Design First Walters fm qxd 2/26/04 7: 50 pm page I

50
Figure 2.16
Conservation
subdivision design. On
greenfield sites, new
development can
minimize its negative
aspects and engender a
sense of place by
clustering in more
compact layouts to
preserve existing
landscape amenities and
ecologies. (Drawing
courtesy of The Lawrence
Group)
Walters_02.qxd 2/26/04 7:13 PM Page 50

---

II
Theory
PA R T
Walters_03.qxd 2/26/04 7:15 PM Page 51

---

Walters_03.qxd 2/26/04 7:15 PM Page 52

---

53
SYNOPSIS
In the first part of this chapter we analyze New
Urbanism and trace its evolution over the last two
decades of the twentieth century, relating it to similar
urban concepts – both historical American precedent
and parallel strands of European urban design. We
begin this brief history of traditional urbanism in an
unlikely place – Las Vegas, home of the ‘strip’, and
the antithesis of the traditional city. The analysis of
the American roadside environment and the com-
mercial strip by Venturi et al. (1972) in their book
Learning from Las Vegas
was an important event in
the demolition of modernist urban theory; it created
room for the development of new ways of thinking
about urbanism in America.
We explore the parallel developments of Traditional
Neighborhood Development and Transit-oriented
Development and their fusion to create New
Urbanism. In particular, we look at the environmental
agenda of Transit-oriented Development and connect
this urban-based vision with the third main element
of New Urbanist theory and practice, the conserva-
tion of rural landscapes and ecologies, staying ‘rural
by design.’ This union of urban and rural perspectives
creates the strongest link between New Urbanism and
the Smart Growth movement in America, to the point
where the two terms are almost synonymous.
In the second section we discuss the concepts
embodied in the term Smart Growth, and note the
extensive overlap of this environmentally based vision
of America with New Urbanism. Lastly, we examine
some of the myths and misconceptions that exist
concerning the agendas of Smart Growth advocates,
many of them deliberately fostered by opponents of
Smart Growth and New Urbanism. We revisit, and
counter, some other strands of opposition to the use
of traditional urban forms that exist within academia
and the architectural profession.