Full title: Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. I do love me some non-fiction, but boy howdy their titles can be a bit much.
So here's the thing. I fully expected to love this book and instead found myself...rather irritated. I'll even admit to irrationally irritated, so let's explore that in a little more depth. Why would I, a happy pedestrian and general disliker of driving, be irritated by a book advocating more walking?
Maybe it's the fact that I'm not terribly fond of large cities, and am not convinced, like Speck is, that they can save us. I think there's more to life than consumer goods - the restaurants, bars, clothiers, and farmers' markets that Speck argues are so integral to and appealing about city life. While fun and nice to have around, I value other things. Like playing outdoors. Walking through the woods. [1] Having family and friends visit, and being able to afford a place big enough to put them up.
But more than "Devo's not a city dweller" - I recognize and embrace the fact that many people love Metropolis, more power to them - I think Walkable City does little to address the elephant in the room: employment. It may be argued that this is out of the book's scope; after all, it's a book about walking around a city, not about jobs. True. But if America is to be "saved," as brought up in the books very subtitle, Americans need jobs. And if they're to live in the heart of downtown - where Speck argues the most transiting [2] can happen due to multi-use zoning and tight density - then people must have jobs that will pay for those high-priced (he cites figures 2-3X the amount of the same square footage in the suburbs) apartments/homes.
Basically, people have to be able to work downtown if you want them to live downtown and not drive. That's all well and good for the "creatives and millenials" (his wording, not mine) who've managed to find livable-wage-paying telework, but that's not everybody. What about the schoolteachers, the maintenance and security personnel, the civil servants, the shopkeepers and the restauranteurs? How do they live within transit distance of their jobs, on salaries that aren't known for their magnitude?
Which brings us to parking. Speck discusses parking at length, and I certainly agree with him that in order to make driving more painful (and thus transit more appealing and viable) an excellent way to do that is to make it difficult to park. And in the true heart of a downtown, maybe that's reasonable - in the places where it's more businesses than apartment buildings, more banks than homes. However, and it's a big however, until the jobs-that-pay-well-enough-to-afford-city-prices-and-are-within-transit-distance-of-home appear, people (such as myself) will need to commute by car to a job. This means we need to put our cars somewhere when we come home. And paying $100/month for a parking permit for a lot (rather than free street parking in a neighborhood) is not viable.
Okay, so. That was a lot of rant, which might make you think I'm some sort of car-loving fool. That is not the case. I dislike driving or riding long distances. I'd love to be able to walk everywhere I want to go, as I did in college. I think decreasing our dependence on oil would be a massive positive step for our economy, foreign relations, and planet. I enjoy strolling through the tree-lined streets of my neighborhood and looking at all the weird, old architecture (both things Speck says contribute to walkability).
But jobs, man. Jobs. And affordable housing. I think those are big impediments to the walking urban revitalization Speck's advocating. Unless people can find work downtown that pays well enough to afford apartments downtown, it's not going to matter how many trees or bike lanes you put in.
xo,
Devo
[1] And while yes, as an adult I can safely pedest my way about the city enjoying myself, I don't want to let a 10 year old roam around like that. Out in the country? Sure.
[2] "Transit" to include walking, biking, streetcar-ing, busing, lightrailing, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment