Applying the New Urbanism Theory in Urban Planning: Proponents and Opponents

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MA in Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran

2 Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

Over the past few decades, the new urbanism has emerged as a controversial alternative against traditional and conventional patterns of urban development. As a pioneering movement, it was developed in response to the failure of cities and suburbs in the mid-twentieth century. The new urbanists, like the advocates of garden cities and before them the modernists, began their work with great hopes to meet the needs of marginalized groups and restore the beauty and character of the cities. In this regard, this study seeks to answer these questions: To what extent has new urbanism been able to lead to planning a good community? How is new urbanism developing its own theory and how does it help us understand this theory? By means of content analysis, various ideas and views about new urbanism and its formation from theory to practice have been reviewed and criticized and finally, the advantages and disadvantages of its implementation in Iran are discussed. The results of the study reveal that although the new urbanists envisioned cities without suburbs, but in practice they have not yet been able to properly apply the values that this normative theory adheres to in order to make good communities. Their critics express that new urbanists ultimately serve the interests of the development process instead of rescuing the cities and the choices suggested by new urbanist forms mainly favor the production and sustainability of economic activities in the sale market rather than being in line with peoples’ preferences. The new urbanist designers support a variety of forms in order to respect urban diversity but do not tolerate opposing views about the shape and character of urban environments. The new urbanist approach considers the democratic participation in contrast with the expert decisions made by qualified designers who know the formal principles of a good community. In their view, democracy can downgrade the quality of urban planning.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

لطیفی، غلامرضا، و صفری چابک، ندا (1392). بازآفرینی مفهوم محله در شهرهای ایرانی- اسلامی بر پایه اصول نوشهرگرایی، مجله علوم اجتماعی، شماره 66،  صص: 66 – 58 
حبیبی، سید محسن (1387). چگونگی الگوپذیری و تجدید سازمان استخوان‌بندی محله، مجله هنرهای زیبا، دوره 13، شماره 13، صص: 39-32.
حبیبی سید محسن؛ تحصیلدار، مهدی، و پور محمدرضا، نوید (1390). شرحی بر اصول و قواعد شهرسازی بومی در ارتباط با نظریه‌های معاصر شهرسازی، مسکن و محیط روستا، سال  30 ، شماره  135، صص: 22-3.
هاشم زاده، هاشم، و ملکیان، بتول (1390). بررسی رویکردهای محله گرا در طراحی توسعه‏های جدید شهری با تأکید بر نوشهرسازی. ماهنامه علمی- تخصصی- پژوهشی عمران، معماری و شهرسازی، شماره  11، صص: 49-43 .
Alexander, C., 1979, the Timeless Way of Building, New York: Oxford University Press.
Barber, J., 1997, Where the American dream lives on, The Globe and Mail, 4 June, A2.
Baxandall, R., Ewen, E., 2000, Picture Windows: How the suburbs happened, New York: Basic Books.
Brindley, T., 2003, the social dimension of the urban village: a comparison of models for sustainable urban development, Urban Design International 8: 53–65.
Boyer, M. C., 1983, dreaming the Rational City: The myth of American city planning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bohl, C., 2002, Place Making: Developing town centers, main streets, and urban villages, Washington: Urban Land Institute.
Bohl, C., 2000, new urbanism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods’, Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 761–801.
Bookout, L., 1992b, Neotraditional town planning: Cars, pedestrians and transit, Urban Land 51(2): 10–15.
Calthorpe, P., 1993, the Next American Metropolis, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Chiras, D., Wann, D., 2003, Superbia! 31 ways to create sustainable neighborhoods, Gabriola Island BC: New Society Publishers.
Day, K., 2003, New urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity, Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 83–95.
Douglas, M., 1966, Purity and Danger: An analysis of pollution and taboo, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Douglas, M., Isherwood, B., 1996, The World of Goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption, London: Routledge.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., Alminara, R., 2003, the New Civic Art, New York: Rizzoli.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. Speck, J., 2000, Suburban Nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream, New York: North Point Press.
Foster, S., Hooper, P., Knuiman, M., Bull, F., Giles-Corti, B., 2016, Are Liveable Neighbourhoods Safer eighbourhoods? Testing the Rhetoric on NewUrbanism and Safety from Crime in Perth, Western Australia’, Social Science & Medicine
Friedman, A., 1979, the Good Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frey, H., 1999, Designing the City, London: E & FN Spon.
Foucault, M., 1977, Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison, trans. A. Sheridan, New York: Vintage Books Random House.
Grant, J., Manuel, P., Joudrey, D., 1996, a framework for planning sustainable residential landscapes, Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3): 331–344.
Grant, J., Marcotullio, P., Sorensen, A., 2004, Towards land management policies for more sustainable cities, in A. Sorensen, P. Marcotullio and J. Grant (eds), Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 301–308.
Grant, J., Saito, H., Itoh, K., 2002, The effects of administrative structure on planning outcomes: comparing Canada and Japan, Faculty of Sociology Bulletin (Chukyo University, Toyota, Japan) 16(1): 87–107.
Grant, J, Tsenkova, S., 2012, New Urbanism and Smart Growth Movements, International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home,pp 120–126
Grant, J., 2015, New Urbanism, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 809–814.
Hall, D. D., 1998, Community in the new urbanism: design vision and symbolic crusades, Traditional Dwellings and Settlement Review 9(11): 23–36.
Harvey, D., 1994, Flexible accumulation through urbanization: reflections on “Post-modernism” in the American city, in A. Amin (ed.), Post-Fordism: A reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 361–386.
Harvey, D., 1989, the Urban Experience, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hebbert, M., 1986, Urban sprawl and urban planning in Japan, Town Planning Review 57(2): 141–158.
Hammond, M., 1972, the City in the Ancient World, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heins, M., 2015, Finding Common Ground Between New Urbanism and Landscape Urbanism, Journal of Urban Design, pp. 293-302
Jacobs, J., 1961, Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books.
Kelbaugh, D., 2002, repairing the American Metropolis: Common place revisited, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Kelbaugh, D. (ed.), 1989, The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A new suburban design strategy, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Kelbaugh, D., 1997, Common Places: Toward neighborhood and regional design, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Klosterman, R., 1980, A public interest criterion, Journal of the American Planning Association 46: 323–333.
Krier, L., 1998, Architecture: Choice or fate, Singapore: Andreas Papadakis Publisher
Krier, L., 1978, the reconstruction of the city, Rational Architecture. La reconstruction de la ville Europeanne, Bruxelles: Archives d’Architecture Moderne, pp. 38–42, 163–80.
Krier, L., 1984a, Drawings (Originally in Archives d’Architecture Moderne, Brussels, xxv–xxxi, (1980), Revised version in Architectural Design 54 (Nov/Dec), pp. 16–22.
Krier, L., 1984b, Houses, Palaces, Cities, D. Porphyrios (ed.), London: Architectural  DesignEditions
Krieger, A. (ed.), 1991, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: Towns and town-making principles, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, New York: Rizzoli.
Leung, H.-L., 1995, a new kind of sprawl, Plan Canada 35(5): 4–5.
Lynch, K., 1981, A Theory of Good City Form, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcuse, P., 2000, the new urbanism: the dangers so far, DISP 140: 4–6.
Pyatok, M., 2000, Comment on Charles C. Bohl’s “New urbanism and the city”. The politics of design: the new urbanists vs. the grass roots, Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 803–14.
Robertson, J., 1984, The empire strikes back, In D. Porphyrios (ed.), Leon Krier, Houses, Palaces, Cities, London: Architectural Design Editions, pp. 11–18,
Rabinow, P., 1984, the Foucault Reader, New York: Pantheon Books.
Rae, D., 2003, City: Urbanism and its end, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rees, A., 2003, New urbanism: visionary landscapes in the twenty-first century, in M. Lindstrom and H. Bartling (Eds), Suburban Sprawl: Culture, theory, and politics, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 93–114.
Shipley, R. Newkirk, R., 1998, Visioning: Did anyone see where it came from? Journal of Planning Literature 12(4): 407–416.
Shibley, R., 2002, Placemaking as a critique of new urbanism, Planners Network 151: 6–8.
Sandercock, L., 1998, Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities, Chichester UK: John Wiley.
Song, Y., Knaap, G.J., 2003, New urbanism and housing values: a disaggregate assessment’, Journal of Urban Economics 54: 218–238.
Talen, E., Ellis, C., 2002, Beyond relativism: reclaiming the search for good city form’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 22: 36–49.
Talen, E., 2001, Traditional urbanism meets residential affluence: an analysis of the variability of suburban preference, Journal of the American Planning Association 67(2): 199–216.
Tu, C. C., Eppli, M. J., 1999, Valuing new urbanism: the case of Kentlands, Real Estate Economics 27(3): 425–451.
Wyatt, R., 2004, the great divide: differences in style between architects and urban planners, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 21(1): 38–54.
Zimmerman, J., 2001, the “nature” of urbanism on the new urbanist frontier: sustainable development, or defense of the suburban dream? , Urban Geography 22(3): 249-67.
Urban Planning Knowledge
Volume 1, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
April 2018
Pages 101-117

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 October 2017
  • Revise Date: 10 December 2017
  • Accept Date: 06 March 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics