New Urbanism Doesn't Speak to Western Towns
Salt Lake Tribune
It's hard to tell whether New Urbanism best fits the definition of
a cult or a conspiracy. It has elements of both. Either way, my advice
is not to drink the Kool-Aid. Embracing a politically correct excuse
for growth is suicide for the West's small towns.
New Urbanism is the name given to a collection of ideas about land-use
planning and architectural design as exemplified by the book Suburban
Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.
It seeks to recreate the "traditional neighborhoods" that
were once common in American cities and are still a feature of many
urban areas whose layouts predate the automobile.
Such neighborhoods typically include a mix of commercial and residential
properties, have high densities that make for vibrant public spaces,
and are arranged to favor pedestrians over motorists. Think of your
favorite parts of San Francisco, or the downtowns of many old Western
towns. What's not to like about New Urbanism?
Plenty, starting with the pseudo-religious tenor of true believers.
New Urbanism does not require donning saffron robes or chasing flying
saucers, but it does have charismatic apostles, sacred texts and the
promise of salvation, and that lends a messianic quality that is both
tiresome and silly.
New Urbanists believe their approach will let us have growth and wildlife,
development and open space. We can make housing affordable and promote
economic development in an environmentally friendly, socially responsible
way that fosters community and encourages civic virtue. We'll be healthier,
because we'll abandon our SUVs and walk to work. We'll be better off
mentally, because proper architecture will feed our psychic needs.
It's an appealing vision. All we have to do is live in cities. That's
where it starts to sound like a conspiracy. New Urbanism rests on
an unholy alliance between the greedheads and the greens. Developers
get to wrap themselves in the mantle of crusaders bravely battling
the alienation of the suburbs while protecting the land from the ravages
of sprawl. Environmentalists get to envision a society made over according
to their agenda, with high-density, automobile-free cities surrounded
by open space and wildlife habitat.
Identifying sprawl as the one true evil allows the greens a strong
voice in the planning process and directs discussion away from the
one thing developers do not want to talk about: growth. What's left
is a false dichotomy -- New Urbanism or mindless sprawl.
For all that, New Urbanism has a lot to offer. It provides an excellent
critique of what is wrong with suburbia. It affords a series of solid
insights and suggestions for improving urban development, and it correctly
identifies a number of factors that make some cities so much more
livable than others. If the question is how to rebuild the older suburbs
of Los Angeles or how to enhance the Levittowns of the East, New Urbanism
seems right as rain.
But what that has to do with small towns is beyond me. Lumping Jackson,
Wyo.; Moab, Utah; or Durango, Colo., into the same "urban"
category as major cities is ridiculous. Small towns are not rural,
but neither are they miniature New Yorks. They are a different breed,
and the challenge small-town folk face is not how best to become big
cities, but how to preserve what is important and unique about where
A lot of that has to do with manageable numbers. New Urbanism does
not speak to that.
Bill Roberts is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of
High Country News in Paonia, Colo. (hcn.org). He is editorial page
editor of the Durango Herald in Durango, Colo.