 |
Lost In The Sprawl |
 |
As I walk along the streets of my current city of residence (outside of the US) a visceral frustration overcomes me. This is because pedestrians, it seems, have no rights. It does not matter that everyone arrives on this earth in a natural state of “pedestrianhoodâ€: in this city, if you want rights, you must obtain and drive around in a steel box. This steel box must take up the space of ten pedestrians, consume nonrenewable natural resources, and pollute breathable air. Here, drivers frequently glare, honk, and yell at pedestrians. And if a pedestrian dares cut off a vehicle, it is her responsibility to apologize to the driver.
Okay. I confess. I arrived in this town already frustrated.
But living here forces me to continue to tolerate a pathological phenomenon I wanted badly to escape when I left the United States. Along with SUVs and Shell, it turns out this city has imported the American trend of surrendering living spaces to cars.
Since Henry Ford gave us the car at the turn of the century, Americans have purchased millions of them; subsidized their manufacture; adopted them as symbols of personal success; pursued wars abroad in pursuit of their scarce and dirty fuel source (a somewhat arbitrary choice, given that the earliest Fords were capable of running on alcohol); built such cities as Miami and Los Angeles around their use (therefore placing many economic opportunities out of reach for those who cannot afford one); and passively suffered their harmful health effects caused by air pollution, auto accidents, and sedentary life styles. Finally, we have quietly borne witness to their global environmental harm.
The war in Iraq seems to have finally convinced Americans they need to eliminate their dependence on foreign oil, and so in the interest of preserving their car culture, they now support alternative fuels. (The most popular of these is ethanol, a dubious choice in its own right as it consumes significant amounts of fossil fuel energy to produce and still emits some greenhouse gases.)
But before we start making efforts to preserve this car culture, we should ask how well it serves us. The average American household spends one fifth of its annual income on cars, while complaining about gas prices, the commute, and the (curiously severe, these days) weather.
Did we, somewhere in the course of building cities around cars, fail to perceive the relationship between the quality of our daily lives and that of our living spaces?
At least in my town, I am certain my quality of life would shoot up if cars were taken, partially or wholly, out of the equation.
A growing movement of “new urbanists†advocates restructuring our cities and towns around pedestrians in order to create more livable spaces. They support building up instead of out; creating mixed neighborhoods with homes, offices, and shops within walking distance of each other; reserving centrally located land for low- and medium-income housing; investing heavily in mass transit; and incorporating parks and shade-providing trees into urban landscapes. This, they contend, is the path to better communities, healthier living spaces, and a higher quality of life.
Should Americans implement these ideas in our cities? Organizations such as the Congress for the New Urbanism and Grass Valley Neighbors, which include urban planners, architects, and developers, think so. However, they face an uphill battle, because their efforts to improve our urban lives start with “disincentivizing†car use and car ownership.
This means higher fuel taxes, fewer lanes, less road construction, more expensive parking fees, and congestion charges, which increase the costs and burden of owning a car and encourage drivers to seek alternative means of transportation. (London’s daily, £8 charge for all private cars entering city centre is an excellent example of such “disincentives.â€)
Introducing zoning codes that require the integration of business, shopping, and residential districts guards against blighted inner cities and far-off suburbs, meaning more of us can walk to work, bike to school, and stumble home from the corner bar. Placing the property tax burden on land rather than built property, and restricting development of land on the outskirts of towns encourages taller, slimmer, better buildings, giving residents incentives to invest in existing districts, rather than just add more. (Boulder, Colorado’s decision in 1978 to cap, and establish a competition for, new building permits is an example of municipal government ensuring smart, high-quality, and environmentally respectful growth.)
Finally, “disincentivizing†car use requires such “positive†incentives as installing bike racks and bike paths, expanding sidewalks and skybridges, and of course, investing in extensive, clean, and affordable rapid mass transit. (Curitiba, Brazil is an excellent example of promoting pedestrian-friendly cities, with its major downtown pedestrian thoroughfare and world-famous rapid, clean, and comprehensive bus system that carries more passengers daily then the New York bus system.)
If American discomfort about foreign oil wars, global warming, and the decline of traditional family and community values is growing, taking simple steps toward building our cities once again around the pedestrian may offer solutions to these pressing problems.
