Places

About
Foundation
Partner Schools
Print Archive
Peer Review
Submissions
Donate
Contact


Departments

Critique
Essays
Gallery
Interviews
Multimedia
Partner News
Peer Reviewed
Poetry & Fiction
Projects


Topics

Architecture
Art
Books
Cities + Places
Community
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Film + Video
Food
Geography
Health + Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Infrastructure
Landscape
Photography
Planning
Politics + Policy
Preservation
Public + Private
Reputations
Sustainability
Technology
Transportation
Urbanism
Water



Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Comments (8) Posted 11.01.01 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Essay: Ruth Durack

Village Vices: The Contradiction of New Urbanism and Sustainability


Over the last twenty years, theory and practice in planning and urban design have been dominated by the search for sustainable development patterns. Fueled by growing public outcry over issues of environmental protection, energy conservation, agricultural preservation, urban sprawl, roadside aesthetics and highway gridlock, sustainability has become the banner around which the forces for change in the way we develop our cities and suburbs are rallying. Perhaps the most powerful of these forces — certainly the most vocal — has been the New Urbanists, whose revival of the traditional village prototype is being enthusiastically adopted as a model of sustainable development.

I suspect, however, that the village and sustainability are inherently contradictory concepts. This suspicion is offered as a polemic, based on neither empirical data nor a comprehensive review of the literature. My purpose is to voice a renegade opinion on the merits of New Urbanism and its dubious claims to sustainability, and to draw attention to an altogether more sustainable alternative that has been explored in recent projects. This alternative accepts a more open, indeterminate urbanism that recognizes discontinuities and inconsistencies as life-affirming opportunities for adaptation and change, offering choices for the future in accordance with the true definition of sustainability.

For the New Urbanists, the village is an appropriate model of sustainable design because of features such as its compact scale and density, fine-grained mix of uses, focus on walking and transit as the primary modes of circulation, and varied housing types that promote a socially diverse population. To achieve its delightful physical qualities and egalitarian ambitions, the New Urbanist village is by necessity a fully planned and regulated environment, fiercely resistant to change and any deviation from the rigid rules that govern its form and function. But it is precisely this inflexibility, which is so important in its struggle for completion as a development enterprise, that is sowing the seeds of the village’s ultimate demise.

Since the emergence of New Urbanism as a mainstream urban design concept in the 1980s, the central preoccupation of its adherents has been finding ways to adapt the village form to contemporary development demands and vice versa. But the real issue that these talented practitioners and theorists should be confronting is not how to implement the alluring vision, but whether it actually achieves any of its lofty claims, particularly the overriding objective of sustainability.

It could be that the New Urbanist village is just another seductive, formal prototype that is successfully diverting our attention from the overwhelming challenges of exploding urbanization in a world whose limits we have only recently realized are tangible. Perhaps all this proselytizing about a “new urbanism” and its captivating fantasies of village life is just a way to avoid confronting planning and design issues we are not even sure how to think about, let alone resolve. Rather than working to perfect the village form as a more marketable or accepted development model, we should be questioning its relevance. Better still, we need to be questioning the utility of prescriptive models altogether in the search for sustainable form.

Admittedly, we cannot accurately evaluate the impacts of New Urbanism until more communities have been built and occupied for a sufficient amount of time. But even without empirical data, there are enough incongruities between the idea of the village and the concept of sustainability to warrant a more cautious review of the progress we are making towards defining sustainable development patterns.

To frame the argument properly, we should begin with the definition of sustainability. Unfortunately — or perhaps inevitably, given the political sweep of the green revolution — the concept of sustainability is routinely reduced to a question of physical survival in an environment of continuing degradation and depletion. As a species, however, we transcended our simple dependence on the environment centuries ago and the question of survival, therefore, has to admit culture in equal part with nature. Incidentally, it is no accident that some of the greenest words of the language maintain “culture” as their root: agriculture, permaculture, aquaculture, etc. In fact, even our interest in the environment as an issue is a cultural construct that has emerged relatively recently, and not without the subjective judgments of a highly politicized controversy. So sustainability must consider the preservation, in some form, of this incredibly complex web of culture, which includes our perceptions of, attitudes towards and operations on the natural environment.

