21 replies to this topic

[Southron]

Several New Urbanist/Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) residential projects have been built or planned in Alabama over the past few years.  I pulled this list from The Town Paper:


Birmingham

Mt Laurel
Metropolitan Gardens
The Preserve
Trussville Springs


Gulf Shores/Orange Beach

Bon Secour Village - more info (Gulf Shores)
Tannin - more info (Orange Beach)


Huntsville

Providence - more info


Montgomery

The Waters - more info (Pike Road)
Hampstead
Hudson
Lafayette (Pike Road)
Chanticleer



Gorham's Bluff (Pisgah)


Does anyone know of any other New Urbanist developments in Alabama, or have any thoughts about these developments or New Urbanism in general?



---

Some websites with New Urban and Smart Growth info:

Urban Planet

Principles of New Urbanism

Charter of the New Urbanism

Smart Growth

[DruidCity]

Quote

Does anyone know of any other New Urbanist developments in Alabama

I don't know what "counts" and not, but a couple in T-town at least claim
to have "New Urbanist" influence :

http://townesofnorth...lan/concept.php

http://www.midtownvi...m/developer.htm

There is also a major (similar in scale to Midtown Village ) proposed development directly
across the street from my subdivision called North River Town Center.
It is unknown at this point exactly what the developer
has in mind, other than that it will reportedly include a mix of residential, office, and retail space.
Tentatively, work is to begin in 2008 to open in 2009 on the 100-acre project.

A previous 37-acre mixed-use proposal, Waterworks Landing, which passed city zoning in 2005, appears
to be dead.

[Southron]

^^ Other than the HOPE VI project in Birmingham, I'm not sure that any of these should really count.  Though they are good traditional neighborhood designs, most of these are being built out at the furthest extent of far-flung sprawl.

Until developers and financial institutions get on board with real urban or inner ring development, these suburban TND projects may be the best we can hope for -- at least some developers are warming up to the idea of using traditional development practices. Now if we can just get them to take the next step and tackle infill and renovation needs in our cities...

[The Dude]

I'm a member of the CNU and yes I guess you could call me a New Urbanist. I've been an "urbanist" all my life. I grew up wanting to live in walkable urban major cities all while living my life in the 'burbs. It wasn't til I read Andres Duany's Suburban Nation did I put it all together. New Urbanism isn't really new, it's simply a resurrection of the way we have built our cities for thousands of years.

We should not fear urbanism, we should embrace it. Urbanism gives us more freedoms, freeing us from our cars and giving us options in terms of housing and transportation. I long for the day when I can walk out of my condo/house/apartment and simply walk or take a bike to work without feeling awkward or fearing for my life.

Montgomery, AL is the largest city in the nation to adopt the SmartCode, land use regulation compiled by DPZ and friends.

I'm hoping New Urbanism and urbanism in general keeps growing here in Alabama. With increases in housing prices, commute times, obesity, and energy prices, urbanism and New Urbanism will only continue to expand.

[rnc]

ExpatBaman, on Apr 3 2007, 12:35 AM, said:

^^ Other than the HOPE VI project in Birmingham, I'm not sure that any of these should really count.  Though they are good traditional neighborhood designs, most of these are being built out at the furthest extent of far-flung sprawl.

Until developers and financial institutions get on board with real urban or inner ring development, these suburban TND projects may be the best we can hope for -- at least some developers are warming up to the idea of using traditional development practices. Now if we can just get them to take the next step and tackle infill and renovation needs in our cities...

I agree, most of these "New Urbanism" neighborhoods are built in the burbs.  They feel artificial (because they are).  Providence here in Huntsville would be really neat if it were built downtown, but it seems weird to me out in the burbs.  It feels like the Stepford Wives movie out there.  Although better than most cookie cutter neighborhoods, I want to see some of these developments being built in blighted areas close to downtown.  Hopefully we can get a smaller scale version when Searcy and/or Council Court projects are demolished.  I think the best of these types of developments blend into an already existing urban environment, not when they try to create their own exclusive "urban" enclave.

[The Dude]

rnc, on Apr 3 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

I agree, most of these "New Urbanism" neighborhoods are built in the burbs.  They feel artificial (because they are).  Providence here in Huntsville would be really neat if it were built downtown, but it seems weird to me out in the burbs.  It feels like the Stepford Wives movie out there.  Although better than most cookie cutter neighborhoods, I want to see some of these developments being built in blighted areas close to downtown.  Hopefully we can get a smaller scale version when Searcy and/or Council Court projects are demolished.  I think the best of these types of developments blend into an already existing urban environment, not when they try to create their own exclusive "urban" enclave.

The cost and risk for a developer to do urban infill is much greater than that of a greenfield new urbanism development.

[rnc]

The Dude, on Apr 3 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

The cost and risk for a developer to do urban infill is much greater than that of a greenfield new urbanism development.

Understood.  However, the long term cost to the community by allowing the growth to continue further and further from the city center could end up being much greater.  But you can't expect individual developers to care about that.

