2009_0330_ Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

represents an effort to create a fuller and more nuanced framework for urban living." This has often meant calls for a return to the United States cities and towns of the pre-zoning nineteenth century, where, for example, much of the population lived in or around a defined center in densely built enclaves. Walking was one of the principal means of transportation, and most jobs were within city limits. These burgs, we are given to understand, were exemplary in both form and function. New Urbanism mediates for a return to this traditional way of living by implementing zoning and planning norms that will create or recreate such communities. Though sometimes known by other names such as Neotraditional Planning, Traditional Neighborhood Development, Transit-based Development, and even New Suburbanism, in every incarnation New Urbanism extols the virtues of the cities and towns of former times.'g There are numerous critiques of Urbanism which have been launched in the years since the inception of the movement.79 Three of these critiques are particularly salient. First, it is not clear that there is a single type of traditional Urbanism. Next, traditional urban form was for the most part serendipitous, arising more in response to the economic needs, geographic positioning and demographic characteristics of the particular urban locale. Finally, it is not clear that the New Urbanist vision adequately addresses the way that people want to live now. 1. Multiple Strands of Urbanism There is perhaps no single variety of "traditional" Urbanism back to which the New Urbanism may hearken. Urbanism has, according to one scholar, suffered a continual crisis of " Id. 'g J. Barry Cullingworth & Roger Caves, Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues, and Processes 138 (2003). 79 See Talen infra note 76. 22