(Jon) Neal makes a valid point regarding my post, “New Urbanism blooming in Bloomington”:
A neat development in a neat town, but the main problem is that the new houses are old-fashioned looking. What part of “New Urbanism” says it has to look like the thirties?
I know the looks are a response to what suburban building looks like currently, but there is another direction you can take this in — new designs. I would be a lot more attracted to something more fresh looking.
Here’s some housing that’s definitely “fresh,” from useful + agreeable magazine:
But maybe an architect friend or two can point out some other modern designs that would work in an older neighborhood?


These buildings are reminiscent of a gigantic iPod/iPhone wall charger!
Though it’s not a “modern” design, I’ve always been a fan of 20th/21st century Cape Cod architecture.
The fact that the structures themselves are usually new is a part of what attracts people to New Urbanism. I don’t know that the buildings have to look “old” but thy do need to have some distinctive character.
Not an entire development, but a great example of new construction on an infill lot in an old urban neighborhood.
http://www.dwell.com/homes/new/2877536.html
Also…
http://139.95.253.31/node/232
Have a look at Prospect New Town (http://www.prospectnewtown.com/, photos at http://www.prospectnewtown.com/TourProspect/ThumbNails.asp) in Longmont, Colorado for a NU project that combines traditional and contemporary/modern architecture.
You MUST send these examples of “housing” into HGTV’s
“What’s With That House?”