Adventures In New Urbanism --- A Journal

[freakpower 0]

Date: 12/11/2004 12:16:00 PM
Author: seemurray2
uncrazycooper: like I said this idea only works in very large cities and very small towns. And it only would work with everyone living crammed together in apartment buildings, such as in large cities like New York City, so they could walk out the door and go across the street to the store. But maybe everyone doesn't want to live in an apartment and maybe everone doesn't want to live in a huge city. And you forgot the point that everyone can't live within walking distance of where they work and shop. That's why it is set up like it is now, so you can drive to one Best Buy instead of having to have a thousand of them so they are all within walking distance of everyone, and then they would all go out of business because they wouldn't get enough customers to be able to operate.

quote>
Why do they have to go to Best Buy? Wouldn't a local electronics store down on the corner work just as well?

[louisville327 0]

sc4player: You are exactly right, in no uncertain terms. Most major efforts to build any kind of large-scale or wide-ranging transit system in US cities are attacked as inefficient, too expensive, and wasteful. Most cities, including my own of Louisville, KY, make no consideration of mass transit when expanding ever-outward with sprawl, and it's causing untold damage to our environment, our schedules (through loss of time in traffic) and our minds.

gascooker: Things are starting to change in small areas here and there, but for the most part sprawl growth continues unabated.

seemurray2: I made a disclaimer at the very begining of this CJ that I wasn't going to entertain debates about the value of New Urbanism compared to standard Sprawlism. If you don't believe that traditional urban principles, used for centuries in cities and towns of every size and density all over the world, actually work, then there's not much I can tell you. All I can do is ask you to research more into the subject, especially by reading Suburban Nation or anything by James Howard Kunstler. Also, the design firm Duany Plater-Zyberk has an excellent website with links to every major planning project they have been involved with---including cities, towns, and neighborhoods of all sizes. If you still want to argue, feel free to start a separate thread, but as far as I'm concerned, THIS thread needs to return to its original purpose: being a city journal. Thanks!

And to everyone, thanks for all the positive feedback and thoughtful comments! Keep them coming!

[sc4player 1]

seemurray2 was this directed to me?

I never said people should walk to work or to the shopping center. and what you said about the arterial roads is exactly the same thing I said (or maybe I don't understand what you mean). what I said is that this entire idea of new urbanism only works with an extensive public transport...

(and btw. in europe it is not uncommon to walk to the grocery store - unlike in the US. or to go shopping by bus or train.)

uncrazycooper: taking a bus or a train doesn't necessarily mean you have to walk far - it's not the case with a good transportation network. of course, it is hard for someone from houston or phoenix to understand what I mean.


when I'm talking about new urbanism I'm not talking about the malls and offices along main arteries - like in the picture. this is not new urbanism. therefore when I mean this idea needs public transport it doesn't apply to these malls and offices with giant parking lots - it only applies to the residential areas or areas like norton in this particular city.
the comments by seemurray2 and uncrazycooper only prove my point that the american approach at new urbanism isn't always successfull because it is mixed with the typical american suburban planning. of course no one wants to walk through parking lots. but with real new urbanism you wouldn't have...
(but even with those it still could work with a good public transport - people in america are just not used to walk - in europe people often walk, even longer distances - and safety isn't as much an issue in european cities as it is in american cities).


seemurray2 and uncrazycooper: it is possible to have excellent public transport even in the neighbourhoods with the lowest density, you know. you don't have to live in appartments and your work or shopping doesn't have to be within walking distance...

[sc4player 1]

louisville327: sorry I didn't want this to become a discussion about advantages and disadvantages of new urbanism or american architecture vs european. I like your approach. it is pretty realistic. in fact I'm currently building a city that is kinda similar to yours. the only difference is that I use a lot of different kinds of public transport.

[Motina 77]

Louisville, I congratulate you on such a creative approach at presenting New Urbanism through the use of a city journal. You have presented it ways I could never dream of doing it.

 

Thank you for showing people that new urbanism is the old urbanism.

[Motina 77]

SeeMurray: In new urbanism, it would be somewhat more affordable to live near the place you work, and with the integration of mixed zoning, like in the old day, with residential and retail put together, and industrial type building set behind that. By having all the zones, or the lack thereof, eliminates the need to travel long distances to get to another zoning type. New Urbanists want to eliminate the dead spaces. Suburbs are dead during the day, and the retail commercial districts are dead at night.

