Old Urbanism, Suburbia & New Urbanism
Here in the St. Louis region we have a little bit of everything — we have old urbanism in the inner core (the city of St Louis) as well as in the many older suburbs that ring the city on both sides of the river. Like every region in America, we have too much suburbia — that auto centric muck that has been growing since WWII.Your know what suburbia is — residential streets with big lawn, no street trees and an increasing number of garage doors. The big box centers with enough parking for the day after Thanksgiving. The indoor mall surrounded by acres of parking. The office park with similar looking buildings casually placed on lush green lawns all set between yet more parking. Being a suburb of the core city is fine — Webster Groves is an old suburb that is walkable in ways St Peters will never be. So my issue is not with suburbs but with suburbia — that very soulless form of building that has predominated America fot the last five or six decades.
So much of our good old urbanism has been destroyed remaking core cities with touches of suburbia.
Old urbanism was built for people on foot. Streets were narrow by today’s standards. Each neighborhood had a commercial area within a short walk. The streetcar was not far away which could get you to the bigger stores downtown. No zoning regulated this. It just was. And it worked well until we reached a tipping point with the car — fewer pedestrians and more cars through it all out of balance. While old urbanism was great for people it did a poor job accommodating the car.
The solution of the day was not to tweak our existing environments but to rip them out entirely. The new suburbia was proudly proclaimed as “progress.” Once narrow streets were widened and those neighborhood shops moved to the new strip centers or the open air mall.
In the early 1980s a few people began questioning the status quo and looks to the past for ways to make walkable communities while still making room for the car. The first result was Seaside, Florida — as seen in the movie The Truman Show. Widely dismissed due to its resort nature, many said the principals couldn’t be applied elsewhere — that we were basically stuck with suburbia as the model for future development both in core areas and on the edges.
But a diverse group of Architects and Planners refused to accept suburbia as the only way, founding the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) in 1993. Today people are still foolishly dismissive of New Urbanism — saying it is just nostalgia in the corn field. This view is so narrow it looks at a few projects but doesn’t take into account the depth of the guiding principals found in the Charter of the CNU.
About a decade ago there started being talk of a big New Urbanist project in our region. The resulting project was Paul McKee’s Winghaven (yes, that Paul McKee). In August 2001 Peter Downs authored a story on Winghaven for the RFT; The Gospel According to Paul.
Though the experiment is barely half-done, some people are already proclaiming it a stunning success. “WingHaven will be cited for the next 25 years as a great example of a new form of urban development,” says Richard Fleming, president and chief executive officer of the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association.
By this point we had seen enough to know that Winghaven was not New Urbanism, despite what Fleming had to say. At the time I was part of a casual group of architects and planners known as New Urban St Louis. After this article appeared architect John Hoag, planner Todd Antoine and I drafted a letter to the editor on behalf of our group. We wrote, in part:
While we applaud Paul McKee’s efforts to break the current mold of suburban development in the St. Louis region, several points are worth mentioning.
New Urbanists identify with one of two camps: developments in suburban “greenfields” or revitalizing existing neighborhoods in the urban core and inner suburbs. New Urbanists believe strengthening the urban core is vital to sustaining long- term regional growth while acknowledging that greenfield development will continue. New development, whether in the urban core or in greenfields, benefits by incorporating New Urbanist principles. New Urbanism does not imply a strict return to nostalgic remembrances of the past. Instead, it is based on design and planning principles nurtured and refined over centuries of town- building that have been largely forgotten over the last 50 years. Problems such as affordable housing, lack of connectiveness and inadequate public transportation plague many suburban areas. Solutions include pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use and transit-oriented development which offers real alternatives to auto-oriented sprawl.
The St. Louis region is blessed with fine older examples of traditional neighborhoods exhibiting many aspects of New Urbanist designs. However, the region is lacking the breakthrough projects seen in Memphis, Dallas and Minneapolis. We encourage developers, bankers and local government officials to explore the rich variety of New Urbanist developments in the U.S. already completed or in the planning process.
Since this time we’ve seen real New Urbanism come to our region via New Town at St Charles. New Town is a project of Whittaker Builders. I’ve had the good fortune to have spent some good one on one time with Greg Whittaker talking about the project and what led him in this direction. Whittaker, like most large home builders in our region, was responsible for a number of the typical subdivisions that define suburbia. Greg Whittaker spent vacation time at Seaside Florida and he began to wonder if they could do something different than they had. The answer was yes.
Building new (or old) urbanism is not a simple task. First of all, based on current zoning, it is illegal —- even in the City of St Louis. Zoning in much of the country mandates suburbia — be it in the old urban core or on corn fields at the edge of each region. The site where New Town is located was zoned for industrial park development. If someone wanted to recreate the intersection of Euclid & Maryland (old urbanism) on the long vacant Pruitt-Igoe site they could not do so based on our current zoning code which dates to 1947.
Our zoning code is like most in the U.S. — it is what is known as use based zoning. That is the code tells you where certain uses are allowed (so much for mixed use areas) and finally how much parking each use much have. Always back to parking — this is why instead of contiguous commercial districts as in the old urbanism newer areas have each building surrounded by parking. With all this parking between buildings you lose that connected feel of a truly walkable environment.
New Urbanist developments like New Town use their own codes — with the city or county adopting that code as an overlay for that site. These codes are not use based — they don’t care if you want to put a hardware store or an insurance company in a storefront space — they are more concerned with the design of the storefront. This is not to say that you can open a slaughterhouse on a street of single family homes. But having commercial spaces with residential units above just around the corner from single family homes is to be expected — something you don’t see in residential subdivisions today.
Codes in new urbanist projects are “form-based” codes — these control how the buildings relate to each other and to the public street. Cities such as Denver are also using form-based codes to regulate how urban infill will be built in various parts of town.
While New Urbanism is not perfect it is a starting point for building communities that respect people while also accommodating the car. New Urbanists such as Peter Calthorpe tend to have a much more modern aesthetic as opposed to DPZ (planners behind New Town) that rely on a more familiar vernacular aesthetic. Aesthetics aside they all seek to mix uses, provide a walkable environment and reduce dependence on the car. Rather than dismiss New Urbanism we should embrace it as a means for ending the mandated suburbia we have now.
Keep in mind I personally would not want to live in a New Urbanist place on the outer edges of a region. However as a model for sites such as the former Pruitt_Igoe it is ideal. I could live there as I’d be close to the old urbanism that remains in the city. Nobody should have to live in zoning mandated suburbia.
Well you don’t mention it, I fear the problem with new urbanism is the lack of jobs (and well paying ones at that). Unlike the old cities which can fit major employers within their midsts, New town and the like will still have to commute to their jobs.
Wow. Steve, you and I have had a few exchanges on the merits of the New Urbanist movement as essentially borne by Andres Duany, his wife Elizabeth, Elizabeth Moule, Peter Calthorpe, Stefanos Polyzoides. Robert Davis, developer of the now well-known resort town of Seaside, Florida, recently wrote an editorial piece in Urban Land magazine stating in no uncertain terms that the New Urbanism NEVER was intended to focus on brownfield, infill development. I, for one, was rather off-put after reading such an unequivocal repudiation of the assertion by the urban infill camp (of which I belong) that the movement’s inception was just so noble. Rather than feeling disillusionment after reading Mr. Davis’ article, my suspicion about the movement’s now enormously successful founders was vindicated. I will admit the one inescapable maxim which is that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and that the New Urbanist movement is currently taking the fight directly to those that the more traditional urbanists such as myself are poorly equipped to battle, but remain disappointed in the partisan split in the camps you described in your post. Form-based zoning is inarguably the very best platform for true urban revitalization, and perhaps most importantly sustainable development, especially when social justice is factored into what LEED to date conveniently omits. I insist that the urban core with its curious open lots or full-blown superfund toxic meadows has largely been ignored by the monied developers rolling out the New Urbanist master plans in bucolic greenfields, aggravatingly far away from established infrastructural urbanity. I was planning to go to the Royale last Saturday to welcome you back, but hope to run into you somewhere in the city to continue this conversation on New Urbanism.
One, I like density and new-urbansitic design principles. Two, I’m not a fan of much of what we see in contemporary suburbia. Three, unfortunately, I don’t think that form-based zoning is “the answer”. Four, our current zoning is only partially to blame – its parking requirements can skew commercial development in the wrong direction, but overall, it’s a reflection of community desires, not a mojor impediment to “good” design.
.
Our real problem is one of economics, attitudes and expectations. As you point out, NTSC required overlay zoning (and it happened). It also required a developer with a vision, willing to take some risks, along with enough buyers and/or a smart marketing program to “move the product”. The reason Pruitt-Igoe isn’t being developed as a new-urbansitic showcase isn’t its zoning, it’s because of a whole lot of historcal baggage/location combined with a flat, at best, real estate market on the north side – the risks are perceived to far outweigh any potential rewards.
