This one block in Oak Cliff, a historic neighborhood in Dallas turned a four lane busy street into a complete street in only 24 hours. Almost instantly they had created a vibrant and healthy block. They called it the “Better Block” project and they have created a handy how-to-guide to make it happen, as well as a webinar on May 4 – which I will be attending. And the idea is spreading to Houston, Mount Rainer, Waco, Memphis, and Oyster Bay, Long Island….I think it is time for here in Denver!

The idea is to create a showcase of how creating more sensible streets will actually work. Most people, especially here out west, don’t like to hear about what east-coasters or worse, what Europeans are up to. They can always find excuses as to why their community is different from every other community for the past few thousand years. The “Better Block” project does not wait around for a lengthy planning process to gain community support – it demonstrates the benefits over a day or a weekend. The temporary changes in street design show just how simple the changes we are asking for are and how they are at the same time so powerful. In Jason Roberts of Oak Cliff’s own words:

It didn’t cost millions of dollars; we didn’t have to hire consultants from other far away places. It took us a day, and all we did was slow the street down and we made room for everybody, for cars, for people for bicyclists, that is all we gotta do. We changed the psychology of the street. We changed the economics of the area. These businesses can be successful now. That is all it takes.

Yes, this idea of complete streets, shared streets, living streets, or whatever you call them, can truly be a game changer for a local economy. Check out for yourself below and if you know of any other projects like this please let me know to help The Urban Forward Institute build a database of these great projects.

My primary focus of the day was health impact assessments (HIA), since that is what I’m undertaking at work. There were a couple of good sessions covering this topic, including the state of the field and some specific examples. I was surprised to learn that there have been about 80 completed HIAs across the country, with another 40 or so underway. I find these to be pretty impressive numbers, considering HIA is a relatively new phenomenon in the US. What was particularly encouraging is that the World Bank and IFC are now beginning to require HIA for some of their large development loans. Even more surprising, there are actually multinational corporations that have done HIAs on big projects.

At the end of the day, however, this is a drop in the bucket when compared with what’s possible. HIAs still face a lot of barriers to more widespread acceptance, including regulatory limits, political resistance, unwilling developers and just general skepticism. One suggestion I found particularly interesting was to write the HIA recommendations in regulatory language so that they could be easily transferred to enforceable code. Additionally, HIA’s emphasis on community engagement should be used to differentiate it from other forms of considering health in decision-making. One of the items I took from the various HIAs that were discussed was using community surveys and focus groups to help determine the project scope. This seems much more useful and effective (and fair) than leaving it to just a few people or a steering committee.

Perhaps most importantly, HIA helps to raise the profile of health considerations in community decision-making. This is done with the broader public through extensive community outreach and public input. Community members then often raise these concerns with policy makers, ideally creating buy in at both levels. Of course, efforts need to be made to create strong partnerships with elected officials, community leaders and other relevant organizations. This multi-pronged approach, along with specific and pragmatic recommendations, can make a HIA very useful for a community.

(See this post on RWJF’s blog for more on the HIA sessions)

Outside of health impact assessments, I did learn a few other things. Dr. Sean Lucan, a family physician in the Bronx, reported on a study he conducted that investigated the relationship between food environment perceptions and dietary patterns. He found that poor perceptions of one’s food environment were correlated to an unhealthy diet. This means that even if food access is actually there, but residents don’t perceive it, they are still more likely to eat unhealthy foods. What I took away was that we can’t just put some fresh food in a store and assume people will start buying it; there also needs to be an educational/promotional campaign to raise awareness of the importance and availability of healthy foods.

Another session looked at some intriguing work around schools and nutrition. The highlight for me here was a study that looked at fast around schools. It’s especially important with rising childhood obesity rates and strong evidence linking fast food access to higher body mass index (BMI). Conducted in California, this study noted how many fast food establishments were within 1,000 feet of schools, a half mile and how many were visible from school grounds. On top of that, they looked at the type and location of marketing, particularly that which targeted children. They even looked inside these places to see where and how they advertised nutrition information for their menu items (many places had it tucked in the back by the bathrooms rather than up front by the counter where you actually order your food). It’s pretty disturbing how many fast food outlets they found that were located so close to schools, and how many of them directly advertised to the kids. They also learned that McDonald’s specifically targets schools as profitable locations for their restaurants. I think this would be an interesting study to replicate locally, pairing it with a review of zoning regulations to see what policies could be targeted to reduce the fast food density around schools.

The theme that weaved itself throughout the conference was social justice. Every session I attended included presentations that addressed this issue, and it was exciting to hear about the amount of good work being done out there. Kudos to APHA for making this a central element of a conference that reaches such a wide range of people and fields that have the opportunity to make a difference.

As I discovered this last week, LiveWell Colorado is just one of many organizations in Colorado that are working towards creating and improving healthy lifestyles. My organization, Tri-County Health Department, is working on a Communities Putting Prevention to Work grant from the CDC to address obesity in a variety of ways. Several government agencies at both the state and municipal level are working on an array of projects incorporating the built environment, physical activity and healthy eating. These include the City of Denver, Colorado’s Dept. of Transportation, Dept. of Local Affairs, Dept. of Public Health & Environment, a variety of LiveWell communities across the state and many more I’m sure I’m forgetting. There are also a variety of non-profits, such as Partnerships for Healthy Communities, the Regional Institute for Health & Environmental Leadership, Denver Urban Gardens and many, many more.

There are two elements of all this that I find particularly exciting. One is the community of professionals that has sprung up to work closely with each other across issues and institutions. There are a lot of engaged, passionate, and intelligent people grappling with these topics from a variety of backgrounds and organizations that are helping each other out. Second is the emphasis of many of these folks on the social justice component of this work and it’s importance to vulnerable communities and populations. Plenty of research has shown that minorities and lower income populations are disproportionately affected by health disparities and it is vital that we work to correct this imbalance. It is incredibly encouraging to see so many things happening right now, and I’m thankful that I’ll get an opportunity to contribute.

Richard Florida recently had an article in the Wall Street Journal about the “biggest urban revitalization challenge of our times – far larger in scale, scope, and cost than the revitalization of our inner cities,” the remaking of America’s sprawling suburbs. While I may have many disagreements with Florida’s famous concept of the “creative class” fit for another post, he brought up many excellent points in the article. He pointed to a Brookings Institute study that found suburban poverty increasing 37.4% since 2000, while it only increased by 16.7% in cities. Big cities have prospered as they attract “ambitious people, empty-nesters, young families, and even a growing number of offices.” The suburbs that have survived, are the ones that offer the downtown amenities such as walkability, vibrant street life, density and diversity. The majority of Americans would prefer to walk more and drive less, but the current layout of cities encourages speeding, is wrought with dangerous intercessions, and discourages walking. Florida ended his article with a call to action:

Today the challenge is to remake our suburbs, to turn them into more vibrant, livable, people-friendly communities and, in doing so, to make them engines of innovation and productivity.

Local Innovations in partnership with Community Association Professionals is working to do just that, starting in Parker, CO.  Last Friday, I went to a meeting with the HOA board and the Metropolitan District board of this community in Parker.  They are desperate for answers to solve the problems of their stalled community. The majority of land in their neighborhood is undeveloped and owned by a land speculator, and a bank owns the rest of the undeveloped land. Home-builders are skeptical to build the kind of dense walkable community that Florida says will save suburbia, and even if they were not, the Town of Parker wants the community to fulfill the original plans of the suburban development. One example of their stuggles is surfacing as the community attempts to save money by converting their landscaping to xeriscaping. However, despite warning residents of sky-rocketing water prices, the Town of Parker limits the amount of non-vegetative elements that can be incorporated in the landscaping.

Rejuvenating this suburban community and the thousands like it across the country is a daunting task. There are many competing interests laden with complex emotions and muddled expectations. The focus now becomes creating the paradigm shift. We must challenge the “picturesque image of American suburbia.” The only way to move forward is to open communication and work honestly within the constraints of the current economic climate. At Local Innovations, we are working with the community members, town officials, investors, and builders to create a new and more sustainable model of edge-cities. Stay-tuned for more updates as this project moves forward.

-adam

Photo by Patriarca12, available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

In a word, yes. A new study that was published this summer in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that people who commuted to work via light rail reduced their body mass index (BMI) by 1.18 and had “81% reduced odds of becoming obese over time.” While switching to light won’t cause anyone to shed dozens of pounds, this research demonstrates that it can be a significant factor in living a healthier lifestyle.

To conduct their research, the authors studied residents living within a one mile radius of the recently completed South Corridor Light Rail line in Charlotte, NC. Before and after the rail line was completed, data was gathered on transit use, BMI, obesity and physical activity for about 500 people. Additionally, the study looked at residents’ perceptions of their neighborhood environment as well as objective land use measures such as density, nearby parks, neighborhood shops and other amenities.

Not only did the authors find that using light rail would lower a person’s weight and BMI over time, they also learned that

Positive perceptions of the social and physical environment in one’s neighborhood were significantly correlated with lower BMI and lower odds of obesity. The odds of meeting the weekly RPA [recommended physical activity] through walking and RPA through vigorous exercise were significantly higher for those living in neighborhoods with more-positive social and physical environments.

Importantly, this research provides empirical evidence that the built environment (and how we perceive it) plays a major role in our levels of physical activity. Many people struggle to get to the gym or jog around the local park, but if we can construct our neighborhoods and transit systems in a pedestrian friendly manner then we can achieve much of the physical activity we need in our lives just by going about our daily routine. Obviously, much more than light rail is needed to make a sizeable dent in the disturbing level of obesity in America, but this is a great way to introduce “functional” activity into a large segment of the population.

This study is certainly not perfect and has its shortcomings. Most notably, the BMI and physical activity levels were self-reported and therefore subject to errors in estimating these measurements. In addition, it was a not a large study and the number of transit users was “quite small.” Of course, this simply means we need more and larger studies to see if these results will hold true across broader populations.

Many of us intuitively understand that the built environment shapes how we live and and navigate our cities. What is often lacking is the research to back up our assumptions and anecdotal experiences. One of my goals on this site is to highlight new research that explores the link between the built environment and public health, so you’ll hopefully be seeing more posts like this one.

- Matt

A couple of weeks ago I had the good fortune to sit in on a presentation by Dan Burden that he gave to a sustainable transportation class (I was even luckier to join him and a small group for dinner afterwards). One thing he said in particular really stood out to me: the only sustainable models are built around the human foot, not the automobile. This is a very simple yet profound statement. For thousands of years this was how humans constructed their environment. Only in the last few decades did we stray from this model to orient our towns and cities around the car.

The consequences of this shift have been enormous. We now live in a world with high rates of pollution, a staggering number of injuries and fatalities from auto accidents, chronic obesity, and a dependency on fossil fuels that supports unsavory regimes and poisons our environment. Only building around the human foot will allow us to combat all of these challenges. We cannot simply rely on technology to get us out of this mess. Electric cars still use batteries that require harmful mining, and even environmentally benign vehicles (assuming that would ever truly be possible) still cause congestion and reinforce our unhealthy sedentary lifestyles.

To return to building around the foot, Dan told the class that we need to build villages instead of highways. Rather than constantly widening old roads, building new ones, and throwing huge parking lots everywhere, we need to create places that people can and will walk, ride their bikes and use public transit.

Of course it’s not quite as simple as that. In future posts I’ll discuss the various details of such an approach, the challenges it faces, and some ways to hopefully overcome those challenges.

1. Are homes truly assets or are they more likely liabilities:

Sure, lots of people told me they had sold their house for so much more than they paid, but when I asked about how much they really had in the property, they seemed dumfounded. I wanted to know how much interest, taxes, commissions, maintenance and the value of their own time had contributed to the real cost of ownership. That’s how I had been trained to evaluate an investment… Silly me.

2. We have become extremely dependent on homes as assets.

Note how dependent we are on home equity to be our nest egg, particularly as we get older. That’s a lot of eggs in one basket. If I were to say that well more than half of my net worth, that is, assets less liabilities, is invested in a single corporate stock or bond, people would say I’m crazy. But, do it with a house, and I’m a solid citizen.

3. Owning a home has great opportunity costs. Instead of furthering education, producing more at work, engaging in the community, recreating, etc. homeowners must spend enormous amounts of time taking care of their home.

4. In my mind, his most troublesome point was the anxiety that comes from being so dependent on home equity.

Anybody with the bulk of their nest egg in a single immoveable asset is naturally going to be pretty sensitive about anything that might reduce that asset’s value. That means no matter what values you profess, even the slightest little thing that has even a whiff of reducing your property value can be a threat. So whether it’s a wind turbine or a nonwhite family moving in, it may be a cause for concern, even resistance.

5. Homeowners can feel like a prisoner in their own home. If your home cannot sell, that makes it very difficult to move for a new job or when you don’t need the space when your children move out. Lack of adequate public transit can make it very difficult for elderly to age in place.

Most of our policies in this country seem to favor homeowners over renters. For nearly a century and especially in the past 50 years, Federal policies beginning with the National Housing Act and later the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Most recently, the eight thousand dollar tax-credit for first time home-buyers (recently extended through April of 2010) seem to be more in support of the wall-street investors rather than actually supporting and enhancing our communities.

I am struck by the lack of support that exists for renters. As a renter myself, I am appalled at the lack of rights I have if my landlord would go into foreclosure. According to the Urban Institute’s report, The Impacts of Foreclosures on Families and Communities, I could be immediately evicted and lose my security deposit with practically no notice at all. With no time to plan and save for a move, and without the security deposit, many renters would risk losing their jobs and lose any ability to secure housing again.

There is a strong argument that homeownership is good for communities because of longer tenure and therefore a greater sense of a stable community. However government policies should support true community development. Community development is not just about homeownership; rather, it is about enhancing assets that increase the capacity of residents to improve their quality of life. When I say asset, I do not mean just financial assets. I mean all types and forms of community capital: physical, human, social, financial, environmental, political, and cultural. In addition, I must emphasize Ken Mayer’s first and fourth points. Homes may not be strong financial assets and may cause people to fear anything may that hint at degrading their value. Federally policies that pushed homeownership falsely increased the price of homes to the point of bursting. I seriously hope we do not make the same mistake again by creating the false idea that a home is a financial asset rather than a single component of community development. But above all, a home is shelter and is a right of all, even if it is not owned.

The UN’s Special Rapporteur on adequate housing recently made a trip to the US. Ironically, it seems that our push for housing may have led us to join the poor housing ranks of third world countries.

For information on the UN’s Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, Raquel Rolnik:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/overview.htm

http://raquelrolnik.wordpress.com/

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/special-rapportuer/

Because of the specific link between the financial crisis and the issue of housing and especially housing for low-income people, a great interest raised to the situation of the United States. – Raquel Rolnik

-adam

The ACT bill could have huge implications for healthy living in this country. When provided with a safe and convenient option to bike or walk, many more people will choose to do so. We need to create the infrastructure that provides that choice so that we are not all forced into our cars simply because the built environment around us doesn’t allow anything else. For most of us, if we simply walked or biked to work each day (or to the store or other trips) we would likely meet the 30 minute level of recommended physical activity per day, without ever stepping foot inside a gym or on a treadmill. On top of the health benefits would be increased activity and vibrancy on the streets with more people out of their cars, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and possibly even jobs and economic benefits.

I realize many people will criticize this bill for pushing the scope of federal involvement in local planning. There are certainly issues around the role of federal government in this realm, but I think this is a constructive way of getting involved. It avoids top down requirements in favor of competition among municipalities that will ideally result in greater innovation and more context appropriate solutions. That’s not to say there won’t be any complications, but we’ve so severely screwed up our cities that it will take a large and sustained federal investment to undo the decades of damage already inflicted. In this era of constrained state and city budgets, it is essential that Congress and the Administration take part in creating more livable communities if we are to ever reach that objective.

All this being said, it is important that everyone take the opportunity to talk to your congressional representatives to let them know you support the bill. Even better, today Transportation for America is organizing a national call-in to support safe walking and biking. Follow the link for easy instructions on how to call your representative, and if you can’t call today do it as soon as you’ve got the chance.

-matt

In response to my earlier post, I would like to discuss just how difficult it can be to “Think Big.” Personally, I would hardly qualify reusing water as thinking big and outside the box. However, the reality is purifying water for reuse is very difficult for many to wrap their heads around. In the mid-1990s, Los Angeles recognized the difficulties of providing over 9 million people with fresh water from an average rainfall of just 12 inches per year. So they invested $55 million to create a water recycling plant, only to have it shut down shortly after it opened. The East Valley Water Reclamation Project treated sewage at the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant in the Sepulveda Basin. The water was then pumped over spreading fields near Hansen Dam, where it slowly filtered through sandy soil and gravel into an underground reservoir. The system was enough to provide 120,000 homes with fresh water.

Why you ask was such a sensible project shut down? The picture shown in this blog has a lot to do with it. Gerald Silver, the President of Encino homeowner’s association first used the term “Toilet-to-Tap” in an interview on NPR. Mayoral candidate at the time Joe Wachs equated the system with drinking toilet water. A recent article in Science Progress explains how people in general do not trust science. People have an overwhelming fear of science and prefer to trust their gut feelings rather than data. It feels wrong to treat sewage for use as drinking water. However, unbeknownst to many, this is exactly what always happens with water. In fact, the East Valley Water Reclamation Project was an Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) project meaning that the water was returned to reservoirs after treatment before re-entering the water supply. Much of the water used in Colorado is treated and then placed back into the watershed where it flows to the Colorado River and later to the water supply in Southern California. In other words, California drinks Colorado’s toilet water. There is no reason to place the treated water back in nature; it may be more efficient to keep it a closed loop within the water supply. The EPA in their Guidelines for Water Reuse report that water that is placed back in reservoirs actually degrades in quality rather than undergoing further filtration which is commonly thought. This is due to the fact that water in reservoirs often accumulates pharmaceuticals, agricultural runoff and other contaminants.

The Toilet-to-Tap example shows the great importance of early and strong community engagement. Community members will be wary of any grand scheme concocted by “experts,” regardless of how sensible the proposal. In addition, planners and scientists should be careful not to fall into the “educator role.” Writing in Science in 2003, AAAS Chief Executive Officer Alan Leshner summarized the problem eloquently:

Simply trying to educate the public about specific science-based issues is not working…We need to move beyond what too often has been seen as a paternalistic
stance. We need to engage the public in a more open and honest bidirectional dialogue about science and technology.

Dialogue has to go both ways where both the planner and the community benefit. Engaging the community early on allows the community to garner a sense of ownership of the proposal and will therefore be less likely to oppose it later.

-adam

This also reminded me of something I’d heard at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference last month. In his keynote address, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan mentioned HUD’s new effort to create housing and transportation efficient mortgages (among many other good things happening at his agency). I was excited to hear this, since transportation costs can vary dramatically depending upon where one lives. The Center for Neighborhood Technology has done some great work in this area, mapping affordability based on both housing and transportation costs. In many places, once transportation is taken into account urban core neighborhoods begin to compete much more favorably with supposedly low-cost suburbs. Understanding this dynamic is important both for home-buying individuals as well as for the government in their policy work. If housing policy were to reflect this combination of costs, I think we would start to see our cities take a much different (and better) shape, with greater access to transit and increased walkability and bikeability.

It’s encouraging to see the federal government creating improved metrics that better reflect the reality of life for many Americans. Maybe there really is hope that our country will move towards a more explicit and determined embrace of truly working for equity across the whole population. The process will surely be slow, but things seem to be trickling out of the Obama Administration that are generally pointing in the right direction. Of course, there is still much to be done. It will require the support of subsequent administrations to fully institutionalize these new metrics and ensure equity remains a primary driving force in policy creation and evaluation. Equally vital will be the support of citizens and the great work of research and advocacy groups to keep these issues in front of policy makers.

-Matt