As for the main arterial roads, yes that is the purpose of them, but access to them and off them is very little. If you miss your turn, you have to go all the way around just entering the place you want to go.

Your comment s on apartment buildings, in New Urbanism there are numerous types of dwelling types, from single-family homes to house houses, all the way up to low-rise apartment buildings. In fact, although I am not sure, but I am still positive, that those high-rise apartment buildings are discouraged.

 

GasCooker: The mix use has been used in America before; it was just the zoning bylaws that started to prevent this. However, you do see old Victorian homes being turned into mixed retail/office space with residential dwellings common in small town and large cities. But as Louisville stated, suburban sprawl is still unchecked.

[sc4player 1]

Date: 12/11/2004 1:51:42 PM
Author: Motina

[wolverine 12]

Suburban Nation is a very good book.  I guess I have such a great interest in this thread because I am minoring in Urban Planning here at the University of Michigan. 

 

Speaking of Best Buys, they have come out with a new urban prototype that fits pretty well into downtowns.  It basically looks like an old fashioned department store from the outside, and has everything on multiple levels on the inside.  I saw the picture in a book, so I don't think I'll be able to find the picture, but it good that Best Buy and even home depot have begun to make attempts to deviate from big box shopping.

[utora 0]

This is a very interesting cj, as far as I've read it. Quite interesting how you presented the inefficient city-layout; I'm quite unfamiliar with that weird transport layout in the States. I'm from Holland, and maybe I can compare it a little to the traffic-layout problems in the old city-centers of the old (originally medieval) citycores of Dutch cities. Since those cities were designed hundreds of years ago, and since we want to preserve a lot of ancient buildings, there is often a big problem on how to develop an efficient traffic system without demolishing too much of the old centre.

Very original cj. It's quite inviting to start discussing about urbanism here, but I won't do that since this is supposed to be a city journal.

Compliments on the idea!

[uncrazycooper13 0]

sorry I meant to send a PM but I accidently did this instead. Anyways thats good about the best buy thing!

-uncrazycooper

[gascooker 4]

louisville327: I sort of agree with sc4player that this shouldn't turn into an off-topic discussion, but with a very in depth, and very interesting CJ like this, it surely can't be helped that people are gonna respond with comments of lengthier proportion than: those trees look nice. Great!.

I would like to ask a philosphical question, if you don't mind:

In terms of your CJ, if mixed-use buildings were a solution to urban-spawl, like the current euro thinking and how you descibe the US model used to be, does that mean that there will be no more need for urban planning?

Or in SC4 terms: if you zoned industrial, commercial and residential all together in clusters, does that mean there will be no more purpose to SC4?

[dodothegoof 0]

A really interisting Journal.
But I am not sure if the europeen system is the solution for America.
In Germany you find more a developement in the direction of american style what means that you build big grocerys stores in the countryside (auf der gr

[evilmonkey 0]

Date: 12/11/2004 11:53:47 PM
Author:In terms of your CJ, if mixed-use buildings were a solution to urban-spawl, like the current euro thinking and how you descibe the US model used to be, does that mean that there will be no more need for urban planning?

quote>
Actually in many ways there would be even more need for planners than in the current system to make sure the community and neighborhoods are integrated in a way such that driving is not necessary. In the current system of sprawl, planners are barely needed at all, or rather transportation planners are needed the most.

louisville327: Very good job with this CJ. I'm majoring in Planning in university (just finished my first term of it) and in one lecture we watched a movie (from '93) in which Andres Duany went over the problems with the current system of Sprawl in the US. This is especially interesting since I live close to one of Duanys developments (Cornell) so I get to see what they're trying. (And whether or not it works...)

What sort of climate are we talking about with this CJ though? The palm trees may be misleading but in the winter walking is not what people want to do most...

Anyway, great CJ.

[louisville327 0]

sc4player: No need for apologies. You're responding to questions just as I would have done, so your efforts are a help to me.

