The pursuit of the American Dream has led to social separation, environmental degradation, and economic frustration. Post-World War II suburban sprawl, spawned by the desire for privacy and security, has created a consumer’s dystopia of isolation and pollution. Meanwhile, America’s historic vision of freedom has manifested itself into car-ownership and the demand for vehicular mobility. The resulting priority of road construction has usurped public funding otherwise used for health care, education, and environmental preservation.
In response to such resource-depleting development, new ideas on efficient, urban design are sustainably paving the way towards a new American Dream. A design and planning movement referred to as the New Urbanism honors a respect for pedestrian life, and promotes public spaces that nurture communities. By applying small-scale, neighborhood design concepts to the bigger picture of smart development, the New Urbanism movement challenges the “placeless”-ness of suburban America. While experts within the field debate between redeveloping urban infill sites or supporting smart growth for new communities, the success of the New Urbanism movement will hinge on the collaboration and cooperation of planners, politicians, and the public on local, regional, and national scales.
The end of World War II marked the beginning of suburbia as the lifestyle choice for many Americans. Post-war paranoia and rising urban crime rates combined with inexpensive rural land and the desire for home ownership spurred a mass exodus to suburban communities. While offering some advantages, this way of life ultimately fragmented American society. The advent of the automobile as an American icon also contributed to breaking down the community bonds that the country was founded upon. As cars contributed to pollution, crime rates soared while city centers deteriorated. The privacy sought in suburban America manifested into feelings of isolation and the loss of tight-knit communities. As the negative effects of suburban sprawl became realized, new concepts on urban development and a respect for open space began to emerge. A planning and design movement that became known as The New Urbanism offers solace in a world plagued by global warming and a lack of connection with nature.
The roots of The New Urbanism stretch back to the traditional city planning that shaped small towns and bustling, early-American cities. However, the notion that the movement is revivalist in nature is far from the truth. Modern technology is a core principle of The New Urbanism. The reality of our consumer-based society and dependency on automobiles is at the forefront of New Urbanist concepts. Rather than reverting to an archaic life of subsistence, The New Urbanism promotes the benefits of modern living while focusing on the importance of community. There is also a profound sense of place and a reverence of the natural world found within the movement. The design plans of New Urbanists reflect sensitivity towards open spaces while structuring communities around public buildings, such as a town hall or library. The application of pedestrian-friendly streets and efficient, mass transit is reflected in many of these urban design plans. Our sense of place and community is greatly enhanced by these applications since they foster the spontaneous interactions that inspire conversation and connection among people. These interactions represent the cornerstones in the foundation of a strong community. In addition to the social benefits of New Urbanist planning, the environment and the economy are also benefactors. The combination of centralized development and effective public transportation leads to prosperous shopping and entertainment districts. This style of urban design also results in less use of automobiles, which lowers pollution and noise levels in our cities and towns. With so many positive effects, it is hard to understand why New Urbanist principles are not being implemented on a larger scale.
The New Urbanism movement is hindered by two distinct factors: a split in the ideology of the movement and a lack of regional planning and communication. Within the New Urbanism movement, there are two distinct factions that argue over the philosophy of urban planning. On one side are those that believe the areas around a metropolis should not be developed until all possible infill and redevelopment sites have been explored. On the other side are those that believe these surrounding areas are more favorable to development because of our current political and financial realities. These professionals feel that suburban growth is inevitable and that it should be directed in a sustainable manner. The truth is that smart planning and design need to occur at the edge of a city just as much as redevelopment and infill need to be realized within. Unfortunately, it is the lack of communication between these two areas that adversely affects the overall efficiency of regional planning. The collaboration of city and county officials, design firms, and the public is essential for urban planning to be effective. Without this “meeting of the minds”, the isolation and pollution caused by suburbia will continue to grow.
Suburban sprawl has fragmented American society, degraded our natural environment, and gradually helped us to spend more and more money on “box store” goods. Americans have lost touch with nature, their neighbors, and even themselves. The New Urbanism movement addresses these issues and presents ideas on connection and community. The key to the movements’ success hinges upon a union of its opposing practitioners as well as the communication and collaboration of people and politicians alike. While it may not save the world today, New Urbanism offers hope for tomorrow.
