91视频

Last time I talked about Houston‘s incredibly poor walkability 鈥� a major attribute of what makes a community livable. Of course, there are many measurements one could devise for defining livability, and most planners would say that walkability is among the most important. But not everyone sees it that way.

On Sunday, Oct. 19, after we got back, I read a David Brooks article in the New York Times talking about the different growth models at play in Houston and the San Francisco Bay Area. Basically, he’s comparing them as another way of talking about the 鈥減olitical segmentation鈥� going on in this country, but in doing so he gets into a major planning issue: what constitutes a truly 鈥渓ivable鈥� city.

Brooks uses studies by Chapman University professor Joel Kotkin in making the case that 鈥淗ouston wins when it comes to livability, especially for people who want to have children.鈥� His primary evidence is that comparing the annual earnings per job and the cost of living, 鈥淗ouston ranks top among major cities.鈥� Brooks does acknowledge the Bay Area’s 鈥渃reativity and charm鈥� and even mentions that it’s 鈥済reat for walking,鈥� but concludes that it’s a 鈥渓uxury region, unaffordable and wildly unequal.鈥�

Anyone who knows the Bay Area recognizes that there is some truth in that statement, and Portland and other cities also struggle to achieve a high degree of livability for all. But a true measure of livability includes a whole range of factors, including economic measures that also take into account the personal and societal costs of transportation and greenhouse gases, among others.

Using the simple math of one economic measure as the only indicator of livability is very misleading. In Portland we have long recognized there is a more sophisticated and accurate way to talk about livability, and that does include walkability.