{"id":1364,"date":"2012-06-17T07:47:50","date_gmt":"2012-06-17T13:47:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/?p=1364"},"modified":"2013-06-28T10:12:12","modified_gmt":"2013-06-28T16:12:12","slug":"calibrating-for-culture-the-congress-for-the-new-urbanism-20-years-after","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/?p=1364","title":{"rendered":"Calibrating for Culture: The Congress for the New Urbanism 20 Years Later"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The 20th annual Congress for the New Urbanism<\/a> recently wrapped up in West Palm Beach, Florida.\u00a0 I\u2019ve never been to the Congress\u2014and I didn\u2019t attend this one\u2014but I\u2019m always interested in what transpires.\u00a0 A few summary reports by attendees provide a pretty interesting picture of where this most influential of contemporary urbanisms<\/a> stands after a generation.\u00a0 \u00a0What are CNU 20<\/a>\u2019s key takeaway message(s)?<\/p>\n

Several commentators \u00a0detail CNU\u2019s accomplishments of the last 20 years (e.g., here<\/a>). These include compilation of a robust body of knowledge about compact, mixed use, and walkable town-making and a SmartCode<\/a> for realizing New Urbanist ambitions in the real world.\u00a0 New Urbanism has also produced some fine-looking communities on suburban <\/strong>greenfield sites both in the United States and abroad<\/a>. \u00a0\u00a0On the other hand, New Urbanism has enjoyed less success working in brownfields<\/a> and city centers, especially in ways that seamlessly integrate new developments with the older urban fabric (see here\u00a0<\/strong><\/a>for a good discussion). There are too few New Urbanist projects that, as Peter Katz<\/a> says, \u201cdisappear into their surroundings. \u00a0Too much New Urbanist architecture is kitschy, characterized by \u201ccartoonish, low quality finishes<\/a>.” \u00a0Too many developments bring gentrification, thereby reinforcing the criticism that New Urbanism serves only a particular, relatively well-heeled demographic (but see here<\/a> for an alternative view).<\/p>\n

Thus, there\u2019s good reason for a couple of commentators\u2014here<\/a> and here<\/a>\u2014to suggest that CNU must renew attention to the diversity highlighted in the first paragraph of its governing Charter:<\/a><\/p>\n

The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society\u2019s built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The separations of culture<\/em>, like those of race and income, should also be on the agenda.\u00a0 This raises the question of whether the New Urbanist SmartCode can deliver culturally-sensitive design. \u00a0This question was thrown into particularly high relief at CNU 20 by Daniel Solomon<\/a> and Andres Duany<\/a>.\u00a0 Video of their plenary session is here<\/a> and a good summary is\u00a0here<\/a>.\u00a0 Solomon is an erudite critic of the New Urbanist SmartCode; Duany is a passionate defender.\u00a0 Solomon argues that the \u201creductive certitude\u201d of codes \u00a0can easily produce \u201cstylistic straightjackets\u201d and \u201darchitectural righthink\u201d that preclude the production of built forms that are compatible with local context, history, and cultural meanings. \u00a0Duany essentially countered by arguing that while we can\u2019t always live with codes, neither can we live without \u2018em<\/a>. \u00a0He extolled the benefits of having practice governed by known rules rather than the varying opinions of committees and bureaucrats.\u00a0 He insisted that the SmartCode allows freedom to calibrate plans in ways that accommodate the local and the contextual.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

SmartCode Table of Thoroughfares (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co.)<\/p><\/div>\n

Duany is persuasive in arguing that there\u2019s no necessary contradiction between coding for conditions and calibrating for culture. \u00a0The SmartCode allows multiple ways to \u201cescape\u201d when confronted with cultural difference.\u00a0 The problem lies not with codes, but with the vision (or lack thereof) of practitioners.\u00a0 I\u2019d add that any vision must reflect a nuanced and consistent understanding of culture; that is, a refined cultural and\u00a0intercultural sensibility<\/em>.\u00a0 \u00a0The extent to which planners and architects of any stripe, and not just New Urbanists, have such a refined sensibility \u00a0is unclear. \u00a0Cultivating one may depend on their ability to distinguish between diversity and difference<\/a>,\u00a0or what might be termed \u201cBig C\u201d and \u00a0\u201clittle c\u201d culture.<\/p>\n

