Blabbing on about New Urbanism 'cuz Westword made me ...

OK. Sometimes you just have more to say that Twitter is designed to allow.

And, Westword, I am your No. 1 fan. I'm your fan-club prez.

But as a Boulder native living in an authentic Denver neighborhood, I have to say that New Urbanism, although old -- as far as “urban” and your point in this not-so-new-urbanism blog series, New Urbanist developments get my vote every time -- even if they are just skating close to the ideal.

Even if the development doesn't hit every point on the checklist and is plopped down on the edge of Longmont only to be ridiculed by bloggers who think Fordist planning is, well, God's will.

Even if there are chain restaurants. Let's not forget that's chain restaurants and front porches -- at least you've got the front porches.

At least you are achieving a little density.

Well-planned density equals open space elsewhere.

As far as monoculture, gentrification -- on and on -- well, yes. You have hit on something there.

As far as “urban”: According to New Urbanism Charter: “Metropolitan regions are … made of multiple centers that are cities, towns, and villages, each with its own identifiable center and edges.”

Down to the point: New Urbanism can be good and at its worst is probably better than the alternative, which is the poorly planned, unchecked development of Douglas County.

New Urbanism focuses on infill, redevelopment, multimodal transit -- with special emphasis on pedestrian-oriented and mass-transit-oriented planning -- mixed-use zoning (live-work structures as well as residential spaces above commercial offices, etc.) to reduce commuting and all that is associated -- from gridlock to environmental devastation to, hello, yes, WAR and the existence of oil company executives and their children.

New Urbanism is an answer to sprawl, to mass-produced housing that leaves you wondering how folks find their way home every night.

New Urbanist developments should offer diverse housing types -- yes, for diverse populations -- and maximize green spaces or open spaces, especially through regional planning to get the most open space possible.

This is all pretty much the opposite of Fordist urban planning.

The opposite of mass-produced suburban tract housing of Levittown.

The focus is on community: front porches instead of garages that swallow you until the next morning.

The focus is on context-appropriate and pedestrian-scale architecture (no monolithic commercial or public structures like the Broomfield arts building but very much like Denver Public Library Central building where it is broken up into chunks.)

Other neat stuff / features:

• Affordability and/or a mix of affordable housing and market-rate units.
• Historic preservation. Reuse.
• Infill.
• Sustainability.
• Not just “green” construction but extreme-green* construction. Down to reuse of graywater and the use of photovotaics to the extent that the power company owes you money.
  
• Setbacks, hidden parking.
• On and on.

You guys should run around Boulder for a couple weeks. Talk to the architects there.

Good quote summing up all this from the New Urbanism Charter: “We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.”

Enough said.

* An example from a listing for a condo in Prospect: Designed for passive solar heating via southern exposure to winter sun, radiant floor heating, solar hot water, eco-friendly hardwood bamboo floors, eco-friendly wood interior doors & cabinets, low-e windows, SS appliances, granite counters, zero-VOC paints, nontoxic glues ...