New Urbanism or the postmodern take on developing our cities

Allegedly bored with all the boxes the International Style of Modernism produced post CIAM, some architects started to search for a more expressive design language. This style grew gradually between the 1960s and 1970s into a movement that was coined Postmodernism. It was especially prevalent from the 1980s onwards and still influences architecture and urban design today. The often monochrome, functional and formalised spaces and shapes favoured by architects of the International Modernist Style (not to be confused with early European Modernism, which could be decorative, shapely, expressive and often colourful) were regarded as stark, boring, to isolated from their context and prescriptive. Postmodernism was a movement encompassing art, philosophy, literature, design and architecture. Its idea(l)s are most legible in the work of architects. As a result Postmodernism is often regarded as simply replacing a reworked Bauhaus-aesthetic by a neo-eclectic use of form and ornament. And for a lot of the buildings in this style this is certainly true, I think!

Around the same time Postmodernism took hold urban design lost its way: creating confusing mazes of winding organic streets with cul-de-sacs, stand-alone developments aimed at creating contrast often in series and known as necklaces or multi-local hubs, or large urbanisation schemes that looked especially great from above, but lacked sufficient visual cues to guide visitors or make them into a place. This is strange considering Postmodernist theory expresses the ideas of Contextualism. Contextualism is centred around the idea that all knowledge is sensitive to its context, either factual or perceived.

The main aim for both postmodern architects and urban designers was -so it seems- to be expressive, witty, ironic, virtuosic, paradoxical, technically clever and ambiguous, not at all relating to the urban context. Especially early European Modernism reacts with subtlety to its surroundings, whilst both International Style Modernism and Postmodern favoured the visible spatial intervention. It is often only at a building level that both styles express contextuality. In Postmodernism this is mostly achieved with materials, colour, form, and by citing details and ornamentation from the buildings in close proximity. A good example of this is the Inverdan Project in Zaandam.

As a reaction to the endless sameness of many suburban developments in the United States of America and the (often failed) redevelopment of urban areas, a movement towards greater urbanity arose. This was in part incited by Jane Jacobs' book "The Life and Death of Great American Cities" of 1961. Jane Jacobs is remembered as an advocate of mindful urban development as she argued that cities are living beings and ecosystems that were by definition of mixed use. New Urbanism arose in the USA in the early 1980s as an urban design movement promoting walkability, cyclability, mixed use developments, mixing housing types and a neighbourhood approach. New Urbanism is strongly influenced by pre-WW2 planning models and tries to counter the strong influence of transportation by automobile on the planning practice.

New Urbanism is basically community based and focuses strongly on the neighbourhood unit as the scale of intervention. The movement advocates the benefits of urbanism (as opposed to suburbanism or urban sprawl) from a multinuclear centralised perspective. It promises a better quality of life for residents, with a healthier lifestyle, more meaningful relationships within the local community, more diversity and more open space beyond the urban environment to enjoy. This is basically the same idea as that central to the Garden City Movement, but with much higher, but not extremely high building densities!

The 10 principles of New Urbanism are: 1] walkability, 2] connectivity (of networks), 3] mixed-use and diversity of use, 4] mixed housing, 5] quality of architecture and urban design (creating a sense of place), 6] traditional neighbourhood structure, 7] increased density, 8] green transportation (this means no cars basically), 9] sustainability (the eco-element) and 10] quality of life.

In some instances New Urbanism has been misappropriated by developers and architects to diffuse protests against gentrification and redevelopment. The more lasting influence of New Urbanism on the planning practice has been the emphasis on Transit Oriented Development. This is especially true in the vast sprawling cities of the Americas, as the system has been used for many decades in Scandinavia. It is, again, a planning device borrowed from the Garden City Movement to realise a different aim. By planning public transport systems where you want urban development to concentrate, this (re)development can be directed towards a more compact, higher density urban environment.

In Europe New Urbanism has fused with certain veins of Postmodernism (sometimes -superfluously as far as I'm concerned- known as PostPoMo or MetaMo) into either an environmentally friendly take on urbanisation, or an aesthetic approach which favours a return to pre-Modernist architecture. Especially in the Netherlands and Denmark an urban environment conducive to cycling and walking has been part of the planning practice since the 1970s. So that very American aspect of the movement had no place to land in the urban design practice. Even in the United Kingdom, where compactness was favoured over sprawl as a result of a planning regime based on the principles of the Garden City Movement, New Urbanism is mostly a push for eco-towns and promoting cycling, walking and public transport.

Most ecological development in Europe however are to low-density to be classed as an exponent of New Urbanism. EVA-Lanxmeer does share the primary focus of New Urbanism on walking and cycling combined with a favourable position near a train station. The nostalgic vein of New Urbanism, which wants to restore a recognisable urban environment with reimagined traditional architecture. Many neighbourhoods developed in America are felt to be a stage set, artificial and manufactured. I feel some of the European examples (although these are few in number as compactness is favoured by the planning systems) are more genuine. That said, many people disagree and feel these developments are little more than a pastiche of 1930s garden city housing or traditional town architecture.