Architectoni.ca © [2013], Copyright CCAAS Emily Talen, Architectoni.ca 2013, Vol.2, 23-29 http://ccaasmag.org/ARCH 23 Contradiction and Consensus in American Urbanism Emily Talen Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University doi:10.5618/arch.v2.3 || Received: 2012-01-06, Accepted: 2013-02-08, Available online: 2013-02-13 Abstract New Urbanism can be thought of as a movement that attempts to reconcile principles of diversity, connectivity, equity, and human scale – i.e., principles of “good” urbanism – that have been evolving in America for over a century. Another way to frame the definition of “good urbanism” is by way of contrast with modernist urbanism. To present that perspective, a case must be made that modernist urbanism is distinct from all other forms of 20 th century urbanism, something that Jane Jacobs, for one, was unwilling to do. This paper discusses the broader, dual conceptions of urbanism and looks at how they played out during the 20 th century. My intent is not to rehash a history that is already well known, but to highlight the elements in this evolution that have contributed to a more explicit and enlightened definition of what good urbanism at the beginning of the 21 st century is supposed to be. Keywords: New Urbanism, modernist urbanism, diversity, equity 1. Introduction If urbanism is defined as the created human habitat, urbanism can be evaluated normatively – good distinguished from bad. As conceptualized in the 21 st century, good urbanism is guided by principles of diversity, connectivity, equity, human scale, and a well- cared for public realm. Its antithesis – what might be termed “bad urbanism” – can be defined using similar terms: separation, segregation, lack of human scale, and the neglect of the public realm. After a century or more of wrestling with these definitions, good vs. bad urbanism are now largely definable concepts. It has taken more than a century to sort this out. Elsewhere I have argued that what has now emerged as the American brand of urbanism is a mix of four “cultures” that have been evolving since the 19 th century – incrementalism, plan-making, regionalism, and planned communities. 1 I argued that these ideals overlap in their adherence to the essential qualities of good urbanism (diversity, connectivity, public space, equity, place), and that principles are articulated at different levels of intensity, involving different ideas about order. I presented a case that New Urbanism is attempting to reconcile these divergent takes on urbanism that have been evolving in America for over a century. But there is another way to frame the evolution of urbanism. If modernist urbanism is brought into the fold, the similarities of the four cultures of urbanism become more pronounced than their differences. Modernist urbanism presents the counterposition, making our ability to define good vs. bad urbanism that much clearer. To present that perspective, however, a case must be made that modernist urbanism is distinct from all other forms of 20 th century urbanism, something that Jane Jacobs, for one, was unwilling to do. This paper discusses the broader, dual conceptions of urbanism and looks at how they played out during the 20 th century, especially in the first several decades. Broadly, urbanistic ideals begun in the early 20 th century – initially corresponding with Progressive Era reforms – mingled with modernist urbanism of the 1920s to eventually spark a backlash that defines what we now think of as good urbanism. This interplay – between Progressive Era ideas about urbanism and modernist ideas espoused by the Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) (or International Congress of Modern Architecture) – is an interesting story. 2 My intent is not to rehash a history that is already well known, but to highlight the elements in this evolution that have contributed to a more explicit and enlightened definition of what good urbanism at the beginning of the 21 st century is supposed to be. One reason it is important to understand the differences is that, on the level of stated principle, Progressive Era planners and CIAM modernists overlap significantly. Jane Jacobs certainly lumped them