New book questions whether best-practice urbanism can create neighbourhoods with lasting character

A new book from the founders of Smart Density argues that walkability, cycling, public transport and mixed-use development are necessary but insufficient ingredients for creating neighbourhoods that feel distinctive and appealing.

Building Charm: A Hyper-Practical Guide to Developing Outstanding New Neighborhoods, by Naama Blonder and Misha Bereznyak, examines why many recently planned districts can meet recognised urban-design principles while still feeling less memorable than older neighbourhoods.

The book is presented as a practical account of neighbourhood planning under real development and municipal constraints. Its argument is relevant to London’s large growth areas, but the material supplied for this draft does not identify a London project, planning decision or policy change. It should therefore be read as a design critique and professional viewpoint rather than evidence of a change in London planning policy.

The central argument

The authors distinguish between what they describe as the prevailing urbanist model and the qualities that give older neighbourhoods their character.

The model prioritises reduced car dependence, walking and cycling, public transport, defined streets and parks, mixed uses, and medium- to high-density development. These principles are familiar in London, where strategic planning places strong emphasis on sustainable transport, compact growth, mixed communities and well-designed places.

Blonder and Bereznyak argue that applying these principles does not automatically reproduce the experience of established urban areas. In their view, a neighbourhood can contain the expected ingredients of contemporary urban planning and still produce streets and public spaces that feel ordinary.

Their criticism is not presented as a case against density, public transport or active travel. Instead, it focuses on the gap between meeting broad design objectives and producing places with a strong, lasting identity.

Key facts

Lessons from two projects

The excerpt describes two projects used by the authors to explain how their thinking developed.

The first involved a 100-hectare area of low-intensity commercial and logistics uses near a railway station in the Greater Toronto Area. The proposed transformation would have created a dense, mixed-use community. The authors worked within an existing street network and explored a secondary system of mid-block connections.

They say the pre-established network limited the quality of the proposed vision, even though the project offered considerable freedom in other areas. The example is used to show how an inherited framework can shape the eventual character of a large development before detailed design begins.

The second project was in Southeast Asia and included an existing network of irrigation and flood-control canals. The design team chose to retain and integrate the canals rather than allow them to be filled, creating what the authors describe as an attractive feature.

However, they concluded that the wider street experience risked becoming typical of new development in the area. In the authors’ assessment, a distinctive landscape element was not enough to create the character associated with older canal neighbourhoods.

Both examples are accounts by the book’s authors, not independent evaluations supplied with the source material. The excerpt does not provide planning references, project names, delivery outcomes or evidence of how the schemes were received by residents.

Why this matters in London

London is continuing to plan for substantial growth through estate renewal, brownfield redevelopment, town-centre intensification and new communities around transport infrastructure. In each case, the design of streets and public spaces affects more than appearance.

Street layouts influence walking routes, cycle connections, bus access, servicing, emergency access and the ability to adapt buildings over time. The location of shops, schools, parks and community facilities affects whether a neighbourhood works as a daily environment rather than simply as a collection of buildings.

The book’s critique raises a practical question for London planning: how should decision-makers assess whether a proposed neighbourhood will develop a coherent identity and useful public life, rather than merely satisfy a checklist of design features?

That question cannot be answered by the book alone. London schemes are judged through local and strategic planning policies, design reviews, transport assessments, viability work, environmental studies, consultation responses and planning conditions. The relevant evidence will vary from site to site.

For residents and planning committees, the useful test is therefore not whether a project uses the language of “place-making” or “urbanism”. It is whether the plans show how people will move through the area, where everyday activity will take place, how public spaces will be managed, and how the design will respond to local history, ecology and existing communities.

The delivery gap

The excerpt also points to a recurring difficulty in large-scale development: the distance between a vision plan and the built result.

A masterplan may establish a street network, blocks, parks and development plots, but later decisions can alter the experience at street level. Building frontage, ground-floor uses, servicing arrangements, materials, landscape maintenance and the timing of community facilities can all affect how a neighbourhood functions.

This is particularly important where a new district is delivered over many years by different landowners and development teams. A strong initial framework may not guarantee a consistent public realm if later phases are redesigned or key facilities are delayed.

The source material does not set out a specific delivery system or test the authors’ approach against completed London neighbourhoods. It also does not establish that older urban areas are uniformly more successful or that contemporary schemes share a single design model.

What to check in a London proposal

The book’s argument offers a prompt for closer scrutiny, rather than a new planning rule. When reviewing a London development proposal, readers can look for evidence on:

• how the street network connects to surrounding neighbourhoods;
• whether walking and cycling routes are direct, safe and overlooked;
• where shops, schools, workspaces and community uses will be located;
• how parks, squares, canals and other public spaces will be maintained;
• how servicing, deliveries and emergency access will affect the public realm;
• which elements are secured through planning conditions or legal agreements;
• and how the scheme will be monitored after occupation.

These checks help separate a design ambition from a confirmed commitment. They also show where a project may depend on later approvals, funding or delivery by another party.

The book is therefore best understood as a contribution to the debate about how new neighbourhoods gain character. It does not document a London planning decision, establish a new policy position, or demonstrate that a particular development has succeeded or failed.

Source: The Urbanist, “Op-Ed: ‘Building Charm’ Book Offers Guide to Developing Outstanding Neighborhoods”, https://www.theurbanist.org/op-ed-building-charm-book-offers-guide-to-developing-outstanding-neighborhoods/