With a few
variations, I’ve recently heard several comments along the lines of “I’d love
to be an urbanist, but can’t afford to live in a walkable location. I also expect that living without a car in my
current home would be too inconvenient.”
I understand
the concerns. Heck, I live many of the same
apparent contradictions in my life. But
the speakers are confusing “urbanist” with “urban resident”. Let me explain with examples of the compromises
I make in my own life.
Compromise
#1 - I’d love to live in a walkable location. However, the plan that my wife and I made for
a move downtown was derailed when the mixed-use building we’d targeted for our
new home fell victim to the recession and wasn’t built. Since then, family health issues have made a downtown
move unlikely in the near term, but I continue to look forward to a day when I
can live in a walkable setting.
Compromise
#2 - I’d like to use transit on a regular basis, as I did at a couple
of stops in my early adult life. But we
live in a part of town where the buses run only at the start and end of the
school day, so the bus doesn’t work for anyone except students. I continue to monitor the possibility of bus
route changes, but for now don’t have a transit option.
Compromise
#3 - One of the frills in my life is season tickets to Cal
basketball. I would love to enjoy the
newspaper or a good book while riding transit to the Berkeley campus. But that trip would require a Golden Gate
Transit bus to San Francisco followed by a BART ride under the bay, with a
reverse trip that would be excessively burdensome if not impossible after an
evening game. So I drive to Berkeley,
carpooling when I can.
Compromise
#4 - I have family in another California city who I visit a half-dozen
times a year. I’d love to take public transit
for my visits. But there’s only one
Amtrak arrival per day at my destination.
And that arrival is at 3:00am. Also,
none of family lives within walkable distance of the train station, especially
in the middle of the night, so taxis would be my local transit option. Given those facts, I instead make the
three-hour drive.
Compromise
#5 - We have three household dogs.
Yes, they would have been a burden in a downtown location, but they
spend most of their days inside anyway, so we could have made it work.
I wish I
could buy dog food at a store within a walkable distance of my house. But the dogs have a combined weight of 200
pounds, so go through a lot of food. Although
our home is considered to have good walkability, that is mostly because of
convenient schools. The only grocery
store within the typical walkability limit of a half-mile is a tiny convenience
store. They probably carry dog food, but
in such small packages that they aren’t an option.
So instead,
I use my car to buy kibble at a big box, the only big box I patronize. But if home delivery became an option, I’d
be interested.
The bottom
line is that a world constructed around the drivable suburban paradigm makes an
urbanist lifestyle impossible for most people, especially in smaller towns. And even within some cities, it can be
difficult.
I chatted with
the niece of long-time friends at an event a few days back (an event impossible
to reach except by car). She had spent a
portion of her life as an urban resident and reported that she found it convenient
to live without a car in Chicago and Boston.
Indeed, she said that a car would have been an inconvenience in those
cities. But she said that never found
the same sweet spot in San Francisco, so continued to own a car during her time
in that city.
But difficulty
of living an urbanist life doesn’t mean we can’t be urbanists, any more than a vegetarian
living on a cattle ranch can’t continue to espouse the benefits of vegetarianism.
At the
bottom line, being an urbanist isn’t about living in a walkable urban
setting. It’s about advocating for
urbanist solutions while also looking for ways to live a more urbanist life,
with recognition that compromises are often necessary. Under this definition, I think I keep the
faith with urbanism.
Of course,
it’s up to every urbanist’s personal conscience about which compromises are
truly essential and which are inconsistent with urbanism. Many years ago, in another state, I crossed
swords with a proponent of compact development who eagerly injected himself
into many local land use decisions.
In
retrospect, I concur with many of the land-use directions that he was
endorsing, although I was tardy in reaching that understanding. Part of my slowness may have been
disappointment with the man’s hypocrisy.
He lived on 20 acres at the end of a long dirt road and periodically called
the Fish and Game Department to complain about the wild animals which were
encroaching on his land. It’s hard to
have much creditability as an urbanist while living that lifestyle. I suspect it undermined his message, with me
and with others.
Earlier this
year, I played with my personal definition for urbanism. Thinking that I could now append a definition
for urbanist based on my earlier work, I pulled up my previous efforts. However, I find that my thinking has
continued to evolve. So, I’ll instead
tweak my earlier effort and then do the intended appending.
Urbanism:
(1) The study of alternative forms of congregated human settlement, with
particular attention to the patterns and details of land use that yield the
greater economic productivity, environmental sustainability, and individual
happiness. (2) The advocacy of concepts for
congregated human settlement that best meet the goals of productivity,
sustainability, and happiness.
Urbanist:
Someone who embraces the advocacy described in definition (2) of urbanism and,
as far as practical under individual circumstances, lives a life consistent
with that advocacy.
As least for
today, I’m happy with those definitions and think I’ve kept myself within the
circle of urbanism. I hope I’ve also
assuaged some self-doubts among readers.
My next post
will revisit several recent topics. I’ve
come across bits of pertinent follow-up information on the topics of recent
posts and will share.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Bicycles are perfect for increasing the pedestrian's range and carrying a larger load of groceries, or kibble. Saves time, too. Urbanist improvements would include better and safer bike routes and paths.
ReplyDeleteBill, thanks for the comment. I agree what bikes can be an effective tool and that many current bike routes don't facilitate travel by less confident riders. (If you haven't seen it, you might want to look at this presentation recently made to a couple of Petaluma committees on how the current bike network works, http://petaluma.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=31&clip_id=2011&meta_id=333154. You'll need to cut and paste the link.) So there is a need to buttress the bike routes option, although as another reader commented on a recent post, separating cars from bikes from peds is a non-trivial task.
DeleteHi Dave, I have similar issues. Thanks for spelling them out. I'd like a bus that runs from Sonoma to Santa Rosa at least during commute times every 15 or 30 minutes. Right now the bus system doesn't support people with 9 to 5 jobs.
ReplyDeleteTeri, thanks for the comment. Your observation is fully on target. Although most transit managers detest the term, the reality is that much local transit service is targeted toward the "transit-dependent", students, seniors, and others. It is only by targeting those folks that the fare box recovery standard of the state can be me. The reality is that if someone has a job and doesn't work in San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose, they will almost always travel by car, so offering transit services for those folks isn't effective.
Delete