Abstract

We present evidence that New Urbanism, defined as a set of normative urban characteristics codified in the 1996 Charter of the New Urbanism, reached a seminal moment—in mission if not in name—with the 2016 New Urban Agenda, a landmark document adopted by acclamation by all 193 member states of the United Nations. We compare the two documents and find key parallels between them (including mix of uses, walkable multi-modal streets, buildings defining public space, mix of building ages and heritage patterns, co-production of the city by the citizens, and understanding of the city as an evolutionary self-organizing structure). Both documents also reveal striking contrasts with the highly influential 20th century Athens Charter, from 1933, developed by the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne. Yet, both newer documents also still face formidable barriers to implementation, and, as we argue, each faces similar challenges in formulating effective alternatives to business as usual. We trace this history up to the present day, and the necessary requirements for what we conclude is an ‘unfinished reformation’ ahead.

Highlights

  • The New Urban Agenda—the outcome document of the United Nations’ (UN) 2016 Habitat III conference on housing and sustainable urban development—was subsequently adopted by acclamation by all 193 member countries of the UN (UN, 2016)

  • Both documents stand in telling contrast to an earlier seminal document, the 1933 Athens Charter, a landmark of modern urban planning published by the architect Le Corbusier in 1943 on behalf of the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM; Sennett, Burdett, Sassen, & Clos, 2018)

  • The document includes 27 principles sorted by scale following a preamble describing its reformist intent: We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighbourhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice. (Congress for the New Urbanism [CNU], 2020, Preamble)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The New Urban Agenda—the outcome document of the United Nations’ (UN) 2016 Habitat III conference on housing and sustainable urban development—was subsequently adopted by acclamation by all 193 member countries of the UN (UN, 2016). This technical agenda ran closely with a political agenda for Le Corbusier: to develop a consensus between disparate CIAM parties that included unionists, collectivists, Italian fascists, technical experts, and others (Holston, 1989) In the end, it was Le Corbusier’s formulation of functionalism—and of the guiding ideas of urbanisation—that became the authoritative formulation known as the ‘1933 Athens Charter.’. The model features uses segregated by function, dominance of mechanical modes of travel, and replacement of ‘obsolete’ buildings and neighbourhoods with gleaming new structures designed to precise technical specifications by technical experts This was a functionalism in Le Corbusier’s definition of the term: The city would function like a precise machine, precisely combining separate mechanical elements. The consequences of this fateful segregation were evident as this experiment went forward in the 1950s and 1960s

The Era of Reform Begins
The Emergence of ‘the New Urbanism’
The Development of the New Urban Agenda
From the 1996 Charter of the New Urbanism to the 2016 New Urban Agenda
Comparing All Three Documents
Treatment of historic structures and patterns
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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