.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to form-based zoning – it would help steer any development in a better direction IF any significant investment were to happen. And while now (when development isn’t happening) would be a great time to create such a vision, we walk a fine line between creating an appropriate vision/goals and creating a set standards that will be viewed by too many in the development community as being too onerous. I don’t have the answer(s) on how to kick start the financial side of the equation, I’m just leery of assuming that the planning solution du jour will be the savior St. Louis needs to bring back vibrancy to its struggling parts of town.
.
Suburbia is what it is (and also why it’s intruding on older urban areas) simply because it “answers the question”, well enough, for the majority of the people out there. Retail customers have become accustomed to having free parking – that’s one big reason why I believe both Union Station and Laclede’s Landing are struggling, while places like Gravois Bluffs and Gumbo Flats are booming. People have choices – they can either live in the city with an easier commute and the challenges of the SLPS and the earnings tax, or they can live in St. Chuck with better schools and a longer commute. Fixing zoning won’t change the other issues. Rising gas prices might, but it’s a mixed blessing – if you can’t sell your house or SUV for what you owe on it, you’re pretty much stuck.
.
I know I’m sounding way too cynical. Form-based zoning is working in Denver for two big reasons, their leaders (mayor, city council and neighborhood groups) have embraced it and the booming (until recently) real estate market has created significant demand for new, in-town, in-fill development. Combine that with suburban growth that is sprawling much faster than anything around here and an anti-tax mentality that makes it harder to build new roads and the tradoffs for urban living become a lot more attractive. But the real driver remains the bottom line – time is money, and the tradeoffs there are much more attractive than the tradeoffs here . . .
New Urbanism is the best development that St. Charles county has had in many decades, but clearly is half a loaf. It’s nice that you can walk to a corner store to buy overpriced groceries in a pinch. But when I lived in a sprawling subdivision in St. Peters, I could still walk to Schnuck’s, WalMart, and dozens of other businesses. Residents of New Town have to drive everywhere. If the price of gasoline continues to rise, living in a development that’s a mile and half from a highway spur connecting the “outerbelt” with the middle of nowhere won’t seem so smart, even if they do have a coffee shop and a yoga center.
.
Personally, I think rising gas prices will produce marginal changes, but not wholesale shifts. You won’t see a rush from Wentzville to developments in ONSL or Pruitt Igoe – between the SLPS, the earnings tax, higher property taxes, and a serious crime problem, moving to the city still remains unattractive to most people, and especially to those who have already “voted with their feet” for a homogeneous upper-middle-class suburban lifestyle. But you will see some people choosing a smaller house in Kirkwood over a larger house in Wentzville – or, as in my case, a larger home in Ferguson over a much more expensive one in St. Peters.
.
All this brings to mind a very important point: The Post-Dispatch, in an editorial on Tuesday (link below —link removed as it is not permanent), pressed the need for tax increase to continue building roads. While I know it goes against the “progressive” position generally taken around here, this might be a good time for urban folks to oppose a tax for a change. It’s hard to imagine that the urban core population would have departed for Wentzville and Arnold were it not for the huge highway projects that literally paved the way for urban decay. If the SMSA population continues to increase, and we freeze the expansion of suburban commuter highways, the ultimate result will be higher demand for urban core housing, and the investment needed to reverse decades of urban decay. It won’t happen in a year, and it won’t create a big media event like a new stadium (or a new highway), but it will happen. But only if we stop building the roads.
.
Jim, obviously there is no single answer to any large-scale development quandary, however your own description of the observable successes, in a largely libertarian environ of suburban Denver (led by Stapleton), seems to betray your first comment regarding community desires. There can be do doubt that good urban form is governable, and can be conceived in labratory previous to implementation. It’s rather compelling, wouldn’t you say, that the “planning solution du jour” is one that reflects the very successful and well-understood patterns of the past (and of course, pre-single-use zoning), and not some more far flung, unearthly concept, cut right from the pages of a science fiction novel, that leaves everyone incredulous. Form-based zoning, as it has been presented and now being realized in pockets across this country, does present the strongest possibility of governable urban form. Combined with the ability to “move the product” to the conscientious consumer, and winning the battle of form over plentiful and free parking, we already have the foundation for revitalization.
P-I would be an excellent such labratory for visioning, as it’s ultimate fate will likely beget the fate of the Blairmont/LRA fields to the immediate north in St. Louis Place (5th Ward). The overlay zoning (PUD) that would absolutely be required to acheive anything urbanists esteem doesn’t seem a hindrance so much as it seems an effective tool. The very existence of such a vacuum of what could be at P-I lends itself to at least the academic experiments that often lead to actual developments. Showing is Knowing.
Jim,
Lately I’ve read that Denver is generally considered to be “conservative”. Say, as opposed to St. Louis, which is generally considered to be liberal. You mention that Denver has rampant sprawl, within its city limits in that Denver is not constrained the way St. Louis city is. Given the western, low density, rural/farm makeup of Denver and Colorado, are comparisons to St. Louis very meaningful? Denverites seem more like Californians and Idahoans than St. Louisans.
.
I’m guessing you find a higher percentage of foreign cars in Denver than St. Louis. I’m guessing St. Louis is more union than Denver. I’m guessing St. Louis is more Catholic than Denver. I’m guessing St. Louis has a much higher percentage of kids in parochial/private schools than Denver. I’m guessing St. Louis has way more neighborhood fabric over 50 years old than Denver.
.
Wouldn’t we be better off comparing ourselves to places like Cleveland and Cincinatti than Denver? Or maybe not comparing us to anywhere and just looking at our local situation? Western states seem much more into the uber-planning model of centralized government than St. Louis. So whatever “best practice” approaches they follow do what for us?
When asked why a business or neighborhood fails, my friends in St Chuck always explains “not enough free parking”. Car culture mentality dominates the StL region and it is supported/underwritten by public funds via MOdot, StL County Highway Dept., the allocation of funding for law enforcement, court precedents, etc.
– –
Richmond Heights in reviewing options for the Hadley Township was presented with New Urbanist designs but rejected the concepts. Blight, eminent domain and court cases quickly followed. As planned, Hanley Rd south of 40 is about to become more crowded with more motorized vehicles, more strip malls and more parking lots. “Suburbia” is heading east and will be downtown soon…it is a divided community by design.
While I do believe that zoning rules regarding parking are a big problem, I don’t think zoning is the problem overall. To me, it comes back to the 3 most important real estate rules; location, location, location. If you wanted to recreate Euclid and Maryland in Pruitt-Igoe, I’m confindent you could get over the zoning hurdles. What you probably couldn’t do is get enough middle class people to move in the neighborhood to make it work.
What’s with all the ripping on MoDot recently? They’re nothing but bureaucrats who do what the law and the government of Missouri tells them to do.
Don’t like what MoDot does? Vote accordingly, and fight to change the laws.
Mike S, while you’re doubtlessly correct about the current perception of the P-I site and the surrounding neighborhood, I have to believe the slow but steady success of ONSL shows encouraging signs. The willingness of middle class urban pioneers (perhaps formerly of the suburbs, but most likely progressive-minded individuals with very young children or no children at all) to adopt the irreplaceable historic structures that scream out to be preserved is based upon the very history that is irreplaceable. In order for new development to succeed, the vitality of the revived historic pockets in adjacent neighborhoods must be visible and project a reassuring sense of safety and stability. Of all the hurdles that do exist, and all the challenges that must be met, not having the interest in showing the possibilities because of pathological fear or simple resignation of hopelessness will move nothing forward.
“But when I lived in a sprawling subdivision in St. Peters, I could still walk to Schnuck’s, WalMart, and dozens of other businesses.”
You must have been the exception to the rule. I lived there as well and this is really impossible. I can’t really name many developments which are pedestrian friendly as most streets don’t have sidewalks and are illogically separated from residential.
New Urbanism may be an improvement over suburbia, however when placed in St. Charles it is still leapfrogged development and without regional planning that pattern will probably not change.
New Town is still an example of an exclusionary mentality, whereas internally it might be heterogeneous in terms of prices and land uses, it is still quite a distance from the inner core and its denizens.
Denver politically is liberal within the city, much like St. Louis is, while many of the suburbs are more conservative and republican. Both Denver & St. Louis are city and county combinations, so they can’t expand thru annexations. Suburban sprawl growth in metro Denver is happening outside the city limits, primarily in Doulglas and Weld Counties. The big infill project in Denver is Stapleton, the old airport – think the size and proximity to downtown as Lambert is now, with a new airport being built out in O’Fallon. The city owned a large, well-located parcel. Since they owned it, they could both impose more creative and restrictive design guidelines and select a developer, in their case, Forest City, that would be willing to implement the vision. They were also blessed with very healthy demand for both residential and commercial real estate.
