Sunday, March 06, 2005

Places to Live Walkably, Without Car Dependence

Twenty years ago, I gave up my car. The main reasons were economic and environmental, with later recognition of the value of walking for personal health, and its potential in community belongingness.

Looking for a place to live carless was not an easy thing in late 20th century America. I was surprised at how little help was readily and visibly available in that search. Even approximate success was spotty and elusive until very recently. And so this little project was originally designed to help people like myself, who must still be out there looking, maybe more of them than ever in the looming rise of gas prices, global temperatures, and soupy air.

Gradually I realized this notion of improved individual service could also have a broader social purpose. If we can make more people aware of the existence and value of places where they can live less dependent on their cars, and make it easier for them to move to such places, the increased "buy pressure" should free up- additional funding and add political clout for the cause.

But the seminal dilemma remained, for me at least -- maybe not for more resourceful searchers -- the difficulty of finding a comfortable place to live without a car, assuming I wasn't ready to be institutionalized, either, or "intentional community-ized." Part of my problem was not knowing exactly what I was looking for, or even its name (it's really hard to find something you can't even name!)

Eventually, I encountered the name "walkable community" and an excellent organization of that name headquartered in Florida (Walkable Communities, Inc., 320 S. Main St., High Springs, FL 32643). But, the work "walkable" as used by them and other great pioneers in the field didn't get all I came to see as desirable in the concept. Essentially, I wanted something in the name that indicated more the REASONS for walking beyond pleasure and health--a functional walkability if you will.

I started with this somewhat tongue-in-cheek definition: "A residential area where you can get a loaf of bread without getting in your car or getting hit by one."

Now substitute "ordinary daily maintenance needs" for "loaf of bread" and see Figure 1 as a sample, carefully noting the introductory notes. The idea is to be customer-friendly as well as pedestrian friendly, to the extent of ability to get along a couple of weeks or more without needing a car. After this, an excursion will usually be needed "downtown: or to some other larger shopping area for special non-daily shopping needs such as new clothes, a medical appointment, or a concert. Please note: the Figure 1 list is over-complete for any one individual or family. Moreover, the seemingly vast number of products and services can mainly be found in only two or three crucial stores: a large grocery store or moderate-sized supermarket; a drug store/pharmacy; and a dollar store or "5 and 10."

As for "getting in your car," automobiles might be permitted in the area provided their velocity and frequency does not threaten or seriously inconvenience walkers (pedestrian-friendly). Other likely vehicles could be electric carts, wheelchairs, and bicycles (assuming carefully laid out bicycle paths.) I'd be uneasy with skates and skateboards unless very carefully controlled, but maybe that's just showing my age.

I still don’t have a best short name for all this and so will do what young friends of mine did with their firstborn. Horrified grandparents notwithstanding, they simply tried out different names for about six months until all, including the child, were satisfied with one.

For six months now my “research” on walkable-empowered locations has consisted largely of picking people’s brains – a large and impressive group of friends and colleagues living all over the U.S. (see section on Appreciation). The gist of results can be categorized as “good news,” and “bad news,” and “intriguing news.”


A vigorous redesigning of America in favor of the automobile began right after World War II, and I therefore assumed automobile-independent living areas would be rare and exotic today. Astonishingly otherwise, I discovered, is the wide current distribution of living areas with significant walkable-maintenance characteristics. My sense is they are just about everywhere—I have hundreds of probable examples—and can be quite readily identified if you have someone who lives there or nearby, looking for you, as I did. I can’t remember a single care where a person living in an area failed to think of a walkable-maintenance area there or nearby.

For example, at first in my exploration, I saw published only four such “leads” in New Mexico. But because I live here myself, and have many friends who also do, the number has jumped quite easily from four to sixteen! I finally gave up the idea of a directory upon learning from a friend who lived there that Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the very symbols of auto domination over pedestrians, probably have walkaround neighborhoods! course, these living areas are not walkable-maintaining to the same degree, and one frequent suggestion is to design a rating scale of the extent to which comfortable maintenance is possible without car dependency. Real Estate professionals might find such a scale useful, as would potential buyers or renters themselves. But I think it would be hard to reach consensus on such a scale.

Obviously, the above means that a functionally walkable America will depend at lease as much on preserving relevant existing neighborhoods as on creating new ones. The latter, attractive as it may be, is also likely to be exceedingly expensive, and in its rarity, risk tokenism.

Another implication: the originally envisaged directory is no longer a priority. With functionally walkable living areas apparently just about everywhere, the seeker can succeed by connecting with a Real Estate Agent, friend or acquaintance living in the target region or nearby. What might also be useful are hints or predictors suggesting where walkable living areas are likely to be or not to be. Attached to this article are provisional lists of this kind that I would like further comment on…


BAD NEWS (needs more study, though)

There are signs that affordability can become and issue. Given the increasing desirability of living walkable, property values there will tend to increase (see article on “The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities”) and this increase will, of course, be passed on to buyers or renters in the area. Ditto, the investments necessary to preserve and certainly to build such areas. Further add the strong supposition that smaller neighborhood stores will tend to charge somewhat higher prices than WalMarters will (though I’m ready to argue against that increase being as large as many people think.) Finally, moving to functionally walkable living areas is likely to become an “in” thing, hence expensive, viz the related movement of suburbanites to gentrified inner cities, a la Georgetown, DC.

I have no objection to affluent people enjoying their money, as long as they don’t hurt other people in the process. However, I do object to non-affluent people being excluded, especially when, ironically, they may need such living arrangements, most of all. Notably, the formidable purchase price of reliable cars today may be beyond them, or if not, the cost of maintaining an automobile, once purchased. My short survey on the latter suggests an incredible $2,500-3,000 per year!

I’m not sure what can be done about this. People who already own cars might be able to apply savings on operating the car to any increased costs of living in a functionally walkable area. Major co-op efforts that don’t become expensive and exclusive might also help. But the present political scene does not suggest optimism regarding government grants or subsidies. I wonder if electric cart or bicycle makers would find it of sufficient self-interest to help.

INTRIGUING NEWS -- Mapmakers Beware!

The physical borders of a neighborhood are not always a matter for easy agreement on an objective basis. This kind of uncertainty seems even more prevalent in what we have called “walkaround” locales. I began by suggesting a five-block or quarter-mile kind of range, but how can this be fixed when in some cases the walker is a healthy young resident and in other cases, an ailing elder? Moreover, I have a healthy older friend who loves to ride his bicycle, so apparently for him a “walkable” community can be ten or more miles in extent!! Moreover, as we’ve just indicated, the kinds of things some people want, like a park, might be further afield than the things other people want. The upshot of all this is that the extent of the locale will depend on the individual defining it. The perceived borders of the area could be quite different for two people living in the same house!

--As an intriguing question: if and as what you need for daily living is delivered to your door or nearby, is your living area “walkable” even way out in the country?

Read more!

Saturday, March 05, 2005

PART II: More Living Walkably

At first glance, I'm impressively unqualified for this project:
I am not an architect
I am not a city planner
I am not a Real Estate Professional.

No doubt there's also an etcetera or two. Which is why this blog is intended for all of us to learn together, rather than a lecture.

While therefore not an expert in any of the usual senses, I am a "customer", in that I've actually lived walkably for twenty years or more and am doing so now. (Thus I might claim to come by my prejudices honestly). I am also a psychologist with considerable past experience in certain aspects of community development, especially in neighborhoods. Finally, I've studied and published in a subject area called "Futuring" and use some of those skills in the project, too. And so, though lacking in a long history of studying walkability, I'm hopeful of being helpful by bringing a somewhat different viewpoint and background to its study.


Months of trying out names like "Walkable Community" , "Walkaround Neighborhood" and the like, to tag what we're talking about always left a sense of being not quite right because of missing or distorting something. Finally, the name "living walkably" arose from somewhere and did seem right. One reason for that, I think, is its evocation of what is primarily a process rather than, strictly speaking, a place, as noted elsewhere, what we're talking about cannot be unequivocally described in terms of physical boundaries,
though these are relevant of course. But living walkably is possible in a fairly extensive variety of physical places...

Another addition to the lexicon stemming from the thinking thus far is the term "functional walkability”. The intent is to distinguish this characteristic from what seems to me the prevalent emphasis on the value of walkability primarily for health, aesthetic appreciation and honoring of the environment--all very important but none of them the only game in town. The term "functional" walkability calls attention to the practical value of being "able to get a loaf a bread (and meet other day needs) without getting in your car or getting hit by one.' It is of course meant to extend and enhance the current value and appreciation of walkability rather than replace it.


To say that living walkably should be suppressed as bad for the economy is something like urging people to smoke more because it creates tobacco industry jobs!

