Identyfikacja ideowa Nowego Urbanizmu

Michał Domińczak

doi:10.37190/arc210206

Streszczenie

Artykuł poświęcony jest zagadnieniom identyfikacji ideowej Nowego Urbanizmu (New Urbanism) i stanowi próbę rozszerzenia wiedzy na temat tego szczególnego fenomenu współczesnej urbanistyki. Podejmuje także, w niewielkim zakresie, polemikę z niektórymi tezami jego krytyków. W pracy przyjęto metodę dedukcji, analizując w pierwszej kolejności oficjalne deklaracje Congress for the New Urbanism, w tym przede wszystkim Kartę Nowej Urbanistyki. Następnie zbadano pisma i publikacje prekursorów oraz twórców Nowego Urbanizmu. Odniesiono się także do teorii prezentowanych przez osoby i środowiska, do których jako do swoich mentorów i wzorców ideowych odwołują się współcześnie zwolennicy tego ruchu. Przeprowadzone analizy pozwoliły na przyjęcie wniosków badawczych, wystarczających do identyfikacji Nowego Urbanizmu jako ruchu konserwatywnego, a właściwie – precyzyjnie rzecz ujmując – tradycjonalistycznego, który za cel stawia sobie twórczą kontynuację dobrych zwyczajów planowania miast, służących razem przywróceniu ciągłości rozwoju kulturowego i przestrzennego lokalnych społeczności. Nowy Urbanizm reprezentuje co najmniej pięć z sześciu głównych cech postawy konserwatywnej: realizm w osądzie rzeczywistości; przywiązanie do różnorodności tradycyjnych form życia społecznego; przekonanie, że człowiek – skłonny do kierowania się bardziej emocjami niż rozumem – wymaga reguł i zasad postępowania zdolnych do okiełznania anarchicznych impulsów swojej natury; uznanie, że cywilizowane społeczeństwo może rozwijać się wyłącznie według przyjętego porządku oraz akceptację zasady, że pojęcia zmiany i postępu nie są tożsame. Nowy Urbanizm to zdefiniowana, całościowa idea miasta, rozumianego jako koncepcja wspólnoty żyjącej w określonych warunkach przestrzennych. Jest to wspólnota zróżnicowana, oparta na rodzinie jako podstawowej komórce społecznej. Idea lokalnej „miejskości”, którą reprezentuje Nowy Urbanizm, jako koncepcja życia społecznego wpisuje się w postawę republikańską w rozumieniu idealnej, arystotelesowskiej formy ustrojowej (politeia). Dążenie do równowagi między swobodą indywidualnego wyboru a wymogami społecznej odpowiedzialności w pełni wpisuje się w postawę konserwatywną. W ten sposób Nowy Urbanizm stanowi przeciwwagę zarówno dla neoliberalnego, opartego na konsumpcji wybujałego indywidualizmu, jak i dla neomarksistowskiego kolektywizmu.

Podgląd pełnego artykułu jest możliwy wyłącznie na większych ekranach.

Pełny artykuł

2021

2(66)

DOI: 10.37190/arc210206

Michał Domińczak*

Ideological identity of New Urbanism

Introduction

Despite the lapse of almost 30 years since the Congress

for the New Urbanism (CNU) was established, and, un-

like its characteristic design rules, the issue of ideological

identity of New Urbanism, has remained almost entirely

detached from previous research interests

. Perhaps one

of the reasons is that its supporters avoid declarations

that might be considered as political commitments. This

allows bringing people from dierent backgrounds to-

gether,butmakesideologicalidenticationdicult.Such

an attitude is not accidental taking into account the na-

ture of the whole movement, which, as one of its founders

claims, is a broad, unique coalition of individuals, profes-

sions and points of view of people involved in the revi-

val of urban life [1, p. 16]. And because as Ellen Durham

Jones once said: New Urbanism is a forum, not a formula,

thedierenceswithintheCNUareperceivedasanasset,

not a liability. Regardless of these facts, what all its sup-

porters have in common, i.e., certain fundamental princi-

ples,canbeassessedandidentiedintermsofideology.

The aim of this article is to present the above issue,

which is particularly important in the context of the social

role of urban planning and its impact on the culture of

civic life, as well as the importance of cities as bearers

of civilizational changes. The text is also an attempt to

expand the general knowledge about New Urbanism as

a complete idea of social life and an attitude towards con-

temporary development problems.

* ORCID:

0000-0001-9599-0972. Institute of Architecture and Ur-

ban Planning, Lodz University of Technology, e-mail: michal.dominczak

@p.lodz.pl

The term “ideological identity” is understood in the article as

a philosophical and social attitude, not a belief within the theory of ur-

ban design.

The scope of research

Thestartingpointfortheanalysisaretheocialdocu

ments of the CNU, primarily the Charter of the New Ur-

banism [2], and to a lesser extent the Lexicon of the New

Urbanism [3]. Both shall be considered complementary,

even though the Lexicon is rather a manual of urban de-

sign than an ideological declaration.

