A rendering commissioned by Melbourne imagining the outcome of Melbourne’s Green Our City Plan
The pandemic has created an inflection point in Western culture and society. As traumatic as COVID-19 (C-19) has been to live through, and though light may be visible at the end of the tunnel, there are many potential opportunities to capitalize on. After speaking with several people around the United States and around the world over the past few months, I will try to relay some thoughts for consideration on the future. Possibly your future too.
My goal with this exploratory text is to create a sense of recognition (literally to regain our own awareness) in how and why we have been caught off guard by C-19, how the virus may bechanging the way we want to live, and what the potentials are moving forward. Over the course of 2020 I spoke to people all over the USA and around the world. I heard stories of what people thought of the pandemic, but also of their current housing situations and how the pandemic changed the way they want to live.
Before you read this, first pause and consider how you feel about your current living situation. Maybe you’ve moved since the start of the C-19 pandemic. Or maybe, like me, you’ve hardly left your home. How does your home, your community, your city, and your nation make you feel?
As we use those feelings as our starting point, we will explore a brief history of pandemics and Western Society, look at where we are at the close of 2020, and what we might be able to create for ourselves for the future.
A historic look at pandemic patterns within human communities:
Pre industry, humans had always held a strong distrust and fear of nature. The natural world was dangerous. Societies formed in order to “crowd-source” security. Early Homo Sapiens started as pack-animals in forests, in caves, and on the plains. Staying together allowed early humans to survive by sharing resources and security. Though the natural world could also hurl viruses at societies. The innate human impulse is to survive by recoiling away from disease. Over time, through scientific knowledge and a growing ability to empathize with those in need, we have become more nuanced.
From the middle ages until the late 19th century, the prevailing notion was illness was spread through air tainted with organic particles that had transformed into a dangerous concoction of diseases, called “miasma”. In the Middle Ages, officials in urban areas would clear streets to allow fresh air, burn anything that might be tainted with miasma, lock people infected with the plague within their homes, and marking the door with a cross as a warning. People were, essentially, left to perish alone. In the 15th century, in an effort to keep cholera confined to smaller areas, cities built “pesthouses” and packed ill people within- though with unintended consequences. From The Economist Magazine:
“In the early 19th century the cities of Europe and America faced for the first time a disease long familiar in Asia: cholera. City officials responded by deploying the old anti-plague techniques—clearing the streets of rubbish and carting people off to pesthouses. This time the popular reaction was swift and violent. Many cities, including Paris, rioted. In 1831 a furious crowd invaded a St Petersburg hospital, killed a doctor and liberated the people who had been taken there. Sir Richard Evans, a historian who has studied these episodes, argues that the authorities were so spooked by the violent reaction to their measures that they hesitated to use them again. Instead they began to think differently. To break the cycle of disease and disorder, they would have to make cities healthier.”
The first way leaders in urban areas attempted to make cities healthier was to invest in cleanliness. This effort was the start of organized trash collection and disposal, sewage systems, and eventually zoning regulations. Since miasma was considered the culprit, fresh air was considered paramount. Streets were not only kept clean, but widened (often at the detriment of impoverished neighborhoods). And housing was designed with better- often vertical- ventilation. The materials of construction were also considered, favoring brick over wood to reduce disease-carrying vermin.
In the latter half of the 19th century, a connection to nature, fresh air, and open space became a major movement. The creation of Central Park in New York City was a giant project that many other cities sought to emulate. Olmstead believed both physical and mental health depended on such connections:
“Ideally, Olmsted thought, urbanites would not merely have access to parks but would live in places that resembled them. “It is an established conclusion”, he wrote to landowners near Chicago in 1868, that “the mere proximity of dwellings which characterises all strictly urban neighbourhoods, is a prolific source of morbid conditions of the body and mind”. Only low-density suburbs, with winding roads and lots of green space, could keep people safe.
“Others were reaching the same conclusion. By the late 19th century American urban reformers were focused on the densely packed rooming-houses known as tenements. These were regarded as breeding grounds for cholera and, especially, tuberculosis—a disease that by the 1880s was known to be caused by a bacterium. New York insisted on the construction of air shafts, which led to buildings that were wide in front, facing the street, and wide at the back, but narrow in the middle—known as dumbbells. The law tightened in 1901, when builders were obliged to create large courtyards. They responded by building higher, especially on corner plots. All this can still be seen in Manhattan’s old residential neighbourhoods.” (The Economist)
In the 20th century tuberculosis (and the formation of germ-theory) changed buildings and cities again. Healthy spaces were associated with white smooth walls and floor-to-ceiling glass to allow sunlight, known at the time to kill germs, to cleanse spaces. Flat roofs helped to prevent people being harmed by falling ice. The first buildings to be designed this way were sanatoriums in Europe. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 helped spread these trends around the world.