Motina: High-rise apartments are not always discouraged. They are discouraged as a form of low-rent affordable housing, however, because they foster poverty, disenfranchisement, and hamper safety. But high-rise buildings function perfectly well in places like New York City, where traditional urbanism is alive and well. It all depends on the place and the context.

gascooker: On the contrary, a return to the mixed-use buildings of traditional urbanism would foster a rebirth of urban planning. What we have currently in the US is not urban planning at all. Empty parcels of land are sold to the highest bidder, where contractors then design and build pods of single-use buildings surrounded by parking lots with absolutely no relationship to the context of the area in which they are built. New buildings are literally just thrown together and plopped wherever there is open space. Traditional urban planning is a fine art, and one that we have lost in the United States.

dodothegoof: You brought up the most important issue behind sprawl in the United States: Space. The reason we have so many problems in our cities and suburbs is because we built everything on a scale totally out of proportion to human beings. Because we have so much room to build, we built everything way too big. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that's the best thing to do, you know? When cities are built according to the scale of automobiles, only automobiles can be used for transportation. Now we have horrible traffic, terrible pollution, and people getting fat because they never walk anywhere. Our space just might be our undoing.

evilmonkey: The climate is a temperate one. Please disregard the palm trees, SC4 allows them to automatically pop up anywhere, and I don't have the mod to get rid of them. Oh, and you don't have to walk in the winter. Cars haven't been banned and the buses still run...


Thanks to everyone for the lively discussions! I'm glad interest is growing in this CJ---now I have to get back to updating...

[evilmonkey 0]

Now in Cornell, the fact that the busses run and cars are still there is what made the community fail. Right beside the development is a bus stop that takes people right on over to the mall, so the commercial areas are doing really poorly. Also, if and when Tononto's Light Rail Train/Subway system gets extended to the area the people living there can go to even bigger shopping centers, which they will because it's more convinient. I've only ever seen the one example of New Urbanism, so most of my opinions about it are based on that development. I guess the difference between Cornell and Norton is that Cornell was tacked on as if it were just another subdivision.

[louisville327 0]

The Design of Norton is based on the principles you just read, my friend, said Bob Park as he continued his training lecture. Norton was fairly easy to plan because of its relatively small size. Transit forms like trains and subways weren't necessary in this case, so we could rely heavily on basic pedestrianism and small buses. Had Norton been an urban infill project instead of a country village, things would no doubt look quite different here.

Different locations and situations require different strategies, I added.

Indeed. There is no one way to build things. New Urbanism doesn't demand that everything look the same or be built the same everywhere---in fact, that's what American sprawl demands. New Urbanism simply provides guides and references based on traditional methods of building that have worked for thousands of years. The specifics of each project are determined by the context in which the project finds itself.

In this case, the context was a heavily-wooded area outside a major metropolitan area, I observed.

Right. Because we are separated from any major urban center, we didn't have to make Norton fit into the established urban fabric. We could follow a more traditional town-style plan. A new slide appeared on the screen in the room:

I spent yesterday walking around town, and I must say, because everything is so pleasantly built and arranged, you don't even notice the grid. It's hardly boring, that's for sure, I added.

What's more boring, Park asked me, a grid that allows numerous routes from any point of origin to any destination, or sitting in traffic all day on a crowded arterial highway? He paused and switched to a new slide.

They are wonderful parks, and the Civic Center is truly beautiful.

We did the best we could to make sure of that. Now, as for the zoning, traditional neighborhoods generally have a main avenue for commerce, surrounded by homes and apartments on streets that radiate outward. This layout concentrates and focuses public activity.* Park again switched slides.

Park continued, Now, while businesses must be pedestrian-friendly to encourage a proper urban environment, they must also be accessible by car or truck. Most stores and offices cannot function without delivery vehicles (either bringing or taking goods for sale), and some employees will choose to drive no matter what. Therefore, businesses must have parking. The problem in modern America, however, is that parking lots have come to dominate the landscape. Commercial buildings now sit alone like islands surrounded by lagoons of asphalt. Everyone knows how miserable it is to walk across acres of parking in the middle of summer---and how desolate everything looks. The solution is simple; Hide the parking behind buildings that are oriented directly next to the street.

I said, I definitely agree. You should see mine.

Park chuckled. I bet. But, if you do good work for us, you might just be able to afford one of those Italian beauties before you know it.

I knew I was going to like this job, I thought to myself.

Now, before we continue, let me take a bathroom break and check my voicemail. If you're hungry, check over by the coffee maker---I think we still have some donuts left.

Park left the room and I made a bee-line for the donuts...

-------------------------------
*In traditional urban areas, commercial buildings are centrally-located but also mixed-use. Businesses and shops are located on the first floor with access to the street, with housing located on the floors above. This is especially common in Europe and places like New York City. Buildings in areas like this are typically more than two stories tall and allow workers to live above their places of employment. Because both homes and commercial services are literally on top of each other, cars are not always necessary for every trip and pedestrian travel is common.