The roots of the identity of New Urbanism can be

found in publications of its founders, who are Elizabeth

PlaterZyberk,AndrésDuany,StefanosPolyzoides,Eliza-

bethMoule,DavidSolomonandPeterCalthorpe.Among

them the most interested in the theory of a “new way of

urbanization” were Duany, Calthorpe and Moule. Their

direct inspiration, at the turn of the 1980’s, were texts of

fourpeople:JaneJacobs,VincentScully,LeonKrierand

Christopher Alexander, and a bit less – of Colin Rowe and

Robert Venturi

. The ideas acknowledged by them, espe-

cially by Jacobs and Alexander, as well as their mindset,

vicariouslyinuencedtheideologicalidenticationofthe

New Urbanism, too

SinceNewUrbanismisdeeplyembeddedinthehisto-

ry of urban planning, its roots may be found also in past

theo ries admitted by the adherents of the CNU. In particu-

lar, it is the heritage of the Regional Planning Association

Duany, who never hides his fascination for Alexander’s persona-

lity and his theories, created the Lexicon of the New Urbanism in the

form of a “pattern language”. On the other hand, A Pattern Language

was an attempt at the present praxis of the theory that Alexander had

previously described in the Timeless Way of Building.Similarly,Duany,

Plater-Zyberk, Polyzoides and others have also focused on embodying

theirideaofa“newwayofurbandevelopment”inpractice,whichnally

took the form of New Urbanism – considered as a set of design principles.

Regardless of the general favor they had towards New Urbanism,

itdoesnotmeantheircomplete identication with its ideas.Andvice

versa – some views of Jacobs or Alexander (e.g., negation of the necessi-

ty of existence of national states) have never been included in the catalog

of CNU principles.

60 MichałDomińczak

of America (RPAA) which was a loosely organized group

includinginteraliaClarenceStein,BentonMacKayeand

LewisMumford.Theywerechieyinuencedbytheidea

of the garden city, including the works of Howard and

Unwin, but above all by the philosophy of city develop-

ment and urban life represented by Patrick Geddes.

The knowledge about the ideological identity of New

Urbanism is also provided by various publications of CNU

members and other supporters of the movement. The last,

but no less important source, which also allows us to iden-

tify New Urbanism in some way, are numerous writings

of its critics and opponents [4], [5].

As it was mentioned, researchers have rather avoided

addressing the issue of ideological identity of New Urban-

ismsofar.ThewritingsofPhilipBessandArturZaguła

are an exception, as their research has repeatedly dealt

with its philosophical and religious problems [6], [7].

The premises of New Urbanism

Ideological presumptions

The Charter of the New Urbanismhasbeenanocial

declaration of New Urbanism as a social movement since

1996.Itconsistsoftwoparts.The rst one is a general

preamble that establishes the vision of development. The

second one consists of 27 principles where more detailed

design demands are depicted

The basic declarations are included in the opening six

paragraphsof the preamble. In the rst one, and thus, as

it may be assumed, the most important, the attention is

drawn to the statement presenting the various problems and

pathologies of contemporary urban development as one

interrelated community-building challenge [2]. It is hard

to more strongly or emphatically dene the hierarchy of

importance: all design activities are to serve a community.

Another reference to a community can also be found in

the next paragraph, although it is primarily a declaration

of respect for the natural, cultural and built-up resources:

We stand for […] the reconguration of sprawling sub-

urbs into communities of real neighborhood, […] the con-

servation of natural environments, and the preservation of

our built legacy [2].

The third paragraph emphasizes the indispensability

of good urban planning for the successful life of human

communities,andconsequentlyarmstheneedforaho-

listic approach to spatial planning issues. This view is also

conrmed in the following text, where one can nd yet

another declaration of compliance of social policy and

development practices with the needs of a community,

aswellasthearmationofa[…]design that celebrates

local history, climate, ecology, and building practice [2].

The last two paragraphs refer to civic participation in

spatial planning and thus also indirectly to a community.

Inthefthparagraph,adeclarationismadewhichseems

These 27 principles are divided into three equal parts. Peter Calthorpe

istheauthoroftherstone,whereasthesecondpartwaswrittenbyDuany

and Plater-Zyberk. The third part is the work of Mule and Polyzoides.

to be a synthesis of the goals of New Urbanism: We are

committed to reestablishing the relationship between the

art of building and the making of community [2].

In the second part of the Charter, which takes the form

ofmorepracticalpostulates,onemayalsondmanyref-

erences to the previous declarations. These are inter alia

the issue of community as the basic factor and goal of the

designprocess(points13,19,23),armationofatownlife

and walkability (points 5, 12, 15, 16), natural social diversi-

ty (points 12, 13), protection of cultural heritage (points 6,

27), and the role of the natural environment and the prob-

lem of keeping its resources (points 3, 4, 18, 21, 26) [2].

Taking into account the aforementioned premises of

New Urbanism included in the Charter, as well as the dec-

larations of its founders [1, pp. 17, 18], [8, pp. 16–26],

[9], [10] and research results [11], [12, pp. 45–78], [13],

the following main ideological features can be associated

with New Urbanism if considered as a complete idea of

civic life and an attitude towards social progress. First-

ly, these are traditionalism, communitarianism, diversity

and pragmatism supplemented with the respect for nature,

environmentalism, regionalism, inclusiveness, smallness,

slowness, incrementalism and, last but not least, frugality.

New Urbanism as a conservative idea

The above-mentioned assumptions and declarations al-

low for the thesis that New Urbanism arose and was de-

veloped as a conservative, or to be precise, traditionalist

movement, which focuses on a creative transmission of

civic art and town planning praxis. It also aims to restore

and ensure the continuity of cultural and spatial develop-

ment of local communities

New Urbanism is a complete philosophy of a city or,

even more precisely, an idea of a community which lives

indenedurbanconditions.Thisdiversecommunity,based

on a family as the primary social unit is the basic point of

reference for urban design.

