skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Kaid Benfield’s Blog

What we like - and don't like - about our cities

Kaid Benfield

Posted July 29, 2014 in Green Enterprise, Living Sustainably

Tags:
, , , , , ,
Share | | |

  Burlington, VT (by: Bob Gaffney, creative commons) 

American city dwellers place a high value on their cities’ food offerings, from restaurants to farmers’ markets.  We also love historic buildings and good public spaces.  Traffic, not so much.  These findings are from a new study released last week by Sasaki Associates, a Massachusetts-based design and planning firm. 

The study, although limited to six cities, is rich with interesting findings that should help inform the agendas of urban planners and advocates.  The findings should also matter to environmentalists, because successful cities are key to a sustainable future.  To get the environment right, we need to create and maintain urban environments that people love.

Restaurants and food

In particular, restaurants and other sources of food are among the most popular aspects of city life, according to respondents in six major US cities:

“When we asked city residents what aspects of urban life enchanted them, food kept popping up in their responses. Eighty-two percent of urbanites appreciate their city's culinary offerings.”

Restaurants were also ranked number one among a menu of items that would make residents visit a new part of their city, named by 46 percent of respondents, and number one among a different list of choices when asked to name “the most outstanding aspect of cities people love to visit.”  (“Local attractions” ranked second.)

One thousand respondents participated in the survey from Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.  The study was conducted in May 2014.

Architecture and public spaces

Corning, NY (c2014 by FK Benfield)

City dwellers also place a high value on historic architecture.  54 percent agreed that, “to improve their city’s architectural character,” they “would like to see their city invest in renovating existing historical buildings to retain character while making them more useable.”  Only 17 percent felt their city was too quaint and “would like to see more skyscrapers and iconic buildings.”

Similarly, 57 percent will “stop to admire buildings that are historic,” while 19 percent favor “buildings that are modern.”  38 percent admire buildings “that prominently feature public art or very unique design elements.”

Beyond buildings per se, urbanites love parks and other good public spaces.  The study’s authors found that most people remember their favorite city experience taking place outdoors, either in a park or on a street.  A park or street was named by 65 percent of respondents as the site of a favorite experience, with private buildings coming in a distant second at 22 percent.  Government and civic buildings came in at a paltry 6 percent.

Waterfronts were named most popular among public spaces, with large parks coming in second.  And substantial numbers of respondents wish their cities would make streets more friendly to cyclists and pedestrians, would support adding outdoor music and entertainment venues, and would like more small urban parks, “such as for visiting on lunch breaks.”  

Transportation and parking

Not all is rosy in cities, however, according to the survey.  A substantial plurality of respondents – 41 percent – cited traffic as first among city complaints.  Yet most respondents are themselves contributing to that traffic, with 58 percent saying that they use cars most frequently among modes of transportation.  (Half that many listed public transit.)

Not that I blame them.  For many people, even in cities, convenient, comfortable, and clean alternatives to driving either don’t exist or don’t function in a way that meets their needs.

The study’s authors write:  

“When we asked urban residents what they liked least about living and working in a city, traffic was the unsurprising winner.

“Breaking Americans of their car habit has been an ongoing battle. Transit-oriented development is the most-Seattle (by: Oran Viriyincy, creative commons)cited solution to encourage a less auto-centric society.  (An anomaly, New York has the city-wide density to support a robust transit network.)

“However, the numbers (here and elsewhere) speak loud and clear:  we are still auto-dependent.  We need to plan and design differently—in a way that will enhance mobility options while still acknowledging our love for the automobile.”

The second-most-listed complaint was a lack of parking.

Staying put

Ultimately, the study provides great news, at least about the cities surveyed:  60 percent of respondents said they plan on living either where they do now or in a different part of the city.  The portion who say they plan to move outside the city at some point, 34 percent, is also a large number.  But what a welcome contrast to the situation a few decades ago when central cities were emptying out, suburbs seen as the overwhelmingly preferred domicile for those with a choice. 

Not long ago, I listed some questions designed to elicit whether a city is environmentally and socially sustainable.  Those questions remain important, regardless of the findings here.  But we’ll have a much better chance of reaching sustainability if we provide its ingredients in a form that responds to people’s self-expressed needs, such as those reported here.  As I have said before, if our solutions don’t work for people, they will never work for the planet.

Kaid Benfield writes about community, development, and the environment on Switchboard and in other national media.  Kaid’s latest book is People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think About Greener, Healthier Cities.  Today's article was first published on the Huffington Post.

Related posts:

Share | | |

Comments

Paul F. BurkeJul 29 2014 10:15 AM

American cities, global cities generate waste as in leftover garbage. This is a fact.

It used to be that the garbage collector would drive by your house and lift up the barrel and compact it into the trash truck.

Then off to the landfill and spread it around and bury the garbage. Then recycling came and what a tremendous boon and a help that was.

Each year across the world over 1 billion tons of leftover garbage is still hauled to the landfill.

It needs to be dealt with and eliminated without any pollution forever.

This is why America and the world needs a massive Energetics Program to eliminate the rubbish polluting our soil and groundwater and flying around by the winds and landing into the oceans and waterways turning into micro plastic .

The leftover rubbish would be dried and consumed pollution-lessly because we have lived with this problem and no leadership has been shown that puts an end to this overlooked huge burden.

Any shopping mall or fast food outlet generates tons of cups, wrappers, boxes, etc, not to mention an entire nation of suburban homes and big cities.

It needs to consumed energetically not overlooked or hauled away to the dump all over again!

The advantages are complete consumption without pollution and used for electrical power generation and/or disposal. Thereby guilt free cities and not in my neighborhood pollution. ( The NIMBYs).

Otherwise take a look at all waste barrels at any galleria or shopping mall and realize that this matter has never been solved, rather it is a material pollution nightmare that demands new technology solutions.

The NRDC should realize that this technology is here and absolutely nothing is being done about it from the state or federal level.

It is a failure on the part of mankind's limited thought process of what needs to be done.

Kai HagenJul 30 2014 01:39 PM

Paul: Your comment seems to have little to do with Kaid's blog entry. And I'm not going to get into a long and detailed response, with tons of readily available links to bolster my case -- not here and now, anyway -- but if you are "selling" so-called Waste-to-Energy as the best or even appropriate response to municipal waste disposal issues, you couldn't be more wrong.

It is an out-of-date, economically-risky, environmentally-unfriendly and resource-wasting approach...that also happens to waste energy and create fewer jobs than the far more flexible and adaptable, human scale, economically-sound and environmentally-responsible alternatives that are out there -- proven and ready to go for any community with the commitment to do the right thing.

dr longAug 1 2014 04:49 PM

This speaks to what has been known for some time about potential urban dwellers in smaller urban areas. What the potential shows is that many of these dwellers are looking for the "best" of the urban experience without the "worst" of that same experience. Traffic? Noise? well you do need to understand it is not a house in the country. Small cities are seeing a revitalization in urban dwellers and adaptive reuse of existing buildings that have seen a vacancy of their upper floors for over 50 years.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Send Me Updates About: Kaid Benfield

As new content on your chosen topic gets posted, you'll receive an automated email via FeedBurner. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Feeds: Stay Plugged In

Feeds: Kaid Benfield’s blog