However, SC4 does not allow mixed-use zoning. Clearly the perspective of the designers at Maxis was limited to the United States since 1950, and only separated, inefficient single-use zoning is allowed. Because of this, game-players interested in building traditional urban landscapes must improvise, as the planners of Norton have above.

[uncrazycooper13 0]

That looks awesome! I can't wait to see more!

-uncrazycooper

[Sooner&RiceGrad 0]

Why must you refrain from using one way roads. I think that you could use a little bit of advice there, mister. Two way roads are an important planning anchor, because they hold great capacity, don't take up as much space, and can be prettier because I like to put parks in the middle, and construct my very OWN style of median.

 

I hope I have helped better your CJ,

Nick.

[mentarman 14]

There are one-way roads in some of his pics.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/12/2004 10:37:37 PM
Author: Sooner&RiceGrad

Why must you refrain from using one way roads. I think that you could use a little bit of advice there, mister. Two way roads are an important planning anchor, because they hold great capacity, don't take up as much space, and can be prettier because I like to put parks in the middle, and construct my very OWN style of median.

quote>

Sooner&RiceGrad: After reviewing your other posts on various CJs, it's clear to me that you are just spamming everyone with negative comments (many of which don't make any sense, like those above). From this point on, anything and everything you post will be ignored. I encourage other readers of this CJ to follow my lead.

Please don't clutter this CJ with meaningless comments or bickering, thanks.

[Motina 77]

High-rise apartments are not always discouraged. They are discouraged as a form of low-rent affordable housing, however, because they foster poverty, disenfranchisement, and hamper safety. But high-rise buildings function perfectly well in places like New York City, where traditional urbanism is alive and well. It all depends on the place and the context.

quote>

True, true. In fact New York is the perfect example. As I said I was unsure, thank you for bringing up New York. I remember one building (unsure of it name) which is tall and narrow, perfect to exploit the land value to produce the revenue.

[louisville327 0]

The Donuts were exceptional, that's for sure. I was still eating one when Bob Park returned to the conference room.

Good donuts? he asked.

Oh yeah. Very good, I said as I finished it. Seriously, this job was really going to work out, I could tell.

Park returned our focus to the screen on the wall and the images of Norton before us. We've looked at the design features of this town, so let's take a quick look at the results---that is, the effect on transportation and commuting.

A new image loaded onto the screen.

Park continued, The most important aspect of New Urbanism is that it allows for far more choice as to transportation. Even here in the small town of Norton, where the population cannot support trains or a subway, we have still managed to provide several options for people to get around.

I haven't driven my car in three days, I said. I've mostly walked, but when it rained last week I rode the bus over to my girlfriend's restaurant. It was quick, since generally few cars are on the road.

That was our aim. Numerous transportation options help to relieve the monotony of commuting, and that's very important. These days, with mental illness like depression so prevalent, anything that can be done to ease the mental load on people is a good thing. Sitting in traffic isn't one of those.

I examined the slide, and said, It amazes me the criticism New Urbanism gets when it comes to transportation. 'No choice!' is usually the rally cry of the naysayers.

Park chimed in, It's ironic that the most vocal proponents of urban sprawl often cite 'consumer choice' and 'free-market freedom' as the driving forces behind subdivisions, office parks, and arterial highways when in fact those things actually work to REDUCE consumer choice by limiting living patterns and transportation options. Nothing kills choice like American sprawl.

I remember we talked about this a little during my interview, when I showed him the maps and graphics I had made of my old neighborhood.

He continued, Want to go rent a movie? You HAVE to drive your car. Want to grab a bite to eat during your lunch break from work? You HAVE to drive your car. Want to go across town to see a friend? You HAVE to drive your car. And not only are you stuck driving, but your choices are often limited to the same exact routes---take the one street from your subdivision that connects to the feeder road, take the feeder road to the arterial highway, then take the highway to the interstate, then get off the interstate onto another arterial highway and repeat the process. If any of those roads are congested due to a crash or something like that, there's nowhere else for you to go, since very few routes are interconnected. Those infamous grids and their organic European cousins, designs used for centuries in every great human city on the planet, well, they're just so booooooring, they say. But what is more boring? Interconnected streets or sitting for hours in traffic?

It can be extremely tiring, I said, and that's much of the reason I moved here.

