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

NEW URBANISM AND SMART GROWTH
The three strands of New Urbanism that we have
described earlier, Traditional Neighborhood Develop-
ment, Transit-oriented Development and design for
rural conservation, weave an agenda for more sustain-
able patterns of development that is virtually synony-
mous with Smart Growth. Planners, local government
officials, citizens and an increasing number of devel-
opers have shown great interest in New Urbanist
design, particularly in areas that are experiencing
growth-related conflicts. Many see New Urbanism as
an approach that enables a community’s growth to be
channeled into a physical form that is more compati-
ble with the scale of existing neighborhoods, discour-
ages excessive auto use, is less costly to service, and
uses less land and natural resources. These attributes
provide a pretty good description of Smart Growth,
and although many definitions of Smart Growth exist
in America from organizations like the Smart Growth
Network, the National Resources Defense Council,
the Sierra Club and the Urban Land Institute, to name
only a few, there is common agreement around a basic
set of principles.
Smart Growth means developing in ways that are
environmentally responsible, economically viable,
and well designed. A reasonable expectation, you
might agree. But as we’ve seen, most suburban devel-
opment in America over the last few decades fails
these basic tests. Disused strip centers degrade the
environment, suburban subdivisions cost more tax
dollars to service that are recouped in property taxes,
and an awful lot of suburbia is poorly laid out and
shoddily built.
We have to do better, and to the three central
criteria noted earlier we would add an important
fourth: the ways that new developments are gener-
ated and regulated should involve citizens and stake-
holders in an open democratic forum. Not only
should urban public spaces be democratically open in
their use; the ways they are produced should also be
democratically transparent. But this public debate
does not necessarily mean ‘consensus.’ Too often a
search for consensus means agreeing around the
lowest common denominator, the most minimal set
of concepts that offend the least number of people.
Time and again we have seen this process strip away
all the best features of a proposal, until the scheme
that’s finally agreed upon is an empty shell, even a
travesty of its original content and format. It is not
consensus that’s important; the crucial factor is a con-
centrated, open debate, to provide a fair and equal
opportunity for concerned citizens to state their
points of view. In this way officials who have to take
the tough decisions are fully informed, and they
know that different opinions have been aired during
the design process.
This open process can be difficult, but the tempta-
tion to avoid this forum and to design developments
behind closed doors away from the inconvenience
and messiness of public scrutiny leads to equally
severe problems. The attitude that ‘the professionals
know best’ was invalidated by the errors architects
and planners made during the modernist period of city
building. To these mistakes we would add the very
poor quality of private sector developments where
architects and planners were minimally involved.
Clearly, designers, planners and developers can all
benefit from citizen involvement in creating their
visions, however complicated and messy this process
might be. In the case studies we discuss these issues in
more detail, and examine how concentrated urban
design charrettes can provide the best opportunities for
mediating conflicts and educating a community about
its future options.
Many citizens’ groups are vocal in their opinions,
and they have every right to demand the opportunity
to speak about their ideas. But just because they’re
vocal doesn’t mean they’re right; many Smart Growth
initiatives have been squashed by wrongheaded local
opposition. Sometimes Smart Growth policies are
enacted by government over the objections of local
pressure groups, a process that requires considerable
courage by elected representatives. It also means they,
and their constituents, need to distinguish between
myths and facts about Smart Growth. Indeed, much
DESIGN FIRST: DESIGN-BASED PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES
66
Walters_03.qxd 2/26/04 7:15 PM Page 66

---

opposition to Smart Growth arises from misconcep-
tions and misunderstandings about the relevant
issues, and it is worth reviewing the basic principles
and some of the most common errors before we go
any further.
Not quite an error, but an important clarification
concerns the similarities and differences between
Smart Growth and ‘sustainable development’. These
terms are often used interchangeably, and we, the
authors, are guilty of that on occasion. There is much
overlap between the two concepts, and all physical
design concepts that constitute Smart Growth sup-
port sustainable development. However, the adjective
‘sustainable’ adds a deeper dimension (Porter, 2000:
p. 2). It implies a profound respect for long-term
conservation of natural resources, energy conscious
(green) building design and the enhancement of a
community’s human capital, raising important issues
of social justice and equity. Appendix II sets out our
set of Smart Growth principles dealing primarily
with the physical design of communities, and adds a
note or two 
(in italics)
where sustainable develop-
ment extends and deepens these concepts. Here we
summarize some of the most important points under
the headings of General Policies, Planning Strategies,
and Urban Design Concepts.