But when we think of sustainability in such broad terms, we have to start wondering exactly what it is that we are seeking to sustain. What are we really trying to preserve in a world where the growth rates of poverty, crime, unemployment, drug abuse, homelessness, racial conflict and just about every other indicator of societal breakdown are rising geometrically? Where in the United States alone, functional illiteracy stands at twenty five percent? Where terrorism has become a universal form of political protest? Obviously, we should not discount the value of the many beacons of success that have been lit across this country and elsewhere, but in the big picture, we have to admit that they hardly add up to a situation that is unquestionably worth sustaining.

All these horrifying statistics, however, have one thing in common: we tolerate them by choice. With an appropriate political shift and realignment of resources — unlikely, but nonetheless possible — we could choose to be different. And this is, perhaps, the only real quality of our present situation that is undeniably worth sustaining: our ability to make choices, or at least the availability of choices to make. So with a small but significant adjustment to the Bruntland Report’s definition, I would suggest that sustainability refers to development that satisfies the choices of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to make choices of their own. [1]

This is precisely the point at which the ideas of sustainability and of the village diverge. A village, by its nature, is a stable, self-perpetuating, self-sustaining entity. It has boundaries and a limited size, an internal organization that resists revision, a coherent scale and building character that protest the deviant form, and a fragile landscape that is vulnerable to growth. It builds a social network that relies on interwoven destinies, censuring the separatist, the non-participant, the transient. It is, by necessity, a fixed, complete and finished entity, whose greatest enemy is the future. Its very survival requires resistance to change, and physical and social design conspire to preserve the status quo at sometimes quite remarkable human and financial cost.

It is difficult to argue that these characteristics are altogether bad. Perhaps, as Alvin Toffler warned forty-five years ago, the greatest threat to society at the dawn of the twenty-first century will be the acceleration of change. It is certainly hard to maintain that having choices is such a good thing when we have apparently exercised them so poorly. My point is only that if we define sustainability as keeping options open and inviting our children to satisfy their own ambitions, within the same limits of consideration for the next generation, then the village as a model is antithetical to these objectives. And if we want to pay more than lip service to ideas of cultural diversity, environmental justice, freedom of expression, opportunity and democracy, then we have to embrace an open and indeterminate urbanity that allows these qualities to flower.

Pursuing such an alternative would require a radical shift in not only how we define successful urban places, but also how we plan and develop them. What I am suggesting is not another model; in fact, I reject the very idea of models, of prescribed forms, of fixed intentions, of master plans. Instead, we must adopt a way of thinking about the world that accepts unpredictability, coincidence and the accidental; that delights in diversity, multiplicity and contrast; that embraces change and the exercise of individual choice. Perhaps the best way of putting it is that we must find a way of thinking that concedes to the future, not in an acquiescent or submissive way, but as an act of affirmation and supreme optimism, proffered with sufficient humility to acknowledge that the next generation just may come up with better ideas than ours.

There is nothing particularly new in this sort of world view. It is the basis of much of Eastern philosophy and I suspect it underwrote most of the work on flexibility, adaptability and indeterminate structures in the 1960s. After all, Robert Venturi gave us the operative “C-words”: complexity and contradiction, almost forty years ago. But a revival of this kind of thinking has particular relevance to the search for sustainability because of its foundation in the sciences and an extraordinary revolution in the ways that physics and biology are looking at the nature of life and questions of human survival.

In a nutshell, science has discovered that we cannot understand the world by reducing it to its simplest constituent parts and examining the laws under which these parts behave. Instead, we need to see the world as an indivisible system, an interlocking network of relationships and interdependencies between elements that are themselves indivisible systems of unfathomable complexity. In this slippery world of perpetual flux, there are no beginnings and ends, no givers and receivers, no actors and reactors — just constant accommodation and cooperation between parts. The whole idea of a duality between man and nature disappears; they are just parts of the same co-adaptational system. We therefore have to abandon any notions of an optimal equilibrium state, and even the objective of optimization becomes meaningless, except as a fleeting moment in the endless process of adjustment to a new condition.

