  Vandykenjefferson Member Username: Vandykenjefferson Post Number: 32 Registered: 06-2006 |
I think everyone knows the benefits of new urbanist developments, what are the drawbacks? I know this is coming up a little randomly, but I was talking to someone about New urbanism and the potential in Detroit, but I couldn't think of the drawbacks, although I know there are some. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1044 Registered: 12-2005 |
I have no opinion on it but I did find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N ew_urbanism#Criticisms . | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5216 Registered: 02-2004 |
If you want to see new urbanism, check with gentrification! | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 7137 Registered: 10-2003 |
I never quite got the hang of the old urbanism, now there's a new one? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 394 Registered: 04-2006 |
New Urbanism is when you develop a cornfield so it looks like Detroit instead of like Shelby Twp. In most cases it is still sprawl, but it is sprawl with porches and alleys. Some examples exist where it is not sprawl. These include Mason Run in Monroe and the N Corktown infill. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 810 Registered: 03-2006 |
drawbacks? Perhaps, walking if you're a fat lazy slob and you like to drive everywhere? | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 210 Registered: 07-2004 |
One issue, to piggyback on Detroitplanner, is that building a subdivision in a cornfield, with cute Victorian designs and alleys is not N.U. The real key to successful New Urbanism is to incorporate mixed uses - build a small grocery in the subdivision, so people can walk to the store. Infill opportunities are usually too small to accommodate a real NU plan as well. Exceptions would be something the size of Brush Park, or the proposed east side housing development. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1926 Registered: 10-2003 |
By definition, New Urbanism is not sprawl. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 397 Registered: 04-2006 |
New Urbanism is just a catch phrase, I don't think there is a well defined way to describe it. I would best describe it as areas that are walkable as Udm indicated. This is different than TOD (Transit Orientated Design), but TOD can easily be incorporated into New Urbanism unless it is a project such as Cherry Hill Village where there is no transit. Many people use new urbanism to describe infill as well. This is not exactly correct as some infill could be be the pig snout houses (where the garage is pronounced and covers the front, much like a pig or dog nose) that are popular in teardown neighborhoods. If there is proper consideration made to blend in with neighboring surroundings to older neighborhoods, new urbanism would be an end result instead of a plan. Unfortunately you cannot control what the land owner wants to do with his property, no matter how ugly it may look. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 398 Registered: 04-2006 |
Dan how can this not be sprawl? Check out the aerial at the bottom of the thread's first page http://www.cyburbia.org/forums /showthread.php?t=24068 | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 199 Registered: 08-2006 |
Here's a thread on New Urbanism from earlier this summer. https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/76017/82396.html Although I like some of the New Urbanist ideas I personally can't stand the architectural styles they choose to employ. Its usually a nostalgic effort at capturing the quaintness of colonial style architecture or any other defunct style . I prefer more progressive forms of architecture that define our age instead of regurgitating something that looks like it came from our great grandparents age. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 813 Registered: 03-2006 |
I agree Stecks77. As long as it's dense and the parking is in the back I don't care what infill looks like -- I'd rather it be more modern --unless of course it's in a historic district. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 200 Registered: 08-2006 |
This is an excellent article from the New York Times about how the New Urbanists tried moving into New Orleans after Katrina. Vandykenjefferson... I think you'll get a better grasp of the cons by checking it out. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05 /21/magazine/21biloxi.html?pag ewanted=1&ei=5070&en=80e143872 470897e&ex=1158379200 | ||
Chow Member Username: Chow Post Number: 320 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dplanner, we can define sprawl as having several traits: 1. leapfrog/scattered development 2. commercial strip mall development 3. low density development 4. single use development 5. poor accessibility 6. lack of functional public space So looking at these criteria in regards to Cherry Hill Village: Cherry Hill Village is located on the fringe of the built environment which requires large upgrades in infrastructure. the commercial development is built to the sidewalk with parking in the rear. it is higher density than a traditional subdivision with a variety of housing; single family, attached, multi-function. it is somewhat multi-use. the commercial development features housing on the upper floors, but it remains on the main road without any spread of retail close to the extents of the project. the accessibility is fairly poor, with only a few entrances to major roads as in subdivision design. the project features many public parks and spaces that can serve as communal areas. So can we define it as sprawl, possibly. It would depend on how you weigh the criteria and assess the projects strengths and weaknesses. In the end, it may be somewhat smarter suburban development. | ||
