Comments for RE: New Urbanism at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.theind.com Fri, 24 May 2013 01:53:24 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/re/5562#comment-5601 Before they start on new-urbanism how about a sidewalk from the Hilton Hotel to the Blue-Dog. Lafayette is a JOKE!! - northsidian Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:18:41 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/5562#comment-5536 Sorry Walt. Though I don't live on some massive 40 ac. tract, I do enjoy me bit of green elbow room. I don't want my neighbor's house 6 feet from mine. - Cajunrunner Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:27:40 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/5562#comment-5527 Magnum, interesting thoughts to consider. I think though, your assessment could benefit from distinguishing New Urbanism in the neighborhood sense, composed of detached single family homes, mixed with some higher levels of occupancy and units per acre, and the application of Urbanism on a truly urban scale. To highlight this example, I would draw you to the variety of homes seen in classic New Orleans. Uptown, Holy Cross, Lakeview, Gentilly. None of these neighborhoods are as dense as say the Marigny, the Vieux Carre', or the warehouse district, or even downtown high rise condominiums. The first districts I mentioned are unlike the Bronx, or even Brooklyn, or uptown Manhattan, which are mostly intermediate densities. None of this ponders truly dense urbanism on the scale incompatible with rural lifeways and your coastal oil-service communities. The real distinction here, is whether the rural is truly rural in nature, or if it to, is merely an even lower density suburbanism endemic to the Acadiana region. If Rural people aren't actually farming, or in engaged in commerce around the core of small towns, then what are they doing that makes their realm and way of life incompatible with the urban areas? New urbanism has never contemplated excluding the car from the urban framework, but it has sought to de-emphasize it. What we have now is a built-environment with 98.5% car use, and 98.5% unfettered car access. When one looks at a situation such as UL...not every student can drive there, but many bicycle there and some take the city bus, (and others god yes, walk) because a passive equation is worked in their minds...what will take the longest and be the biggest hassle? Now UL still accomodates parking, even for a reasonable fee per hour on the campus main itself. This is akin to street-front parking with a meter. Mostly what we have experienced is a waste of our natural heritage in the form of parking lots. When we get to more integrated land use planning, we will need less parking, sharing more parking areas, and be able to achieve reasonably improved densities of residents, making travel distances shorter, improving the viability of the bus, the UL transport pod, the light rail, whatever it is we get to end up with. I'll still have a car/truck, I'd just like to drive it less, and be able to get somewhere some of the time not being the wheel. You are very true I just want to say, that it is a social rift between ways of living. But I do not think we are that far apart. If our city chooses to plan thoughtfully, we will see more agriculture near and in the city, more farmers markets, more small hometown business retailers, etc. We just have to set out to strive for the best. Here is a link to commentary on the presentation on this topic I listened to in Houston last October. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/land_use/2009/10/duany-on-agricultural-urbanism.html ...and the event and video and powerpoint slides itself http://www.houstontomorrow.org/initiatives/story/agricultural-urbanism/?utm_source=Houston Tomorrow Growth News&utm_campaign=449dcbd6b1-Houston_Tomorrow_Livability_News_110909&utm_medium=email Here are a few pretty pictures... http://www.dpz.com/pdf/Project Descriptions/0604-Project Description.pdf Let's not politicize this any further with cultural dischord. - Jason D. Faulk Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:29:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/5562#comment-5516 NEW URBANISM IS ANTI-RURAL, SPECIFICALLY ANTI-AGRARIAN. CONSOLIDATING SERVICES WITH A PREJUDICE AGAINST AUTOMOBILES EXCLUDES PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE CLOSE ENOUGH TO NOT CARE ABOUT PARKING. ANTI-SPRAWL DESIGN IS GREAT FOR PLACES WITHOUT A HEAVY RURAL COMMUNITY - FOR URBAN CENTERS WITH SUBURBAN WORKFORCES, TO DISTRIBUTE CENTERS OF SERVICES AND COMMERCE TO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. LAFAYETTE HAS SOME OF THIS, SURE. BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET FARM AND COASTAL OIL-SERVICE COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT SPENDING MONEY ON NEW URBANISM BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN IT FOR THEM. THAT'S THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PEOPLE IN LAFAYETTE AND PEOPLE IN RIVER RANCH/SUGAR MILL - NOT CLASS BUT THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE. IT'S OBVIOUS, IN AESTHETICS AND ERGONOMICS, THAT DRIVING A CAR INTO SUGAR MILL AS A VISITOR MEANS YOU'RE UNWANTED - THAT YOU'RE A TOURIST, NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S EXCLUSIVE BY DESIGN. APPLYING NEW URBANISM HERE ONLY SERVES TO DRIVE A DEEPER SOCIAL RIFT BETWEEN LAFAYETTE THE CITY AND LAFAYETTE THE PARISH. WE NEED TO IMPROVE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE - DOWNTOWN "FOR INSTANCE" - WHICH MEANS IMPROVING PARTS OF TOWN WITH DEPRESSED PROPERTY VALUE, WHICH ISN'T POPULAR BECAUSE WHO MAKES MONEY FROM THAT?!? NOT SOME DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO CREATE SOMETHING TO MOVE INVESTMENT EVEN FURTHER AWAY FROM LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS!! - JOHNSTON STREET MAGNUM Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:56:27 +0100