New Urbanism

New Urbanism in 10 minutes a day, Pt. 4

4 Comments

Part 4 of Andres Duany’s lecture on new urbanism covers: “Residential component today, vs. the way we used to do it-(combining retail with residential); Importance of mixed use/range of income earners; Privacy and Community; “McMansions”; why people prefer to live in traditional towns vs. suburbs.”

4 thoughts on “New Urbanism in 10 minutes a day, Pt. 4”

  1. He doesn’t make a good case for why it is important or necessary for different income levels to live together. I can think of a few of my own, but what exactly is his argument? His argument seems to be that this traditional urban system will make society a better place, but he doesn’t go deep into WHY it will make society a better place.

    He also says several times that urban living is more desirable. I am just skeptical when experts insist one thing is true when the market seems to be showing the opposite.

    I haven’t watched the earlier segments yet, so maybe I’m missing something?

  2. JK — I thought he made it pretty clear that there were several reasons why it’s important to have different incomes live near each other:

    1. Segregating by income level is artificial and unnecessary;
    2. People should be able to live near where they work;
    3. Having wealthy families distributed throughout the city stabilizes the city and provides culture/leisure opportunities throughout the city.

    As for desirability of urban living, he just pointed out that what people actually say when surveyed is that they want security and community, and that more people want to live in small towns than want to live in suburbs (36% vs. 25%, respectively). The conclusion we can draw from that is we should be building neighborhoods that are safe, but have a sense of community — that are more like small towns rather than suburbs.

  3. Playing devil’s advocate:
    Cigarettes are artificial and unnecessary, too, but that doesn’t make them bad (lung cancer, now that can make them bad).

    Why should people be able to live where they work? Why is that important? Personally, I like to get away from work at the end of the day.

    The third point makes the most sense to me.

    The poll is weak, though. When people are asked if they want to live in a small town or a suburb, I can guarantee they’re thinking “small town” as in Downs, Illinois–friendly, quaint, laid back, safe, and lots of land. They’re not thinking “small town” as in urban redevelopment.

  4. I think he’s saying that there’s a distinction to be made between small towns and suburbs, and that the elements of new urbanism are the same elements that go into small towns.

    Why is it important to live close to work? If you can’t afford a car, it’s very important. If you do own a car, but gas prices are $5/gal., it’s pretty important, too. When you look at it on a macro-level, consider this: we often criticize people on welfare for not getting a job. But if they live in an economically-depressed part of town, which is the only part of town where they can afford to live or that the citizens will allow them to live, and they can’t afford a car, that’s a pretty big obstacle between them and getting a job. If we weren’t so dependent on automobiles — if the housing were distributed in such a way as to allow people to live near their jobs, this would be one less obstacle.

    In addition, while some people, like you, want to get away from work at the end of the day, there are lots of people who want to live near where they work, for a variety of reasons. Some are concerned for the environment, others just don’t like to drive that much every day… whatever. Why should they be prevented from having that choice? They can always live far away if they want, but where are the choices for those who want to live close by?

Comments are closed.