6 Reasons Walking Neighborhoods Should Return
Developments that support living without owning a car yield multiple benefits, writes Sherman Lewis of the Hayward Area Planning Association.
I stumbled into the field of Walking Neighborhood Urbanism by trying to develop an old quarry with 732 multi-units close to my University, Cal State East Bay. The work on this idea morphed into academic articles on neighborhoods. Other advocacy for neighborhoods has promoted the 15-minute city as a walking time criteria to reach local needs. Density and transit also get a lot of attention, but none of this was systematic.
Without intending to, I developed a new academic field which is more holistic, quantitative and systematic, coming to understand the neighborhood as an organizing concept between the city and housing. We spend about 43 percent of our awake time in neighborhoods, with the rest outside the neighborhood at work or other activities.
Walking Neighborhood Urbanism is not about walkability. It’s about enough density over a convenient walking area to support local needs with walk-in demand. Land use, pricing and pricing reforms work synergistically as a system. My academic articles documented great reductions in car use and ownership, which led to a higher quality of life.
LIKE THIS CONTENT? Subscribe to the MHN Finance & Investment Newsletter
Walking Neighborhood Urbanism achieves six goals.
1. Affordability
The system has three-story construction on walkways and many other features that reduce costs. A complex green energy system undercuts the local utility a bit. The cost of units is substantially below car-based housing, creating an affordability incentive for buyers. Units can be priced 10 percent below comparables.
In the case of College Heights, the best approach to parking turned out to be a below-grade parking podium because it saves on cut and fill, allows the walking area to be on walkways without traffic and allows about 200 more units saved from parking and streets.
2. Sustainability
The system achieves the highest sustainability possible within reasonable costs. It meets or exceeds the dozen requirements of California’s Green Building Code. The system conserves land and resources and increases biodiversity. Fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases are greatly reduced. Green energy buildings achieve energy efficiency from a combination of passive energy built into the house and active energy for heat and electricity. The system supports “net zero,” taking no net electricity off the grid over the course of a year. Water management keeps storm water on site and uses it to irrigate drought resistant native plant landscaping. Plumbing uses water-conserving fixtures and greywater, minimizing wastewater.
3. Mobility
The system supports living without owning a car. Mobility features include frequent, fast, free shuttle access to important nearby destinations. It includes HOA car share, shared ride like Uber, a community van and incentives for easy transition to living without a car. Even with some expense for car share, not owning a car and not leasing a parking space save a lot.
4. Health and Safety
With no traffic, the system is safe, quiet, and non-polluting. The system includes park area and a fitness center for recreation. It has a community garden, The HOA operates a security system, including a cell phone app to report problems.
5. Design
The system uses neo-traditional facades that have stood the test of time and are a visual gifts to the walkways. Focus groups will play a major role by being offered design choices.
6. Community
The purpose of the HOA is not just facility management but also to promote social cohesion. The directors would retain professional management to manage the HOA assets, shared ride, a community van, holiday events, other services, dues and budgets. The HOA board would require turnover and open meetings to manage problems as soon as they arise. With walkways, people pass face to face instead of bumper to bumper.
The case for Walking Neighborhood Urbanism is relentlessly economic, based on very real but not monetized external costs. My analysis describes 30 auto externalities with huge costs not measured in dollars. They relate to wilderness and biodiversity, farmland and ranches, climate change, many other pollutions, the high cost of free parking and defense costs.
Walking neighborhoods need to make a comeback to advance the real economy, the one that considers external costs. For example, including the cost of parking in rent forces renters to pay for something they may not need, creating a sunk cost favoring auto ownership.
Despite large subsidies for auto use, walking neighborhoods—mixed use multi-housing developments with limited and leased parking—are still economically viable in certain situations, such as old city centers, along arterials, failing shopping centers and even my quarry. They require educational marketing to help people envision a new life style.
Sherman Lewis leads the Hayward Area Planning Association.
