New urbanism serves as a great model for building neighborhoods, communities and towns that embody walkability, complexity, and diversity. When done right, as Andres Duany reminds us, they are calibrated to their place, which is often missing in many cookie-cutter new urbanism communities. While prescriptive, they allow for flexibility and a way to opt out of the process.
The irony here is that these principles and attributes mirror very closely those of conservation biology and restoration ecology; imagine that! Yet for the most part, new urbanism is practiced in an ecological vacuum. ‘Open’ spaces (I hate that term, but that’s a discussion for another day) and set aside ‘environmental sensitive areas’ are often plotted with absolutely no science behind their shape, size, distance from one another, or quality in terms of their ability to support native flora and fauna. In fact, more often then not they probably become sinks of biological & genetic diversity.
As far as I can see, there is no reason why new urbanism shouldn’t fully embrace the concepts of landscape connectivity, species movements and migrations, and habitat conservation, without compromising the enduring qualities these communities provide. Let’s work together and figure this out.
Further ReadingGet to know Senior Restoration Ecologist, Rachel Spadafore
Get to know Julia Richter, Water Resources Engineer
Get to know Restoration Landscape Architect, Sarai Carter
Get to know Water Resources Engineer, Ellie Month
Get to know Jensen Hufnagel, Operations Assistant
More From This AuthorEcological Restoration: In the year…
Cultivating our collective health and well-being: Pathways to Planetary Health
Regenerative Real Estate: Ecosystem-based approaches with Keith Bowers
COP10: Intervening on behalf of biodiversity