Douglas Newby

Insights, Musings, Reflections

Douglas Newby

Organic Urbanism is the Cure for New Urbanism

by

As a result of the neighborhood being rezoned multi-family in the 1950s, this early 1900s Munger Place house had declined in value to $7,000 in the 1970s. Then after being rezoned single family in 1976, revitalization began that preserved the diverse housing stock and raised values for this historic home and others like this one in the neighborhood to $700,000.

New Urbanism is Like a Virus

New Urbanism is a virus that keeps coming back in mutated forms – Organic Urbanism is the cure

– Douglas Newby

Why Does New Urbanism Need a Cure?

Another turn-of-the-century one-story home destroyed making room for another apartment complex.
New generic apartment construction replaces charming 1920s affordable homes

New Urbanism is like a virus. For 50 year it keeps coming back in mutated forms. It needs a cure.

First, the only thing new in New Urbanism is the new construction that tears down the organic city. A form of New Urbanism has been around for 50 years. Like I said, it is a virus that keeps coming back in mutated forms. But the scheme, of more density, new mixed-use construction, and fixed rail transit, replacing existing homes remains constant. The desire of planners to determine where you live and where you work also remains constant. New Urbanists are increasingly opposed to single family homes.

New Urbanists Do Not Like Single Family Homes

After Old East Dallas was rezoned to multi-family zoning in the 1950s, these homes were divided into four apartments, teeming with 30 or more transient weekly tenants. When the neighborhood was rezoned to single-family zoning in 1976, this prompted these structures to be renovated back to single-family homes.

New Urbanists increasingly don’t like single-family homes, which most Americans prefer. Didn’t you enjoy living in a single-family neighborhood? Even if you didn’t, did you consider your single-family home an assault on civilization?
New Urbanists do!

New Urbanism Says Single-Family Zoning is Bad

Organic Urbanism and the single-family zoning of Turtle Creek Park propelled this neighborhood’s success. Turtle Creek Park is immersed in nature but surrounded by the vibrancy of the city just beyond its boundaries of the Katy Trail, Rock Creek and Turtle Creek.

There is a growing New Urbanism movement across the country that says single-family zoning is bad. There are some cities like Minneapolis that have banned single-family zoning that made up over 50% of Minneapolis. Some states, like Oregon, are considering abolishing single-family zoning for the entire state. Even the Dallas City Council unanimously voted to allow two-story backyard rental houses in single-family neighborhoods, despite the revitalization success Dallas has had with rezoning neighborhoods single-family.

Old East Dallas Revitalization is Result of Single Family Rezoning

Here is the original Old East Dallas single-family rezoning map created to demonstrate that this 100-block area, although it was in use almost entirely as apartments or houses divided-up into multiple rent units, now has been turned into a predominantly single-family home neighborhood. This map showed a vision that there was a critical mass of structures that could be reclaimed as single-family homes. The lots that had structures that were originally single-family homes were colored in light brown to show potential of this 100-block area as a single-family home neighborhood. The dark brown lots indicated historic apartments; the orange lots 1960s apartments. Opposition to the area being rezoned single-family came from vintage New Urbanism proponents – nationally recognized planner Wei Ming Lu, iconic neighborhood advocate Mayor Pro Tem Adlene Harrison, the Plan Commission, Plan Department, and even the Historic Preservation League which is now Preservation Dallas.

City Councilmember Said Single-Family Neighborhoods No Longer Relevant

Former Dallas City Councilmember, Philip Kingston, said that single-family neighborhoods like Preston Hollow are no longer relevant. If this trend continues, your grandchildren or great grandchildren might never have a chance to live in a single-family zoned neighborhood, where they can play in front or back yards, or ride their bikes down the street, or have familiarity with longtime neighbors.

Northern Hills is a single-family neighborhood zoned single-family with a Conservation District overlay for 70 homes that includes long-time homeowners, successful professionals and families with young children playing in the front yard

Organic Urbanism Works With People’s Preferences

Architect James Pratt designed this 1960s Bluffview home with a bridge that leads to the front door found on the roof
Small 1900-square-foot prefabricated architect designed modern home lives large at White Rock Lake

In contrast, what I call Organic Urbanism works with people’s preferences, particularly those with families. It protects, preserves, and nurtures the city, allowing the creativity of individuals and neighborhoods to shape the direction of the city. This includes single-family homes as well as a diversity of existing housing types found in older neighborhoods.

Organic Urbanism Supports What People Want in their Diverse Neighborhoods

Organic Urbanism supports what people want in their diverse neighborhoods versus the New Urbanism desire for the monotony of high-density housing that they claim makes housing more affordable and mass transit more sustainable. Single-family and low-density neighborhoods come in many shapes and forms. Home owners can choose a neighborhood with the architectural continuity of homes built in the same decade. Or they can choose a neighborhood with a variety of styles built across several decades. Some low-density neighborhoods have small urban lots, some estate lots. Many older neighborhoods that people choose have a sprinkling of apartments. All of these low-density neighborhoods are defined by a canopy of trees.

Greenway Parks is a neighborhood of small historic homes and new architecturally significant modern homes. Here the neighbors share nature.
Next to Mount Auburn are the Tudor cottages of Hollywood Heights, just as charming as the M Streets, but in a more bucolic neighborhood.
Interspersed in the single family zoned Munger Place Historic District are antique fourplexes and 3-story triplexes like the ones pictured here.
The Belmont neighborhood of Craftsman bungalows is just far enough away from restaurants Greenville Avenue to have the serenity of an old-fashioned neighborhood.
Behind Swiss Avenue, these mid-century apartments had catered to nightly and weekly rentals. Now they are renovated and look funky and fun and have long-term leases.
The genius of Dallas’ finest architects, like Hal Tompson, shown through even when these Swiss Avenue homes had fallen into disrepair.
The remarkable thing about single family rezoned and revitalized neighborhoods are 12-unit efficiency apartment houses with window units that have survived catering to those who can afford very little rent.
Greenway Parks is another almost 100 year old small neighborhood where every home is accessed by a wide green boulevard or has a common greenway running behind the homes.

New Urbanism Favors Density to Support Public Transit  

The prevailing thought of New Urbanists and planners is to replace single family neighborhoods with high-density developments so that fixed-rail mass transit becomes more viable. More fixed rail mass transit is proposed to run through residential neighborhoods. This is currently causing great neighborhood consternation in Far North Dallas where a fixed rail Dart line is proposed to cut straight through the established neighborhoods.

On the other hand, New Urbanism, particularly their allies in the planning profession, The New York Times reports, oppose single-family housing and favor density to support public transit. New Urbanist planners also claim density makes homes more affordable and makes for a better neighborhood.

Supreme Court Supported Single-Family Zoning in 1926

“Apartments Act as a Parasite on a Single-Family Neighborhood”

~ Supreme Court 1926
Multi-family rezoning in the 1950s allowed Swiss Avenue style mansions and craftsman bungalows to be torn down for 2-story apartments. These apartments deteriorated in the areas still zoned multi-family, and then they were torn down for new 3-story and 4-story apartments, examples pictured above, that will have the same cycle of deterioration.

The New York Times also reported, that in 1926 the Supreme Court had a contrasting opinion, the court supported single-family zoning and in their zoning decision warned that apartments “…block the sun and air. They bring noise and traffic. They act as a parasite on a single-family neighborhood—until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed.”

Organic Urbanists Agree with Supreme Court – Apartments Act as a Parasite

In the early 70s many thought that Old East Dallas was made up of Derelicts and Debutantes – a few debutantes and Junior Leaguers formed the Historic Preservation League to support Swiss Avenue.
Just a couple of blocks from the Historic District, The Debutante has a timeless film noir vibe.

Organic Urbanists 90 years later still agree with this Supreme Court opinion that apartments act as a parasite.

The parasitic projection of this apartment complex has made it scary for school children to walk to their grade school next door and has thwarted the renovation of the other structures on the block, and is an unpleasant visual interruption to the surrounding revitalized historic districts.
New apartments keep getting built in more virulent forms, crowding out sunlight and eliminating trees. This row of apartments on Gaston Avenue replaced Swiss Avenue-style historic mansions over the last 60 years

New Urbanism needs a cure. Organic Urbanism is that cure.

– Douglas Newby

Density and Parked Cars on Curbs Inhibit Running and Biking

Every time an ADU or apartment is added to a street, parked cars accumulate on the curb making running or cycling dangerous or impossible. Single-family neighborhood tree tunneled streets used to be our parkways and pathways for strollers, runners and cyclists. Now with granny flats apartments, residential streets get jammed with cars.
New Urbanists want to funnel high-density dwellers onto urban paths. The city, during the pandemic, shut down or curtailed the use of the paths, keeping people quarantined in their apartments. The tree-lined streets of low-density neighborhoods allowed for fun-loving rides on racing or toy bikes.

Organic Urbanists understand denser development makes neighborhoods less walkable and less desirable. Organic Urbanism strives to preserve, protect, and rejuvenate the existing housing stock of diverse sizes, styles, and conditions that is conducive to a mix of incomes and lifestyles.

Zoning for Less than What is on the Ground Preserves Existing Housing

Organic Urbanism also favors zoning for less than what is already on the ground. Less dense zoning provides the incentive to preserve and revitalize the existing housing stock, or lose the privilege of higher density on a lot if an existing multi-family building is torn down. For example, if a duplex or apartment house is zoned single-family and then it is torn down, it can only be replaced by a single-family home. This gives the owner incentive to maintain their existing duplex, fourplex, or small apartment house or they lose their privilege of having multi-family.

Single-family zoning preserves craftsman bungalows like this one found in the Belmont Conservation District that had suffered from the multi-family zoning imposed on Old East Dallas in the 1960s allowing apartment intrusions
In a single-family zoned neighborhood, the existing historic fourplex pictured above would be protected because the owner would lose their apartment privileges if this apartment were torn down. If zoned multi-family it would be torn down for massive new apartments like the ones shown under construction
This small historic apartment complex and fourplex pictured are protected with single-family zoning that prevents the pressure of these affordable apartments being replaced by large new expensive apartment complexes
Even after 40 years of revitalization and “gentrification” modest duplexes and fourplexes like those shown above survive when they are zoned single-family, which is less than their current use as a duplex or a fourplex.

Organic Urbanism Approaches the City Like a Garden

I think of a City as a garden.

– Douglas Newby
An evolving garden courtesy of T.A. Taylor

Organic Urbanism approaches the city like a garden.  There is an understanding that the evolution of buildings and uses should evolve rather than being plowed under and planted like an industrial farm.  In a garden that is nurtured, one might plant a sapling with sun-loving flowers around it.  Once the tree grows, one might plant, shade-loving flowers under the tree.  There is a natural ebb and flow, of decay, rejuvenation, and new construction in an organic city.  

Neighborhoods fall in and out of favor, creating opportunities for those of all incomes. 

Direction of Diversity – Dilute Good Neighborhoods or Improve Out-of-Favor Neighborhoods

New Urbanism has a goal of creating diversity by diluting good parts of the city.

Many 1950s and 1960s neighborhoods, including Old Lake Highlands, always remained economically stable. There has always been a push by New Urbanists to put in government housing and low income subsidized apartments to diversify these stable neighborhoods.

Organic Urbanism strives for diversity by improving out-of-favor neighborhoods.

Improving out-of-favor neighborhoods is always a work in progress. While higher income residents move in and homes increasingly become renovated there are still homes that remain unrennovated, charming and affordable like this home on Trellis Court.
Purchased by artist David McManaway 44 years ago at the same price as the house on Trellis Court, it was fixed up as a home and studio and in the last few years, purchased by a female architect and her husband who have further renovated the home.

Eight Key Differences of New Urbanism and Organic Urbanism

Here, I will describe eight key differences of New Urbanism and Organic Urbanism.

1. Density versus Preservation

Here is a historic duplex of two 500 sq.ft. apartments within three blocks of $2.5 million historic mansions. This duplex could have been renovated, instead because it is zoned multi-family, it will be torn down and the land added to the entire block of three-story new apartments being erected.

New Urbanism Is in Favor of More Density Replacing Existing Structures,
Even in a Shrinking City

New Urbanists prescribe density like doctors used to prescribe leeches.

– Douglas Newby

New Urbanists prescribe density like doctors used to prescribe leaches. It isn’t that pleasant and it doesn’t work. Organic Urbanism is like holistic medicine—in favor of preserving and rejuvenating the existing buildings in addition to adding new construction.

2. Vibrancy versus Nature

Courtesy of Yogi Berra Museum

“When a city gets too crowded, no one wants to live there anymore!”

– Douglas Newby inspired by Yogi Berra

Millennials Are Moving Out of Cities

The Wall Street Journal backs this up. It reported that census figures showed that cities with over a half a million people collectively lost 27,000 Millennials aged 25 to 39 last year in 2018.  New York, itself, lost 38,000 Millennials.   This was the 4th year in a row cities lost Millennials led by those 35 to 39.  Millennials are the most committed to the environment and they love living in nature surrounded by trees, gardens, and a pleasing environment. 

Organic Urbanists understand Millennials interest in nature, trumps vibrancy, particularly when they begin raising families.

3. Income Diversity in Neighborhoods

New Urbanism is in favor of providing the rich with cultural amenities and the poor with services and subsidies, while ignoring the middle class. 

Winspear Opera House in the Dallas Arts District

Also, New Urbanism wants to create income diversity in neighborhoods by building moderate and expensive apartments and then subsidizing a percentage of those apartments for low-income residents. In contrast, Organic Urbanism creates income diversity in neighborhoods by rejuvenating inexpensive single-family homes, protecting middle-class neighborhoods, and encouraging expensive neighborhoods for high-income homeowners.

Organic Urbanism Encourages and Protects Middle Class Neighborhoods

This Organic Urbanism approach emphasizes emerging middle-class neighborhoods and protecting the middle-class residents that are disappearing in cities across the country.

Diverse Existing Housing Attracts Diverse Incomes

Little Forest Hills went through a period of decline and had a resurgence initiated by the Dallas Arboretum and additional improvements surrounding White Rock Lake
Homeowner bought this small home 25 years ago and now just the land is worth more than 4 times as much as the initial purchase price of the home. The owner has accumulated wealth and helped preserve the neighborhood.
This home in the Old East Dallas estate area has always maintained its charm and dignity.

Diverse Housing Can Even Be Found Within a Six Block Area

Organic Urbanism recognizes that diverse sizes and conditions of older homes allow diverse incomes in older neighborhoods.  Old East Dallas is a good example.  In Mount Auburn, you will find $150,000 cottages, in Junius Heights $400,000 bungalows, in Munger Place $700,000 prairie style homes, and on Swiss Avenue $2.5 million historic mansions.

Mount Auburn, made up of very small bungalows along the Santa Fe Trail, has historically been a neighborhood affordable for lower income working families and nice enough for middle income families.
This Junius Heights home is found in a Junius Heights Historic District. Originally part of the Munger Place Second Addition. Joe Kendall created an Oklahoma land rush atmosphere when a gun went off at midnight and everyone ran to stake their lot.
Around 1980 this now $700,000 home at 5012 Junius sold for $90,000 the same month Wallace and Dorothy Savage sold the home next to them on Swiss Avenue for $100,000. Munger Place homes would catch up in price to the much larger homes on much larger lots on Swiss Avenue, which gave the impetus for the homes on Swiss Avenue to rise in price.
This home at 5105 Swiss Avenue, designed by architect C.W. Bulger, was the first home on Swiss Avenue to sell for over $1 million. It is now worth over $2.5 million.

Friends and Clients Enjoy the Same Neighborhood with a Progression of Much Larger Homes

I have a friend and client upon finishing graduate school purchased an 1,100 square foot home at Trellis Court.

After graduate school, a doctor purchased her first home here in the enclave of small homes at Trellis Court.

Upon establishing her practice, she purchased a 2,400 square foot home in Munger Place.

Just a few blocks away was this home originally built in 1906 on Tremont Street that had more than double the square footage of her Trellis Court home.

Ultimately she purchased a Prairie Style home on the Swiss Avenue Boulevard.

Just four blocks away she doubled her square footage again when she purchased this prairie style home in the Swiss Avenue Historic District.

All of which were within four blocks of each other and in three different historic districts. 

4. Mass Transit and Mobility

New Urbanism Calls for Mass Transit to Be Built Where People Don’t Want it

Transportation wall next to home.

New Urbanism calls for fixed rail mass transit to be built where people don’t want it. Recently, New Urbanism planner, Christof Spieler, openly suggested at a D Magazine-sponsored New Dallas Summit, that we need the political will to put fixed rail where people don’t want it, through the middle of neighborhoods, in order to gain ridership.

NTCOG is Lobbying State to Divert Mass Transit Tax Dollars to Subsidize New Development Next to Fixed Rail

Michael Morris, the Director of Transportation for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, said they are lobbying the State Legislature to allow tax dollars that had been allocated for mass transit, to be diverted to subsidize new development next to fixed rail, just so more people will use the rail system.

Organic Urbanism Insists Transit Exists to Serve People Not the Other Way Around

Organic Urbanism instead acknowledges and applauds the incredibly diverse areas, fragile neighborhoods, and established buildings in Dallas where people live and work. It insists transit exists to serve people, not the other way around. Rather than tearing up neighborhoods for rail systems and forcing mass transit development, Organic Urbanists like 20th century forms of transportation like buses, and 21st century technology like Uber, autonomous vehicles, and air taxis that adapt to where people want to live and work. Also, Organic Urbanists want to entice people to walk by creating a pleasing environment, not forcing people to walk.

Rather than being forced to walk or funneled to an overcrowded urban bike trial, residents can take to neighborhood streets that they treat and enjoy like a park.

5. Schools

New Urbanists Want to Extract and Relocate Low-Income Populations

In the 1970s the Federal initiative to integrate schools was to bus students from South Dallas to schools like W.T. White in Far North Dallas. 40 years later W.T. White is as segregated as South Dallas schools were four decades earlier.

Since school busing did not work, New Urbanists now want to extract people from low-income neighborhoods and place them in new subsidized housing in expensive neighborhoods so they can live closer to better public schools. 

Organic Urbanists Cheer On Schools that Attract Higher-Income Families to Lower-Income Neighborhoods

Organic Urbanists instead cheer on private schools, charter schools, ISD Academies, and collaborative public/private schools that are emerging in lower income neighborhoods. These schools also attract middle and high-income families to these lower income neighborhoods, creating a more positive and natural diversity.

Recently 2 doctors called me inquiring about homes in Old East Dallas so when their children became school age they would be given preference to enter DISD Solar Preparatory School for Boys because they lived in the neighborhood. This racially diverse school is known for its high achievement.
In the 1970s families fled the city of Dallas in order to leave DISD schools. Now families are moving back from the suburbs to Dallas so that their children will be eligible to apply to the racially diverse, nationally recognized Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts.
Woodrow Wilson High School has a four-generation history of very prominent alumni. Families still move to East Dallas so their children can attend Woodrow Wilson that draws from racially diverse neighborhoods.
Lumin School started in the 1970s as a one-room private East Dallas grade school that was made up of approximately one-third black children, one-third hispanic children and one-third white children. It has expanded as a charter school maintaining its diversity and educational success.

6. Increase or Diminish Value of Single-Family Homes

“Single-family zoning is good economically for the homeowner but is bad morally for the city.”

– Chris Leinberger, New Urbanist

New Urbanist, Chris Leinberger, said at a D Magazine lecture, “Single-family zoning is good economically for the homeowner but is bad morally for the city.” 

New Urbanists see a moral imperative to replace single-family housing with multifamily structures. 

Organic Urbanists Value the Middle Class and Single-Family Homes

Organic Urbanists see things much differently. They know the economic viability of the city is dependent on the sustained value of single-family homes and a prosperous middle class who tend to live in them. Organic Urbanists also understand the middle class is the strongest lobby for good schools, good police, fire departments, and parks.

7. Affordable Housing

I bet many of you are in favor of the city subsidizing developers to build affordable housing? New Urbanism is a great advocate of subsidizing developers of affordable housing who want cheap land.

And where do developers find cheap land? Often, where the land is the cheapest—in $20,000-home neighborhoods. As a result, the demand and price of $20,000 homes goes up, as they are torn down for new affordable housing. The affordable housing subsidies for developers continue to eliminate opportunities for low-income homebuyers to buy these same $20,000 homes for themselves, as homes, not lots.

Organic Urbanists think low-income wage earners should be able to buy affordable homes and not have to compete with developers who are receiving subsidies from the city to basically pay for the land purchase of their new subsidized apartment housing projects.

New Urbanism Favors Giving Developers More Apartment Height And Density in Exchange for Subsidizing Rent for a Percentage of the Apartments

Huge apartment complexes are replacing affordable neighborhood homes.

