Abstract
While New Urbanism is now subject to a range of theorizations from different perspectives and disciplinary approaches, it is rarely framed as part of a society’s overall political development. This article explores New Urbanism through recently ‘cosmopolitanized’ and ‘urbanized’ theories of American Political Development (APD). For many years, APD scholars like Skowronek and Orren have emphasized the conceptual importance of ‘intercurrence,’ which refers to the simultaneous operation of multiple political orders in specific places and thus to the tensions and abrasions between these orders as explanations for change. Urban scholars have engaged with these ideas for some time, particularly in studies of urban politics and policy regimes, but APD’s influence on urban planning theory and practice remains underdeveloped. This article takes up this lacuna, applying select APD ideas, notably intercurrence, to understand how multi-scalar governments develop space though New Urbanist theories of place-making, with special attention paid to race. Examples from metropolitan Seattle are used to illustrate (if not fully elaborate) the article’s overall arguments and themes.
Highlights
From the vantage point of the early 2020s, New Urbanism represents a shift in local planning practice and planning theory after its introduction into North American communities in the late 20th century (Talen, 2000)
The geographical diffusion of New Urbanism in the Seattle city-region was aided by the political development of spatial planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1991/92, when the State of Washington confronted fiscal, environmental, and social inadequacies in how local communitiesmanaged urban growth
Within Seattle, comprehensive planning has selectively spatialized New Urbanism, applying it outside the larger swaths of modernism where mixed-use and transit urbanism confront the durable legacies of Euclidean zoning regimes largely in place since the 1930s, legacies that insinuate themselves in new controversies
Summary
From the vantage point of the early 2020s, New Urbanism represents a shift in local planning practice and planning theory after its introduction into North American communities in the late 20th century (Talen, 2000). New Urbanism, when coupled with the closely associated concept of Smart Growth (Knaap & Talen, 2005), is subject to a range of theorizations from different perspectives and disciplinary approaches It is rarely interpreted as part of a society’s political development and institutional maturation (though see Dierwechter, 2017). The article reflects several site visits in recent years by the author; an analysis of census data on social and economic dynamics; and a review of relevant planning documents and reports both by municipalities and consultants Drawing on these data, mini-case studies aim to illustrate the diverse territorial outcomes associated with New Urbanism in practice. A concluding section recapitulates the article’s main themes and considers ongoing research question for further exploration by planning scholars
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
