October 9, 2008
Dear Guy,
I offer you my considered opinion as one who has given
much thought to New Urbanism and its place in this society. The reason this is
relevant is that I believe that New Urbanism is the theory that motivates those
who are advocates of the Northeast Area Plan.
My criticism of New Urbanism is not of its philosophy
or approach, but rather its application. One cannot state absolutely that urban
sprawl hasn’t contributed to both the loss of open space and the decline of our
city centers, and that growth must be responsible. However, when only some of
the approaches of New Urbanism are followed and not others, or when objectives
are impractical to implement, then we see partially
responsible, partially-environmentally-sensible design--or worse.
The idea behind New Urbanism
is that what existed before the development of suburbs was superior in terms of
community and social relations. It is truly a complex issue.
But suppose that it is
true--that small towns foster community and sprawled suburbs do not. Isn't
Sebastopol more of a small town than a suburb, possessing the small town traits
of a community? Wouldn’t Sebastopol do better to implement smart growth
principles on a smaller scale that matches the size of the town?
New Urbanism respects historic
patterns and calls on design to honor a town or city's past. According to New
Urbanism, architecture and landscape design should grow from local conditions.
Why should we overlay neo-traditional when we already have traditional?
Now take a town like Windsor.
Does it respect its history, or is it based on an idealized version of a past
that never existed? And what history was obliterated to create this inauthentic
"aesthetic"? (Speaking of aesthetics, look closely at how the similar
facade elevations cause the buildings to appear as uniform "blocks"
rather than individual units constructed at different times by different
designers.)
What happens when a project
starts with green, New Urbanist principles and then gets handed off to another
developer? In the 90's, a New Urbanist community south of Sacramento (Laguna
West) was started by former California State Treasurer Phil Angelides and then
sold. The transit system was never developed, and employees who work in the
development can't afford to live in the residences there. Though this
"leapfrog" development has the high density of a New Urbanist
community, it represents some of the worst characteristics of suburbia. Could
this happen here?
Auto-competitive transit is
central to New Urbanism. Can we even begin to talk about four and five story
buildings when we have no concrete plan about how to move people from point A
to point B? Central to all urban architecture and planning is the definition of
streets as places of shared use. High densities will work only if centered
around transit systems.
The plans for the East Bay
make a lot of sense. The BART parking lots in the East Bay in my lifetime will
become multi-storied live/work spaces. Parking garages below high rises are now
being built with 10 feet vertical clearance so that they can be converted to
non-automobile uses in the future. Transit is--and must be--central to these
plans.
Furthermore, transit
corridors should not displace investment from existing nearby centers.
My concern is that some are
taking these principles out of context--out of their historical context as
well, and attempting to impose them on a small town because, well, everyone
knows suburbia is bad and smart growth is smart. I think we have to look very
carefully into all the nuances, ask a lot of questions, scrutinize historical
precedents and models, be aware of our resources and their carrying capacities
and move slowly.
Ellen Thompson
Sebastopol Resident
October 9, 2008
Dear Guy,
I offer you my considered opinion as one who has given much thought to New Urbanism and its place in this society. The reason this is relevant is that I believe that New Urbanism is the theory that motivates those who are advocates of the Northeast Area Plan.
My criticism of New Urbanism is not of its philosophy or approach, but rather its application. One cannot state absolutely that urban sprawl hasn’t contributed to both the loss of open space and the decline of our city centers, and that growth must be responsible. However, when only some of the approaches of New Urbanism are followed and not others, or when objectives are impractical to implement, then we see partially responsible, partially-environmentally-sensible design--or worse.
The idea behind New Urbanism is that what existed before the development of suburbs was superior in terms of community and social relations. It is truly a complex issue.
But suppose that it is true--that small towns foster community and sprawled suburbs do not. Isn't Sebastopol more of a small town than a suburb, possessing the small town traits of a community? Wouldn’t Sebastopol do better to implement smart growth principles on a smaller scale that matches the size of the town?
New Urbanism respects historic patterns and calls on design to honor a town or city's past. According to New Urbanism, architecture and landscape design should grow from local conditions. Why should we overlay neo-traditional when we already have traditional?
Now take a town like Windsor. Does it respect its history, or is it based on an idealized version of a past that never existed? And what history was obliterated to create this inauthentic "aesthetic"? (Speaking of aesthetics, look closely at how the similar facade elevations cause the buildings to appear as uniform "blocks" rather than individual units constructed at different times by different designers.)
What happens when a project starts with green, New Urbanist principles and then gets handed off to another developer? In the 90's, a New Urbanist community south of Sacramento (Laguna West) was started by former California State Treasurer Phil Angelides and then sold. The transit system was never developed, and employees who work in the development can't afford to live in the residences there. Though this "leapfrog" development has the high density of a New Urbanist community, it represents some of the worst characteristics of suburbia. Could this happen here?
Auto-competitive transit is central to New Urbanism. Can we even begin to talk about four and five story buildings when we have no concrete plan about how to move people from point A to point B? Central to all urban architecture and planning is the definition of streets as places of shared use. High densities will work only if centered around transit systems.
The plans for the East Bay make a lot of sense. The BART parking lots in the East Bay in my lifetime will become multi-storied live/work spaces. Parking garages below high rises are now being built with 10 feet vertical clearance so that they can be converted to non-automobile uses in the future. Transit is--and must be--central to these plans.
Furthermore, transit corridors should not displace investment from existing nearby centers.
My concern is that some are taking these principles out of context--out of their historical context as well, and attempting to impose them on a small town because, well, everyone knows suburbia is bad and smart growth is smart. I think we have to look very carefully into all the nuances, ask a lot of questions, scrutinize historical precedents and models, be aware of our resources and their carrying capacities and move slowly.
Ellen Thompson
Sebastopol Resident