- Feb 24, 2014
- 9 min read
When people move in some number from a neighbourhood or community because they believe it is no longer a desirable place to live, what they leave behind is a social residue of less enabled people. This is called Residualisation.
The social balance of the area is thus disturbed by the departures and the people who remain are faced with concentrated poverty together with strengthening social stigmatisation. Before the 1950s, the council housing have been dominated by a mixture of skilled manual workers and lower middle class families. Empty houses, overgrown gardens and rampant vandalism contribute to the further decline of the area. Home vacated by leavers hold no attraction other than to people who cannot access accommodation elsewhere. Peace meal demolition of empty property merely signals a general lack of confidence and an absence of regenerative strategy by authorities. Blighted estates then provide temptation to council housing departments as places to ‘dump’ socially inadequate individuals or families, a policy of short sighted convenience which serves only to worsen the situation. Residents of long standing who opted for home ownership under the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme feel cheated as their investment for future is eroded.
Social residualisation is economically inefficient. Not only are the services underutilised, the structural fabric is subjected to frequent damage. The relative cost of community management soars and inward investment prospects are gravely affected. Last of all, residualisation produces a feeling of segregated entrapment as well as a disabling loss of personal esteem among remaining residents socially, spiritually and emotionally, who become less inclined to take part in the national economy.
High flats were introduced to England and Scotland after war as a prominent component to modern architectural patterns of housing. “LCC architects had rejected older flat types; such as 4/5 storey tenements or block dwellings of the street block layout.” The driving forces of these modern mass housing were larger cities with housing problems since 1919. This solution, adopted for land crisis of the exploitation of piecemeal sites with high flats, was imposed on particular towns. The Central government have assisted in setting the ‘land trap’, the building of high flats in existing urban areas, rather than overspill outside those areas to maintain output.
In Scotland, the overcrowding and slum problem rapidly worsening. Entire areas of tenements were in decline, leading to the eventual breakdown of factoring and maintenance. New housing was dominated by vast council schemes, catering for middle class and working class, both skilled and unskilled.
Though there was a success in the house building program, they had to face the issue of maintenance. There needed to be a way to allow landlords to increase rent in order to finance investment in maintenance. Therefore, in 1950s, landlords were able to increase rents according to the quality of housing conditions, leading policy makers to recognize that decontrol of rents were to stimulate investment of maintenance in existing homes, accompanied with the relaunch slum clearance that gave local authorities power to carry out work necessary to make housing habitable or acquire properties.
However, rent decontrol led to the burden of housing subsidies, as low private sector rents held down local authority rents, leading the burden of housing subsidies. Ensuingly, the government had to lift rent decontrol in the private sector, developing a more economically coherent rent policy for the public sector and a shift in construction from subsidized council to unsubsidized private enterprise.
By 1953, the post-war labour government did little to assist new houses for the lower incomes as there was an overwhelming number of working class tenure in the council estates. However, people with middle income in council estates were a mixed blessing; Despite helping avoid social polarization, they occupied subsidized housing that were not needed, depriving poorer and more needy families. Council housing was something to prized then; houses were affordable and attractive to better-off workers.
There was a high demand of council flats. The proportion of high rise blocks began to increase as slum clearance estates filled with high density, high rise flats, constructed in non-traditional ways. Local Authorities were urged to concentrate on slum clearance and the housing of the poor resulting in smalll and unattractive houses.
1954 introduced the Housing Repairs. Rent act had a new definition of unfitness; it required the government to estimate the number of remaining slums and plans for removing them. There were a large number of unfit houses identified. As people in slums are mainly the low-incomes, they’re satisfied with their miserable environment and extrovert social life.
During the mid-1950s, the rent policy was changed to make council housing more expensive for the higher incomes and affordable for the lower incomes. This was implemented having the rent setting based on the value of the house, in relation to current wage levels. This meant reducing subsidies awarded by government which had an outraged response from local authorities.
By the mid-1950s, there were many houses that had been built at very low prices from the past, which meant low debt charges. These cheap houses continued to attract Exchequer subsidy which brought forth low rents. However, widening the difference of rents did not reflect differences in quality. The benefits of the subsidy were to be withdrawn from older cheap houses and to be used for newer higher-cost houses. This gave the local authorities a chance to raise the rents in new buildings. When the rent act was introduced in 1957, it was originally to provide assistance to the low incomes. It was to raise decontrolled rents above those charged for similar council houses.
