Defining American Urbanism

"Introduction: Defining American Urbanism" from New Urbanism and American Planning by Emily Talen

Emily Talen's description of the divisions of academic and disciplinary constituting the historical conflicts of American Urbanism is one of the most insightful pieces of writing that I have read in graduate school. By the dividing the threads of urban practitioners into those who believe in incrementalism (Jane Jacobs), large scale civic improvement (City Beautiful), planned communities (Ebenezer Howard & Unwin), and regionalists (the RPAA) she creates a concise and understandable heuristic that can be as a jumping off point for discussing where a plan, practitioner, or argument falls in the history of planning and what its potential benefits and pitfalls might be considering its position on the heuristic.

She does not lose sight, though, that the goal of all of the divisions was to create the best possible human settlement forms. Very importantly she is also explicit in her inclusion of certain suburban settlements as urban forms. In Talen's opinion, and I agree with her, as long as settlement is diverse, connected, mixed, equitable, and has public space it can be called urban. I find this definition suitably inclusive while providing a set of goals with which one can use to evaluate the urban or non-urban character of a settlement.

Just as in good urban design this definition is flexible but allows for considerable refinement by the designers, community members, politicians, and business-people who affect the ultimate physical character of a settlement. Good design must be able to accept new forms and accentuate the best of old forms by acting as a superstructure that protects and promotes diversity, connectivity, mix, equity, and public space.

The first three chapters of this book are a must read for urban planning students within all concentrations of the field.