Making a City More Walkable
Nov. 17th, 2021 04:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmith... requires a plan. This article suggests installing a simple, generic zoning code instead of the complicated mess we have now. It can later be updated to account for local needs.
I have another idea, based on the fact that most settlements are older than the dumb ideas about suburbia. That means most of them have parts that are well designed. If you want a walkable town, first identify its most walkable areas currently. Often these will be a downtown and/or some preware neighborhoods with a nice grid and a few businesses scattered among the homes. Some towns have a nice walking street, especially if it connects two destinations, like a college and a courthouse.
Are these areas in good shape?
If they are not, but the bones are good, then start by refreshing them. Fix potholes and burned-out streetlights. Trim trees and fill planters with flowers. Install park benches. Survey available business and residential units there, then make policies to support filling all of them. Look for opportunities to invite new businesses cheaply. For example, an unused parking lot could become a food truck park or a farmer's market. An empty lot could turn into a real park so you don't have an unbroken sea of pavement.
If an area is already in good shape, then build from strength. Where are its edges? What lies beyond those edges? Aim to extend the walkable area in a useful direction, toward some other area of interest. Perhaps there is a park or a more modern shopping strip that you could connect with. Map the features of the desirable, walkable neighborhood. Extend zoning and codes to permit those features in nearby areas. If you're wary of changing too much and making mistakes, extend only one block. If you want to do more faster, you can reach several blocks or the next neighborhood. More than that is probably too much at once. Create a plan to encourage walkable development in that target area. Use incremental change to minimize risks.
How well connected are your current walkable areas with your intended ones and other parts of town? The more connections, the better. You need at minimum good wide sidewalks in smooth condition. Bike paths help considerably. You need at least some bus access and real shelters, not just signs at bus stops. A "last mile" hub connecting the bus or train system with walking, biking, skateboarding, etc. is even better. This includes making public space accessible to many modes of travel, not just one or two. Banning human-powered travel on bicycles, skateboards, roller skates, freerunning, etc. leaves you with fat, isolated, unhealthy citizens like we have now. Get them moving. Just make sure infrastructure robust enough to support that variety. Frex, concrete benches are damn sturdy, can look great, and equally serve sitters, skaters, and people who need to stretch out because their back just went on strike. The space must be inviting to diverse people, so include in your planning board a mix of ages, genders, races, religions, ability levels, and any other local points of difference.
I have another idea, based on the fact that most settlements are older than the dumb ideas about suburbia. That means most of them have parts that are well designed. If you want a walkable town, first identify its most walkable areas currently. Often these will be a downtown and/or some preware neighborhoods with a nice grid and a few businesses scattered among the homes. Some towns have a nice walking street, especially if it connects two destinations, like a college and a courthouse.
Are these areas in good shape?
If they are not, but the bones are good, then start by refreshing them. Fix potholes and burned-out streetlights. Trim trees and fill planters with flowers. Install park benches. Survey available business and residential units there, then make policies to support filling all of them. Look for opportunities to invite new businesses cheaply. For example, an unused parking lot could become a food truck park or a farmer's market. An empty lot could turn into a real park so you don't have an unbroken sea of pavement.
If an area is already in good shape, then build from strength. Where are its edges? What lies beyond those edges? Aim to extend the walkable area in a useful direction, toward some other area of interest. Perhaps there is a park or a more modern shopping strip that you could connect with. Map the features of the desirable, walkable neighborhood. Extend zoning and codes to permit those features in nearby areas. If you're wary of changing too much and making mistakes, extend only one block. If you want to do more faster, you can reach several blocks or the next neighborhood. More than that is probably too much at once. Create a plan to encourage walkable development in that target area. Use incremental change to minimize risks.