Come 1960s, owner occupation was growing faster than expected. The supply of rented housing was not meeting demands. This was due to the effects of full employment and rising living standards. As incomes increase, more of these needs should be met by private enterprising. Council houses were occupied by people who became better off since buying the council flat, instead of those who really need them. Thus, the government aims to secure more houses available for rent, only dealing with those whose needs are not met by the market. This act drove the affluent workers out of council housing and into the market. Housing investment increased in the early 1960s and completions of new council housing rose in 1962.
In many ways, the 1960s proved to be a good decade for the welfare state. The labour government began by abolishing prescription charges, raising pensions, reform of mean as-tested social security and the launch of polytechnics and open university. However, capabilities of the labour party were questioned due to the lack of progress on issues such as poverty.
They rapidly abandoned some commitments made on housing policies while in opposition. In 1965, Crossman provided a solution called the 'fair rent' tenancy, where rent was set in relation to the size, quality and location of dwelling. This led to moderated market rents allowing prices to move in line with inflation and incomes. However, this depended heavily on the rate of applicants, resulting in a slow spread.
The government pressed local authorities to adopt non-traditional factory based methods and urged them to adopt higher space and heating standards. This potent mix of ambitious output rate, untried building techniques, higher dwelling standards and tight cost constrains led to poor quality, badly designed houses.
During the post-war period of the 1960s to the 1970s, there was need for abetter housing policy because of the massive changes made to the housing situation in Britain. The transformation of housing conditions and quality was partly due to a major shift in patterns of ownership. The private rented sector had been wedged between two growing sectors; owner-occupation and council housing. By the end of the 1970s, housing policy was marked by lack of choice. Lower income Households found their choices extremely restricted should they fall outside the priority categories for local authority housing.
When Margaret Thatcher became Britain’s prime minister from the Conservative Party in 1979, the Right to Buy (RTB) Scheme was introduced. This enabled council tenants to choose their tenure due to variety within the owner-occupied market because of the owner-occupied market and current low interest rate.
The purpose of the RTB was to benefit the middle-income dwellers that had paid rent for a long period, but reaped no returns from it. They are dominated by two age cohorts; a very elderly set of households who have been tenants for a long period of time, and a very young age group who have a relatively short period in council housing. This phenomenon has been referred to as the hollowing out of the age structure of the council housing sector and forms part of the process of residualisation. At the same time, the tax relief advantages associated with homeownership have been reduced, especially with the phasing out of mortgage interest tax relief. It is evident that affordability problems have become much more prominent over the last two decades. The growth of employment and of two earner households meant that the assumptions about affordability are no longer well-founded. Households which include single adult households and childless couples who have traditionally been more dependent on the private rented sector with a low income and perhaps depended on a single earner or households with interrupted earnings or incomes find great difficulty in owning a property. Households with children including lone parent households are likely to find it very difficult to afford accommodation for their family circumstances in the private sector. The expansion of the privately rented sector and the portability of housing benefit mean that these households are more likely to change address frequently.
When RTB was introduced, problems of low demand were not anticipated and the agenda around modernisation and renewal was non-existent. But since then, parts of the market in all tenures no longer meet the immediate needs of households. The low demand RTB properties have been affected by the general malaise in the market. Fragmentation of ownership may affect the capacity to respond to the problems that are emerging and more radical proposals related to renewal and demolition.
The debate about council estates in recent years has included concerns about concentrations of deprivation and social mix. The decline of the privately rented sector which had played the major role in housing lower income groups meant that council housing increasingly took on the role previously played by the private rented sector. At the same time, the encouragement of homeownership drew away more affluent groups from the council housing sector. Thus, there was a greater concentration of lower income households in the council housing sector by the 1980s. There was also rise in unemployment in the 1980s, which led to changes in household structures added to the residualisation of council housing and social rented housing. Because of the characteristics of those who had bought, the population remaining in council housing was more likely to be elderly and benefit-dependent. “More popular and respectable estates had higher levels of RTB sales and retained the mix of population, whereas less popular estates had a lower rate of sale under the RTB and the relative unattractiveness of these estates meant that they were more associated with households with less choice.”
Consequently, council tenants who could afford were more likely to move on than buy or stay as a tenant. Newer, younger, benefit-dependent tenants were disproportionately concentrated into these estates – making them more characterised by low income and less mixed in terms of age and length of residence as well as economic and household characteristics. Households buying under the RTB were not likely to have moved on; they were living on attractive estates and were at a stage in their family career where they were less likely to move. Furthermore, new tenants moving to these attractive estates were more likely to decide to stay there for the rest of their lives. But these are the estates where there were fewest sales under the RTB. In these ways the RTB clearly contributed to the residualisation of council housing. The more deprived estates, because they have little tenure mix, house a higher proportion of new tenants from homeless households and those with least choice on council waiting lists. One good example of a deprived estate would be the Red Road Flats in Glasgow.
During the 1960s, there was new hope as construction begins on the tallest residential buildings in Europe. For most of the early residents, living in the flats meant a considerable and welcome rise in their living conditions. The Red Road flats were indicated as the solution to the housing crisis at that time in Glasgow. As depression set in by the mid-1970s, the estate gained a reputation for antisocial crime. It stokes a nerve in the perceptions of non-residents, owing partly to the ‘looming’ ambience of the blocks. Measures were introduced in the 1980s which gave residents increased protection, leading to the fall of the level of crime. The Red Road Flats changed dramatically in 2003 when the flats were transferred to the newly created Glasgow Housing Association(GHA). Soon the new landlords, as well as the council insisted that repairs were costing more than receipts in rent, and that big changes therefore had to be made. In 2005 Glasgow Housing Association announced its intentions to demolish one of the tallest blocks as part of a regeneration plan for the area.
Today, we have to live with the consequences of the virtual elimination of housing for rent from the private landlords. “The existence of large unresponsive council empires with their bureaucratic system of allocating houses with massive misspent investments in system built flats and multi-storey blocks; Some with serious structural faults as to render them inhabitable and some undesirable and extremely expensive to maintain, to repair or to demolish. These factors are the progressive polarization of society into two groups, council house tenants and owner occupiers, often segregated by the planners into their own separate quarters of our towns and cities and by the politicians because of their competing economic interest and their supposed political affiliations.”
The building of more housing has been a common policy for government. However neither has clearly expressed an aim in itself except that of immediate electoral appeal. Neither has shown sufficient consideration for the preferences of those who would ultimately live in the houses so created by the government. All in all, it is simply the inevitable nature of politics!
- Feb 24, 2014
- 8 min read
In Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, published in 1990, called for a new way of looking at sex and gender. As opposed to the fixed masculine-feminine gender binary, Butler argued that gender should be seen as fluid, variable; the way we behave at different times and in different situations rather than who we are. Butler suggested that by 'deconstructing' the way we think about gender we might move towards a new equality where people are not restricted by masculine or feminine gender roles.
Butler refers to Foucault here, following him in arguing that society constructs subjects and then individuals come to represent them.
“Juridical systems of power produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent. Juridical notions of power appear to regulate political life in purely negative terms. ‘Protection’ of individuals related to that political structure through the contingent and retractable operation of choice. However the subjects if these structures are formed, defined and reproduced according to the requirements of those structures,”
Butler states - like many other feminists - that gender is a cultural construct and that gender is a multiple interpretation of sex. Conventional theory states that our sex produces our gender which causes our desire towards the opposite sex.
Butler however, rejects this uncompromising explanation because it does not leave any room for variation, for alternative influences on different people in different situations. The very idea of 'woman' may serve to make women alienated from their own society. The idea of woman may not just obscure the truth but it may only have its proper function within oppressive social concepts.
“Representation reveals or distorts what is assumed to be true about the category about women… The feminist theory – a language that fully or adequately represents women – has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women… The universal cultural condition which women’s lives were either misrepresented or not represented at all. It became a point where the subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms,”
The effect of categorising all women into a unified group separate from men has actually been detrimental to feminist calls for equality. I find this very true because I come from a background where gender holds an important role within the household.
Back in Malaysia, where our home was built by my late grandfather who was an immigrant from China in the late 1920s. Coming from very traditional family structure in China where the woman dominates the domestic areas (i.e kitchen) and the man dominates the general areas, our home was designed in a way where the kitchen was made to make a man feel awkward – like shorter sinks and counter tops versus a physically taller masculine body – and the living areas were designed to make a women feel inferior – like larger seats versus a petite feminine body. These little areas truly segregate genders in a very unfair manner.
If men and women are seen as fundamentally different and separate then true equality is impossible. In this way Butler is taking a different stance to other feminists who emphasise the differences between the sexes.
Butler's approach is basically to smash the supposed links between these, so that gender and desire are flexible, free-floating and not 'caused' by other stable factors.
"When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one,"
In the article “Space Between Studs” by Sherry Ahrentzen, she mentions that gender has played an important role in architecture for decades. “The body in architectural thought and discourse is not simply non-female, it is also curiously abiological, although sex-related anatomical representations of cities and buildings have a long continuing history of architecture,” She mentions that in architecture, there seem to be a similar approach in terms of the binary differences. “The early work in the 1970s and 1980s often examined architecture – whether in symbol or in practice – in terms of female-male and feminine-masculine differences… this binary approach was increasingly called into question, resulting in an outpouring of work that conceptualized gender as one of an interesting number of elements,”
In some articles regarding Architecture and gender, this binary categorization seemed pretty structuralized without even having to give a second thought about what the essence of architecture it holds.
“Some architecture critics believe that "female" architecture is architecture that seems to express femininity. There is something womanly about the building's shape, size, proportions, color, or texture. The Singapore Esplanade, portraying curved shapes may suggest the womb. Perhaps you long to crawl inside the building and curl into a fetal position,”
“Some architecture critics believe that "male" architecture is architecture that expresses heaviness, strength, or power. Something about its shape, proportions, like Pei’s Johnson Museum,”
This is a very unfair and inaccurate form of description to be describing a building to be a male or a female due to its form. However my question is that should architecture be categorized into binary differences or does it even have a form of ‘gender’? My argument is not how Architecture can affect one’s gender, but whether Architecture has a form of ‘gender’. I believe that it does have its form of ‘gender’, but not in a binary form.
Architecture is involved in forming matter in conformance with ideas, which is how – according to Butler – our gender is a performance and our interpretation of what it.
Butler states that our gender is not a core aspect of our identity but rather a performance and our interpretation of what it is, how we behave at different times. Our gender is an achievement rather than a biological factor. “Gender out not to be construed as a stable identity or a locus of agency, from which various act follow, rather gender is an identity, tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space, through a stylize repetition of acts,”
Gender, then, as the identification with one sex or one object is a fantasy, a set of internalized images, and not a set of properties governed by the body and its organ configuration. Rather, gender is a set of signs internalized, psychically imposed on the body and on one's psychic sense of identity.
“One should not underestimate to what extent spatial patterns do influence our sense of gender. Judith Butler argues that gender is not something that is attributed to an already pre-existing subject because of this subject’s biological characteristics, but rather something that is produced through its repetitive enactment in response to discursive forces,” Gender, Judith Butler concludes, is thus not a primary category, but an attribute, a set of secondary narrative effects.
The Abbey of Thélème, a greek translation of the term “free will”, was built in Gargantua when they won the Picrocholine war in 1534. The architect had ambitious visions for the design of the abbey; the central idea of the abbey was freedom, and the plan was a hexagon form, with the number six symbolizing perfection. Huge round towers by the sides, each with six floors with 9,332 suites rooms each.
“The crowded skyline is a cross between pure symmetry and messy shapes, the latter a remnant of the French Middle Ages, and conical roofs, protruding gutters and an array of gold figures, grotesques and small animals suggest Chambord. Also portrayed is a spiral staircase, like the one to be found at Blois and Chambord where at least two men could climb it side by side,”
Informed by his stifling experience as a former monk, Rabelais challenged the necessity of enclosure in his writing. In Rabelais’s Narrative it is of fantasy proportions, allowing sex mounted horsemen abreast to ascend it in full flight.
The ones inhabiting the Abbey were mainly young aristocratic young ladies, noble handsome knights, and preachers of the gospel. There was a strong emphasis of the sexes on the spatial qualities that is designed within the Abbey. “The emphasis is on equality of the sexes, and this situation is maintained in terms of occupation of space (three wings each) and activities (walking, hunting and riding purpose-built parks),”
Rabelais’s contains the idea of the architect trapping the residents in perfect clothed in luxury and comfort. To him, the Abbey of Thélème seemed like a perfectly charmed world, a synthesis of many plenitudes and perfections.
“That is the reason why you must open this book, and carefully weigh up its contents. You will discover then that the drug contained within it is far more valuable than the box promised; that to say, that the subjects here treated are not to foolish as the title on the cover suggested,”
In my perspective, the perceived ‘gender’ of the Abbey of Thélème by Rabelais – due to his past as a monk - is a perfectly charmed word just because it is designed around the architect’s intended ‘sexed’ physical property - books, gardens, and noble residents. Rabelais did not consider how the building interprets itself to him rather how he interprets the building. He left out characteristics of what the building holds that he felt was ‘inappropriate’.
“The building and its grounds speak for themselves as it were. The inhabitants are known to read, only because there is a library containing six shelves of books in six languages. They are known to swim in pools, walk in the maze and play on the tennis courts only because these things exist, but are not actually portrayed actually doing them… the indispensible army of servants is overlooked probably because Rabelais chooses not to portray the humbler dwellings,”
The essence of the building grew together with the activities that were practiced within the Abbey. It was a life of uniformity for the inhabitants evidenced by inhuman statements. In one of Rabelais’s description, “If a man or woman said “Let us drink”, they all drank,”
In the later years when Charles Lenormant published his Restitution of the Abbey, he constructed a bird’s eye view plan where The Abbey of Thélème looked like an empty fortress or rather an impregnable prison. Although the Abbey appears to be a perfectly charmed world with its equality of the sexes and humanist reform so cherished by the great Valois Monarch, together with the ambitions visions of the abbey, yet not even this idealized abbey bears the promise of uninterrupted freedom, and its synthesis are but paradoxes in the light of real day, and its true characteristics of what the building holds shows itself for what it truly is through its repetitive enactment in response to discursive forces.
Rabelais had a very high or ariel view of the definition of the Abbey of Thélème which really doesn’t justify the true characteristics and ‘gender’ of the abbey. He did not leave any room for variation, for alternative influences on different situations. He seem to only consider the surface of what the architecture tells, but not what is beneath all that exterior face. To define what the building really holds one must look beneath the surface and understand what the life and repetitive practice and discursive forces within the building.
The Abbey of Thélème clearly shows that Architecture’s – like the gender and relating to Judith Butler’s theory – form and idea, does not define what the building is. It is not attributed to an already pre-existing building because of this building’s intended ‘biological’ characteristics, but rather, something that is produced through its repetitive enactment in response to discursive forces within the building.
- Feb 24, 2014
- 5 min read
New Urbanism is an urban design movement, most popular in America, which aims to encompass walkable neighbourhoods that include a variety of jobs and housing types. The ethos of New Urbanism revolves around open space, accessibility and quality of environment. Rather than have a town densely populated with concrete jungles, Urbanism focuses on fewer buildings, but buildings of quality architecture and opts for “place making” - essentially making the town much more picturesque. By using more variety of building types, designs and materials, in theory it makes the municipality a more memorable and sustainable place with a better quality of life.
This research is also good for my manifesto research as New Urbanism has official principles which I’ll put in shortly. Anyways, back to the point. Most New Urbanist towns features a ‘city centre’, usually a shopping district with gardens and such, generally a memorable place within the town. This central focus of the town should be easily accessible to all who live their and within a 10 minute walking distance.
The principles of urbanism can be applied increasingly to projects at the full range of scales from a single building to an entire community.
Walkability -Most things within a 10-minute walk of home and work -Pedestrian friendly street design (buildings close to street; porches, windows & doors; tree-lined streets; on street parking; hidden parking lots; garages in rear lane; narrow, slow speed streets) -Pedestrian streets free of cars in special cases
Connectivity-Interconnected street grid network disperses traffic & eases walking -A hierarchy of narrow streets, boulevards, and alleys -High quality pedestrian network and public realm makes walking pleasurable
Mixed-Use & Diversity -A mix of shops, offices, apartments, and homes on site. Mixed-use within neighborhoods, within blocks, and within buildings -Diversity of people - of ages, income levels, cultures, and races
Mixed Housing -A range of types, sizes and prices in closer proximity
Quality Architecture & Urban Design -Emphasis on beauty, aesthetics, human comfort, and creating a sense of place; Special placement of civic uses and sites within community. Human scale architecture & beautiful surroundings nourish the human spirit
Traditional Neighborhood Structure -Discernable center and edge -Public space at center-Importance of quality public realm; public open space designed as civic art -Contains a range of uses and densities within 10-minute walk -Transect planning: Highest densities at town center; progressively less dense towards the edge. The transect is an analytical system that conceptualizes mutually reinforcing elements, creating a series of specific natural habitats and/or urban lifestyle settings. The Transect integrates environmental methodology for habitat assessment with zoning methodology for community design. The professional boundary between the natural and man-made disappears, enabling environmentalists to assess thedesign of the human habitat and the urbanists to support the viability of nature. This urban-to-rural transect hierarchy has appropriate building and street types for each area along the continuum.