So what becomes of planning and design in this churning world of uncontrollable change? Does the purposeful design action become just an exercise in futility? How can we continue to believe in planning as a rational process for achieving defined goals when we now know that even initiating the process changes the conditions we set out to improve?

The point is that this has always been so. The interactive nature of the system has not changed, only our understanding of it. Rather than challenging the necessity to plan, this new understanding challenges us to revise the way we plan, to abandon the search for answers or models, and to find ways to maneuver in a world of indeterminacy.

According to Brian Arthur, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute, the think tank that has initiated most of the research on the nature of chaos, operating in such a world means “...keeping as many options open as possible. You go for viability, something that’s workable, rather than what’s ‘optimal’ ...What you’re trying to do is maximize robustness, or survivability, in the face of an illdefined future.” [2]

For planning and urban design, this translates into foregoing the comprehensive plan in favor of an initial strategic act; defining a beginning, not an end; a housing start, not a neighborhood — something like the tourist whose plans for a six-week tour of Europe only go as far as buying a ticket across the Atlantic. Perhaps Rem Koolhaas puts it best when he talks about urban design as the task of creating potentials. This is an astutely pragmatic idea in its recognition that, besides the selfless offer of opportunity to the future, we are also at liberty to exploit the opportunities we have inherited.

David Leatherbarrow has pointed out three aspects of this kind of indeterminate planning [3] that place it in direct contrast to the closed, fixed form of the village. First, it corresponds to ideas of cultural diversity by resisting any sort of fixed subdivision of a city or region, as well as rigid formal constructs for city and regional development. The village, despite its explicit intentions of diversity, has proven to be a very effective tool for ethnic and economic segregation. As Leatherbarrow aptly recalled, the word “ghetto” derives from the Jewish Quarter in Venice, which had all the elements of the classic urban village.

Second, indeterminate planning has the capacity to tolerate, and even value, the discontinuities that characterize contemporary American cities — what Leatherbarrow calls an “open topography.” These missing teeth are anathema to the village builder, but if we can overcome our preference for the continuous field and the city as a finished artifact, we can recognize the utility of these spaces which can accommodate occasional or temporary events and satisfy unpredictable future needs.

The third advantage of such planning is that it invites true citizen participation in planning and development. The village certainly promotes citizen involvement, but only in the affairs of the village, whose primary concern is its own survival, first by completing, then by maintaining, a preestablished plan. Real participation is more than just a watchdog activity; it requires a kind of planning that demands the continuous attention of future agents and extends to them equal decision-making authority.

There is also a fourth critical advantage of this way of thinking about the city, one that directly addresses the objective of sustainability with new theories on the nature of life and the sustenance of living systems. In his work on artificial life at the Santa Fe Institute, Christopher Langton has offered the compelling idea that life occurs at a point of balance between the forces of order and the forces of disorder, at what he calls “the edge of chaos.” [4] The revelation of his work is that life is not an equilibrium condition, but a state of continuous adaptive activity, resisting the equally destructive alternatives of locking into a rigid order or descending into the turbulence of chaos.

For planning and design, this means defining a flexible, shifting decision-making framework that stimulates constant review and revision, rather than a fixed set of rules that defy challenge. While a certain amount of stability or predictability is obviously necessary for society to function, attempting to specify the physical form and functional patterns of our future is potentially a prescription for disaster. What we must do, rather, is establish a process for continual reconsideration and revision of the rules, making choice the only constant and participation an unavoidable obligation.

Probably the most direct expression of this philosophy to date is Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau’s proposal for Downsview Park, a 320-acre former military air base in the suburbs of Toronto. To the chagrin of many landscape architects, Koolhaas and Mau won the competition for this major commission with a strategy, not a design, arguing that “the process of landscape planning and development itself, necessarily an open-ended set of complex processes developed over time, was more significant to the urban outcome than was a detailed physical design that would be rendered redundant by subsequent social, economic and cultural developments.” [5] It will take fifteen to twenty years before we can evaluate the wisdom of this proposition.

