Congress For The New UrbanismEdit
Congress For The New Urbanism
Congress For The New Urbanism (CNU) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the ideas and practices of the New Urbanism movement. Since its founding in the early 1990s by a group of architects and planners, including Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, CNU has served as a national forum for promoting walkable, mixed-use, human-scale development. Its advocates argue that well-designed urban form can align economic efficiency with livability, reducing infrastructure costs and expanding opportunity by making neighborhoods attractive to residents, workers, and businesses alike. While the organization explicitly aims to improve the built environment through market-friendly, locally driven reforms, it also engages in policy debates about zoning, funding, and public investment that touch on core questions of property rights, governance, and community priorities.
CNU’s work sits at the intersection of design, land use policy, and local governance. It emphasizes that the places people actually inhabit—streets, blocks, and public spaces—shape behavior, economic activity, and long-run prosperity. The organization promotes a suite of tools and practices designed to implement its principles in real communities, and it has helped popularize concepts such as form-based codes, Complete Streets, and transit-oriented development as practical ways to achieve high-quality urban form within existing metropolitan fabric. The emphasis is on local solutions and voluntary collaboration among governments, private developers, and community groups, rather than top-down mandates. In practice, this means encouraging private investment that aligns with clear, predictable standards and the incremental redesign of neighborhoods to support commerce, housing, and mobility in close proximity.
History and aims
CNU emerged from a broader moral and professional movement that sought to rethink postwar growth patterns. Its founders and early members argued that long-distance commuting, single-use zoning, and car-dependent sprawl imposed hidden costs on households and communities—costs borne as higher utility bills, longer commutes, and damaged social fabric. The organization framed these concerns in a way that appealed to market-minded policymakers: better urban form can yield durable property values, stronger local tax bases, and more efficient public spending. This market-friendly framing helped CNU build coalitions among developers, planners, and civic leaders who sought predictable, flexible means to improve neighborhoods without resorting to heavy-handed central planning. Core figures associated with the movement, such as Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, helped shape the ideas that would become synonymous with New Urbanism, while the broader CNU network expanded its reach through annual conferences, charrettes, and local initiatives. Over time, the organization has broadened its focus to include retrofit of existing suburbs, brownfield redevelopment, and the revitalization of aging urban cores, always with an emphasis on local control and market viability.
Principles and practices
Human-scale, walkable neighborhoods: Development should prioritize streets and blocks that encourage pedestrian activity, with storefronts and housing integrated along the same streets. This approach aims to improve social interaction, safety, and local commerce, while reducing the per-capita costs of extending utilities and streets over sprawling land.
Mixed use and diversity of housing: A healthy urban fabric blends housing, work, and amenities within the same area, offering options across income levels and life stages. This is intended to reduce travel distances, broaden opportunity, and create more resilient local economies.
Traditional neighborhood form and design: The visual and physical language of streets and public spaces should reflect a human scale and legibility, drawing on a repertoire of traditional neighborhood patterns. Design guidance often takes the form of form-based codes, which specify the built form rather than solely focusing on land-use zoning.
Transit and mobility choices: While not anti-car, the approach advocates proximity to jobs and services to support shorter trips and viable alternatives to driving. This is often pursued through transit-oriented development and improved connectivity within and between districts.
Public realm and civic space: Streets, parks, and squares are seen as essential infrastructure for economic activity and social cohesion. High-quality public space is viewed as a public good that can anchor private investment and community well-being.
retrofit and infill: Rather than only focusing on new greenfield development, CNU emphasizes updating aging suburbs and existing urban areas to be more functional, sustainable, and economically viable.
Fiscal and governance discipline: The model stresses predictable regulation, transparent public process, and a preference for private investment guided by clear standards. It also promotes locally tailored solutions rather than one-size-fits-all mandates.
Within these principles, CNU promotes tools such as Form-based codes to guide building form, massing, and public realm outcomes; Complete streets policies that prioritize safe and accessible street design for all users; and Transit-oriented development approaches that locate housing and employment near transit nodes. The organization also organizes workshops, publishes guidelines, and maintains networks that connect practitioners with communities pursuing New Urbanist projects, including efforts to redevelop brownfield sites and revitalize downtowns.
Policy influence and activities
CNU operates as a national hub for idea exchange and practitioner collaboration. It hosts conferences, design charrettes, and technical assistance programs that bring together developers, municipal staff, and community groups to test, critique, and refine urban design concepts. Its guidelines and advocacy aim to lower regulatory friction for desirable form, while preserving local control through zoning and permitting decisions made at the city or regional level. The organization also engages with state and federal policymakers on topics such as housing supply, infrastructure funding, and the provision of public goods, presenting a narrative that high-quality urban form can be a catalyst for growth without sacrificing fiscal discipline or accountability.
Supporters argue that the CNU approach reduces the long-run cost of city services by concentrating development near services and infrastructure, thereby lowering the price tag of expanding streets, water, and sewer networks across widely dispersed low-density development. They contend that predictable design standards, rather than ad hoc approvals, reduce risk for private investment and lead to better long-term outcomes for neighborhoods and taxpayers. Critics, however, argue that the emphasis on densification and reconfiguration of existing suburbs can raise housing costs or displace lower-income residents if not paired with robust affordability programs and protections. In practice, this debate centers on how best to balance private property rights, market dynamics, and community equity in ways that sustain both vitality and affordability.
CNU’s influence also manifests in the way many private projects are planned and reviewed. The organization argues that the right kind of urban form can support economic resilience by shortening supply chains, enabling local businesses to thrive, and making public services more efficient. Its emphasis on local experimentation means that cities often test New Urbanist ideas through pilot projects, mixed-use districts, and the rehabilitation of commercial corridors, with the aim of creating replicable models for other communities.
Controversies and debates
Affordability and gentrification: Critics worry that higher design standards and denser, walkable neighborhoods increase land values and rents, potentially displacing lower-income residents. From a right-of-center vantage, the response is to couple high-quality development with targeted, market-driven affordability tools—such as inclusion of workforce housing in projects, streamlining approvals to reduce costs, and leveraging private investment rather than subsidy-heavy schemes. Proponents argue that better urban form can expand opportunities and reduce long-run housing costs by delivering more efficient, transit-accessible living.
Zoning and property rights: Reformers inside and around the movement advocate for form-based codes and other tools to provide clarity and predictability for developers and residents. Critics claim that such reforms, when poorly designed, can erode local control or impose design prescriptions that limit private use of land. Supporters counter that clear standards reduce regulatory uncertainty and preserve community character, while still leaving decisions in the hands of local elected bodies.
Social equity and inclusivity: Critics from some strands of urban policy say New Urbanist projects can eschew genuine affordability or fail to reach diverse populations. Advocates contend that the core aim is to unlock market supply and improve mobility for all residents, including those at lower income levels, by expanding access to jobs and services through location-efficient development. In the debates, the right-leaning view emphasizes leveraging market dynamics and private investment to expand supply, while addressing barriers through targeted policy instruments rather than centralized mandates.
Environmental performance and car dependency: The movement’s emphasis on compact, multi-use development is often framed as environmentally favorable due to reduced commuting distances and more efficient infrastructure. Critics worry about the real-world impacts on parking availability or the costs of retrofitting existing suburbs to meet new standards. Proponents argue that well-executed forms strike a balance between mobility options and the realities of local transportation networks, delivering environmental gains without unduly constraining individual choice.
woke criticisms and counterarguments: In public debates, some critics label New Urbanist reforms as elitist planning that imposes aesthetic preferences or excludes certain constituencies. From a perspective focused on practical governance and economics, the critique is addressed by emphasizing local control, private investment, and the economic benefits of more efficient development patterns. The argument is that productive urban form should be judged by outcomes—access to opportunity, lower long-run costs, and reliable public services—rather than by ideology or subjective aesthetics.
Implementation and influence in practice
Cities and regions have pursued New Urbanist ideas through a mix of redevelopment districts, main street programs, and updated zoning regimes. Projects often aim to create complete streets, reinvest in traditional commercial corridors, and connect neighborhoods to transit options. The practical challenge is to blend design excellence with predictable costs and timely public approvals, so that private capital can be deployed without undue friction. The result, when successful, is a more resilient tax base, improved street activity, and a built environment that aligns with modern needs while preserving a sense of place.
In this framework, the organization’s work is as much about governance as design. By encouraging clear, predictable standards and a collaborative approach to planning, CNU seeks to align the incentives of property owners, developers, and local governments with outcomes that support economic vitality and mobility. The underlying premise is that well-planned growth, pursued with discipline and local accountability, can deliver high-quality places without sacrificing individual liberty or market efficiency. See, for example, discussions around New Urbanism and Transit-oriented development to understand how these ideas translate into real-world projects and policy choices.