Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiToward Walkability -- and Happiness
Over the 12 years I've spent advocating for walkable communities in about 2,500 towns and cities throughout the world -- including 20 or so in the Bay Area -- I've found a disparity in the level of happiness that appears to have nothing to do with levels of income.
In communities around San Jose, residents have an enviable standard of living in many respects, yet many don't seem as happy as one would expect in light of their income and the creative environment of Silicon Valley. What could be the cause? And more important, what are possible solutions?
A recent international study on happiness by researchers at Leicester University in England ranked the United States as only the 23rd happiest place in the world. Denmark is the happiest, according to the research.
It's probably no coincidence that more than 20 years ago, Denmark set a vision to become one of the best places to walk anywhere. It took a long time to get there, but the Danes apparently are very happy with their results.
Silicon Valley can follow this example. It can leverage its standard of living to increase its walkability and improve its quality of life.
One measure of quality of life is the level of access we have to the things we value most -- jobs, safe streets, affordable transportation and housing, and quality health care, schools and civic spaces such as parks and other gathering places.
The ability to walk to many of these places from our homes or places of employment generally raises that quality-of-life index. When researchers look for places where people are happiest, it's often in communities where they can live near where they work, walk their children to school and shop at stores within walking or biking distance.
In Silicon Valley communities, most people don't live near where they work. In fact, many of the cutting-edge thinkers and innovators of the region have the worst commute times in the country.
Studies also indicate people are least happy when in their cars, largely because they cannot predict what will slow them down, or when. Thus the long commutes of Silicon Valley have gotten more and more costly, not only in terms of money and time, but also happiness.
Unfortunately, over the past several decades, we've designed our communities to move automobiles, not people. Too much is tied to the auto and is out of walking and bicycling range for residents. The happiest places in the world were designed to accommodate and support people, not their cars.
Take a walk and test this out. Walk a street or corridor and look for ways to make it a better place, where people can get to know more people and are within walking distance of the things they love or need.
For existing streets, ask community leaders to redesign the rights of way to support walking and biking -- perhaps widening sidewalks and planting trees so that pedestrians feel protected from fast traffic.
For new development, encourage projects that are compact and walkable, with homes near stores and jobs, and streets that are comfortable to walk and bike. Connect streets so it's easy to get from one place to another without going out onto a multiple-lane road with fast traffic.
My work involves walking with people to discover what often turn out to be incredible opportunities and successes. To walk and talk through what changes are needed on a street, in a corridor, or in a downtown, and then see those towns convert to better places to live is both gratifying and encouraging. So, too, is seeing the happiness created in these places.
Silicon Valley's residents have a real opportunity to rethink what makes them most happy. Whether driven by gas prices, long commutes or the need to be more connected to our communities, we can redesign and improve our neighborhoods to get back on our feet.
And that, to me, is a happy thought.
Dan Burden is the founder of Walkable Communities Inc. and is a principal with community-planning firm Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin.
Copyright © 2008 - San Jose Mercury News
29 Comments so far
Show AllUSAn:
"Whose this "we"? Of course "market capitalists" don't consider externalities. That's how they get rich."
'We' is the vague collective we (didn't mean anyone in particular, just our society, our system). Can't agree with you more that market capitalists don't want to have to consider externalities. If they did, they might find that current businesses are no longer feasible. Those with vested interests in the status quo system don't want it to change.
As you say, somehow the government has lost the charge to protect the public good and has been bought off by big business. (After all, they have the money, eh?)
I have a glimmer of hope in that there are a number of recent books coming out questioning the existing market-purist ideology. Of course, wresting the control away from the econo-government complex will not come easy. But aren't we supposed have a government of the people, by the people and for the people?
"Market capitalists recognize the existence of and problems caused by externalities, but we haven't done a very good job of internalizing the externalities."
Whose this "we"? Of course "market capitalists" don't consider externalities. That's how they get rich.
The only entity that can impose the costs of externalities is government, but "you" have pretty much bought up the government, and fight like rabid dogs against even the most timid government measures for the public good. Where I live, a small group of bar and restaurant businessses is going to dismantle public transit for a metto area of 1.5 million, because their capitalist ideological purity and free-market fetishism, will not tolerate a poured drink tax, whose impact on their business is miniscule to nonexistent anyway.
USAn writes:
"The big thing that is missing is involvement of employers in where they locate businesses. When a business picks a workplace location, access via walking or public transit is totally off their radar. They look for a cheap square footage, access to a freeway, and don't even imagine that the workers would get ther any other way than car - and single-occupant car at that."
"The rise of suburbia with all it's deliberate land-use and energy inefficiencies, is the result of a stupendously profitable iron alliance of Big Detroit, Big Oil, and Big Real Estate - and a bit later, Big Box.
The ridiculous inefficiencies of suburbia are so obvious that it had to have been deliberate. They knew what they were doing."
Yeah, you're right. What you are describing has to do with what I tried to hint at, that is, the deficiencies in our economic system. The business location decision that doesn't consider transportation to the facility is an example of what economists call "externalities", that is, costs that the decider or purchaser doesn't have to pay but are shoved onto someone else. Market capitalists recognize the existence of and problems caused by externalities, but we haven't done a very good job of internalizing the externalities. Environmental and human costs are particularly tricky to internalize, hence we end up with an imperfect market and imperfect decision making.
I also wanted to mention another word to express the needed new paradigm -- "sustainability". Suburbs are a very unsustainable model for communities, transportation, etc.
Mr. Quinby wrote:
"Perhaps had we had a better understanding of environmental principles and our human interactions with the environment back 50+ years ago, we would have resisted the auto-based paradigm and thought more about healthy communities."
I doubt it. The rise of suburbia with all it's deliberate land-use and energy inefficiencies, is the result of a stupendously profitable iron alliance of Big Detroit, Big Oil, and Big Real Estate - and a bit later, Big Box.
The ridiculous inefficiencies of suburbia are so obvious that it had to have been deliberate. They knew what they were doing.
"That is the problem with this whole discussion, who can afford to live where there are no jobs?"
The big thing that is missing is involvement of employers in where they locate businesses. When a business picks a workplace location, access via walking or public transit is totally off their radar. They look for a cheap square footage, access to a freeway, and don't even imagine that the workers would get ther any other way than car - and single-occupant car at that.
They will brag about their "green" building design - then pick a location in the sprawling exurbs that results in millions of excess car-miles per year. Go figure.
Suburbanization is a tragic example of the short-sightedness that our economic system enables and a lack of considering how our economy is embedded within the environment. Perhaps had we had a better understanding of environmental principles and our human interactions with the environment back 50+ years ago, we would have resisted the auto-based paradigm and thought more about healthy communities. Well, that is in hindsight. However, I remember studying this issue way back in the early '70s when I was an undergraduate at university -- in fact, I remember a movie that had a song describing suburban housing as "they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all turn out just the same." So, even though the problem has been recognized for some 40 years now (and only 20 or so years after the beginning of the suburbanization boom), we still are only now starting to think seriously about the problem, and that only because gas prices are so high.
I grew up in the suburbs and hated it. Then I moved to a city neighborhood and loved it. Then stupidly (but for complicated reasons) I moved back out to the suburbs and hated it again (was stuck out there for 12 years). I moved back to the city two years ago in a very walkable neighborhood close to my work, and it is the best place I have ever lived (in Portland, Oregon in case you are curious). My son will soon be moving to Vancouver, British Columbia to attend university, and he is not taking his car -- the city is very walkable and bikeable, and the shops and restaurants in the neighborhood commercial areas are friendly, interesting, and comfortable. This is how our communities should be.
It's hard to imagine how the suburbs can be redeemed, given the sprawling, auto-centric infrastructure. Man, we have really gotten ourselves into a pickle, haven't we? Time for a new paradigm -- it's called ecological economics.
Mlwinkle,
Arcata is a great place to live, unfortunately like many other livable places, there are no jobs to support anyone who isn't in health care or fast food. I have been watching that area for years for any hope of supporting myself but have givn up since there isn't. That is the problem with this whole discussion, who can afford to live where there are no jobs?
miwinkle,
Neat web site!
My current home gets a 66 percent. My home until a couple years ago, in the Bloomfield neghborhood of Pittsburgh got a 98. Moving to a walkable neighborhood will reduce your carbon footprint far more than any other thing. And taht's not counting the quality of life improvement.
My take on the Virgo thing was the Mex bathrooms are filled with Scorpions (Scorpio) a sign incompatible to Virgo. Am I way off?
A website that helps assess the walkability of where you live is www.walkscore.com
My home address in Arcata, California has a walk score of 97 out of 100. Living in a walkable community is one of the most important reasons I live in Arcata. I am a member of the Arcata Planning Commission. The other members of the commission and I work hard to enforce Arcata's General Plan which mandates a compact, mixed-use community and balanced transportation which fully supports walking, bicycling, transit and other alternatives to cars. I am a board member of a local alternative transportation advocacy organization named, "Green Wheels". Since the beginning of 2007 I have kept a personal transportation log of all my motorized vehicle miles. For each trip I record, distance, miles per gallon, and number of passengers. For 2007 my total fuel consumption share was 46 gallons, about 6% of U.S. adult average. A blog entry that I wrote about this is at www.green-wheels.org/transportation-log
Answer to yesterday's "star" question (as per Virgo): there are no clean-up crews.
