need to purchase more than one car, one for every family member, and the continuous expansion of suburban neighbourhoods are increasingly turning rural land into urban land holdings. This combination does not actually help in treating problems that the residents until then had; they were simply replaced by other problems. Alienation intensified, distance diminished human contact, and movement consumed a large part of people’s free time, while the increase in sales of vehicles reasonably resulted in increase of air pollution. Voices that reacted to this way of urban planning could be heard as early as the late '50s. Jane Jacobs, in her study Death and Life of Great American Cities (1960), following the concerns of the radical philosopher Lewis Mumford, turned to the planners and designers of highways and asked to stop the abusive multiply of high-traffic roads (highways ), where all the shopping malls, recreation centers and restaurants where gathered, thereby destroying the life of small towns and villages. Therefore, the emergence of New Urbanism was not accidental nor sudden. If someone looks at the "Principles" on which the manifesto was based on 1991, the conviction of planners and architects of the group was that the U.S. perception of the composition of buildings should also see the city again as a human cell. But that does not mean they were just looking forward to reviving the traditional concepts on the organization of the residential tissue and workplaces. Oliver Gillham, in his book The Limitless City, gives a neutral definition of Urban Sprawl as: ‘a form of urbanisation distinguished by leapfrog patterns of development, commercial strips, low density, separated land uses, automobile dominance, and a minimum of public open spaces’. While this definition apparently gives an unbiased view of Urban Sprawl, it also tends to point towards the repercussions Sprawl can have on the society. The USA experienced similar situation in the post-war era when the unplanned and irregular growth away from cities led to certain adverse effects which included: 1. Low density population which lacked community values; 2. Long distances from offices, schools, shopping centres resulted in less relaxation time due to traffic congestion and longer travelling times; 3. Greater use of automobile also resulted in over-crowded schools; 4. Local governments experienced increasing financial pressures as they spent considerable amount on basic infrastructure; 5. Excessive use of automobiles caused more air pollution and health risks; 6. People lost the sense of belonging to their respective towns; 7. Unequal distribution of wealth between cities and suburbs took place; 8. The expansion patterns made the development and use of mass transit systems more complex. 9. Sprawl had considerable impacts upon ecosystems as agricultural lands and green areas began disappearing.  10. Sprawl also affected environmental resources which included surface and/or ground water. 11. Sprawl wiped out wildlife habitats; and 12. It obstructed access to natural resources which included timber, sand, gravel, limestone etc. These conclusions were not mere theoretical as efforts were made at every level to measure the impact of Sprawl. Since commute times and vehicle miles travelled were used as indicators of the sprawl problem, considerable studies were conducted to find out the gravity of the issue. The results suggested that the miles Americans travelled in their cars each year had grown even faster than developed land and much, much faster than the population. (Wasserman, 2000 ) Another analysis was carried out in 2004 to study the effects of urban sprawl on human health. The study, as shown below, concluded that greater Sprawl contributed towards increased number of chronic health conditions due to pollution, less green areas, excessive driving, less leisure time etc. These consequences were viewed with great concern by the then urban planners, architects and government officials. A dire need of new concept of town planning was felt at every level to control the impacts of urban sprawl. Architect Richard Economakis, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana (USA) uttered the relationship of modernism with the need for the planning of new urban centers, when asked by the prestigious Athenian newspaper Kathimerini (28.7.2001) in these words; " What has been established to be regarded in many countries of Europe as modern is largely outdated and aesthetically depleted. Moreover, the modern, the neoteristic, can have harmful effects on the climate and economy of a city or country[...] Generally, there is a perception that architectural expression can be revealed only through neoterisms, but the expression through tradition can also be very creative. Greece, as well as several other countries which are for years in a transitional stage, continue to live under the shadow of the festering and outdated principles of LeCorbusier[...] That is why the academic education should be more open, more complex and certainly more pluralistic than now ". Similar views have been expressed by other Greek Architects of the Diaspora such as Dimitris Porphirios, who owns a well-staffed office in London, and Stephen Polizoidis