The risk is higher for urban infill development, but the reward can also be higher.  An urban community that turns itself around and becomes an "in" place to live generally have much higher property values ($/sqft) than their suburban counterparts.  Five Points in Huntsville is a good local example.  Properties in that neighborhood a decade ago could have been had for a steal.  Now, a small bungalow (1800+/- sqft) that has been remodeled nicely can go for $250K+.  You really have to give developers incentives to want to do infill projects and hopefully find developers that truly care about the future of the city, not just trying to turn a quick buck.

Edited by rnc, 03 April 2007 - 04:46 PM.

[krazeeboi]

I appreciate the principles of New Urbanism, but I only hold one thing against it, and that is that it is still a mass produced product. Traditional urbanism is the result of several different architectural styles over a long period of time. However, I'm at least glad that NU preserves the principles of true urbanism.

As far as suburban NU projects, I do agree that infill NU projects are better, but at least we're seeing quality developments out in the suburbs. Also, eventually, those areas will grow up, and those NU projects will become a part of the fabric.

[tracer1138]

krazeeboi, on Apr 3 2007, 09:23 PM, said:

I appreciate the principles of New Urbanism, but I only hold one thing against it, and that is that it is still a mass produced product. Traditional urbanism is the result of several different architectural styles over a long period of time. However, I'm at least glad that NU preserves the principles of true urbanism.

As far as suburban NU projects, I do agree that infill NU projects are better, but at least we're seeing quality developments out in the suburbs. Also, eventually, those areas will grow up, and those NU projects will become a part of the fabric.

I can get by the mass produced nature of it as long as it is quality development.  Architectural conformity can be a good thing... to a point. In a development or in a city in general, it's nice to have motifs and themes that still allow for creative variation.

But I totally agree that it's good that we're seeing quality suburban development.  Just remember, if the suburbs weren't building this, they would just be building more subdivisions.

Glad to hear that Alabama is on the bandwagon.  Wish we could get Michigan developers to wise up a little.

[convulso]

new urbanism is not new and it is not urban. look at the demographics. i'm not so much against it as i am just simply for urbanism, period.

[The Dude]

tracer1138, on Apr 3 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

But I totally agree that it's good that we're seeing quality suburban development.  Just remember, if the suburbs weren't building this, they would just be building more subdivisions.

You are exactly right. The problems many have with New Urbanism developments, are the same problems people have with any other greenfield development, the faux feel, more sprawl, and being in many cases far from downtown. This is more or less an issue that can only be solved with a urban growth boundary. There's going to be greenfield fringe development, the question is, would you rather have your conventional auto-oriented sprawl or New Urbanism.

As cities adopt the SmartCode, the potential for infill New Urbanism projects only increases. There are quite a few cases of infill New Urbanism,  Jackson, Baton Rouge, Miami, and others have gone with DPZ to do their downtown master plans.

[samouzon]

[quote name='rnc' date='Apr 3 2007, 12:58 PM' post='740934']
I agree, most of these "New Urbanism" neighborhoods are built in the burbs.  They feel artificial (because they are).  Providence here in Huntsville would be really neat if it were built downtown, but it seems weird to me out in the burbs.

Just like Bessemer near Birmingham, Providence is making a real town center near Huntsville.

It feels like the Stepford Wives movie out there.  Although better than most cookie cutter neighborhoods, I want to see some of these developments being built in blighted areas close to downtown.

Problem is, if you want to build close to downtown, it has to get blighted enough that the property value goes to close to zero in order to make the economics work. In Huntsville, that's nowhere close to happening.

Hopefully we can get a smaller scale version when Searcy and/or Council Court projects are demolished.  I think the best of these types of developments blend into an already existing urban environment, not when they try to create their own exclusive "urban" enclave.

The problem with the New Urbanism is that people want real community so bad that they bid up the prices from the moment the lots are first offered. Remember what happened with Providence? They set up a tent on the roadside and sold out their first offering of lots in three hours. No matter how much a developer wants to be inclusive, when the market demands something so strongly, they have a dilemma on their hands.

The only real solution is to build enough New Urbanism that it becomes the normal way of building in a place. I'm also an Expat Alabaman, and in years past, the Huntsville planning department was dead-set against anything other than the suburban model, but I understand that in recent years, they're slowly beginning to come around. That's great, because if Huntsville has any hope of continuing its legacy of leadership in the mid-South, it desperately needs to get beyond its almost entirely suburban past and embrace the future of development in America. Because Huntsville is so strongly engineering-based, I'm optimistic they'll do so, because engineers end up finding the rational solution most of the time, and this stuff simply makes sense.

[samouzon]

rnc, on Apr 3 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Understood.  However, the long term cost to the community by allowing the growth to continue further and further from the city center could end up being much greater.  But you can't expect individual developers to care about that.

