Good commentary pointing to advocacy. The CNU broke this ground thirty years ago. But, without a deep understanding and critique of ownership and capital allocation the abundance “movement” will meet the same fate as the now-irrelevant New Urbanists.
The New Urbanists did indeed have strong narratives about families, walkable retail, etc. But their aspiration - to effect scalable change in the US built environment - exceeded the bounds of the design disciplines from which they never emerged. There was a brief engagement with ULI that went nowhere. Three-over-two podium buildings are a financial expression, not a design statement. Design is a problem only after everything else is settled.
BTW I am a co-founder of the California chapter of CNU, and a (lapsed) active ULI volunteer leader.
I still think that regulation is the lever here. The courtyard blocks that were built in Europe were the result of specific form based codes that constrained development to take the form that it did.
Job #1 is figuring out how to navigate fire marshals. I think junkets where you send them to Europe to hang out with euro fire fighters, and like go drinking. Would this be the most valuable marginal dollar for US urbanism?
Alicia, this is a brilliant synthesis. The distinction you draw between 'Style' and 'Typology' is exactly the missing link in the current aesthetics debate. We waste so much breath arguing about 'Modern vs. Traditional' facades, while ignoring that the regulatory geometry (parking minimums, dual-stair mandates, floor-area ratios) makes true 'human-scale' architecture illegal regardless of the skin we put on it.
Your point about 'Buildings Without Worth' being a systems failure rather than a talent failure is spot on. My question for you: While California Forever offers a fascinating greenfield laboratory for this, where do you see the highest leverage point for applying Courtyard Urbanism in existing, calcified cities? Is it through the 'missing middle' (upzoning single-family lots), or is there a pathway to retrofitting existing commercial corridors into these courtyard typologies?
Thanks so much, Diego! I really appreciate your careful reading and thoughtful comment!
The highest-leverage application of Courtyard Urbanism is along commercial corridors and within low-density residential neighborhoods through a targeted “courtyard zoning” overlay.
In practice, that means allowing—by right—4–6 story, mixed-use buildings with no front or side setbacks (i.e., party-wall construction). Over time and parcel by parcel, these buildings can accrete into full perimeter blocks.
Even before a complete block is formed, the constitutive building has real value. It introduces land-sharing logic, begins partial enclosure, and uses building mass to mediate between public street and private open space. That spatial sequencing—street → threshold → shared court → private dwelling—is largely absent in contemporary American development, which defaults either to setback single-family houses or freestanding podium multifamily buildings.
The result is that we’ve lost the spatial intelligence that quietly supports social cohesion, privacy gradients, and microclimatic comfort. Courtyard zoning is a way to re-legalize that intelligence incrementally rather than waiting for megaprojects.
Good commentary pointing to advocacy. The CNU broke this ground thirty years ago. But, without a deep understanding and critique of ownership and capital allocation the abundance “movement” will meet the same fate as the now-irrelevant New Urbanists.
I agree. Also New Urbanists needed a more compelling narrative about revitalizing cities for families, revitalizing cities for walkable retail, etc
The New Urbanists did indeed have strong narratives about families, walkable retail, etc. But their aspiration - to effect scalable change in the US built environment - exceeded the bounds of the design disciplines from which they never emerged. There was a brief engagement with ULI that went nowhere. Three-over-two podium buildings are a financial expression, not a design statement. Design is a problem only after everything else is settled.
BTW I am a co-founder of the California chapter of CNU, and a (lapsed) active ULI volunteer leader.
I still think that regulation is the lever here. The courtyard blocks that were built in Europe were the result of specific form based codes that constrained development to take the form that it did.
Finance will follow whatever is legal
Beautiful.
Job #1 is figuring out how to navigate fire marshals. I think junkets where you send them to Europe to hang out with euro fire fighters, and like go drinking. Would this be the most valuable marginal dollar for US urbanism?
ahahahahaha this is such a brilliant idea
YES
Alicia, this is a brilliant synthesis. The distinction you draw between 'Style' and 'Typology' is exactly the missing link in the current aesthetics debate. We waste so much breath arguing about 'Modern vs. Traditional' facades, while ignoring that the regulatory geometry (parking minimums, dual-stair mandates, floor-area ratios) makes true 'human-scale' architecture illegal regardless of the skin we put on it.
Your point about 'Buildings Without Worth' being a systems failure rather than a talent failure is spot on. My question for you: While California Forever offers a fascinating greenfield laboratory for this, where do you see the highest leverage point for applying Courtyard Urbanism in existing, calcified cities? Is it through the 'missing middle' (upzoning single-family lots), or is there a pathway to retrofitting existing commercial corridors into these courtyard typologies?
Thanks so much, Diego! I really appreciate your careful reading and thoughtful comment!
The highest-leverage application of Courtyard Urbanism is along commercial corridors and within low-density residential neighborhoods through a targeted “courtyard zoning” overlay.
In practice, that means allowing—by right—4–6 story, mixed-use buildings with no front or side setbacks (i.e., party-wall construction). Over time and parcel by parcel, these buildings can accrete into full perimeter blocks.
Even before a complete block is formed, the constitutive building has real value. It introduces land-sharing logic, begins partial enclosure, and uses building mass to mediate between public street and private open space. That spatial sequencing—street → threshold → shared court → private dwelling—is largely absent in contemporary American development, which defaults either to setback single-family houses or freestanding podium multifamily buildings.
The result is that we’ve lost the spatial intelligence that quietly supports social cohesion, privacy gradients, and microclimatic comfort. Courtyard zoning is a way to re-legalize that intelligence incrementally rather than waiting for megaprojects.
Awesome partnership with the good people of Create Streets! Nice
Funnily enough the New Yorker website happened to spotlight this piece from the archive by Nora Ephron: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/06/05/moving-on-nora-ephron
And everything she says about how wonderful the Apthorp building was seems very much in keeping with your thesis.