Last year I read the book Walkable City by Jeff Speck and I finally found some time to write about it. Walkable City is a great book for those who are frustrated by the lack of walk-friendly cities in the states.

In this book, Jeff Speck starts with identifying the scope of the car dependency problem and offers a ten step recipe for giving streets back to people. Although some of those steps are easier said than done (e.g. mixing the land use, improving transit) and some of them require more sound arguments for me to be sold on the idea (e.g. welcoming bikes), it’s a practical to-do list for change-seeking cities. Walkable City is an easy read and free from heavy architecture and urban planning jargon.

After going through my notes and highlights, I decided to use two ideas from the book as a lens through which I evaluate the urban life in the South Bay Area.

At the beginning of his book Speck defines the General Theory of Walkability. I believe that paragraph alone makes the book worth reading. With the General Theory of Walkability, Speck lays out the four major requirements for a walk to be favorable over driving. A walk is favorable only when it’s useful, safe, comfortable and interesting. Very well defined requirements! As a natural outcome of living in the South Bay for some time now, I have had many discussions about lack of walkability and the urgent need for change. Usually the first and the most common response is someone telling me “well, there are sidewalks everywhere you are free to walk if you want”. And most of the times it is true that the infrastructure is there for those who want to walk. But sidewalks are empty, surrounded by wide open spaces, and they offer nothing to pedestrians other than just moving. Can we really expect people to walk in this environment? According to the General Theory of Walkability it’s safe to think otherwise.

Speck later argues that car oriented design has negative effect on the cities’ social scene. As he points out the social scene is only accessible by invitation due to the lack of opportunities for chance encounters in American car-oriented suburbs. Unsurprisingly, this is a valid explanation for the social scene of the South Bay, a place where many young, talented, creative, well-paid tech workers live but only a few manage to build a social circle that does not depend on Facebook events or Meetups. Only 35 miles north, in San Francisco, it’s a completely different game. For many, the vibrant social life in SF alone justifies paying $1K more for rent. With that I can’t help agreeing with Speck on the negative effects of car centric design.

Although the concepts above are only two highlights that I picked from the book, it offers more details and solutions on walkability issues of today’s cities. Last but not least, the book has a pretty cool cover design. ●


Photo by Kolar.io on Unsplash unsplash-logoKolar.io