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,
I think this is a situation where New Urbanism’s birthplace of Florida makes it look a certain way, but in the context of other states/counties/metro areas, the same principles of New Urbanism have been applied in much better ways.
My home region of Portland, Oregon has many flaws, but I think there are much better examples of New Urbanism “with a future” in the Portland area. I am genuinely very optimistic about the future of Portland, and as a younger city that can’t rely on good urban bones from centuries past, I think Portland is one of the only places doing “New” Urbanism that might one day actually hold a candle to traditional urbanism. New Urbanism in a Floridian context is kind of doomed, because what can it possibly connect to? But the regional planning of Portland Metro, and having a regional transit agency in TriMet, allows much more forward-looking planning about connecting nodes of urbanism.
Downtown Lake Oswego I think has a clear path of “what comes next?” They had to kickstart things with a big TIF redevelopment project, replacing strip malls with walkable mixed use—ground floor commercial with offices or condos above. And of course a free public parking garage to appease the NIMBYs. But this kickstarted a virtuous cycle, because residents can now clearly see that the next increment of development isn’t something to be feared.
After the initial redevelopment, there’s been some private redevelopment action in the adjacent blocks. Single-story detached homes replaced with townhomes, some more 3-story mixed use, and now some even taller apartment buildings going in another couple blocks away. And all this is within half a mile of the “Lake Oswego Transit Center,” where a few bus lines all converge and have some timed transfers. TriMet’s 35 line connects this transit center directly to downtown Portland to the north and downtown Oregon City to the south, and TriMet just increased service along this line last year. Another line goes out west to the Beaverton Transit Center. There’s a long way to go, but there’s at least a real vision of how these nodes of urbanism are connected to each other, and regional and state policy are supporting incremental development, especially around transit.
Portland is unique as an American city in having its “Urban Growth Boundary,” but our neighbors to the north have similar boundaries around most of their major cities. Canadian YouTuber Paige Saunders did a great video about how Greenbelts have failed in Canada, but how they could present a window of opportunity to encircle the “yellow belt” with an urban belt, connected to the core by new transit lines. (https://youtu.be/LHje3nt0Kh0?si=Wz6sPaQz1TgcUoFU)
Orenco Station in Hillsboro, Oregon is a New Urbanist development that was built as TriMet extended the MAX Light Rail to Hillsboro, plopped into a large available parcel right in between Portland and the core of Hillsboro—I think it’s a great foreshadowing example of how to do better greenfield New Urbanism along the lines of what Saunders proposes.
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,
I think this is a situation where New Urbanism’s birthplace of Florida makes it look a certain way, but in the context of other states/counties/metro areas, the same principles of New Urbanism have been applied in much better ways.
My home region of Portland, Oregon has many flaws, but I think there are much better examples of New Urbanism “with a future” in the Portland area. I am genuinely very optimistic about the future of Portland, and as a younger city that can’t rely on good urban bones from centuries past, I think Portland is one of the only places doing “New” Urbanism that might one day actually hold a candle to traditional urbanism. New Urbanism in a Floridian context is kind of doomed, because what can it possibly connect to? But the regional planning of Portland Metro, and having a regional transit agency in TriMet, allows much more forward-looking planning about connecting nodes of urbanism.
Downtown Lake Oswego I think has a clear path of “what comes next?” They had to kickstart things with a big TIF redevelopment project, replacing strip malls with walkable mixed use—ground floor commercial with offices or condos above. And of course a free public parking garage to appease the NIMBYs. But this kickstarted a virtuous cycle, because residents can now clearly see that the next increment of development isn’t something to be feared.
After the initial redevelopment, there’s been some private redevelopment action in the adjacent blocks. Single-story detached homes replaced with townhomes, some more 3-story mixed use, and now some even taller apartment buildings going in another couple blocks away. And all this is within half a mile of the “Lake Oswego Transit Center,” where a few bus lines all converge and have some timed transfers. TriMet’s 35 line connects this transit center directly to downtown Portland to the north and downtown Oregon City to the south, and TriMet just increased service along this line last year. Another line goes out west to the Beaverton Transit Center. There’s a long way to go, but there’s at least a real vision of how these nodes of urbanism are connected to each other, and regional and state policy are supporting incremental development, especially around transit.
Portland is unique as an American city in having its “Urban Growth Boundary,” but our neighbors to the north have similar boundaries around most of their major cities. Canadian YouTuber Paige Saunders did a great video about how Greenbelts have failed in Canada, but how they could present a window of opportunity to encircle the “yellow belt” with an urban belt, connected to the core by new transit lines. (https://youtu.be/LHje3nt0Kh0?si=Wz6sPaQz1TgcUoFU)
Orenco Station in Hillsboro, Oregon is a New Urbanist development that was built as TriMet extended the MAX Light Rail to Hillsboro, plopped into a large available parcel right in between Portland and the core of Hillsboro—I think it’s a great foreshadowing example of how to do better greenfield New Urbanism along the lines of what Saunders proposes.
I found this slightly different and more blunt take in the YouTube comments. This music is great too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYDhfHVP9_o