Dialogue : ‘Il Fornaio and The Gap Do Not a Neighborhood Make’

Professors Polyzoides and Crawford’s opposing views on The New Urbanism appear to be two sides of the same coin. Polyzoides’ characterization of a regentrified Old Pasadena as a “reconstitution of neighborhoods” is to be questioned. Witness the ubiquitous chain outlets which line Colorado Boulevard--Il Fornaio and The Gap do not a neighborhood make.

And while Crawford hints at The New Urbanists’ four-letter word--P-A-R-K--in mentioning a mini-mall (or, as Crawford states, “community venue”) and its need for landscaping, her enthusiasm for greenery escapes her when describing Monterey Park. Crawford sees the city’s vibrancy in--you guessed it-- mini-malls.

In both viewpoints, social interaction and community seem to revolve around a consumer-centric core. While this paradigm may be the American reality, it is certainly not the only way in which to live--or, for that matter, to enjoy living.

Why is it that Americans marvel at Italian piazzas and English public squares during sojourns to Europe, yet upon their return to the States are relegated to oil- and grease-stained parking lots, unsightly mini-marts and nail boutiques for a taste of human contact? I suppose it is an escape from this grim reality which drives Southern Californians in droves to the virtually indistinguishable Old Pasadenas, Third Street Promenades, and Pine Streets for overpriced lattes--after all the drearyness, who wouldn’t need a little pick-me-up?

But even a consumer culture can only go so far in providing human interaction, even as it attempts to manifest itself as we putt about next to each other in our separate cars on our freeways.

While Crawford points out the decline in the region’s traffic over the past few years, she omits the main reason for this development: unemployment. Southern California’s job losses have resulted in more people staying at home each day--which certainly means fewer trips to Il Fornaio and The Gap.

DAVID GERSHWIN

Los Angeles

‘No mystery to the New Urbanist agenda’

*

The New Urbanists (or Neo-Traditionalists as we used to call them) deserve full credit for opening a new era in urban planning. But the New Urbanism is destined to be only a small part of our future.

New Urbanist projects can be considered “ultra-master plans” that seek to control every detail of how the community is put together. Their very success is dependent upon this control, and when the fire department won’t allow the narrow street section or the developer refuses to build the houses over the shops, things unravel fast.

New Urbanist projects propose the creation of a pedestrian-rich environment: support services within a 5-minute walk of every home and commercial districts around networks of well-defined streets. Cars are going to be with us for some time, however, and some streets are going to remain big, fast and unfriendly to pedestrians. Our solutions should reflect that reality.

Before we start telling people to live in attached housing, use public transportation or forego the security of a gated community, we would do well to listen a little more closely to what the public is telling us about their preferences. There is no mystery to the New Urbanist agenda, only questions about how applicable it is to the next Los Angeles.

BRUCE G. JOLLEY

Senior planner, the Jerde Partnership

Venice

‘American culture is becoming urbanized’

*

What we’re seeing now, regardless of whether it’s bus, train or trolley, is an attempt to recapture the urban vitality that results from higher densities and small scale structures such as remain in older European cities. It’s a backlash against the auto and a desire to reconnect with friends and neighbors. This addresses the need for control of neighborhood planning by residents in reaction to the top-down planning which resulted in environments that were physically uncomfortable for people to inhabit.

It’s not an argument of style. American culture is becoming urbanized, and people now expect and enjoy the public activities of dining out, shopping, seeing shows and movies in a place that brings all of these activities close together. The malls have raised people’s expectations for the public experience, and now these communities want the vitality of work and play in their own backyard.

Given the history of California’s bland suburban sprawl, many communities are trying to define a unique character for themselves which also has the effect of regenerating an urban core. I think this trend will only slow down when every burgh has its bistro (or Starbucks) and a bus line down the next block.

LAURIE BARLOW

South Pasadena

‘Hasn’t she noticed the smog?’

*

Margaret Crawford admits she likes ‘driving very much.’ Hasn’t she noticed the smog, decaying neighborhoods and occasional oil wars? For people addicted to cars, I suggest a CD-ROM virtual reality game. Then professor Crawford can relive the good old days of blowing hair, polluted skies and racing 65 mph to nowhere--without harming the rest of us.

STEPHEN LAFER

Los Angeles

‘Rarely is community discussed’

*

We talk about reconstructing old neighborhoods like Old Pasadena, or creating commercial space like 3rd Street in Santa Monica or creating housing like Pine Street in Long Beach. But few are talking about creating community. A commercial venture which gathers people does not create community. We should not confuse just hanging around with community. It must be intentionally created, it must be helped to grow, and then continually nourished.

This only happens when institutions, and I think happens best when nonprofit institutions, take on the challenge. Whether it is the “Y” or neighbor centers or even the church, all have the skills, the meeting space and the longevity to create communities. All of our urban plans will go the way of government high-rise low-income housing without a sense of community. Creating community is not easy or a quick fix.

DARELL T. WEIST

President, 1010 Development Corp., Los Angeles

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The conversation on the future of Los Angeles as seen by proponents of the New Urbanism (Chat Room, April 9) drew reactions from many angles. Some readers took issue with the New Urbanism ideals detailed by Stefanos Polyzoides, USC associate professor of architecture, and others criticized the “car-based city” described by Margaret Crawford, professor at the Southern California Institute of Architecture. And some took issue with both architects, whose remarks were taken from the KCRW-FM radio program “Which Way L.A?” Here are excerpts of letters and e-mail sent to The Next L.A.