Livable Communities Similar to 500-Piece Puzzles

I’ve been meaning to write this post for sometime now, but have never had the time to get around to what I had hoped to incorporate. As it stands I figure it’s best to go ahead and write it without my initial thoughts for visual representation….and off we go

What are livable communities? How are they created? The answer to both questions is quite complex – it isn’t as simple as changing one variable or the other. Transforming communities from car-crazed environments is intensive – both in time and energy. This transformation isn’t one that happens overnight and most certainly requires the dedication, passion, and buy-in from everyone in the overarching community – from elected officials to homeowners. Just as intensive as the transformation, the answer to the conversion is doubly complex. It takes a host of solutions working together in harmony to create the grand picture…much like that of a large puzzle.

So what makes a livable community? Well to begin with it is a focus on people and the community. Within this post I’ve called out three main, integral parts of a livable community – people-friendly streets, the use of green principles, and proper planning. These three areas hold the key to creating livable communities.

People-friendly streets, what are they? Well for one they are not car-friendly streets. These type streets, neighborhoods, and environments induce a type of community spirit and engagement that can’t be found inside a typical suburb. They include things like complete street policies that look at everyone’s perspective as it relates to how they use the roadways. It takes an approach to looking at how people should live, how they go about their daily lives and how they can do it without a vehicle. It involves access to parks, open spaces, trails, access to grocery stores, centers of shopping, and so on. In my mind this is the biggest puzzle piece, although in someways they should carry equal weight. But without people-friendly streets you can’t make the case for livable places…and once you have these type streets and environments many of the other puzzle pieces fall into place.

The second piece is the use of “green” principles. You might think this is only isolated to L.E.E.D and the creation of green buildings, but it goes much deeper. Certainly there is an approach that deals with building green buildings, but it includes a look at how we build our communities and what that interface is with the natural environment. Are we reclaiming our water? Are we utilizing natural sunlight – for energy, warmth, indoor lighting. Are we creating communities that have positive impact on the environment? Are we preventing pollutant spill off from getting into our rivers and streams? Historical our cities, our communities, and our neighborhoods have wreaked havoc on the environment – they have done nothing but cause burden and negative impact. Communities can be successful, vibrant, and environmentally-friendly though…and those are what I call livable communities.

Lastly we must include a proper planning puzzle piece – not just planning for today but focused planning for tomorrow. How do we design our communities for today? We include things like mixed-use buildings and neighborhoods, traffic calming practices, transit corridors, and accessibility by foot or by bike. We must also look ahead. With a growing population putting an ever-increasing strain on the environment we must look at ways to reverse that.

What are the benefits of livable communities? Numerous…too many to list off. Namely though they include enormous public health benefit, positive environmental impact, and local economic success. The health of the public is impacted both directly by action and indirectly by environment. Walking and biking are far greater for health than sitting in a car. Living in a apartment with clean air circulation and minimal toxins are far better for a person’s health than breathing in V.O.C. paints or other toxins normally used in homes and buildings.

The idea of comparing livable communities to puzzles isn’t to show the complexity of such a community, but to show the depth of involvement. Livable communities are complex to create but the positive impact on the community far outweighs the energy in which it takes to create it.

Lastly, I will say this…above all livable communities must include everyone in the community – regardless of race, social class, income status, and street address. What good is a livable community where residents have a median income of $150,000? What about the family of four, living on half of that only one mile away- don’t they deserve the same community? If we are to make real change, swing the needle in both public health (i.e. obesity, diabetes) and environmental health (i.e. CO2 emissions, global warming) we must involve everyone and think about how we create these communities to encompass everyone.

It can be done.

The Common Thread

Transportation, land use, tobacco use, and seat belt use all share a very similar thread. Advocates in each of these areas ultimately worked and/or are working toward the same goal – they all want to see an increase in public health levels. These four areas are just a drop in the bucket – there are many other issues out there, that although very different in approach and issue are all working toward the same goal of increasing the health of the public. Each of the areas I’ve noted above for some reason stick out to me. It could be of personal interest or the thinking that each area plays an important role in our long-term health – especially when thinking about tobacco use, land use, and transportation issues. In a very retrospective way I often think to myself how did we ever go without policies and laws in these areas? At one time people didn’t think twice about not wearing a seat belt? In some states people can still smoke in public, enclosed places? How can we move forward and reverse that thinking – in that we make changes right on time, not five/ten years in a very reactive process?

