Book review: "Happy City"

Charles Montgomery, Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2013.

Montgomery's argument for urbanism begins with the typical tales of woes created by the suburban model of development (see the list of costs, p. 47), but Part II of the book rolls out a fascinating new dimension: analysis of urban design using psychology research into human happiness. Montgomery's clear writing makes the research findings accessible to the layperson. The book offers practical solutions to policy problems, as well as encouragement for individuals who want to make a difference.

There are various definitions of happiness around, from Socrates to Charlie Brown to the Ray Conniff Singers, but in this discussion it refers to the aspects of a good life, including joy, health, freedom, resilience, fairness and connection (ch. 2). Montgomery writes, "The city that acknowledges and celebrates our common fate, that opens doors to empathy and cooperation, will help us tackle the great challenges of this century" (p. 43), including strenuous commuting, difficult parenting, and the loss of connection to other people. He also includes the volatile housing market and high energy costs, which may be more reflective of the 2013 publication date than they are of today's conditions, but who knows whether and how soon they'll return?

Montgomery eschews scolding, and urges us to eschew it, too. (So does Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns, who said on a recent podcast that he used to get angry about the lack of progress in his hometown, but now focuses on what can be achieved, and finds more people are listening to him as a result.) Montgomery's psychology-based take is we as a species are predisposed to be dissatisfied with our lives, which leads us to make non-rational choices about housing, highways, risk assessment, and so forth (ch. 5). So while well-designed cities might be the answer to a lot of problems, to get people there we have to make them funner.

Four ways to get down this East Capitol Street... does genuine choice make people happier?

Just a few of the many research-driven insights from this rich-but-highly-readable work:

• People want the right mix of natural features and contact with neighbors. Different people want different mixes, so we need to offer a variety (something the suburban model of development is not good at--ch. 6)
• We can use design to encourage human contact, including by slowing or eliminating auto traffic (ch. 7). Architect Jan Gehl, who designed much of contemporary Copenhagen: "We found that if you make more road space, you get more cars. If you make more bike lanes, you get more bikes. If you make more space for people, you get more people and of course then you get public life" (p. 151).
• The vast majority of commuters drive, but a lot of them don't like it. While driving on a clear road creates feelings of mastery, driving in traffic is hard mentally and physically. Walking and cycling are the most pleasurable forms of commuting (ch. 8), and "immobility is to the human body what rust is to the classic car" (p. 183).
• Public transit is the least pleasurable form of commuting, because "decades of under-investment mean that the typical transit journey is crowded, slow, uncertain or uncomfortable" (p. 193). Stressors include the anxiety of waiting for a bus or train, feeling unsafe, getting stuck on the bus in traffic... and the low status of bus riders. Feelings of low status impacts one's happiness and health, as well as overall social conditions. "This is terrible news for the United States," he adds in a footnote (p. 238). All these stressors are addressable, and he lists some methods that have been tried in places like Copenhagen, Bogota and New York City (chs. 9-10). "People make different choices when they are truly free to choose," he argues (p. 217), pointing to the revolutionary changes in Danish habits over the last four decades.

Real-time information on arrivals can ease the anxiety of waiting for a train or bus;
both Washington and Cedar Rapids allow tracking by phone app

I'm in Washington, D.C., for a little while longer, but my permanent home is in Cedar Rapids. I wonder how much Montgomery's arguments translate to a small midwestern city? Does this, from a section entitled "The Lonely Everywhere," resonate?:

Let's say that you and I want to meet for an ice-cream cone at the end of our workday before heading home for dinner. First we both must chart the geographic area each of us can reach in that time. Then we must see if our territories intersect. Then we need to figure out if the journey to and from a rendezvous point in that zone leaves enough time to make the meeting worthwhile. Each of us has an envelope of possibility on the space-time continuum. The more our envelopes intersect, the easier it is for us to actually see each other in person (p. 57).

Cedar Rapids is not Atlanta, though sometimes it seems as though we aspire to be. We're certainly not New York or Copenhagen. Housing is cheap, open land is cheap, and as long as energy is also cheap there's not much to stand in the way of sprawl. Most of the attractions--museums, the ballpark, NewBo City Market, Legion Arts--are easy to get to, and free parking is plentiful.

The vast majority of Cedar Rapidians drive to get anywhere; despite city efforts to build sidewalks and design safe routes for cyclists, non-car transportation is really difficult. The hardy few bike, the handicapped take the bus, and pretty much everyone else drives. I can walk nearly a mile to work and not see another person walking. Still, while big city residents might laugh at what we call traffic, from curbside Cedar Rapids drivers seem to demonstrate more anxiety than mastery. There isn't much choice for housing, either: single family homes on large lots, expensive condominiums or ragged rentals. Montgomery may not be writing for cities like ours, but we should probably be paying attention to him anyway.

SEE ALSO: "The Happy City" website: https://thehappycity.com/