Similarly open-ended and strategic thinking was evident in schemes for an urban park in Cleveland presented by Peter Latz, Anuradha Mathur and Stan Allen (who was also a finalist with James Corner in the Downsview Park competition) during an invitational charrette organized by the Urban Design Center of Northeast Ohio at the end of April, 2001. All three recognized the futility of attempting to freeze the future of a complicated urban site and offered decision-making frameworks and initial strategic actions, rather than fixed development plans.

Adopting this kind of open-ended planning requires a determined commitment to ongoing review and modification, or the kind of continuous adaptive activity that characterizes living systems. Accepting indeterminacy and choice demands much more of us than settling for the structures of an immutable order. But if sustainability is to be adopted as a sincere objective, we have to plan and build not only in closer correspondence with nature, but also in recognition of the process of life itself.

Notes

1. See the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), commonly known as the Bruntland Report: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
2. Quoted in M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 333.
3. Presentation at the University of Pennsylvania, 1994.
4. Quoted in Waldrop, 234.
5. Charles Waldheim, “Park = City? The Downsview Park Design Competition,” in Landscape Architecture 91:3 (March, 2001), 82
This article originally appeared in a print issue of Places in November 2001. You can download a pdf of the article here or browse the print archive.

Share This Story

RELATED POSTS


Red and Gold: A Tale of Two Apartheid Museums


Techno-Pastoral Fantasies at Hong Kong International


Jane Jacobs and the Death and Life of American Planning


“The Spectacle of Growth”


Paris: Life Forms



RSSSubscribe to Comment Feed

Comments (8)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT >>

Although in full agreement with Durack's excellent review, I would venture the following: "new urbanism", despite the emotions and envy it brings to the academy, is a miniscule part of the indeterminate geography of the suburban city. Therefore these villages should be seen as unique and rare pieces of fabric that serve one tiny segment of the upper middle-class, who prefers to live in the past while consuming the present. And as such but a "petting-zoo" (as JG Ballard would have said) of little consequence in a world with immense urban challenges—Nairobi, Lagos, Jo-burg, Sao Paulo, Port-au-Prince, Ciudad de Mexico and so on.
Lars Lerup
03.25.10 at 05:06

There are so many assertions in this article - and Lerup's comment -that I disagree with that it's difficult to know where to begin. But let's start with an easy one: New Urbanism is not based on "the village." Related to this village-based characterization of New Urbanism, and despite Lerup's comment, New Urbanists are working in Port-au-Prince, and other places like Kingston, Jamaica, Karachi, Pakistan, Mumbai, India and Havana, Cuba. Here in America, Miami, Florida joined a growing list of towns and cities that have adopted form based codes.

To turn Durack's argument around, she is essentially saying "let's experiment on our cities," even though her profession has been doing that for more than half a century, with disastrous results (Ville Radieuse, urban removal, towers in the parking lot, massive urban freeways, Broadacre City, auto-based planning, etc.) Conversely, New Urbanism adopts *any* method or technique that works, valuing the successful making of cities over theory or ideology.

Durack's proposal is absolutely consistent with what architects, landscape architects and planners have been doing since the days of Le Corbusier, the Bauhaus and CIAM. Those ego-based experiments have ruined cities around the world but have failed to produce a single successful city.

It's also consistent with what Lerup taught me many years ago, when I was freshman in the College of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley. Lerup was one of the teachers in the core program for first year students, a program which I left because I found the principles they taught so limited and constricting that I thought they were making it impossible to make good places larger than the single building. In retrospect, I think I made the right decision in transferring to another school.

PS: Under the direction of Dean Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, one of the founding Board members of the Congress for New Urbanism, the University of Miami School of Architecture has worked with the Haitian government and Partners in Health to train Haitian urban designers in emergency recovery techniques and long term planning. Her husband and partner Andres Duany, another founding Board member of the CNU, has donated large amounts of pro bono time at their office for the creation of emergency housing for Haiti, with 1,000 units donated to the country. I don't know of any similar efforts by the Landscape Urbanism that Durack describes.



