Tag Archives: compact

The Problem of Gigantism

By Dom Nozzi

January 13, 2017

Gigantism, in my opinion, is a HUUUUUGE problem in America.

Enormous roads, enormous setbacks, enormous (and improperly located) parking lots, enormous (and improperly located) stormwater basins, enormous distances between destinations, enormous road intersections, enormous subdivisions, enormously tall street lights, enormous signs, enormous retail areas.Monster road intersection

The enormity of the American land use pattern is obvious when one walks the historic center of so many European cities and towns. My recent visit to Tuscany with my significant other was, once again, so saddening and maddening because the streets we walked were so stunningly lovable, charming, and romantic. Americans have thrown all of that charm away in our car-happy world.

Not only is it impossible to love most all of urban America. It is also, as Charles Marohn points out so well, impossible to afford to maintain. A double whammy of unsustainability. And extreme frustration in my career as a town planner who toiling for decades to try to nudge our society toward slowing down our ruinous love affair with making the world wonderful for car travel. And finding that even most smart people in America strongly oppose going back to the timeless way of building for people instead of cars.

It is said that dinosaurs went extinct due in large part to gigantism. I believe the same fate is likely for America, unless our society wakes up and realizes we are way better off in so many ways if we get back to building our world at the (walkable) human scale.

A friend asked me recently what I would do if I were in charge, had a blank slate, and could design a community any way I desired.

If I had such an opportunity, my community would be much more compact and human-scaled. One can walk historic town centers in Europe for models of what I speak of here.

WAY less “open space” for cars is essential.

I would ratchet down our extreme (and artificial) auto-centric value system by making roads and parking and gasoline purchases and car buying directly paid for much more based on USER FEES rather than having all of society pay for happy cars via such things as sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes.

In other words, making our world much more fair and equitable.

We have over-used and over-provided for car travel and car housing in large part because the cost to do so is mostly externalized to society rather than directly paid for via user fees. Eventually — maybe not in our lifetimes? — car travel will be mostly paid for via user fees and externalized costs will be more internalized. Car travel will therefore become much more expensive, signaling us to cut down on our over-reliance on it.

When that happens, we will inevitably see the re-emergence of the lovable, human-scaled world we once had. Fortunately, we are starting to see car travel becoming much more expensive and unaffordable — even though it continues to fail to be user-fee based.

And we are seeing the Millennial generation showing much more interest in compact town center living and much less interest in being car happy.

It is way past time for our society to a people-happy rather than car-happy world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Road Diet, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

Population Growth, Density, and Cars

 

By Dom Nozzi

January 3, 2016

I have a friend who fears a huge growth in population in our area due to how attractive our area is considered, and is worried that it will result in intolerable density.

I informed her, to the contrary, that for the past 80 years, America has seen population growth WITHOUT higher density. There is absolutely no certainty that more people in the area will mean more density. If the NIMBYs remain powerful in the region (extremely likely), we will instead see more low-density, car-dependent sprawl.

In addition to a lot more cars on the road.

We will see a lot more cars on the road than would be the case if the NIMBYs did not block cities like ours from having the projected growth in our area live in more compact settings. The NIMBYs fighting for low density, in other words, are responsible for giving our area a traffic jam on huge hwyLOT more cars. What an irony, since NIMBYs HATE more crowded roads and parking lots.

Yes, there is a trend over the past several years of people (especially young people) to want to move into town centers and not want to live in sprawl. A huge problem in our community, I informed her, is that the NIMBYs loving low density will continue to violently fight to stop ANY development in the town center because they HATE more compact development.

So while much of the remainder of the nation will see a growth in town center housing, the NIMBYs in our community — who love low density — will do whatever they can to stop pretty much all of that healthy trend.

Ironically, the NIMBYs will fight new housing to keep roads and parking from getting more crowded. The result of their efforts will, however, be MORE cars than would have been the case had they not fought against new housing.

Be careful what you fight for, I told her. You might get it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation

Can We Fix Sprawl by Making It Cleaner and Prettier?

 

By Dom Nozzi

April 2, 2001

A friend recently created a “Worst Streets” list. Overall, I think the Worst Streets list is a fantastic idea.

One thing I’d hate to have happen with the Worst Streets list, but nevertheless expect, is that a number of folks might think that the nastiest thing about auto-oriented sprawl is how ugly it is, and think that all we need to do is Keep America Beautiful litter campaigns and sign control along our ugly streets and everything will be peachy keen.

This is not even remotely accurate.

In fact, one could argue that one of the things that sprawl is good at is making things look pretty and clean (compared to those “grimy, ugly” inner cities).

The attractiveness of a street is comparatively trivial to the key issues of buildings and street trees being close to the street, designing for transportation choice, no more than three lanes, no double-left turn lanes, and low design speed. If we get those elements right, the street will inevitably be attractive and free of such horrors as screaming signage, and no transportation choice.

If we don’t, we’re not doing anything sustainable or effective to fix the street.

So while I think the “best” and “worst” street list would be great for communities, we need to strive to get the publicity for the lists focused on what REALLY matters. As Ed downloadAbbey once said, it’s not the beer cans I mind – it’s the roads.

Following some media publicity about the worst streets, some have disagreed with the ranking of their street. One said that “Sprawl and auto dependence is not bad. We don’t think the street is ‘dirty’ or ‘ugly.'”

Such comments are missing the point, as I note above. In fact, sprawl and strip commercial is usually more attractive (to a motorist, at least) and clean than places which boast quality urbanism. Again, we need the ranking of worst streets to focus on function problems, not visual problems, so that citizens do not get confused about what we mean by “worst.”

The worst streets are those with large building setbacks, a large number of roadway lanes, lack of street trees, lack of transportation choice, etc.

Let’s avoid the Martha Stewart solutions and concerns. We don’t want to mislead people into thinking that sign control or litter control are the problems that will fix a bad street. To me, those are mostly the unpleasant secondary outcomes of a street with poor functional design. Get the underlying functional problems corrected, and the secondary litter, signage, and franchise architecture schlock will start fading away on its own.

Ultimately, it comes down to having street designers respected by citizens. We have the citizens agree that a street is bad. The citizens then turn to their trusty professional designers and say: “Tell us how to fix the street so it is good.” We certainly do not want them (or conventional traffic engineers or most elected officials) to come up with solutions that don’t get at the root of the problem.

The street is not bad primarily because of litter or sign pollution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation

Suboptimizing on Trees

By Dom Nozzi

June 14, 2002

“Suboptimizing” occurs when one objective is so single-mindedly and aggressively pursued that other important objectives are neglected.

I observed a stark example of this when I was a town planner for Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville strongly suboptimized trees, to the substantial detriment of walkable urbanism.

For example, few years ago, I was forced by my supervisors to insert in several confusing, silly sentences into a “traditional neighborhood development” (TND) ordinance I had written to promote compact, walkable, human-scaled neighborhood development.

The inserted language needed to describe “engineered soil.”

Not only was the definition inherently confusing and complex. I was told by a number of local landscape architects that (a) they have never heard of such soil and/or (b) that such soil would be quite expensive to install. So the TND ordinance I had drafted — which was already too onerous for a rational developer to use to build a subdivision — became even more difficult to use by developers because Gainesville’s elected officials wanted big trees.

This is yet another reason why it is rare for developers to build walkable places. In this case, this unfortunate state of affairs persists because big trees are quite often incompatible with a modest, walkable, human-scaled building-street-sidewalk design.

All of the above is not to say that street trees are expendable. No, street trees are essential for a great street, but are not sufficient. And it is important that when street trees are selected that they not be too large to undercut the essential, human-scaled needs of the pedestrian.

In another example, I had been directed to amend my “Traditional City” ordinance (also designed to promote compact, walkable, human-scaled design) to make street trees required in the Gainesville town center (landscaping was currently not required in the town center). The rules would require that the City require town center developers to jam street trees into all developments and redevelopments. This would add additional complexity, burden, and confusion to the ordinance, and add another disincentive to build or infill in the town center.

A third example was when I heard there was a very good chance that for a proposed new county courthouse parking garage, the town center would not be getting desperately needed on-street parking (one of the most crucial amenities needed for a quality pedestrian experience) along the courthouse street frontages.

Why?

Well it was not, at least, for the goofy reason that stopped the designer from installing on-street parking in front of the new courthouse itself. In that case, the reason was that there is a childish fear of truck-bombers.

No, on-street parking next to the new garage was not going to be stopped because of a fear of a terrorist boogie monster like Timothy McVeigh.

On-street parking was not going to be possible because Gainesville was requesting big trees. The city could have both on-street parking and trees, but trees such as palm trees were unacceptable…

The end result was predictable and nearly certain: Gainesville would soon amend its walkablility codes (in particular, walkability regulations for TND, Traditional City, University Heights, and College Park) for the all-important suboptimizer of big trees. Doing that would push buildings back from the street, discourage desperately needed in-town, infill, walkable development, and substantially increase the cost of infill development. Thereby creating less-walkable streets.

By suboptimizing on big trees, Gainesville misses an essential design principle: In the town center, the needs of pedestrians come first. Not the needs of live oak trees. By neglecting this principle, Gainesville shows either a lack of awareness of the important needs of a town center. Or has no real interest in creating a healthy town center.

The lush, big-tree landscaping looks wonderful from your windshield as you whiz by in your car in Atlanta and Gainesville. But where are the pedestrians? Why are they not img_0263out walking? Isn’t it enough that we provided a lot of shading live oaks?

Has there been a time over the past 30-40 years when Gainesville has not suboptimized on big trees as the number one priority? Has that done anything to stop Gainesville from taking big steps toward becoming a sprawling, car-happy place? Has that done anything to promote walking on Gainesville’s sidewalks?

Lessons from Other Parts of the World

Which cities and streets are the most popular tourist destinations in the world? Are they the cities with streets that look like a forest due to being lined with oaks? Nope. They are the cities with narrow, treeless streets. Why? If it were true that street trees were the most essential element to a street that the world loves to flock to, we’d find everyone flocking to the streets with the most incredible canopy.

But it is very rare for one of the most popular, famous, loved streets in the world are famed because of their tree canopy.

Again, while street trees are nearly always essential for a quality street, they are not sufficient and are not the top priority for designing a street that the world loves. The top priorities for creating a great street are these:

  1. Higher residential density along the street.
  2. A mix of residences, offices, and shops along the street.
  3. Modest dimensions for street widths and building setbacks.

The “3 Ds” — density, diversity, dimensions — when in place together, are usually sufficient. They are the first things we must require of a street when looking for the ingredients to create a great street. Only then do we worry about installing those important street trees.

A number of great Italian cities demonstrate this — Florence, Venice, Siena, Rome. The 3 Ds are therefore the first things we must require of a street. Only then do we think about installing trees, and maybe more ample sidewalks.

The problem all over America: We always put in way too much space on our streets, we prohibit density, and we separate homes from offices and shops. We then wonder why streetscape tactics such as street furniture, street trees and wide sidewalks don’t “fix” such a street. Unless we install the 3 Ds up front, street trees and wide sidewalks are a trivial band-aid for a terminally ill patient.

The issue is not whether we could fit shade trees within our most narrow streets. That is a given. In a city where it is all about trees, it is a given that we will find a way to retrofit trees on such streets. No, the real issue is what our land development codes require for new development. That is the battle I’m interested in here. It is very difficult for me to live in a city (Gainesville) in which so much auto-oriented slum has been built so consistently for so many decades.

This was somewhat mitigated for me as a town planner for Gainesville, as I was able to find I had a marginal amount of influence in not seeing car-happy design dominate all development in Gainesville. What drove me to persist was that I did everything I could to see that the new stuff that was built without making the same suburban mistakes — at least in zones I mentioned above (such as Traditional City and TND).

And that is the rub. Gainesville was consistently watering down and suburbanizing their codes. Staff, commissioners, and citizens see to it that any time modest, walkable, human-scaled dimensional standards are proposed that we immediately emasculate the regulations by enlarging the dimensions for our fire trucks and live oaks. In other words, the new stuff will continue to march us towards being an Atlanta instead of a Florence.

An enormous problem all over America: We always put in way too much space, we prohibit density, and we separate uses. We then wonder why street trees and wide sidewalks don’t “fix” such a street. Unless we do density/mixed use/modest dimensions up front, street trees and wide sidewalks are a trivial band-aid for a terminally ill patient.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Urban Design

Road Diets

 

By Dom Nozzi

November 19, 2002

Road diets occur when travel lanes are removed from a road. Cities and Automobile Dependence, by Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, was the book that first brought my attention to the benefits of road diets.road diet before and after

In the book, by using comparative data from a number of cities throughout the world, the authors make the persuasive case that more compact, congested areas can lead to a REDUCTION in fuel consumption and air pollution on a regional basis (among other beneficial things). The conventional wisdom, of course, says the opposite.

The primary rationale used by the authors is that modest roads and congestion reduce the number of “low value” car trips (the car trips to drive across town on a major arterial at rush hour in order to, say, rent a video). Big roads encourage, attract, or otherwise induce low-value trips. Road diets reverse that process. On more modest roads, or congested roads, some folks decide to drive at non-rush hour times, or choose a different route, or travel by bus/bike/foot.

More information about “low-value” car trips can be found on Todd Litman’s On-Line TDM Encyclopedia at the Victoria Transport Institute.

Newman and Kenworthy make the point that in more compact, congested areas, trips tend to be shorter, and more travel options are available, so more trips tend to be non-car trips.

Over the long term, congestion or modest roads encourage infill and densification as people start relocating to locations that are closer to their daily destinations. By doing so, it would seem that there would be a regional reduction in car volumes. This sort of long-term effect is due, at least in part, to what is called the “travel time budget.” That is, a number of researchers have pointed out that cross-culturally and throughout history, people will, on average, commute for 1.1 hours per day. Increasing the speed of urban roads (or fattening them) will, over the long run, disperse development and increase the amount of auto dependency in the region.

This happens because people are moving back to the 1.1-hour equilibrium (you can live further away from your daily travels and still maintain the 1.1-hour commute time).

Conversely, slowing speeds and putting (or keeping) roads on a diet does the reverse. The 1.1-equilibrium is returned to by retaining (or returning to) a more compact community size that corresponds to a more modest, 1.1-hour commute-shed (again, over the long term).

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Road Diet, Transportation

The Appropriateness of Nature in Cities

By Dom Nozzi

July 18, 2004

Introducing nature into cities nearly always degrades the human habitat.

WHAT????

I say this about nature in cities even though I am an advocate for urban open space.

After all, I have a degree in environmental science, so I understand the importance academically.

When I was a child, the most profound, critically important, priceless experience I had was to be able to play in the neighborhood woodlands. I did that ALL the time. The main inspiration for my becoming a city planner was that I wanted to be in a job in which I could work to see that future generations of kids had that same opportunity, as NOT having that experience would lead to an awful, sterile, barren childhood. Indeed, a study once looked at a HUGE number of variables to determine if there was a correlation between childhood experiences and wanting to conserve the environment as an adult. The study found that there was one variable that stood out head and shoulders above the others. Adult conservationists typically were able to engage in unstructured, unsupervised play in natural areas near their home when they were kids.

Because of the above, I remain a leading advocate for establishing an urban greenway trail systems in cities. Such a system is the only effective way I know of to allow kids (and

Boulder Greenway Canopy

adults) to have easy walking/bicycling access to the natural world, on a regular basis, right outside their back door. Nothing is better able to create the army of conservationists our environment needs.

I would therefore hold my strong desire for urban open space up against anyone else with the expectation that my desire would be stronger. I am intensely supportive of URBAN open space.

Note that I say urban open space. This is a crucial qualifier. The urban habitat (in contrast to the suburban and rural) MUST be compact and walkable if it is to be a high quality urban habitat. That means that if we are to introduce nature into the urban world, we must be as careful as if we were planning to introduce human activity into a wildlife habitat.

In the former case, the introduced nature MUST be compact and walkable. In other words, small, vacant woodlots, plazas, squares, piazzas, utility corridors, creek corridors, etc. are perfectly compatible with walkability. One can easily walk from origin A to destination B without an enormous amount of physical exertion. By contrast, putting a golf course or even a 50-acre park in the middle of a city creates an UNwalkable condition, as the distance between A and B becomes too excessive to easily walk (Central Park in NYC can work because NYC has extremely high densities and a quality transit system that means you can easily walk or ride to all of your daily needs along the PERIMETER of the park without having to cross it on foot).

In other words, big open spaces in a lower density community would create unwalkable spaces that would degrade the urban habitat in such cities.

The key for most cities is to preserve and create URBAN open spaces while retaining walkability. Greenway trails that wind their way through neighborhoods and small parks are compatible.

Big, unwalkable parks are not.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Urban Design

Questions and Answers About My Planning Career and Lessons Learned

By Dom Nozzi

September 26, 2013

In September of 2013, a college student asked me about my city planning career and the lessons I learned in my work.

