It is maybe comforting to know that even Europe wrestles with the decision of whether a grand urban space should be used for pedestrians, or turned into a parking lot. Take, for example, the Grand-Place in Brussels (pictured above).

Today, it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the most important tourist destinations in the city. Perhaps its most famous. But during the 1960s, in what Wikipedia calls a "low period of appreciation," it was a parking lot.

This lasted until 1972, when a bunch of people from the community got together and lobbied for it to, you know, not be a parking lot. Not surprisingly, local shop owners were worried, at the time, that this would hurt their businesses. This is often the concern.

Here in Toronto, where we continue to debate the pedestrianization of Kensington Market, we have surveys showing that 94% of visitors to the area support pedestrian-only zones, but that this number drops to 55% when you narrow to people who live/work/own stuff in the area.

But if your goal is to sell more things to people, then there's something to be said about listening to what your visitors want. In the case of Grand-Place, pedestrianizing the square made it far more popular as a tourist destination. And I think the same would be true of Kensington Market.

For some photos of iconic public spaces in Europe being used as parking lots, check out this Politico article.

Image: Wikipedia Creative Commons

David Levinson, who is based Sydney and authors the Transportist – a blog you should follow if you don’t – has a recent post up about signalling inequity and “how traffic signals distribute time to favour the car and delay the pedestrian.” In it he provides some background into traffic signal coordination (introduced in New York City in 1922), as well some some suggestions for how we could and should be prioritizing pedestrians.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

There is a reason that traffic engineers don’t automatically allocate pedestrian phases. Suppose the car only warrants a six second phase but a pedestrian requires 18 seconds to cross the street at a 1 meter/second walking speed. Giving an automatic pedestrian phase will delay cars, even if the pedestrian is not there. And there is no sin worse than delaying a car.  But it also guarantees a pedestrian who arrives just after the window to push the actuator passes will wait a full cycle.

Sometimes pressing the walk button appears to do nothing. I suppose that’s why some cities call it the “placebo button.” And in other cases if you don’t press the walk button you’ll never get a walk sign. That’s usually a strong indicator that you are located in an environment not intended for pedestrians. David’s article also has me curious about the relationship between traffic signals/pedestrian phases and urban form. I bet you could tell a lot about the latter simply by understanding the former.

Image: Transportist

One of the most interesting things about cities is that as they grow their “urban metabolism” also tends to increase. People become more productive. Economic output increases. It becomes easier to hail a cab (which is a test I like to use). And, according to this recent article by CityLab, people walk faster.

Yes, research has shown that there’s a correlation between population size and the speed in which people walk. And some of the studies go as far back as the 1970s – like this one from psychologists Marc and Helen Bernstein:

In many ways, this makes intuitive sense. Life in the big city is a fast paced one. But why exactly do people start literally walking faster? The most probable answer seems to be, quite simply, that time is money. Subsequent research from the 1980s and 1990s has revealed that the best predictor of fast walking is economic output.

When a city grows larger, they wrote, wage rate and cost of living increase, and with that the value of a resident’s time. As a result, “economizing on time becomes more urgent and life becomes more hurried and harried,” Walmsley and Lewis suggest. (Source: CityLab)

The first thing that crossed my mind when reading all of this is that there must be some sort of upper limit. Humans don’t just keep walking faster and faster as the city in which they live in grows bigger. If that were the case, the mega cities of the world – such as Tokyo – would have people sprinting around all the time. But that’s obviously not the case.

So this is a topic that could probably use some more data. And I would imagine it would be a lot easier to collect today given that we all now walk around with mobile sensors in our pockets (our smartphones). And pretty soon we may have mobile sensors on our wrists (smart watches).

I would certainly like to see more data on this. The idea of an “urban metabolism” has always interested me.

Image: Dundas Square, Toronto via Flickr

It is maybe comforting to know that even Europe wrestles with the decision of whether a grand urban space should be used for pedestrians, or turned into a parking lot. Take, for example, the Grand-Place in Brussels (pictured above).

Today, it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the most important tourist destinations in the city. Perhaps its most famous. But during the 1960s, in what Wikipedia calls a "low period of appreciation," it was a parking lot.

This lasted until 1972, when a bunch of people from the community got together and lobbied for it to, you know, not be a parking lot. Not surprisingly, local shop owners were worried, at the time, that this would hurt their businesses. This is often the concern.

Here in Toronto, where we continue to debate the pedestrianization of Kensington Market, we have surveys showing that 94% of visitors to the area support pedestrian-only zones, but that this number drops to 55% when you narrow to people who live/work/own stuff in the area.

But if your goal is to sell more things to people, then there's something to be said about listening to what your visitors want. In the case of Grand-Place, pedestrianizing the square made it far more popular as a tourist destination. And I think the same would be true of Kensington Market.

For some photos of iconic public spaces in Europe being used as parking lots, check out this Politico article.

Image: Wikipedia Creative Commons

David Levinson, who is based Sydney and authors the Transportist – a blog you should follow if you don’t – has a recent post up about signalling inequity and “how traffic signals distribute time to favour the car and delay the pedestrian.” In it he provides some background into traffic signal coordination (introduced in New York City in 1922), as well some some suggestions for how we could and should be prioritizing pedestrians.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

There is a reason that traffic engineers don’t automatically allocate pedestrian phases. Suppose the car only warrants a six second phase but a pedestrian requires 18 seconds to cross the street at a 1 meter/second walking speed. Giving an automatic pedestrian phase will delay cars, even if the pedestrian is not there. And there is no sin worse than delaying a car.  But it also guarantees a pedestrian who arrives just after the window to push the actuator passes will wait a full cycle.

Sometimes pressing the walk button appears to do nothing. I suppose that’s why some cities call it the “placebo button.” And in other cases if you don’t press the walk button you’ll never get a walk sign. That’s usually a strong indicator that you are located in an environment not intended for pedestrians. David’s article also has me curious about the relationship between traffic signals/pedestrian phases and urban form. I bet you could tell a lot about the latter simply by understanding the former.

Image: Transportist

One of the most interesting things about cities is that as they grow their “urban metabolism” also tends to increase. People become more productive. Economic output increases. It becomes easier to hail a cab (which is a test I like to use). And, according to this recent article by CityLab, people walk faster.

Yes, research has shown that there’s a correlation between population size and the speed in which people walk. And some of the studies go as far back as the 1970s – like this one from psychologists Marc and Helen Bernstein:

In many ways, this makes intuitive sense. Life in the big city is a fast paced one. But why exactly do people start literally walking faster? The most probable answer seems to be, quite simply, that time is money. Subsequent research from the 1980s and 1990s has revealed that the best predictor of fast walking is economic output.

When a city grows larger, they wrote, wage rate and cost of living increase, and with that the value of a resident’s time. As a result, “economizing on time becomes more urgent and life becomes more hurried and harried,” Walmsley and Lewis suggest. (Source: CityLab)

The first thing that crossed my mind when reading all of this is that there must be some sort of upper limit. Humans don’t just keep walking faster and faster as the city in which they live in grows bigger. If that were the case, the mega cities of the world – such as Tokyo – would have people sprinting around all the time. But that’s obviously not the case.

So this is a topic that could probably use some more data. And I would imagine it would be a lot easier to collect today given that we all now walk around with mobile sensors in our pockets (our smartphones). And pretty soon we may have mobile sensors on our wrists (smart watches).

I would certainly like to see more data on this. The idea of an “urban metabolism” has always interested me.

Image: Dundas Square, Toronto via Flickr