Walkability vs. Walk-Friendliness: Are We Building Sidewalks or Pedestrian Cities?

Beyond the Checkbox of "Walkability"

"Walkability." It’s the urban planning buzzword du jour, plastered all over city plans, real estate brochures, and lifestyle blogs. And for good reason! Walkability, the idea that we can and should design cities where people can easily get around on foot, is undeniably important. But lately, I’ve been wondering if we’re stopping at “walkability” when we really need to be striving for something more: walk-friendliness. Are these just two words for the same thing? I don’t think so. “Walkability” feels… technical, almost a checklist item. Sidewalks? Check. Crosswalks? Check. Street grid? Check. Walkable! But “walk-friendliness” evokes something different, something more… human. It suggests not just the possibility of walking, but the desire to walk, the enjoyment of walking, the creation of places that actually invite and welcome pedestrians. So, what’s the real difference between “walkability” and “walk-friendliness”? Does this subtle semantic distinction actually matter? And are we, as planners and city-builders, focusing too much on the mechanics of “walkability” and not enough on the more nuanced, experience-driven reality of creating truly pedestrian-friendly cities? Let’s take a stroll through this idea and see where it leads us.

Parking Pet Peeve: Why Minimums are Maximum Nonsense (and How to Fix It)

 

The Parking Frustration is Real

Okay, let’s just get this off my chest right away: parking minimums. Ugh. Is there anything more infuriating in the urban landscape? Driving around downtown, seeing block after block of surface parking lots, gaping asphalt wastelands in prime locations, all while pedestrians are crammed onto narrow sidewalks dodging traffic. Or the absurdly over-parked suburban strip mall, surrounded by acres of empty asphalt, even on a Saturday afternoon. It feels like our cities are designed first and foremost for… parked cars, and maybe, just maybe, people are a distant second thought. And it all boils down to parking minimums – those arcane local ordinances that dictate how much parking must be built for every conceivable type of development, from apartments to yoga studios to bowling alleys. Parking minimums: they're a sacred cow of urban planning, an unquestioned dogma. But here’s the thing: I think they’re utter nonsense. Maximum nonsense, in fact. Let’s dive into the wild world of parking mandates, explore why they exist (or why we think they exist), and, most importantly, why it’s high time we took a “hands-off” approach and let cities breathe a little freer from these concrete shackles.

Two Planners, One City? Public vs. Private, and the Wild World of Urban Development

The Planner Paradox: Public Good vs. Private Gain

Urban planner: it’s a job title that seems to encompass… well, just about everything and nothing at once. You’ve got public sector planners, toiling away in city halls, wrestling with zoning codes and community meetings. Then you’ve got private sector planners, embedded in development firms, crunching numbers and pitching projects to investors. Are these even the same species? Do they speak the same professional language? Do they even use the same skills? Why, in the sprawling galaxy of urban professions, do these seemingly disparate roles both get slapped with the “urban planner” label? To unravel this urban planning paradox, let’s take a journey. We're going to follow a hypothetical development project, from the initial spark of an idea to the (hopefully) triumphant ribbon-cutting ceremony. Along the way, we’ll track the roles of both public and private planners, peek behind the curtain of the urban development process, and ask the big questions: Who really shapes our cities? And what part do these “urban planners” – public and private – actually play in the grand urban drama? Prepare for a backstage pass to the wild, and often bewildering, world of urban development.

Design vs. People: From Defensible Space to the Meat Ax – and Why One Cuts Deeper

Two Design Philosophies, One Shared Sin?

Oscar Newman, with his “defensible space” theory, tried to design crime out of existence, or at least, significantly reduce it. His idea? Shape the physical environment – create clear territorial markers, encourage natural surveillance, foster a sense of community ownership – and residents would become the de facto guardians of their neighborhoods. Contrast that with Robert Moses, who famously declared that in an "overbuilt metropolis, you have to hack your way with a meat ax." His philosophy? Radical, large-scale physical transformation, bulldozing through existing neighborhoods to create his vision of a “modern” city, prioritizing efficiency and grand design. At first glance, these seem wildly different. Yet, both Newman and Moses share a common thread, a potential… sin, in the eyes of people-centered urbanists like… well, you and me. Both seem to put design at the forefront, as the primary lever of urban change. Both, arguably, prioritize the blueprint over the messy, unpredictable reality of human behavior and community needs. So, is it hypocritical to find some merit in Newman's defensible space while utterly rejecting Moses' “meat ax” urbanism? Or is there a rational distinction to be drawn between these two design-centric approaches, one that explains why one feels… less wrong than the other? Let's sharpen our critical knives and dissect this design dilemma.