Abstract
The New Urbanism, initially conceived as an anti-sprawl reform movement, evolved into a new paradigm in urban design. Recently, however, some researchers have argued that the popular appeal of New Urbanism has eroded, the movement has lost its significance, and critical research on the broader theme has tapered off. In response, this article investigates whether the movement has lost its currency and explores the future of New Urbanism in the context of contemporary circumstances of development. The article begins with a brief description of the conceptualization of New Urbanism as an exception to the development trends of the time. Collaborative efforts of its protagonists that have contributed to the integration of New Urbanist concepts into other programs, policies, and development regulations are presented in the next section to describe its expansion, to clarify its mainstreaming, and to call attention to its broader impact. The concluding section presents contemporary circumstances of development and changes that are intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, including those related to the nation’s demographics, climate change, technological advances, rapid growth of the digital economy, and acceleration of e-commerce to explore the significance of New Urbanism for future development.
Reference79 articles.
1. Audirac, I., & Shermyen, A. (1994). An evaluation of neotraditional design’s social prescription: Postmodern placebo or remedy for suburban malaise? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13(3), 161–173.
2. Badger, E. (2020, March 24). Density is normally good for us. That will be true after coronavirus, too. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/upshot/coronavirus-urban-density-risks.html
3. Bhattarai, A. (2020, May 7). Neiman Marcus files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/07/neiman-marcus-bankruptcy-chapter11
4. Boarnet, M. (2011). Longer view: A broader context for land use and travel behavior, and a research agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), 197–213.
5. Boarnet, M., Forsyth, A., Day, K., & Oakes, M. (2011). The street level built environment and physical activity and walking: results of a predictive validity study for the Irvine Minnesota Inventory. Environment and Behavior, 43(6), 735–775.
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献