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. Read the rest of this entry »

Daybreak - Part I (New Urbanism Rant)

I recently had the opportunity to visit some people in South Jordan, Utah. South Jordan is home to a new development in the “New Urbanist” style - Daybreak. New Urbanism is (my definition coming) the idea that current social and enviromental problems can be solved if we remake our cities into what they used to be. New Urbanism hearken’s back to the time when we all walked and is rooted in nostalgia for a times and places that probably never exististed. Part I is more about new urbanism than it is about Daybreak specifically. Part II (and will I get to Part III) will be about the development specifically and even maybe a house plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the things that we wanted to do when we started this blog was to review house plans. The problem with that is it’s so easy to find bad ones, this would be an endless parade of bad plan after bad plan. We were also hoping to get some suggestions…people submit plans, along with information about the site/family/etc. and we’d give a critique. So, what happened?

First, we have yet to receive a plan. Second, it’s been very difficult to find good plans…really. Third, a plan must relate to the site and those using the plan. Without more context, it’s just a plan. In some locations the plan might work great, and in others, the plan be a bad idea. So, what we’ve done is give a lot of commentary, rather than plan review.

And, I’m going to give more commentary.

In the subdivision in which I live, there are a few new houses going up. It’s not worth commenting on the plans…other to say that they’re fairly generic. And that’s the problem. The subdivision is not “typical”. It’s on a slope, there are only about 20 lots. Very wooded. The covenants are not too bad…the most important one is that 10′ of the existing trees need to be left around the side and rear yards. This has made the neighborhood appear to be older than it really is…as there are mature trees between the houses. One of the new houses cleared out the trees to the edge of the lot. It’s a corner lot and the house doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood…it’s smaller and more modest, but without character or any sense of design flair. I wouldn’t mind so much if it was hidden in the trees, like the rest of the homes, but this is the first thing you see when you drive in.

Which brings me to the main point… does anybody care if their plan has a relationship to the site? Or, are we so used to just putting whatever on the plot of ground we own that we don’t even think that there might be a design that enhances the land, rather than just squats on it? Or, am I just too picky…jealous of not getting to design the houses in my own neighborhood?

No. We need a better understanding of plan to lot to site to land. Period. People need to start thinking about the specifics of their plan on their specific lot. We would have better plans and homes if everyone did that… Are you stuck in a house that doesn’t fit the lot? Or does your plan work well for the site it’s on?