.
Denverites seem more like Californians and Idahoans than St. Louisans – yes.
.
A higher percentage of foreign cars in Denver than St. Louis – yes.
.
St. Louis is more union than Denver – yes.
.
St. Louis is more Catholic than Denver – yes.
.
St. Louis has a much higher percentage of kids in parochial/private schools than Denver – yes.
.
St. Louis has way more neighborhood fabric over 50 years old than Denver – no, Denver has many viable, well-maintained and desirable older neighborhoods.
.
Sure, we can compare St. Louis to Cincinnati or Cleveland or Detroit or Pittsburgh. We can also compare ourselves to Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta or Portland. But by choosing to compare ourselves to struggling rust-belt cities, instead of cities who’ve experienced recent successes, we lock ourselves into having small visions. Union, Catholic and parochial can be an excuse for a lot of things, but it shouldn’t be an excuse for encouraging suburban flight. Attitudes in any city vary, and reflect the attitudes of their citizens. Until we can jump start our economy and create more demand for our existing urban fabric and built environment, we’re going to see continued pressure to do dumb, low-cost suburban projects by tearing down otherwise-good buildings that “nobody wants”, no matter what sort of urban planning vision we embrace. Unfortunately, it is all about the dollars. It takes demand to create density, and it takes density to make providing ample, free parking as less and less of a wise choice.
And without something to show those who otherwise view the areas badly in need of urban revitalization, there will be no demand to create that density. What are we marketing?
Gas prices, supply and demand are hopefully going to be excellent for American cities. I would hope and imagine that zoning laws and density requirements are going to change as a result of people balking at gas. New urbanism is going to become newer with a wave of people looking for proximity to public transport for work or home. I’m excited about the gas prices and what it represents for this country.
I embrace the TND for residential and commercial development. In fact, I believe in it and I build it, as a land developer. We react to our environment. It begins inside our home, and extends to our circle of work and play. I've lived in McMansions in the sprawl, and I've lived in a cottage in old urbanism. I've built both sprawl and traditional neighborhoods. From my small perspective, there's a world of difference. And in my strong advocacy of TNDs, yet I have a strong opionion about balance. I feel that the basis of TND is sound: narrow streets, grids, tree linded streets, pocket parks, porches and alleys, restraint in architecture, mixed use zoning, etc. But where I part in philosophy is in “modern” political thought. I believe that mixing “good urbanistic thought” with “political action movements” like global warming, the energy crisis, government subsistence, etc is a black eye on a good movement, making it appear to be too fringe. I also belong to a group that ships oil from overseas to the US. While there is an “apparent” shortage of oil, I can hardly find buyers…because the distributors and refineries have more than they can handle. True story from the inside. There's more oil in the continental US than all the middle east reserves combined. Just as environmentalism has its proper place…and it's extremists, so goes the new urbanism movement. We make more progess moving TNDs to the fore front by being balanced and realistic in our approach. Good urbanism stands the test of many hundreds of years in existence. Modern political movements have no such claim, whether ultimately true or not. But let's not dilute the strength of urbanism with the weakness of the unproven popular movements.
Lorin
I embrace the TND for residential and commercial development. In fact, I believe in it and I build it, as a land developer. We react to our environment. It begins inside our home, and extends to our circle of work and play. I've lived in McMansions in the sprawl, and I've lived in a cottage in old urbanism. I've built both sprawl and traditional neighborhoods. From my small perspective, there's a world of difference. And in my strong advocacy of TNDs, yet I have a strong opionion about balance. I feel that the basis of TND is sound: narrow streets, grids, tree linded streets, pocket parks, porches and alleys, restraint in architecture, mixed use zoning, etc. But where I part in philosophy is in “modern” political thought. I believe that mixing “good urbanistic thought” with “political action movements” like global warming, the energy crisis, government subsistence, etc is a black eye on a good movement, making it appear to be too fringe. I also belong to a group that ships oil from overseas to the US. While there is an “apparent” shortage of oil, I can hardly find buyers…because the distributors and refineries have more than they can handle. True story from the inside. There's more oil in the continental US than all the middle east reserves combined. Just as environmentalism has its proper place…and it's extremists, so goes the new urbanism movement. We make more progess moving TNDs to the fore front by being balanced and realistic in our approach. Good urbanism stands the test of many hundreds of years in existence. Modern political movements have no such claim, whether ultimately true or not. But let's not dilute the strength of urbanism with the weakness of the unproven popular movements.
Lorin
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.