Debunking the myths of TND

Traditional neighborhood design (TND) is a powerful idea, one that is at once praiseworthy and controversial. Unfortunately, as with many movements, what is not understood is often distorted, even by those who support the TND philosophy.

Confused notions of the theory and rationale behind TND are rampant, according to James Constantine, principal of Community Planning & Research Inc. (CPR), of Princeton, New Jersey. The myths resemble a laundry list of misunderstandings; if you intend to pursue a TND project, consider these fallacies commonly held by proponents of the TND movement:

Myth 1: Community is everything. Community is important, but keep it in perspective. "Community is a very powerful concept," says Constantine, "and like anything powerful, it can also be a bit intoxicating." Americans want a greater sense of community, but are sometimes unwilling to accept the trade-offs, such as a smaller lot or a perceived forced choice between a "so-so" floor plan and a stunning exterior.

Myth 2: Families prefer a traditional neighborhood to a big yard. This is not always true. What many families bring to their buying decision is concern for the safety of their children. Psychologically, a large backyard offers that safety. In the front of the home, having "catch-up space"—in the event a wayward child makes a run for the street—is also crucial. Many traditional neighborhoods offer this; in particular, Disney''s Celebration has slightly more generous setbacks than other like-minded developments.

Myth 3: TND will liberate Americans from their cars. Some TND proponents have taken this belief to an extreme, resulting, in part, in an abundance of detached-garage homes. Constantine''s firm has researched the subject and found that most new home buyers still want an attached garage, even if it''s from the side or rear. Says Constantine, "Most Americans are still way too involved with their affair with the automobile to give it up."

Myth 4: Alleys are the only way to get garages off the street. This completely depends on the market. New home buyers tell CPR that they want to soften the garage''s presence, but there exists a whole palette of techniques to accomplish this. Non-alley alternatives include recessed front garages and commonly shared driveways that are more akin to a country lane than an urban alley.

Myth 5: Rich and poor will live happily together. This is not necessarily true, so know your market. Are you dealing with entry-level buyers who are leaving their rentals for their first home? Surprisingly, these people often bring a revulsion to living near rental housing. The fact is, there will always be neighborhoods for the affluent; case in point: Seaside, Fla., with cottage rental and cost-of-living rates that prompted one TND home builder to call it "extremely elitist."

Myth 6: It''s old; therefore, it must be good. "A home may have a historically grounded and perfectly appropriate architectural style, but it may also have negative connotations among new home buyers," says Constantine. For example, a bungalow may work well in the land plan or streetscape, but a new home buyer may see that same bungalow as a dowdy old house that is occupied only by less well-to-do urban dwellers. Likewise, an indigenous farmhouse style could be equated with "backwards rural residents."

Myth 7: The neighbors will love it. When those neighbors live in conventional suburban developments, there can be a backlash. If, in the course of your TND approval process, you make those residents feel like they made an unwise home or neighborhood investment, they might feel they need to defend their investment, prove you wrong and stop your project.

Those neighbors can rest easy, says R. John Anderson, a principal of Town Planning Collaborative of Minneapolis, Minn. He emphasizes that traditional neighborhood design is not a better-than-thou mandate, but simply another choice for the home buyer. The arguments he hears most often from those who oppose TNDs follow:

Myth 8: Traditional neighborhoods are a rigid grid of streets. "Wrong," says Anderson. It''s an interconnected web of streets that can respond to the landscape in very picturesque ways. "When you look at the work of 1920s town planners like John Nolen (who planned Madison, Wis.; and Mariemont, Oh.), you see a graceful distribution of traffic along a network of streets—not a rigid grid."

Myth 9: It''s all about front porches and nostalgic architecture. These are nothing more than parts of the whole. Most important is the creation of streets that work for both pedestrians and cars. "The street can serve as an amenity," says Anderson, "not just a place for cars."

Myth 10: Proponents of traditional neighborhoods are a bunch of design fanatics who want to force us to live on a small lot with no privacy, and spend all our time on our front porch, being neighborly. The reality is nowhere near that dramatic. Most proponents simply want to offer a pleasant alternate way of living, and are confident that a certain portion of the market will choose this, just as they continue to choose existing traditional neighborhoods.

Myth 11: Traditional neighborhood design is un-American, nothing more than social engineering. Anderson responds, "If it is, then it joins the ranks of other examples of random social engineering, such as the cul-de-sac and the collector-road system that prevents children from walking to buy an ice-cream cone. Engineering requires deliberate effort. We deliberately want to provide more choices."

And choice, as most would agree, is as American as it gets.