Introduction

When thinking about cities, city design in particular, America struggles with what effective city design is. Understanding the inner workings of how humans operate in society is perhaps the most important knowledge foundation anyone can have when approaching city design. A city which is able to grow with time, adapt to change, and evolve takes the forefront of the conversation in moving towards resilient design. There are numerous factors contributing to the way American cities are structured, it is these same factors which are causing the problem with our cities. Enabling change and moving toward better design can put American cities back on the right track for the future. Along with better city design, communities will strengthen and improve the overall quality of life for American people.

American cities today

Modern day American cities encourage car dependency, they are optimized for the car. An entirely car dependent country has a trickle effect on society which can be traced to many of the major issues we face in America like obesity and depression. Looking into the design of American cities provides insight for these issues.

A person can look around and see the same city everywhere, a downtown “historic” area with local businesses and shops, then the industrialized areas around it with the big corporations and grid-like road systems intertwined in it and surrounding it all. Outside of this there are the large, sprawled out neighborhoods, subdivisions and single-family housing zones. These areas have no work, businesses, or stores within any sort of efficient walking or biking distance.

Single-family zoning is one of the primary causes for this format. Single family zoning, or R1 zoning, requires that a certain amount of property be designated solely for single family housing to be developed on it. Suburban developments continue to pop-up all-over cities, mostly far away from the center where all the attraction, work, and activities. Walking or biking becomes entirely ruled out in favor of the car which becomes the only efficient form of transportation for the average person (Manville et al, 2019).

Going back to the conclusion of World War II is where the creation of the modern American city began. World War II left the United States as the only powerhouse nation without taking a considerable hit to its resources/wealth. The US had become by far the wealthiest nation in the world now. With this wealth, America began the “urban renewal project” which is now responsible for the large developments that have uglified in many American cities. Neighborhoods and residential areas of inner cities were bulldozed and taken apart to establish commercial buildings which took the life out of these communities and replace them with charmless structures without character. It ushered in total car dependency whilst creating a muted, dull and colorless environment For Americans to live in because the vast majority of U.S. cities adopted the same development strategy. Government policies and regulations suppress creative and diverse city design (Teaford, 2000).

R1 zoning was stated to have been created to keep industrial buildings and unflattering factories from being put up in or near residential and business areas. This seems like a positive thing, but there are many negatives to it than just the way it transformed design into what we see today (Campbell, 2020). The underlying incentive for R1 zoning being established is because it was a way to segregate white families from black families without being criticized for having racially based period to make it quick, at this time African Americans as a whole were poor, white families had the majority of the wealth in America. Single family homes and neighborhoods were too expensive for black families to purchase. This kept segregation alive without there being written law outright enabling it. This is a reason why there is a vast wealth gap between socioeconomic classes in America today. Putting R1 zoning aside again, civil engineer and urban planning expert, Charles Marohn, Jr., writes that in America today, we have “developed different building types, different development styles, and different ways of arranging things on the landscape, all to accommodate living arrangement based on automobile travel” (2020). building around cars is the precise problem with American city design, there needs to be a shift at some point where people take the priority in city design.

complicated vs. complex design

Drawing from the past and learning from it to form progress is something humans have done for millennia. Learning from the past, learning from mistakes and failures allows for growth to happen. For centuries, humans used trial and error experimentation to try and perfect the structure of our habitat. Ancient cities such as Rome and Athens used this very process to get their city to its peak, the experimentation carried through “times of abundance and scarcity, peace and war, disease, pestilence, stagnation, and growth” (Marohn, 2020). the cities had proven their ability to change and stress through time and come out “alive”.

Pre-1900s American cities drew from the same methods of city design as the ancient cities had used for thousands of years. A person living in America during this time could have work, food, and shelter all within short walking distance. But this is not the truth in a modern America. Collectively, humans lived the same way for thousands of years and within a short time frame, “Americans transformed an entire continent around the new set of ideas.” These ideas were not the result of centuries of trial and error. America at this point, post World War II, gained all the momentum to be had and ran with these new ideas without looking back.

American cities are complicated systems, but they are not complex. A complicated system is also a fragile one, a fragile system will degrade when put under stress. However, an antifragile one will grow stronger up to a certain point. Take weight training for example, moving weights is stress created on the muscles, which will grow stronger from it. In the context of city design, a complex system is one that can adapt to change, move with it and not wear down. America around the 1800s represented thousands of years of wisdom received from our ancestors on how to build a human habitat. Patterns such as building the village too far from the river results in wasting time and effort hauling water back and forth, but putting it too close means that a flood could wipe it out entirely (Marohn, 2020). been passed down for generations. Incremental change based upon smaller experiments or stresses over time makes for a complex system. Systems adapted and evolved, that’s the idea of complexity. Complicated systems will not evolve or change, they will eventually fail.

