Tanzer: What is New Urbanism, and why should you care?

OPINION

BY KIM TANZER

Recently, while speaking to a local civic organization, I mentioned the term “New Urbanism.” Seeing a room full of blank stares, I asked if everyone knew what it meant. No one did.

This response surprised me: In recent years, almost every local planning decision made by Gainesville’s elected community leaders and professional planners has been based on their adherence to the theory of New Urbanism. As I will describe, many of our community’s concerns stem from the misapplication of the principles of New Urbanism.

First, what is it? New Urbanism is a theory of urban design invented in the 1980s by Miami architects Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Andres Duany. It has been expanded and developed by dozens of very smart, talented, committed architects working with them since that time. Sometimes called Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), it embraces and tries to replicate the lessons of historic, pre-World War II cities and towns. 

Duany and Plater-Zyberk demonstrated their concepts in the design of Seaside, Florida. They also founded an organization, the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), to promote their philosophy and architectural style. 

New Urbanism was originally intended to counter mid-century suburban sprawl by advocating connected street networks rather than cul-de-sacs, local shopping districts, and traditional (early 20^th century) architectural designs. Its intention was to reduce dependence on automobiles by making more walkable communities. They theorized that by reducing sprawl, more land might be saved for conservation and agriculture.

Now, two generations later, principles of New Urbanism are at use in many new “greenfield” developments across the country (those built on former “green” farmland or forests). Some planners have also adopted New Urban principles to revitalize existing American cities. Around 20 years ago, Gainesville’s leaders joined this movement and have attempted to re-create parts of Gainesville using its principles. 

In my view, Gainesville has made two major mistakes in implementing New Urbanism, and much of the widespread frustration with current local development stems from these mistakes. First, except for a small group of afficionados, few locally know what New Urbanism is. New Urbanism’s local promoters have failed to educate the community. 

Second, and more important, based on results, it seems our local New Urbanists do not, themselves, either understand or implement the concepts well. New Urbanism is a sophisticated system of prescriptive rules intended to work together to make walkable communities, like a nutritious “prix fixed” menu in a restaurant with an excellent chef. In Gainesville, the “menu” is being treated like an “all-you-can-eat buffet,” heavy on desserts and light on veggies. 

New Urbanism is a thoughtful, complex system. For this reason, the Congress for the New Urbanism developed a “model code” called the SmartCode that details all these rules, so that cities adopting it can just follow the instructions. It is like a well-considered urban design “recipe.”

Gainesville incorporated portions of the New Urbanism SmartCode in 2017 as part of a major rewrite of its zoning ordinances. But, to continue the metaphor, Gainesville modified the “recipe,” changing proportions and ignoring some ingredients. Even since its recent adoption, Commissioners have further changed Gainesville’s zoning on the fly, from the dais, and planners have ignored rules they themselves wrote.

What are the major principles of New Urbanism, and where has Gainesville gone wrong? First, here are a few key summarized principles (from a long list):

Transect Zoning

The SmartCode begins with an introduction titled “Transect-Based Planning.” The principle – observed in older cities all over the world – is that architectural development is denser (taller, closer together) towards a city’s center and sparser near the city’s edge. A diagram explains how cities traditionally grow, progressing from one-story rural and suburban areas to taller buildings, in an orderly, predictable fashion. 

Mixed Use and Vertical Zoning

In many older cities, buildings contain shopping or offices on the ground floor and living spaces above. It is one reason traditional cities are walkable – shopping is very near where people live and work. This is called “vertical zoning” because various buildings’ uses are separated by floors, rather than being segregated into different parts of the cities. 

Pedestrian “sheds”

Like a watershed, a pedestrian “shed” is the area from which people will walk to conduct everyday business. New Urbanists say five minutes, or about ¼ mile, is as far as most people will routinely walk. A key part of a successful pedestrian shed is green space, and the SmartCode requires frequent street trees and public parks to make walking pleasant.

Transit-Oriented Design (TOD)

As traditional cities evolved in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, public transit became more available and more important. Railroads, trolleys, subways, and buses, all running along major streets, help people move from one part of a city to another. New Urbanism relies on dependable public transit routes and specifies that denser development should occur along these lines.

Form-based codes

New Urbanism takes the position that what happens inside a building is less important than how it shapes the street or other public space. They see buildings as stage sets for our shared public life, streets and squares to be lived in. Admirably, New Urbanists are trying to recreate a shared public realm. 

Traditional Design

New Urbanism harkens back to simpler times, sometimes identified with certain building styles. While the SmartCode does not specify particular architectural styles, many adherents prefer designs with traditional features – pitched roofs, cornices, classically-inspired details. The SmartCode itself blends colloquial terms like “stoop,” “shopfront,” and “yard” with the more abstract vocabulary of professional designers – “massing,” “setback,” “frontage.” 

The above concepts are among the most important identified by New Urbanists to address the excesses of post-WW2 development in America, and they merit meaningful discussion in our community.

Where has Gainesville gone wrong? 

Even many who support New Urbanism in theory are dismayed by the way Gainesville has changed in recent years. This is because our decision-makers do not understand, or perhaps accept, that New Urbanism is a holistic system of prescriptive rules. Our town’s missteps, I would argue, come from ignoring both the integrated nature of the SmartCode and its key advice – to consider the local context and seek advice from local design professionals.

Here are a few common local complaints and a brief explanation of why Gainesville’s approach strays from New Urbanism principles:

Many of Gainesville’s new buildings are too tall by community standards and, importantly, according to the New Urbanism SmartCode. While Gainesville allows 14-story buildings to be built in some places, the SmartCode says only the largest cities should allow buildings taller than six stories. 

Some of Gainesville’s buildings are too short if mixed use, density, and vertical zoning are considered desirable. Gainesville’s zoning code allows six-story development at Butler Plaza, the intersection of 34^th Street and University Avenue, and along NW 13^th Street near 23^rd Avenue. All these sites have been redeveloped in the past five years, yet they are all one-story retail developments, containing no housing.

The transect system of stepped density is being ignored. The most egregious examples are near the University, but other surprisingly tall new development will soon emerge.

Dense development is occurring all over the place. Looking at a Gainesville zoning map is like looking at an explosion in a confetti factory. There is no logic regarding where density occurs, and some parts of the city are zoned using both systems simultaneously – New Urban-based transects and traditional use-based zones. Zoning is intended to provide predictability, and our City’s misapplication of the transect concept leads to constant unpleasant surprises.

Roads are being closed and parking eliminated. While New Urbanists favor pedestrian-friendly places, they are realistic about automobiles. They rely on alleys, parking tucked behind buildings, and reduced parking, but, unlike our City, they do not recommend eliminating parking in order to force pedestrian activity. A well-connected grid of streets is essential to the New Urban concept of dispersed travel.

While some parts of the city are included in the New Urban framework, much of the city is ignored. For me, this is the most tragic flaw of the City’s current planning effort. In an attempt to recreate a vibrant downtown using principles of New Urbanism, the vast majority of the city and its residents are ignored. 

As I have written previously, we have dozens of local “village-like” centers, near where people live and work. These existing centers could be made more walkable and could function as nearly self-contained “villages.” Many contain a mix of housing types, and their mix of businesses could be enhanced strategically. Most lack adequate pedestrian amenities – trees, connected sidewalks, and greenspaces – but, with effort, these could be enhanced. They are, or could be, connected to each other via public transit. 

Rather than focusing on the re-creation of a 19^th-century version of downtown Gainesville, we could apply New Urbanism’s most useful principles everywhere – recognizing Gainesville’s historic and uniquely American development patterns while honoring the choices made by most of our past and current residents.

Kim Tanzer lives in Gainesville. She is a former UF architecture professor, who was also dean of the University of Virginia School of Architecture.

The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.