“The Finnish architect Alvar Aalto designed a celebrated sanatorium in Paimio, then went on to create libraries, churches and apartment buildings. Others, like Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, borrowed the sanatorium aesthetic… Modernist architecture has sometimes been called sterile. It is supposed to be.” (The Economist)
Prior to C-19, it had been 100 years without a truly significant global pandemic. Multiple generations have lived without Western Society experiencing the effects of a fast-moving, wide-spread disease and how destabilizing it can be. In order to consider how to be better prepared for the future, we will next look at where many people are considering in 2020.
Snap shots at what C-19 has changed in our communities:
Many people I have spoken with have a desire to move to less dense communities. There are a lot of reasons for this, though I find it so interesting that after millenia of human history of living with a fear of nature, now people are actively seeking connections to the natural world. First let us look into reasons there is waning appeal of big cities. Again, from The Economist:
“London (June 2020) is only 15% as busy as normal. Such quietness poses a grave threat to cities, especially the big, global ones. Much of the joy of suburban life derives from the houses and gardens that are more affordable there. The pleasure of village life is the peace and the countryside. But cities thrive on their busy streets, restaurants and theatres, which are now quiet or closed. That is a loss for urban consumers, and a calamity for the many people, often immigrants, who sell services.
“The virus has attacked the core of what makes these cities vibrant and successful. They prosper not so much because of what they do for businesses, but because they cram together talented people who are fizzing with ideas. Americans in cities with more than 1m people are 50% more productive than those elsewhere.”
That was during early summer 2020. A look at one source that utilized data and polling suggested that as of late November 2020 nearly 16 million people moved during the pandemic, and 20% of those people said it was because of C-19. That link shows that people, in large, left crowded urban areas for destinations with lower density. There are also some great maps that show the in-state movements of people from dense parts to suburban and rural counties and other data. New York City and Brooklyn, though, had the most people move away. That could be bad for their economies, and for the nation’s economic future.
“If they lose people, cities will run into a fiscal crunch, too. Their income from things like hotel taxes and bus fares has evaporated. New York’s independent budget office reports “absolute gloom and uncertainty” and frets that tax revenues may fall by $9bn in the next two fiscal years. The great danger is that cities enter a spiral of budget cuts, deteriorating services, rising crime and middle-class flight. It would be the 1970s all over again… And yet cities are stronger and more resilient than they seem. As with so much else, the fate of cities hangs on the development of treatments and vaccines… Cities remain invaluable as places where people can build networks and learn how to collaborate. The brain-workers now logging into Zoom meetings from commuter towns and country cottages can do their jobs because they formed relationships and imbibed cultures in corporate offices.” (The Economist)
Though the data from late in the year shows a relatively small number of people leaving cities. NYC, for instance, had around 111,000 net people move out of the city.
Many of the people I spoke to were also struggling working from home (lack of good internet bandwidth, equipment, space, acoustic privacy, etc). Experts suggested anyone that could work from home should do so. Many did, including my wife. Many children have also been at home learning remotely. As I heard from many people, this was a drastic life-style change that created stress and anxiety in many homes, leading to other issues such as depression and frayed relationships. Housing stock, whether in cities or suburban communities, was not designed for a pandemic stay-at-home order.
What I heard from nearly everyone I spoke to was a desire to improve their living situation in some way. On the architectural side of coLAB studio, we had more calls from people looking for new Zero Energy (and “off-grid”) homes, renovations, or simply suggestions on how to improve their situations. We have never been busier. One aspect bringing people to coLAB studio appears to be our work with Biophilic Design, which aims to create a sense of place and connections to the natural world within the built environment.
I believe part of the problem with current housing stock that the pandemic exposed is its lack of a significant connection to the natural world. Biophilic Design can greatly improve spatial experience and increase human health and cognitive performance, though it would be best to design our cities utilizing it in a holistic way at a planning level. Several studies have shown that the more urban an area is, the more stressful it is to humans. As Alison Abbot writes:
“This 'social stress' activated many brain areas, two of them specifically correlated with the volunteers' history of urban living. The amygdala, which processes emotion, was activated only in people currently living in a city. And the cingulate cortex, which helps to regulate the amygdala and processes negative emotions, responded more strongly in those brought up in cities than in those who grew up in towns or rural areas.”
We have largely ignored the natural environment in dense urban areas, but that is not to say cities cannot be planned, designed, and renovated with strong connections to the natural world. These studies show the opposite. Nowhere is it more important than crowded urban areas. That is what Fredrick Law Olmstead (who designed Central Park in NYC) got right. Unfortunately, his desire to see people live in more suburban areas came to fruition at a mass scale, which in turn created less ability for people to connect to the natural world. What we created, and continue to create, is a highly inefficient low-density urban form that is only slightly less stressful for humans than dense urban centers but much worse for every other species on the planet.
The pandemic created or increased a variety of insecurities, and one of the first human instincts seems to be to seek nature. The natural world is completely woven into the evolution of our brains and bodies, from the views we prefer to the foods we seek when healthy or ill. If people are seeking nature, the natural world should be designed into every aspect of the built environment in a very intentional manner.
