Have you heard of a little town called Seaside? It’s a small coastal village in Florida that began as an architect’s dream in 1981 -- a small town that remembered the old days, when everyone knew your name and all the necessities and pleasures of life existed just down the street. Stories were swapped from across the fence and hardships were shared with a neighbor. Well, Seaside turned into an idea. Maybe it was nostalgia that shaped the idea into a dream -- maybe it was good old-fashioned common sense. Whatever the cause, the dream became New Urbanism, an institution for smart metropolitan planning and growth that urges Americans to look away from the isolation and sprawl of the suburbs towards the urban center. New Urbanism emphasizes the reinforcement of community and social interaction through design on a level that benefits people of all incomes.

Grid layouts, pedestrian paths and access to shops, proximity to public transportation and a high level of planning most often mark new Urbanist communities. Most often these communities are designed with environmental concerns in mind, and have some aspect of sustainability, meaning you take care of the present without causing damage to the future.

The American people have embraced New Urbanism as a healthy alternative to suburban sprawl, according to Phyllis Bleiweis, executive director at the Seaside Institute, a non-profit organization promoting community development in urban areas through design and the arts. “Over four hundred developments exist across the country and all are doing very well,” she said.

How New Urbanism has embraced the American people, however, depends on who you ask. Affordability has complicated the New Urbanist theory, but that hasn’t stopped architects and planners from moving forward with developments that seem to bend or completely disregard some of the principles stated in the Charter drafted by the Congress for the New Urbanism, or CNU, a Chicago-based organization that works with developers on implementing the principles of New Urbanism. The Charter for the New Urbanism states those principles that guide public policy, urban planning and design.

Proponents of New Urbanism claim it offers a fresh look at traditional neighborhood design that dates back to pre-World War II style and structure.

“We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy,” as written in the CNU Charter of the New Urbanism.

 The physical framework of New Urbanism is unmistakable in the design of the Traditional Neighborhood Development, or TND, a planned neighborhood that includes a variety of housing types and land use in a specific area. The development has a visible center -- a green park or public square. Properly configured streets connect to one another, eliminating the ineffectiveness of the “dead end” and the cul-de-sac. Homes near the center of the development are placed close to the sidewalk and each other, creating an urban environment. Structures towards the edge of the development are built further apart from each other in a rural effort to preserve surrounding green space. A variety of building types exist on one street -- shops, single- family detached homes, townhomes, condominiums, and a revival of the live/work space for the entrepreneur that can’t take a day off and literally lives on top of his business. Garages exist off the street and behind the buildings in a network of alleys.

Emphasis is placed on alternate modes of transportation. According to the CNU and their charter, developments must accommodate auto traffic in the contemporary metropolis, but “it should do so in ways that respect the pedestrian and the form of public streets.” In other words, streets should be configured to promote walking or riding a bike. The TND also encourages public transit by including appropriate building densities and land uses within walking distance of rail stops.

Design principles as prescribed in the charter of the New Urbanism seem to be met with acceptance and success. Developers and builders are biting the hook, so to speak, as are certain levels of consumers. But in a country whose primary focus these days is marketing and capitalizing on good ideas, the social principles of the TND become obscured.

In order to recognize the challenges New Urbanists face, we must first understand their social purpose.

“…We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework…

“…Cities and towns should bring into proximity a broad spectrum of public and private uses to support a regional economy that benefits people of all incomes. Affordable housing should be distributed throughout the region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty.” (CNU Charter)

The dream is to transcend design -- to suggest that New Urbanism is the beginning of a solution to the problem of social incompatibility encouraged by sprawl. Thick rows of architecturally, economically, and socially diverse structures spaced inches from one another complement a broad range of society. From proximity, community will respond and develop. People from all walks of life will interact with one another on an urban grid that promotes human mobility and contact. Casual conversation between strangers will again become a source for interaction rather than an evasion tactic. The definition of “neighbor” will again include “friend.”

The idea is to sustain life from within the community. “Live, Work, and Play,” has become one of the token slogans for New Urbanism. Imagine eliminating the commute, forgetting about the traffic, trading the cold bare cubicle for the home office, or opening a bakery that feeds your neighbors while you live upstairs. Realize the greatest benefit -- more time with your family -- always being close to home. The idea behind New Urbanism not only provides a better home or neighborhood for the American people -- it provides a better life.

“… Buyers view urban neighborhoods differently,” says Filmanowicz. “Instead of just looking at lawn size and the prevalence of large homes, they look at things like sense of place and a greater feeling of community in determining whether the neighborhood is a good place to invest…”

So, who is the average buyer?

