New urbanism occasionally encompasses other city planning systems such as smart growth, and is occasionally recognized as a separate entity. The idea claims to originate in the early twentieth century with the development of the neighborhoods it uses as models, though as a movement, it is responding to the perceived weaknesses in suburban development.

Whether or not smart growth is an offshoot of new urbanism, the two share a number of concepts. Both emphasize the important of a compact, walkable community center, and the assimilation of different types of housing and commercial buildings. An emphasis on environmentally-conscious building, the renovation of brown- or greyfield land, and historic preservation are other similarities.

However, because new urbanism was created as a specific theory for urban design rather than simply being based on a looser set of ideals, its definition is more concrete than that of smart growth. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk founded the Congress for the New Urbanism, inspired by the time the husband-and-wife team spent at Yale. Their guidelines for a ‘new urban’ neighborhood suggest the inclusion of most of these elements:

- A recognizable center for the town/city/community, such as a green square or distinctive intersection, in which the transit stop is also situated.

- Buildings in the neighborhood center placed close to the street, to form a well-defined space.

- A walk of not much more than 5 minutes from any home to the community center, or approximately 2,000 feet.

- Mixed housing types, including apartments, rowhouses and detached homes, to provide a suitable dwelling for people of all ages and all economic means.

- An auxiliary building for workspace or a garage apartment is allowed in the backyard of each home.

- Parking lots or garages in the back of homes and businesses, rather than fronting the streets.

- Shops and offices to sufficiently serve the weekly needs of residents on the edge of the community.

- An elementary school close enough for most children to walk from home.

- Small parks or playgrounds near every home, not more than a tenth of a mile away.

- Streets that create a linked network to disperse traffic.

- Relatively narrow streets, suitable for pedestrians and bicycles, preferably lined with trees.

- Some major spots in the neighborhood center reserved for buildings to facilitate community meetings and activities, or for religious, cultural, or educational purposes.

- A self-governing community, guided by a council that makes decisions on maintenance and change.

There are a number of complaints lodged against new urbanism—the first, a semantics issue, that the scheme is not actually ‘new,’ as it derives its inspiration from American towns of the pre-automobile era. Some argue, conversely, that this halcyon design is based upon a system that exists only in nostalgia. Either way, it has drawn criticism chiefly for emphasizing aesthetic values over practical design, especially as a new urban community might relate to the surrounding region. The delineation of design elements irks those who feel the plan undermines American property rights and civil liberties, while on the opposite side of the spectrum, some accuse it of being a gentrification plan that would force lower-income families from their neighborhoods. Though the transportation habits of new urban residents may improve, the communities tend to remain socially homogenous ones.

For those who oppose Euclidean zoning laws and their relationship to “urban sprawl,” a number of new urban planning systems have been created. Smart growth seeks to eliminate the environmental, social and economic issues perceived as part of suburban growth by creating land-use plans focusing on non-car transportation and an integrated city center. Elements of smart growth are not universally settled, so prospective development plans can be categorized as more or less “smart growth,” rather than simply belonging to the category or not.

Smart growth expounds the benefits of higher-density developments, whose compact nature enables residents to walk, bike, or take public transportation. Smart growth proponents call this transit-oriented development (TOD), and smart growth planning attempts to maximize access to public transportation. Supporters believe this kind of community is significantly more healthy, both socially and physically.

Smart growth also advocates mixed-use development that unites differently priced housing in the same area, and a regulated blend of certain types of commercial or public institutions, aimed at providing nearby amenities to residential neighborhoods. In order to redevelop an urban environment, a city’s zoning policies regarding height limitations, lot size, and parking requirements must be altered; sometimes, additional restrictions are placed on types of low-density development such as detached homes, strip malls, and parking lots.

Historic preservation often figures within smart growth, as another one of its chief goals is the establishment of a unique community, whose strong sense of place will attract businesses and residents. The construction or revitalization of a community center that brings together cultural resources while preserving outside natural resources via efficient use of space are also central tenets. A reexamination of the development process would include a simpler, more dependable and more equitable distribution of both costs and payback.

Smart growth emphasizes long-term, wide-spread effects over short-term, personal benefits. For example, it may be pleasant to live in a suburban neighborhood and commute via car to work, but the current usage of automobiles is disrupting the climate all over the world. A community that requires less automobile transportation will become more pleasant as traffic decreases, the tax dollar is saved, and air quality is improved.

Economically mixed communities also provide a better quality of life for everyone. The city centers become more vibrant ant offer better opportunities as the resources of the community are reinvested in it. And rather than building via a system of development that emphasizes short term-profits, the long-term economic implications are weighed. A retail center developed ten miles from the city center may sit on less expensive land, but the communal cost of road construction, maintenance and gasoline, not to mention the commute time and air pollution, will be far greater.

Smart growth still relies on zoning laws, offering incentives for public transportation awareness, high-density design, or for the redevelopment of abandoned industrial or commercial facilities, otherwise known as brownfield or greyfield land. And like any zoning system, it has its detractions; opponents are generally offended by the implication that other zoning types are “un-smart.” Those who strongly favor detached homes argue that smart growth increases land value to the point where the average person can no longer afford a single-family house. Naturally, most supporters of smart growth contend that the cost of the suburban lifestyle on the greater community should be reflected within its cost.

Zoning has come under attack from some urban planners and a number of scholars, for social, environmental, and aesthetic reasons. A single-family house and car in a quiet neighborhood represents the ideal home for many Americans, and zoned residential neighborhoods outside of a city center offer just these attractions. Zoning, its critics contend, may allow a family their dream, but it comes at the expense of the greater societal good.

On the most basic level, zoning has been blamed for the drastic rise in housing prices in urban areas. Its opponents claim that, in some instances, zoning regulations may account for as much as 50% of the price of urban housing. Certain kinds of zoning regulations may also lead to a homogeneity of building style within a given area, consequently hampering even the most basic architectural creativity.

But more importantly, some accuse zoning codes of creating or reinforcing racial and socio-economic segregation; the earliest zoning codes sometimes contained overt racism. But today, segregation of single-family versus multi-family homes in zoning codes and minimum lot-size requirements perpetuate the rift between classes.

And critics furthermore contend that even those living the “American Dream” in the suburbs are doing so at the expense of their own community. Separate zones for residential and commercial buildings have brought about a “car culture,” in which families must use their car to get to everything from school to work to the nearest grocery store. The heart of a community dissipates, lives become disconnected.

Opponents also cite zoning as a cause of “urban sprawl“—a depreciatory term for the rapid outward expansion of a metropolitan area. “Urban sprawl” and “car culture” go hand in hand, as the suburban areas most commonly referred to as part of a city’s “sprawl” are often those dependent upon cars for commuting. Single-use zoning laws make these residential neighborhoods necessarily distant from those for commerce.

Additionally, the suburban areas associated with urban sprawl are low-density developments, containing single-family homes. Homes are generally larger, as are retail spaces, accompanied by wider roads and vast parking lots. Houses generally have more space between them, and each lot houses fewer people than comparable ones in an urban environment, meaning that the suburban sprawl takes up more land than traditional developments.

Zoning also creates sprawl as developers look for undeveloped land outside that does not yet have a strict zoning code, which is significantly less expensive. Retail or residential developers will continue to reach farther and farther away from the city in an effort to obtain relatively cheap land. Undeveloped tracts can lie between new building areas, especially when zoning laws require developers to leave a percentage of land free for public use.

Of course, the expansion into the suburbs is seen by many as a positive growth, enabling a desirable lifestyle. Real estate development is often viewed as progress—it is, after all, growth. New homes, new businesses, and new jobs are created; consequently, more people have access to a quieter, more private lifestyle. Shouldn’t those who want to live apart from the bustle of the city be allowed to do so?

But some say the situation caused by urban sprawl goes far beyond the issue of personal preference. Car-dependent living and the minimization of walking and physical activity has contributed to the pervasive ill health and heaviness in modern day America. And while the choice to live in a distant suburb may appear to rely solely on a single family’s economic means, “car culture” ratchets the price of public transportation and necessitates more highways and parking lots, a greater expense to the average taxpayer. Highways also decrease land value, compounded by the added expense of running utilities over low-density zones.

Some also say that it has a negative impact on culture, especially pointing to tract housing, in which a many identical or near-identical homes organized around cul-de-sacs to create a community that, in fact, has no community center. Even if the houses are not similar, many opponents of urban sprawl say that these housing developments are homogenous in terms of race and economic class. This has an impact on district taxpayer revenues, with observable ramifications in institutions such as public schools.

The environmental effects of urban sprawl are manifold. On the most immediate level, wildlife habitat is continually diminished, as an approximate 1875 square miles of forestland in the United States is destroyed every year. Remaining forestland situated near new development suffers from increased pollution from gasoline and pesticide run-off. And though some supporters of urban sprawl point out that lower traffic intensities create smoother rides and less air pollution per square mile, the amount of gas emissions overall is astronomically higher. Opponents point to “car culture” as one of the chief causes of the greenhouse effect, global warming, and the dangerous climate shifts directly caused by many aspects of our modern way of life.

Urban planning, also called city or town planning, is the method by which municipalities are organized. This type of public policy seeks to regulate use of land in a way beneficial to its inhabitants, and also efficient for commercial and governmental agencies. Economic, environmental, social and aesthetic issues come into play as states and regions plan the development of their communities.

In North America, coordination of land-use regulation is often based on ‘zoning‘ codes. The name arises from the common practice of structuring communities on the basis of zones, mapped areas in with different land-use allowances and purposes. Zoning serves to protect the interests of residents or businesses by preventing new developments that would be harmful to the existing configuration.

Zoning has classifications for all attributes of a given lot, and its regulations require adherence to those classifications. For example, zoning identifies a lot as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or as an open space, indicating how the land may be used. It also specifies how many people may occupy the land, a concept known as density—single-family homes are considered low-density, while a high-rise apartment building constitutes a high-density usage. New buildings must adhere to neighborhood precedents of height, square footage, location on the lot (also known as setback), proportions of landscaping to building, parking, and other aesthetic guidelines.

Zoning rules are designed to create a consistency within neighborhoods, but as their purpose is to serve the neighborhood, zoning commissions may permit exceptions to their rules, sometimes for the nature of the lot, and sometimes as a reward for other community-oriented benefits of the proposed structure. Some types of zoning employ more variances than others, subsequently creating more and more different zoning methods. Most zoning systems, however, can be broken down into one of four basic types:

Euclidean zoning

This type of zoning derives its name from the small town of Euclid, Ohio, which battled a land owner all the way to the Supreme Court over the issue of whether or not regulations on his property constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. When the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the town, a precedent was set admitting all future municipalities the right to enforce their land-use regulations.

Euclidean zoning is also called “Building Block zoning” because it partitions land usage into set geographical districts within the community. For example, a certain section of a town could be reserved for single-family residential, versus a separate multi-family residential area; both would be strictly segregated from commercial and industrial developments. A few exceptions may be made to accommodate the primary uses of a zone—say, a small grocery store in a residential zone, or company housing near its affiliated business. Regardless, most buildings within a zone must conform to the dimensional regulations regarding height, setback, lot coverage, and so on.

Euclidean zoning codes are implemented by the substantial majority of towns and cities in the United States. Its popularity is due to its relative efficacy in preserving the harmony of its residents and businesses, and chiefly to its ease of use. The rules, once set, are simple to understand and follow, and have the benefit of legal precedent. However, many criticize it for its rigidity, maintaining that its precepts have been outdated with the advent of other urban planning concerns.

Performance zoning

This system of zoning emphasizes the importance of a structure’s ultimate performance, often by implementing a points system in which certain elements and compliance options are tallied up in order to meet zoning goals. Points can be awarded for plans to mitigate the environmental impact of the building, include public amenities or build affordable housing units. Additional dimensional or functional standards may also be set.

Performance zoning offers a more flexible system, but at the expense of simplicity. It necessitates a large amount of discretionary activity in the review process, and is often complicated to implement. Consequently, performance zoning is relatively rare, and is only found as an additional set of guidelines within a broader set of regulations.

Incentive zoning

Incentive zoning attempts to reach urban planning goals by instituting a system that rewards developers for aligning their new structures with the city’s aims. A basic set of zoning regulations is accompanied by an extensive list of options, to be adhered to at the discretion of the developer. Inclusion of any of these additional options, however, will be rewarded with ‘incentives’: for example, inclusion of affordable housing results in floor-area-ratio bonuses, and public amenities lead to height-limit bonuses.

The complexity of incentive zoning is more or less balanced with its flexibility, leading to its increasing appearance within the last couple of decades. It does require more activity on the part of the supervising commission, as buildings with incentives take more effort to review, and also because the rewards system must be constantly reevaluated to be certain that the incentives remain in proportion with the benefit given to developers.

Design-based zoning

Design-based zoning emphasizes the aesthetics of prospective buildings over their use, creating zones within a city subdivided by requirements for height, setback, and stylistic features. Though more complex than the Euclidean method, supporters of design-based or form-based codes contend that its use-based adversary is outdated and economically inefficient; they maintain that the character of a neighborhood can be maintained via physical characteristics, allowing more economic and social efficiency through a blend of building usages.