In the modern world, cities are the apex of human civilization. They are where innovations are made, where politics is run, and where millions of people reside. Designing such monstrous things are no easy feat. Because of this fact, many different ideas and ideals have arisen, all of which have their pros and cons. One such design following, known as New Urbanism, is focused on the ideals of being sustainable, and scaling things down to the walking distances of humans. A professor of political sciences and social sciences at Lyon College, Scott M. Roulier, writes about New Urbanism in detail in his book titled, Shaping American Democracy: Landscapes and Urban Design. In it, he gives multiple ideals of New Urbanism and how it applies to the real world, among other things. Roulier’s book is a great base of which to pull ideas and examples from when comparing the locations that will be discussed. One location is named Storrs Center, located right next to the University of Connecticut’s campus in Storrs, Connecticut. From the get-go, Storrs Center was designed and built based on the ideals of New Urbanism, and it shows. However, compared to a different location that was built with the idea of New Urbanism in mind, how well will Storrs Center hold up? This comparison will give insight into where Storrs Center is headed, and how it will fare in the future.
One of the key concepts of the New Urbanism movement is walkability for the people living in the communities. Roulier puts it well by saying, “…the pedestrian-orientation of the New Urbanism deliberately attempts to slow us down, so we have time to appreciate aesthetic details and to connect with others” (Roulier 163). How is this concept applied in these two developments? In Portland, Oregon, there is an area of living named Orenco Station that was built based on the ideals of New Urbanism similar to Storrs Center. In the academic paper titled “Assessing the social and environmental achievements of New Urbanism: evidence from Portland, Oregon”, this particular area is discussed in detail. For instance, as stated in the scholarly article, Orenco Station stands apart from the rest of the neighborhoods that were assessed in Portland because of its design that purposefully encourages walking. The author of the article, Bruce Podobnik, states about the neighborhood,, “An impressive network of sidewalks and traffic-calming streets ensures that such a walk is safe and pleasant” and, “…the community has an extensive network of sidewalks and paths that make walking convenient” (Podobnik). For Orenco Station, it isn’t the size of the sidewalks that makes a difference, it is how/where they are placed. This, coupled with walks that are safer and more pleasant surely increase walkability in Orenco Station.
Storrs Center takes a different, yet perhaps just as effective approach. A prominent and consistent feature that is seen throughout the development are the abnormally large sidewalks, as seen in the image to the right. The main function of sidewalks is to allow foot traffic to move safely and conveniently. With the extra width on the sidewalks in Storrs Center, along with plenty of benches and crosswalks, walking becomes much more efficient, quick, and convenient. Additionally there are benches and places of refuge placed down every so often on the sides of these enormous sidewalks. These in turn help promote walking even for people who may have a hard time walking, since benches and such can serve as an important respite for these people. Because of this, the walkability of Storrs Center is increased, similar to Orenco Station, although through different means. Although the means are somewhat different, the end achievement is that both developments have the walkable aspect of New Urbanism.
In addition to being foot-traffic friendly, New Urbanism promotes the ideal of encouraging sociability with the residents and people who visit. Roulier puts it well when he says, “New Urbanism, then, values inclusivity, consciously seeks to bring together people of ‘diverse ages, races, and incomes’” (Roulier 163). Starting off with Orenco Station, there is strong evidence to suggest that this neighborhood has achieved above-average sociability with its citizens. For example, in the same scholarly article, a survey was conducted with the residents of Orenco Station and the residents of other nearby neighborhoods which were not constructed under the idea of New Urbanism. One question and result that stands out is the question asking: “Is there more or less a sense of community here than in other Portland neighborhoods”? In response, “65% of Orenco Station respondents said “more community here” compared with 46% in Northeast, 32% in Southwest and 45% in Beaverton” (Podobnik). Northeast, Southwest, and Beaverton are the other three neighborhoods that are designed using different concepts besides New Urbanism. Looking at these percentages alone, it is clear that the New Urbanism development outcompetes the other three neighborhoods. There is a disparity between these neighborhoods because Orenco Station has social spaces, sidewalks, parks, club houses, and more. These results tie back to the core design of Orenco Station and how it encourages people to converse and come together.
Going back to Storrs Center, right next to the University of Connecticut, there is a similar story, however there is no data available to compare with. In the absence of data, there are images and in-person visual evidence to support the idea that the New Urbanism design in Storrs Center is living up to the sociability standard. For instance, the town green is where all of the socializing is designed to take place. Surrounding a circular grass area are sets of multiple tables and chairs scattered throughout, essentially enticing people to set up shop and socialize. Along with this, events are often planned on the weekends that are open to the public and encourage people to come and have fun. Compounding these two variables with the fact that Storrs Center is situated right next to a high school and a university, it most definitely has no problem upholding the sociability aspect of New Urbanism.
It is clear that Storrs Center shares many parallels with the Orenco Station neighborhood, which can provide valuable insight into how well Storrs Center will fare in the future, since Orenco Station been around for a longer time. One such insight that can be gained from this comparison is social interaction. Due to the lack of data of social interaction in Storrs Center, knowing how Orenco Station has changed throughout the years sociability-wise is important. Bruce Podobnik writes in his article, “…40% of the residents in 2002 reported that someone in their house participated in formal or informal group activities. By 2007 this ratio had risen, so that almost 60% of respondents reported engaging in group activities. While only 8% of the 2002 respondents said that they interacted with their neighbors in new ways since moving to the neighborhood, by 2007 this ratio had risen to 50%” (Podobnik). It can be amazing what only five years can do to a community, and Orenco Station shows this. Such a drastic increase in social relations with its residents bodes very well for Storrs Center, especially considering most of the residents there are already social college students. As Storrs Center, and Orenco Station, begin to mature even more over the years, it can be safely assumed that the upward trend will only increase. Another important ideal of New Urbanism is the idea that each development has a variety of housing types to choose from. Storrs Center clearly lacks this, as it only has apartments to offer. However, in the case of Orenco Station, a survey question was asked to the residents. It asked if a certain amount of affordable houses designed for lower income residents should be built, and in response, “Only 39% percent of respondents said “yes” in 2002. Interestingly, the “yes” ratio increased to 54% in 2007” (Podobnik). This result shows that even though Orenco Station is majority white and wealthy, residents are becoming more and more open minded towards different, and lower income housing. This sets the stage for mixed housing to become developed in Orenco Station eventually, in order to fulfill the concept of mixed housing in New Urbanism. Switching over to Storrs Center, open-mindedness for mixed housing is certainly above the level of Orenco Station already. Considering the residents are forward thinking college students who are also not as affluent will definitely increase the receptiveness towards mixed housing in Storrs Center. And as seen in Orenco Station, this trend can only improve with time.
When put head to head, the two New Urbanism developments, Storrs Center in Connecticut, and Orenco Station in Oregon appear to fulfill the core ideals of the New Urbanism design movement, making the insights drawn from Orenco Station over to Storrs Center even more reliable. With the help of data over time from Orenco Station, relatively safe assumptions can be made about how well Storrs Center will fare in the future. Once New Urbanism developments continue to mature and age, it can truly be seen if New Urbanism is long-term design movement, or simply a flash in the pan. For now, Storrs Center, Orenco Station, and many other New Urbanism developments continue to impress and have a positive outlook.
Works Cited
Bruce Podobnik (2011) Assessing the social and environmental achievements of New Urbanism: evidence from Portland, Oregon, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4:2, 105-126, DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2011.596271