Smart Growth and New Urbanism: a single movement?
ROBERT STEUTEVILLE    APR. 1, 2003
Randal O’Toole and others in the Preserving the American Dream conference
treated “smart growth” and “New Urbanism” as if both terms have the same meaning. Most practitioners, however, make a distinction between the two. At the risk of oversimplifying, it’s useful to note that New Urbanism concentrates mainly on design — of buildings, streets, blocks, public spaces, neighborhoods, districts, corridors. Smart growth focuses primarily on public policies, especially policies about the locations where government investments should be made and about how planning should shape cities, towns, and regions.
In some places, new urbanists have been able to build compact, walkable, mixed-use developments without government smart growth policies. Seaside demonstrated that. Generally, however, New Urbanism stands a better chance of being implemented when governments encourage this mode of development.
In practice, the two movements are intertwined. As Rick Bernhardt, the planning chief of Nashville-Davidson County, puts it, “The application of smart growth is through the practice and principles of New Urbanism.” Since the two movements complement each other, both are now being attacked by libertarians and free-market ideologues who regard government and public planning as enemies.