New Urbanism 101: Principles of New Urbanism 

That's very subjective - I very much like brutalism. A bad building is a bad building regardless of its so-called style. But architecture isn't art since it has a function. It's design. You can very well mix different styles in a city, and e.g. Helsinki is a great example of it. It's a mix of neoclassical, empire, modernist, and postmodern. People very often complain about different-looking things when they are first built but will eventually defend them as part of their urban landscape.

We had an awful chain of Kum and Go’s gas stations pop up around our community. Large lots, ugly buildings, decent interior design but not utilized - no one sits in the cafes. No one used the beer on tap. 🤭😶 Then I visited a local gas station owner with essentially the same interior design but smaller and more nature based - people chatted and sat in the few chairs they had. They sit on the lawn with their pets while out walking in the neighborhood. Same products and service. Less money and resources used. More visually appealing and pleasantly aligns with landscape. Now it all makes sense and I never went to school for any of this. Just got bored and watch the video 😂 Someone had well meaning intentions in the corporate world but failed to look at the exact thing he mentions in the video - local need: How does your day look? Where do you go and what do you do? Mixed use & environmentally anesthetic gas station seemed to be used more and thus make more more money than the large concrete newer store. Very interesting! Gas stations are bad examples but unique in the perspective I observed.

@@edheldude It's interesting that you mentioned Helsinki. Similar to Stockholm, it's a city with remarkable consistency of harmonious architectural landscape. Most buildings are 4-5 story high and similar to adjacent buildings. There are lots of different architectural styles in the city, but they all integrate into their surroundings very well. Individual buildings are not designed to stand out.

I think what you’re saying is absolutely true! And artistic expression has been expressed through architecture throughout history. It’s how we recognize the difference between Spanish buildings and Chinese buildings. As well as buildings from the 1800s vs the 1920s. That artistic expression gives us an idea of what was important during these time frames and to the people in the community.

Same - I was looking for the red dot lol I figured I would just look up the books he mentions. Btw how’s it going - Did you apply this to your career? Just curious.

Maybe we need more 7-11s to make it possible to have more affordable housing.

Yes :) You have to look at the whole picture though. If that is spread throughout the city, then things have to be farther apart. This leads to people not being able to walk to things, which means they have to get a car, and drive there. This means things have to be even farther apart, because you have to park those cars somewhere. So you end up with suburbia, not walkable urbanism. Plus people spread out more and impact more of nature that way. The things you are talking about are terrific things, and we absolutely need them. But they have to be in the right place.

I think that he meant that the urban woodland etc would be a representation of environmentalist's in full control, whereas New Urbanism would represent more of an "environmentalist collaborative" if that makes sense, I could be mistaken

Welcome to Iowa City. Tree City, streams, education and business with mixed use neighborhoods. We have a long way to go but it’s looking good downtown. There are innovations in engineering in place to assist with climate change issues and still have beautiful thriving walkable cities. Unfortunately, we have MASSIVE urban sprawl still so dealing with affordable housing, increased populations and dare I say American ego needs is key.