The average median income for a four-person family in Atlanta is $62,294. Multiplying that figure by three, the average family should be able to afford a mortgage of approximately $187,000. Now, try those shoes on and keep in mind that you are probably going to cram those two kids into one bedroom, which means you’re in the market for a two-bedroom/one bath home bottom line. Now lets go house hunting.

First, lets visit Serenbe in Palmetto, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta.

“The best reason to live here is the life here.”

Serenbe is surrounded by vast amounts of green space that serve as wildflower meadows and horse pastures. Journey into town and stop for a cold drink at The Blue Eyed Daisy, where you will find Serenbe bottled water from Johnson City, Tennessee. Serenbe is marketed as a form of New Urbanism at the sales center. Serenbe developer Steve Nygren, however, compares life in Serenbe to that of a resort. Many residences are used as weekend homes. When asked about affordable rental properties for the people who work in Serenbe, Nygren replied there are none, but there is cheap housing outside the community, where most of the workers commute. Only a select few of the business owners of Serenbe actually live in the community they help to maintain.

While Serenbe is a great example of the design principles of New Urbanism, the promise of the Chattahoochee Hill Country Conservancy is to connect Serenbe to new communities that spring up in the future, said David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that examines ways to proliferate sustainable living. These communities may have affordable housing for workers, but this is not the place for your average Atlanta family -- a one bedroom, one and a half bath townhouse runs about $290,000.

West of the city lies Tributary at New Manchester.

A single-family home in Tributary starts out at $240,000, but a limited supply of two bedroom townhouses is being built that begin at $190,000. This is an option for the average family if they stretch it, but keep in mind that Tributary is a company that wants to appeal to all markets. They have a great New Urbanist Village, but they are also building the Riverbanks next door, which is a big suburban subdivision with garages on the street and cul-de-sacs. They will have a Village Center with independent shops, but right across the two-lane highway is a site for future big box retailers. Also in the works is a golf course and hotel, which leads one to believe that Tributary may be leaning towards a resort lifestyle as well in days to come.

Venturing towards the city, Inman Park Village is an option, until you reach the sales center. A two-bedroom condo starts in the $200,000s. You can rent a luxury apartment for approximately $1025 a month, though you are probably going to get the square footage of a studio space.

Glenwood Park is one of the prime examples of New Urbanism in Georgia, according to the CNU Charter Awards. A condominium here fetches around $150,000 for a one bedroom; you may be able to negotiate a two bedroom at just above your price cap here. An associate of Green Street Properties told me that there were to be no rental units available - I wondered how the people who worked in Glenwood Park afforded to live there. I asked and he replied that three architects, an accountant, and an interior design firm that lived in Glenwood Park and also had offices there.

An answer to the dilemma of finding affordable urban development for the average Atlanta family lies in The Icon apartment building in Atlantic Station, with rental of a 1000 square foot two bedroom/ one bath apartment costing you approximately $900.00 a month. Residences for sale are once again exorbitantly priced.

All in all, there are very few options for your average Atlanta family desiring to live the lifestyle of the New Urbanist today. David Goldberg, an Atlanta resident himself, reminds us that “It is unfair to be overly critical of New Urbanism developments priced well above average. The entire housing market is priced above average. It is a national problem, and Atlanta is also a hot market in itself.”

And he is right. It is very difficult to find affordable homes for sale or for rent in the Atlanta area these days. But other developments in the market are only trying to sell us on a house and a yard -- New Urbanism is selling us on quality of life. Ben Brown of the CNU adds, “… Even when the cost of housing eats up an increasing share of income, the family can realize savings on energy, transportation, and other costs connected with living more compactly in walkable neighborhoods that offer advantages in community quality of life.”

Granted the high price tag of New Urbanism may exist in part because you are buying into a lifestyle, when will middle-income Americans be able to afford it? The question is essential to both consumers and the CNU -- with expensive projects underway in the cities, lower and middle class families are moving out to the suburbs, relocating to the same sprawl New Urbanism plans to eliminate and develop into urban centers.

We travel back to Seaside for an answer to that question, and take a quick peak at how New Urbanism is doing there.

We ask Phyllis Bleiweis when the rest of America will be able to afford New Urbanism. She replies that, “as the years go by, the market will expand and there will be more options. Regarding Seaside, Bleiweis said that the village is considered a “resort community.” None of the estimated 120 people employed at Seaside actually live there, and the majority of homes in town serve as vacation rentals. The development can no longer serve as an archetype for the social principles of New Urbanism, due to skyrocketing waterfront land costs. Regarding viable solutions to the problem of supporting a regional economy that benefits people of all incomes, Bleiweis replies that “the Seaside Institute is involved with subsidizing and legislating workforce housing.”

“New Urbanism is a great idea on paper, and it’s an essential idea in practice too,” says Filmanowicz. “Although there are certainly challenges in implementing it affordably in today’s climate.”

