Citation

Southworth M, Parthasarathy B. J. Urban Design 1997; 2(1): 9-34.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13574809708724394

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

While the first part of this two‐part essay portrayed the bleakness of the suburban public realm in the USA, the debate over how physical planning can contribute to making it more vibrant is the subject of this second part. Eurourbanism, or the practice of looking to European cities for a design paradigm, has been criticized on the grounds that the USA has its own distinct public realm which is either non‐spatial in character or is located in 'non‐traditional' public spaces, such as shopping malls, in contrast with the more 'traditional' European sites such as streets and squares. But there are questions about whether the distinctive 'American public realm' is as democratic, or can offer the diversity of experience of the 'traditional' public realm. A more recent addition to the debate has been 'new urbanism' or 'neotraditionalism', whose proponents have put forth a set of planning guidelines for suburbia by drawing on design principles embodied in the traditional American small town. The essay critically evaluates these guidelines by examining their application in two neotraditional developments and proposes a research agenda to move the debate ahead.