Increased Density -More buildings, residences, shops, and services closer together for ease of walking, to enable a more efficient use of services and resources, and to create a more convenient, enjoyable place to live. -New Urbanism design principles are applied at the full range of densities from small towns, to large cities
Green Transportation -A network of high -quality trains connecting cities, towns, and neighborhoods together -Pedestrian-friendly design that encourages a greater use of bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, and walking as daily transportation
Sustainability -Minimal environmental impact of development and its operations -Eco-friendly technologies, respect for ecology and value of natural systems -Energy efficiency-Less use of finite fuels -More local production -More walking, less driving
Quality of Life -Taken together these add up to a high quality of life well worth living, and create places that enrich, uplift, and inspire the human spirit.
BENEFITS OF URBANISM
BENEFITS TO RESIDENTS Higher quality of life; Better places to live, work, & play; Higher, more stable property values; Less traffic congestion & less driving; Healthier lifestyle with more walking, and less stress; Close proximity to main street retail & services; Close proximity to bike trails, parks, and nature; Pedestrian friendly communities offer more opportunities to get to know others in the neighborhood and town, resulting in meaningful relationships with more people, and a friendlier town; More freedom and independence to children, elderly, and the poor in being able to get to jobs, recreation, and services without the need for a car or someone to drive them; Great savings to residents and school boards in reduced busing costs from children being able to walk or bicycle to neighborhood schools; More diversity and smaller, unique shops and services with local owners who are involved in community; Big savings by driving less, and owning less cars; Less ugly, congested sprawl to deal with daily; Better sense of place and community identity with more unique architecture; More open space to enjoy that will remain open space; More efficient use of tax money with less spent on spread out utilities and roads
BENEFITS TO BUSINESSES Increased sales due to more foot traffic & people spending less on cars and gas; More profits due to spending less on advertising and large signs; Better lifestyle by living above shop in live-work units - saves the stressful & costly commute; Economies of scale in marketing due to close proximity and cooperation with other local businesses; Smaller spaces promote small local business incubation; Lower rents due to smaller spaces & smaller parking lots; Healthier lifestyle due to more walking and being near healthier restaurants; More community involvement from being part of community and knowing residents
BENEFITS TO DEVELOPERS More income potential from higher density mixed-use projects due to more leasable square footage, more sales per square foot, and higher property values and selling prices; Faster approvals in communities that have adopted smart growth principles resulting in cost / time savings; Cost savings in parking facilities in mixed-use properties due to sharing of spaces throughout the day and night, resulting in less duplication in providing parking; Less need for parking facilities due to mix of residences and commercial uses within walking distance of each other; Less impact on roads / traffic, which can result in lower impact fees; Lower cost of utilities due to compact nature of New Urbanist design; Greater acceptance by the public and less resistance from NIMBYS; Faster sell out due to greater acceptance by consumers from a wider product range resulting in wider market share
BENEFITS TO MUNICIPALITIES Stable, appreciating tax base; Less spent per capita on infrastructure and utilities than typical suburban development due to compact, high-density nature of projects; Increased tax base due to more buildings packed into a tighter area; Less traffic congestion due to walkability of design; Less crime and less spent on policing due to the presence of more people day and night; Less resistance from community; Better overall community image and sense of place; Less incentive to sprawl when urban core area is desirable; Easy to install transit where it’s not, and improve it where it is; Greater civic involvement of population leads to better governance
WAYS TO IMPLEMENT NEW URBANISM
The most effective way to implement New Urbanism is to plan for it, and write it into zoning and development codes. This directs all future development into this form.
OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME
The most important obstacle to overcome is the restrictive and incorrect zoning codes currently in force in most municipalities. Current codes do not allow New Urbanism to be built, but do allow sprawl. Adopting a TND ordinance and/or a system of ‘smart codes’ allows New Urbanism to be built easily without having to rewrite existing codes.
