The recent economic downturn has brought into focus the problems we have with our cities-crumbling infrastructures, abandoned downtown cores, transportation deadlocks because of suburban sprawl, and weak social capital.
Throwing huge amounts of money into repairing thousands of miles of crumbling roads and bridges, and building cheaper homes further and further out of downtown cores--while they resemble ghost towns after business hour--is not the solution while government spending is under close scrutiny. It's time to rethink what makes for livable cities.
After 40 years of sprawling urban design, planners, governments and home-owners are realizing the benefits of compact and high density communities in terms of infrastructure costs, the environment and social capital. Unfortunately, zoning bylaws in many North American cities still favor low-density development at a time when the problems of sub-urban sprawl are evident.
Living in an area where the amenities of life-food, parks, playgrounds, libraries, restaurants and hospitals-as well as the opportunity to make social connections that are within walking or bicycle transportation, promotes healthy lifestyles, has a positive impact on the environment, and builds safer, people friendly communities.
Research from the University of New Hampshire, published in the journal, Applied Research in Quality of Life, concluded:
- "A walkable community provides residents with easy access to amenities...the ability to walk to these important locations in one's home neighborhood has been linked a higher quality of life."
- "Social capital, a measure of an individual's or groups' networks, personal connections and community involvement, brings benefits such as reduced isolation, career connections, and neighborhood safety."
- "On the whole, the more walkable neighborhoods scored higher on every measure of social capital than the less walkable neighborhoods....Individuals in more walkable neighborhoods tended to have higher levels of trust and community involvement...and also reported being in good health and happy more often than those in the less walkable neighborhoods."
What makes a city livable? The term livable cities was first used in the l980's to describe the quality of life and the characteristics of cities that make them livable.
Now numerous rankings of the most livable cities exist, the most renowned being those from the Economist, Forbes, Mercer, and most recently Monacle and the Philips Livable Cities Award. The Economist and Forbes based their rankings primarily on data from the Mercer consulting company, which annually measures quality of living standards using data such as crimes rates, health statistics, sanitation standards and expenditures on city services. Quality of living also reflects the interaction of political, socio-economic and environmental factors in the city. Mercer prides itself on using criteria that are objective, neutral and unbiased. Such rankings can be a powerful tool for economic development and there is cutthroat competition and lobbying by world cities to be ranked high.
What do the rankings show? The Economist, focusing on economic and business issues, places Vancouver first, with Toronto, Calgary, Vienna and Melbourne in the top five. By contrast, Forbes, which ranks only American cities, cite criteria of unemployment, crime, income growth, the cost of living and artistic and cultural opportunities., listing Pittsburgh, Ogden, Provo, and Ann Arbor in the top 5. As a lifestyle magazine, Monacles' focus is the top 25 cities to call home, with criteria that include social and economic circumstances such as public health and infrastructure and transportation. Their top cities in 2010 were Munich, Copenhagen and Zurich, and Vancouver. Instead of ranking cities for the livability standards they have already achieved, the Philips Livable Cities Award, rewards the best ideas for improving sustainability and standard of living in an urbanized and economically challenged location.
Livability rankings may reflect standard of living or quality of life or both. So, for example, Mercer ranks Vienna and Vancouver in the top for quality of living, but Calgary, Helsinki and Wellington in terms of eco-ranking and sustainability. When it comes to walkability, cities such as Paris, Copenhagen, New York (Manhattan), Vancouver and Boston (Cambridge) are cited. One interesting thing to note, when it comes to overall measures of livability, no city in the U.S. is highly ranked in most of the surveys cited.
So as governments and the private sector examine strategies to emerge from the recession and decide where money is best spent, continuing the support of the old paradigm of suburban sprawl around the automobile, may not be the best choice. Building and rebuilding livable high density cities, reclaiming the city cores built around walkability, sustainability and the development of social capital may be the answer.
