It's the (urban) design (compact development, mixed-use, connected, walkable, friendly to all mobility modes) stupid!

State Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, R-34th, conducted an informal survey of commuter traffic in Vienna. AP file photo.

Originally this entry was titled "Is Reed Kroloff as 'dumb' as Jeannemarie Devolites Davis?" and to that I answered yes. But I think that title was a little mean-spirited. In any case, they are both excellent at asking the wrong question, the same wrong question in fact. The new title is a take-off of the first Clinton presidential campaign mantra, "It's the economy, stupid." In planning, it's all about urban design/placemaking.

What should the question be? What is the appropriate design and development paradigm for urbanized areas, be they cities at the core of a metropolitan region or county or lands outside of the core of the region?

In "Team dreams up new model for cities: Towns may turn backs on ambitious plans," Reed Kroloff, dean of the Tulane University School of Architecture, equates designing for compact development, neo-conservatism. I suppose he hasn't read the latest pro-sprawl screed by Wendell Cox, this one, "First, Identify Problem: Preconceived Notions Will Not Solve Commonwealth's Transportation Ills," in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

"This is a very conservative, very waspy ideology," said Reed Kroloff ... "There's no doubt that a fair amount of New Urbanist principles have found their way into the embrace of the American right... . They call themselves neo-traditionalists. Neo-traditionalists and neo-conservatives make a very happy marriage."

Urban design = compact development, mixed-use, multi-transportation modes, small blocks and a grid street pattern, pedestrian-oriented massing and scale

Suburban design = segregated uses, deconcentrated development, in pods connected by large capacity roads where cars drive at high speeds, with little investment in alternative transportation modalities


From Scott Doyon: "Re: the depiction of urban environments in media directed at children, my six year old daughter recently brought home a book from her school library called The House Book by Keith DuQuette. Included in it, following a lot of nice traditional home illustrations, was the attached depiction of city to country. It's so good for what it is, I was surprised it didn't have a DPZ credit at the border. My daughter understood it immediately. There is hope."

I used to joke (he didn't think it was funny) with David Bell (a local architect) that when architects design piece of s*** buildings that they should have to come up before the state licensing committee, just as lawyers have to maintain ethical practices, and they can be disbarred if they fail to uphold professional standards and codes of conduct. (David did point out that clients with no vision want buildings that are visionless.)

Reed Kroloff isn't a planner, and these really are questions of urban planning, not architecture, but I think that his "fitness" to hold a license in the architecture profession should be questioned still, at least if he is responsible for teaching future practitioners.

Architects committed to designing context insensitive objects of art must be very threatened by the success of the New Urbanists in leading the Mississippi Renewal efforts. And they have no program or language to help guide their efforts in post-Katrina Louisiana or Mississippi, because it's about planning everything, it's not about constructing a specific building.


Maybe Reed Kroloff should run for elected office. It's not like Mayor Nagin is full of sound insight either (see "US mayor regrets 'God comments'"). Photo from Pre-Click.