I support the concept of new urbanism just as much as anyone in the planning profession, but constructing such a project from scratch on greenfield sites is pure bunk. The last thing that planners should be doing is advocating for the equivalent of “dense sprawl.” It still means extending services and infrastructure to new areas. I see virtually no difference between them other than the density of the development.

There are plenty of brownfield sites, vacant urban/suburban parcels, industrial land, boring highway commercial dribble, empty/foreclosed tract housing, and other redevelopment sites in cities and towns across this nation. Only once these are exhausted should greenfield locations be seriously considered.

Proposing a new urbanism project in an exurban area or on undeveloped rural and agricultural land defeats the purpose of new urbanism by using it as poor justification (or an excuse) for development. Land use decisions should never be based on the fact that they are cool, hip, or trendy, but because they represent good land use planning for the community and region.

This opinion may sound pie in the sky, but we all can name trendy planning ideas that have come and gone over the years – some were successful, while many others were poorly conceived. These include:

downtown pedestrian malls

enclosed downtown malls

aquariums

festival marketplaces

halls of fame (just ask Elkhart and South Bend)

urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 1960s

When it comes down to it, constructing a new urbanism development from scratch on an undeveloped site, is equivalent to platting ranchettes and farmettes in the inner city – it is totally illogical. Am I missing something here? If you have a different viewpoint on the thoughts expressed in this post, please feel free to submit a comment or reply. I am looking forward to the feedback.