The New York Times called him "The most important reform movement in architecture of the last twenty years." The information and the history of this "philosophy" of urban construction are readily available on the internet and certainly, given the great heterogeneity the phenomenon and the extension of assistance, especially in North America, speaking in a comprehensive way of New Urbanism is impossible, especially in a humble blog like mine.
For more info:
http://cnu.org http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism http://www.newurbanism.org/ However, this "movement of urban reform "is very interesting and I drove for several years to undertake a thorough research and analysis of the causes that led the birth and the results obtained.
The concepts behind the New Urbanism are simple, if the results of several studies that compare and American architects and planners were performed on urban issues since the late '80s. The city had (and still have) serious problems (pollution, safety, traffic, environmental degradation and urban quality of life in many poor neighborhoods, etc ...) and the desire to find practical solutions led large technical studies and major universities to deal with. Thus was born the Congress For The New Urbansim that later gave its name to the movement. In reality the "new" there is very little since the analysis showed that many urban problems could be solved through a land-use planning more responsive to needs of end users, ie the public (ie have discovered water hot). The layout of streets, public spaces, green areas, the provisions of residential and commercial areas, the study of urban density related to the design of service networks were some of the main arguments that were considered, thus inaugurating a new period of reflection on urbanism in people's lives.
Perhaps the greatest merit of this movement was to have highlighted the real problems of today's cities, which all too often in previous decades, had suffered damage caused by a blind speculation and a lack of planning organic urban fabric, which has become increasingly necessary in times like the sustainability concept in which economic, energy conservation and quality of life was already beginning to necessarily drive the choice of many planners.
The town of Seaside (Florida), designed by DPZ (
http://www.dpz.com/ ) has thus become the symbol of the renewed interest in the urban environment and was inspired countless other redevelopment and establishment of new districts and new towns in the USA.
itself is a small village in colonial style with colorful wooden houses and narrow pedestrian streets, situated along a part of the coast of Florida. At first glance, the impact is quite alienating, so they seem a country fake and that it can be used as a natural set of the movie "The Truman Show" (the city was created specifically to accommodate the unsuspecting Truman in the reality show of his life). In fact the city exists and is also inhabited by a few hundred people that buying at about $ 10,000 per square meter (according to the latest estimates of sales in that area) can afford their own little house in colonial wood.
Seaside's experiment went well and pushed DPZ and other architects to design many settlements, urban regeneration and expansion of many cities around the United States, not always successfully managed such as Celebration (commissioned by Walt Disney Company che attorno ai propri parchi di divertimenti si stà lanciando nel campo della pianificazione urbana) che fu un clamoroso flop commerciale (a proposito molto interessante è l'articolo di Ernesto De Pascale (
http://www.webgol.it/2004/09/16/celebration-citta-perfetta-tra-topolinia-e-il-truman-show/ ).
E qui nasce un primo dubbio: si può oggi costruire una città a tavolino, partendo da zero, una città di fondazione insomma? Le dinamiche sociali sono molto complesse e la comunità che andrà a vivere in questo nuovo nucleo dovrà partire da zero, non avrà cioè nessun background a cui attingere. I risultati quindi sembrano uncertainty is also uncertain about the commercial success of such an intervention will bring. In America this does not worry, at least not worried about a few years ago (large areas, relatively cheap land and a strong entrepreneurial spirit ampiemente bankrolled by the banks), but now, also because of the economic crisis and the limited successes in some of these interventions, What seems to downsize and investors are starting to go careful with these "new towns". In Europe, however, the climate is different, not just a problem of space, and in the USA do not have to be sure, but also of real practical purpose: to create a village of low density means to force people to be slaves of your car the inability to establish an efficient network of services and public transport (uneconomic having low density) and make it accessible only to this new village who can afford to spend a fortune on petrol and time (mostly). Furthermore, the low density no incentive for shops and stores and all new SUV is on your side looking for some supermarket nearby. An average American if you can possibly afford, much less a European average. This is one of the most obvious contrasts of this doctrine Urban aims to combat "sprawl" (planning widespread and chaotic) with a schedule of low density with some masked Mannerist architecture but still uneconomic and not sustainable. Better to expand the existing city with new neighborhoods may be well structured and upgrade the degraded areas aiming at a density sufficient for the trade and service networks.
The New Urbanism, to be fair, he has also contributed to urban regeneration with good results, and many American cities have benefited from the actions of "urban infill" and "smart growth".
And 'in fact in this field that this new movement has been its most successful, and it is here that the doctrines of the Charter of New Urbanism have been better implemented. The operational approach
quite simple, almost trivial, is the planning from a core, the district regarded as a minor urban self-sufficient in everyday life, and with shops and offices, including public health units and schools that allow people to find a short distance from his house all the facilities necessary to needs of all days. The union and interaction between the districts (with a structured efficient and gararchica road network and infrastructure for public and private) then gives life to the city center itself, which sees the main public buildings located in the border areas between various quarters (normally occupied by major roads and public boards that allow a more consistent flow to the focal points of the city). All urban sprawl will eventually follow the development guidelines for urban areas themselves (such as the center), a development plan called Traditional Neighborhood Development (TDN or as the Americans like to shorten everything with the initials).
The directions of development will then be drawn by another scheme, the Transit Oriented Development that gives prominence to the main lines of public transport, enabling the emergence of new districts with a guaranteed access and efficient (in Calgary Canada and Curitiba in Brazil are examples of this strategy PLANNING appreciable as shown by the attached link above).
TOD -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Oriented_Development These are the principles which constitute the main framework of New Urbanism and the lines of the principle followed in the planning and redevelopment. However
reading the Charter of New Urbanism (
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism ) one gets the impression that the statement of principles is quite vague and aimed to gather support multiple strategies that give good specific approach. Phrases such as "expect a harmonious relationship between jobs and beds" or "metropolitan regions should develop strategies to encourage both the development within these expansions and new devices" or "all buildings should provide their inhabitants with a clear perception of space, climate and weather, can be shared because they are very general but give no indication on how to achieve these desired results nor give examples to follow. Besides, a charter of principles had indeed intended to give broad enough baseline upon which we will work specifically but in doing so the whole movement of New Urbanism has assumed from the outset a very dogmatic and ideological connotations (almost a philosophical doctrine) that may have contributed to making it a "fashion" in the U.S. but perhaps it has prevented the development in Europe, where the critical view and analysis of urbanism are perhaps more mature and less prone to follow the trends.
The same discrepancy resulted from an early age between certain principles of urban planning that placed on top apart from the architecture and the strong imprint nostalgic and old-fashioned date to the early interventions (see the little house in Seaside and colored wood Colonial-style) has highlighted the limitations and the lack of a real rational criticism of the problem addressed.
In conclusion, the New Urbanism has given an interesting contribution to the analysis of the problems of our cities but rather to stimulate a deeper debate on urban strategies stopped at initial concepts, taking it as a philosophy, no interest in further development (which in this area is urgently needed to meet the needs of citizens) and throwing a lot, but thankfully not always, in an architectural practice and nostalgic mannerism. Fortunately, the economic crisis has highlighted the limits of a blind and dogmatic and planning has enabled many people to understand that there is a philosophy increasingly urban, and only valid, but that this difficult and complex subject in need of continuing studies and investigations, to evolve and progress, as with architecture, to meet the needs of the people who no longer satisfied with the intervention of some sporadic and decorated with some fake "aesthetic measure" but it requires a systematic and rational planning.
