The Wednesday, July 19, 2000, broadcast of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer featured an interview with Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, architect and co-author of Suburban Nation: The Rise of Suburban Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. NewsHour correspondent, Ray Suarez, interviewed Plater-Zyberk, who led Suarez and his viewers on a walking tour of Kentlands—a neotraditional development in suburban Washington, DC.

I am sure the walking tour-interview format was no accident, as it allowed Plater-Zyberk an opportunity to communicate to Ray Suarez and television viewers the new urbanist perspective through exposure to a real-life model. I commend Plater-Zyberk for choosing an effective interview environment.

I was impressed by the architectural styles of the buildings and the sense of place that was conveyed through close proximity of buildings and narrow streets, but when the program ended, I walked away disappointed with both the interviewer and the architect, who frustrated me with her responses throughout the interview. Plater-Zyberk defended new urbanism on the grounds of its architectural and aesthetic appeal, which I thought was fine for architects, but at the time, I thought she was a poor choice to represent a new urbanist response to the interviewer's questions and criticisms. Ray Suarez, whom I consider to be well educated and articulate, asked rather silly questions seemingly derived from a suburbanite perspective—unless he was playing devil's advocate. I suppose Suarez's questions were intended to express common concerns of nonurbanists in a language the public could understand.

At present, I would no longer refer to Plater-Zyberk as a "poor choice to represent a new urbanist response." I realize that each new urbanist has a unique perspective to share and that educating the public is a long-term process. However, I would like to point out specific concerns that I have with the interview. There are some issues that were opened up and not fully explored. Although I realize that the time constraints of a 10-minute segment don't allow for complex analysis on a subject that is so counter-intuitive to the American lifestyle, I am concerned about missed opportunities for clarification of new urbanism.

New urbanists need to better expose the cavernous difference between the perceived benefits of suburbia and the reality that it cannot deliver the quality of life it promises.

Early on, Plater-Zyberk walked past a row of houses and demonstrated how residences of different sizes and expense exist in close proximity. She contrasted this to the suburban model, which separates houses by income and distance and "does not create a good social outcome"; she pointed out that mixed housing such that people of different incomes live near each other is part of the appeal of new urbanism. At a later point, Plater-Zyberk followed up on her concept of "social outcome" by stating that Kentlands is an environment in which people "get to know their community and help neighbors. This doesn't happen in strip malls." She then used the example of people becoming more familiar with neighbors in a walking environment and more aware of an elderly resident in need, for example.

I believe that comment on social outcome may be beyond the grasp of many viewers, although Plater-Zyberk's example of helping an elderly neighbor certainly helps viewers get a sense of community. However, nothing more was said on this very complex issue. Unfortunately, nonurbanists have been so misinformed by sensational media and entertainment industries into believing that urbanism = crime and danger, that getting to know neighbors, living in closer proximity to strangers and among those with different socio-economic backgrounds may seem an undesirable proposal. There is a wealth of published statistical data from credible sources (as cited in Home From Nowhere and The Geography of Nowhere) to refer to in defending the social desirability of urbanism. These sources reveal actual violent crime rates, teen drug-use rates, teen depression, teen suicide and teen mortality rates in terms that challenge the perceived safety of suburbs. Furthermore, there are published studies by social sciences professionals that address social outcomes of urban and suburban environments. These resources help to peel away the layers of urban mythology that prevent people from viewing urbanism objectively.

Although Plater-Zyberk didn't say so, one can assume that she envisions the convenience of people being able to live close to work. Since any one work site such as a bank, hospital or school employs people at different salary levels, all employees of such a work site may have access to a living space in proximity to their job site, thus reducing the need to commute. Of course, there will always be those whose jobs require travel to different sites or who choose to live far away from their work site. The difference is that more choice exists in a new urbanist community than currently exists in the suburban model, where the segregation of building types forces everyone to travel by car from any one place to another. The point is, the element of choice is increased. If the viewing public was able to make these assumptions, wonderful. If not, further clarification is needed to help viewers connect these ideas.

Plater-Zyberk drew attention to the width of the sidewalk and narrowness of the street where businesses were located below residential space. She mentioned that pedestrian activity is encouraged by the street design. Later she again referred to the street by pointing out how parallel parked cars along the curb protect the pedestrian in an urban environment. She didn't elaborate further, although I am sure she is aware of the fact that parked cars absorb some noise from moving vehicles. Parked cars encourage drivers to slow down because of to the possibility that there may be a person in the parked car and that the driver's door may open or the parked car may move into traffic at any moment—all incentives for people to drive more slowly. It's unfortunate that these benefits weren't mentioned.

A new urbanist might be more likely to go without a luxury item or to indulge less frequently if it means having to travel far to obtain it.

The questions posed by Suarez were even more disturbing than Plater-Zyberk's limitations in advocating the new urbanism. Suarez asked Plater-Zyberk "Why build new urbanism if people still get goods and services as they do in a suburban mall?" Suarez's question addressed the outcome of service delivery, but not the process in which people move around or interact to deliver or receive services.

The emphasis on outcome of goods and services delivery is typically suburban, where consumers prioritize the quality and cost of an item by driving to a faraway warehouse-type store, over the enjoyment derived after arriving at such a destination. New urbanists are more interested in the process in which these activities take place. For example, a new urbanist might prefer locally purchased goods, even if they cost a little more. A neighborhood restaurant is preferred over a faraway restaurant. A new urbanist might be more likely to go without a luxury item or to indulge less frequently if it means having to travel far to obtain it. From a suburban perspective, this lifestyle is seen as one of compromise and limitation. From a new urbanist perspective, acquisition of material goods becomes less important than the journey required to obtain them. The new urbanist becomes resourceful at discovering hidden treasures and opportunities located nearby.

Suarez again: "New urbanism designs against what people want—autonomy of free-standing houses, separated stores and houses, so why do it?" Plater-Zyberk responded that choice is needed, since urban environments are so rare and suburban environments are so common. A more fitting response to this question would have included an examination of what people want vs. what is actually delivered by the urban and suburban models.

Few would argue that the romantic imagery of suburbia conceals faults that impede the delivery of the promised lifestyle. The perceived benefits; e.g., quality of life, derived from personal space and privacy, become compromised because of the cumulative effects of inevitable traffic congestion and related stress, geographic isolation, loss of mobility and autonomy for young and old, and loss of community. Furthermore, much of what people do not want from an urban environment may be what they believe the environment offers. Home buyers or renters who have not lived in an urban setting may anticipate all sorts of negative outcomes associated with urbanism, which are based more on horrors of urban mythology than on reality. Why, for example, might some people be opposed to building or living in mixed-use buildings? Again, I believe that perceived vs. real outcomes need to be differentiated.

The new urbanist searches for a home based on the location of the residence in relation to the street and to neighboring buildings and objects; close proximity is preferred. The new urbanist is not merely purchasing or renting a home; he/she is buying into a neighborhood, town or city in which details such as home size, style and decor are of secondary importance. This perspective is seen by nonurbanists as requiring sacrifice of space and privacy. Only after new urbanism is understood can the new urbanist perspective be seen as being about re-prioritizing rather than sacrifice.

Suarez's next question: "Are places allowed to age? Can people change windows in their homes? Can they change the paint color of external walls?" Plater-Zyberk replied that such changes can be made with community approval.

I believe that such rigidity in decoration issues are not universal to all new urbanist developments, but are merely an element of community structuring that is likely to fade with time. I know of many urban communities, both old and new, in which there is tolerance for much diversity in building adornment. Actually, it would seem that any urban site with mixed-use buildings would be inherently diverse in building height, building style and demographic composition and, therefore, be less confined to rigid adornment requirements. On the other hand, segregated building types of suburban design in which "like" buildings are clustered tend to be more homogenous because of the nature of macro development. In fact, I recall an experience from my suburban high school years in which the painting of a front door created such a neighborhood uproar that the occupant immediately repainted to conform to neighborhood style.

Ray Suarez . . . asked rather silly questions—unless he was playing devil's advocate.

Finally, Suarez informed Plater-Zyberk that "critics say that new urbanism design is sentimentalist . . . nostalgia." She responded that the term "sentimentalist" "seems pejorative, but is good in time of change to have something that promises stability through history."

I believe that her reference is to the long-lasting potential offered by the infrastructure of a mixed-use urban neighborhood, where population increases and decreases with time, becomes subject to alternating periods of gentrification and decline, but yet has a design infrastructure that serves as a foundation from which a functional and socially interactive community may arise. The most luxurious and wealthy suburban landscape under the best of circumstances will never offer the necessary urban infrastructure so crucial to the foundation of a socially interactive and civic-conscious community. Furthermore, in terms of new urbanism being "sentimentalist" (swayed by sentiment, resulting from or colored by emotion rather than logic or realism), I could not disagree more with Suarez. New urbanism is practical, economical, environmental and, therefore, logical and realistic. The fact that new urbanists look to the past to prevent problems in the future is resourceful. As far as "nostalgia" (longing for things, persons or situations not present), this is more relevant to the rationale of suburban design, in which the longing for a cabin in the woods or a home in the countryside is revived.

I admire Plater-Zyberk for having advocated for new urbanism in a public venue, but there are lessons to be learned as far as how to effectively communicate the concept of new urbanism. New urbanists need to better expose the cavernous difference between the perceived benefits of suburbia and the reality that it cannot deliver the quality of life it promises. The challenge of educating our families, friends, the public and media is a difficult one. New urbanists should re-evaluate the process we follow to educate others, so that our arguments are more effective.

To view the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer segment to which this commentary refers, go here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newurbanism/plater-zyberk.htm. This page will let you see the video, listen to the audio and read the transcript for the segment. (You'll need Real Player for the video and audio versions.) When finished, you can take your own tour of Kentlands.

Commentary published on TNDhomes.com does not necessarily express the opinions of Homestore^TM Plans and Publications or those of the editor of TNDhomes.com.

Jon W. Hepworth is a health educator working as a Geographic Information Systems Manager for the city and county of San Francisco. Hepworth holds an MS in Public Health from UCLA and a BA in Biology from the University of California at Santa Cruz. He has worked in community organizing, public health needs assessment, planning, evaluation and research. Originally from Oakland, Hepworth has lived in Los Angeles and Mexico City, and currently resides in the upper Tenderloin in San Francisco.