Answering NU Critics

Please Note -- edit-password now required. Due to the amount of "comment spam" that has hit this wiki, a password is now required to edit the site. The edit-password is human.

---

New Urbanism is often dismissed for a broad range of reasons. In a Planetizen Op-Ed, Michael Mehaffy of the Prince's Foundation in London took on some of the criticisms of New Urbanism and provides an overview of CNU, New Urbanism, and the surrounding myths.

Common Myths About New Urbanism and Responses to Them

• New Urbanist Developments are Exclusive and Expensive

• Some critics of New Urbanism even suggest that New Urbanism is social engineering and totalitarian.

• New Urbanism is Anti-Automobile

• Critics of New Urbanism have cited the lack of "defensible space" for pedestrians in New Urbanist developments as one of the major factors contributing to these neighborhoods being crime-friendly. CNU and affiliates highlight these myths and seek to dispel them by pointing out the faulty logic used by critics and the highlighting examples from true New Urbanist Developments

Additional Myths About New Urbanism

Chuck Bohl describes these critiques:

• Neither new nor urban (lacks density, grit, "new suburbanism," "real urbanism")
• Nostalgia vs. contextualism and typology
• Physical determinism
• Affordability and diversity
• People want sprawl, not urbanism

Last edited by pc. Based on work by TeganDowling, Steve Filmanowicz, Johanna Nyden, Steve filmanowicz and payton.  Page last modified on March 15, 2007