In defense of new towns

“An argument can be made that the new towns contribute to the further dispersion and deterioration of the core.” —Architect Harvey Gantt (May, 1998) “Instead of focusing all of our energies on building new neotraditional towns, we should be developing strategies for investing in real traditional communities.” —Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (May, 1998) “Not every place is meant to be developed. Remember the Napa Valley. Even if it was built out as a beautiful development like Kentlands, it would still stink.” —Jim Sayer, executive director of the Greenbelt Alliance (May, 1998) “We still do some greenfield new towns, but most of our work is infill around transit. We don’t need more new towns, but we do need transit-oriented, walkable infill development.” —Architect Peter Calthorpe, quoted in Planning magazine (June 1998) s Peter Katz writes in his seminal book, The New Urbanism, the movement is divided into “establishing the urban pattern” (i.e. greenfield projects in the suburbs) and “reconstructing the urban fabric” (i.e. infill projects within existing cities and towns). Although Katz places the greenfield projects in the front of the book, there are many who would have it the other way around. In fact, judging from recent comments, some supporters of the New Urbanism consider greenfield projects less environmentally and/or socially beneficial. Critics of the New Urbanism go even further, dismissing new urbanist towns like Kentlands and Celebration as merely “the New Suburbanism.” The time has come for a ringing defense of well-designed, pedestrian- friendly, mixed-use new towns, which are just as important to the New Urbanism in the latter part of the 1990s as the excellent work being done in cities. An example is Seaside, the first traditional neighborhood development (TND), and a pure greenfield project — located well outside existing metropolitan areas. Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, a champion of cities, urges every city mayor to study Seaside. “It shows that the sad conventional suburban sprawl, where every development is a separate enclave, is not inevitable,” he says. Seaside played a key role in launching the New Urbanism movement, as did some of the other greenfield new urbanist projects. Their form was radical and bold (and still is), even if their location was not. They marked a return to the traditional neighborhood, town and village forms, adapted to modern technologies and needs. These were the same forms that built the great cities and towns — all of which began as “greenfield” settlements. Form is the common element In the early 1990s, the New Urbanism emerged as a movement distinguished by its form, which is what all of the greenfield and infill projects in Katz’ book have in common. Form — not location — is what separates those projects from modernist and conventional suburban planning, architecture and development. Let’s not forget that about 95 percent of current U.S. development is on greenfield sites, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. At best, that percentage will decrease gradually during the next few decades. In the meantime, the more greenfield development that takes the form of the New Urbanism the better — ecologically speaking — because it is denser and less auto dependent. Furthermore, it offers people a higher quality of life than suburbia and provides civic and spiritual nourishment to citizens. Certainly, we should all support more infill development following the principles of the New Urbanism. But we should support equally the reconfiguration of the suburbs. Not to do so is to needlessly drive a wedge in the movement, and marginalize its impact.