I think my wife teaches or taught your daughter if I have correctly surmised who you are.

I didn’t realize I got access to the NYT article because my wife has a subscription. Too bad. It is called “Repurposing Life” and it is about the glut or retail, mostly bad retail and how to “repurpose” the spaces.

I posted it because it supports my argument that the quality of retail has to do with shifts in culture and it is made worse by auto-centric design and could be improved through mixed use applications. A problem is often that retail might best thrive in mixed use, but since there is an over all glut of retail spaces none of the existing really thrives. I encourage people to track down the article.

Terms like Smart Growth may be overly simplistic and I tend to avoid them for that reason, but there in this case it makes sense because it insures we are all talking about the same thing more or less. The Communism analogy is a good one, but I will take it further and say that to me New Urban design is more like socialism which is a lot more pragmatic and applicable but too many people have no historic context of socialism and only relate it to stereotypes of Eastern block countries, which were more about totalitarianism or to European welfare states. The latter have high taxes but people get things like SECURITY in trade. The pejorative use of socialism as in “Obama is a socialist” is simple ignorant.

We all use the term suburban and have long done so. Nobody argues that it is a vague term, but I could nit pick. People object to smart growth because they themselves think it’s dumb, but I think the term attempts to refer to common sense solutions when it comes to reversing dumb suburban models.

ET wrote : “new urbanism does not logically assume development that is non-auto-centric”. Actually I think it does, but it doesn’t come with enforcement. At some point if we care about outcomes we have to get out of our cars. New Urban designs of mixed use at least begin to enhance that option as opposed to specifically auto-centric suburban strip mall models which lock in your car.

I think a lot of anti-development people might not have taken the views they have if they had not seen so many promises broken, and so many poorly envisioned and/or shoddy commercial/mixed use developments. We have a ton love lovely commercial space that has been vacant for years before the financial meltdown, for example. Why is it empty? And if it is empty, why do we need more? Could those development areas be reconfigured in a way that would make them viable?

As you point out, new urbanism does not logically assume development that is non-auto-centric. There are a few people that have tried to point out that planning needs to include moving services into the area to meet the needs of the sub-community, and that this aspect is never adequately handled. Consequently, all the shopping centers have a few anchor stores, but not much else to meet people’s weekly errand needs. So, that means a bus ride or a drive up the highway or across town to another mall, increasing the time it takes to do things, and adding to the pollution factor that we are all supposed to, in this “I need it now” culture, be consciously avoiding.

Before carrying the discussion any further, I’d like to sort of tip the cap of acknowledgment to the writer of this blog for providing the forum. Don’t know if it’s proper blog etiquette but …Thank you, Mr. Knox White.

Just to clear up any misconceptions, I agree with an awful lot of the ideals of New Urbanism and, from what little I know of him, Peter Calthorpe. My problem with New Urbanism isn’t really the theory, it’s with the disconnect between its ideals and the reality of what gets designed and built. Let’s put it this way—Communism is a wonderful Utopian theory that fails miserably because it doesn’t take human nature into account. And cheerleading for Communism without understanding and acknowledging its failures in its current form would be a large part of the reason Communism continues to be useless. Using buzzwords like “New Urbanism” or “smart growth” or “transit villages” or any of the other nonsense phrases doesn’t deal with the real challenges of why developments work or don’t. I’m truly sorry if such dismissiveness offends but my hope is to direct the attention of the intelligent and passionate people here toward the real issue. What kind of a world do we want to live in and how do we build the infrastructure for that society taking into account the various conflicting priorities of everyone involved?

I own a small business that is directly involved in construction and/or remodeling (very green and very Old School Craft), I’d like nothing more than to own a space of my own (certainly can’t afford one in Alameda!) and I’m a third generation CA native. I’m married (by the way.. the Wife was born and raised here in Alameda) with 1 kid and I’d like to be able to retire someday.

Those are just the top o’ my priority list….but there are other people involved ain’t there?

I studied architecture for two years before dropping out (much like Peter Calthorpe did … ), and I am intimately familiar with the players who are involved in large developments, what their priorities are and with how the design process works. We need to break them down into specifics…

But… jeez…this is gonna a far longer than I hoped…

I am hoping to outline the various impediments to “good urban design” and then address the solutions to those issues. I can blame M.I. for the length of my post so far; she (Damn, look at me assume! Sorry…) he or she asked for an in depth detailed solution…well be careful what you ask for!

lol

Makes me wonder if there are any objections to building the argument in this long winded way or is this not the place for it? I’d be happy to correspond with individuals if Mr. Knox White or the consensus of the board would prefer I do that…

Let me know if I should continue…

Regards,
James

PS..Can’t read the NYT article ‘cuz I’m not a subscriber…I’ll look around for it. Thanks….

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14FOB-Consumed-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

You have done a great set up for an detailed argument for the solution you allude to in the last sentence with your pragmatic synthesis of idealism and real world, as you call it. The floor is all yours. Rather than just try to rip New Urbanism a new one, let’s hear your in depth details solution, not just the generalities you allude to here..

I taker it you read a lot. Have you read the story of Robert Moses in New York Sate? Maybe revisit your own question above * smirk* and think about how the New Urban model is at least aimed at a remedy for what killed old urbanist model.

It takes political will to change prop 13, which is a bit beyond the purview Peter Calthorpe. How much of the blame for this hugely systemic problem of modern consumerism which drives the schlock can you really lay at the feet of people like him.? Go ahead, continue…

The big question you should ponder is… Why did they go from past successful economic model to current failure?

Give ya a hint….When were most of Alameda’ s stations built and why were they built around rail- lines? What is the dominant mode of transportation now??

*smirk*

I love most of the original architecture in this town, but not because it’s charming. I love it for the CRAFTSMANSHIP that went into it, the SCALE of it, the THOUGHT that went into it. If you are advocating a return to those ideals, I’m right behind you. But I would whisper in your ear, as you charge into your defense of New Urbanism, Where are you gonna find a city that accepts the lesser sales taxes from such a development? And perhaps most importantly, where are you going to find a developer who won’t scrimp on materials and labor costs to build such wonderful buildings that age so well?

Trust me, the profit margins for the ‘developers’ of old was a pitance compared to the profit margin for McMansion monstousites.

Forgive the long-winded rant but these issues require a depth of thought that involves both idealism AND real-world realities. The solutions lie in changes to our thinking far beyond nostalgia, zoning mixes and profits…..

Most of Alameda, including our mixed-use-town centers, is an “Old Urbanist” development. Many of our homes and the buildings that house our locally owned businesses were built by—gasp!—developers who made a profit doing it. Would you consider these parts of Alameda to be a failure?

Whenever I see groups of very similar Queen Anne cottages or Craftsman bungalows, things we now consider charming parts of our architectural heritage, I wonder whether the residents of the time were outraged by the fact that developers were building rows and rows of these tract homes along Alameda’s many rail lines—for a profit. I guess it shows the importance of building neighborhoods that will age well, just as Alameda’s early transit-oriented developments have.