The New New South

When our grandparents re-imagined the urban environment, we wound up with Pruitt-Igoe and the Parisian banlieues. As a result, popular opinion leans somewhat sharply in the negative direction when it comes to large-scale urban renovations. Still, it is largely accepted, among the current generation of urbanists and architects, that the suburbs are in need of a serious, large-scale overhaul. It's always important, when taking on a major project, to learn from the lessons of the past. But what exactly do the tower blocks and windswept concrete plazas of the latter half of the twentieth century teach us? On the surface, it's that tower blocks and windswept concrete plazas make for dire cities. But beyond that, these stark interventions illustrate quite plainly that it is almost never a good idea to rip down everything and start from scratch.

It's too bad, really, because starting a city from scratch is a very romantic and exciting idea. But cities are places that are used by millions of people, in millions of different ways; the longer a place is inhabited, the more people develop routines in and around them. Aesthetics aside, familiarity sets in, and even ugly places can become comfortable and familiar. Modernist urban renewal projects didn't just fail because they were severe and lacked a sense of human scale; they failed, at least in part, because they ignored the patterns and rhythms of the places that they replaced.

It's encouraging, then, to see that some of the cities considered the greatest offenders by anti-sprawl camp are starting not only to attempt to densify, but that they are doing so in ways that adapt rather than replace their built environments. Take, for instance, Miami, where a former car dealership is being redeveloped as a highrise urban district, or Charlotte, North Carolina, which has taken several steps in the past few years to actually start acting like a city of its economic stature. A new light rail has been built, for instance, with plans for considerable expansion; density has been encouraged along the transit lines; in one suburb, all new commercial buildings are required to have at least two stories. For a city with a population density of only 2,515 people per square mile (slightly less than that of Bangladesh), these are very promising steps toward urbanization. Better yet, there's been no wholesale removal of the city's existing fabric; just modifications.

Other sprawling cities are starting to take notice. Atlanta, the undisputed Capital of the New South since its rapid revival back in the late 1980s, has recently taken note of Charlotte's urbanization, with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution calling the city "a feisty, undersized boxer [that punches above its weight]." No small words from the Rome of Suburban Postwar America. And as that same article notes (albeit in downplayed terms that any smart urbanist will snicker at), Atlanta is currently struggling under the weight of the obscene freeway system that grew as fast as the metro's population. The city is already saddled with several eight-lane freeways (that's eight in both directions, for a total of 16) and the Georgia State Assembly seems to be making transit decisions using a 1965-vintage playbook. With New Jerseyans now complaining about the gridlock in the Big Peach (which they actually do in the AJ-C article), Atlanta's mobility problems are looking like a very serious liability.

Charlotte, meanwhile, has half the population of Atlanta but less than half the congestion. It remains to be seen if Charlotte will ever catch up to Atlanta in terms of international economic stature, but even if it doesn't, Charlotte can lead the way as a slew of sprawling mid-sized Southern cities (the entire region is notorious for its sprawl, after all) seek to densify and re-work their urban fabric. By taking the lead on lifestyle issues, Charlotte could become the capital of the New New South.


(Photos from Flickr user wbwood1969 and The Daily Green.)

Press Re:

Where's friends over at the Congress for New Urbanism passed along some info today for a fast-approaching deadline. If you are or know of an urbanist that's worth honoring , take a look and submit, submit, submit!

Charter Awards 2009 honor the urbanism the world needs now

CNU's Charter Awards recognize the best of New Urbanism and Smart Growth -- whether the work is architectural, landscape, and urban designs or the publications, policies, plans, and codes that structure them. Awards are selected by a jury of distinguished urbanists, led this year by Victor Dover, and judged on the extent to which they fulfill and advance the principles of the Charter of the New Urbanism. This year, submitters also have the opportunity to describe how projects advance the operating principles in the Canons of Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism.

In recognizing design and development that make communities more livable and promote greater harmony between the built and natural environments, the awards demonstrate how urbanism is a remedy our planet needs -- a vital way to green the American Dream. Please help spread the word, especially to those -- either professionals or students and professors --whose urbanism and Smart Growth you admire. Find information and entry forms at http://cnu.org/awards.

