This is the opening to the 1996 Charter for New Urbanism:
The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society's built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.
We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.
We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector leaders, community activists, and multidisciplinary professionals. We are committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the making of community, through citizen-based participatory planning and design.
We dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our homes, blocks, streets, parks, neighborhoods, districts, towns, cities, regions, and environment.
The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society's built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.
We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.
We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector leaders, community activists, and multidisciplinary professionals. We are committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the making of community, through citizen-based participatory planning and design.
We dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our homes, blocks, streets, parks, neighborhoods, districts, towns, cities, regions, and environment.
The full set of principles can be accessed at http://www.cnu.org/charter .
Two other sites worth viewing are:
http://www.newurbannews.com/AboutNewUrbanism.html
http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html
This is a good example of a voluntary organization engaged in advocacy of their views, from what I can see. I think it is great that in a nation built on freedom of individuals - freedom of speech and of advocacy is implied.
ReplyDeleteAs long as this group does not have the power to coerce others into following their views about community living, I think it is great that they keep advocating.
As a suburbanite myself, I see the drawbacks of suburban life, although the positives to me by far outweigh the negatives. I think the millions of people trying to build their homes out in the suburbs see things similarly. Yes, we would prefer to live in some pristine nature somewhere, but given the job opportunities near the suburb, I will take this lot in life (a home in suburbia) at this point as a huge blessing.
In this group's defense, I think there has been some movement recently toward revitalizing urban downtowns (uptowns) indicating that there is some segment of the population who prefers to live in those conditions (young unmarrieds mainly, I think), and - again - as long as the builders choose to revitalize these communities and the occupants choose to live there, more power to them! I'm certainly not married to the burbs, so if some better living arrangement (for me and my family) comes along, perhaps a nice community of faculty-members near DBU, or a wonderful home in the hills with ability to work from home, we would certainly consider moving into a different type of a community.
Hmmm...Maybe we should put a bug in our university president's ear. . . .
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in their mission statement that causes me any problems. Whether their goals are realistic would be another issue. However, one would hope that they could adopt a narrow focus and experience progress on some of their priorities.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Jekabs comments, lobbying and advocacy has exploded over the past decade. That being said, that proliferation does have its benefits as we have seen a balancing of power among interest groups.
Of course, the ones with the most $$$ tend to be most effective!
What most interests me about the movement is that they recognize that our architectural space is our social space to a large extent. People tend to go with the groove they are provided. A couple of other thoughts:
ReplyDelete1)It is just about impossible to live in Texas without a car, for example. I actually tried for three years when I lived where I worked, but I was still dependent on others who had cars for some things.
2)I appreciate their desire to revitalize existing communities to some extent since the social capital is already there though it may be damaged or fractured.
Oh, and it might help us all lose weight and strengthen cardiovascular health.
That is one thing I miss about Europe - people don't rely on their cars as much as they do here. With greater extent of public transit, more people walk the streets, people run into others more often, there is some greater sense of community there. As I said before, I still think that the advantages of private transit and the greater independence in general provide advantages that outweigh the disadvantages of the system here.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few communities (Uptown Dallas, downtown Fort Worth) that the capitalists have built as places that I would describe as having "restoration of existing urban centers", "towns within coherent metropolitan regions", "reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts". The last two ideas the group listed "the conservation of natural environments and the preservation of our built legacy" are missing from these communities, but that would be a lot to ask of one community.
I remember reading about a community called "New Harmony", Indiana, where a group of people decided to put many of the aforementioned principles in practice. It was a pretty interesting study, and there have been a few other experiments such as that.
Without being as radical as the New Harmonists, there probably are some things that individuals can do to restore a greater sense of community even within their suburbs, and there is also, surely, a role church should play to deal with some of the negatives of the suburban life.