New Urbanism is also in favor of giving a developer more apartment height and density for a new building in exchange for the developer subsidizing the rent of a certain percentage of the apartments in the building that will be designated for affordable housing units. Let’s say a builder wants to get permission to build a high-rise with apartments that will lease for $2,000 a month. Then the developer might have to set aside for 20 years, 10% of the apartments in the building, where the developer agrees to subsidize the rent. If a developer is required to subsidize the rent for each of these units at $1,000 a month, a tenant in an affordable housing unit is then only required to pay $1,000 a month rent instead of $2,000 a month rent that most of the others in the building pay. Whenever a developer is required to subsidize rent for some of the tenants, it always raises the cost for the other tenants in the building, making the city more expensive to live in.

Organic Urbanists Prefer Developers Providing Interest-Free Mortgages to Low-Income Persons

Organic Urbanists think a better approach than requiring developers to subsidize rent for a few apartments would be for the city to require developers to subsidize the interest on home mortgage loans to help low and moderate-income persons to buy a home. This would expand homeownership in the city.

For example, Organic Urbanists would prefer that a developer not spend $1,000 a month subsidizing one expensive set-aside apartment for a moderate-income renter, but instead have the developer spend that $1,000-a-month subsidy to pay for interest-free mortgage loans to three families, so each family could afford to purchase a $100,000 home. Or instead of a $1,000-a-month rent subsidy for one apartment, the developer could provide six interest-free mortgage loans on six $50,000 homes for six low-income homebuyers. Can you imagine how many low-income people could buy homes if they had a 20-year interest-free mortgage and Organic Urbanists providing knowledge on how to own a home?

The Greatest Economic Disparity between Black and White Families is Wealth

Organic Urbanists understand the greatest economic disparity between black and white families is wealth. Black families earn 70 cents on the dollar for what white families earn, but black families only have 4% of the comparative wealth of white families, largely due to the lower rates of home ownership. Subsidizing rent on apartments does not create wealth for low or moderate-income families.

A black female school teacher owns this home in the 10th Street Historic District, creating wealth for herself and helping preserve and revitalize the neighborhood which includes original shotgun houses and brand new homes.

Organic Urbanists Opposed Subsidizing Developers to Tear Down Inexpensive Homes for New Affordable Housing

Organic Urbanists also are opposed to subsidizing developers for their purchase of inexpensive homes that these developers will tear down so they can build new affordable housing. Organic Urbanists are in favor of preserving the existing housing stock that allows low-income families the opportunity to purchase a home.

Dallas has always had an abundance of affordable homes. New Urbanists do not think there are any affordable homes where people want to live. New Urbanists also think that affordable homes should be immediately in the same condition as middle-income or high-income homes. Urban Pioneers made up of academics and artists and others could move into vary beat up houses and through sweat equity make them livable. Low income residents are generally denied that opportunity.

8. Dilute Good Neighborhoods Or Improve Bad Neighborhoods

There are not any affordable homes where people want to live.

– Dallas Real Estate Council Board Member

New Urbanists, like the head of the Dallas Real Estate Council, declared that there are not any affordable homes where people want to live.  Their resulting strategy is to extract lower income people from their deteriorating neighborhoods and relocate them to new subsidized apartment units on expensive lots in the expensive neighborhoods.

Organic Urbanists Favor Improving Neighborhoods Not Extracting and Relocating Tenants

Organic Urbanists think the opposite of New Urbanists. They are in favor of improving low-income neighborhoods and making them more attractive for both low and middle-income residents.

Over 60 people from Fannie Mae visited the home of Harold Green and his wife at 5011 Victor Street to see how a loan on an inner city deteriorated home should be structured. These owners secured one of the first purchase and renovation loans in what was identified as the worst neighborhood in Dallas. A $14,000 purchase loan and a $14,000 renovation home and sweat equity became the prototype for the first inner city loans Fannie Mae made in the country. The Greens still live in this home 44 years later.

On Each Lot, $450,000 is Left Over for New Sidewalks, Street Lights, Parkway Trees…

Organic Urbanists understand that if a lot in an expensive neighborhood cost $500,000 and a lot in a deteriorated neighborhood cost $50,000, the same number of affordable homes could be built on either priced lot. However, if the affordable homes were built on the inexpensive $50,000 lot, there would be $450,000 left over to spend on new sidewalks, curbs, parkway trees, attractive street lights, and internet connectivity, which would make the neighborhood more desirable and attract people to the neighborhood.

