The "Living Street"

The following pictures were taken in Baldham and Vaterstetten, small suburbs of Munich, Germany:

I was familiar with these blue signs, likely from the year I spent living in Germany as a younger girl, but never really took a moment to think about what they actually meant, legal implications and all. After walking through a part of my neighborhood I'd never walked before and seeing a number of these signs, I decided to dig deeper. I was happy to find an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the "Living Street." The German legislation is as follows: "Vehicles should not travel faster than a pedestrian speed. If not same grade then street usable by pedestrians. Parking is only allowed in marked places. Pedestrians, including children, may use the entire street and children are permitted to play in the street."  

I grew up on what would definitely be considered a "living street." And not because a sign was posted determining a maximum car speed, but because the 80-some kids on my block made it a living street. So, I have a very personal perception of the function of a street, or what its function should be. Importantly, I believe - because I've witnessed it - the way people think about and act around streets has drastically changed in my lifetime and even since I was schoolkid.

This concept of a designated multi-functional street is relatively new, being introduced in the 1970s in the Netherlands and spreading to over a dozen countries since. And while I feel a very personal and direct connection to the idea of the living street, I nonetheless think these signs accompanied by laws are a fantastic idea! I grew up with our street as a play place, and the fact that streets (especially city streets) have become car-dominated and dangerous is quite frankly saddening to me. 

My wish would be to create more "living streets" in cities and bring back the street as a fun and safe social place and multi-use playground.

More pictures of multi-use streets in full effect in the downtown area of Passau, Germany:

It's starting to happen:
Copenhagen has done it (what city is leading, as always ;)
New York City is doing it (click on the "Renderings" image!)





More on this topic to come...

Is Perpetual Densification to Eliminate the Suburbs the Answer?

A Planetizen article published in 2011 uses the case study of Athens to explore a "city without suburbs."

Athens, Greece started eradicating its suburbs in the 1970s and continued this densification goal through the 80s. There were four main reasons for this push: 1) confined land space, 2) a capitalistic political system, 3) developer lobbying, and 4) increasing population pressure. In 1981 the municipality peaked at a population of 885,000 with a density of approximately 60,000 people per square mile. Although its population has been on the decline since the 2000s, it remains one of the most dense urban areas in the developed world. 

As the city's compactness and so-called walkability in the suburbs grew, car ownership did not decrease, and positive impacts for modes of walking, cycling, and transit were not reported. Between 1990 and 2000, public transit actually fell while private transport increased. To paraphrase the conclusion from the Planetizen article: "Athens exemplifies every single urbanist approach, yet fails to deliver anticipated results. Elements in the Athenian version of natural urbanism have produced unwelcome outcomes; the pinnacle of urbanisn that achieved the eradication of suburbs came at substantial quality of life and environmental costs. 
"Dysfunctional cases in any discipline trigger insights by demanding explanation.
Athens is a case of dysfunctional urbanism and offers a true laboratory for testing assumptions, principles, and theories toward a more robust model of an urbane city."

I will take it upon myself to address the last part of this article. The first and most important question is: was there a plan from the beginning? What was it? Was it simply to answer the demand for population increase, or were there additional, more comprehensive goals? At least from this article's information, the 4 reasons mentioned above seem to answer that question. The article points out that Athens ranks lowest on a quality of life ranking for Western European cities; it's filled with noise, traffic, and pollution. Traffic fatalities also rank among the highest comparatively. These are indications that the city may not have incorporated plans to manage the consequences of an increasing population. 

My conclusion: Athens is not the case of dysfunctional urbanism, it's the case of dysfunctional planning, or lack thereof. The city's goal was to eradicate the suburbs and increase density - this was achieved. So it did succeed, if only in this way. It seems to me that quality of life was pushed under the rug in the attempt to attract and fit more people. Yet a place can immediately loose its appeal as social and environmental issues are sacrificed. Shelter alone won't cut it; people need connection and community as well. Athens may exemplify a few elements of urbanism very well, so while those can be used as a lesson, the case study as a whole can be used to see interconnectivity at work. And because of this dense web of connections, we will never get a complete story of the past, nor will we be able to predict the future. But we sure can plan with intention, holistic goals, and measurable targets towards better living situations and healthier lives for people in our cities and on this planet.

Food for thought: "If you build it, they will come" ...

Sources
Planetizen 
newgeography 

The "End of the Car Age" and how technology makes it happen

A great article from the Guardian (thanks Scott Moen aka Dad!) about how many cities are transitioning away from cars. The article digs into a couple different facets, but I decided to highlight the link between the "end of the car age" and the "digital age," as it relates directly to me.

Digital technology will have a major role in creating collaborative platforms for urban mobility:

"Digital information is the fuel of mobility,” says Gilles Vesco, the politician responsible for the city of Lyon, France's sustainable transport. “Some transport sociologists say that information about mobility is 50% of mobility. The car will become an accessory to the smartphone."

"The more that we have people sharing transportation modes, public space, information and new services, the more attractive the city will be."

