New Urbanism

[viscousmemories]

I recently learned the term "new urbanism" in conjunction with my investigations into a mixed-use development called "The Domain" here in Austin. It's a combination apartment complex, outdoor mall, office space, etc. all within walking distance.

If they stick to their original plan (at least somewhat; they've already changed directions a lot) there will be several hotels, a 75,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods, a movie theatre and a commuter rail that runs to downtown.

Anyway it's kind of creepy in the fact that it stinks of money (there's a Nieman Marcus, Macy's, Apple Store, etc.) and everything is very "faux-urban", but I still kind of like the idea of living there. In fact, the roomie and I have pretty much decided to move there when our lease is up in the fall.

I think one of the reasons the development has changed course so much is that a vocal group of Austinites petitioned to challenge the millions in subsidies the city promised the developers, so now there's a chance that a vote in November will result in the city pulling out of that deal.

Anyway, any thoughts on new urbanism?

[godfry n. glad]

I recently learned the term "new urbanism" in conjunction with my investigations into a mixed-use development called "The Domain" here in Austin. It's a combination apartment complex, outdoor mall, office space, etc. all within walking distance.

If they stick to their original plan (at least somewhat; they've already changed directions a lot) there will be several hotels, a 75,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods, a movie theatre and a commuter rail that runs to downtown.

Anyway it's kind of creepy in the fact that it stinks of money (there's a Nieman Marcus, Macy's, Apple Store, etc.) and everything is very "faux-urban", but I still kind of like the idea of living there. In fact, the roomie and I have pretty much decided to move there when our lease is up in the fall.

I think one of the reasons the development has changed course so much is that a vocal group of Austinites petitioned to challenge the millions in subsidies the city promised the developers, so now there's a chance that a vote in November will result in the city pulling out of that deal.

Anyway, any thoughts on new urbanism?

You bet; and not much friendly, either.

This kind of development always seems to be associated with municipal corruption, in my mind. (Note here that I know it can be done right, but is all to rarely done that way.) Public money is a huge red flag for me.

Here in Puddle City, we have had ongoing "urban upgrade" by private developers obtaining blocks of land close to downtown and using the city's urban renewal powers to subsidize developers to make a sow's ear into a silk purse. Now, that might sound just dandy, but if the developers and the municipal powers that be get too chummy, you end up with them deciding that services to the rest of the city can wait while we build jimcrack new condos for all those potential residents who don't pay any taxes. Yet. Instead, the monies taxed from that area go to develop that area and not beyond to the wider community, usually for a specified period of time...20, 30 years. Sounds great, huh? Until you start thinking about how the schools out in the economically challenged areas are being used to build specialized poodle poop parks for the toney tenants of the new tower condos. Or how infrastructure is being developed on the general taxpayers dime, rather than have the developer undertake the new infrastructure development for their pet projects.

Beware, I say.

Use San Diego as a guideline. I believe they went into bankruptcy and their bonds are now worth toilet paper. The city's taxpayers now have a really shitty credit record and are stuck paying off the debt accrued by private developers who've flown on to the next gullible community.

They sell dreams to the gullible, corrupt the corruptible and snatch the community assets before fleeing.

[ShottleBop]

San Diego has not gone into bankruptcy. Its problems derive mainly from purposely underfunding its pension system and failing to disclose that in connection with bond issuances:

5 Ex-City Officials Charged With Fraud By SEC

POSTED: 3:39 pm PDT April 7, 2008
UPDATED: 7:27 pm PDT April 7, 2008

SAN DIEGO -- The Securities and Exchange Commission announced Monday that five former San Diego city officials face fraud charges in connection to alleged false and misleading financial statements.

The complaint filed Monday in federal court says the officials knew the city was underfunding its pension obligations and failed to disclose the fact to bond-rating agencies or to the investors who bought into municipal bond offerings. The complaintseeks unspecified civil fines against the former city officials

The charges involve five 2002 and 2003 bond offerings. The officials charged are onetime deputy city manager of finance Patricia Frazier; Edward P. Ryan, who at one time was the city's auditor and comptroller; former city manager Michael T. Uberuaga; ex-city treasurer Mary E. Vattimo; and Teresa A. Webster, who is a former assistant auditor and comptroller.

"These five former officials knew that the city had been intentionally underfunding its pension obligations so that it could increase pension benefits but defer the costs," states the SEC complaint filed against the former city officials. "They were aware that the city would face severe difficulty funding its future pension and retiree health care obligations unless new revenues were obtained, pension and health care benefits were reduced, or city services were cut."

The complaint alleges that the five defendants knew San Diego's pension-plan liability was expected to balloon from $284 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2002 to an estimated $2 billion by 2009 and that the liability for retiree health care was forecast to be estimated $1.1 billion. Fallout from the liabilities caused the city to lose its credit rating. To this day, San Diego us unable to borrow money from Wall Street through the issuing of bonds.

"The commission's complaint … alleges the following: Uberuaga signed the closing letter for one of the bond offerings, falsely certifying that it was accurate and did not contain any misleading statements," the complaint states. "Ryan signed letters falsely representing that the city's audited financial statements included in the securities offerings were accurate."

All five of the officials left office after the city's financial crises erupted in 2004, the VoiceOfSanDiego.org reported.

An attorney for Webster, Frank Vecchione, denied that his client acted inappropriately or intentionally misled investors.

"The time has come to put the misperceptions and misrepresentations regarding Ms. Webster and these bonds to rest," he said. "We intend to do so."

Attorneys for Uberuaga, Ryan, Frazier and Vattimo did not immediately respond to phone messages.

Uberuaga resigned in April 2004, two months after the scandal erupted. The others resigned in 2004 and 2005.

San Diego's pension liabilities soared after the City Council decided in 1996 and again in 2002 to avoid payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhance retirement benefits. Source. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/15818356/detail.html)

[lisarea]

I have mixed feelings about new urbanism, kind of.

I mean, I like the principles of it, and I used to get really excited about it and stuff, but it seems that, in practice, new urbanist communities don't really manage to pull it off the way the organic old urban communities did. They're mostly too gentrified, from what I've seen, and the focus in practice seems to be on cosmetics more than anything. Like they'll build some big row of townhouses, and then tack on slightly different facades with mostly-for-show porches in front, in different but coordinating colors; and then they'll throw up some lame strip mall to obscure view of the parking lot.

For the concept to really work, it really needs to be on a larger scale, with public transportation and mixed zoning throughout the community as a whole, rather than just in a single isolated development. Without that sort of integration, it's mostly just stylistic.

Which isn't to say that a given implementation wouldn't work for you, or anyone else individually. It's just I don't think that these supposedly new urban developments actually accomplish much overall.

[freemonkey]

It's just I don't think that these supposedly new urban developments actually accomplish much overall.

Except for the developers. [/cynical]

[godfry n. glad]

I imagine the rationale is tailored to the potential market.

They sell it here as a means of encouraging higher residential densities, based upon the idea that vertical development will help forestall horizontal development off out into the periphery of the urbanized area. "It's the future."

I've got no problem with that aspect....It's just that if that is the way to go, then it will happen without public subsidy. The municipalities still need to direct the impetus of growth through zoning codes and building standards...and require that developers foot the costs of streets, sewerage, lighting, parks and all other infrastructure that will be required.

My city went from "smokestack chasing" to "condo bordello upgrade" in about 20 years. We're still giving away money where we don't need to (and to those who really don't need it), for fear that some other community will outdo us in the race to empty our public coffers for the benefit of scaliwags and sleazebags.

[viscousmemories]

I fully endorse the attempts to reverse the subsidies given to the developers, but if (when) I move there it's not going to be because I necessarily believe in or think The Domain embodies New Urbanism, it's going to be because they're one of the few apartment complexes that offers two-bedroom places where both bedrooms have spacious closets and attached bathrooms, it's much closer to where I'm (currently) working, it's within walking distance of a lot of stores and restaurants, (including Borders, and maybe one day a movie theatre etc.) and it's not a LOT more than I'm paying now.

[livius drusus]

I mean, I like the principles of it, and I used to get really excited about it and stuff, but it seems that, in practice, new urbanist communities don't really manage to pull it off the way the organic old urban communities did. They're mostly too gentrified, from what I've seen, and the focus in practice seems to be on cosmetics more than anything.
Bingo. On paper these "communities" have everything I dig: mixed use spaces, easy walking distance from home to chore locations (ie, grocery stores, dry cleaners, drug stores, etc.) and entertainment, revitalized post-manufacturing bust structures.

In practice, though, they're completely cookie cutter. The housing is identical to every other crappy condo that went up in a flash during the late lamented boom, the shopping is garden variety mall retail, the restaurants are chains (often involving Ashton Kutcher, for Chrissakes), the movie theaters offer generic mainstream PG-13 fare. The landscaping is from a book, obsessively manicured to look like a Humbolt figurine, nothing local or creative or wild. Everything is priced above market and therefore everyone who lives there is in the same upper middle income bracket.

New Urbanism is a big buzzkill, basically. It promises something real, but delivers tacky plastic fakeration.

[godfry n. glad]

I fully endorse the attempts to reverse the subsidies given to the developers, but if (when) I move there it's not going to be because I necessarily believe in or think The Domain embodies New Urbanism, it's going to be because they're one of the few apartment complexes that offers two-bedroom places where both bedrooms have spacious closets and attached bathrooms, it's much closer to where I'm (currently) working, it's within walking distance of a lot of stores and restaurants, (including Borders, and maybe one day a movie theatre etc.) and it's not a LOT more than I'm paying now.

Which is as it should be.

I'm just of the opinion that we don't need a new pretentious labelling to market a concept as "desireable" when it may have little connection to public fiduciary responsibility.

Out of interest, what claims do these folks make for "New Urbanism"? Is it any different from "Old urbanism"?

[godfry n. glad]

I mean, I like the principles of it, and I used to get really excited about it and stuff, but it seems that, in practice, new urbanist communities don't really manage to pull it off the way the organic old urban communities did. They're mostly too gentrified, from what I've seen, and the focus in practice seems to be on cosmetics more than anything.
Bingo. On paper these "communities" have everything I dig: mixed use spaces, easy walking distance from home to chore locations (ie, grocery stores, dry cleaners, drug stores, etc.) and entertainment, revitalized post-manufacturing bust structures.

In practice, though, they're completely cookie cutter. The housing is identical to every other crappy condo that went up in a flash during the late lamented boom, the shopping is garden variety mall retail, the restaurants are chains (often involving Ashton Kutcher, for Chrissakes), the movie theaters offer generic mainstream PG-13 fare. The landscaping is from a book, obsessively manicured to look like a Humbolt figurine, nothing local or creative or wild. Everything is priced above market and therefore everyone who lives there is in the same upper middle income bracket.

New Urbanism is a big buzzkill, basically. It promises something real, but delivers tacky plastic fakeration.

Oooo...oooo..."tacky plastic fakeration"!


RAMEN, Sister! :fsm:

[viscousmemories]

In practice, though, they're completely cookie cutter. The housing is identical to every other crappy condo that went up in a flash during the late lamented boom, the shopping is garden variety mall retail, the restaurants are chains (often involving Ashton Kutcher, for Chrissakes), the movie theaters offer generic mainstream PG-13 fare. The landscaping is from a book, obsessively manicured to look like a Humbolt figurine, nothing local or creative or wild. Everything is priced above market and therefore everyone who lives there is in the same upper middle income bracket.
I know! I can't wait. :eager:

[lisarea]

There's a row of townhouses down the road here that was sold as a New Urban community, which they allege is for people who don't want to depend on cars. It's supposed to look like a bunch of old brownstones or something like that, but it's in the middle of a big empty field, surrounded by prairie dog colonies. It has a strip mall attached. The businesses include the most aggressively terrible pizza place I have ever seen--it costs one million dollars, and the pizza is actually DAMP like it's boiled or something--one of those stores where you bring your shit there and they sell it on eBay for you, a dentist, and some kind of store to buy custom-designed rhinestone belt buckles and shit. Convenient! Because back in the day, you used to have to drive halfway across town to bring last week's used rhinestone belt buckles to the store that will sell them on eBay for you!

And, of course, the glue that binds the community is the vast expanses of asphalt parking lots. I'm not lying. Go look at it. Google has a street view of it. (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Bradburn+Village+Dentistry&fb=1&cid=0,0,15147227049826272247&near=Westminster,+CO&oi=manybox&ct=10&cd=1&resnum=1)

Plus you know what ELSE they say is new urbanist? The WalMart supercenter they're putting in across the street from that.

Ha ha, vm. You're totally moving into a WalMart parking lot or something!

[godfry n. glad]

Ha ha, vm. You're totally moving into a WalMart parking lot or something!


:roflmao:

[lisarea]

Now that I think about it, though, WalMart parking lot shantytowns may well be the future of the new urban landscape.

[Ymir's blood]

Hey, the Google street view guy has a car for feet.

[godfry n. glad]

Now that I think about it, though, WalMart parking lot shantytowns may well be the future of the new urban landscape.

It could be one of the "benefits" that Wal*Mart offers it's hard-bitten employees...a place to set the double-wide. Well, maybe as an incentive, for those who work the most unpaid overtime.

But that'd be an invitation to tornadoes, wouldn't it?

[viscousmemories]

Okay, I couldn't find any good pictures of The Domain online so I went and took some of my own. Fortunately I covered most of the retail and residential area before some kindly old security guard on a motorized scooter informed me that the mall had a no-photos policy.

I was welcome to take pictures of the crappy lovely sculptures and stuff, just none of the streets or facades. So now that you know these pictures are illicit aren't they more exciting?

[livius drusus]

Eh. It's not even that fake charming. It just looks a clean housing project. The crane is pretty cool, though.

[viscousmemories]

Yeah I have to say, looking at it through a camera and with the security guard fiasco it's looking much less appealing to me.

I really want an attached bathroom, though. :(

[wildernesse]

No photos policy?

Are you serious? If you move there, you should definitely read the fine print of your HOA.

[godfry n. glad]

:facepalm:

VM!

You'd give up the sprint to the outhouse for that crap? (Well, warranted, you may not have much choice in the matter.)

The building on the right in the first photo looks like it's about to keel over into the street. Welcome to Bizarro World. Were the designers on drugs, perhaps?

Are those not public streets? A security guard attempted to keep you from taking pix on a public street? What ARE they trying to hide? That it's a hideously sterile and wholly uninspired faux community?

MAKE ROOM FOR THE STEPFORD WIVES!

[viscousmemories]

I guess they're not public streets. They look public, but apparently it's all mall.

[oblomov]

i personally would be afraid to live in anything called a 'domain'

[godfry n. glad]

I guess they're not public streets. They look public, but apparently it's all mall.

Is it required to use these streets in commercial areas to access the residences? Are there residences above the shops? If so, those are public streets. In any case, it's certainly weird that pix aren't allowed....You'd think they'd want just the opposite, if they were so hep about how wonderful it is as a place to live.

[lisarea]

It doesn't look as bad as the ones I've seen around here, for what that's worth. And if you like it, you should just be happy about it.

BTW, I'm pretty sure there's a Flickr group for illicit pictures taken in no photo zones. You should go put these up.

[freemonkey]

No photos? I agree, that's just nuts.

[1Samuel8]

Yeah I have to say, looking at it through a camera and with the security guard fiasco it's looking much less appealing to me. At least there is no ticky-tacky -- not that I can see, anyway.

Malvina would be pleased to see such progress.

[Adam]

Deleted a double post.

I fail at forum.

[Adam]

In practice, though, they're completely cookie cutter. The housing is identical to every other crappy condo that went up in a flash during the late lamented boom, the shopping is garden variety mall retail, the restaurants are chains (often involving Ashton Kutcher, for Chrissakes), the movie theaters offer generic mainstream PG-13 fare. The landscaping is from a book, obsessively manicured to look like a Humbolt figurine, nothing local or creative or wild. Everything is priced above market and therefore everyone who lives there is in the same upper middle income bracket.
I know! I can't wait. :eager:

:giggle:

That more or less describes where I live, except I have to frickin' drive to get to my overpriced retailers and restaurants.

