This leads to a dominance of medium sized shops and companies. The shopping behaviour of an actor living in a Landscape Urbanist world will consist of less frequent but more intense shopping experiences. The New Urbanist way of shopping is more frequent because the actor will be confronted with shops more often in its daily life, but will be less intense. Because the New Urbanist dweller will have more choice where and when to shop the actor is more empowered to choose for the sustainable option.
The practice of work is to a large extent comparable to that of the practice of shopping. Shops compete in the same way to get costumers as companies compete to get employees. The difference is firstly that it is far easier for the actor to go to a different store than to switch jobs.
Secondly, unlike the case of shopping, LU and NU don't envision a sustainable future for work. LU assumes that people drive to an unspecified business park and NU sees the whole urban population practicing in local jobs in the tertiary sector. The lack of emphasis on work can be explained because city planning has a limited impact the work situation and it is, as stated before, very hard to convince the actor to change or even challenge its working behaviour.
New Urbanism nudges the actor to work more local while Landscape Urbanism does not promote nor discourages working practices.
Gardening The practice of gardening serves multiple purposes in the Landscape Urbanism paradigm. From concrete goals such as stimulating the local ecology and providing opportunities for the actors to grow their own food to more abstract goals such as re-connecting urban life with nature and raise awareness by involvement with nature.
New Urbanism on the other hand does not encourage gardening, except for some small, idealistic roof gardens most green space is provided by public parks which seldom provide space for gardening. Lee, There are no clear disadvantages of gardening when it comes to wellbeing of the actor or the environment. Therefore gardening is seen as a no- regrets, universally good practice.
espace - Curtin’s institutional repository
Social contacts Landscape urbanism provokes a more self-contained lifestyle with little interactions because of the big distances between the different the dwellings. New Urbanism aims at a vibrant street life and needs a high population density to ensure a busy streetscape. Social sustainability is important because it improves the stability of the neighbourhood, community empowerment and local governance Dempsey et al, New Urbanism has a clear advantage because of the high amount of people stacked together and the mixed-use spaces do invite for social interaction.
In other words: there is a high exposure and high concentration. However, Landscape urbanists argue that the rushed city life leads to a shallower social life and that the more peaceful, quiet lifestyle of the suburbs gives space to deeper friendships.
There is unfortunately no empirical data to support this The lack of a community oriented approach and increased distances between inhabitants makes the Landscape Urbanist paradigm rate poorly while the New Urbanist paradigm has a strong focus on social sustainability and scores the maximum points.
Table 1. Long distances: No alternative offered, habit remains unchallenged.
New Urbanism and township developments in Malaysia | SpringerLink
Provides alternatives such as trains, busses, cycling. Work Separation of functions: work mostly takes place in a different area. Mixed use promotes working in same area. Leisure Large potential for extensive recreation walking, cycling. Shopping Mostly accessible by car, big shopping centres and malls. Walking distances, small shops and alleys.
Gardening High potential. Spacious gardens. Possibility for food self-sufficiency. Low potential. Only small roof gardens and little chances for food production. Social contacts Low daily interaction between inhabitants due to distances. A more rural life. Vibrant city life. Also: rushed city life can flatten social relations. Results: The social practices are individually rated on a Likert scale Likert, Table 2 shows the rating on a Likert scale. It is important to keep in mind that not the quality or quantity of the social practice is measured but how much the actor is challenged to change its behaviour.
The results display each social practice as equally important. The rating of the different practices however tends more towards a political and ideological preference than a scientific judgement. Table 2. The weighted results show the same trend: Landscape Urbanism scores 4,3 points and New Urbanism 4,8 points. The full table with the numbers used to calculate the results can be found in the appendix. Conclusion: Landscape Urbanism and New Urbanism both have their strong points when it comes to alter urban lifestyles into sustainable living.
The strong points of Landscape Urbanism in this context are: re-establishing the human-nature relationship and providing space for local initiatives.
New Urbanism has a strong approach in altering the travel behaviour of the actor, increasing the social connectedness and lowering the impacts of the behaviour. A selected list of social practices is rated for both paradigms. New Urbanism scores in the weighted and unweighted results significantly higher which means that the concept of New Urbanism, when applied, does provide a better framework for change in the behaviour of the actor. It is recommended to investigate whether it is possible to combine the best parts of Landscape Urbanism with the best parts of New Urbanism for a new urban typology.
The other factors that are just as important such as CO2 footprint, ecology, aesthetics, energy production and consumption, soil conditions, cultural preferences and technical barriers are not included.
- research paper on steroids in sports.
- Bring our latest initiatives, publications and events to your inbox..
- A typology of New Urbanism neighborhoods.
- 25 great ideas of the New Urbanism | CNU.
- Paper statistics.
- the constitution leadership essay;
- Original Articles!
Another way of looking at New Urbanism vs. Landscape Urbanism is through the lens of economics. In the housing market people vote with their wallets and the attractiveness of a certain lifestyle is reflected in the willingness to pay for a house in a particular neighborhood.
The effort needed to make a Landscape Urbanist or New Urbanist neighborhood function. It is far easier to built detached houses and sell them with the surrounding land than building a high- density, mixed use neighborhood which still has to develop its main selling point: the social cohesion and liveliness.
The positive steering is more common than the negative steering in both Landscape Urbanism and New Urbanism. This is can be partly explained by the fact that in a free market different developments have to compete to attract enough buyers. The more drawbacks are implemented in the design roads with dead ends, lack of facilities , the more risk the developer of the site takes.
Therefore both paradigms mostly aim at promoting green behavior, not at forbidding unsustainable behavior. This could be implemented as a time component within the analysis. It is imaginable that some habits are easier to change than others. Because the different adaptation rates for these practices are unknown the factor time is excluded in this research. Further research is needed to determine whether one scenario outperforms the other within a particular timeframe.
References: Van Den Berg, A. Gardening promotes neuroendocrine and affective restoration from stress. Journal of health Psychology, 16 1 , Bourdieu, P. Habitus: A sense of place, Connolly, J. Green Consumption Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8 1 , Dempsey, N.
The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19 5 , Dunn, R.
The Ancient Roots of New Urbanism
Identifying consumption: Subjects and objects in consumer society. Temple University Press. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity.