New Urbanism, yes or no?

I have been secretly skeptical about trends, for example "New Urbanism." Yes, New Urbanism has been working out very successfully at many places. But when we invent a new terminology to define a trend, and repeat it over and over, we are likely to do ourselves a disservice. Because we may have created a "box" for confined thinking.

I am big fan of "form follows function." What are the "functions"? I think, for a community, it involves economic feasibility, social prosperity and stability, ecological sustainability, and cultural nurturing and preservation. New Urbanism, yes or no? Maybe. It could be one of the candidates, along with all the other nameless options to make it work.

The following is the best statement that I have read in a long time - it touched my heart, to be honest. Dr. Phillip Tabb mentioned at the end of his paper "Unity at the edge: constellation sustainable urbanism" that a planning official, Kerry Blind, made a comment on Serenbe Community,

"The development plan is not really New Urbanism; it is more organic. We are not saying what a structure looks like, but how it fits into the whole."

Author's notes on Dr. Tabb's paper

New Urbanism or not? As long as it functions beautifully, it does not matter. To quote what my boss, David Twggis,

"Why copy other people's formula? Be creative!"

I completely agree: it's time to let go of the terminology and stereotype thinking; observe, think and be creative.