Here is an excellent reason for why you may want to spend more time walking:

People have noted that walking seems to have a special relation to creativity. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1889) wrote, “All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking” (Aphorism 34). The current research puts such observations on solid footing. Four studies demonstrate that walking increases creative ideation. The effect is not simply due to the increased perceptual stimulation of moving through an environment, but rather it is due to walking. Whether one is outdoors or on a treadmill, walking improves the generation of novel yet appropriate ideas, and the effect even extends to when people sit down to do their creative work shortly after.

The results were a bit inconclusive as to whether outdoor walking is better than other forms of walking, so for now we will just say that walking -- in general -- is good for creative thinking. But where my mind immediately goes is: Does this finding scale up?

In other words, if you were to take two different cities -- City A where everybody, for the most part drives, and City B where everybody, for the most part, walks -- could you find any evidence that City B was on average more creative than City A?

I guess one way you could measure this is through patents. And if you were to look at patents per capita in the US, you'd likely find cities like Princeton (NJ), Redmond (WA), and cities in Silicon Valley near the top of the list. I'm not sure there's an obvious correlation here.

But it is kind of interesting to think about a possible relationship between urban form and creativity.

This is a fascinating little experiment:

From Oct. 12, 2020 to Jan. 3, 2021, Redfin ran an experiment on 17.5 million of its users across the US. As prospective homebuyers entered the site, Redfin assigned them randomly to either a group that was shown flood-risk information on each property or a group that was not.

The flood-risk scores came from First Street Foundation, a climate and technology nonprofit that works to make climate hazards more transparent to the public. In June 2020, First Street published the first public maps that revealed flood risk for every home and property in the contiguous US. 

First Street scores properties on a scale of 1 to 10 based on the likelihood that they will flood in the next 30 years (which is assumed to be a typical mortgage term). A score of 1 means the property has "minimal" risk and a score between 9-10 is considered "extreme" risk.

So what happens once you start showing people flood-risk information? They, not surprisingly, start systematically looking for safer properties. After one week of users being exposed to this new information, prospective buyers who were previously looking at "extreme" homes started looking at homes that were about 7% safer.

After 9 weeks, these same "extreme" home buyers were looking at properties that were about 25% less risky. And for some buyers, in particular those working with a Redfin agent or partner, their flood-risk tolerance dropped by over 50%. (Embedded in this data might be a sales pitch for working with a knowledgeable Redfin agent or partner).

Also interesting is the fact that below "severe" flood risk (a score between 7-8), there was very little change in behavior. "Major" flood risk, it would seem, isn't all that concerning to most buyers. It needs to be "severe". Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that people will in fact make behavioral changes when presented with clear climate-risk data.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been running a little experiment on Twitter where I tweet about a new development project in Toronto and I ask people to vote on it. If they like the project, I ask that they retweet (RT) it. And if they don’t like it, I ask that they favorite it (FAV).

Here’s what it looks like in tweet form:

https://twitter.com/AThisCity/status/575803932083032064

As you can see from this experiment, about 69% of the people who participated seemed to be in favor of this project (at least at the time of writing this post). That said, the discussion following this tweet was a lot more negative than I would have expected.

Somebody also pointed out that in my experiment I’ve created a bias towards supporting the project, since a retweet means the project gets shared, whereas a favorite doesn’t do that. I would argue that the more distribution the better for an accurate consensus, but point taken.

So today I thought I would do this same experiment here on Architect This City. 

At the bottom of this post, I’ve featured a comment from myself asking if you support the 1 Bloor West project. If you like the project, I ask that you “up vote” my comment. And if you dislike the project, I ask that you “down vote” it. You can do so by using the up and down arrows towards the bottom left of the comment.

Hopefully this hack will create a more neutral voting framework. I hope you will participate. If you’re reading this via email, you’ll need to open up the post in your browser by clicking “read more” at the bottom.

If you’d like to learn more about the project before voting, check out this article from the Globe and Mail. Happy voting!