The Landscape Urbanism / New Urbanism debate continues...

I just read with interest this article on the debate between landscape urbanists and new urbanists.  It made me want feel like saying "Meanwhile, over here in the real world, here is what we are actually doing"...I am working on a greenways and connectivity plan for my city at the moment, and we try to incorporate principles of walkability, TND, NU, and livability over a base map of environmental conditions, namely wetlands and floodplain areas. 

For me, as a city planner with a background in landscape architecture, we should adhere to all of these concepts and find the common ground between these different philosophies.  Landscape Urbanism and New Urbanism are not mutually exclusive.  Landscape architects are uniquely positioned to analyze site and environmental factors including wetlands, floodplain, topography, etc: Features that some architects and planners tend to dismiss or diminish in importance.  But likewise, the vast majority of us do NOT support a car-centered suburban culture.  I strongly believe that our current suburbs need to be provided with small centers and connectivity to encourage walkability.  Yes, the suburbs are probably here to stay, but that doesn’t mean that they have to remain as they are right now.  And high-density is not always the answer.  Medium or even low density is desirable in some situations.  Driving is sometimes necessary, but that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to encourage other options and make our suburbs less car-centric. 

The New Urbanists have made it clear that they are threatened by Landscape Urbanism.  And they should be, because frankly, we are right…the environmental conditions beneath our cities and suburbs are incredibly important and deserve to be accounted for in urban design strategies.  But please don’t assume that just because I, as a Landscape Urbanist, don't agree with all of the CNU theories, that I go to the opposite extreme and desire things to remain car-centric.  I want walkability and fewer carbon emissions and many of the same results that they want – I just think we should go about doing it differently than the New Urbanist approach has done. Every site is unique and needs to be examined on its own terms, not as part of some rote formula. 

In my opinion, the New Urbanists are trying to paint Landscape Urbanists in this light because, frankly, we are ousting them from their previous position as rulers of the urban design universe.  This article suggests that they are employing scare tactics and scrambling to regain credibility by twisting facts.  The New Urbanists have to learn to play with others in order to achieve what is ultimately everyone's goal - better designed communities.


You can read the article I am referring to here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/30/green_building/?page=full

Left:  An aerial of one of our city's busiest corridors, with floodplain going right through the middle of it.  Redevelopment of this type of site must be done in an environmentally sensitive manner, not only because of ethical reasons but because Federal mandates require this.  Ideally, because this is where the proposed greenway crosses the commercial corridor, this would be a perfect place for a walkable mixed-use node.  But this must be done with extraordinary care because you cannot add impervious surfaces or most types of new buildings to a floodplain area.  This is a perfect example of having to meet in the middle between achieving walkability and respecting environmental conditions.