New urbanism (NU) is based on the idea that diversity is a value (rather than diversity being a fact). The more diverse the population base, the more diverse the uses, and the more public transportation, the healthier the community. At least that’s the theory. New urbanists point to points and places from the past stating “this is how it ought to be…again.” As discussed in Part I, this idea is based on fable and myth. If you research the NU communities, you’ll discover that they are not diverse in population base and, after a while, they’re really not diverse in uses. Finally, most have very weak public transportation systems.

Daybreak is no different than any of the other NU communities. A quick visit to their website makes it clear that this community is clearly for the upper-middle class. There is no multi-family housing other than some townhomes. New urbanism argues that if we mix socio-economic classes we’ll have healthy diversity. Daybreak provides little, if any, opportunity for a mixture of socio-economic groups. And, if it follows the pattern of other NU developments, the value of the property will rise, further raising the bar on who can afford to live there. The community becomes economically stratified–which is not want NU is supposed to be about.

Another tenet of NU is that there is a mix of business…and that those businesses are within walking distance of the residential areas. Daybreak will be close to some commerical/retail areas, but they’re not integrated into the residential areas. In essence, we have a typical suburb with some nifty architectural windowdressing. Public transportation doesn’t appear to be a high priority. From what I can tell, there is no real easy way to walk from your house to a transportation hub. Daybreak breaks the NU rule against the private automobile.

NU are new socialists…yet this site, designed by Peter Calthrope’s group does very little to advance the ideas of new urbanism. Daybreak is NOT a new urbanist community. It may have pretty color maps, colorful houses, but it is just another development. Yes, a nice, upscale development, but a suburban residential development with very little to do with the principles of new urbanism.

The architecture is a mix of neo-traditional styles…some “arts and crafts” type bungalows (at least the idea of form and detailing), some more traditional “pioneer” style houses. There are even some Mediterranean homes that appear out of place. A smattering of some “colonial” type houses completes the selection. The most interesting buildings, by far, are the sales office and what appears to be the pool house. They are of a modern steel-glass-copper-stone look. It would have been nice to see more of that style in the residential architecture.

Is there anything wrong with Daybreak? Not really. I’ve driven around the place and have some relatives that live there. It looks like a nice place to live (but the houses are too close together for my taste). Just don’t expect it to be something it’s not. It’s not Mayberry…it’s not an older inner-ring suburb. It’s not urban living. It’s a nice suburb.

NOTE: I’m not endorsing any of the ideas in the books linked to above, only giving full access to all sides of the debate. It’s only fair they hang themselves on their own rope.