![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
New Urbanism has gained considerable popularity. This paper evaluates the significance of designing and developing New Urbanist projects, within the contemporary circumstances of urban and suburban development in the United States, using survey research method. It investigates why designers and developers promote New Urbanist projects despite not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) opposition to higher-density developments and despite continued strong preference for single-family homes in standard sub-divisions. Are there any perceived benefits of undertaking such projects? Where do designers, developers and planners concur (or differ) in their assessment of the advantages associated with such projects? The study reveals a considerable agreement among respondents that these projects offer better design, better compatibility with growth management regulations, minimize deterioration of environmental quality, and minimize NIMBY opposition; however, they are restricted by existing land-use regulations, and resistance among the established development community. Implications for the diffusion of New Urbanism are discussed.
Acknowledgements
The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of that work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in the publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Government. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft, and Tridib Banerjee for his advice.
Notes
1 Commodification of public life and urban space is reflected in the emergence of Negotiated Plazas and Gated Communities (for details see Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, Citation1993; Blakely & Snyder, Citation1997). For a discussion on waning public realm see Banerjee (Citation2001), and on the propagation of non-place edge-city phenomena see Garreau (Citation1991).
2 As requested by potential respondents, a few questionnaires were sent again by fax, and/or as an email attachment.
3 The interview with Charles Dyer was conducted on the telephone and recorded with his approval.
4 A few of the respondents in this study had multiple roles in the design, development and approval process of New Urbanist projects. Therefore, aggregate results combining responses from designers, developers and planners have been reported in the main text as appropriate.
5 According to Smart Growth Network (Citation2000), these states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State and Wisconsin. My calculation is based on the December 2002 list of 474 New Urbanist projects provided by New Urban News staff, and the list of metropolitan areas with urban growth boundaries compiled by Nelson & Dawkins (Citation2000, pp. 10–14). I have identified these metropolitan areas with urban growth boundaries by counties and have calculated the total number of New Urbanist projects that are located in these counties. A total of 116 out of 474 New Urbanist projects are located within counties that are in metropolitan areas that have adopted urban growth boundaries. An additional 81 projects are located in adjoining counties that may also be within the urban growth boundaries, but it is difficult to confirm this without knowing the exact boundaries of Metropolitan areas with urban growth boundaries, and the corresponding location of New Urbanist projects.
6 I did not examine whether strong growth areas in counties that have New Urbanist projects also have high land prices. However, higher land prices are to be expected, given the high demand for land in these areas.
7 Initially, Joseph Alfandre was developing Kentlands and Phil Angelides was developing Laguna West. Now, Chevy Chase Bank is sponsoring Kentlands while Laguna West is being developed by River West Investments—River West was established Phil Angelides, who owned a major interest in it but may have had to divest when he became the State of California's Treasurer. It should also be noted that Laguna West faced financial problems partly because it included a $5 000 000 lake amenity, paid half of the cost of a $8 000 000 interchange, and put in place all of its parks and urban amenities up-front rather than concurrent with development. Furthermore, this was during a major recession and many conventional projects were also facing financial problems.