New Urbanism and Smart Growth: Twins Separated at Birth? [Dispatch]

New Urbanism and Smart Growth: Twins Separated at Birth? David Gordon New Urbanism and Smart Growth: A Research Symposium, conference sponsored by the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education (NCSGRE), University of Maryland at College Park, May 3-5, 2002. As more communities are built fol­ lowing the principles o f the New Urbanism, serious researchers have begun to check whether the underly­ ing urban design instincts and chosen precedents of its practitioners are truly effective.' Indeed, the many New Urbanist projects now nearing com­ pletion are being seen as laboratories in which to test the movement's key claims. Among the questions researchers have started asking are these: • Can a walkable neighborhood really reduce automobile trips? 'Does a neighborhood designed with New Urbanist principles demonstrably improve its residents' sense of commu­ nity (or civility) when compared to conventional suburban development? • Can New Urbanist design reinforce eco­ logical planning? I f New Urbanism's principles are supportable in practice, its advocates should have little to fear from such research — and much to gain. Thus, it was a sign of New Urbanism's coming of age that the Congress for the New Urbanism's 2002 academic confer­ ence, New Urbanism and Smart Growth, was the most relaxed, most interdisciplinary, and most focused on research of that organization's gather­ ings to date. I n recent years the C N U has also tried to widen its focus. I n particular, it has formed partnerships with the federal government's H O P E V I program for inner-city projects, and with the Smart G r o w t h Network for regional planning. I n this regard, the May conference was also a coming- out party for the new National Center for Smart Growth Research and Edu­ cation, its co-sponsor. The location of the conference at the Center's home base, the Univer­ sity of Maryland at College Park, sig­ naled these new allegiances. This institution is well situated to analyze Smart Growth, and its School of Architecture is open to the ideas of New Urbanism (its dean, Steven Hurtt, is chairman of C N U ' s educa­ tion task force). By contrast, C N U has had a tough time infiltrating many elite architectural schools, as demon­ strated by the mixed results of its first four academic conferences. In particu­ lar, the fierce discussions at Harvard, U C Berkeley, and Michigan that fol­ lowed the 1998 Seaside debates gener­ ated much smoke, heat and press, but not much light.' There is much in the field of urbanism that remains unsubstanti­ ated by rigorous peer-reviewed research, the standard of proof in the academic world. This often places urban designers at a disadvantage in relation to other specialists, most notably landscape ecologists and transportation planners. A lack of hard research is particularly damaging in forums where scientific data is valued, as in administrative decision-making and the awarding of government funds. It was particularly encouraging, therefore, that many of the papers presented at the 2002 C N U academic conference succeeded in establishing a clear research agenda. Such an objective stance not only helps define what we think we know, but more importantly, what we do not know about urbanism. T h e Design-Transportation L i n k The conference opened with a stimulating exchange between its keynote speakers, Maryland's Governor Parris Glendening and the C N U ' s Andres Duany. Glendening proudly pointed to how Maryland had created the nation's leading Smart Growth program, targeting state infrastructure expenditures to shape development and conservation. Duany, meanwhile, cleverly proposed Miami as a poster child for Smart Growth, citing its metropolitan gov­ ernment (1957), urban growth bound­ aries (1976), unified school district, higher regional densities, and Metro- Rail system as evidence of the land of policies that Smart Growth advocates recommend. Duany also challenged those in attendance to see how a regulatory response may not be enough to enhance overall quality of life. W i t h ­ out attention to place and community, he said, planners may just create high-density sprawl. Such comments about the value of urban design clearly touch a nerve in the fledgling relationship between New Urbanism and Smart Growth. While the C N U was one of the founding partners of the Smart Growth Network, New Urbanists may still be surprised to find that Smart Growth does not require their vision of good urban design — partic­ ularly on transportation issues. The conference's dual mandate was examined in more detail in later paper presentations. I n particular, Susan Handy (University of Texas) pre­ sented an exemplary transportation research review. She reported there is still much to be unraveled in terms of the complex interaction between built form and travel. However, research results are fairly definitive on several issues: • Nezv highways do not cause sprawl, but they help determine its location. 'As a corollary, a moratorium on new highways will not prevent sprawl. • Travel increases after new road G o r d o n / N e w Urbanism and Smart G r o w t h