If you want to live in the same place your entire life with little or no change in scenery, then yes, New Urbanism is not for you. If you don’t understand EVERY monetary aspect of it then yes, it’s expensive. If you don’t have children or family or the hope for a better future for younger generations, then yes, the cost is not worth it. If you have been able to drive since birth, then yes, it’s not functional. On the other hand I personally have learned about the concept of New Urbanism since I was about 12 years old and understand most, if not all of its principles.

I like big cities and small towns. I like rural farms and the half an acre lot in a neighborhood of Louisiana I grew up on. I’ve always aspired to living in a loft or apartment in the heart of a city, then later to have children and move to a small house or large townhouse or brownstone. Then I might retire and rent a small townhouse in a quiet neighborhood. I can live out each of these life stages, each with completely different life styles, in a single New Urban community.

I personally don’t pay for my own living situation and all the expenses that come with it, but I understand it’s a pain in the neck. I still don’t pay for my own car or my college tuition but between the cost of leisure activities and the gas it takes to get there I’m constantly broke. I appreciate the publicly owned parks and greenspace that come with the cost of living in a new urban development because without that little bit of free entertainment I would go crazy. I like that I can go to a movie or out to dinner without the additional cost of using gas to get there. Additionally I like the idea that I can go out at night and make it back even if I’ve had a few drinks. As a child I was very active in sports and extracurriculars. Because unlike you, I couldn’t drive myself around at the tender age of 10, I missed out on a lot of opportunities. If I wanted to play soccer I had to find a ride. Same goes for gymnastics, ballet, basketball, etc.

Expense-wise, you may not get a fat check in your pocket as soon as a smart growth plan is implemented in your area. However give it 20 years and your child, and every child after that, will get that payback. That’s no exaggeration. If you live in an area that has the opportunity to apply New Urban principles the benefits in the long run plainly and extensively outweigh the costs. Additionally, every generation thereafter will benefit from it. New Urbanism has been a proven working model around the world: Paris, London, New York, Philadelphia…should I go on, or do you get the point?

It seems to me that the aspect of New Urbanism most strongly opposed is that of the freedom to live in suburbia. Now I’m not going to explain to you why the words “freedom” and “suburbia” are contradictory (I feel I’ve already done that). I’m also not going to refute your need/want to live there because in all honesty, many aspects of it are desirable. What I am going to explain is that within a New Urban community you can still have your big house with a big yard and your 2.4 cars per household. No New Urbanist will take that away from you.

You don’t have to live in an apartment or townhouse. However, New Urbanism gives you the option to either drive or live within walking distance of a grocery store, a movie theater, a school, a restaurant and other amenities of the like. Although some people LIKE the idea of having the freedom to have access to these things, you may be the small minority who isn’t striving for excellence.

The parrotted Cato/Heritage rhetoric on this site has been asked and answered years ago. You’re way late to the game, in addition to not being able to speak to the issue due to lack of understanding land use, green infrastructure, environmental psychology, human societies and self-regarding vs other-regarding actors, municipal finance, I=PAT, HIPPO, urban heat islands & land development patterns and their effect on ecosystems, etc. The Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, Int’l Transportation Engineers, big city Mayors et al. reject the outdated views presented here.

You’d better think of some other rhetoric to “challenge” NU, because the decision-makers have heard it already and reject it. The Market is responding to latent demand for the type of development you don’t like because you think everyone should live like you do.

And, well too bad - few want to live like you do so get over it.

Best regards,

DS

The idea that the USA will add 80 million people to its population in the next 40 years, and they will all live within “urban service boundaries” being implemented nationwide is a horrific thought and must be challenged.

“The new urbanist agenda of infill will destroy every beautiful semi rural suburb in America, and leave only government entities and huge corporations in charge of open space.”

Fortunately, the opinion of tragedy is shared by only a few.

Smart growth is the entire process of returning to built environment patterns found prior to WWII - patterns perfected over thousands of years and found everywhere on this planet except in post-WWII autocentric developments of the industrial nations.

There’s nothing to revisit, as precious auto-dependent suburbs with cookie-cutter houses hidden behind immense garages, containing gun safes and displaying Dish Network logos (but offering few aesthetic or civic amenities) aren’t being torn out of the ground in vast acreages by a mindless gummint, displacing legions of folk who have dutifully memorized the Second Amendment. No this isn’t happening, despite the ululations from Cato, Heritage, FF, American Dream Coalition and their ilk.

But compact developments aren’t going away either, as rational utility maximizing agents are Tiebout sorting to them, creating the unassailable: the almighty market demand. Sure, the folks moving to compact developments are seemingly eschewing certain foundations of a particular ideology, but that’s not important in the long run: what’s important is to ensure these demanded developments provide needed room for green infrastructure. Ideologies come and go, but what’s here to stay is the human quest for nearby nature as well as the human contact that well-designed places provide. Environmental psychology tells us these things are wanted by humans.

‘Drive ’til you qualify’ isn’t a revealed preference as a reason for maintaining an environmentally-unfriendly autocentric suburbia. We know that VMT is rising faster than population, and that the transportation sector and the (inefficient) building sector is responsible for ~70-80% of human GHG emissions which are contributing to man-made climate change (in addition to land use and other minor factors). The compact development pattern reduces GHG emissions, lessens habitat fragmentation, preserves ag land, contributes to better human physical health, and promotes civic society. Nothing tragic at all about that.