New Urbanism works to reduce the monotony of suburban sprawl and increase choice. Park loaded a new image.

This image brings me to the most important aspect of traditional urban design as practiced by New Urbanists like this firm: pedestrianism. Getting people to walk is no easy task in this era of American history. We have grown quite accustomed to our society of instant gratification and idleness, which is remarkable since it has only really been 50 years or so. People have become afraid to walk because the areas in which they live no longer encourage them to do so.

I've tried to walk in sprawl areas, and it's oppressive. Few sidewalks, wide and congested roads, and with everything spread out so much by giant parking lots, it's no wonder no one walks, I said.

What's interesting, however, is the interest in places like Disney World.

Confused, I asked, What does Disney World have to do with it?

Disney World is a major tourist attraction. People flock there every year in the millions. One of the major reasons is the way the park was built---small streets with shops oriented directly against sidewalks. There are no cars and no parking lots inside Disney World, the pedestrian plazas are wide and well-shaded by trees, and people LOVE it. They spend hours just walking around. For many of the visitors, it's the first time they've been able to walk any significant distance in years. Why? Because the places they live are not built that way at all.

There's no reason not to build things like that. We used to, after all.

Park said, Exactly. Why do people flock to places like Alexandria, Virginia? Because they are built like all of our small towns were built---small streets, mixed-use buildings oriented directly against sidewalks, and interconnected streets with tree cover and easy access to numerous destinations. Cities and towns that have preserved their older, traditional sections now find increased tourist interest in them. People clearly are still drawn to traditional forms of planning.

I added, And I imagine that is why Norton has been so successful.

Yes. When building Norton, we made sure to plan according to the needs of pedestrians, just as traditional towns used to.* Now we have quite a lively pedestrian street life here.

And though we provided numerous transit options like pedestrian-friendly streets and an efficient bus service, some people will drive no matter what. Wealthy people---and Norton has its share---tend to have lots of money to spend on vehicles and gasoline, and naturally have no problem driving everywhere. To facilitate their needs (and encourage them to walk as well) we built centralized parking garages instead of sprawling parking lots next to every building.

The cars are stored in one location in a garage that can easily be disguised as a normal building, and people still get to walk---even if just a few feet---which provides all kinds of benefits. Park added, And the complaints have been few. If people don't like it, they are always free to move to a more sprawling location where they HAVE to drive everywhere.

So, I summed up, the New Urbanist design of Norton, while providing numerous transit options and commuting routes, has increased the amount of choice provided to residents when compared to common sprawl zones.

Exactly. Park turned off the projector and began to tidy the conference room. That's it for today, my young apprentice. Tomorrow you'll begin training with Janice Jacobs and look at real-world examples of how not to build a city. Trust me, her presentations are always eye-opening.

I'll look forward to it, I replied. Free to go, I headed out of the office and back home---but not before grabbing another donut...

----------------------------------
* Traditional towns and cities (from ancient times until the car age) built according to pedestrian needs because they HAD to. Foot travel and the use of slow, domesticated animals were the only transportation options for thousands of years. We have become accustomed to our use of automobiles so much that many people now argue that walking is inefficient and not practicle in larger cities. This is not true. Ancient Rome had a population in the millions and yet no cars or trains or buses to get people around. The organic, interconnected design of the streets made pedestrian travel easy and the city thrived because of it. Rome had for many centuries a vibrant economy, exciting street life, and beautiful architecture. Large populations do not in any way have to rely on automobile use for efficient commuting, not then and not now.

[UrbanLegend 63]

Why do they have to go to Best Buy? Wouldn't a local electronics store down on the corner work just as well?

quote>

Economies of scale. A large Circuit City or Blockbuster can service a community much better than dozens of smaller mom&pop stores. It's a common romanticised misconception that smaller businesses by virtue of being smaller are somehow better.

It seems so obviously wrong... so why are we doing it this way???

quote>

Because people like living in houses. They like owning houses. They like privacy and not dealing with a landlords bullshit. They like having their own place to park their car. They like not having to sit between some psycho and a homeless guy on the train to work.

[uncrazycooper13 0]

-urban legend. Look closely at his city. I see houses, I don't see everyone using a bus. As he says new urbanism allows people who don't like to use a bus or walk still drive their car but also allows the rest of us to walk or ride a bus/train. Anyways that is awesome louisville! I can't wait for the next update!

