Opinions about new urbanism have polarized. From the academy, analysts have
generally nurtured a vigorous contempt for new urbanism, while planning pr
actitioners view it simply as the most recent articulation of a reoccurring
planning theme: simple clusters of housing, retail space, and offices with
in a quarter-mile walking radius of a transit system. In this paper, I argu
e that while there is much to discredit in current applications of new urba
nism, there is a need to recast the debate in such a way that the principle
s of new urbanism can be upheld and specific applications can be continuall
y revised. A recast debate would focus on either: (1) the underlying concep
tual framework required for proper discussion of any normative planning; (2
) the specific normative principles of new urbanism; (3) the descriptive as
sumptions used by new urbanists; or (4) the specific experiences of, to dat
e, applied new urbanism. To articulate the specifics of this recast debate,
I argue the following: (1) that there are two underlying viewpoints that m
ust be accepted before any constructive debate on new urbanism can proceed;
(2) that the principles of new urbanism are part of a long-standing, well-
articulated school of thought about urban problems and their solutions, whi
ch is shared by a great many urban reformers; (3) that critiques of new urb
anism have focused not on these principles but on either the assumptions on
which new urbanist arguments have been (not very effectively) articulated,
or on the problems of its implementation, neither of which are fatal: and
(4) that a restructured debate on new urbanism, one that takes these varyin
g levels of discourse into account. would be more effective if it centered
on either (a) the principles and assumptions underlying new urbanism, which
could in fact lead to a reappraisal of new urbanist prescription, or (b) i
n the event that the principles are basically agreed on, an investigation o
f the causes of implementation failure.