There is no doubt that New Urbanism emerged in re-

sponse to the pathologies of modernism. As an opposition

against the modernist revolution, and thus a conservative

counterrevolution, it was supposed to eliminate the nega-

tive eects of revolutionary changes, but not to recon-

structthepast.So,NewUrbanismrespectscivilizational

achievements and uses modern technologies to accom-

plishitsgoals.Itarmsthepursuitoforderjustlikecon-

servative and traditionalist movements. As a trend in con-

temporary urban planning, New Urbanism has attributes

of an incremental approach that is based on a bottom-up

activity and aims for the best use of existing resources.

Therefore it was, and it is, a modern, conservative re-

sponse to the challenges of the present day.

The conservative approach is characterized primarily

by a deep respect for the achievements of our ancestors

(traditionalism) and a distrust for total change (anti-revo-

Conservatism and traditionalism are more attitudes or mindsets

thanideologies,astheyoccurindierentculturesandtimesalmostin-

dependently of temporary political forms of government.

Ideological identity of New Urbanism 61

lutionism). It does not mean to preserve the old but rather

expects the new to be time-tested

[14, pp. 10–12], [15,

pp. 6–10]. Contrary to some opinions, the conservative

mindsetisnotrelatedtoanypolitics,asitcanbedened

without identifying with any partisan program [14, p. 4].

Moreover, it is not associated with religion because it does

not stem from any religion.

NewUrbanismrepresentsatleastveofthesixfunda-

mentalattributesoftheconservativemindsetdenedby

RusselKirk[15,pp.8,9].Theseare:realisminthejudg-

ment of reality expressed, inter alia, in recognition that

there are great forces in heaven and earth that man’s phi-

losophy cannot fathom;aectionfortheproliferatingva-

riety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from

the narrowing uniformity and egalitarianism; faith in pre-

scription and conviction that man must put a control upon

his will and his appetite, for conservatives know man to be

governed more by emotion than by reason; conviction that

civilized society requires orders and classes; acceptance

of the apparent principle that change and reform are not

identical, and that innovation is a devouring conagra-

tion more often than it is a torch of progress

New Urbanism – analysis of the idea

Traditionalism, progress and the past

Traditionalism and respect for the achievements of past

generations are the fundamentals of New Urbanism. It

is not only the dominant attitude but, as it was stated in

the Lexicon: neo-traditionalism permeates New Urbanist

technique [3, p. 11]. The rules promoted and implemented

by New Urbanists are nothing more than the principles

of traditional town planning, applied and cultivated in the

economic, legal, social, political and cultural context of

post-war spatial planning [16, pp. 9, 10]. This is by no

means a reconstruction of the past.

The true meaning of traditionalism and conservatism,

however, should be explained. Traditionalism does not strive

torevivewhatdenitelypassedby,andconservatismisnot

a conservation of the past. As Victor Pradera depicts it: Tra-

dition is not all that passed. What is in conict with the

principles derived from the nature of a man and his social

life cannot be considered traditional, since […] Tradition

must be animated. […] Tradition is the past that suciently

qualies the doctrinal foundations of human life in rela-

tionship to abstraction; it is, in other words, the past that

survives and has the virtue to become a future

[17, p. 33].

The desire to conserve is compatible with all manner of change,

provided only that change is also a continuity [14, p. 11].

The last, sixth attribute is the belief that private property guaran-

tees personal freedom. This issue is absent from the rhetoric of New Ur-

banism due to its obviousness in the contemporary world [15, pp. 8, 9].

Tradición no es todo lo pasado. No puede ser tradicional lo que

esté en pugna con los principios derivados de la naturaleza del hombre y

de su vida de relación, puesto que […] la Tradición ha de estar por éstos

animada. […] La Tradición es el pasado que cualica sucientemente

los fundamentos doctrinales de la vida humana de relación, en abstracto

considerada; es, en otras palabras, el pasado que sobrevive y tiene vir-

tud para hacerse future.

Similarly,theproblemisperceivedbyPhilipBess,one

of the CNU supporters: The very meaning of a tradi tion is

the pursuit of a shared telos over time, and the handling

over what is good [6, p. 203]. The past is every thing that

has elapsed and never comes back, whereas real tradition

never dies. So, the only suitable adverb of time is: “al-

ways” [18, p. 22]. Consequently, it may be claimed that

seeking, researching and discovering of “what never dies”

or “should never die” in urbanism have always been the

objectivesof Geddes, Jacobs,Alexander,Duany, Plater

-Zyberk and the work of many other New Urbanists.

Tradition, if understood as above, does not stand against

progress. On the contrary: Tradition is what prevails over

time and no more. It’s that which lasts forever [18, p. 31].

So,thetraditionisakindofastartingpoint,anessence,

a base for improvement. Making progress means to change

something, and morally also to improve something. This

“something” is contained in the inherited tradition. With-

outasubjectforchange,progressisimpossible,sinceany

“unchanging tradition”, understood as just conserving

the past, would be absurd [19]. This kind of reasoning

isrepresentedbyRogerScrutonwho,usingtheexample

of “musical tradition”, proves that a real tradition is not

an invention; it is the unintended by-product [emphasis

– M.D.] of invention, which also makes invention possi-

ble. […] A tradition really is not a custom or a ritual but

a form of social knowledge [14, p. 31].

A similar perception of innovation and progress is rep-

resentedbyLeonKrier:In traditional cultures, invention,

innovation, and discovery are the means to modernize

proven and practical systems of thinking, planning, build-

ing [20, p. 49]. Tradition and progress are not antinomical

notions[20, p. 65]. Krierseesnocontradictionbetween

traditionandmodernity,ifthelatterisperceivedasfulll-

ing the needs of contemporary times, not as an ideology

or style of modernism [20, pp. 43, 65–75]. The tradition is

similarly understood by Calthorpe, who thinks that there

is a ne but important dierence between tradition and

nostalgia. Traditions are rooted in timeless impulses while

being constantly modied by circumstances. Tradition

evolves with time and place while holding strong to cer-

tain formal, cultural, and personal principles [9, p. 23].

However, New Urbanism which supports what already

exists and has been proven in the past, opposes the cult

of modernity: New Urbanism seeks a counter-response to

the celebration of innovation and novelty at the expense

of context and historical tradition[11,p.32].Suchanap-

proach is in complete opposition to the typical to modern-

ismandarmedby,e.g.,GiedionandHegelian,paradigm

of the spirit of the times (Zeitgeist), which – purportedly

– permeates architecture. The already quoted Codón Fer -

nández sums it up like this: Tradition is not identied with

time, much less with the passed time. It is the survival of

culture through time. It is the substance of the present and

the impulse of the future

[18, p. 27].

La tradición no se identica con el tiempo y mucho menos con el

tiempo pasado. Es la pervivencia de la cultura a traves del tiempo. Es la

sustancia del presente y el impulso del future.

62 MichałDomińczak

posed a shorter name, i.e., “new urbanism” where only

the newness of traditional urbanism in the contemporary,

dominated by modernism world was emphasized. But as

Plater-Zyberk wrote: The qualication “new” is only re

la tive, as the goals and methods for building regulation

have evolved over centuries [24,p.ix].Skippingthead-

jective“traditional”wasintentionalbutservedapersua-

sive purpose rather than an ideological one. It resulted in

twoeects:the proposed idea of urbanism started to be

perceived not through the prism of the past (“traditional”),

but through modernity (“new”).

New Urbanism is a recovery and extension of “what-

ever works best in the long run” [3, p. 76]. This depiction

fromtheLexiconofNewUrbanismisaprecisedenition

ofthetradition,whichnallyis,asitwassaid,“aninher-

ited progress” stemming from life [19].

The urban revival movement, which took the name of

New Urbanism in the early 1990s, was a backlash against

the phenomena that resulted from modernistic re-evalu-

ation of traditional ideas of civic life. There is no doubt,

therefore, that it was a kind of rebellion against the estab-

lished order, which seems to be contrary to the conserva-

tive attitude. It must be remembered, however, that New

Urbanism incited a revolt against the destructive output

ofmodernism,andtherefore,bydenition,asopposedto

the revo lution caused by modernists, it was counter-revo-

lutionary.

Communitarianism – Diversity – Pragmatism

The idea of a community supported by New Urbanism

is deeply rooted in ancient philosophy and in the heritage

of medieval “communes” (“townships”) [6, pp. 11–14].

Not so distant in time, but no less an important source

ofinspirationwere Patrick Geddes’ reections. His per-

sonalityeludessimpledenitions,andalthoughhecannot

be unequivocally considered a traditionalist, his ideas of

decentralized development and social life based on small

communities are undoubtedly conservative. The basis of

Geddes’ philosophy, which applied equally to the built en-

vironment and human development in said environment,

is the armation of community and cooperation as the

fundamentals of each social system. It is an apparent in-

spiration from Plato and Aristotle and recognition (after

Le Play) of the key role of “place, work and family” [25,

pp. 3–11], [14, pp. 21, 22]. In this way Geddes revives the

ancient idea of polis and connects it with the natural envi-

ronment. Therefore, the goal of New Urbanists is to build

local communities by means of appropriate planning, de-

sign and investment activities.

The model of the community was implied by the ori-

gins of New Urbanism. Firstly, the idea of a small neigh-

borhood determined by a ve or tenminute pedestrian

shed, i.e., a type of polis, derives directly from the writings

ofAristotle [7, pp. 157, 158]. Secondly, selfgoverning

and diverse communities were the basis of late medieval

civilization in Europe, when sovereign cities obtained the

right to “make their own air free”. And the size of such

a model community, which should have approximately

several thousand inhabitants [22, pp. 3–5], [20, p. 140],

The process of urban development planning is per-

ceivedcloselyenoughbyBentonMacKaye,whoseheri

tage is particularly important to the New Urbanist. He

focuses rather on nding, not contriving since planning

is discovery and not invention [21, p. 349]. This approach

is shared by Christopher Alexander whose research since

decades has been serving the purpose of discovering and

dening a universal, timeless, intercultural building and

planning tradition [22].

Tradition is not a state, it is a process […] it is both

evolution and permanent actuality

[18, pp. 28]. Objec-

tively, tradition is the cultural heritage that is acquired,

accumulated and transmitted

[emphasis – M.D.] [18,

p. 27].

In New Urbanism, research and critical studies on the

history of urban planning serve the acquiring, creative de-

signand codication help theaccumulation,andinturn

theprojectsthat will be evaluated bythefuture genera-

tions serve the transmission. However, Plater-Zyberk pays

attention to the problem of the broken continuity in educa-

tion and the suspended transfer of knowledge (“tradition”)

that occurred after World War II as a result of the victory

of the modernist revolution. She raises the problem of

“lost wisdom” – fading into the oblivion of civic art of

urban planning [13, pp. 159, 160]. The works of Howard,

Sitte,Wagner,MacKayeandPerry,whichwereneglected

at the best American universities in the 1960s and 1970s

(sic!), had to be “discovered” in the following decades

Proponents of New Urbanism believe that urban pat-

terns should be adopted whenever possible as conventions,

a kind of architectural etiquette [23, p. 269], whereas strict-

ly legal rules are supposed to be the culmination of a long-

term, and initiated in the past, process of accepting these

conventions [8, p. 27]. The convention should be perceived

as a standard of conduct, a synonym of vo luntary agree-

ment: a pattern, which having acquired sub stance and

meaning through long-term common use in a long period

of use [3, p. 16]. As such it also seems to be a reminiscence

ofthecommonlawstillpresentinAngloSaxoncountries,

which is rooted in medieval feo dum

.Theeectiveness

of conventions must stem from its testing in the past, and

thus also from social acceptance.

TheissueoftheideologicalidenticationofNewUr-

banism can also be explained by the evolution of the term

“new urbanism”. There is no doubt that the movement of

urban reform that originated at the turn of the 1990s was

perceived by observers as a traditionalist one. Before the

present term appeared and was disseminated, the denota-

tions like “neo-traditional urbanism” or “new traditional

urbanism” were most often used. In 1991, Polyzoides pro-

La tradición no es un estado, es un proceso […] es evolucion

y actualidad permanente.

Objetivamente, la tradición es el patrimonio cultural que se ad-

quiere, acrecienta y transmite [emphasis – M.D.].

Plater-Zyberk and Duany studied at Yale and Princeton, Polyzoi-

des and Moule at Princeton, Calthorpe at Yale. Plater-Zyberk’s remarks

areconrmedbyPolyzoides:[8,pp.17,18].

 Feodum, ef (celt.): the privilege of /entitlement for using

a property, a synonym of a system based on mutual dependency.

Ideological identity of New Urbanism 63

corresponds to the scale of a typical medieval and renais-

sance small town. The idea of the aforementioned com-

munity is also reminiscent of a habitat, which, accord-

ingtoZbigniewBaćincludesfrom3upto150families

(households) where children know each other and adults

know each other by name.

One may risk the statement that the “urbanism” of New

Urbanism is the pre-modern or pre-Enlightenment one.

However,itmustbeunderstoodnotasarejectionofthe

achievements of technology or empirical sciences, but in

termsofscaleandselfgovernance.Eortstocreatesmall,

republican communities also hark back to the best Ameri-

can traditions of decentralized democracy, especially in its

pre1865edition.Suchakindof“provincialism”wassup-

ported by Gilbert Chesterton – one of the most important

conservative thinkers of the 20

century, who defended an

“ordinarylife”ofa“commonman”inhisjournalism[26].

Associated with building strong communities is re-

gionalism, or more precisely, a “regional approach”, as

Calthorpecallsit,thisattitudetsinwiththeideaofsub-

sidiarity, which, inter alia, means leaving as many mat-

ters as possible up to the local communities. It requires

cooperation and abandonment of particular interests [1,

pp. 17–19].

According to the followers of New Urbanism, social,

functional, architectural and environmental diversity is

necessary for healthy and viable communities. The diver-

sity is also related to the idea of social inclusion, which

means understanding a city as a place where all classes

should intertwine, regardless of their status and income.

Socialinclusion can be realized through the availability

ofabroadrangeofhousingoptionsondierentpricelev-

els, a choice of forms of transport and mixed-use devel-

opment. All of these elements in a traditional city were

easily available, but today require a special urban and ar-

chitectural design to be achieved.

It should be emphasized that a great advocate of diver -

sitywasJacobs.Shestoodforavarietyofsmallbusinesses

in a city, defending them against international moguls or

government domination. As a supporter of grassroots activ-

ities, she questioned gargantuan public programs that pre-

empt private entrepreneurship [27]. Basically, she defended

everything that is the essence of a traditional city life.

Diversity in New Urbanism has been accurately embod-

ied in practice through the rural-to-urban transect (Tran-

sect). The idea is based on the Geddes’ Valley Section and

the assumption that planning should serve to strike a bal-

ance between the man-made and the natural environment.

The rural-to-urban transect, which was invented by Dua-

ny and Plater-Zyberk, is an emanation of the traditionalist

idea of living in harmony with nature. It involves all users

and tolerates all ways of civic life, but arranges them sepa-

rately along the Transect [2, p. 9], [11].

The Transect, like the Valley Section, is a perception

of “appropriateness” in social life. According to it, what

“should”bedoneinaspecicplacedoesnotstemfrom

a magical or an irrational premises, but from the experi-

ence of past generations, common sense and simple ob-

servation.Suchrejectionofglobal,onesizetsallsolu-

tions, in favor of the appropriateness and the reverence for

variable conditions of place and time, is in essence deeply

anti-modern and conservative [14, p. 27].

Another, indicated by Moule, traditional feature of New

Urbanism is the slowness – the celebration and contem-

plation of life in opposition to the incessant rush, which

de facto praises provincialism and town life. This attitude

is related to the precision and meticulousness in architec-

tural and spatial design [8, pp. 22, 23]. Next, smallness

(the belief that “small is beautiful”) and walkability of the

New Urbanism are a consequence of the armation of

indigenousness and respect for the human scale. On the

other hand, grassroots actions and incrementalism t in

with the typical conservative distrust for revolutionary

changes [15, p. 9], [20, p. 65].

The concept of social and urban development taken

from Geddes, implies the necessity of natural and cultural

resourcespreservation,aswellasthearmationofdiver-

sity [1, p. 17]. Geddes, like his close conservative think-

ers, namely Gilbert Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc [28,

pp.69–72,82],completelyrejectssocialDarwinism,both

in its capitalist and socialist incarnation. The development

has to be incremental, not revolutionary [25, pp. 11, 12].

This, however, requires a certain order, including the spa-

tial hierarchy [22, pp. 3, 4, 557–564] and legibility of both

public space and urban regulations [8, p. 22].

New Urbanism is characterized by pragmatism and real-

ism, which are also features of a conservative mindset [15,

p. 9]. It emerges in three aspects: the advantage of prax-

is over theory, focusing on activities that bring tangible

results and respecting market requirements and customer

expectations [1, pp. 17–19]. This pragmatism is strongly

emphasized by Polyzoides, who thinks that reducing New

Urbanismtoneotraditionalismgivesadenitelyincom-

plete impression of reality. He claims that a much better

and more accurate term would be “neo-realism”, since the

mission of New Urbanism is […] engagement with real

places, real people and real institutions [8, p. 18]. It is

the pragmatism that orders the New Urbanist to strive for

elaboration and adaptation of certain common values and

rules of development [8, p. 27]. New Urbanism celebrates

the appropriate and the beautiful, to the near-exclusion

of the willful [3, p. 76]. Extreme individualism, which re-

sulted in many negative phenomena in urban development

(including sprawl), is a threat to the order, necessary for

the preservation of natural human rights [7, pp. 148–150].

Finally, the thesis that New Urbanism is characterized

by an immanent conservative attitude is also conrmed

by researchers who are critical of its declarations. Their

assessment, made most often from the neo-Marxist or

the so-called “critical theory” positions, explicitly accus-

es New Urbanism of conservatism, communitarianism

[4] and “orderism” (fondness for order) [12, p. 45] and

blames it for its lack of revolutionism and progressivism

[5, pp. 202, 203].

Identification problems

ThevastmajorityofresearchersperceiveNewUrban-

ism as a movement that arose in opposition to modern-

ism, as a reaction to its harmful results. An exception in

64 MichałDomińczak

academia is the view of Michael Vanderbeek and Clara

Irázabal, who try to identify New Urbanism as a neo-mo-

dernist movement [29, p. 53]. However, this thesis has at

least four weaknesses.

Firstly, they attempt to compare the postulates of the

Athens Charter and the Charter of the New Urbanism

but draw a bizarre and contradictory conclusion – since

CIAM and CNU both aimed to reform cities, so New Ur-

banism must be a continuation of modernism, because it

appeared later (sic!).

Secondly,usingthefalseantinomy:progressvs.con-

servatism indicates a complete misunderstanding of these

ideas [29, p. 42].

Thirdly, from an objective observation (e.g., Jacobs:

“eyes on the street”) that certain urban forms and types

of buildings inuence social behavior, Vanderbeek and

Irázabal conclude that New Urbanism supports social en-

gineering, ergo, continues modernism. This is at least an

overinterpretation, which stems from misunderstanding

therule“designaectsbehavior”.

Fourthly, the formal or even semantic similarities be-

tween the CNU and the CIAM, and between its Charters,

do not prove a slightest ideological relationship between

modernism and New Urbanism. All the more, since the

practicaleectsoftheseallegedlysimilartheoriesarecom-

pletely dierent. Indeed, the founders of the CNU were

undoubtedly impressed by the eectiveness of CIAM,

espe cially in reevaluating the perception of architecture

and urbanism. For them, however, the Athens Charter and

the CIAM itself were only a modus operandi, a means of

communication. Driven to learn from the successes of their

predecessors, they just used an eective “weapon of the

enemy” without any ideological references [8, p. 22].

Finally, attention should be paid to the following prob-

lems:theunclearselfidentication,orratherthelackof

it, of New Urbanism followers and the ongoing ideologi-

cal evolution of the CNU as their main representative.

AsimplicationwasnotevenavoidedbyCalthorpe,who

once stated that New Urbanism […] is misinterpreted

simply as a conservative movement to recapture the past

while ignoring the issues of our time [30, p. 280]. Certain-

ly, as shown in this text, there is no contradiction between

conservatism and undertaking the “issues of our time”.

Quite the contrary: the quoted opinion results simply from

misunderstandingthedenitions.

A separate issue is the evolution of the CNU, an organi-

zation established by the founders of New Urbanism and

representing its ideas. For several years now, the CNU

activists have been turning towards up-to-date issues,

such as, for example, global warming or revitalization [24,

The comparison is extremely selective: the authors compare di-

agnoses ignoring the recommendations and leave out the key postulates

of modernism (protection of cultural heritage, the method of shaping

public space and transport, etc.) [29, pp. 44, 45].

p.159].Increasingly,however,ghtingracialandsocial

inequalities is also presented as the main goal, which is,

unfortunately, the result of the CNU’s involvement in cur-

rent American politics. This calls into question not only

the so-far apolitical nature of the Congress, but also the

ideological coherence of the entire movement

.So,New

Urbanismmayevolveinacompletelydierentdirection

than the conservative one, which seems to foreshadow

a number of recent initiatives [31].

Conclusions

Asitwasproven,NewUrbanismcanbeidentiedas

a kind of conservative attitude that arms a communi-

ty-based way of life, diversity and the development of

traditional urbanism. However, a popular misconception

ofconservatism/traditionalismas an attempt topreserve

the status quo is keeping many New Urbanists from con-

sideringitaconservativemovement.Someareafraidof

being labeled, others really want a revolution, confusing

the ideological attitude with political commitment.

Itmustbestronglyemphasizedthatobjectiveideologi

cal identication does not mean political identication,

and the personal views of the founders and followers of

NewUrbanism,aswellastheirgoals,maydiersigni-

cantly from one another. It does not mean either that the

so far implementation of these conservative assumptions

always brings satisfactory results. It should also be noted

that the recent changes of the CNU, which take up the

currentproblemsofthemodernworld,conrmtheperma-

nent evolution of New Urbanism.

The intention of this article was to trigger a discussion,

especially among New Urbanists. That is because they,

just like Molier’s Jourdain, may be surprised to realize

they“have been speaking prose” and are conservatives/

traditionalists without even knowing about it or more im-

portantly, agreeing to it. But it would be a true, creative

traditionalism much dierent than how partisan politics

seeit.Sincethereisnoprogresswithouttraditionandno

tradition without progress.

Translated by

Michał Domińczak

In 2009 a group of the CNU members, including two of its

founders, adopted and signed the Canons of SustainableArchitecture

and Urbanism. It was supposed to be an unocial supplement of the

Charter of the New Urbanism. The document places particular emphasis

on the issues of climate change, renewable energy sources and public

transport.

Ideological identity of New Urbanism 65

References

[1] New Urbanism. Michigan Debates on Urbanism, Vol. 2, Peter

Calthrope vs. Lars Lerup, R. Fishman (ed.), University of Michi-

gan, New York 2005.

[2] Charter of the New Urbanism, https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/

les/charter_english.pdf [accessed: 24.05.2021].

[3] The Lexicon of New Urbanism, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co, [n.p.],

[n.d.], https://www.dpz.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/Lexicon

2014.pdf [accessed: 24.05.2021].

[4] Harvey D., The New Urbanism and the communitarian trap, “Har-

vard Design Magazine” 1997, No. 1, 68–69.

 [5] AlHindi F.K., The New Urbanism: Where and for Whom? In-

vestigation of an Emergent Paradigm, “Urban Geography” 2001,

Vol. 21, Iss. 3, 202–219, doi: 10.2747/02723638.22.3.202.

[6] Bess Ph., Till We Have Built Jerusalem: Architecture, Urbanism,

and the Sacred,IntercollegiateStudiesInstitute,Wilmington2006.

 [7] ZagułaA.,Arystotelesowskie i religijne źródła nowego klasycyzmu

w architekturze współczesnej,WydawnictwoPŁ,Łódź2014.

[8] The Seaside Debates: A Critique of the New Urbanism, T. Bressi

(ed.), Rizzoli, New York–London 2002.

[9] Calthorpe P., The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community

and the American, Princeton Architectural Press, New York 1993.

[10] Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater Zyberk. Towns and Town-mak-

ing Principles,A.Krieger,W.Lennertz(ed.),Rizzoli,Harvard1991.

[11] Talen E., Beyond the Front Porch: Regionalist Ideals in the New

Urbanist Movement, “Journal of Planning History” 2008, Vol. 7,

Iss. 1, 20–47, doi: 10.1177/1538513207307427.

[12] Grant J., Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory

and Practice, Routledge, London–New York 2006.

[13]

Plater-Zyberk E., Traditional Urbanism: Design, Policy and Case

Studies, [in:] T. Jeleński, S. Juchnowicz, E. WoźniakSzpakiewicz

(eds.), Tradition and Heritage in the Contemporary Image of the City,

Vol. 1, Fundamentals,WydawnictwoPK,Kraków2015,159–172.

[14] ScrutonR.,The Meaning of Conservatism, Palgrave, London 2001.

[15] KirkR., The Conservative Mind. From Burke to Eliot, Gateway,

New Jersey 2016.

[16] New Urbanism and Beyond. Designing Cities for the Future,

T. Haas (ed.), Rizzoli, New York 2008.

[17] Pradera V., El Estado Nuevo, Cultura Española, Madrid 1941.

[18] Codón Fernández J.M., Tradiciòn y Monarquia, Montejurra,Palen-

cia 1961.

[19] Bartyzel J., Tradycjonalizm, sensy terminu i kręgi odniesienia,

“SensusHistoriae”2018,vol.33,nr4,17–31.

[20] KrierL.,The Architecture of Community, Island Press, Washington

2011.

[21] MacKayeB.,Regional Planning and Ecology, “Ecological Mono-

graphs”1940,Vol.10,Iss.3,349–353,doi:10.2307/1948509.

[22] Alexander Ch., Ishikawa S., Jacobson M. et al., A Pattern Lan-

guage. Towns – Buildings – Construction, Oxford University Press,

New York 1977.

[23] Rybczynski W., Looking Around. A Journey Through Architecture,

Penguin Books, New York 1993.

[24] Plater-Zyberk E., An Optimistic Moment,[in:]D.G.Parolek,K.Pa

rolek, P.C. Crawford (eds.), Form-Based Codes. A Guide for Plan-

ners, Urban Designers, Municipalities and Developers, John Wiley

&Sons,NewJersey2008,ixxii.

[25] Welter M.V., Biopolis. Patrick Geddes and the City of Life, The

MIT Press, Cambridge MA–London 2002.

[26] ChestertonG.K.,What’s Wrong with the World?,CreateSpaceIn-

dependent Publishing Platform 2016.

[27] Jacobs J., Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Principles of Economic

Life, Vintage House, New York 1984.

[28] Branford V., Geddes P., The Coming Polity. A Study In Reconstruc-

tion, Wiliams and Norgate, London 1917.

[29] Vanderbeek M., Irázabal C., New Urbanism as a New Modern-

ist Movement: A Comparative Look at Modernism and New Ur-

banism, “Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review” 2007,

Vol. 19, No. 1, 41–57.

[30] Calthorpe P., Fulton W., The Regional City, Island Press, Washing-

ton 2001.

[31] Rose J.F.P., The Well-Tempered City: What Modern Science, An-

cient Civilizations, and Human Nature Teach Us About the Future

of Urban Life, Harper Wave, New York 2016.

Abstract

Ideological identity of New Urbanism

The article is devoted to the issues of ideological identity of New Urbanism and it is an attempt to expand the general knowledge about this par-

ticular phenomenon of contemporary urbanism and a complete idea of social life. It also undertakes, to a lesser extent, a polemic with some of the

theses of its critics.

Thearticleadoptsamethodofdeduction.Firstofall,theocialdeclarationsoftheCongressfortheNewUrbanism(CNU),including,inpar-

ticular, the Charter of the New Urbanism were analyzed. Then, the writings and publications of the precursors and founders of New Urbanism were

examined. A mention was also made of the theories presented by various groups, which are now the point of reference for New Urbanists as their

mentors.TheconductedanalysesallowedustolayoutthethesisthatresearchconclusionsaresucienttoidentifyNewUrbanismasaconservative,

or more precisely – a traditionalist movement, which aims for creative improvement of the good habits in town planning and restoration of the con-

tinuity of cultural and spatial development of local communities.

NewUrbanismisadened,comprehensivephilosophyofacity,understoodasanideaofadiverseandfamilybasedlivingcommunitysetin

specicspatialconditions.Thisideaoflocal“urbanity”–aconceptofsocialliferepresentedinNewUrbanism,tsinwiththeideal,Aristotelian

republican system (politeia).

NewUrbanismrepresentsatleastveoutofsixfundamentalattributesofaconservativemindset:realisminthejudgmentofreality;aectionfor

the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life; faith that man must take control of his anarchic impulses; conviction that a civilized society

requiresorderandclasses;andacceptanceoftheapparentprinciplethatchangeandprogressarenotidentical.Strivingforanequilibriumbetween

the freedom of choice and the social responsibility is fully in line with a conservative mindset, too. Thereby, New Urbanism became a counterbalance

to both the neoliberal, consumer-driven exaggerated individualism and neo-Marxist collectivism.

Key words: New Urbanism, conservatism, traditionalism, communitarianism

66 MichałDomińczak

Streszczenie

Identykacja ideowa Nowego Urbanizmu

ArtykułpoświęconyjestzagadnieniomidentykacjiideowejNowegoUrbanizmu(New Urbanism)istanowipróbęrozszerzeniawiedzynatemat

tegoszczególnegofenomenuwspółczesnejurbanistyki.Podejmujetakże,wniewielkimzakresie,polemikęzniektórymitezamijegokrytyków.

Wpracyprzyjętometodędedukcji,analizującwpierwszejkolejnościocjalnedeklaracjeCongress for the New Urbanism, w tym przede wszyst-

kimKartęNowejUrbanistyki.NastępniezbadanopismaipublikacjeprekursoróworaztwórcówNowegoUrbanizmu.Odniesionosiętakżedoteorii

prezentowanychprzezosobyiśrodowiska,doktórychjakodoswoichmentorówiwzorcówideowychodwołująsięwspółcześniezwolennicytego

ruchu.Przeprowadzoneanalizypozwoliłynaprzyjęciewnioskówbadawczych, wystarczającychdoidentykacjiNowegoUrbanizmujakoruchu

konserwatywnego,awłaściwie–precyzyjnierzeczujmując–tradycjonalistycznego,któryzacelstawiasobietwórcząkontynuacjędobrychzwycza-

jówplanowaniamiast,służącychrazemprzywróceniuciągłościrozwojukulturowegoiprzestrzennegolokalnychspołeczności.

NowyUrbanizmreprezentujeconajmniejpięćzsześciugłównychcechpostawykonserwatywnej:realizmwosądzierzeczywistości;przywiąza-

niedoróżnorodnościtradycyjnychformżyciaspołecznego;przekonanie,żeczłowiek–skłonnydokierowaniasiębardziejemocjaminiżrozumem

–wymagaregułizasadpostępowaniapozwalającychnaokiełznanieanarchicznychimpulsówjegonatury;uznanie,żecywilizowanespołeczeństwo

możerozwijaćsięwyłączniewedługprzyjętegoporządkuorazakceptacjęzasady,żepojęciazmianyipostępuniesątożsame.

NowyUrbanizmtozdeniowana,całościowaideamiasta,rozumianegojakokoncepcjawspólnotyżyjącejwokreślonychwarunkachprzestrzen-

nych.Jest towspólnota zróżnicowana, oparta na rodzinie jako podstawowej komórce społecznej.Idea lokalnej„miejskości”, którąreprezentuje

NowyUrbanizm,jakokoncepcjażyciaspołecznegowpisujesięwpostawęrepublikańskąwrozumieniuidealnej,arystotelesowskiejformyustro-

jowej(politeia).Dążeniedorównowagimiędzyswobodąindywidualnegowyboruawymogamispołecznejodpowiedzialnościwpełniwpisujesię

wpostawękonserwatywną.WtensposóbNowyUrbanizmstanowiprzeciwwagęzarównodlaneoliberalnego,opartegonakonsumpcjiwybujałego

indywidualizmu,jakidlaneomarksistowskiegokolektywizmu.

Słowa kluczowe:NowyUrbanizm,NowaUrbanistyka,konserwatyzm,tradycjonalizm,wspólnotowość