Response to a Toothache Critique of Planning Buzzwords

This blogger’s agrees with Mr. O’Toole’s comment about Frank Lloyd Wright in a previous blog at this web site. This architect is truly unique and in an elite class of visionary thinkers of all time. The proliferation of his works takes a back seat to no one. The blogger’s reference to his name and other design professionals of previous generations was to show a mild comparison with the current generation of New Urbanists and others. The latter group are far from “do nothings” and have made significant contributions to the field of planning. At a recent planning conference about two years ago, the speaker of one the presentations happened to be a fellow graduate of the Yale University of Architecture with the likes of Duany and Soloman. The presenter relayed a story about one of the his professors who basically called these future New Urbanists “slouches” and that they would fail to accomplish much in the field.

With regards to Mr. O’Toole’s comments on Herbert Gans’s writings, his works somewhat underlie a theory of similarity in our society and its resultant transformation over time whether in an urban area or suburban setting. Whether this is influenced by the forced urban renewal of Boston’s West End or the creation of Levitt’s suburban development in New Jersey maybe moot.

This blogger is somewhat familiar with both locations. With regards to the West End, his father-in-law’s business had to be relocated to another city neighborhood closer to the inner ring suburbs. Many of the same customs and traditions that were practiced in the West End were repeated in his new location in Brighton.

With regards to the second community, this blogger recently viewed the sister community of Levittown, New York out on Long Island. This blogger did not recognize anything out of the ordinary with the surroundings other than the noted names of places within the community. Over time, the enormity of this tract development has blended into the fabric of Long Island. Today, Levittown, New York does not demonstrate any unique advantages or disadvantages of suburban communities.

The concept of community has uniformly changed over time. For many people on the go there is limited interaction with neighbors whether in the city or suburb. In many ways, one could make the argument that the suburban communities may have edge on community cohesiveness. For example, in the third tier suburban community where this blogger works, there is a heightened level of volunteer involvement, while in the blogger’s home community there is more of a resignation that “you can’t fight City Hall.”

A Toothache Critique of Planning Buzzwords

First of all this blogger wishes to apologize to the great thinkers of our time, for the interpretation of the following buzzwords: community, neighborhood, smart growth, and new urbanism. This blogger recognizes the outstanding contribution from these architects, planners, allied professionals, and commentators including but not limited to Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Peter Calthorpe, Daniel Soloman, Shelly Poticha, Sim Van der Ryn, Philip Langdon, James Howard Kunstler, Michael Corbett, Robert Cervero, Hank Dittmar, Randall Arendt, and others. These individuals collectively are part of a historical movement for town and city planning that are equal to the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Daniel Burnham, Louis H. Sullivan, Ebenezer Howard, Camillo Sitte, and others.

The first key word misused is the term “community.” Community means different things to different people at various spatial levels. John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts stated in 1630 “Consider that wee shall be as a City [community] upon a Hill, the eies of all people are upon us.”. President Ronald Regan inferred upon the entire country (community) as that “shining city upon a hill.” The President spoke of a “tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans…teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace…and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

Robert Nisbet states that community “goes far beyond mere local community.” It “encompasses all forms of relationships which are characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional dept, moral commitment, social cohesion, and continuity in time. Community is founded on man conceived in his wholeness…it achieves its fulfillment in a submergence of individual will that is not possible in unions of mere convenience or rational assent. (Cited on page 2, The Search for Community in Modern America, edited by E. Digby Baltzell.)

Further, “community is the product of people working together on problems, of autonomous and collective fulfillment of internal objectives, and of the experience of living under codes of authority which have been set by…persons involved.” (Cited on page xvi, The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet.

Nesbit decries the “suburban horde” because there are “no common problems, functions, and authority.” He states that community “thrives on self-help..[people]come together to do something that cannot not be easily be done in individual isolation.” (Ibid)

Many considered suburbs a pejorative term below the standards and dignity of city and countryside communities. Others feel that these suburban communities are being undermined by a number of forces including apathy, subversion of power, family breakdowns, technology, work ethic, and host of other influences.

In 1991, a number of the above referenced individuals got together and created a series of community concepts known as the Ahwahnee Principles. These community principles help “define a community where housing and all the things needed to meet the daily needs of residents are located within walking distance of one another. They call for returning population densities around transit stops to provide a critical mass of people and activities in these areas needed to make transit economically viable.”

Many of these individuals helped organize a movement in planning known as “New Urbanism.”
One of the key principles of new urbanists is the concept of neighborhood as defined by Clarence Perry in his writings cited in the Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs dated 1929 (Cited in the Practice of Local Government Planning, 2nd edition, page 42). There were several key parts to the neighborhood unit principle: one, an elementary school at its center; two, an easy walking distance to that school; three, elongated blocks with no through traffic within the blocks and commercial uses on their perimeter; four, the area be owner occupied single family detached homes with backyard playgrounds.

This neighborhood concept evolved into more modern adaptations including the “transit
planning area” which is characterized by a walk time corresponding “to approximately ¼ mile to ½ mile” with an area ranging from 125 acres to 500 acres. According to some, this area has to have a critical mass of population.

In the State of Massachusetts, there is growth management legislation entitled “Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production”, under General Laws Chapter 40R. Under this law, “smart growth” is defined as having a “housing density in the proposed [zoning] district …of at least 20 units per acre for multi-family housing on the developable land …8 units per acre for single family homes…and 12 units per acre for 2 and 3 family buildings.”

This blogger happens to live in an established urban neighborhood in a central city with nearby shopping and elementary schools. Yet my neighborhood would not meet Perry’s definition today nor would it meet the density requirements of Chapter 40R.. The elementary school may be within walking distance, but school zoning districts and school choice allow children to attend schools other than those geographically closer. Also many of the house lots in the neighborhood are bigger than 7,000 sq.ft. and therefore would not meet these density thresholds.

Basically, the new urbanists and smart growth advocates in Massachusetts have defined an urban type model for future development in these zoning districts. Many third tier suburbs can not absorb that Kind of density. The implications on schools and infrastructure in the respective communities are staggering. In the suburb of Ashland, Massachusetts, there is two hundred acre site that is being “master-planned” as a transit friendly development near an existing railroad line; however the parcel of land exclusively dedicated to multi-family development does not have the density required to meet these requirements in the state legislation. Said density is only 17 units per acre despite the project size of 500 units on the site. In other words, does this project qualify as “Dumb Growth” since it does not meet these design thresholds?

To briefly sum up, this blogger has issues with the definitions and application of many of the concepts elaborated in this blog. It is time to adapt new terminology and implementation techniques to meet the demands of these third tier communities and other growth centers.