This post will
continue my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism”.
In my last post, I wrote about my reasons for writing
this series of posts, including a desire to provide a step stool for new
readers trying to join the urbanist conversation and an interest in
consolidating my own thoughts on the subject.
I also provided my credentials, which are modest, along with notes about
the syllabus and the duration of the Intro.
I noted an
uptick in readership for the last post.
New readers are always welcome. However,
I’ll reiterate a point made in the last post.
If you’re looking for a definitive review of urbanism, there are far
better sources. Here, you’ll get an
earnest, but likely idiosyncratic, introduction from a dedicated student of
urbanism, but not a leading practitioner.
With that point understood, let’s proceed.
In today’s
post, I’ll attempt a definition of urbanism and note a few synonyms, some that I
like and some that I don’t.
Definition: While getting my Masters in Water Resources at
Cal, I took a class in hydraulic and estuarine mixing from my faculty
adviser. He was a long-jawed,
shock-topped, ruddy-complected Englishman with a laconic, almost languorous way
of speaking. I enjoyed his Mojave-dry
sense of irony and wit, but several classmates bridled at his style.
The first
day of class, which was taught from the galley proofs of Professor Fischer’s upcoming
book, the first textbook that would be devoted solely to hydraulic mixing,
Fischer took us through several working definitions of “estuary”, definitions
that attempted to distinguish estuaries from the mere widening of rivers before
emptying into the sea and from the bays along a coastline. The definitions relied on physical parameters
such as the surface area, tidal action, salinity, and net hydrologic balance.
But Fischer
pointed out that every known definition failed on some point. An estuary that all the experts agreed was an
estuary wouldn’t meet some element of the definition. Nor was anyone able to construct a flaw-proof
definition. As a result, the general
agreement became that everyone knew an estuary when they saw one, even if a
viable definition remained elusive.
Urbanism is
similar. All of us can look at a
downtown filled with multi-story buildings, busy sidewalks, and active
storefronts and recognize it as an urban place.
Similarly, we can look at homes on quarter-acre lots without a school or
store reachable except by motor vehicle, and recognize it as suburban. But, although many have tried, a definition of
the difference and the dividing line between them remains elusive.
When I began
this blog a little more than three years ago, I described its focus as “new
urbanism”. (The use of various
adjectives in front of urbanism is a subject on which I’ll touch in my next
post.) As I then viewed the question, “old
urbanism” was fixing existing urban places and “new urbanism” was building new
urban places. My complete definitions,
copied from the long-ago post, were:
“Urbanism”: The planning theories and practices to prepare
existing metropolitan areas for the 21st century. The changes to be sought in cities are
accommodation to changing business, cultural, and demographic conditions and
remediation of wounds inflicted on cities in the 20th century, such as suburban
flight, ineffective accommodation of the automobile, and poorly conceived urban
policies.
“New Urbanism”: The planning theories and practices to
translate the best aspects of urban life, such as walkability, access to
transit, and use of public places, to towns that are increasing need of those
features in the 21st century.
They’re not
bad definitions and I don’t feel a need to disown them, but probably implied more
of a dichotomy than necessary.
More
recently, Rik Adamski, a Dallas urbanist and member of the organizing committee
for the upcoming annual meeting of the Congress of the New Urbanism, tweeted these
definitions:
“Urbanism”: A set of timeless principles.
“New
Urbanism”: A movement dedicated to applying those principles to contemporary
conditions.
Working
nicely with the 140-character limit, Adamski retains some of the flavor of my
definitions, but erases the dichotomy between old metropolises and new towns. He also turned new urbanists into advocates,
with which I agree.
Then there
is the definition in the Wikipedia article on urbanism:
“Urbanism”: The
characteristic way of interaction of inhabitants of towns and cities (urban
areas) with the built environment.
This one completely
turns the equation around, instead focusing on how people relate to their settings,
rather than how to provide more salubrious settings.
Overall, it’s
a jumble.
But for the
purposes of this Intro, I’ll try to build around a single, simple definition:
“Urbanism”: The
study of and advocacy for built environments and operating systems that allow communities
to be fiscally viable and environmentally sustainable.
Please note
that I eliminate all reference to density, transit, walkability, or any of the
physical elements typically associated with urban settings. But by calling for fiscal and environmental
sustainability, it will lead us back to those elements. In essence, I’m retreating a step to check
the underpinnings of urbanism. I don’t
have any concerns about those underpinnings, but occasional check-ins are reasonable.
It may be an idiosyncratic definition that I’ll
revise when I update this Intro a year from now, but for today, I feel good with
it.
Synonyms:
While I’ll mostly use “urbanism” in these posts, there are several supposed synonyms
that readers may encounter. The most
common is “smart growth”, which is a problematic term for me.
I agree that
urbanism is smart. I wouldn’t be writing
this blog if I didn’t believe that.
However, I also think that being an urbanist should involve building
bridges to those who haven’t yet seen the light. Starting those conversations with the implied
assertion that urbanists are smart and therefore others must be dumb doesn’t
seem a good way to lay the foundations for new bridges.
That isn’t
to say that those who use the term “smart growth” are bad folks. Smart Growth America is a fine organization and
three of the leading urbanists were induced, with some reluctance, to title a
recent book “The Smart Growth Manual”.
But I don’t
like the message behind “smart growth” and will generally avoid it.
Another
synonym is “compact development”. While
I think it short-changes urbanism by focusing solely on density, at least it
doesn’t imply the superiority of “smart growth”. I’ll use the term on occasion.
Lastly, I
occasionally see “urban planning” used as a synonym for “urbanism”. That usage implies a fundamental
misunderstanding. Urban planners have
gone through academic training to learn the nuances of making the pieces of a
city fit together well. They’re
professionals and deserve the respect that their dedication has earned.
Conversely, many
urbanists are lay people who advocate for urbanist solutions. They may lack the training of urban planners,
but substitute for it with passion and a willingness to learn at least some of the
urban planning skills. Although I’ve
occasionally been disappointed, I would hope that all urban planners are
urbanists. But, with myself as an
example, I know that not all urbanists are urban planners.
I had hoped
to begin exploring the reasons for urbanism in this post, but spent too many
words wandering in the thickets of fuzzy definitions and estuarine mixing. (Although I will note that not all who wander
are lost.) So the justifications for
urbanism will be deferred to the next post in the Intro series, which is
probably just as well. The reasons
behind urbanism are many, varied, and fascinating, and therefore deserve their
own post.
However, the
next Intro post will be delayed by one.
In my next post, I’ll give an update on the Petaluma Urban Chat process
to develop a plan for the redevelopment of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.
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