Interestingly, New Urbanist developers are strikingly responsible people, usually falling into the model of the Town Founder rather than the developer. Many care exceptionally strongly about exactly what you describe, but the economic realities mean that such a project is financial suicide in many cases. When it's not financial suicide, you'll normally find that it's the New Urbanist doing the project. There are exceptions to everything, of course, but this is the general rule as I've observed it.

krazeeboi, on Apr 3 2007, 09:23 PM, said:

I appreciate the principles of New Urbanism, but I only hold one thing against it, and that is that it is still a mass produced product.

I'm not understanding this post at all... very few New Urbanist developments include mass-produced architecture, and none of the town plans are copied. What specifically are you referring to here? ...not a polemical question, just trying to figure out what you mean, specifically.

[samouzon]

tracer1138, on Apr 3 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

I can get by the mass produced nature of it as long as it is quality development.  Architectural conformity can be a good thing... to a point. In a development or in a city in general, it's nice to have motifs and themes that still allow for creative variation.

I've seen many great places around the world over the last decade or so, and there's one characteristic common to greatness of place: great variety within a narrow range. Specifically, it's the age-old dance of order and chaos. Without the narrow range, places would have no character. The French Quarter, Charleston South of Broad, Tuscan Hilltowns, Cotswold Villages, etc., all are instantaneously recognizable for their respective characters specifically because they edit most things out and occur within a narrow architectural range.

But the narrowest of ranges is no range at all; that is mechanical reproduction. Without the unpredictability of chaos, there is no life; there is only the assembly line. Granted, the New Urbanism to date has first figured out the narrow range, but the current cutting-edge thought combines the two.

Bottom line, it isn't conformity, it's character. And it isn't looseness, it's life. Combine the two, and you CAN get greatness.

convulso, on Apr 4 2007, 04:08 AM, said:

new urbanism is not new and it is not urban. look at the demographics. i'm not so much against it as i am just simply for urbanism, period.

The difference between the New Urbanism and old urbanism is that old urbanism didn't have to deal with the pervasiveness of the car. Our problem today is more difficult as a result... but we're solving it.

Same thing for green building. Traditional architecture is the Original Green. The Original Green is analogous to old urbanism. But Deep Green is the new high standard, built on the Original Green standard, except that it also solves problems like powering our computers and our ceiling fans.

[samouzon]

The Dude, on Apr 4 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

You are exactly right. The problems many have with New Urbanism developments, are the same problems people have with any other greenfield development, the faux feel, more sprawl, and being in many cases far from downtown. This is more or less an issue that can only be solved with a urban growth boundary. There's going to be greenfield fringe development, the question is, would you rather have your conventional auto-oriented sprawl or New Urbanism.

The real question is, how much stuff can you walk to in the new development? I moved from Alabama to Miami Beach a few years ago, and I walk to almost everything: work, grocery store, hardware store, bank, restaurants, drug stores, etc. I probably crank the car twice a week and drive 1/4 what I did in Alabama. If you reduce driving, then you're not creating more sprawl, you're creating real urbanism. Urban Growth Boundaries are a myth; I've been to Portland; I've driven around for a day inside the Boundary there and have found the suburban crap to be as bad as anywhere. You are exactly right in your final assessment: there will be greenfield fringe development; do you want it to be sustainable, or unsustainable?

[Southron]

The Dude, on Apr 3 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Montgomery, AL is the largest city in the nation to adopt the SmartCode, land use regulation compiled by DPZ and friends.

Yesterday Montgomery made the SmartCode mandatory for downtown.  Previously, the SmartCode was optional in the downtown area.  The SmartCode is also optional for part of the town of Pike Road in Montgomery County.

Hopefully, other cities in Alabama will soon follow Montgomery's lead and adopt the SmartCode.

Thanks to this blog for breaking the news.

[Southron]

This Montgomery TND should have been on the list:

Hampstead - planned by DPZ, the first TND approved under Montgomery's SmartCode.  News articles are available here and here.

[Southron]

Trussville Springs is underway in the Birmingham metro.  DPZ was involved in the planning of this 160-acre brownfield development, built on a former factory site.


Project info on DPZ website

St. Clair Times:  Trussville Springs development moves forward

[Southron]

An organization called SmartCoast is at work in Coastal Alabama, promoting Smart Growth and the SmartCode in Baldwin and Mobile counties.  SmartCoast has worked with the cities of Spanish Fort and Magnolia Springs on how to use SmartCode tools, and sponsored Chad Emerson's (Jones School of Law professor and national SmartCode expert) visit with Spanish Fort officials this past spring.  

In April of 2008, SmartCoast and the U.S. Green Building Council are hosting a two-day green building conference at the Mobile convention center.  For more info, visit the conference website:  GreenCoast 2008

website:  SmartCoast

news article:  Gulf Coast Newspapers Explain Smart Growth

[Southron]

The Atlantic & Pacific Lofts development in Montgomery's Old Cloverdale neighborhood won a 2008 Charter Award in the "Block, Street and Building" category from the Congress of the New Urbanism.  Congratulations to City Loft Corporation for an excellent infill development!

Check out the details here:  CNU Charter Award Winner