  1. What were your primary responsibilities in City of Gainesville, FL?

DN: As a long-range senior comprehensive planner, I prepared staff recommendations for proposed zoning, special exception, special use permit, and land use changes. I authored several environmental, transportation, and urban design land development regulations for Gainesville. I also authored the long-range transportation, land use, urban design, environmental conservation, recreation, and solid waste plans for Gainesville. My specialties and passions were promoting quality of life by properly designing for walkable streets, form-based codes, transportation choice, and employing “plain English” when writing land development codes.

  1. Could you share some of the highlights of your career?

DN: In 1989, I heard a speech by Andres Duany, and read essays by Walter Kulash, Jeff Kenworthy, Anthony Downs, and Peter Newman. The remarks by these individuals were an epiphany for me. I realized that the key way to design a community for quality of life was to return to the timeless tradition of making people happy, not cars. Particularly in town centers, I realized that the pedestrian was the design imperative. And that tactics which promoted or convenienced car travel were counterproductively degrading quality of life. The professional achievements I am most proud of were being the lead planner for creating a bicycle and pedestrian greenway path system in Gainesville, and being the lead planner for creating creek setback regulations. I am also proud of writing the long-range transportation, land use, and urban design plans for Gainesville, and authoring the “Traditional City” form-based code for Gainesville’s town center. Most importantly, the Traditional City code eliminated parking minimums for cars, and inverted those minimums so that they became parking maximums. I prepared land development regulations for large-format retailers, customized form-based codes for the University Heights and College Park neighborhoods, substantially revised and updated Gainesville’s noise ordinance, substantially revised the definitions used in Gainesville’s Land Development Code, created an urban design toolbox, prepared a sustainability indicators report for Gainesville, and incorporated a great deal of “Plain English” and drawings in Gainesville’s Land Development Codes to make them more understandable. Late in my career, I published a book called Road to Ruin about suburban sprawl, transportation, and quality of life, and gave speeches throughout the nation describing ideas from that book. More recently, I published The Car is the Enemy of the City, which touched on many of the same topics. After I retired, I became a nationally certified Complete Streets instructor, and served as a co-instructor to help communities throughout the nation design more complete streets.

  1. What is the most significant planning issue you have met during your career? What is the solution?

DN: Establishing tactics that promote quality of life, realizing that the most effective way to do that was to reduce the promotion and conveniencing of car travel as well as promoting quality pedestrian design, and recommending such tactics in a society where nearly all citizens are fierce proponents of car travel. One solution was to adopt the new urbanist tactic of creating a “transect” which calibrates land development regulations for a walkable town center, a drivable suburbia, and a rural lifestyle. In other words, creating transportation and lifestyle choices.

  1. Which school of ideas had the most influence on you as a planner?

DN: New Urbanism

  1. Do you have any advice for someone entering the field?

DN: Academic emphasis should be on design: architecture or urban design. The ideological focus of the school and its professors should be the new urbanism. The future will be to design for happy people, not happy cars. Tragically, most all planning schools (and nearly all communities) put too much emphasis on promoting happy cars. Become a highly skilled writer, a highly skilled public speaker, and a person highly skilled in drawing. Strive to emphasize speaking and writing in “Plain English” and conveying information that is both inspirational and understandable to a non-professional audience. Become passionate in recommending tactics that promote quality of life for people rather than cars. Such passion will be more rewarding and sustainable than a high salary.

  1. When you first entered the field, how did you apply what you had learnt in the college to practice?

DN: Primarily, when I first entered the profession of planning, I used planning terminology I had learned in college, and applied a number of planning concepts such as zoning to my work as a planner. I regret that my college studies were overly focused on policy rather than design.

  1. From your view, what’s the biggest barrier to create walkable streets?

DN: Allocating too much road space, too much parking space, and too many subsidies to car travel. The most effective way to induce more walking (as well as bicycling and transit use) is NOT to provide sidewalks, bike lanes or new transit facilities. It is to take away road space, parking space, and car subsidies, as well as shortening distances to destinations via compact, mixed use development. By doing those things, an environment conducive to walkability will inevitably evolve. Street widths and distances between buildings will be more human-scaled rather than car-scaled, travel distances to destinations will be considerably shorter, car speeds will be much more modest and attentive, residential and commercial densities will be higher and interspersed, and it will be less financially and physically rational to drive a car.

  1. Sustainable transportation has become a hot issue, how can new urbanism play a role in sustainable transportation?

DN: Americans devote an excessive amount of space to motor vehicle travel, which is enormously unsustainable, and greatly reduces the transportation choices needed for a more sustainable future. Because a motor vehicle consumes so much space (on average, a person in a car consumes as much space as 17 people sitting in chairs), cities in America are dying from a disease I call “Gigantism.” New urbanism, by making the timeless traditional focus on pedestrians the design imperative, is effectively restoring the pattern of building neighborhoods that are human-scaled rather than car-scaled. Because this creates a charming, lovable ambience, new IMG_3045urbanist design is highly profitable, which makes such design sustainably self-perpetuating (developers are self-motivated by the profitability of new urbanism to design in such a human-centered way, rather than being unsustainably forced to use such design due to government regulation). New urbanism has introduced the tactically brilliant idea of the urban to rural transect, which calibrates design and regulation differently in each transect zone so that all lifestyle and travel choices are provided for in each zone (forcing everyone to live in a compact, walkable town center setting is, today, politically unsustainable). But in the walkable, town center portion of the new urbanist transect, the compact design is inherently rich in transportation choices. A person is able to easily and safely walk, bicycle, use transit, or drive a car. Transportation choice is the most politically successful way to create sustainable transportation. Over time, as the cost of car travel becomes unsustainably expensive, the compact, walkable, design created by new urbanists – a design, again, rich in transportation choices – will become increasingly desirable to a larger percentage of Americans, which will mean that a larger percentage of Americans will be living in a setting that makes more sustainable transportation more feasible and less costly.

  1. What’s the best way for citizens to be involved in the planning process?

DN: Citizens should insist that new planning and development projects in the community use the “charrette” process, where skilled presenters, drawers, and designers begin by making a brief, educational, inspiring presentation about town design and transportation principles to an audience of citizens. When done well, charrettes abundantly employ many drawings of ideas by the charrette professionals as well as ideas from citizens. As a result of such a presentation, citizens become skilled and empowered to make town and transportation design decisions for the new plan or proposed development (or road) project. When citizens are making such decisions in a charrette format, there is much more community buy-in as to the design of the plan or project, and elected officials are thereby more likely to approve of such designs. The end result is commonly a design that makes sense to professionals, even though much of the design has been recommended by citizens and elected officials (ordinarily, design recommendations by non-professional citizens and elected officials is misinformed and prone to not-in-my-backyard opposition to even the best, most sustainable and well-designed plans and projects).

  1. Brief introduction of your latest book “The Car is the Enemy of the City”. Do you think people can maintain the same life quality without a car?

DN: Car travel and over-designing cities to accommodate such travel is deadly to cities. Healthy town centers need low speeds, human scale, and proximity. Yet a town center over-designed for free-flowing car travel is a city designed for high speeds, gigantic sizes, and sprawling dispersal of jobs, housing, shopping and culture. This book describes why cars and their “habitat” are toxic to town centers, and the features that create a walkable, lovable quality of life that a well-designed town center should provide. The book therefore illustrates how we can return to the timeless tradition of designing town centers to make people happy, not cars.

I am convinced that a person can maintain not only the same quality of life without a car, but a HIGHER quality of life. Owning a car in America today costs, on average, over $8,000 per year. Instead of spending that money on cars, a person can afford to buy or rent significantly better housing, and can have more money for education, better food, recreation, and so on. Indeed, in my own personal life, despite the fact that I did not earn a large amount of money in my job, I was able to retire at the relatively young age of 47 due to how much lower my expenses were without a car.

By not owning a car, a person tends to be more physically healthy, as more travel by walking, bicycling, or transit means that a person is exercising more and suffering less from growing health problems such as obesity and diabetes.

By reducing travel by car (because a person does not own a car), a person tends to be more sociable with neighbors and other citizens in the community. The car, after all, is an extremely isolating way to travel, because when one is commonly alone inside a car, interaction or serendipity with others is much less likely. Such interaction is also much more likely to be hostile towards others (via such things as “road rage”) rather than being friendly towards others.

When a person travels by walking, bicycling or transit, enjoyment of the trip route is much more likely. Sounds, smells, and enjoyment of other details of life and buildings are much more possible than when inside a car.

Finally, by not owning a car, a person is more motivated to see that her or his community is designed to be more friendly to people rather than cars. And there is no better way to enhance quality of life and sustainability than to do that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Urban Design