The balancing of multiple competing priorities at once is something that complex systems are able to do well. In cities, there are countless priorities all competing with each other to be addressed or taken care of from political to economic to ethical priorities. In a complex system, the strategies that emerge in it are antifragile. Said strategies to curb catastrophe while keeping up the capacity for improvement, they will survive over time. Complicated systems, on the other hand, have a lot of parts which operate together. It is all knowable, understandable, and predictable though, Marohn puts it. The complicated system is only complicated because it does not possess the ability to evolve. Complicated systems are fragile, they do not grow from stress, they simply become weaker. A car, for example, is complicated and the more it is driven, the more it depreciates and degrades. Eventually the car fails and will no longer run period time is infinite, every complicated system fails eventually. When cities are imagined as complicated machines and not a complex habitat or ecosystem for people, we fail to understand the reality.

Recalling the result of World War II for America, mentioned earlier, we ended up with total abundance. The issue is, for complex systems, abundance eliminates the need for adaptation (Marohn, 2020). When there is an abundance of resources, it does not matter what decision we make. We could go about being clever or careless and still end up with plenty of wealth to spare. This takes away any need to learn from the past or adapt. No matter the issue we face in America, whether it be obesity, suicide rates, homelessness, traffic problems, there is nothing driving us to change or evolve our habitat since the outcome still means an incredible amount of wealth.

The future is unpredictable, we will never know what will happen in one year, years, or one hundred years. period to do this is through incremental change, which is a traditional pattern of development. Complex systems do just this. The world has limitations, and we cannot just expend infinite amounts of resources on mistakes. In order to prevent a catastrophe, we design things that can adapt and evolve to serve more purposes than one based on changing priorities. This is the approach to designing cities that must be kept in mind.

Human HabitaT

One of the solutions to moving on from the complicated car-centric American design of cities is to implement a system designed for the person, nothing else. This not only involves working card dependency out of the equation but also coming up with ideas that can improve the lives of the people living in a given city.

Transportation is a cornerstone in city planning. How will people get from one place to another? Ever since the automobile was created, walking and biking have practically been designed out of the transportation infrastructure. The elimination of active transportation, based on its obsoleteness in the current state of American cities, has cost citizens of the US many health benefits. The US, where more than 2/3 of adults are considered overweight or obese, has a severe car dependency problem. Studies have revealed that places higher in obesity rates have direct correlation with higher percentages of car commuters in comparison to those opting for other modes of transportation (Mauck, 2019). Communities which find ways to make active transportation, such as biking and walking, viable and efficient forms of transportation will see general health improvements overall. Benefits for individuals and communities of this sort include being less prone to obesity, diabetes, strokes, heart disease, cancer, and being more likely to maintain an independent lifestyle as they age (2019). Not only these, but the consistent activity involved leads to general health improvement for an individual. and according to a research study by a team of researchers from multiple universities led by Dr. Erik Angner of George Mason University, health status is one of the most important predictors of happiness (2012).

In addition, introducing different building designs that are catered towards people will improve the lives of said people in the city. Designing buildings which play off of human tendencies, such as thigmotaxis and pareidolia, will find success. Thigmotaxis is the human urge to gravitate toward the edge, or wall-hanging. Rather than being out in the open, without surrounding objects, we instinctively move towards the outer edges, like walls in a room or store fronts on a wide street. Aligning buildings along streets satisfies this natural feeling. As for pareidolia, which is the tendency for people to find faces in inanimate objects, buildings can be constructed to suit this phenomenon as well. Building faces can be organized to resemble a human face. the idea behind doing this is based upon the strong emotional response humans experience when seeing a face, people find joy in seeing other people. A building which can be multifunctional and add to “human delight” would be highly efficient. It balances multiple priorities at once, human happiness and adaptability to changing needs. Symmetrical buildings also need to be mentioned because symmetry makes people happy. Research shows that looking at symmetrical objects subconsciously triggers smiling muscles more than looking at random or unsymmetrical patterns. When people smile, they are more likely to feel calm and reassured (Marohn, 2020).

Designing a city with buildings and structures meant to convey people all throughout brings the community comfort and pleasure while still satisfying the needs of the economy and possessing the capability to evolve when change is necessary. making a place lovable is essential to building cities that endure. These places reflect us, people are able to see themselves within them.

Designing cities around people entails replacing a car centered design with them. Equality should be a focus on car free communities. Biking lessens social divides by bringing people together who are more or less “travel deprived” and thus kept away from mingling with other social groups. Developing a safe bike infrastructure, which is also the most affordable infrastructure to build, that reaches everyone in a community means that:

• children will be more independent
• older people can use electric bikes instead of walking
• women will feel safer while biking
• disabled individuals will feel safer using manipulated bikes
• those unable to afford a vehicle will feel more included and accepted through experiencing an “efficient transportation system rather than feeling like a nuisance on the road” (Mauck, 2019)

Closing social gaps and advocating for equality is something the person forward city design is able to accomplish.

Not only is person centered design beneficial in the areas mentioned, but the decrease in car use would lead to immense environmental benefits. “Since 2017, driving has been the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US” (Simek, 2021). The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a car on average in the US is 4.6 tonnes per year. This is equivalent to the average totalcarbon dioxide emitted yearly by a person in France. If the car is ever replaced in the transportation efficiency rankings in America, there would be significantly less carbon dioxide emissions year-round. Designing cars out of cities rather than people can lead to more sustainability and a far less harsh impact on the environment. Creating a safe environment for people to live in, one that adds to human pleasure, connects people to community, promotes health and happiness whilst the balancing changing priorities effectively is the idea of a human habitat.

Concluding statement

City design has a far greater impact on society, technology and science and it lets on. Great design enables communities to grow with time and poorly designed cities suppress growth and they eventually fall with time. American cities are stagnating and desperately need to change for the future. The current state will not stand the test of time because it is unable to adapt. Resources are not infinite; they are always diminishing. Complex human habitats creatively find ways to adapt to changing needs and issues. It will take great political willpower and decades in order to make the switch to complexity. Incremental change over time it is how the complex system navigates the world of uncertainty, and it is how America will have to go about reinventing itself. It will be like starting from square one, mistakes will be made and learning from the past will have to be done. The only way America will succeed is through evolution and adaptation to change, which is inevitable in a world where time is infinite, and the future cannot be known. Making the switch would be for the betterment of science, technology and society.

American cities in the modern era are designed around cars. The effect a car centric country has on the well-being of the people is greatly in the negative. People have less health benefits, they are more prone to depression, and experience a less efficient lifestyle and have less options for transportation. The current design in America cannot adapt or evolve when change is necessary, which is on display now. Building cities that operate specifically for people involve complex designs, ones that will grow from struggle. Cities are meant to be a habitat for humans, they should strengthen communities, encourage healthy living, bring happiness and should be able to balance ever changing needs within society. Human habitats will evolve when it is necessary. Modern American cities will slowly break down over time. Through all methods mentioned in this chapter being steadily implemented overtime, America can turn the city dwelling into an efficient human habitat in the future. But in order for this change to happen, it will take the efforts of an entire country collectively working to make a better America in the future.

References

Angner, E., Ghandhi, J., Williams Purvis, K., Amante, D., & Allison, J. (2012, October 14). Daily functioning, health status, and happiness in older adults – Journal of Happiness Studies. SpringerLink. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-012-9395-6

CADdetails. (2021, July 8). Stepping away from car-centric building design. Design Ideas for the Built World. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://caddetailsblog.com/post/stepping-away-from-car-centric-building-design

Calloway, D. M., & Faghri, A. (2020, August 12). Complete streets and implementation in small towns. Current Urban Studies. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=103092

Campbell, M. (2020, September 18). The more the merrier: A case against R1 zoning laws. Crossfire KM. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.crossfirekm.org/articles/the-more-the-merrier-a-case-against-r1-zoning-laws

How urban design can impact mental health. Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.urbandesignmentalhealth.com/how-urban-design-can-impact-mental-health.html

Manville, M., Monkkonen, P., & Lens, M. (2019). It’s time to end single-family zoning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(1), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216

Marohn, C. L. (2020). Strong towns a bottom-up revolution to rebuild American Prosperity. Wiley.

Mauck, Z. (2019, April). It’s all in the details: Understanding car-free community design. Iowa State University College of Design. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.design.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KING-Mauck_2019.pdf

Simek, P. (2021, October 25). America needs to kick its car dependency. are local investments in urban design the answer? D Magazine. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/10/america-needs-to-kick-its-car-dependency-are-local-investments-in-urban-design-the-answer/

Teaford, J. C. (2000). Urban renewal and its aftermath. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2000.9521373