What About The Elderly?
October 18, 2013
This post was originally published on the
Strong Towns blog on October 17.
I would like to publicly thank Strong Towns for allowing me to write for them!
Traversing an environment built for the automobile in anything other than an automobile, sucks. Even if you can overcome the inhospitable nature
of that, there are others that can not. That person may be your grandmother.
When I started blog posting, one of the first topics I posted about were the many
side-effects of automobile dependency
. Today, I'm going to focus specifically on social isolation.
The majority of Post-World War 2 suburban development has been oriented around the automobile. From the large suburban plots, to the hierarchical
street system, to the strip malls and big box stores - they have all been designed with the assumption that everyone drives.
When we create an environment around the automobile, where retail, jobs, and homes are segregated by vast automobile-scale distances, where
streets are windy and/or disconnected, often forcing us to take the longest route between two points;
..it becomes an extremely spread out and automobile-dependent environment. Traversing an environment built solely for the automobile in anything
other than an automobile, sucks.
Of course, nobody walks. Because nobody walks, there is no real incentive for developers to build sidewalks.
We have systematically built in this pattern for half a century now, creating an entire country (excluding some of our strong urban cores and
historical neighborhoods) of automobile dependency. It is no wonder that we view the ability to drive as being a right, because in an environment
built around the automobile, we see cars as symbols of freedom - we are dependent on them for mobility.
This may not seem like much of a problem if you are able to drive - you are of legal driving age, you are able to afford the
average $9,000 per year
cost to own an automobile, and you have no disabilities.
Teenagers, seeking their own indepence, view getting a license as a right of passage. It is the only way they can make it to their job, to the
movie cinema, or the mall without being scooted around by their parents. As such, the United States has one of the lowest
minimum driving ages in the world
Often, we do not think twice about the lack of mobility that our children have. If they are 14 years old or younger, we do not care that much
that we have to drive them around, because eventually they will grow out of it, and will be able to drive themselves. The perception that cars
equal freedom may slowly be fading. Fewer teenagers today are interested in getting
than a generation ago, despite being physically able to.
But, what about the elderly?
Many of the elderly cannot (or should not) drive. Unlike children, it is not a phase that they will eventually grow out of. Are we to throw
them into a retirement home, just because they are no longer able to drive and maintain their independence? Should we keep forcing them to
drive, when we know that in their advanced age, their vision, judgement, and alertness is not what it use to be? Should we impose the burden
of carting them around to their children?
In my opinion, all of those are cruel and humiliating options, yet they remain our only options, as long as we keep prioritizing the automobile
in the way we design and build our environments.
My grandmother is in her mid 80s, and she lives in a modern duplex, but in a pre-war suburb. There is a park across the street, and a bus stop in
front of her house that shows up every 15 minutes on weekdays. She no longer drives, but the bus drops her right off in the heart of the city,
where she can do her grocery shopping, visit her doctor, go to the bank, and virtually anything else she feels up to. She plays bingo twice a
week, and used to meet me every second Wednesday for lunch. She has maintained her freedom despite no longer driving, and I do not think that she
would want it any other way.
It would break my heart if someone told her "You can no longer drive - so we are moving you into a retirement facility, where a shuttle
bus will take you to the supermarket once a week to get your groceries.
" My grandmother is a cheerful, active lady for her age, and that
would bore her to death (literally.) Yet, it is the depressing fate of many of our elderly.
My grandmother on my other side of my family faced this fate. She lived in a 1960s era suburb - getting to the nearest bus stop required
navigating windy, disconnected streets that eventually led to a highway, with a bus stop a few blocks up with 30 minutes frequency. It was an
unpleasent commute for anyone, let alone an elderly lady with a hip replacement. She spent most of her time at home, dependent on her children
and in-laws just to take her grocery shopping. She became very depressed, which eventually led to her being diagnosed with Alzheimer's,
and being moved into a retirement facility, where she passed away a year later.
When we plan our communities, we rarely accommodate, or even think about the elderly. We often build "retirement villages" in an attempt to solve
a problem that should not exist in the first place, and while these retirement villages are walkable and accommodating inside;
...they are often built right in the middle of automobile-dependent sprawl, isolating those inside from the greater community;
Claiming that residents have the freedom to come and leave whenever they want, clearly indicates that either they did not expect many of their
residents to survive past driving age, or that they consider a scheduled shuttle bus once a week to the grocery store as 'freedom.'
There is a fundamental change that needs to take place in the way we build our towns and cities in order to give our elderly (and rest of the
driverless population - including children, the disabled, and visitors) their freedom. The solution is not solved by simply adding a bus that
comes by every 30 minutes. Especially in a suburban town, where the bus drops you off at the parking lot of a single strip mall, you may want
to visit one or two stores, but then you will need to stand along a highway for another 30 minutes waiting for the bus to pick you up again.
It is not a very pleasurable experience.
Retrofitting transit on top of an environment designed to be driven from place-to-place results in catching a bus from place-to-place. It is
neither a very pleasant or productive way to use your time if you expect to visit the bank, post office, head out for lunch, and get your hair
cut all on the same day at different locations, with a 30 minute bus wait in between each. There is a gross inequity behind this model - those
that can drive are entitled to an efficient day, while those who can not, are not.
I think that is a large factor why transit has such a bad reputation in the U.S. - and why cars are viewed as freedom.
Strong Urban Cores
To make transit pleasurable, we need a strong urban destination that we can take transit to. You may have to wait 30 minutes for the bus to head
into town, but you should only have to do that once, because once you reach your destination you can have an enjoyable day out. You can visit the
bank, drop by the post office, get your haircut, go Christmas shopping, visit your doctor - without being late for anything.
Transit is part of the answer, but I would argue that we need to focus on strong urban cores to even make transit useful, or we are simply wasting
public resources on a service that nobody is going to use.
Even without transit, or if you live in a rural area, if you had a strong centralized urban core, you could take your elderly relative into town
every Friday on your way to work, knowing that they would be able to do their grocery shopping, make their appointments, meet you for lunch, and
perhaps they can see a movie and enjoy a coffee while you finish the afternoon at work. They would appreciate having their freedom back one day
a week out of the house, without inconveniencing the family.
Next time you go to label a community as being 'family oriented' - do not just think about the parents or the recently retired that are able to
depend on an automobile at a moment's notice. Ask yourself, would your 13 year old kid or elderly granny on a walker have their freedom, and be
We cannot ignore the problem, because we will all be elderly one day.
There is a reason I am a passionate urbanist. It is not because I like skyscrapers or crowds, but because I appreciate freedom.
When I talk about strong urban cores, I am really talking about the
traditional city pattern
, that exists around the world, and is compact, human-scale, and highly walkable;
And has stood the test of time, as the default pattern of our cities for millenia;
- Douglas - 2013-10-18 11:19:15
You may want to fix the link to this webpage from your blog title list. It currently links to your Sandbox poste
- Andrew Price - 2013-10-18 11:20:57
Thank you for noticing that, Douglas!
- Kyle - 2013-11-02 13:38:05
Excellent post, as usual! I think it's pretty funny that some of the most car-obsessed people (I'm thinking of politicians that cater to the auto's every need) will call urbanists \"anti-freedom\" and say that \"density\" is a codeword for communism. Creating environments that are literally impossible to survive in without an automobile is just as anti-freedom as forcibly moving people to ultra-dense cities would be! The only difference between these two examples is that one has been policy for over half-a-century...