Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"New Urbanism" = "Trying to mimic 'old' urbanism without giving up the conveniences that came with fleeing 'old' urbanism." Usually with the contrived results one should expect from such a formulation.
That's a lot to respond to, but I'll just stick to three quickies:
1. If I came across as being opposed to rear decks, I apologize for the miscommunication. New Urbanist principles, in my opinion, favor front porches over rear decks, but do not discourage decks for those who want them.
2. There has been some controversy regarding garages. I am also not opposed to garages, although I personally don't own one. I do believe that if garages are present, they should be relegated to the back of the property, either with access to a rear alley, or at least situated behind the house with a narrow driveway leading from the street. There is also the option of tasteful carports for those who simply want to protect their vehicle from hail or direct sun, or access it without getting rained on.
3. Suburbanites may not be opposed to mass transit in principle, but they are some of the least likely proponents of it, and tend to be the quickest to complain about the cost of such projects. That is a subjective statement, I'll admit, but that was the thrust of my argument.
OK, let's make it four. Just because "one poster" has talked about NIMY-ism in the city, doesn't mean that the concept is equally present in both city and suburbs. By and large, those living in urban developments (especially up-and-coming ones) welcome additional urban development. It serves to create what's called "critical mass" which generally results in more and better retail, entertainment options, additional transit lines, and more eyes on the street which minimizes crime. Obviously there are types of developments that city-dwellers would not approve of, but it is much more case-by-case than in the suburbs.
I don't know any weird conspiracy hacks, though I did see Elvis this morning at church. He was next to me at communion.
New urbanists are in no way shape or form opposed to private space or rear decks. What they're for is choice and a plethora of options and mixed housing types and mixed uses. If you want to persist in your belief that they are then good luck with that.
Last edited by nei; 09-08-2013 at 05:57 PM..
Reason: rude
C'mon now, folks. I know some spin-offs are inevitable but try to get the debate civil and stay on the topic of the merits of new urbanism and lack of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
I've really enjoyed the debate that's been generated by this question. You know my position on the topic already, but I think any neutral person coming into this debate would see an alarmingly sarcastic, antagonistic and snarky attitude on the part of the "suburbanists", contrasted with a more factual and reasonable approach by the "urbanists", regardless of who's actually right.
Not saying whether I agree or disagree, but seriously? Not a good way to debate, and disrepectful of anyone with opposing views, regardless what his/her style was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
1. Darn right you're biased! To hear some of the urbanists, we suburbanites are all shallow isolationist types who whip into the house through the garage at night to watch "DTWTS" while you urbanists are all gathered at someone's house for a communal meal, after which you either a) go to the local theater to see a play or b) go to the neighborhood homeless shelter to help out.
Arguing against non-specific posters is unhelpful. And NO lifestyle arguements.
That's a lot to respond to, but I'll just stick to three quickies:
1. If I came across as being opposed to rear decks, I apologize for the miscommunication. New Urbanist principles, in my opinion, favor front porches over rear decks, but do not discourage decks for those who want them.
2. There has been some controversy regarding garages. I am also not opposed to garages, although I personally don't own one. I do believe that if garages are present, they should be relegated to the back of the property, either with access to a rear alley, or at least situated behind the house with a narrow driveway leading from the street. There is also the option of tasteful carports for those who simply want to protect their vehicle from hail or direct sun, or access it without getting rained on.
3. Suburbanites may not be opposed to mass transit in principle, but they are some of the least likely proponents of it, and tend to be the quickest to complain about the cost of such projects. That is a subjective statement, I'll admit, but that was the thrust of my argument.
OK, let's make it four. Just because "one poster" has talked about NIMY-ism in the city, doesn't mean that the concept is equally present in both city and suburbs. By and large, those living in urban developments (especially up-and-coming ones) welcome additional urban development. It serves to create what's called "critical mass" which generally results in more and better retail, entertainment options, additional transit lines, and more eyes on the street which minimizes crime. Obviously there are types of developments that city-dwellers would not approve of, but it is much more case-by-case than in the suburbs.
1. Apology accepted. Interestingly, I was reading some "urbanism" blog a while back (surprise!) and some European said s/he didn't understand why Americans always want to be on display. These zero lot-line homes you see in Europe don't have people out in front of them. They have courtyards in the back, where the people hang out. I wish I had bookmarked that.
2. I think alleys are a huge waste of space. Talk about taking land away from "the best use"! A separate garage also takes up more of the lot than an attached garage.
3. That certainly is a subjective statement. We have to vote on all our taxes here, and the RTD (mass transit) tax couldn't have passed w/o the suburban vote.
4. Just because I referenced one poster talking about urban NIMBY-ism, that doesn't mean only one has ever brought it up. NIMBY-ism is human nature. Boulder, CO, supposedly an urbanists dream city, is full of NIMBYs. Full up!
Not saying whether I agree or disagree, but seriously? Not a good way to debate, and disrepectful of anyone with opposing views, regardless what his/her style was.
Arguing against non-specific posters is unhelpful. And NO lifestyle arguements.
I do not believe I was disrespecting people themselves. My intent was to hold accountable those who choose to counter facts with sarcasm. My observation was that this was a very lop-sided practice in this particular debate, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
And I agree with nei, that there cannot be a ban on "lifestyle arguments". Where would we draw the line? Virtually everything about the urban/suburban debate is lifestyle-related. If you are saying that it's counter-productive to draw value judgments about one person's lifestyle choices over another, I might agree with you. But in general I don't believe that's happening. However, I do think that many of us would do well to stick to logical arguments, instead of presumptuous and petty jabs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
1. These zero lot-line homes you see in Europe don't have people out in front of them. They have courtyards in the back, where the people hang out. I wish I had bookmarked that.
Zero lot-line homes are fine, but mostly there you're talking about row-houses, which are great but shouldn't have front porches in my opinion. Personally, I would not feel comfortable enjoying a front porch on a house that is less than 20 feet from the sidewalk. There are tons of gorgeous old neighborhoods with relatively deep front yards, so I don't think that's as a big of an issue in residential areas. It's in commercial areas where I think set-backs are a problem, with the ubiquitous giant parking lot bordering the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
2. I think alleys are a huge waste of space. Talk about taking land away from "the best use"! A separate garage also takes up more of the lot than an attached garage.
If the relegation of the driveway/garage to the back can reduce the width of each lot from 50 to 40 feet, it takes 100 less feet of street to accommodate 20 homes. That's more than enough concrete to pave an alley in back, which serves two rows. If this is consistently applied, the alley can be useful, not only for garages and resident parking, but also for garbage collection and utilities, keeping power lines and trash bins out of sight to the general public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
3. That certainly is a subjective statement. We have to vote on all our taxes here, and the RTD (mass transit) tax couldn't have passed w/o the suburban vote.
This is great news! If you're in favor of the expansion of mass transit, then we have no further argument on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
4. Just because I referenced one poster talking about urban NIMBY-ism, that doesn't mean only one has ever brought it up. NIMBY-ism is human nature. Boulder, CO, supposedly an urbanists dream city, is full of NIMBYs. Full up!
I believe this is more often true in popular "destination" cities which are characterized by tourism and a high rate of transplants. Boulder is an extremely successful city, and thus it would appear that its residents are afraid of it being, essentially, spoiled by its own success. It's a true example, but not a very representative one for the issue at hand.
Zero lot-line homes are fine, but mostly there you're talking about row-houses, which are great but shouldn't have front porches in my opinion. Personally, I would not feel comfortable enjoying a front porch on a house that is less than 20 feet from the sidewalk. There are tons of gorgeous old neighborhoods with relatively deep front yards, so I don't think that's as a big of an issue in residential areas. It's in commercial areas where I think set-backs are a problem, with the ubiquitous giant parking lot bordering the street.
Rowhouses generally have porches, or "stoops".
I have trouble seeing the problem with that, sit and see the world go by. That's where porches get used a lot and seem to work well since space is limited. It's common in NYC to sit on one's porch (where much of the housing stock is or close to zero lot line), especially years ago:
Unlike Europe, most of those homes do not have courtyards, though many have a bit of very small back space.
Quote:
If the relegation of the driveway/garage to the back can reduce the width of each lot from 50 to 40 feet, it takes 100 less feet of street to accommodate 20 homes. That's more than enough concrete to pave an alley in back, which serves two rows. If this is consistently applied, the alley can be useful, not only for garages and resident parking, but also for garbage collection and utilities, keeping power lines and trash bins out of sight to the general public.
.
I don't get the benefit. Why do I want the back of my home to look out into more concrete? There's already a road in front. Seems like a waste and will make the back unappealing.
1. Integral Community Life: Cities and Neighborhoods should be built in such a way that meaningful interaction amongst neighbors is encouraged. This includes close build-to lines, front porches, walkability and moderate to high density, and mostly precludes wide streets, large lots, garages, rear decks, cul-de-sacs, gated entrances, separation of uses and socioeconomic segmentation
My large lot (well, it's really not that big ... ) keeps my relationships with my neighbors more civil.
As for socioeconomic segmentation, you'll never get away from that. Joseph MBA Briefcase does not want to live next door to Joe Sixpack.
Quote:
2. Appropriate Density: Neighborhoods should be built in a range of densities, generally reflecting the proximity of that neighborhood to the City Center. It is wasteful for neighborhood density to fall below certain limits (the exact definition of which is debatable) unless the land is being put to productive use.
Define "productive"?
Quote:
4. Mass-Transit: Human beings never dreamed of commandeering 3000 pounds (or more!) of steel in order to convey a single individual a handful of miles on a daily basis.
Humans never dreamed of bifocals or electricity, either, so there you go.
Quote:
5. Architecture for posterity instead of expediency: I have mostly addressed this issue in previous comments. But to put it briefly, Cities (and the buildings that comprise them) should be designed in a way that is likely to have value for many generations to come. This necessarily presumes quality construction that will withstand the elements for at least 100 years. This precludes the suburban trend of expecting buildings to last 30-50 years, and employing architectural styles which are either too faddish to be appreciated by anyone in the future, or too bland or monotonous to be appreciated by anyone, ever.
Almost all design elements are fads at the time of their being employed. As for buildings lasting 30-50 years, that is no more suburban than it is a trend. Plenty of 50-year-old buildings have been knocked down over the centuries.
Quote:
7. Beauty and Balance: In order to achieve lasting value and sustainable growth, a City should be built with classic principles of civic beauty and design balance in mind.
Could you be a little less subjective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Silly example, couldn't find something a bit more typical?! Most places don't have steel mills in them, and plenty of things don't need as much separation as a steel mill (small offices, shops, etc.)
Maybe not -- alas, the deindustrialization of America -- but there are plenty of other uses deemed undesirable by residential standards that you could insert in place of "steel mill".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
I think any neutral person coming into this debate would see an alarmingly sarcastic, antagonistic and snarky attitude on the part of the "suburbanists", contrasted with a more factual and reasonable approach by the "urbanists", regardless of who's actually right. Again, I'm obviously biased
Ya think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I don't know any weird conspiracy hacks, though I did see Elvis this morning at church. He was next to me at communion.
That should bring in the crowds!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
Zero lot-line homes are fine, but mostly there you're talking about row-houses, which are great but shouldn't have front porches in my opinion. Personally, I would not feel comfortable enjoying a front porch on a house that is less than 20 feet from the sidewalk.
Ah, but isn't a front yard "wasted space"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That should bring in the crowds!! 
