SEPTEMBER 2007 » book review

Not Good Enough

Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice
by Jill Grant
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London, U.K.; 2006
269 pp.; softcover; 34 b&w photographs and seven illustrations; $39.16
ISBN 0-415-70075-2

Reviewed by Hadiya Strasberg

"People either love or hate New Urbanism," writes Jill Grant in Planning the Good Community. Since New Urbanism was conceived in the late 1970s, its proponents have spread and popularized the movement's ideas and detractors have criticized it from all angles. Neither side seems to budge an inch. Grant, while claiming a desire to bridge this divide, falls more into the latter category, offering critique from page one.

Grant's book is one of a series from Britain's Royal Town Planning Institute that examines the relationship between planning theory and practice. Like others in the series, but distinct from many books on New Urbanism, the book takes an international approach. New Urbanist practices in Britain, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Japan, the U.S. and Canada are discussed.

Planning the Good Community is organized into three parts: "The Rise of New Urban Approaches," "New Urbanism(s) in Practice" and "The Prospects for New Urbanism(s)." While the subjects of each part are clearly delineated, individual chapters in the first and third sections are less comprehensive. Extensive quotations of both proponents and critics – the reader becomes very familiar with Andrés Duany, Leon Krier, Alex Marshall and Emily Talen – aid Grant's arguments, but are overused and often disrupt the flow. (The layout and discussion of the middle part, however, is just the opposite and is clearly presented and argued).

A primer on New Urbanism is given in "The Rise of New Urban Approaches." Grant's brief treatment of historic urban-planning models, such as the industrial and garden city models, is general, but it lays a good foundation for understanding New Urbanism. She next attacks New Urbanist theory, pointing out contradictions within the discourse – the relationship between nature and culture, the importance of Classical or traditional principles.

What is it specifically that Grant dislikes about New Urbanism? For one, she doesn't approve of the "evangelical zeal" of New Urbanists, especially Duany, and the "cult of celebrity" that is formed around champions of the movement. But more importantly, Grant doesn't believe in one of the key tenets of New Urbanism, that growth will be good if the form is correct. "New Urbanism focuses on the aesthetic questions," she writes, "articulating a framework for good physical environments. In doing so, it draws the social from the physical." She adds that in "trying to envision and create the good community, [New Urbanists] join utopians and others who have preceded them in the search for the good community." Apparently, it's a lost cause.

At the same time, Grant raises some crucial issues about New Urbanism, claiming that the theory makes many promises that it cannot deliver. In practice, New Urbanism falls short on diversity and on creating commercial centers. "Affordability, equity, and participation have been secondary," she writes, to getting the projects built. Seaside and Windsor, both in Florida, and many other New Urbanist towns, are vacation communities for the wealthy and even if Duany's argument that high demand drives up prices is correct, the issue needs to be addressed.

Grant writes that "Good design cannot cure a sick society." She points out that urban design only tackles the physical city, and is unable to solve the problems of the city at large. She views New Urbanism, and the HOPE VI program, which has accepted a number of New Urbanist principles, as only window dressing.

But maybe it should be "Good design alone cannot cure a sick society." While New Urbanism cannot claim that its developments promote social integration, prevent crime or resolve many other urban problems, as Grant writes, many people believe that good design, though not the sole solution, does contribute to well-being, and that is not a small feat. On the other hand, Grant makes a valid point that New Urbanists should not say that they are solving social ills through design when that is still largely a theory.

Another attack on New Urbanism is that, from concept to reality, the commercial aspect of various developments is altered. The supply of retail properties exceeds demand and many towns have vacant storefronts. In some instances, retail has moved from the town center to arterial roads in order to attract more business. "In cases where stores fill in, as in Celebration," writes Grant, "the mix may not appeal to local residents. Celebration residents want a hardware store, not gift shops." In this case, residents remain car-dependant. So while most New Urbanist developments aspire to be towns, according to Grant, they are in actuality only attractive suburbs.

Grant is more balanced in her coverage of specific New Urbanist developments, and is particularly strong in investigating the differences in application internationally. Not all North American ideals, such as open, interconnected street grids, translate well into the European model, and many European projects could not be considered to wholly follow New Urbanist principles. The Borneo Sporenburg project in Amsterdam, for instance, can only be considered New Urbanist in the sense that it's an infill and is densely built.

The chapter on New Urban Asia poses the question of whether New Urbanism is adaptable to Japan. Urbanism in Japan is a different animal, and Grant doesn't believe that New Urbanism would be culturally acceptable or particularly beneficial in that country. "Japanese cities feature many principles that new urbanism advocates," writes Grant. "They are high density, compact in form, with narrow streets, mixed use at fine scale, and extensive public transportation systems.…At the same time though, East Asian urbanism plays little attention to the public realm, has relatively little interest in heritage conservation, increasingly accommodates the private automobile, and rarely favors classical design principles or vernacular traditions."

After reviewing a number of New Urbanist communities around the world, Grant writes that "Certainly the North American 'New Urbanism' is by no means universal, despite the claims of some of its adherents about its spread world-wide." New Urbanists, she believes, must embrace the diversity in the world instead of vocalizing the need for universal design principles and solutions.

Ultimately, Grant's argument is that "We are unlikely to find complete consensus on what makes a good community." That is certainly true, but the fact that she offers no suggestions or alternatives leaves the reader hanging. But while some her criticisms of New Urbanism are debatable, many are compelling, and hopefully this book can inspire some important discussions.

«BACK TO SEPTEMBER 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Have something to say about this article? Feel free to comment!

Comments feed