Welmer

The last decade of real-estate hysteria has been more than just an economic catastrophe — it has dragged the American lifestyle in the wrong direction at the worst possible time. Just as energy shortages were on the horizon, we pumped up suburbs and exurbs, building prefab communities far away from the centers of economic production. In cities, boxy condo highrises for empty-nesters or the young-and-single set were slapped together on the premise of fantastic returns. As those dreams of easy money evaporate in a sudden credit drought, we find ourselves with a lot of worthless housing coupled with a persistent shortage of the kind of housing people – particularly young families – actually need.

Although the geographic dispersal of goods, services and jobs progressed throughout the last half of the 20th century, that trend is finally starting to reverse itself. People are no longer eager to commute long distances to keep a suburban lifestyle, and the failure of busing has proven that they prefer to send their children to school near their homes. Mass consumption centers such as WalMart and Costco are the pinnacle of the American culture of enforced mobility, and even these giants have begun to lose their appeal, and share value, as shoppers increasingly prefer to purchase food and goods from local stores.

The trend points to a migration back into cities and a geographically smaller radius of activity. Rather than drive ten miles to the mall, folks would prefer to visit a neighborhood boutique. Instead of commuting twenty miles by car to work, many more now prefer to live within cycling – or even walking – range of their jobs. Ironically, consolidation of one’s life into a smaller physical space entails more physical activity, promoting physical fitness — the farther Americans geographically project themselves every day the fatter they get (take a look at the guys eating at truck stops). This is obviously related to time spent driving, which is, in terms of physical activity, time spent sitting on one’s rear.

It is no wonder that urban living, particularly in pleasant cities, has become so attractive. The alternative – long commutes in heavy traffic, loading the SUV with bulk goods from a cavernous Costco or WalMart every week, and living in boring neighborhoods that lack both character and conveniences – is quickly becoming a distinctly undesirable lifestyle in the minds of young and upwardly mobile Americans. The ‘burbs, it seems, are starting to take on a low-rent reputation in the popular imagination.

However, the blundering attempts of politicians and developers to take advantage of the newfound desire for urban living have involved little more than attempting to cram people into structures that resemble nothing more than office buildings. Other moves to promote an urban lifestyle – particularly in liberal cities – have suffered from political meddling. Here in Seattle, for example, the New Holly neighborhood – not a bad effort in terms of architecture and space management – is promoted as a new, vibrant example of urban living that should have broad appeal. Supposedly, the significant proportion of Muslim Fundamentalist Somali immigrants given public housing in the community will improve its appeal to progressive, middle-class Americans. Whether or not people like multiculturalism (and that’s real multiculturalism), it’s never been popular as a mandate.

There are many concerns people with children have about urban living, most of which revolve around protecting their children from physical and moral threats and providing adequate space for children to safely play. The recent trend in urban construction – massive buildings full of stacked condos – does not take these concerns into consideration at all. For a parent with a toddler, the front door to most condo buildings opens to busy streets full of cars and trucks rushing by. Gardens are tiny plots on balconies and roofs, and yards nonexistent. Nearby parks are full of crusty drunks and addicts. Perhaps there’s a gym in the basement with a nautilus machine and freeweights, or a small, unguarded pool — all potential hazards to small children. The message this conveys is: “if you have kids and can’t afford a half-million worth of house, you’d better stay in the ‘burbs.” But is this really what cities want? Portland, Seattle and San Francisco all bemoan the lack of children, but when it comes to solutions they ignore the obvious and start repeating the same old mistakes that drove people out in the first place.

The key to building healthy, high-density urban communities that provide for a broad range of family and personal requirements lies with effective management of space and consideration for the special needs of children and the elderly, which often converge. Streets are dangerous for both the young and the old, so both need plenty of car-free space for recreation and relaxation. The young and old also need additional protection from crime, because they are particularly vulnerable. In terms of physical safety, traffic and crime top the list.

How can this be addressed in dense neighborhoods? The most obvious solution is private courtyards surrounded by rowhouses and shut off from the streets. The courtyards could be accessible only to neighbors and would be a safe place for children to run around as well as older folks who want some fresh air and sunshine, and perhaps to amuse themselves by watching the children play. Each house could have a small private yard for a garden and a path on either side. The houses surrounding the communal courtyard would be narrow, but somewhat tall and long with plenty of interior space. On a typical city block, population density could be increased by at least 100% over traditional single family home blocks, still leaving almost an acre of space for a courtyard.

Additional steps should include more and smaller schools. The more choices parents have the more comfortable they would be in questionable neighborhoods. Bringing back beat cops could also be helpful. A familiar cop on a bicycle or on foot would give people a sense of security and create a more personable relationship between law enforcement and residents.

Ultimately, it shouldn’t be necessary to radically alter cities to create comfortable urban living. Dense housing could predominate mainly in neighborhood centers of economic activity, leaving plenty of single family homes on quieter streets. For whatever reason, people might prefer one kind of housing to another, but the important thing is that a closer urban lifestyle should not be impractical for certain segments of the population, such as child-rearing parents or the elderly. In fact, it is possible that many older people and young parents would prefer it, as they often have neither the time nor energy to devote to the gardening and yardwork that traditional houses require.

If cities really want to promote density and appeal to all segments of society, they have to stop allowing developers to create housing that is only practical for a narrow range of the population. It may be simpler and cheaper to build condos that are indistinguishable from office buildings, but over the long run this will just lead to more transportation issues and force people to repeatedly move as life circumstances inevitably change. As with tenements, public housing and now suburban developments, neighborhoods that are practical to only one demographic will eventually decay, as they provide no sense of continuity. American cities must take all lifestyles into account when planning developments — not only the ones that are most convenient to builders. It is demographic diversity – not architectural or political expediency – that will ensure the continuing viability of neighborhoods, and by extension cities.