-uncrazycooper

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/15/2004 3:38:32 PM
Author: UrbanLegend

Why do they have to go to Best Buy? Wouldn't a local electronics store down on the corner work just as well?

quote>


Economies of scale. A large Circuit City or Blockbuster can service a community much better than dozens of smaller mom&pop stores. It's a common romanticised misconception that smaller businesses by virtue of being smaller are somehow better.

It seems so 'obviously' wrong... so why are we doing it this way???

quote>
Because people like living in houses. They like owning houses. They like privacy and not dealing with a landlords bullshit. They like having their own place to park their car. They like not having to sit between some psycho and a homeless guy on the train to work.

quote>

UrbanLegend: Again, I urged readers not to begin debates regarding the merits of New Urbanism, but no one listened to me, it seems. Because your comment is particularly naive, I have no choice but to respond.

Major chain stores, such as Circuit City, Best Buy and the like do not service communities at all. What they provide are cheap goods for consumers to buy, but that is hardly a service considering the sheer amount of waste and personal debt the current economy has created. Major chain stores---especially Wal-Mart---provide mostly low-paying jobs with few benefits and through tax incentives provided by cities desperate for new development, pay little to nothing toward the community in which they are located. And to make matters worse, all money spent at chain stores leaves the communites from which it came and goes to wherever the stores' headquarters are located. Small mom & pop stores do several things differently: they pay their share of taxes, require few major infrastructure upgrades, and because they are owned by and employ people in the community, any money spent there stays in the community. While they cannot provide the same low prices and same variety of goods, they don't act like an economic vacuum as the chain stores do. Chain stores have a place in the economy, but should pay their fair share and should be forced to contribute to the communities in which they are located (voluntary contributions are common but pale in comparison to the damage caused).

As for your second naive assumption, New Urbanism does not mandate apartment living. Single-family homes are just as common in traditional towns and cities as they are in suburbs. It's the organization and context in which they are built that differs. If you had taken the time to actually read this CJ, or any kind of book on the subject, you would know that already.

Please, from this point on, direct criticism of New Urbanism to me through private messages. I will respond to any I receive. Thank you.

[colbysohl 0]

this CJ is awesome!

[gascooker 4]

Date: 12/15/2004 3:38:32 PM
Author: UrbanLegend
They like not having to sit between some psycho and a homeless guy on the train to work.

quote>

This sums up one of the most potent social reasons for expansion in urban sprawl in the first place, that is, people don't like other people and have come to live in a climate of fear of other people. They can use their cars to protect themselves from social-interaction. They build walls around their properties to protect their wealth, and relenquish social responsibility, not protect their privacy.

May I even dare to suggest that, perhaps there would be no homelessness if they interacted and actually witnessed it in their community, instead of ignoring it by not seeing it, whilst protected in their automatia bubbles.

This point partly illustrated by Louisville's last post when he talks of limited living patterns and public plazas.

Great CJ - keep it up.

* the word people is used here as a gross generalisation, of course.

[UrbanLegend 63]

Date: 12/15/2004 4:12:16 PM
Please, from this point on, direct criticism of New Urbanism to me through private messages. I will respond to any I receive. Thank you.

quote>

Since you asked that we not clutter up your CJ with a debate on the pros and cons of New Urbanism, I may start a new thread in another forum.

FYI, although I am not practicing, I do have a degree in Civil Engineering as well as an MBA. I am also reasonibly well read in urban design concepts, economics and the effects (both real and imagined) of chain stores on local communities. You might want to consider that before calling people's view's 'naive'.

Your CJ is pretty interesting though. I am much more interested in the CJ cities that are surrounded by post-modern sprawl and techno-urbanism (a term one book coined to describe the planned subdivision / suburban office park style of development you have pictured) than the skyscraper forests.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/16/2004 12:26:58 PM
Author: UrbanLegend

FYI, although I am not practicing, I do have a degree in Civil Engineering as well as an MBA. I am also reasonibly well read in urban design concepts, economics and the effects (both real and imagined) of chain stores on local communities. You might want to consider that before calling people's view's 'naive'.

quote>

In that case, I apologize. Naive was the wrong term. I should have said your statements were just patently false. I'll try to be more accurate in the future.

Since you asked that we not clutter up your CJ with a debate on the pros and cons of New Urbanism, I may start a new thread in another forum.

quote>

That would be an excellent idea, and thanks for the compliments on the CJ!

[UrbanLegend 63]

Feel free to post your comments on New Urbanism here:
https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=58076