Daniel Solomon clearly moves New Urbanist theory and practice in the right direction.\u00a0 His CNU 20 speech echoes many contemporary anthropologists in finding fault with grand, abstract systems of theory as frameworks for understanding and intervening in the world.\u00a0 Indeed, Solomon makes good use of \u00a0the anthropologist James Scott<\/a>\u2019s criticism of \u201cuniversalizing prescriptions\u201d of the sort<\/a> that produced Brasilia<\/a>. \u00a0But I also heard Solomon unconsciously channeling the great interpretive anthropologist Clifford Geertz<\/a> in calling for greater attention to the particular details of place and history, local frameworks of meaning, and the need to replace great abstractions of urban planning with a \u201cfeel for the subject.\u201d\u00a0 The following riff from Solomon is especially nice in capturing this ethos:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf New Urbanists care about sustainability, the sustainability of urban culture should be our first order of business. The way they cook stews and make music in New Orleans, the way they dance in Havana, the way they dress in Milano, the way they use language in London, the way they look cool in Tokyo, the way they wisecrack in New York. Those are things for us to care about.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Solomon followed up by noting that the court and garden housing ordinance<\/a> that he helped write in Pasadena, California can\u2019t be straightforwardly reproduced just anywhere. \u00a0Rather, it\u2019s a particular housing typology that\u2019s inspired by a particular place and a particular history. This is all good stuff. However, there\u2019s still some reductive generalizing at work here. For example, who is the \u201cthey\u201d in the excerpt above? Certainly, \u201cthey\u201d doesn\u2019t include everyone who contributes to the dynamic of culture in particular times and places.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Interior Courtyard, Vista del Arroyo Bungalows, Pasadena (Moule and Polyzoides)<\/p><\/div>\n

Like Solomon\u2019s, Duany\u2019s talk clearly demonstrates an awareness of the importance of incorporating local culture into the practice of placemaking. \u00a0Solomon compliments Duany for his insightful observations of New Orleans culture during his post-Katrina work in the city; i.e., for his \u201cfeel for the subject.\u201d \u00a0But in his CNU 20 speech Duany rhapsodizes about culture in a very different way that contradicts such a nuanced appreciation and is troubling for its reductionism (it also nicely illustrates Solomon\u2019s other<\/em> point that Duany is a man uniquely capable of holding two opposing views simultaneously):<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are two ways of being\u2026a kind of Northern European way in which discipline allows the accumulation of wealth. I suppose this has to do with the harvesting of wheat for the winter.\u00a0 But in the South, where there\u2019s always a mango available\u2014at close reach\u2014the ideal is to accumulate leisure.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Such broad distinctions are jarring and disturbing, even if used only as descriptive conveniences. \u00a0They don\u2019t respect the \u00a0many details of local culture and history that shape different \u201cways of being.\u201d \u00a0Such distinctions lend themselves far too easily to unsavory uses. \u00a0For example, in listening to Duany I was reminded of Richard Lynn<\/a>,<\/a>\u00a0a very controversial investigator of racial differences who sees Southern peoples as intellectually and culturally inferior to those of the North because of what he takes to be the differing cognitive demands of food-getting in Northern and Southern environments. In other words, for Lynn wheat harvesting produces intelligence whereas mango collecting encourages sloth. The political scientist\u00a0Lawrence Harrison<\/a> doesn’t do much better with the basic distinction he draws between\u00a0progress-prone and progress\u2013resistant cultures<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/strong>Urban planning and design, among many other enterprises, is not well-served by such reductionist frameworks for thinking about cultural diversity and difference. Until New Urbanists get some clarity about the nature, sources, and salient dimensions of different ways of being as they exist in the world “Culture” will continue to be the 800 pound gorilla in the meeting room.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Average IQ of Indigenous Populations According to Lynn<\/p><\/div>\n

In short, New Urbanism has not yet saved the world<\/a>. \u00a0\u00a0There\u2019s disagreement about whether it is, in any way, still \u201cNew.\u201d \u00a0It is certainly at a tipping point, with some significant challenges on the horizon.\u00a0 Can New Urbanism colonize urban centers in ways that strengthen urban fabrics?\u00a0 Will it calibrate for real, meaningful cultural diversities and differences? Are its built forms capable of \u00a0accommodating cultural change, cultural mixing, and spontaneous cultural interventions?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The 2013 Congress\u00a0for the New Urbanism<\/a> will meet in Salt Lake City<\/a> and Duany, for one, can\u2019t wait. His plenary address complimented the late 19th<\/sup> century Mormon system of town planning\u2014the “Mormon Block<\/a>“\u2014for its flexibility, adaptability, and openness to calibration.\u00a0 \u00a0Duany is careful to separate Mormonism as a system of ideas from Mormonism as a set of religious beliefs.\u00a0 However I\u2019m not sure this separation can be so easily maintained, especially if we respect the power of cultural difference. \u00a0The Mormon way of being is historically predicated on some basic articles of cultural faith: individual self-sufficiency, well-ordered regularity, separateness of Mormon (Us) and Gentile (Them), and domination (rather than stewardship) of Nature as a way to achieve personal redemption.\u00a0 Not all cultures subscribe to these principles.\u00a0 Mormons are also known for their exquisite ability to live with the contradictions inherent in their way of being; e.g., between their belief in biblical literalism and their healthy respect for modern science.\u00a0 The Salt Lake City Congress promises an interesting excursion into territory that will likely continue to test the faith of New Urbanists in their own theories, practices, and ways of being.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The 20th annual Congress for the New Urbanism recently wrapped up in West Palm Beach, Florida.\u00a0 I\u2019ve never been to the Congress\u2014and I didn\u2019t attend this one\u2014but I\u2019m always interested in what transpires.\u00a0 A few summary reports by attendees provide […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[8,18,16,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-intercultural-city","category-new-urbanism","category-urban-studies"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1H2bI-m0","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1364"}],"version-history":[{"count":32,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1364\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2857,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1364\/revisions\/2857"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}