The Future’s Potential:
As stated above, we know there is a current trend towards some people abandoning dense urban areas for more suburban and rural communities. Though, the continuation of sprawl and single-family houses is clearly a challenge for many known reasons. One of the most important is that C-19 (and other viruses over the past 50 years) have likely come about because humans have eliminated natural hosts viruses normally live with. Many scientists and journalists have written about the connection between the decrease of natural habitats with pandemics. You can find articles here, here, here, and a really thorough and well written example here. We are out of balance with the natural world and we need to reconnect with it, be a part of it, and help it thrive so we are also able to stay more healthy- mentally and physically.
The question is how to design very urban cities and communities and include the necessary strong connection to nature. Making dense cities more livable is so important to achieve for the long-term health of humans and the planet because low dense housing destroys so much habitat.
Some of the other trends I heard from people I spoke to also included wanting to live in communities with a limited population. One person described their goal as “a traditional small town in Mexico (around 200 people)” of a scale allowing one to know everyone in town, similar to where she grew up. The appeal is a small population provides a greater sense of connection, communication, and cooperation between people. Today, there are planned developments where people design their own social and organizational rules, often called Intentional Communities. I can imagine potential for small-scale communities within urban cities that provide that small town lifestyle- at least in social terms.
In terms of people desiring community during the pandemic, here is some data The Economist gathered:
“As lockdowns have limited socialising beyond cohabitants or small groups known as ‘pods’ or ‘bubbles’, stories abound of people moving in with others to lessen isolation or share housework. In fact, the pandemic may merely have accelerated an existing trend. More and more, people in the rich world are once again choosing to live together.
“In Britain households where couples share with at least one other adult were the fastest-growing type in the two decades to 2019. In Canada 6% of the population lived in multigenerational households by 2016, and it was the fastest-growing type of living. By the same year a fifth of Australia’s 24.5m people were living with others from outside their immediate family, a 42% increase on 15 years earlier.
“Companies have jumped on this opportunity. The Collective, a British outfit, runs three co-living buildings, one in New York and two in London. Its “members”, whose average tenancy is nine months, live in studio flats but share lounges, gyms and a roster of events from cocktail-mixing to running clubs. The firm has another 9,000 units in development.
“Ben Brock-Johnson, a 40-year-old journalist, moved from New York to live in Pioneer Valley, a community of 32 homes in rural Massachusetts, with his wife and their now five-year-old twins. The community has shared gardens, as well as a large communal dining area and an events space. He says it is “like having 100 parents for your kids”. There are people around—including his parents, who live on the same estate—who can play with them, baby-sit them and just generally look out for them. His family, he reckons, have a much better work-life balance for it.”
Another trend I heard about was the desire to have a more self-sustained lifestyle. People have a desire to live without a connection or need of centralized utilities or sources of food. They want to create or collect their own food, energy, and water. In a single-family house situation this is often highly inefficient or difficult to produce based on cost or other resources such as limited land/area. I once heard Donald Eggleston of SERA Architects present a study on the scale of water collection and filtration, waste water treatment, energy collection, and all are most efficient at the scale of a small college campus. I can imagine potential for creating more sustainable and self-sufficient communities of a small scale within urban cities as well.
In terms of transit, which is hugely important for creating better communities and greater connections to the natural environment in sustainable ways, The Economist gathered this data:
“In Berlin passengers on public transport who fail to wear masks are warned of a €50 ($60) fine with the slogan “Protect others. Yourself. And your wallet.” Our data suggest that many people will avoid such fines by driving instead. Traffic congestion in Berlin was 8% above pre-pandemic levels between August and October. The pandemic has driven up vehicle registrations in New York City. In every city we analysed, car use grew more quickly than public transport and walking, after lockdowns eased in mid-2020. Congestion has followed this trajectory in most places, though a drop in tourist numbers has freed space on the roads.
“Several cities, including Athens, Budapest, London, Milan, New York and Paris, have pedestrianised streets to aid social distancing and introduced new bike lanes. Many plan to make these changes permanent. As the combination of more cars and closed-off roads compounds congestion, that will help two other competitors in the race for space on the streets: bicycles and e-scooters… During the lockdowns in mid-2020 bicycles experienced a surge in popularity. New bikes were in short supply, and city residents who had previously considered bike-sharing schemes to be transport for tourists changed their minds. With few visitors around, London’s bike-sharing scheme saw a threefold increase in new users between March and July.”
While people may return to public transit and ride-share options if we are to reach a post-pandemic state, we should keep in mind what people naturally gravitate to: Individual transit options are appealing as they provide greater personal options. With small personal electric vehicles, it may be possible to have more people space and less vehicle space, allowing more urban area to be given over to natural habitat. There could be great potential for renovating streets into natural habitat and/or food production.
In Summary:
Many (all?) people want to live in close-knit communities of a small scale.
Many (all?) people want to live in communities that are self-sufficient.
Many (all?) people want to live in communities with strong connections to the natural world.
Many (all?) people want housing that can change with them through various stages in life and be flexible enough to work with the curveballs the world can throw at them.
I can see the potential for all these desires to work together to create great thriving communities in dense urban areas. If enough of us see the potential, and work towards it, we can create the next quantum leap of human civilization, help the natural environment thrive, and improve our lives.