The most bizarre event in this May’s Congress for the New Urbanism was a Saturday evening speech in which Robert A.M. Stern lambasted new urbanists for producing results he judged to be far below his standards. It was a very odd lecture, one that left much of the audience in Philadelphia’s Kimmel Hall incensed. Andres Duany had warmly introduced Stern as “one of the very best architects, writers, and professors in this country and the world” — a man who runs a 250-person New York firm, generates scholarly books, and has “turned Yale School of Architecture into the most open-minded architecture school in the United States.” CNU gave Stern a high honor, the organization’s Athena Award. Then Stern took the podium and argued for the next 40 minutes that New Urbanism is failing dismally to achieve its mission.
He charged that new urbanists are building on the suburban fringe when they ought to “tackle the urbanism of long-established cities.” He accused new urban developments of lacking the quality associated with the Garden City movement. “We have come nowhere near to the achievements of our predecessors,” Stern declared.
I agree with Stern that not many traditional neighborhood developments have attained the level of the Country Club District in Kansas City, begun in 1907, or Forest Hills Gardens, a New York gem from 1912. Rarely do we build with as much imagination and attention to detail. Most of Stern’s assertions, however, are hard to square with reality. New urbanist ideas are being applied in many cities, in all kinds of neighborhoods and districts. They show up in undertakings ranging from zoning reform to transit-oriented development, to conversion of freeways to boulevards, to the creation or reinvigoration of public gathering places. The federal HOPE VI public housing program, whose principal ideas came from new urbanists such as Ray Gindroz, has, according to Duany, generated 280,000 housing units. These are overwhelmingly urban.
Do some new urbanists use greenfield locations? Of course. Development on virgin soil is unavoidable in a nation that’s projected to add 100 million people by 2050. Many of us have qualms about the automobile-dependence of the more remote traditional neighborhood developments, like New Daleville in a rural section of Chester County, Pennsylvania — the subject of a book reviewed on page 13. But even city dwellers should recognize that when an outlying location is destined to be developed, it’s better to build a compact (though incomplete) neighborhood on the site than let it be developed in conventional fashion.
The audience at CNU XV was disturbed to hear Stern put down greenfield development and then dwell at length on the virtues of Celebration, Florida, a greenfield development in which his firm played a significant role. “The only thing comparable,” he said, “is the Country Club District of Kansas City.” Certainly Celebration surpasses the neighboring developments, but Celebration lacks some important things, such as a significant retail district and employment organized like a downtown.
TOO MANY AWARDS
For me, Stern’s presentation epitomized much that’s troubling about the direction of the annual Congresses. There’s too much award-giving — an inherently dull activity. There’s too much shining of the spotlight on individuals who have risen to prominence without demonstrating a commitment to the ideals that motivate new urbanists. It was disconcerting to hear plenary speaker Witold Rybczynski, who is lukewarm on New Urbanism, urge new urbanists to provide homebuyers with more driveways and more cul-de-sacs (of all things!). I didn’t mind listening to Denise Scott Brown, but why award an Athena Medal to this author whose books include Learning from Las Vegas — a polemic incompatible with our ideals? Why bend over backwards to ingratiate ourselves with those who are at odds with, or indifferent to, our enterprise?
While we’re considering what to do differently, we should drop the veneration of Yale School of Architecture, for two reasons. First, Yale continues to produce many of the architects who see buildings as individual objects rather than as contributors to urban continuity. Second, New Urbanism is an international movement with democratic aspirations, not an Ivy League club.
This article is available in the June 2007 issue of New Urban News, along with many more articles not available online. Subscribe or order the individual issue. |