Got a blog tip? Contact us
« The Curious Tale of the Advertising Illness | Main | Who Knew? »
The sociology of transit
I've been reading about urban planning and transportation lately and thought I'd share an observation gleaned from a couple of books—namely, The Geography of Nowhere by Howard Kunstler and How Cities Work by Alex Marshall. The observation goes something like this: seemingly simple changes to city streets or pathways can change entire ways of living. In the same way that removing a particular insect can spark a chain of events that ultimately transforms the "natural" world, the design of roads, trains, and city spaces can radically alter the social environment — the way people live.
One of the very few cities to fully recognize this in the U.S. is Portland, Oregon. For a couple of decades now, Portland has been working toward stopping sprawl and encouraging mass transit. In a way, you could say it's becoming "New York-ified."
To discourage driving downtown, Portland's regional government has reducing parking and increased the cost. People who can't afford the new rates now take light rail to work. Alex Marshall interviewed a typical commuter—a middle-aged woman—who, at first, hated the public rail.
"I didn't want to ride it at all. I didn't like being so close to other people... But now I really like it...It's turned me into a reader. I didn't used to read at all, but now I read about 20 books a month. I've become so accustomed to using the MAX [light rail] that now I forget I have a car."
As Marshall writes, Portland's policies have not only changed how this woman gets to work, it has given her a new hobby and a new comfort amid strangers. While surrounded by a standing-room-only car filled with workers, execs, and kids from all walks of life, she now feels at ease.
Portland's planners have also encouraged the co-mingling of retail and residential buildings. We New Yorkers tend to take this for granted, but mixing retail and residential allows us to do our shopping by walking—saving the time, expense, noise, and pollutants associated with driving. By walking, we stay in better shape and also benefit from a safer and more vibrant street life. Areas where commercial is separated from residential building tend to be the lifeless and scary after shops or offices close for the day. Think Wall Street in the 1980s.
The Geography of Nowhere is the more entertaining of the two books; Kunstler is funnier and a better wordsmith. But How Cities Work, by focusing on transportation, arguably brings us closer to the truth.
Kunstler is an advocate of "New Urbanism," a school of planniing that focus on aesthetics and ignores the radical force that is transportation. New Urbanists purport to build community by bringing back front porches and sidewalks, hiding garages, and planning small shopping areas within walking distance of neighborhoods.
But Marshall cuts to the heart of the problem with the New Urbanist critique:
The classic suburban home with the double-wide garage doors facing the street is a symbol of suburban banality and the triumph of the car. But in an automobile-dominated setting, this is an appropriate an honest way to build.... If you don't like houses with garage doors on their front, then you have to change the overall transportation system... Putting alleys and garages behind houses will not magically create a streetcar system. It will just mean that residents have sacrificed both their front and back yards for the sake of appearances.... Hiding the driveway is a kind of urban puritanism, hiding the real workings of our society.
Kinda like astroturf.
Posted by carrie on 04/16/2007 | Permalink
Comments
"New Urbanists purport to build community by ... planning small shopping areas within walking distance of neighborhoods."
This unfourtunatly often leads to shopping areas which are strangled because they were only designed to serve one neighbourhood. If the residents aren't successful enough to keep the shops going, then outside customers are unlikely to penetrate the enclosed neighbourhood (I mean enclosed figuratively by road design, not literally with gates and walls).
So combining neighbourhoods with shops has to be done in a way that doesn't make one dependant on the other.
Posted by: Felix Mitchell | Apr 17, 2007 7:06:19 AM
I disagree, Felix. Yes, it might be difficult for an upscale retailer to be successful in a low-income neighborhood, but what business does an upscale retailer have in a low-income neighborhood anyways?
In my experience, shops that are dependent on the surrounding neighborhood are the nicest, and most "honest" kind of places. If commercial development is well designed and meets the needs of the community it serves, it will succeed. That might even be another hidden effect of new urbanism and mixed use planning -- a renewed need for businesses to ground themselves firmly in the community.
Posted by: Ben Hubbird | Apr 22, 2007 11:51:11 AM
I don't think the point has to do with upscale / downscale -- it's a matter of population density and transit. New York is dense because the city invested heavily in mass transit early on. Surburban areas, which are reliant on cars, aren't nearly as dense and therefore there are almost never enough people in walking distance of stores to support them.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 23, 2007 9:36:16 AM
Hey Carrie, I know this is an older post, but ... did you know Alex Marshall of "How Cities Work" was AT the debate at Lolita Bar the other day? He was the very tall guy I was hanging out with afterwards. How weird to see your reference to his book right afterwards! He and I know each other from both having worked for the Virginian Pilot.
Jen
Posted by: Jennifer Dziura | May 10, 2007 8:52:33 AM
Hey all, hope I'm not too late for this discussion.
I've done some urban sociology in Portland, OR. I'm studying how the emerging business ecology in a gentrifying neighborhood, although great for the local economy, seems to be racially differentiating; businesses emerge that can capitalize on a particular cultural niche... Also, ironically, poorer residents often drive outside the immediate neighborhood to do their shopping.
I'll have to check out these books: I do believe that people are driven by aesthetics, just as they are by resources that are already available (i.e. their cars).
Also, I want to point out Portland's AMAZING culture of bicyclists and bicycle activists. Its a place where, aesthetically, owning a bike can take you places socially/culturally. I'm serious.
Posted by: Sammy Shaw | Jun 6, 2007 3:41:10 PM