In order for cities to compete they will need to be increasingly interconnected and multi-modal: a variety of public transit and healthy lifestyle options that include bike-friendly roadways, cycle superhighways, bike-shares, car-shares, bus service, subways, trams, and increased walkability. This also means cities will need to focus on providing reliable technological infrastructure. Being well connected on a physical and city-wide scale is equally important today as being connected on a digital scale. All which will lessen car-dependence and make owning a private automobile inconvenient relative to the variety of options that are readily available at our fingertips and often times free (transit apps for smartphones) or less expensive.

"Generation Y, or millennials, now in their 20s and early 30s who have come of age in the digital era, seem less wedded to possessions than their baby boomer predecessors. Smartphones are prized objects and the future of transport is likely to be based not on individually owned cars but on “mobility as a service.” Consumers will, so the theory goes, use their smartphones to check ultra-detailed travel news, locate car-club cars or bikes, check for parking spaces, call up Uber drivers, and arrange shared rides. Who needs a personally owned car?"

This may be part of a "theory" of reality in general right now and as far as this article goes, but, on a daily basis I either walk, take a bus, request an Uber, check my real-time travel app, or locate and arrange a car club or share. I am living proof that this is happening right now.

Early Observations of San Francisco

It's hard to believe I visited San Francisco this past January 2015 before taking the real plunge in moving to the city the following month. I had been here once before in September 2011 for a tournament with my college soccer team (doesn't count, right?). Little did I know I would be back to stay, and so quick to fall in love with this place for so many reasons. The above picture was taken in January because I was so exited to finally be here and to start making observations on the minute details of the city that I have such an eye for. Unfortunately, I haven't had many pictures to follow this (hence my falling behind on intended posts). And there was also the whole "finding a place to live in the most expensive and housing-competitive city in the country" that was a distracting priority. It's almost as if I've stopped noticing many of the details that make this city amazing, and maybe that was okay too, because that's exactly what makes life in here that great. Natives or people who are accustomed to this lifestyle may not understand what makes this place tick. People who just experience living here shorter term question why they would ever leave and ask what was so wrong (different) about back home.
On a different note, that may be the best part: the chance to be and become a part of the routine, because I notice these things. I won't ever fail to recognize that I am living in what is quite possibly the closest to my dream world, every single day. These realizations have created the opportunity for me to be more conscious and mindful of what I do and see on a daily basis, with the goal of sharing my experiences here on this blog.

Some of my first observations of this city:

• The "Green Wave" that has traffic signals set for 13 mph - the average speed of a bike. Convenience for bikes is favored over cars.  
• The density. San Francisco is 7 miles by 7 miles. It's a growing city. Everything must be built close, in between, or on top of something else.
• That makes it really easy to walk, bike, transit, etc. places (the most you would ever need to travel to get from one end of the city to the other is... 7 miles!)
• Suburban sprawl doesn't and physically cannot exist. Therefore big box stores and parking lots do not exist (my biggest eyesores!)
• Public transportation is almost too easy. So much variety! The electric buses are cool and it shows that the city cares about air pollution.
• It's annoying and expensive to own a car here. Parking? Traffic? No thanks. 
• Then again people love their benz and beamers...money. But there are also many homeless people - the whole range is present.
• I expected more bicyclists. In my opinion, not enough people bike and/or the city could be doing more for bike commuters. Catering for hobby cyclists and tourists?
• The neighborhoods (!!) filled with contrasting vibes and people that allow the blending of diverse communities together.
• Oh yeah, and the weather is phenomenal.

For those of you who still check back and follow, thanks for sticking with me! Much much more to come,

Kristin

Good Transit and Well Being

The journal Transportation published relevant and interesting research done by professor Jason Cao from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs. The article "The association between light rail transit and satisfactions with travel and life: evidence from Twin Cities" was published March 2013. The research looks at the light rail line that runs from downtown Minneapolis to the airport and Mall of America. The Hiawatha Light Rail/METRO Blue Line opened in 2004 and has been followed up by the METRO Green Line running from downtown Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul via University Avenue that opened up last June 2014.
CityLab did an article based on Cao's study entitled "Living Near Good Transit May Make You Happier". 

Cao wanted to find out if the new transit line was contributing to the well-being of nearby residents. A survey was sent out to 4 communities with varying access to transit. The findings: "People in the Hiawatha corridor had higher ratings on questions related to the quality of their lives compared to people in the other four corridors." Cao's idea is that no matter the reason, more life satisfactions comes from a higher level of mobility that the light rail provides.

In conclusion, these publications back up a claim that I have always have felt to be true. Since experiencing my first round of a great public transit system in Germany in 2001, and the second round in Copenhagen in 2012, and then most recently this past fall, once again in Munich, Germany, it has always seemed that a quality transit system somehow just makes life better. I felt it personally, but I also felt it among the communities I was living in. It's almost impossible to describe unless you've felt it for yourself, but it seems right that accessibility, equity, mobility, etc., all improve around good transit, and that in turn puts people more at ease in some way. Once you really stop to think about it, it makes sense. I may have sounded crazy to have come out and said this on my own, and since I'm not currently conducting any official research, I was thrilled to have found CityLab's and Cao's publications that prove that quality transit can help influence a high quality of life. 

The METRO Green Line generated at least $2.5 billion worth of economic development within half a mile of the new transit system

Original Jason Cao study (access to full article is not available)

Access and Outcomes: Transportation, Location, and Subjective Well-Being - Eric Andrew Morris UCLA Dissertation