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 

The Bikeable Suburbs of Copenhagen and Munich

Suburbs in Munich and Copenhagen are designed around and for diverse means of transportation. In contrast to this, the trend in American suburbs has been design around and for automobiles; travel by car is the only means of transportation built into the infrastructure, creating dependency on cars, unsafe roadways and traffic. 

Since I have a strange obsession with urban cores and like to focus my attention away from suburbs (especially American suburbs, simply because I think they are characterless and ugly - wide, spread out lots and streets with cookie-cutter houses give me anxiety), I can't help but to notice how differently the suburbs in Europe evolved in terms of planning, design, and function.

A few pictures will help. 

Brøndby, Denmark (suburb of Copenhagen)

Peds, Bikes, Cars/Buses

Barrier between bike lane and street for added safety

Street obstacles force cars to slow down

Slower traffic increases safety to encourage bikers

One-car-at-a-time

Vaterstetten and Baldham, Germany (suburb of Munich) 

CLICK ME

Paths for Sunday afternoon walks

Roadway incorporates greenery

Smaller streets = slower traffic

Mirrors help see around corners

Designated "Play Street" - more on this later

Mixed streets, varying priority for people/bikes and cars

Several non-car "secret passage ways"

Watch for bikes

Watch for peds

Sidewalk for peds, street for bikes and cars

Cars never drive fast down these roads

This stoplights only purpose is to stop traffic for peds

Open for all kinds of traveling

Similar road blocks in the street as Denmark

Not many pictures are needed of American suburbs since they all pretty much look alike (images from Google).

How does one walk or bike around in this mess???

A Bicycle Culture: The Facts

1. The bicycle is the most efficient mode of transportation

Not only is a bicycle the most efficient mode of transportation, but biking can also be the most convenient and safest ways to a destination. This is very dependent on the local biking infrastructure and policies (to be continued...).

2. For mental health, biking or walking to work is psychologically better for you

According to a study by a group of health economists in the UK, active commuting (biking and/or walking) contributes to improved well being, better concentration at work, and less stress.

Psychological health: for the purposes of this study, the research team looked at aspects including feelings of worthlessness, unhappiness, sleepless nights, and being unable to face problems. Factors such as income, children, moving house or job, and relationship changes were also factors. 

Commute time is also important: "our study shows that the longer people spend commuting in cars, the worse their psychological well being. And correspondingly, people feel better when they have a longer walk to work." 

This information has recently been covered by BBC. 

 3. Biking is great for your body and health

Okay, this one is obvious, but "being and staying healthy" and "public health" are hot topics these days! How can we improve our physical health (along with mental health)? Simple: hop on a bike

What so many people don't realize is that, say you live relatively close to work and you commute to work by bike a few times a week. Forget going to the gym or feeling the need to work out -- you've got your daily or weekly exercise out of the way, without making it an extra chore. Seamlessly improving personal health.

In fact, Women's Health states that "half of American workers live within five miles of their workplace, according to the most recent National Household Transportation Survey. That's a totally doable 20-minute ride each way. If you live close to your office, you can pedal to work twice a week and burn up to 3,000 extra calories—close to one pound of fat—each month."

If you live close to work and are able to, try out the bike commute and see how you like it. You're going to have to get to work one way or another, you might as well burn calories while you do it! 

4. Commuting by bike is great for your wallet

Forbes notes that in the U.S. bicyclists can save "at least $4.6 billion a year by riding instead of driving."

A car comes with expenses like gas, maintenance, oil, and insurance. Not to mention that it's not an investment in the slightest: the value of a vehicle drops significantly the second you drive it off the lot. A bike has the initial cost of a couple hundred dollars, but after that, the maintenance and equipment costs are so minimal compared to that of a car. Plus you can usually always get front row parking with a bike.

5. Biking reduces traffic congestion and air pollution in cities 

Who doesn't want to breathe cleaner and healthier air, and reduce travel time in cars? Enough said. 

6. The Dutch lead the way for biking and walking, followed by Denmark and Germany - the U.S. has work to do

Copenhagen winter, image via Copenhagenize

And it's not like these 3 top countries have extraordinarily great weather year-round, either...

I am lucky to have lived (and be a current resident) in 2 of the 3 top countries for biking! I love to bike and walk, so it works out great for me.

Sources and more:
Reasons to Ride 
Exploratorium 
Rutgers.edu 
Rudi.net 
Copenhagenize 
Women's Health 
Science Daily 
Share the Road 
Mint.com 
Forbes 
Psych Central 
Science Daily 
Biking: A proven stress reliever
Forbes - The Costs and Savings of Bicycle Commuting 
How Much Money Can I Save Biking to Work?