The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals

Over the past two decades, the New Urbanism has emerged as a controversial alternative to conventional patterns of urban development. Although growing in popularity, it has received a sceptical reception in journals of planning, architecture and geography. This paper reviews criticisms of the New Urbanism and examines evidence and arguments on both sides of each issue. Critiques may be roughly divided into those involving empirical performance, ideological and cultural affinities, and aesthetic quality. While insufficient evidence exists in some cases to make final judgments, it is argued that the critical attack on the New Urbanism remains unconvincing. Much of the critical literature is flawed by the use of caricature, inadequate sampling of projects, deficient understanding of New Urbanist principles and practices, premature judgments, unrealistic expectations and ideological bias. While New Urbanists can learn from the critiques of their work, and research gaps need to be filled, the New Urbanism remains a resilient, practical and well-founded alternative to conventional land development practices.