Besides, I'm not so sure there'd be that big a hit. True, our consumer-driven economy depends heavily on the automobile and allied industries, e-g, manufacturing; parts and
repair; gas and oil extraction, refining and sales; highway construction and repair; auto insurance and local law enforcement.

However, as noted elsewhere, I believe far less than a majority of people would end up living walkably. Even for them, we've suggested car traffic be calmed rather than eliminated in the residential area itself, and continued pretty much as always outside that area.

Finally, there's likely to be compensatory upswings in industries like electric cart manufacturing and--remember them?—sidewalk construction. Sidewalks may not need cement to the tune of eight lanes but there are as many miles of them as highways or could be.


**This blog or blog series to increase project visibility and get more information, comment criticism, suggestion from a wider range of people.

**Beginning to develop working connections with similar-minded people and organizations, e.g. WALK America, WALK Albuquerque, an author and resource person in environmentally-friendly home construction, and several project volunteers.

**Serious consideration being given to hiring part-time and/or contract staff.

**A planned project to determine how accurately Chambers of Commerce can respond to inquiries about the possibility of living walkably in their cachment area.

**'The real possibility of a small pilot project in my home town, in conjunction with a very community-minded Councilwoman.


It's sad when your dream depends on a disaster-in this case the impact of rising gas prices on so many people. Thus, some of us who favor living walkably have mixed reactions to recent news that gas prices are closing in on $3.50 a gallon in California, with an eyewitness account of a man who paid seventy dollars to fill up his SUV!

On the other hand, let's not be too simplistic--this kind of "benign catastrophe" may never happen to the extent people fear-or hope-it might. In other words, reactions to the price rise may tend to nullify or at least complicate it, Let's consider a few possibilities here:

***Continued despoiling of irreplaceable wilderness areas, for oil exploitation, won't stop a lot of people from driving just about as much as ever;
***Many people will cut what they consider to be non-vital driving. Tourism and ecreation industries could be hard hit, for example;
***more fuel efficient cars but beware zero-fuel "freewheeling (1930's);
***serious development of alternative fuels;
***increased development and use of alternative automobile power plants, e.g. hybrid, hydrogen, electric;
*** serious usage of "alternative" means of transportation such as electric carts, bicycles, power scooters,’ and legs;
***at last, significantly more and better public transportation;
***at last, some cracks in the historical American resistance to carpooling;
***more investment in smaller, more accessible neighborhood stores;
***home delivery industry may surge;
***more interest in moving to residential areas for living walkably

Please note that, except for the last few items, these reactions might tend to delay rather than hasten the "day of reckoning" when living walkably begins to confront the modern dominance of the car over the pedestrian/walker; and lessens its draining and damage to non-renewable resources and the environment.


Living walkably will not mean return to an era before the invention of the wheel Quite the contrary, as we shall see.

***personal cars are still there; “calmer”, less velocity and density;
***ditto motorcycles;
***Emergency vehicles--fire, ambulance, police--must continue to have acces [via an otherwise locked gate(s)];
***probably more delivery vehicles, buses or trolleys, but these may be re-routed to the periphery of the area, as would school buses;
***probably more bicycles (need paths) even tricycles and monocycles--waxed mustaches optional;
***probably (many) more electric carts, "golf' carts;
***least as many wheelchairs, both manual and motorized
***maybe a lot more personal hand-operated ("outdoor") shopping carts and in the same vein, children's wagons (color them red);
***hopefully, not many more roller skates or skateboards, except in special off-street rinks designed solely for them

Now to get a little weirdly fanciful:

***rickshaws pulled by fundraisers for good causes, and in the fast lane, politicians running for office;
***moving sidewalks a la big airports-but too expensive for wide use;
*** horse-drawn wagons. However, I'm old enough to remember this might prompt environmentalists to revise their harangues on car pollution.
***teleportation (watch this space).

I hope we will be forewarned and forearmed on potential problems here. Fast roller skates or skateboards, already mentioned, can hurt people, so can speeding bicycles (say, 50 mph). And I much fear that electric carts, already being more zippily designed for the fast lane crowd, will also be designed for more speed. We need more experience with speed laws for such vehicles, and traffic regulation. For example I know of at least one town where you can drive an electric cart, without either vehicle or operator licensing, on either the road or the sidewalk! And I dread the first time a rickshaw and a motorized
wheelchair approach the same uncontrolled intersection at the same time! (Overall, I expect there'll be more wheels, not less, in walkables). There could be chaos for awhile because of the variety and number of vehicles and because we've had so much less experience than in the regulation of cars.


NO, and I think it woud be foolish energy-wasting for us advocates to behave as if it were.

Across the street in my living walkably" neighborhood, there's a development populated by retired men. Though all but one or two of them can still walk the two or three blocks to downtown, I see them every morning, driving downtown at about five miles an hour, or ten if they're in a hurry. It' more a procession than anything else, a testament to the affection, the status, the very identity, the car holds for most Americans. It's not just a "love affair" as some have said; it's more a marriage now celebrating its second consecutive Golden Wedding Anniversary. These men live in the same walkable area I do, but they don't walk, and certainly would never move to an area just because it was walkable. So remove these men, and many, many women like them, from your list of potential advocates or residents.

Subtract too, from that list, all those people who, for reasons of health or age are not able to walk, regularly, significantly, or at all. The y will continue to depend on cars in their residential area and beyond; either that, or perhaps on other wheeled vehicles (see that section)

It's a wild guess at this point, but my estimate would be that maybe 10-20% of the total U.S. population would choose to live, or remain in living walkably residential areas, were these clearly available, accessible, and affordable. That's still a lot of people, and they deserve that opportunity.

For the remaining--alas!-heavy majority custom may be too strong. And change most slow.

Believing people who read this will likely be familiar with the fuller story, in each of these subject areas


(Useful as background in advocacy, especially with individuals)

ECONOMIC: Savings on fuel and other car costs is the main plus factor here, though there might also be longer-term and less trackable savings in health care costs. It's not that clear cut, however. Thus, we've wondered elsewhere about the affordability of living walkably, with rising property values, higher prices at smaller neighborhood stores, etc. The higher prices however, might be somewhat offset by stores combining in purchasing cooperatives. In any case, my experience is that walkable-area stores still have to be sensitive to and to some extent competitive with prices at larger stores For one thing, most people will still be able to get in their cars or on a bus and go a few miles to larger stores and maybe also order deliverables from them.

ENVIRONMENTAL: search for cleaner, quieter, safer surroundings, less stressful for the traffic-hassled, parking-place-deprived driver and for the dodging pedestrian. More universally, a decrease in exploitation of non-renewable resources cement-entombing of the land, plus less prospect of a permanent heat wave on earth...

HEALTH: Mainly, walking not just as an event but also as a way of life what we have called functional walkability. The healthiest exercise there is, and why more frequently-walking New Yorkers are 6-8 pounds lighter on the average, as many of us should be. Reduction in car-related accidents is also a form of health, and much about the walkable environment (see preceding) is also healthy, mentally as well as physically.,

The next two factors seem to be somewhat less important but don't say that to the people for whom they might matter a great deal...

AESTHETIC: An almost automatic presumption has been that an area with fewer cars will be more pleasing aesthetically. I'm not so sure, however. In the first place, our prediction has been that instead of cars there might be hordes of other wheeled vehicles zipping around, none of them especially georgeous—for example, shopping carts. Then also, some people feel-and have a right to feel-that cars are beautiful, especially their cars. Though males aren't ordinarily allowed to say such things outright, their aesthetic feelings do come across at the carwash and in applications of polish afterwards…

COMMUNITY-BUILDING As per a long spiel elsewhere, I believe building community is easier when you can meet your neighbor walking, rather than hurrying by, three feet off the ground, at thirty miles an hour.


So what else is new? Money will matter in developing walkably living places or preserving what there may be left of them now. In this, we will often be doing dignified begging with political entities who can smdl a financial hit coming a mile away, and are profoundly allergic to same. So we'd better know our stuff and be ready to show plausible potential offsets in the future for immediately required expenses.

Preserving existing walkables comes across as easier to sell than creating a new one. For instance, in the case of one old Southern town where they plan to expand the road to five lanes, the foregoing of same would save enormous costs (though apparently borne largely non-locally). Add to that, equally enormous dislocations in the lives of local residents and some local business as well, at least during the process. Of course, there will be auto and highway lobbying to overcome, reinforced by sheer historical reflex, e.g. more cars and faster equals "progress". But still, the "savings" should be there in exempting at least a few neighborhoods from "automobilization."

Moving a residential area towards more walkability in living will have its expenses, too, of course. Moreover, the expenses are immediate, visible and concrete (sorry!), while the benefits are usually less obvious and longer-term.

Expenses include:
---extending and improving sidewalks
---more and better "stop" and other traffic control signs
---maybe narrowing some roads and making sharper turns (to slow traffic)
---hiring expert consultants
---building or improving bicycle paths.

what else?

Future offsets can include:
---with less car traffic, reduced costs for street repair and construction
---fewer traffic signals needed (they are expensive)
---As property values increase in the living walkably area, an improved tax base
---As quality of life increases, another selling point for attracting industry and desirable business to town.
---Attractiveness as tourist destination could be increased.
--As health improves and accidents decline, less drain on any community subsidizing of medical services
---Possibly, for some of tile above reasons, a decline in insurance rates

What else?


If everybody, all the time, had everything delivered to their door, would that area be considered "walkable"?

Literally, no, because the residents wouldn't have to do any walking, or not much anyhow. Moreover, I believe having everything delivered to your door produces as much traffic as you going out and bringing everything back to your door. (Maybe more, if you combine errands for yourself and the delivery person doesn't)

Delivery would diminish traffic if incoming goods were delivered along a route at group delivery sites accessible to walkers, for example, churches or library branches. Even better for walkability would be vans, which are essentially mobile mini-general-stores, carrying goods to deal with ordinary daily needs. These, too, could stop along a route of walkably accessible sites, and also deliver special orders received from residents the previous day.

There’s precedent for all the above, of course, although I think even more creative thinking is necessary before we can fully enable the person who wants to live out in the country without (undue) dependence on their own car.

Science fiction-y for now, I believe, is the day when delivery chutes permanently connect key stores and residences, much as the air pressure tubes connected incoming customer money and the central cash register in my Uncle's 1930's department store. But bigger.


Let's say you're living in a typical modem suburb and getting a little tired of having to get in your car for everything except going to the bathroom. Even there, you’re wondering when they'll figure out how to put the toilet ten miles away. Let's say all this, or something like it, and you are now sincerely seeking a place where you can live walkably. The good news is that, surprisingly, such residential areas seem to have survived broadly across our country, having somehow outlasted the retrofitting of America in favor of the automobile, over the past half-century.

Therefore, you can begin planning a move in a typical way; that is, by identifying the region(s) in which you would prefer to live on grounds other than walkability. Candidates can include your own region, and usually also individual cities, (since the latter often prove to have walkable neighborhoods somewhere within their borders).

Now be sure you have clearly in mind, ready to explain just as clearly, the definition of living walkably with some good examples of such residential areas. Maps will help here, too.

'Then you can do either or all of the following:

--contact a friend or colleague in the preferred area and ask them if they know of walkables,.
---ditto, a Real Estate Professional (your local Agent probably has a network that extends just about anywhere)
---call Chambers of Commerce in the area, though here we're still checking on how accurately Chambers can now handle what must be for them, a rather strange request for a walkable."

Any of the above should also have your list of "hints for hunters" (attachments A and B) of places where living walkably residential areas are likely to be or not be.

At some point, you'll likely go visit.

And, (congratulations) live there!
Read more!

Figure I: Ordinary Daily Maintenance Needs

Notes: These needs will vary significantly among people and this list is probably more complete than any one individual or group requires. Thus you may want to mark those that would be crucial for you, with the4 others left for weekly or monthly trips to a larger store or downtown or shopping center, or perhaps arranged to be delivered to your area.

Some needs are more crucial than others, and our approximate sense of this is generally reflected in the order of listing. Rarely will a residential area have all of them walkably. Those not available must be delivered or gotten in out-of-area shopping.

UTILITIES, water, sewer, electricity, often trash and gas, delivered to the residential area. Only rare exceptions in sustainable communities.

FOOD in good range, preferably with produce and definitely more than a convenience store. Preferably small to medium supermarket.

DRUG STORE, PHARMACY over the counter drugs, prescriptions personal products for woman and for men.

DOLLAR STORE a la Woolworth but not WalMart size.



TRAUMA CENTER, basic emergency medical services.



• Store foir new or newer clothes, shoes, if not covered above;
• Water Store (buy water or refills);
• Wine, beer, if not in supermarket;
• Video rental (usually also secondhand sale) if not in supermarket;
• Hardware Store if Dollar Store doesn’t handle it well enough
• Cigarettes, tobacco, if not handled in any of above;
• Gas Station, as cars permitted at least for out-or-area travel  Mechanic on duty?
• Bus stop(?)
• Schools (if school age children)
• Library or library branch
• Bookshop
• Health food Store

EATING PLACES (not fast food) / COFEE SHOP

*Again, every list if different. Thus, some friends of mine had “newspaper office” and “hotel/motel/B&B” listed, with excellent justifications for these in terms of their needs.
Read more!

Attachments A and B: Hints for Hunters

Assume you're looking for a walkaround locale, want to develop a list of good prospects to check further with calls to Chambers, ask friends living near there, visits...


--Smaller towns, villages, other small population clusters, especially if relatively isolated (inconvenient to drive elsewhere for shopping) and with physical barriers, as on an island, a mountain town, Bush Villages in Alaska (we don’t assume you’ll move there!). A special small-population case might be meditative or intentional communities, Co-housing, especially is they say “sustainable.”

--At the other population extreme, more dense clusters of people in larger cities, e.g., neighborhoods in New York City. (Enough customers in small geographic area, so neighborhood businesses can make it). Ethnic areas, when found here, might be good prospects, especially if they see themselves as minorities needing “ghetto” self-sufficiency. Note also “vertical” attempts to achieve density, e.g., Arco Santi, UMASS dorm?

--In-between, sections in some medium sized cities such as Santa Clara and Berkeley in CA, Eugene, OR and Santa Fe, NM. Not sure why except for other reasons mentioned later here…

For just about any population, regardless of size:

***older towns especially if they’ve resisted “modernization” and preserved their old downtown area (walkables often are there or cluster adjacent);

***places where people generally can’t afford to own cars because maintenance costs are prohibitive and/or people just don’t have the money. (e.g., NYC) (One reason why so many more walkables in Latin America and Europe).

***Regions and locales with strong environmental traditions such as the Northwest and Northern CA in the U.S.

***Business Districts surrounding colleges and universities, designed to serve students as customers. At least some walkable characteristics I think but generally I’d like more info and input on this...


NEGATIVE PREDICTORS - Signs that suggest you do NOT put this locale on your prospect list of walkables:

***Obvious absence of positive signs in section A preceding.

***Physical Factors that would make walking a challenge much or most of the time, ditto electric carts or bicycles. Include here characteristic/frequent temperature extremes, rain, high winds (though covered walkways or underground passages help here); higher elevations (especially if heart or lung problems); and lots of hills (though still some flatter parts of the town might be walkable).

***Lack of Pedestrian Safety, Convenience, Access. Includes lack of safe or any sidewalks, bike or car paths; heavy and/or rapid car traffic, especially if bisecting residential areas or if residential area is build around or near limited-access highway exists.

***Be careful of places where “car culture” is especially strong, as perhaps in Detroit or Los Angeles (though LA has walkables!!).

***Be careful of touristy locales, built for passing through not staying.

***Suburbs, especially if built after WWII and definitely be wary of “way out in the country,” which might be fine but is rarely walkable.

Others might include high crime rate and/or “strict” zoning, especially if it forbids mixed use zoning and/or rigidity among planners and developers; and of course, WAY-HIGH COSTS.



Think what would help you if you were looking and wanted to set up an initial list of good prospects.

I really hope to hear from you, in person if possible, otherwise by phone, email or letter. My home address is 607 Marr, Truth or Consequences, NM 87901

Read more!


Many thanks to many friends and colleagues for information, ideas, suggestions and encouragement. Their contribution does not necessarily constitute endorsement or offer of voluntary consultation to readers:

Bill Allen...Lois Reaver-Black...Candi Browne...Christine Brousseau...Helen Brooks...Janet Colville...Justine Cooper...Nancy and Matthew David...Donna Emsbach...Charless and Marjorie Fowlkes...Christine Fritschi...Sylvia and Leigh Foerstner...Jane Greene...Bill Goldrick...Deborah Hughes...Dean Hinmon...Joe Kennedy...Lisa Kaichen...Katherine Lester...Susan Lynch...Alison Limoges...Charles McKinney...Millie Russell...Joan Schwartz...Roberta Wilson

As for myself, I have a Doctorate in Psychology and for many years was a lecturer and consultant on organizational and community development, including neighborhoods. My publications on neighborhoods include a 1984 booklet "MEANWHILE BACK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD," now largely out of print. Further biographical information on me can be found in recent ediutions of Marquis "WHO'S WHO."
Read more!

Friday, March 04, 2005

A Definition

An area for living walkably is where you can get a loaf of bread without getting in your car or getting hit by one.

The purpose of this blog is to talk about that without getting in your face.
Read more!