New curbs, sidewalks, and antique street lights installed and parkway trees planted created a surge in the revitalization of Munger Place 40 years ago.

Granny Flats Do Not Increase Affordable Housing or Help
Seniors

Maybe the best example of the difference between New Urbanism and Organic Urbanism is their respective position on granny flats/ADU’s (additional dwelling units).

The New Urbanism idea of granny flats is sweeping the country. The mantra used in Dallas is that granny flats provide more affordable housing and allow senior homeowners to remain in their homes. A few months ago, the Dallas Assistant Director of Housing made a presentation to the Dallas Architecture Forum. She repeated this economic justification for granny flats. She said that they will create more affordable housing and allow senior homeowners to remain in their homes. When asked what the projected square footage cost of a granny flat was, she said she had no idea of the cost, as there had not been any discussion of the cost of a granny flat, and this question had never come up within the housing department or City Council.

Here on the left side of the alley you see New Urbanism back yard granny flats/ADU’s blocking the sun and breezes that replaced towering trees. On the other side of the alley you see the layered canopy of trees that include mature pecan trees, tall cedar trees, crepe myrtles, and understory Japanese maples in the backyards of single-family homes that are still dedicated to nature, not rentals

Hickory Crossing Cottages for Homeless

Just like the city romanticized about $300 square foot homeless cottages being the future of solving the homeless problem, the city is romanticizing that granny flats/ADU’s create more affordable housing.

Homeless Cottages Cost $300 a Sq.Ft.

Organic Urbanism, on the other hand, looks for the best economic ways for the city to evolve for senior citizens and those needing affordable homes. If a nonprofit in Dallas spent $300 a square foot to build the $400 square foot Hickory Crossroads cottages for the homeless, it becomes obvious to an Organic Urbanist that renovating existing houses is a more cost-effective way of providing affordable housing than building new granny flats. In fact, existing single family homes in many neighborhoods cost even less than a new homeless cottage. Using the homeless cottage cost figures, building a 600-square foot apartment over a garage might cost $200,000.

This does not make a one-bedroom granny flat apartment affordable or lower the cost for a senior homeowner to remain in their home.

Example of the 50 Hickory Crossing Cottages for the Homeless
The prison-like perimeter fence environment is not to keep the residents in, but presumably to keep the homeless out
Sharing a fence with the yellow cottage pictured above is a homeless encampment
Across the street from the homeless cottages is another homeless encampment

Granny Flats are Not For Grannies.

In the meantime, a two-story granny flat removes a canopy of trees, looms over the neighbor’s property, lines the front curb with on-street parked cars, and creates more transience in the neighborhood.

Also, I might point out that I have come to find the more dishonest the name of a policy, the more likely the policy is flawed. How many of you grandmothers in the room are called granny? How many grannies do you know who want to climb a flight of stairs to enter the last apartment of their life?

Top Down Tyranny of New Urbanists

New Urbanism wants to create a city where people are forced to walk, forced to take fixed rail, forced to live in buildings shared with subsidized renters, and forced to live jammed together in dense neighborhoods, all in the name of vibrancy.

Organic Urbanism represents an alternative to the top-down tyranny of the New Urbanists.  We recognize that the cycles of deterioration and rejuvenation create environments that people desire, a place where they can afford to live and work. 

Cycles of deterioration and rejuvenation create opportunities for all incomes.

– Douglas Newby

Organic Urbanism Recognizes the Flowering Potential of a City

Organic Urbanism recognizes the flowering potential of a city. Organic Urbanism allows everyone to be a hero in their own life as their individual creativity and self-expression can be manifested. Embracing Organic Urbanism, every person can impact the significance and stewardship of their city, their neighborhood, and their home.

If you are in favor of a vibrant, organic city that comes with its bumps and bruises that should be nurtured and filled with love and care, then you too are an Organic Urbanist. We need to reintroduce the concept that cities are not for planners or trains but people. With your support, Organic Urbanism can eradicate New Urbanism in our lifetime.

First Presented at SMU Town and Gown

Douglas Newby first presented Organic Urbanism is the Cure for New Urbanism in a talk given to SMU Town and Gown.  Douglas Newby has studied and written about the evolution of cities for over 45 years.