I was a child in the 70s and a teenager in the 80s, so when I learned more about the term “new urbanism” last week, of course my mind went back to one of my favorite (yes, I admit it) childhood shows, Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, and then of course, to another favorite, Eddie Murphy’s SNL riff, Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood, but I digress…
I had a great conversation today with Joan Herriges, from the organizing committee for Wisconsin‘s chapter of the Congress for the New Urbanism, and, I learned 2 things:
1. New urbanism is about neighborhoods. I discovered that one of the most exciting things about new urbanism is that it’s about people living in community— in neighborhoods. More on this later.
2. New urbanism is not new. It’s a return to the organizing principles of neighborhoods which existed in the U.S. prior to the advent of urban sprawl post-WWII. That urban sprawl is characterized by:
- geographic distance and longer commute times between work and home and services (places of worship, medical offices, grocery stores, barber shops, movie theaters, etc.), paralleling separate industrial, residential and commercial zones;
- higher car dependence and traveling by car to work, home and services;
- higher per person infrastructure costs;
- and the disappearance of natural space for expressways, parking lots and suburbs.
What new urbanism represents, in part, is a return to designing neighborhoods that are walkable, with neighborhood-based businesses, services and leisure, and where multiple transportation options are viable, including public transportation, biking and walking. These neighborhoods also engender more interaction and a greater sense of community, as you’re more likely to know your neighbors when you’re walking your kids to school, for example, or to support and know local business owners whose shops are conveniently located within blocks of your house or apartment. As Joan said, “It’s about neighborhoods that people would want to live in.”
As a city dweller invested in both community and sustainability, I find the Congress for New Urbanism’s charter inspiring. Thinking about neighborhood design addresses quality of life and time by decreasing commute times, exemplifies a more sustainable use of resources like land, public transportation and roads, and increases our interaction with and connection to the people and places around us. The first line says it all — it’s all connected, and it’s all about community.
The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society’s built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
I knew I liked Mr. Rogers for a reason.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7d668930-23ff-47e2-8a0c-5cda8ae137dd)
Very good points. Essentially, most environmental problems today come from a lack of population density. There’s a good book which came out recently called “Green Metropolis” which explains how Manhattan is by far and away the most ecologically friendly place in the United States. If people got rid of their cars, and lived in dense neighborhoods (like most of us did before WW2), our environmental impacts would greatly be mitigated. Residential patterns have a much greater impact on the environment than proximate factors such as recycling and gas mileage for automobiles.