John Massengale
05.06.10 at 05:22

At my blog, I cleaned up the language a little bit and commented on a few specific quotes from Durack http://bit.ly/itsworse
John Massengale
05.06.10 at 07:27

Ms. Durack's comments on New Urbanism are " based on neither empirical data nor a comprehensive review of the literature", yet she shamelesssly proceeds to posit many incorrect suspicions about the topic, while stating "Admittedly, we cannot accurately evaluate the impacts of New Urbanism until more communities have been built and occupied for a sufficient amount of time."

In fact, we can evaluate these impacts: New Urban communities imitate the most successful Old Urban communities of all types and sizes. There is no shame in acknowledging, admiring and emulating successful human environments both modest and grand.

Ms. Durack seems conflicted about these Old Urban virtues, ascribing them to "the Village ... a stable, self-perpetuating, self-sustaining entity. It has boundaries and a limited size... It builds a social network that relies on interwoven destinies...". Despite noting that "It is difficult to argue that these characteristics are altogether bad" she proceeds to vilify this type of community as the enemy of the individual, change and the future.

Neatly dispatching with New Urbanism and the Evils of Community, Ms. Durack's is set free to roam greener intellectual pastures. The long winded pep-rally that follows might be summed up: "Planning Stinks, Chaos Rules: Up Yours, Bougie!". After enduring it, this reader was parched for some Kool-Aid.

I eagerly await Ms. Durack's future essay's on other topics that she knows nothing about. What additional dull & stifling traditions, customs and learned knowledge of other professions and areas of human endeavour can she topple in her quest to "...find ways to maneuver in a world of indeterminacy".

Gate Pratt
10.21.10 at 12:30

I moved from a standard large lot subdivision to a new urbanist development. I noticed the following changes, primarily because of their reflection in my budget. Number of miles driven per year in old subdivision: 50,000 In new urbanist neighborhood: 15,000 (as a result of walkable design and access to mass transit).

Water use in old neighborhood: triple the use in my home in the new urbanist neighborhood which is on a much smaller lot. So, empirically, I have shrunk both my carbon footprint and my water usage significantly by moving to a new urbanist neighborhood. How this is not sustainable again?

"Its very survival requires resistance to
change, and physical and social design conspire to preserve the status quo at sometimes quite remarkable human and financial cost."

Interesting. Especially since in my village, one of the main aspects of the social design means that neighbors share significant resources such as tools/car pools etc. They also have grouped together to get neighborhood discounts on solar panels, which about 2/3rds of the homes now have.

Petra Spiess
10.27.10 at 04:32

Ms. Durack.

The most accurate statement in your essay is that you do not know much about the subject. ("...nor a comprehensive review of the literature.)

I urge you to please do a little bit of work before you opine.
David Sucher
01.28.11 at 01:10

The previous four posts reflect most of my reactions to this polemic, so I won't repeat them.

What I am most concerned about is the ignorance displayed by the editors of Places in disseminating an article by someone who knows so little about the subject. If you intended to foster intelligent discussion of New Urbanism, this was a woeful attempt.


Bob Theis
02.09.11 at 04:52

If, in theory (since it seems we're leaving empiricism aside), indeterminate and open-ended planning offers the widest range of options, then it follows logically that the most effective planning strategy would consist of doing *nothing*. Koolhaas himself says as much: "where there is nothing, anything is possible." (S,M,L,XL)

Doing absolutely nothing --laissez-faire-- is arguably (and empirically) not a viable option when it comes to questions of sustainability. Perhaps the "lack of empirical data" is the very problem here.
Rafael Gómez-Moriana
02.01.12 at 06:55



LOG IN TO POST A COMMENT
Don't have an account? Create an account. Forgot your password? Click here.

Email


Password




Donate to Places: Your Support Makes Our Work Possible



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ruth Durack is director of the Urban Design Centre of Western Austrialia. She is a staunch advocate of a non-profit, collaborative approach to achieving urban design excellence.
More Bio >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS