ABSTRACT Smart Growth envisions a reduction in the extension of low-density suburban subdivisions as the predominant pattern of development. New Urbanism reflects a more pedestrian-oriented European style of urban life. Growth policies that target development toward urban infill and revitalization could result in the intensification of ethnic separation. The success of the strategies carries the alternative image of gentrification and displacement of the poor. Were New Urbanism to integrate economic classes through a mixture of housing types and costs (ranging from lofts and live/work units to higher density apartments, townhouses, and even single family detached homes) utilizing adequate subsidies, local governments could provide an optimally designed stock of housing. If designed around transit, it could dramatically improve access-to jobs and other services while offering more diverse neighborhoods. America's major cities include slum housing and a stock of barely habitable shelters which have served as housing for those of very low income, particularly new immigrants. Were these slums and lower-cost shelters replaced by new and revitalized development, cities such as New York or Los Angeles might cease to serve their democratizing and incubation function and the quality of life and opportunity for new immigrants and the poor may diminish. While many European cities are the archetype of New Urbanism, others have been allowed to become unfriendly to the pedestrian and too-automobile dominated. The affluence of Europe has generated a rising middle-class that enjoys driving modern automobiles and prefers the privacy and bucolic appearance of the American suburb. Increasing development of suburban detached homes and increasing automobile trips and ownership poses a threat to the quality of European urban life. As communities grapple with developers of such housing, a New Urbanist design model may offer huge benefits to mitigate the suburban pressure. I. INTRODUCTION American growth patterns have been driven by natural and unnatural forces. Vast amounts of land tended to foster individualism, privacy, and noncontiguous non-compact land use patterns. The national transportation policy of reliance on personal automobile transport resulted in dispersed housing sites and the decline of central cities. Furthermore, American courts have endorsed the doctrine of Euclidean zoning. Euclidean zoning calls for the separation of uses: commercial facilities, offices, single-family detached homes and apartments are all physically separate. (1) This pattern results in the devotion of a substantial portion of regional land for automobile use. (2) It generates traffic congestion, (3) dependence on oil, (4) extraordinary transportation costs for families, (5) higher costs to deliver municipal services, (6) and pollution. (7) In addition to the obvious adverse effects of automobile-based planning, community life disappears under this Dumb Growth. (8) For example, pedestrian life and urban living are exchanged for individuals socializing in private homes or in a few regional destinations that offer entertainment, an ersatz European-type urban walking experience, and a reasonably safe environment--typically the shopping mall. During the past thirty years, the principal response to the effects of suburban sprawl (9) and urban decline has been the American attempt at growth management. Individual communities might utilize devices such as urban growth boundaries, (10) development moratoria, (11) the establishment of complicated systems of annual permit caps, (12) or growth systems linked to infrastructure capacity--that is, to deny permits absent adequate roads, water, sewers, and schools. (13) America's experience in the 20th century has demonstrated the value of regional and comprehensive planning. Individual local growth management initiatives, haphazardly imposed, have failed to generate rational urban design. …
Read full abstract