It seems to me these four areas can be grouped into two larger categories. Transportation and land use are two issues that are just starting to gain momentum in really understanding how they interface with public health. Seat belt use and tobacco use are a little farther along – both are seeing and/or have seen policy and law changes for the betterment of public health. Seat belt use is now mandatory and many states/cities/counties are banning smoking in public places. So how do we get from the underdeveloped with little momentum to semi-to-fully developed with full public momentum? In short the answer is simple – you have to transform social norms. There has to be a clear distinction between what is good and what isn’t good for public health. There has to be buy-in from the public, and you have to get people where they’re at. Fifteen years ago was it socially acceptable to not wear a seat belt?…And now? Five years ago was it socially acceptable to have a smoking section in a public restaurant? …And now?

How do we get transportation issues and land use issues to where tobacco use and seat belt use are? It is for certain a multi-pronged approach that includes changing social behaviors, creating health focused policies and laws, and making these things easy for others to do and/or overcome obstacles to their success (i.e. NY – Smoking Ban = State Gov’t offers help for residents to discontinue smoking habits).

In many places there haven’t been any connections between where you live and how healthy you are or how you travel and your risk of chronic disease. These connections need not only be raised to the common public, but especially to elected officials. One way we get change is through policies and laws. How do we encourage more bicycle travel – through safe streets with proper sized bike lanes, through policies of complete streets. How do we change social behaviors? Through social marketing tactics that get people where they are, that hit on their needs and wants. We have to make urban living and alternative transit look friendly, fun, and most of all acceptable. And lastly, and probably most important we have to meet encouragement and support with options and opportunities that people will accept. We can make riding your bike to work look fun but if you have to ride on a 55mph road with no bike lane, we probably won’t see any change. How do we get people to ride the bus verses taking their car when it takes an hour longer to arrive? The approach to change will incorporate all of these ideals – engaging the public and elected officials, using social marketing, and giving people realistic options – all three of which have been used to change seat belt use and tobacco use for the better.

Day-to-day life can be thought of as a big quilt. Public health is the thread that should be woven throughout the entire piece. In every decision we make public health should be connector that brings everything together, it should guide how we make decisions – not only today but for the long-term future.

If you Build it, Will They Use it?

Taken from the movie “Field of Dreams” and the popular quote used within – “if you build it, they will come”,can we apply this to current day issues around transportation, dependence on foreign oil, and America’s affection with the personal automobile? Can we effectively build pedestrian, public transit,  and bicycle friendly facilities that will alleviate a host of problems our county currently faces. What’s to gain for this type of shift? Major impacts on personal and community health, the environment, and a separation from our oil-eyed focus, just to name a few. More over, beyond the impacts a system like this would create, lies a much deeper question – would these type facilities be used? Would Americans move past the automobile in the driveway and opt for a seat on the bus? Would the lone driver exchange their four wheels in the left lane for two-wheels in the bike lane?

As seen in popular media over the past couple of months, more and more people are beginning to look at the dynamics of a walkable community/city. In almost a ground swell of momentum, citizens are demanding that they have the freedom and safety to get to place-to-place by foot, bike, bus, or lightrail. As gas prices increase and people face economical squeezes, they are looking for civic leaders to do something about it. As a civic leader and official it is highly important to understand that citizens want these changes – they want livable communities. Unfortunately these changes can’t be made overnight – seen as major investments there needs to be more than just a surface level of interest from citizens. As I’m sure with any major investment, officials must contemplate a multitude of characteristics in deciding whether to initiate a project or not. In the case of public transit, pedestrian and bike facilities, I believe the biggest question facing leaders is simple enough – will they use it? Will Americans step away from their cars and move toward a different way of travel?

I think the answer it a resounding yes – under some conditions. Americans want their convenience, they want their safety, and they want their money – logical right? Public transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities must meet all three of these criteria for citizens to make that major jump. The changes must be convenient – what will you choose…one hour by bus or 15 minutes by car? Commuting by bike on a street with no bike lane, no sharrow, or no shoulder doesn’t make the user feel safe, enclosed in a large piece of steel on four wheels does. And as we have currently seen, when the price of taking alternative modes of transit dips below that of driving, the user will seek out those alternatives. Ultimately, in my mind, it isn’t a question of use, it is a question of design. Can we build it right? Can we meet the needs of the user? As seen in some of America’s bigger cities, like San Francisco, New York, Portland, etc., Americans are opting for those alternative modes of transit – simply because they fit the criteria above – they’re convenient, they’re safe(er), and/or they’re economical.

It’s plain and simple – smart design and thorough planning will lead to great use. Poor planning and poor implementation will yield little result.