Submissions Due: January 20, 2009

WEEKEND READING: September 15-21, 2007

The weekend has arrived just in time!

ITEM ONE: CityStates debunks Wendell Cox's article, previously discussed at Where, on the CityStates blog.

ITEM TWO: IDEO's reimagining of the street cafe, via GOOD Magazine. (Photo credit)

ITEM THREE: Chicago is turning out to be a rather tiresome city that lives up (or down) to its muddled quality of life ratings by utterly forsaking its residents in favor of attracting more tourist dollars to fund more TIFs for million-dollar condos. That was me pontificating, but check out Item Three for the most recent bit of proof.

ITEM FOUR: Cleveland is taking community development down to the block-level.

ITEM FIVE: I have heard of Miss Representation many times...it is a blog that pops up frequently in meta discussions about the archiurban blogosphere. And yet, I had always avoided it since I thought "Eh...
another blog about New York. Who gives a rat's?" And then I actually read it and realized that it's some of the funniest architectural writing...well, ever. The moral of this story is: don't be a twit like me. Read Miss Rep. Start with this new post on the hapless mess that is Ground Zero.

ITEM SIX: Cities of Theory is another great blog to add to your reader. Here we have a post on creating enjoyable urban places...

ITEM SEVEN: Speaking of quality of life, Cuba's all like "Hey guys, check me ouuut!"

Oh...I think you can tell that I am in need of some r&r. Y'all come back now, ya hear?

Why "Smart Growth" Isn't

"Smart Growth" (henceforth "SG") is a grossly misused term these days. Almost exclusively used to describe slightly modified suburban development -- moderately smaller lots, more narrow streets, excessive subsidies, "walkable" "communities", and those detestable Towne Centres all come to mind -- the term is a bit of old fashioned semantic smoke and mirrors. The promise is that we can continue to build much as we have for the past fifty years if we consume a couple less farms, or if we move things just a little closer together. Of course, the fact is that these minor changes are producing minor results.

The danger here is twofold: on the one hand, "SG" advocates and the people who choose to (and can afford to) live in "SG" developments pat themselves on the back and insist that they are doing their part to save the world from global warming, when in fact they have made very little difference (and are probably likely to make it up through other small indulgences with which they congratulate themselves for being such good citizens); even more foreboding is the fact that the failure of these not-so-smart "SG" projects provides the pro-sprawl, anti-transit crowd with ample ammo in their arguments against not only "SG", but cities and urbanism in general.

Case in point: a recent article by Wendell Cox of Demographia for the Toronto Star highlights the inability of "SG" initiatives, with their emphasis on (barely) higher density and driving less (sometimes), to curb greenhouse gasses. This is no surprise for reasons discussed above. But the article also cites a University of Sydney study that makes the deceptive argument that dense, transit-linked city neighborhoods produce higher levels of greenhouse gasses per capita than sprawling suburbs.

If this seems counterintuitive, that's probably because the findings are slanted. It is true that Inner Sydney has the highest per capita outpot of GHG, but there is no mention of the fact that a huge chunk of this area is taken up by office towers, which consume massive amounts of energy for heating and cooling, thousands of acres of fluorescent lighting, and other energy-consuming systems that often continue running long after employees have left for the night. Being the central business district, Inner Sydney is also the destination of much of the auto traffic that originates in the surrounding sprawl. Outside the CBD, other neighborhoods include other offices and large tracts of industrial land (and factories are often very large producers of GHGs) that are much less likely to take up space in more far-flung areas.

Of course, 43.3% of the eco-footprint for the average New South Wales resident is created by the hugely disproportionate costs for importing food. This gets at the true heart of the problem facing cities and suburbs around the globe: the need to live locally. Of course, neither the pro-"SG" crowd nor its detractors talk much about that.

More on all of this "SG" business next week...

(Photo from Flickr user pfrench99.)


Links:
Planners denying reality (The Toronto Star)

Australian Conservation Foundation's Consumption Atlas