Part 9 of Andres Duany’s lecture on new urbanism is the final video in this series and it covers: “Back to the 11-hour workday: Spending our lives in our cars; Gold-plated highways at the expense of our civic and public buildings; Vertical vs. horizontal infrastructure; Affordable housing cont’d, by allowing families ‘one car less’ they can afford $50k more house! Conclusion; Year 2010 and 2015 projections.”
8 thoughts on “New Urbanism in 10 minutes a day, Pt. 9”
Comments are closed.
The one thing I didn’t see in this series (and maybe I just missed it) is how the poor fit in. Will it really work for them?
Not that I consider this a conclusive or all-encompassing answer, but… what could be better for the poor than trading a $5,000 car (plus fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc.) for a $50 bicycle?
SA — I believe it will work for them. For one thing, the plan advocates integrating housing — that is, instead of having homogeneous neighborhoods where all the houses are the same value, new urbanism advocates having a mix of different housing values and styles. For instance, by allowing mixed use of property, commercial and residential can be in the same building, allowing someone to rent an apartment above the store at which they work, or at least near the store at which they work.
Another thing is that it emphasizes cities being walkable — that is, pedestrian- and transit-oriented. This is good for the poor who can ill-afford an automobile. By having things within walking distance and reliable and dignified public transportation, you create a city that is not only accessible for the poor, but also the elderly and children.
There are other advantages, but these I think are the biggest ones.
ALso, think of a neighborhood in a non-subdivision way. Neighborhood flow one into the other, duplexes, triplexes and the occasional apartment building can live and do live happily next to each other without significant buffers and setbacks. It happens in neighborhoods throughout the old part of the City…good and bad neighborhoods.
Yes, I agree totally. Mixed uses and mixes of different housing adjacent to each other, with local retailers and offices and so forth, all would restore our sense of community and interaction, and help to break down all kinds of barriers; why? because it starts to affect attitudes and behaviors in a positive way. We have become a balkanized society – gated or otherwise restricted subdivisons with nothing other than homogeneous homes on winding streets with names like Chataugua Fleur De Lis do absolutely nothing for the “Community.” It seems that the principles of new urbanism once implemented could solve or lead to a more ready resolution of many of our problems.
I like most of the concept but there is a little too much elitist arrogance in Duany’s rigid ideology. I favor more integrated neighborhoods and using most of new urbanisms insights for planning. It is fabulous to live close to where you work and more people need that opportunity. Better quality of life and a huge help to congestion. But we still need highways too. It’s just too convenient that Duany crusades for development of the kind he is an architect for. He profits when we build the type of buildings he advocates for.
To play devil’s advocate, does the sum total of Duany’s presentation mean that we need to add some commercial development and some low income housing on Grand View Drive? Actually Grand View Drive is only slighlty less ostentatious as Chataugua Fleur De Lis, so should we rename it something more common and more inviting to everyone like 33rd Street or Chester Street? Plus we make those residents use their cars to get everything they need! We should tear down one out of every 15 mansions for a corner grocer and some apartment buildings for a better “community feel” and better “interaction.” My point is that some have gotten carried away with this in their zeal and trample on others freedoms in the process.
Duany certainly has his own style. To me, if it’s genuine, if that’s how he is, then that’s OK by me. It’s the people who condescend or toherwise try to play to their audience that bother me. Anyway, styles aside, the content of what is communicated is what really is important. While 90 minutes or so long, the presentation covers a subject area that needs much, much more than what Duany presented. Many details need to be added to flesh the ideas out. As for Grand View Drive, at least many of those folks, and those on Miller and a few other short streets that house the relatively affluent, can and do walk or ride their bikes to the Peo. Hgts shopping area. Plus they have a park nearby.
I’ve checked out some of his projects in other areas and there is great potential. The real issue is whether there is the will in Peoria to fully incorporate the concepts into development.
He has designed a great new development right outside of St. Charles, Missouri – called New Town that incorporates his concepts. Of course this is much easier (new development in a former cornfield) than what is being proposed in Peoria – applying these standards to existing neighborhoods.
I’d encourage those interested in seeing how these concepts feel to take a short road trip and check out New Town in St. Charles.