Even more to improve walkability and bikeability is to adjust zoning so there is a nice mix of homes, shops, and offices. This is because in the typical American subdivision, the nearest grocery story is 2 to 5 to 10 miles away and only accessible by car because of narrow roads or 4-lane highways with no shoulder (for bikes) or sidewalks (for pedestrians).
The biggest problem are the subdivisions that feed to highways, not into each other. It would be easy to connect these subdivisions for bikes and walking, while still forcing the cars to take the long way via the highway. This would greatly improve walkability and bikeability.
You first need communities compact enough so walking pleasant and practical.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious flaw in this article. The author was only considering his immediate area, but still a good point.
We meet a good many of our neighbors on morning walks, but rural areas and towns are too spread out for these suggestions in everyday life.
"BTW, we also call a toilet a toilet, and a bathroom a bathroom. You simply could not bathe in the toilet here, unless you used the public mens toilet. If you visit here, please don't ask to toilet in someones bathroom. Use the toilet instead."
Or just call it the "loo"...
Siouxroses remark about Mexico and virgos went over my head as well...
But back on topic, just adding sidewalks (or for that matter, public transit) to sprawling suburbia doesn't work. Walking along a wide boulevard full of speeding cars remains unpleasant and the destinations too distant.
You first need communities compact enough so walking pleasant and practical.
And as far as children playing, one of the surprising things about moving to an older city neighborhood is how children still play in the streets - while in suburbia there seem to be a pervading paranoia surrounding the raising of children that gets worse the farther out you go.
Sally,
I agree that Ohio has been the worst about abandoning it's downtown areas in it's numerous smaller cities for sprawl - which largely explains Ohio's lurch to the right. There is something about suburban sprawl and it's privatization of public space that destroys a sense of community and solidarity, leading to residents of such spaces forgetting the word "public" altogether.
@Siouxrose July 13th, 2008 11:43 pm
"Of course passing through much of Mexico constitutes any Virgo's nightmare. Many of you can figure that out…"
No, I live in Australia, and I cant figure that one out, and I would love to know. I hope you will fill me in.
BTW, we also call a toilet a toilet, and a bathroom a bathroom. You simply could not bathe in the toilet here, unless you used the public mens toilet. If you visit here, please dont ask to toilet in someones bathroom. Use the toilet instead.
P.S. Why dont Americans call it a "kitchen" ?
Dan Burden came to our community in Washington State and had great suggestions
Then there are those trains in India...
EZE: Funny rest room story. Years ago I lived in London and one day I really had to pee... but I was no where near a "tube station." I was impressed that these were situated about every 2 miles and all had clean rest rooms. Being American, I would stop people on the street to ask where I could find "a bathroom." I was given directions and just about to burst when I arrived at a place where one could take a bath. In England they say TOILET... so much for the euphemism and my bursting bladder!
I remember watching fireworks one fourth of July in New York City and again, the need to pee arose. The only way a restaurant would let you inside to use their bathroom was if you bought a certain amount of food or drink. New York is a very "toilet" unfriendly city, and must be especially so for the homeless.
Of course passing through much of Mexico constitutes any Virgo's nightmare. Many of you can figure that out...
Do you want your children walking or riding bikes in this car-crazy country? Let's first get rid of the car. We can do it gradually by starting with free public transit.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
http://freepublictransit.org
When I went to Europe nearly 12 years ago, what struck me first was how every city I visited was very pedestrian friendly, so much more so than in the US. Where I live, all the stores are on the outskirts of town and you are forced to drive EVERYWHERE just to be able to do your shopping. You cannot walk anywhere anymore because everything's moved out to the far edges of town, leaving our downtown riddled with empty storefronts that quickly get filled by seedy tattoo and piercing parlors and bars. Sure, those generate business, but they don't create the greatest impression on visitors to our downtown. There is very little actual retail where I live and what retail does exist doesn't usually last for long and is closed up and gone before long, because everyone goes to the Wal-Marts south, east and north of us. So I partially blame Wal-Mart for the destruction of our downtown district and that of the town just east of us, Ravenna.
The days of the mom 'n' pop grocery store or neighborhood business are over. Now it's all Big Box stores that require huge tracts of land to build on and people who work those places aren't people you know like you used to when you could shop at a neighborhood grocery store or a small downtown business run by one of your neighbors. I remember the days when I walked to my doctor office and then walked to the pharmacy to get my prescriptions filled by my neighbor, the pharmacist. My new doctor office is still downtown and I can still walk to the pharmacy, but it's a Big Box store and not a little local mom 'n' pop pharmacy like we used to have (that, when it closed, ended up yet another tattoo and piercing parlor, much to the dismay of many of us old Kent residents who remember the old hometown pharmacy that used to be there).
In these days of skyrocketing gas prices, we can no longer afford to build Big Boxes just outside of city limits or on the edges of towns that require us driving to get there. We need to re-establish the old walkable communities we once had when I was growing up. I get tired of having to depend on my car so much to get places that I would much rather be able to walk to. We need to encourage entrepreneurship and investment in downtowns again. What retail space has been lost to tattoo parlors has been gobbled up by office space, leaving us far too few storefronts in which to establish legitimate retail businesses run by local entrepreneurs. No more Big Box stores. It's time to go local again and bring back faltering downtowns to their once vibrant selves again and create walkable communities that will reap many benefits, among them a reduction in obesity because people won't be driving so many places and will instead take up the healthful habit of walking again. Or at least we can hope they will, anyway.
Walkable communities will also reduce our collective carbon footprint and the need to suck up so much oil driving here and there. So there are both health and environmental benefits to be had by the re-establishment of vibrant downtown shopping districts and walkable communities. There's no better time than the present to get started with such a good project - not to mention, it might actually get people back to work again who've given up trying to find a job in this ridiculous economy we're living in!
The proper way to think about a walk is that the moment you take your first step, you've arrived.
The path IS the destination.
Currently, the only people I usually see walking are people in the "other America" that Edwards used to talk about..
Great ideas. But let's remember to include wheelchair accessibility and clean public restrooms every couple of blocks.
It took us 50 years of suburban sprawl planning to get where we are. The first step in reversing that trend is for communities to organize to reverse the zoning status quo which promotes the segregations of such uses as residential, small commercial, business, educational etc. These uses have traditionally coexisted in urban centers, the walkable communities, but have been banned from new developments. It did not happen by accident. The so-called "American Dream" was based on a house surrounded by pristine lawns, a car in the garage and an inexhaustible supply of cheap gasoline making the trip to the mall cheap and convenient. Now with $ 4.00/gal gas and rising, welcome to the "american nightmare".
Walkways need to be considered in concert with crime. The culture today is dangerous with both kids and adults being harmed or even abducted. There may be places that are civil enough to allow for them, but far too many places are not. The mean streets of America can just as easily become the mean walkways.
I'm in favor of overpasses on highways (foot bridges). If we can spend billions killing people overseas, we can certainly spend some money on safety for walkers!! (I'm a non-driver, too - wouldn't have it any other way!)
As one of the minority of adult non-drivers, I've learned the hard way how pedestrian-unfriendly ex-urban and suburban areas can be.
I used to try and shop at a supermarket on a cross-highway not far from a bus stop on the main highway. But of course, there was no sidewalk-- just a narrow strip of grass obstructed by the guard rail. This quarter-mile stretch, inches away from cars whizzing by, was just too harrowing to manage when carrying a couple of grocery bags.
Such "No-Man's Land" configurations are everywhere; even the local shopping center only has a walkway on one side of the entrance driveway; the architects saved the developer a few bucks by simply not bothering to add a walkway to BOTH sides. Again, the pedestrian either has to go out of his or her way-- or simply trample over the plants where the other walkway should be.
What strikes me about these configurations is that their designers obviously gave no thought whatsoever to pedestrian traffic, or simply assumed that it is so negligible that it wasn't worth consideration (and investment).
The public transit authority never answered my long-ago letter suggesting that the bus route be modified to "loop" into the supermarket parking lot, and I know for damn sure that the strip mall owners aren't going to put in those missing walkways for MY benefit.
It's one thing to begin implementing more pedestrian-friendly environments with new construction, but how can our existing infrastructure be transformed? I'm genuinely asking. I just don't see more than lip service being paid to the non-driving constituencies, and the highway-dominated suburban landscape shows no signs of accommodating walkers.
I walk just about everywhere if I can help it. Can't say i'm "happier" - I live in the U.S., which is unhappiness producing these days for me!
If you can walk instead of ride, it's healthy & productive & cost efficient, too. I hope more communities adopt better walkways and more access for walkers (& bike riders, too). Using less gasoline is good. Walking is healthy and a good habit to develop!! Perhaps if more of us abandoned our car culture we WOULD be happier!! (: