Why New Urbanism May Not Age Well
A better suburban development is still a suburban development, built to a finished state.
Last year, we started a new video channel at Strong Towns that is just me. Yeah, I wasn’t so sure to begin with, either, but it started to pick up audience and that has been fascinating. The interactions for video are very different than I am used to, as is the way certain topics surge for reasons that are not easy to discern.
Here’s a recent video that I shot earlier this month in Celebration, Florida, that has generated a lot of discussion. The title makes it seem like I’m being critical of New Urbanists, but listen closely and you’ll get a sense of the reverence I hold them in, especially the early founders. I still think they have the answers to many of the challenges we face.
I’d love to know what my friends on Substack think of the challenges New Urbanism faces.
I thought the video was on point for sure. I have experienced a number of new places like this and older pre-war neighborhoods that have the same design characteristics but are now relatively static due to single family zoning imposed in the last 50 years. That static nature doesn't *guarantee* that there will be decline, but as a core Strong Town principle it makes the place fragile. Sometimes it goes one way, sometimes it goes the other, depending primarily on the local economic situation. Just because something (eg next level of intensity like single family -> duplex) is allowed, doesn't mean it will automatically happen at that point in time, but provides economic resilience if the opportunity arrises, say due to a local long term economic downturn.
This is the case in my neighborhood of West Annapolis, which I lucked into 30 years ago because I intuitively liked and it was before Strong Towns gave me the vocabulary to understand why. It was initially developed around the turn of the century (with 2 local, now defunct rail stops!) and has intensified some (there are a number of non conforming duplexes that people like) and has a traditional development pattern with mixed use/commercial area and a number of alleys, all the good DNA. However since the imposition of the single family zoning, the large-ish lots have only had large houses built/rebuilt on them because there a lot of money sloshing around here (while that has some perverse consequences, it's better than the other end of the spectrum). But if the housing market or the local economy crashes, it won't work and there will be decline. No one thinks that will ever be the case (big surprise huh?), so there is zero appetite to allow the next increment to occur if conditions dictate. (as much as I swould support that). For example, the zoning prevents subdivision of lots for multiple starter homes (like what was here initially in the early 1900s) if that's what works economically. I think this is the case in Celebration. It's all about fragility. So like you say, we'll see what happens...
This is a good thought-provoking video. I agree with others here that while the translation of New Urbanism in other settings may not be as artistic, it may be more robust. Only time will tell.
But the choice in most places is still to either be inspired by the New Urbanists or to stick with the “tried and true” sprawl. Given that choice, there isn’t much choice, right?
And maybe the next set of innovations have to be institutional not architectural. The tax structure varies around the country, but I think it’s wobbly everywhere. What if we combined the New Urbanism (broadly defined) with the long (and intentionally) suppressed land economics of Henry George? And there are possibilities besides that. The next round of creativity may have to be in the realm of finance and taxation,