Social interaction rendered obsolete by design

RYAN DARMANIE

Humans are a social species, and cities have always facilitated social interactions.

This perhaps explains why isolated rural environments typically experience higher suicide rates than dense cities. Social networks are important for mental health, and the collaboration needed for our progress as a species.

Unfortunately, as urban planner Jeff Speck laments, instead of living up to promises of providing the best aspects of rural and city life, our modern suburban communities have mostly managed to combine the dull intellectual life of the countryside with the traffic congestion and woes of the city.

Fourth thing to know: Many social phenomena can be traced back to the way that we plan and design our cities.

There is a widespread feeling that citizens no longer have a sense of civic responsibility or pride. But does design play a role?

Traditionally, urban buildings would be oriented towards and built close to the sidewalk, and homes would have a small semi-private front yard, and a front fence allowing you to see through to people often sitting on a porch. Neighbours and passers-by would walk by and wave, or stop to converse on their way to nearby stores and other amenities. The environment was designed to encourage interactions between neighbours and even strangers.

Instead, we have engineered an environment based on isolation and the full privatisation of space and amenities: truly dysfunctional places where people think that grass, fruit trees, and gated communities are a substitute for human interaction in public spaces, places where homeowners compete to see who can build the tallest wall, or buy the biggest SUV, or have the biggest yard.

Buildings are separated from sidewalks by a layer of greenery or parking. Neighbours acknowledge you with a honk, if at all, as they come and go.

A journey on foot, which would increase opportunities for face-to-face interaction, is now rendered obsolete by design.

By allowing and downright encouraging these places to be built, have we taught people to think only in terms of the confines of their isolated property – only about self and family? Who cares about the state of the spaces in between your house, grocery, and job? They are only there for you to drive through, right? Who cares about casual relationships with strangers one may meet at a public park, or pass daily on a sidewalk?

If we physically do not feel connected to the public spaces around us, it is likely that we begin to care less about making decisions that are of benefit to the general public.

Perhaps what this form of urban planning has achieved is the loss of the importance of public life and concern for the public good that traditional cities engender by their very design.

A 2003 study validated this by concluding that people living in “walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods have higher levels of social capital compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs. Respondents living in walkable neighbourhoods were more likely to know their neighbours, participate politically, trust others, and be socially engaged.”

Ask anyone why we design and plan communities in this anti-social way, and the answer is usually crime. But urban planning regulations that facilitated anti-social behaviours were in existence way before crime got completely out of hand.

It was done partly by way of front building setbacks that destroyed that interaction between people using buildings and people on the sidewalk; the layout of roads that encouraged the creation of dead-end streets, reduced neighbourhood connectivity, and therefore increased walking distances; and of course the spread-out form of development that all but assured the decrease in pedestrianism.

Furthermore, by not designing neighbourhood streets for low-speed traffic, many were assured to become virtual racing tracks, further deterring the use of public spaces.

Crime can even be directly aided by the design of the environment. A study done in South Africa showed that high walls around a property actually made the inhabitants more susceptible to home invasions. Once inside your property, the criminal cannot be seen by any neighbour or casual passer-by, and is therefore free to terrorise you.

The study’s researcher also noted that walls can indirectly raise crime rates by reducing social cohesion. In our ill-advised rush to isolate ourselves, we have left ourselves even more vulnerable to crime.

Neighbourhoods designed in this anti-social way may have remained quite functional for years, which may explain why people still think the model works.

But as electronic entertainment and communication have become pervasive, the perceived need to socialise with neighbours has been reduced.

Hence the reason it is now more important than ever to encourage daily interactions through the very way that we design communities. Our lives and society depend on it.

Ryan Darmanie is an urban planning and design consultant (facebook.com/darmanieplanningdesign) with a master’s degree in city and regional planning from Rutgers University, New Jersey, and a keen interest in urban revitalisation.