Here’s a long document from the “Trees and Design Action Group” in the UK about everything to do with planting trees in the city. Of particular use to me are some good references on dealing with underground utilities, species selection, and just lots and lots of great pictures. Even some nice stats on the odds of being killed by a tree compared to car accidents and cancer (the odds are very low, but not zero). Trees really can be done a lot better than most American cities do them.
Tag Archives: urban design
walkability matters – duh
For people still looking for an answer to the question “does walkability matter?”, here is some more solid evidence from Cities to add to the mountain.
In this study, researchers examined 170 neighborhoods in a medium-sized city to see whether walkability influences neighborhood sustainability. Until 2008, there had not been a reliable measure of the social, health, and economic impact of walkable neighborhoods. This dramatically changed when scholars were able to quantify walkability with tools such as Walkscore™; which measures how accessible daily living activities are by foot. The researchers investigated how walkability impacts the quality and sustainability of a neighborhood. They developed models that evaluated the correlation between an area’s Walkscore™ and four broad measures of urban sustainability: neighborhood housing valuation; foreclosures; and crime. Our analysis shows a positive impact not only on neighborhood housing valuation but also on neighborhood crime and foreclosure. These results provide policy opportunities for planners and citizen groups to pursue strategies to encourage the development of more walkable and sustainable neighborhoods.
I know I’m a broken record, but getting around under our own muscle power for most trips most of the time is the key to (in no particular order):
- reducing carbon emissions
- reducing air pollution from vehicle emissions, especially particulates which cause asthma and heart disease – this will add quality years to all our lives
- solving drunk driving
- saving lots and lots of money that we used to spend on cars
- saving enormous amounts of space in cities that used to be used for car maneuvering and parking – space that can now be used for relaxing, recreating, habitat, housing, economic or commercial activity
- creating space for people – yes, you can increase density and reduce crowding at the same time
- increasing physical health through more physical activity, decreasing obesity, diabetes and heart disease, adding years to peoples’ lives
- improving psychological health through physical activity
- increasing social interaction
- increasing business activity and profits
- creating an ecosystem of innovative, creative people, businesses, nonprofit and government agencies
free parking and why good people are misled by the forces of darkness
Here’s a nice quote from a blog called Saporta Report:
Parking causes sprawl. The vast amounts of parking required at locations push businesses and other uses further and further apart. Free parking encourages us to drive to the grocery store, and we insist on having ample amounts of parking.
As the amount and size of our parking lots decreases, our businesses can move closer together. A business that couldn’t previously open in a neighborhood as a corner grocery because of required parking minimums could now open to serve walk-up customers.
This is exactly right. Free parking is an enormous hidden subsidy to unsustainable land use practices and unhealthy lifestyles. It does all of us far more harm than good. If we eliminated these subsidies and let our cherished “free market” set a fair price on parking, the equation would be fundamentally changed. The problem is that a majority of people still don’t see this. They perceive (correctly in many cases) that the way their community is designed, they would be unable to get around quickly or safely without a car, and they can’t envision their community changing its design, or living in another community with a different design. Even in places where walking and cycling are relatively safe and fast, like in or near Center City Philadelphia (see this Washington Post* article), and many people understand that 100%, the voices of the car culture are still louder and more politically influential at the moment. Here in Philadelphia, I see that being characterized in the media sometimes as an old vs. young, rich vs. poor, black vs. white struggle, which is very unfortunate because that is not what it is about at all. It is about health, safety, sustainability, community, competitiveness, innovation, and joy.
* Note that the Washington Post article above is unfortunately titled “Why cars remain so appealing even in cities with decent public transit”. It goes on to conclude that it can take a long time to get around by public transit, if you live far from your job. Then it concludes that walking and cycling are better than both driving and public transit, if you live near your job. But busy people who only have time to read headlines are likely to miss that point entirely, aren’t they?
walking and creativity
This article in the New Yorker talks about how walking stimulates thinking and creativity.
Because we don’t have to devote much conscious effort to the act of walking, our attention is free to wander—to overlay the world before us with a parade of images from the mind’s theatre. This is precisely the kind of mental state that studies have linked to innovative ideas and strokes of insight. Earlier this year, Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz of Stanford published what is likely the first set of studies that directly measure the way walking changes creativity in the moment. They got the idea for the studies while on a walk.
It goes on to talk about differences between walking in natural and park-like settings vs. city streets. But is it too much to ask for safe, park-like city streets where people can stroll and think and interact? Does this sound crazy? No, it just means picking some streets and getting all or most car traffic off them, which can be done if people live near where they work and shop. Then you drastically slow down the remaining motorized traffic, if any, plant lots of trees and provide occasional places to sit. Make those public investments, and complementary private investments will pop up. Even from a cynical economic perspective, the cost-benefit is there, I sincerely believe. And the more subtle effects that cost-benefit analysis will miss – a more creative, innovative, less-stressed society – will follow, I sincerely believe. These are really the fundamentals, I am pretty sure. Maybe we can unleash a new wave of creative problem solving. Let’s stop thinking cynically about how we can make cities a little less bad, and start thinking about how we can unleash their potential.