Walkable City

Jeff Speck is a city planner, and in his book Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time, he describes how neighborhoods can be designed in such a way that they promote community cohesion and a more physically active lifestyle.

What he proposes is, more or less, a return to the ways cities and neighborhoods were designed before car culture took over our lives. Several American cities and many in Europe managed to retain their walkability, or even improve it over the years. The cities in this country that rank high in walkability are New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. These also happen to be the most popular cities.

A walkable city is made up of what Speck calls mixed neighborhoods. A mixed neighborhood is one where people can live but also do all the other things they might do while living their day to day lives…go out to eat, go to a bar, shop for groceries, pick up a prescription, pick up dry cleaning, play sports, go to a gym, walk their dog, sit on a park bench and even work. A walkable city should have a solid and reliable public transportation system connecting the mixed neighborhoods, preferably rail. There can be wide boulevards connecting the neighborhoods, but there should be no highways in the city. And the streets in the neighborhoods should be narrow.

For several decades, city planners have known highways inside cities do not cut down on congestion. That’s because they promote driving. If they cut neighborhoods off from one another, they could even make driving necessary. City highways are like the baseball diamond in Field of Dreams; if you build it, they will come.

Wide, multilane streets also make pedestrians feel unsafe. Road designers often claim wide streets and multiple lanes makes driving safer, but Speck claims there is data to indicate wide streets promote more driving because people are uncomfortable walking by them, and they also promote speeding. People drive slower on narrow streets, and they’re more likely to park and walk. Many people in walkable cities don’t even own a car.

Speck claims the ideal neighborhood street should consist of three lanes with the center lane as a turn lane. There should also be on street parking. That’s because a line of parked cars separating pedestrians from traffic makes them feel safer. Of course, more parking will likely be needed, but parking lots should be screened from pedestrian view or put underground. Trees lining the streets also make pedestrians feel safer as well as providing shade and enhancing the beauty of the neighborhood.

Speck recognizes the most desirable, well-designed, pedestrian friendly cities are also the most expensive. But he believes their popularity will convince other cities to get on board and stop designing cities for cars, but instead design them for people. That might decrease rent costs since there aren’t that many who can afford two and three thousand a month in rent. He also proposes city ordinances that set aside a certain number of apartments in each new apartment building for low income individuals and families.

As someone who doesn’t drive and doesn’t have a lot of money, I have to say I love Speck’s ideas and observations. I would love to live in a place and be able to walk nearly everywhere I need to go. In a way, I have that now. My apartment is within walking distance of two grocery stores, a few restaurants, the Merced Mall and Target. I can get to these places on foot, but the walk isn’t exactly pleasant. I have to walk through massive parking lots and along and across six lane streets. I’m often the only person around who doesn’t have a car. So I never go out for a stroll. I just don’t feel comfortable in this environment. If I go out, I go out for a purpose. The kind of neighborhoods Speck is talking about stimulate street life and community. Neighbors hang out in the streets in such neighborhoods. They visit friends and make new ones. I need a neighborhood like that. My apartment could be basic and small…a bed, a bath, a small kitchen and a desk.

It's Not Okay

All of my life, I have been frightened and intimidated by young men when they get rowdy and rude and generally full of themselves, and most especially when they’re in groups. I know most women have been harassed and intimidated by them. And I’m sure many men and boys experience the fight or flight syndrome when they encounter gangs like that, but most won’t admit it for fear of being labeled unmanly. That’s part of toxic masculinity. It is self-perpetuating because men who don’t want to be like that are threatened if they speak out.

Some want to excuse the boys in D.C. because they were supposedly provoked. Well, that religious extremist group was terrible, no doubt about that, but that doesn’t explain or excuse the boys’ reaction to the Native American man. It was rude, disrespectful and threatening as shit. I’ve seen it before a million times. I have been threatened, humiliated, and on a few occasions assaulted and sexually abused by young men like that, and so have a lot of people.

You know, LGBTs have to deal with religious crazies quite regularly. They show up at our Pride events, and they sometimes even show up at our funerals. But we’re expected to keep our cool. These same people who are now saying these boys were “provoked” would accuse us of not respecting religious liberty if we got out of hand in the presence of religious nuts.

This behavior is not okay. It’s not “boys being boys.” They’re like that because we train them to be like that. The shits in D.C. are going to get away with it even though they were caught on camera. They’re even going to be rewarded. And in a few years, they’re going to start having kids of their own, and they’ll teach their sons to be the same way. And they’ll tell their daughters and the gentle boys to deal with it.