Chow Member Username: Chow Post Number: 321 Registered: 10-2003 |
Here are some photos worth contemplating: Cherry Hill  A development less than a mile away  | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4236 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Different strokes for different folks." | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 201 Registered: 08-2006 |
Chow... Nice photo comparison. Textbook like. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4486 Registered: 11-2003 |
Drive any of Detroit thoroughfares and residential streets. That's urbanism. Just build where you take buildings down, and you've got new urbanism. Older suburbs like Dearborn, Ferndale, or Royal Oak, the same applies. Build to the street, parking underground or in back, and sell or live near mass transit. jjaba, waiting on the Dexter bus being splashed by drivers. That's urbanism. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 400 Registered: 04-2006 |
CHV was not in the fringe when they first proposed it though, it was a few miles to the next subdivision. I would agree that this is a preferrable type of sprawl, however, in a zero growth area such as metro Detroit, any new development will continue to fight for residents with the older areas, causing the older areas to continue to lose population. Thats why I like Mason Run so much as it redevelops old industrial land for housing and is well adapted to the existing neighborhood street patterns. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2006 |
Stecks 77 said, "Although I like some of the New Urbanist ideas I personally can't stand the architectural styles they choose to employ. Its usually a nostalgic effort at capturing the quaintness of colonial style architecture or any other defunct style . I prefer more progressive forms of architecture that define our age instead of regurgitating something that looks like it came from our great grandparents age." I second this point of view. From an architectural standpoint we have moved on from the 'grandparents age.' With new methods of building construction, there is no need for a new building of steel and glass to look like a building built of bricks and stone. "Classicism is not a Style" written by Demetri Porphyrios is a good but complex read on some of these issues. The Congress for New Urbanism is of course always a good place to find out more about what they preach: http://www.cnu.org/ | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3110 Registered: 08-2004 |
Charlottepaul... doesn't 95% of all new residential architecture emulate the past? We see all the McMansions with Palladian windows, hip roofs, Roman arches, etc. I understand what you're getting at... making a "Disneyesque" neighborhood to look like old styles is certainly Pastiche, but most new homes built today still contain old architectural elements. I think that the reason so little "modern" architecture in domestic buildings is probably more due to the fact that the majority (not all) folks just like a little "warmth" to their domicile. And modern architecture just doesn't do "warmth" very well. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 819 Registered: 03-2006 |
I would disagree Gistok. Lafayette Park is very "warm." The warmth comes from the lush landscaping in conjunction with floor to ceiling windows. I think Americans just don't like minimalism. They love all their knick knacks and crap. The more stuff, the more decoration, the better. (Message edited by eastsidedog on November 20, 2006) (Message edited by eastsidedog on November 20, 2006) | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 32 Registered: 10-2006 |
From what I read here, this "new urbanism" sounds like the stuff that's been going on in Metro-Houston and Metro-Dallas (Plano, in particular, not so much Fort Worth) for 15 years. That philosophy, in the past 5 years (or so, I have not been a resident for a while), has been replaced by the "gated, all purpose community." I for one, hope that Detroit, and Metro-Detroit stay away from that trend, however you see it advertised in Hour Detroit already. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3112 Registered: 08-2004 |
Eastsidedog... I said "the majority"... Lafayette Park is where "the minority" live...  | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 820 Registered: 03-2006 |
Gistok, What I am saying is Lafayette Park HAS warmth. But yes, there is definitely a small minority of people that like their home to be COLD and modern. | ||
Chow Member Username: Chow Post Number: 322 Registered: 10-2003 |
Modernism is not cold to everyone.   | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 822 Registered: 03-2006 |
Thanks Chow. Minimal? yes. Cold? no. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 408 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here is the ultimate in new urbanism: Celebration Florida from our friends and Disney World http://www.celebrationfl.com/ | ||
Vandykenjefferson Member Username: Vandykenjefferson Post Number: 33 Registered: 06-2006 |
Thanks for your ideas on this one guys. I guess there really are drawbacks to ALL redevelopment ideas. Thanks, Vandykenjefferson | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4243 Registered: 10-2003 |
New urbanism. Rent a old apartment, bitch about someone buying a place they can afford. |