Advocates of New Urbanism clarify that they recognize the problem of affordability and are concentrating their efforts on possible solutions. New Urbanists are hard at work in the Gulf Coast storm zones trying to bring affordable housing to market for victims of hurricane Katrina. Ben Brown states that the CNU is trying to “convert conventional zoning to form-based zoning that enable traditional neighborhood development…[and]… create opportunities for high quality small-scale homes (Katrina Cottages).  

CNU is working with the US Green Building Council and the National Resources Defense Council to create a set of guidelines that rewards developers for providing a certain percent of affordable for-sale housing and rental units to middle income families. The LEED-ND Core Committee ascertains that “…When neighborhoods serve a variety of ages and incomes, they are more resistant to cycles of abandonment and decline…. Projects that offer new for-sale housing at moderate price levels would represent a major market transformation…”

New Urbanists agree that developers cannot solve the problem of affordability on their own. In order to ensure affordability, government can step in with density bonuses, tax incentives, tax allocation distribution, and inclusionary zoning laws that require a certain percentage of new construction be affordable to people with low to moderate incomes. However, sometimes government participation does more harm than good. Inclusionary zoning in itself is a controversial issue - to ensure that affordable homes are not “flipped” for profit, deed restrictions are put into place that fix a long-term resale price ceiling, eliminating many of the perks of home ownership.

Aurbach and Filmanowicz believe that the HOPE VI public housing endeavor in Atlanta and in Birmingham is a successful example of affordable New Urbanism with government assistance in the metro area. HOPE VI is a HUD program that proposes to eradicate severely distressed public housing by concentration in three areas of revitalization: physical improvements, management improvements, and social and community services to address resident needs. But Emily Talen, New Urbanist and Associate Professor at the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, warns that the funds for HOPE VI are drying up and that the endeavor is not a reliable long term approach.

Talen, also a strong advocate of New Urbanism, believes that the affordability issue deserves more attention than it is receiving. “Realize there is a tension between, on the one hand, wanting to present New Urbanism as a money making enterprise in order to entice more developers, and on the other hand, wanting to address the concern that New Urbanism is unaffordable and not diverse… Because NU is a market-driven, developer oriented movement, the push to incorporate the second strategy has been slow, in my opinion.”

Steve Filmanowicz of the CNU stresses that progress is being made everyday on the affordability front. There are a small amount of TND’s today that offer affordable housing to the middle class, such as Doe Mill in Chico, California -- a development that offers apartments for rent at $600 a month and homes for sale that price between $285,000 and $350,000, which is very competitive for the California market.

The majority of New Urbanists make it very clear that they care deeply about the problem and want to explore ways of rectifying it. But somewhere between putting the idea of New Urbanism on paper and marketing it as a lifestyle in the housing market, the society-building principles of the Charter for the New Urbanism have become lost in the shuffle. Market driven developers have scrambled to build compact urban centers that offer homes at prices unaffordable to most Americans, and offer no place to live at all for those who work in and help maintain the community. The false realities that these communities promote do no justice to the social concepts New Urbanists are trying to develop.

“As a socially oriented city planner, there is very little interest for me in participating in a movement that is basically making nice playgrounds for the wealthy,” says Talen. “I am only interested in using design to achieve a valid social purpose.”

 “Don’t fall into thinking that only the most visible TND’s such as Glenwood Park are examples of New Urbanism,” Steve Filmanowicz says. He asks us to remove the developers from the picture a moment and focus solely on principle and not design. “When immigrants fix up a few failing duplexes in the working-class neighborhood of Chicago (or a similar neighborhood in Atlanta) and rent it to working people, they are following Charter principles and engaging in a form of New Urbanism.”

Filmanowicz goes on to relate an example of grassroots New Urbanism. “…A retired Mexican-American butcher…who bought a triplex a neighborhood or two down from Back of the Yards in Chicago. The triplex is located just two blocks from the last stop on the green line… It’s a mixed-use neighborhood that’s a great spot for people who want to commute affordably by train, but the triplex needed a lot of work. One of the units wasn’t rentable when he bought the house. Most of the windows lacked screens, which he’s now replacing. He’s done a lot of painting and some plumbing work and is now renting three high-quality units at reasonable prices to wage-earning people in the neighborhood.”

The idea works on a grassroots level and the traditional neighborhood development plan is a success in the housing market, but it seems that the people who would benefit from it the most simply cannot afford it. So, middle-class America will have to wait for an affordable New Urbanism. Eventually the two must meet in the middle. In order for New Urbanism to succeed as a set of social principles and a platform for well rounded communities in the future, the movement will need middle income America as much as the average American will need a decent place to live and work.