This is the
third post in my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism”. It’s my attempt to connect with new readers
who may have an interest in the subject, but feel they don’t yet have the background
to partake in the conversation.
In the first post, I gave my reasons for writing this
series of posts and noted my modest credentials for the task. My limited qualifications mean that this
Intro may lack the comprehensiveness that other, more experienced urbanists
could bring to the job. But I’ll offer suggestions
for reading material in a later post for those who wish to continue their
education beyond my stumbling efforts.
In the second post, I tried to come up with a definition
of urbanism with which I felt comfortable.
I eventually settled on “The study of and advocacy for built
environments and operating systems that allow communities to be fiscally viable
and environmentally sustainable.” I’m
not fully comfortable with the words and will likely tweak the definition when
I update the Intro for New Years 2016, but I can work with it for this year.
Also in the
second post, I covered some of the synonyms for urbanism, giving a stamp of
approval to “compact development”, but expressing discomfort with “smart
growth”. (I agree that urbanism is
smart, but don’t believe that we urbanists need to define ourselves as
smart. It’s better to let skeptics come
to that conclusion on their own, rather than beating them over the head with a word.)
Today, I’ll introduce
the reasons why urbanism matters. It’s a
subject on which I’ll touch many times during the remainder of the Intro, but
today will lay the groundwork. I’ll
start with the many questions of contemporary land use to which urbanism
provides a reasonable response. From there,
I’ll note the common elements in the various forms of urbanism.
Justification:
I have a philosophy that, when multiple questions have similar answers,
the answer begins to have universal value.
So let’s look at the questions for which urbanism is a possible answer. (Note: I may have coined some of the urbanism
terms below, but they’d all be readily recognized and accepted by proponents.)
How do we
create settings in which more people walk, resulting in improved public health,
less traffic, and fewer auto emissions?
An answer is walkable urbanism, a form of urbanism that encourages homes
and frequent destinations, such as schools, grocery stores, and coffee shops, to
be in close proximity and connected with safe routes.
How do we
preserve the undeveloped recreational lands surrounding towns? An answer is greenbelt urbanism, a form of
urbanism that focuses on density, allowing towns to grow more upwards and less
outwards, protecting the nearby undeveloped land.
How do we
preserve nearby farmlands, encouraging the farm-to-table movement and reducing
the transportation costs of produce? An
answer is agrarian urbanism, a form of urbanism that, much like greenbelt
urbanism, focuses on density, leaving nearby farms safe from encroachment.
With green
backdrops known to have beneficial effects on daily life, how do we bring more
elements of landscaping into city settings?
An answer is landscape urbanism, an approach that seeks to redefine the
relationship between buildings and landscaping, giving a more integral role to
landscaped spaces and increasing the areas of landscaping without resulting in
sprawl by pushing the buildings upward
How do we
address the increasing crisis in municipal budgets? An answer is fiscal urbanism, reconfiguring towns
to support the same tax base with less infrastructure to maintain.
What can we
do about the risk of climate change, which may well be driven by carbon
emissions? An answer is environmental
urbanism, living in close enough proximity that non-automobile transportation
options are viable, reducing carbon emissions.
What if your
environmental concerns go deeper than carbon, perhaps including water supply or
other essential elements of life? An
answer can be sustainable urbanism, based on the knowledge that people living
in closer proximity use fewer resources.
What if your
focus is more effective use of transit, with the resulting reduction in energy
use and carbon emissions? An answer can
be transit-oriented urbanism, with a focus on effective livable communities near
transit stops.
This list
may seem exhaustive, but can actually go on longer. A speaker at CNU 22, the most recent meeting
of the Congress of the New Urbanism, was concerned about the proliferation of
different “urbanisms”, warning us that we were at risk, like many revolutions,
of succumbing to internal dissension.
She asked us to remember that all of us were urbanists first, with the
various adjectives second.
Until that
speech, I’d called myself a “new urbanist”.
I immediately dropped the “new”.
In future Intro
posts, I’ll explore the supporting arguments behind some of these urbanist answers.
Key
Elements of Urbanism: So urbanism, in its multitude of forms, can
address many concerns. But I’ll note
that all of the solutions revolve around two elements.
First, urbanism
requires sufficient density to meet community goals, whether financial
sustainability, preservation of surrounding countryside, or some combination of
multiple goals. This doesn’t mean that everyone
must live in concrete, multi-story bunkers.
Indeed, there’s a place in urbanism for a wide variety of housing
options, including single-family homes, as long as the densities are sufficient
to meet the community goals.
Second, urbanism
requires transportation options, such as walking, biking, or transit, that
provide viable alternatives to the automobile.
Cars are still allowed, very much so, but many daily chores should be
able to be completed without a car and people who choose to live without a car
should be accommodated without unreasonable inconvenience.
In future
Intro posts, I’ll explore the forms that density and transportation options can
take.
So that
leaves me with two paths to follow in future posts, the justifications behind
urbanism and the forms that urbanism can take.
For my next post, I’ll tackle the basis behind fiscal urbanism, but I’ll
return to both paths several times in future posts.
(Note on the
photo: In developing her essential observations on urbanism in the early 1960s,
Jane Jacobs noted the value of a neighborhood meeting place, not only for the
neighborhood connections but also for its role in maintaining street activity
into the evening hours. The meeting
place she could observe from the window of her writing space was the White
Horse Tavern in Greenwich Village. The
photo is of the White Horse Tavern in 2010.)
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment