Pedestrianism Fact and Fancy

In The Option of Urbanism, Christopher B. Leinberger aims to present a happy alternative to the usual apocalyptic accounts of urban sprawl and its consequences. This developer and professor of real estate at the University of Michigan suggests that walkable urbanism, which he defines as a type of settlement in which “you could satisfy most everyday needs ... within walking distance from your home,” is absolutely attainable; we just have to choose it, like we chose “driveable sub-urbanism” in the ’50s and ’60s. He urges planners, architects, developers, and public officials to invest in this growing trend.

How did we find ourselves living in a world so averse to pedestrians? Leinberger locates the origins of postwar suburban development in media representations of the luxuriousness and ease of life outside the city. Spacious homes with large cars parked in the driveway, speeding to work on a super-highway, finally moving out of that inner-city walkup — these were the ideals that fueled the American Dream of the ’40s and ’50s. Yet, since the ’90s, American values have been undergoing a change. Instead of the suburban utopia represented in the iconic ’50s television show Leave It to Beaver, Americans yearn for the excitement of the pedestrian urban lifestyle depicted in Sex and the City. Drawing upon his knowledge of real estate trends, Leinberger argues that this change in aesthetic preferences has been coupled with concrete capital expenditure in high density urban areas. For instance, in New York’s Westchester County, which represents “driveable suburbanism” according to Leinberger’s dichotomy, the price per square foot for housing is $365, compared to $1064 per square foot in the much more “walkable” Manhattan. He interprets this pattern as a positive indication that an “actual shift toward walkable urbanism” is incontestably underway.

This leaves the reader with the impression that it is only a matter of time before the United States becomes a pedestrian utopia. Unfortunately, in order to make this argument, Leinberger has to gloss over the most difficult questions: First, is “walkable urbanism” only feasible for the wealthiest residents of American cities? Second, even if walkable urbanism is “the new American Dream,” as Leinberger contends, is the existing built environment really that malleable? The legacy of the ’40s and ’50s is not only a car-dependent lifestyle but also a concrete physical infrastructure that might not be so easy to change, even if we wanted to. Leinberger’s own evidence demonstrates that, at least for now, walkable urbanism is not an option for everyone. The people choosing a more walkable lifestyle at the moment are the ones that possess the financial means to do so. Pointing out that real estate prices for “walkable” areas have skyrocketed in recent years does not logically lead to the conclusion that walkable urbanism is the new American Dream. On the contrary, it provides further evidence of the growing economic segregation in cities throughout the United States — a trend that cannot in any way be viewed as optimistic. In this respect, Leinberger’s analysis is quite revealing for what — or rather who — it largely omits: Low-and middle-income communities are completely left out of his rosy vision of the future of American cities and suburbs. Rather than exposing a hopeful trend, Leinberger unwittingly reveals a problem: Walkable urbanism, while desirable for all, is really only possible for a small percentage of the population. Ironically, this exclusionary outlook is exactly what prevents a truly new urbanism from taking hold in the United States.

The most important factor regarding the future of walkable urbanism in America is transportation, an issue that Leinberger only briefly touches upon at the end of the book. If we want to create truly walkable cities and suburbs in America, we need to rethink our entire transit system, not to mention attitudes towards public transportation. How can we justify spending tax dollars to develop public transportation in middle-income areas that have perfectly fine roads, and where almost everyone already owns a car? In addressing this issue, Leinberger resorts to a series of “shoulds” and “musts”: “Transportation funding should shift to fixing the transportation infrastructure we already have and diversifying transportation investments that support walkable urbanism — transit, bicycling, and walking” and that “the American bias against transit must be overcome.” Few would disagree with these wise assertions. Yet without a large-scale commitment to placing the needs of the community over those of the individual, the new American dream of pedestrianism will remain in the realm of the fantastic.