working primarily in California who is one of the key international representatives of the New Urbanism movement. The consistent endeavours to curb the negative effects of Sprawl led to the introduction of a new dimension in urbanisation that promised an organised and aesthetical development of lands – New Urbanisation. Peter Kartz in his book, The new urbanism: toward an architecture of community, defines new urbanism as ‘The New Urbanism is concerned with both the pieces and the whole. It applies principles of urban design to the region in two ways. First, urbanism-defined by its diversity, pedestrian scale, public space and structure of bounded neighbourhoods-should be applied throughout a metropolitan region regardless of location: in suburbs and new growth areas as well as within the city. And second, the entire region should be “designed” according to similar urban principles. It should, like a neighbourhood, be structured by public space, its circulation system should support the pedestrian, it should be both diverse and hierarchical and it should have discernible edges’. New Urbanism basically promotes following key ideas: 1. It supports a walkable city. This mean that the residents of the community should not use cars to get anywhere within their own area/town. Instead, the city should provide basic good and service at a walking distance. To achieve the target, development of sidewalks and narrow streets are considered viable. 2. Cities should discourage the use of cars by placing garages behind the homes and avoiding large parking lots. On-street parking is recommended to achieve the desired results. 3. Cities should encourage mixed-use buildings both in terms of their style, size, price and function e.g. a small townhouse can be placed next to a larger home. Mixed-use buildings containing commercial spaces with apartments over them are also considered suitable. 4. The city should develop a strong community. This could be achieved by maintaining connections between people with high density, parks, open spaces and community gathering centres. Once the architects and urban planners agreed that New Urbanism did provide a practicable solution to Urban Sprawl, concrete steps were taken to promote the idea. The movement of New Urbanism became stronger in 1991 when the local government committee of the Florida state of USA, invited architects such as Peter Carthorpe, Michael Corbett, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater-Zybeck, Daniel Solomon, Stefanos Polizoidis and assigned them to organise and develop a set of principles with the purpose to establish land uses that would not fit in the until then known models of cities and villages. Since the work of architects and the final proposal was made at the Hotel Ahwahnee, the text was called "The Principles of Ahwahnee" and promulgated throughout the country the same autumn, in a special session of the representatives of the committee. Two years later, in 1993, a coalition of these architects founded the Congress for New Urbanism in Chicago, an international organization which now numbers more than 3000 members. Presently, the congress holds regular conferences to promote New Urbanism design principles. The group has also formulated a document called Charter of the New Urbanism which contains following important points: 1. The Congress views the sources and consequences of urban sprawl as one interrelated community-building challenge. 2. The Congress stands for curbing the causes of urban sprawl and building strong communities with close neighbourhoods. 3. A coherent physical solution is required to achieve a sustainable economy, stable community, and healthy environment. 4. Public policy and development practices be shaped to encourage: diversified neighbourhoods; designs for the pedestrian and transit; well-defined and accessible public spaces and community institutions; architecture that appreciates local history, climate, ecology, and building practice. 5. The Congress supports citizen-based participatory planning and design. 6. The Congress is dedicated to reclaim their homes, streets, parks, neighbourhoods, districts, cities, regions, and environment. 7. The Congress emphasises certain important guiding principles for improvement of existing public policy, development practice, urban planning, and design on; a. The region: Metropolis, city, and town, b. The neighbourhood, the district, and the corridor c. The block, the street, and the building. These efforts did not remain mere theoretical or documentary but resulted in development of model cities and towns that embraced the guiding principles of New Urbanism. Several towns were planned and developed that gained popularity due to their beautiful architecture and community development. One of the brightest and most popular examples of such cities is Disney’s Celebration, Florida which is a master planned city near Disney World. The city was developed with a view to build a brand-new city in compliance with the concept of New Urbanism that depicted traditional American town. The brand-new Celebration not only drew people towards community building and neighbourliness but also emerged as an aesthetically developed city. The following pictures depict how the city (Celebration) promotes neighbourliness and community values as opposed to the town that promotes car culture through broad streets and big garages. The down town and market places are built close to residential area, thus providing the residents all the facilities and services at a walking distance. Parks are also developed in the city that not only promote community and social values but also provide healthy environment to the local populace. Figure 2: Close houses and broad walkways that promote neighbourliness and discourage car dependence. Figure 2: Houses built with big garages and broad roads that increase car dependence. Figure 3: Market place at walking distance Figure 4: Celebration, Florida market street Figure 5: Community park that provide healthy environment and promotes community values Figure 6: Celebration, Florida. A view of down town with a broad walkway. Another glaring example of a city planned and built according to the principles of New Urbanism is Rosemary Beach, Florida. It is a neo-traditional town that was built in 1995. Rosemary Beach's traditional town plan is the design of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, FAIA.  It is built with a view to revive the old values of town planning and discourage car dependent suburbs and population. This city promotes neighbourliness, architectural harmony and pedestrian traffic. Its natural beauty, scenic roads, aesthetically-pleasing architecture, convenient town centre, amenities such as tennis courts, pools, and lots of green areas are the qualities that New Urbanism promises to the society. The unique features of the city are the out come of its adherence to the following basic principles of New Urbanism. 1. The town is developed with narrower streets to discourage car use, and houses are built with small garages to promote close neighbours.(Fig 7) 2. Dune walkovers have been built to provide access to the beach. The step has been taken to protect the environment by not building beyond the coastal construction control line.(Fig 8) 3. A butterfly garden has been established at the Northwest corner of Rosemary Beach that emphasises the significance of the native landscape. 4. The neighborhoods are interconnected by a network of pedestrian footpaths, boardwalks and secret pathways that lead to all public areas, the beach, the Town Square, tennis courts, swimming pools and other town facilities.  Cars are prohibited to alleyways behind homes and the town’s pedestrian scale to ensure that every place within the town is easily accessible by foot.   5. All the facilities and public places are not more than a five minute walk away from the town center. Whther it is a shop, a restaurant, the Town Hall or a Post Office beckon residents can gather, work and socialize in an absolutely stress-free environment. 6. The town centre is at the center of town with everything that is easily approachable by all the residents. 7. The natural topography of Rosemary Beach has not been disturbed during development.  The roadways have been laid to conform to the natural contours of the land. 8. Developers used permeable concrete for pavement to allow water to filter through to the sand below and eliminate the need for unsightly storm water drains or holding ponds. 9. The Rosemary Beach Fitness Trail & Walking Tour is a 2.3 mile trail that utilizes both sand paths and boardwalks to wind through the town’s native landscape, parks and public spaces; and incorporates four fitness stations that include exercise apparatuses for stretching and strength training. 10. Common “green” areas are located throughout Rosemary Beach and provide places for reading, games, picnics and barefoot strolls, as well as outdoor events.  11. The essence of Rosemary Beach comes from the careful arrangement of its public spaces and private homes.  Neighborhoods are interconnected by a network of pedestrian lanes, footpaths, boardwalks.  Secret pathways lead to the town square, tennis courts, swimming pools and the beach.  Parking is restricted to alleyways located behind homes, and the town’s pedestrian scale ensures that everything is within no more than a five minute walk. Figure 7: Houses are built with small garages to promote close neighbourhood. Figure 8: Dune walkovers have been built to protect coastal lines and greenery. Figure 9: Foot paths that conforms to the natural contours of the land Figure 10: Community parks provide healthy environment Although New Urbanism appears to gain popularity by making its place in leading newspapers and magazines, it is still unsuccessful in curbing the major problems of Urban Sprawl. A critical analysis of many new cities (including Celebration, Florida and Rosemary Beach, Florida) points out the shortcomings or limitations of New Urbanism in providing a viable social solution. In fact, these cities have been unable to change the way people live, work, and shop due to their inability to provide a concrete solution or alternative to the suburbs. Kentlands is a practical example of such city where residents initially hoped to have a main street-style shopping but the center was actually built on the edge of the subdivision with parking lots facing the highway. These cities also lack diversity of people since the subdivisions are usually isolated and offer expensive living. The expensive living and houses in these areas attract only a specific class, thus failing to adhere to the principle of providing living for diversified population. Moreover, the cities also fail to control car use as people neither actually work within the cities nor they tend not to shop there. The retailers prefer to locate their shops alongside highways and the market places fail to provide the requisite facilities and services to the residents. For example Celebration, Florida is often criticised for providing insufficient book stores to the locale thus compelling them to drive to the cities for fulfilling their needs. These shortcomings have resultantly increased the car dependence and automobiles remain the dominant force in these towns. Alex Marshall, in his article ‘Putting some ‘City’ back in the suburbs’, criticises New Urbanism in these words; ‘Cities are products of something. They represent the effect, principally, of transportation systems. The classic 19th and early 20th century neighbourhoods, that many people love, and which New Urbanism apes, were created by the extension of streetcar lines. Levittown was a product of a new car culture. The mega malls and grab bag of subdivisions that surround Washington are products of the Beltway and the rest of the superhighway system that laces the region.’ The main issue with such type of towns is that while these developments attempt to imitate the classic streetcar neighbourhoods, they still adopt the same transportation system that is considered to be the main cause of Urban Sprawl. Since the new cities developed according to the principles of new urbanism follow the similar model of subdivision development, they are often built near main highway. Moreover, these cities have a single entrance and winding roads that are almost as confusing as the suburbs. Simply positioning the homes alongside the street with a few front porches thrown on provides only a neighbourhood that might apparently resemble a Georgetown but continue to function like any other suburban town developed off the main highway. Thus it can be said that although New Urbanism attempts to suppress the negative impacts of Sprawl, it is still unable to eliminate them all. In order to effectively change the suburban living pattern, we have to make more fundamental changes. We need to put efforts to control metropolitan area growth and impose parking restrictions. We also need to limit new neighbourhood construction in undeveloped and open spaces, by increasing home prices there. New urbanites also need to discourage the developers’ and investors’ idea of making money by expanding the cities outwards. Alex Marshall, in his article ‘Putting some ‘City’ back in the suburbs’, has very rightly said that; ‘New Urbanism's contribution to city planning will remain almost purely stylistic, unless it makes more effort to change the basic pattern of suburban development’. Bibliography Bose, Debopriya. Urban Sprawl: Causes and Effects. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/urban-sprawl-causes-and-effects.html. Accessed on 5 August, 2010. Cravin, Jackie. “Charter of the New Urbanism.” About.com. 10 Aug. 2010 Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. Verso: 2006. Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. London: Verso, 1990. Dear, Michael. The Postmodern Urban Condition. U.K: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Duany, Andres; Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth, and Alminana, Robert, New Civic Art, 2003 Edward W. Soja, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Blackwell Publishing, 2000. Farr, Douglas, Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature, 2008. Frantz, Douglas. Collins, Katherine. Celebration, U.S.A. - Living in Disney’s Brave New Town. Canada: FitzHenry and Whiteside Ltd. 2000. Gillham, Oliver. The Limitless City: a Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002. Haas, Tirgan, New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the Future, 2008. Isin, Engin. Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship, 2002. Jacobs, Jane, The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House, 1969. Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. China: Print Vision, 1993. Marshall, Alex. “Putting Some ‘City’ Back in the Suburbs.” The Washington Post. 1 Sep 1996: pg C01. Olalquiaga, Celeste. Metropolis: Contemporary Cultural Sensibilities, 1992. Robertson, Roland. Globalization – Social Theory and Global Culture. 1992. Rosemary Beach. www.rosemarybeach.com. Accessed on 10 August, 2010. Steuteville, Robert, and Langdo, Philip. “The New Urbanism: A Better Way to Plan and Build 21st Century Communities”. New Urban Network. 8 Aug. 2010 Scott, Allen. Metropolis: From the Division of Labor to Urban Form. U.S.A: 1988. The Political Economy of Urbanization. Papers of a student course. University of Los Angeles. Instructor: Edward Soja. Reader: Ava Bromberg. Winter 2007. W. Soja, Edward – Scott, Allen eds. The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the end of the 20th Century, 1996. W. Soja, Edward. ‘On the Concept of Global City Regions’. Ekonomiaz. Read More