The New Urbanism architectural movement

C2 Proficiency · Multiple Matching · Based on C2 Proficiency exam text

You are going to read an extract from an article on urban planning. For questions 1–10, choose from the sections (A-E). The sections may be chosen more than once.

The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU)

The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) was founded two decades ago by a group of talented architects in the USA, who were looking to create sustainable, walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods. One of their most ambitious projects, by founder member Peter Calthorpe, was Laguna West, south of Sacramento. However, during the grim California recession of the 1990s, the original developer for this scheme went bankrupt and the entire project was taken over by a less sympathetic developer, who contravened virtually all of CNU's principles. Had Laguna West been completed as Calthorpe planned it, it would have been one of the great visionary new towns of the late 20th century. As things have turned out, it is just another conventional, car-dependent suburb. And the current extent of New Urbanist communities in terms of population absorption implies that if they are regarded as a solution to metropolitan problems, all the usual clichés – shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic, fiddling while Rome burns, etc. – must apply.

The key principles of the CNU

The key principles of the CNU remain unchanged. They seek to promote neighbourhoods that are diverse in terms of use and have mixed populations in terms of age, race and income. They believe in giving communities transportation alternatives – especially walking, cycling and public transit. They have a strong preference for 'infill' development – that is, the use of land within a built-up area, especially as part of a community redevelopment project – rather than the endless expansion of cities sometimes referred to as 'urban sprawl'. They give some priority to accessible public spaces, community institutions and a variety of parks and other green spaces, in order to foster exemplary civic behaviour.

New Urbanist communities

New Urbanist communities are intended to be more than residential subdivisions, with shops, a wide range of personal and consumer services, and workplace sites all conveniently accessible on foot. This is one of the plans for Kentlands, perhaps the most successful of the NU communities to date, and yet commercial development in terms of employment opportunities is lagging far behind. The same idea of 'self-containment' was one of the principles behind the creation of the British new towns of the 1960s, such as Milton Keynes and Telford. Job prospects were certainly good in these towns, though unfortunately the vacancies did not cater to the resident population, due to skill mismatch and other reasons. The overwhelming tendency was for residents to work elsewhere, with the jobs available in the new towns filled by commuters from outside, with the net result being more use of fossil fuels rather than less.

Critics of the CNU

Critics of the CNU say that it embraces pie-in-the-sky social engineering based on a false diagnosis of society's urban problems, an excessive faith in the ability to change the world, and the prescription of policies that are implementable only under very special circumstances. Urban capital stock is already largely in place and remains a constant, while much of the residential housing in the US has been built in the last 40 years, so innovation through renewal is off the agenda for the time being. Hence, the practical consequences of New Urbanism continue to be a small number of relatively small communities accommodating a miniscule proportion of metropolitan population growth. The US government-sponsored company Fannie Mae's research into housing preferences shows that up to 80% of US households would hope to live in a single-family dwelling with a garden, regardless of income, race or current tenure status. It is only possible to meet these preferences through high-density developments in the suburbs.

New Urbanism and city centers

As for the idea that somehow New Urbanism can contribute to the stability, if not revival, of city centers, it remains just that – an idea. Most NU communities are being built on green field sites some distance away from the central city, and infill development has been limited – probably of necessity because of land scarcity – to tiny pockets. Hence, there is no identifiable relationship between NU communities and the fate of central cities and those who live there. If there is some consensus for tackling the social problems found in the central cities (and it is by no means clear that this consensus exists), it would be far better to deal with these problems via direct, tightly-targeted measures rather than via land use controls and social experiments on the metropolitan fringe. The real issue for the city of today is how to counter or accommodate the obvious loss of commercial investment from its heart to its suburbs, which has created run-down central neighbourhoods supported by few amenities. The New Urbanists are largely silent on this.

The New Urbanism architectural movement

the interrelationship between metropolitan amenities and good conduct

the failure to see through a project according to its original design

an indication of the expectations held by a majority of citizens

the lack of transport infrastructure in one development

the avoidance of urban development on the periphery

the apparent failure to foster sufficient urban renewal

an experiment in mixed-use communities prior to the CNU

an inability to identify adequate sites of a certain type

the slow pace of change due to relatively recent construction

an unforeseen environmental consequence of planning policy

In which section are the following mentioned?

Available as a free printable PDF worksheet with an optional answer key.

More C2 Proficiency Multiple Matching practice · All C2 Proficiency practice