Abstract:Opinions about new urbanism have polarized. From the academy, analysts have generally nurtured a vigorous contempt for new urbanism, while planning practitioners view it simply as the most recent articulation of a reoccurring planning theme: simple clusters of housing, retail space, and offices within a quarter-mile walking radius of a transit system. In this paper, I argue that while there is much to discredit in current applications of new urbanism, there is a need to recast the debate in such a way that the principles of new urbanism can be upheld and specific applications can be continually revised. A recast debate would focus on either: (1) the underlying conceptual framework required for proper discussion of any normative planning; (2) the specific normative principles of new urbanism; (3) the descriptive assumptions used by new urbanists; or (4) the specific experiences of, to date, applied new urbanism. To articulate the specifics of this recast debate, I argue the following: (1) that there are two underlying viewpoints that must 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, which is shared by a great many urban reformers; (3) that critiques of new urbanism 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 varying 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) in the event that the principles are basically agreed on, an investigation of the causes of implementation failure. [Key words: new urbanism, urban planning, normative theory.]

Beyond the Organic Intellectual: Politics and Contestation in the Planning Practice

Planning, Property, and Political Logics of Development Compared

Insisting on not being addressed in that way: Ideology, subjection and agency in the context of spatial planning

Commodification in Urban Planning: Exploring the Habitus of Practitioners in a Neoliberal Context

Unearthing the political: differences, conflicts and power in participatory urban design

NEW URBANISM AND THE CULTURE OF CRITICISM

AI urbanism: a design framework for governance, program, and platform cognition

' ¡ Eso no se dice'!: Exploring the value of communication distortions in participatory planning

Politicising the landscape: a theoretical contribution towards the development of participation in landscape planning

Toward a New Landscape

Epistemic injustice in planning: a framework for identifying degrees of harm

Urban Planning and the Smart City: Projects, Practices and Politics

CLASSIFICATION AND STRUCTURAL MODEL OF CONFLICTS: ARCHITECTURAL AND TOWN PLANNING CONTEXT

The Politics of the EU Urban Agenda: Mobilising the ‘Right to the City’ for European Governance?

City Branding and the Link to Urban Planning: Theories, Practices, and Challenges

Rigidness of planning law causing fragile grounds for crafting planning tools: neoliberal power and ideology immersed on urban space

The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning

Demystifying the Chinese local state: Planning and contesting urban growth at Hexi New Town, Nanjing

Heritage-making ‘from below’: the politics of exhibiting architectural heritage on the Internet – a case study

Frameworks for citizens participation in planning: From conversational to smart tools

Beyond the blinders: Disclosing the episteme of land ownership to re-frame legal and economic values in planning