I share the mixed opinions most of the rest of you have expressed. In theory, I love it. I reallyreallyreally wish i lived in a mixed use area, with all my common needs within easy walking distance. As it is, the only thing I can really walk to is the grocery, and that involves crossing a busy street and then a typically huge strip mall parking lot. I do it once in a while, but it's not the sort of thing I like to do on a regular basis. When I used to live with my ex, we were closer to the grocery and there were no busy streets intervening, and we walked all the time (in the warmer months, anyway).

In practice, the only examples I've seen in person are in Carmel, IN and Reston, VA, both of which are the height of upper middle class snobbery. I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing, though, to be honest. Currently, the suburban retail/service economy is based on the idea of separate housing and business zones, ubiquitous cars, and almost zero foot traffic. Operating under a different model is going to have some cost, I would think, so I'm not surprised that the first examples are snobby and expensive. Hopefully the early adopters eventually lead to more modestly priced developments. I think a big cost factor is the lack of interconnectivity. Sure, I'd love to move to the "town center" in Carmel (It actually adjoins the trail I run on...I wouldn't have to drive two and a half miles to find somewhere I can run without dodging cars!), but there's no mass transit, so I'd still have to drive everywhere except the businesses that are actually part of the development, including to work every day.

[lisarea]

For some reason, this is getting around on the "social medias" today. It's James Harold Kuntsler at TED a few years ago talking about new urbanism and why suburbs suck.

TED | Talks | James Howard Kunstler: The tragedy of suburbia (video) (http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121)

(I'm too stupid and lazy to go back and look to see if I already recommended this, but if you're interested in new urbanism, his book The Geography of Nowhere is really good.)

[Crumb]

(I'm too stupid and lazy to go back and look to see if I already recommended this, but if you're interested in new urbanism, his book The Geography of Nowhere is really good.)
Seconded!

[viscousmemories]

That video was great.

[Caligulette]

I guess they're not public streets. They look public, but apparently it's all mall.

Is it required to use these streets in commercial areas to access the residences? Are there residences above the shops? If so, those are public streets. In any case, it's certainly weird that pix aren't allowed....You'd think they'd want just the opposite, if they were so hep about how wonderful it is as a place to live.

All this reminds me of two things:
One:
Public vs private space in this kind o'development. LA Times. (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-tm-space4may04,0,3265033.story)

Two:
Bethesda, Maryland, which has taken its downtown area and kind of done the mixed-use thinger. The whole area now looks like a Faux-downtown. They are also planning to do a mixed use area in Virginia (Fairfax county? I forget), but they're wanting an emphasis on "independent" businesses. (I only know about it because it was mentioned in an industry publication that they are looking for an independent bookstore to occupy one of the spaces.)

[viscousmemories]

All this reminds me of two things:
One:
Public vs private space in this kind o'development. LA Times. (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-tm-space4may04,0,3265033.story)
I was thinking about the fact that The Domain's 'public' space isn't really public while I watched that Kunstler video. That's pretty scary.

From your link:

But as any student of L.A. architecture and urbanism can tell you, that street, despite its fine imitation of a public space, is in fact private and patrolled by its own security force. You can't ride a bike or a skateboard on it, let alone set up a soapbox and tell passersby about China's actions in Tibet or about the political campaign of Ron Paul (still going!) or Ralph Nader (ditto!). Even wearing a T-shirt with a risqué slogan might be enough to get you tossed.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely averse to living in a neighborhood absent skateboarders and street preachers.

[Caligulette]

On the other other hand, I do not appreciate a dress code nor a curtailing of my freedom of speech. Yes, I like things tidy, but this goes beyond my limits.

[lisarea]

I think the problem with planned communities like that is just that they micromanage the planning part. A community has to grow up organically. You can't predict human behaviors and group dynamics minutely enough to socially engineer a community into existence.

IMO, the planning needs to be pretty broadly formulaic, but not fussy. Mixed zoning with well thought out and virtually inviolable restrictions; rather than the standard city formula of having one billion fussy little codes and issuing variances as a matter of course to those who have the means to demand them. (So: No, WalMart, you may not have a variance to block out the sun, run an onsite hog rendering plant, and broadcast 24/7 motivational slogans over a public address system. And no, city council, you don't even have the option of considering it.)

I'd rather see the actual community--the residents and small business owners--have more freedom to use and evolve their community to fit their needs. I don't think planners are even capable of doing such a thing. They're always fucking wrong.