How well connected are your current walkable areas with your intended ones and other parts of town? The more connections, the better. You need at minimum good wide sidewalks in smooth condition. Bike paths help considerably. You need at least some bus access and real shelters, not just signs at bus stops. A "last mile" hub connecting the bus or train system with walking, biking, skateboarding, etc. is even better. This includes making public space accessible to many modes of travel, not just one or two. Banning human-powered travel on bicycles, skateboards, roller skates, freerunning, etc. leaves you with fat, isolated, unhealthy citizens like we have now. Get them moving. Just make sure infrastructure robust enough to support that variety. Frex, concrete benches are damn sturdy, can look great, and equally serve sitters, skaters, and people who need to stretch out because their back just went on strike. The space must be inviting to diverse people, so include in your planning board a mix of ages, genders, races, religions, ability levels, and any other local points of difference.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-11-17 02:41 pm (UTC)I think the best system I've seen for zoning is the 4-block system.
Basically, take a 2x2 grid of city blocks, i.e a 4 block cluster. You have 1 block each of residential, commercial, industrial and park. You can orient adjacent clusters so any zone of block is next to each other, so say 4 4-block clusters tessellated so all the park blocks are next to each other, effectively creating a 4 block sized large park.. or the same with industrial, commercial or residential blocks.
The grid pattern is infinitely scalable, and yet any type of zone is only one block away.
If you seperate the blocks with mixed transport links, for example a road, bordered by bike lanes and pavements, with a subway underneath, then you can get anywhere in fairly short order. Plus the parks make for handy shortcuts in a pleasant environment.
Yeah... I play a lot of sim city.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-11-17 10:32 pm (UTC)I -could- walk to work most days. My office and my apartment are less than a mile apart. Both in very walkable areas. Unfortunately I generally get out after dark and there are a couple places on the border between the neighborhoods that I simply don't feel comfortable with after dark. So I don't generally walk. And it annoys me.
A bike might be an option (I'd certainly feel safer on a bike as it would provide a significant speed advantage over someone trying to accost me on foot which I expect is the liveliest scenario) but the traffic patterns are not bicycle friendly even in daylight.
*sigh* I feel like there isn't really a way to win this one.
Well ...
Date: 2021-11-17 11:02 pm (UTC)Okay ...
>> Unfortunately I generally get out after dark and there are a couple places on the border between the neighborhoods that I simply don't feel comfortable with after dark. <<
Credible threat.
>> So I don't generally walk. And it annoys me. <<
Look at this as an opportunity.
* Probably many of your neighbors and/or coworkers feel similarly frustrated by the only-almost-walkable area.
* Probably your town would prefer that more people walk, for health and economic reasons.
* This is a key example of where incremental growth can help, because you are able to identify small, specific barriers to walking. Those areas could be improved with modest cost or effort (e.g. more lighting, a neighborhood watch) which would then invigorate the already walk-friendly infrastructure. A more creative approach if the problem is an empty lot or parking lot would be to turn it into a park, food truck park, playground, or other feature more inviting to citizens and less inviting to hoodlums.
* You could bring this up at a town meeting or just with neighbors/coworkers. You could also make more efforts to walk at safe times, perhaps on weekends or other days off, and encourage more people to do so. More eyes on the street makes it safer, and that can extend into evening hours.
* Get your town's Walkscore. This includes a crime grade. Improving walkability makes a town safer and more attractive, thus more lucrative. So improving it is a good goal -- and thus a good talking point.
https://www.walkscore.com
https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml
>> A bike might be an option (I'd certainly feel safer on a bike as it would provide a significant speed advantage over someone trying to accost me on foot which I expect is the liveliest scenario) but the traffic patterns are not bicycle friendly even in daylight. <<
For this, check to see if your town has a bike program, bike shop, club, etc. If so, you could help them agitate for more bike-friendly features. You could also get involved with a wider biking club and piggyback on their efforts to make everywhere more bike-friendly.
https://www.bikeleague.org/community
>> *sigh* I feel like there isn't really a way to win this one. <<
I can see how it's discouraging at present. If you want to improve it, though, it looks like there are some possibilities for action. You're not trying to start from scratch, which is a lot harder, just remove some obstacles.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-11-17 11:05 pm (UTC)It would also depend on the demographic mix and number of people out and about at those times...
Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-17 11:19 pm (UTC)Something that didn't occur to me earlier, and may have wider appeal, is a walking bus. If there are several people who live and work nearby, then they could arrange to walk together for socialization and safety. It's more often done with schoolchildren but works just as well for adults.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 12:57 am (UTC)I see your six and raise you twenty-five /
Oh the things wou will encounter and the people that you'll meet /
walking all alone at night on a New York City street!
Less whimsically, the distinction between wannabe badasses and actual badasses is interesting. The actual tough people don't usually fit the 'image,' at least in my experience.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 01:43 am (UTC)Oh the things wou will encounter and the people that you'll meet /
walking all alone at night on a New York City street!<<
LOL yes. I did a college paper on that.
>> Less whimsically, the distinction between wannabe badasses and actual badasses is interesting. The actual tough people don't usually fit the 'image,' at least in my experience.<<
Frequently true. It can be a problem -- I often have a hard time warning people off because they don't take me seriously. Very few are astute enough to look past the packaging and see the contents. It always impresses me when someone does, though; I know they're more insightful.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 04:38 am (UTC)Sometimes people are less likely to start stuff if you don't stand out / if you're nonthreatening.
Excepting bitz attacks, you can often jack up the drama level if needed.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 05:02 am (UTC)That is my standard method of avoiding trouble, and I'm considerably better at it than most humans can break through.
>> Sometimes people are less likely to start stuff if you don't stand out / if you're nonthreatening.<<
Often true. But it only works when I don't need to engage. If I'm protecting someone, the threat has to see me as a valid obstacle. Given the body I'm wearing, this sometimes takes extra work. Then again, I've had some threats squawk and jump back because they could suddenly see me.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-11-18 07:08 am (UTC)I'm 100% in favour of more walkable public spaces,
but people can walk a lot and still be fat!
Back before I became chronically ill/Disabled, for many years I very regularly walked very long distances very fast, and I was still fat!
Some people are always going to be fat, and that is okay - all bodies are good bodies.
Thin bodies are not intrinsically more worthy/more important than fat bodies.
Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 07:35 am (UTC)That's true. Within the context of large bodies, some are healthy -- even athletic -- while others are less so. Sumo wrestlers and many top weightlifters are quite large.
>> Some people are always going to be fat, and that is okay - all bodies are good bodies.
Thin bodies are not intrinsically more worthy/more important than fat bodies.<<
This is true also. Everyone has intrinsic worth. Picking on people about weight is not okay; if it's not your body, it's not your business.
However, on a statistical front, overweight correlates with worse health. America is much fatter, lonelier, less active, and less healthy than it used to be -- which is made worse by crappy health care. This is a problem. It's happening because society has made a lot of very bad choices about what foods are sold where and at what prices, where people live, what work they do, and how public space invites or restricts movement. The outcomes are really rather bad.
I don't believe it's okay for society to build environments that hurt and kill people. We deserve better. We deserve access to healthy food, safe jobs, and nice places to move around in. And not to be badgered about our bodies. And not to be trapped if we aren't up to walking, biking, or driving. That's hard to find, and thus, out of reach for most people.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 07:49 am (UTC)I 100% agree with all of this.
It's worth noting that there's a growing body of research showing that while some of the health effects from being fat are from being fat [inflammation, cholesterol, fatty liver disease]
MANY of the health effects from being fat are not from being fat, but rather from healthcare providers discriminating against fat people
eg a thin person with abdominal pain is given an ultrasound that diagnoses their stomach cancer/bowel cancer
a fat person with abdominal pain is told "you must have a stomach ache from over eating" and their stomach cancer/bowel cancer goes undiagnosed until it is terminal
[this example has *actually happened* to multiple people]
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 08:36 am (UTC)These vary based on other factors. A fat person eating a healthy diet and living an active life probably has few of the above problems, whereas a thinner person eating a bad diet and an inactive life may be more susceptible.
The one thing that does not vary is truly weight-based effects: the more mass you pack, whether that is fat or muscle, the greater effect of gravity on your body, which causes things like foot and knee problems.
>> MANY of the health effects from being fat are not from being fat, but rather from healthcare providers discriminating against fat people <<
This does not surprise me, and I would be interesting in reading studies that attempt to differentiate effects of fat from effects of fat discrimination.
Doctors also discriminate against every hated or disadvantaged group. Men having a heart attack get treated; women get sent home. Black people can't get pain control. Poor people often can't get anything. And so on.
>> eg a thin person with abdominal pain is given an ultrasound that diagnoses their stomach cancer/bowel cancer
a fat person with abdominal pain is told "you must have a stomach ache from over eating" and their stomach cancer/bowel cancer goes undiagnosed until it is terminal
[this example has *actually happened* to multiple people] <<
Also common on Native American reservations, where obesity, cancer, and discrimination are all rife. Commodity food is genocide.
On an individual level, I don't think fat is often about personal choices. In order to be healthy you need:
* access to affordable nutritious food
* knowledge of what to eat
* knowledge of how to cook it
* money to buy it
* utensils and working appliances
* time and to prepare it.
Very few people have all of those anymore.
Look at government food subsidies, the things people are paid to grow and eat.
Corn -- starchy, and if not nixtamalized, can contribute to niacin deficiency. Used to make high-fructose corn syrup, which is ruinous to health.
Wheat -- starchy, high in gluten, increasingly allergenic which is a problem; better whole than white.
Soybeans -- high in protein, which is great; but increasingly allergenic, which is a problem.
Rice -- starchy, acceptable white, but much healthier brown.
Barley -- starchy, mostly used for making beer, which contributes to many deaths, although whole barley is quite healthy in soups, hot cereals, breads, etc.
Sugar -- one of the worst things people eat is refined sugar, very hazardous to health.
Milk -- naturally high in fat and protein, can be healthy, but skim and fat-free are questionable because the more processed a food is the less healthy it tends to get. Fermented dairy products like yogurt are excellent, though. Dairy cows, like beef cows, are bad for the planet.
Beef -- high in fat and protein, unwise to eat more than occasionally, and downright ruinous to the planet. Don't saw off the branch you're standing on.
Peanuts -- high in fat and protein, healthy in moderation. Whole unsalted peanuts are better and more versatile than peanut butter or peanut oil, but it's the latter where most peanuts go.
Sunflowers -- mostly used for oil, which is relatively healthy; and a little for seeds, which are much more healthy.
This list contains zero fruits and vegetables, the things the government "claims" people should eat, but does not support actually allowing them to eat. The list contains 4 items with major allergies or intolerances: wheat, milk, peanuts, and soybeans. It contains two forms of extremely bad sugars: refined sugar from sorghum and high-fructose corn syrup from corn. Consequently, people who eat more subsized food are less healthy. Commodity food is genocide.
If the government really cared about people, it would instead subsidize healthy foods. Say, a certain amount to farmers but then another subsidy to make sure wholegrain products are affordable. Remove the sugar and beef subsidies entirely. Subsidize, say, the top three each of healthy fruits and vegetables that can be grown in America: blueberries, grapes, apples; spinach, carrots, peas.
In terms of the government saying one thing and subsidizing another, I call bullshit and ignore their input. It is all suspect. Same with trying to blame individuals for poor health. You only get to do that if good choices are available and people don't use them.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-11-18 02:40 pm (UTC)I find it amusing that some of the people complaining about the labor shortage are...people outsourcing their cooking to restaurants,, i.e. people 'choosing not to do work.'
If you don't like the servants' attitudes then "take pride in your work" and cook your own food.
Yes, there's reasons people might need to buy premade food, but as an ex-retail worker, everyone on both sides of the counter ought to be able to "stay classy" and be respectful for the interaction.