Example: A few years back, we had a derelict strip mall in the main part of town, consisting of an abandoned grocery store and a few straggling businesses. Our then-mayor, a dumbass, said that she was actively recruiting well-known chains, because that's what the community wanted and would support. Shit like TGI Friday's and McDonald's or something.

That plan didn't work out, fortunately, and that strip mall now contains: A laundromat, a charity thrift store, a large Asian supermarket, TWO pho restaurants, an Asian buffet, an Italian restaurant that's been here forever, and some other stuff I don't remember.

There's also another pho place directly across the street, plus a Thai restaurant. And they're doing quite a healthy business. The Boston Market went out of business recently, though, and despite their desperate attempts at viral marketing, (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/oct/10/boy-6-takes-car-for-small-joyride/) the Applebee's on the same corner usually looks pretty desolate. Ha ha!

Anyways, there's a balance there. People should be able to use their property in reasonable ways; but they should also be able to exert some community control to ensure that a few antisocial freaks--be they individual or corporate--don't run roughshod and do the tragedy of the commons thing. But with carefully thought out city planning including appropriate traffic calming, placement of open spaces and community property, and some minimal restrictions, I think that balance is possible without leaving a bunch of fussbudgets and busybodies with nothing better to do in charge of telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property, whether they're city councils or neighborhood associations.

(Which reminds me: Another interesting book is Stewart Brand's How Buildings Learn, which illustrates some of the good and bad ways that buildings are adapted over time to suit evolving community and personal needs. It's a good illustration of the complexity and nuance of how things change and evolve.)

And unlike Kuntsler, I don't think the suburbs are a lost cause, necessarily. In fact, I have a dream. I have a dream that as the United States falls into its inevitable economic collapse (KNOCK ON WOOD!), individuals will start to become self sufficient again. We'll stop being consumers first and people later; and instead of shunning and demonizing our more competent neighbors, we'll realize the folly of our "See something, say something" policies in a culture where everyone is so fucking incompetent they don't know the difference between a wire and an explosive, a bottle of vinegar and a meth lab, or a tomato plant and a marijuana growing operation. Maybe then, we'll start embracing ingenuity rather than pissing our pants and calling the fucking SWAT team every time we see something we don't understand.

And we, here in the formerly middle class suburbs, will maybe start to understand why No Snitching isn't always such a bad idea after all.

And then we'll tear up our Kentucky bluegrass, oil up the decorative, old-timey farm implements in our front yards and till our soil; and if the people next door have a car up on blocks in their driveway, it'll make our neighborhood more desirable, because it means there's probably someone there who knows something about auto mechanics.







Dammit, vm. This is your fault. You must have known that talking zoning and city planning and shit would bring the crazy.

[Caligulette]

I like your vision, and your mechanic-appreciation.

[godfry n. glad]

YOU SPEAK IT, LISAREA!

[Adam]

...and if the people next door have a car up on blocks in their driveway, it'll make our neighborhood more desirable, because it means there's probably someone there who knows something about auto mechanics.

Just to pick nits, I thought the general reason people didn't like to see cars on blocks was because they generally indicate that the person who put it there knows just enough about auto mechanics to get the car up on blocks in the first place, but not enough to ever finish the job and take it down again.

[Qingdai]

Adam, I see you've met my friends and noted their mechanical skills.

Actually my mom lives in a neighborhood much like Lisarea describes. All the people honk at or stop and talk to the shade tree mechanic on the block. It makes her neighborhood pretty safe, he lives there with his mom and his 5 siblings all drop the kids off at grandma's. It's a grandma childcare collective there too, it's also predominately black. In one block there are four out of 6 houses with grandmas watching kids.

Beats my friends place where all the shade tree mechanics are self described Russian Mafia and "ex-KGB" and spend all their time teaching their 10 year olds to strip Prius' for parts.

[Ensign Steve]

We're starting to get high-rises in downtown LA that have like a small outdoor strip mall at the ground floor (with a nine west and a coffee bean & tea leaf), and "luxury apartments" above. There are two new ones, both on top of a red line subway station, one at wilshire/western and one at wilshire/vermont. I love them both because they both have my bank at them. :wriggle: