The Walkable Community: How Commonly is It Sought and How Frequently is the Opportunity Exercised?

Having segued from what began as a dialogue among Eduardo Peñalver (here and here), Rick Garnett (here and here), and I (here and here) about the virtues or vices of suburban growth through the poignant queries by Michael Scaperlanda (here and here) about whether the New Urbanism will be available primarily to the affluent into a very interesting (at least to me) discussion about whether a walkable human settlement should be understood as a moral imperative outlined by Professor Philip Bess (as kindly posted here by Rick Garnett), the various messages already posted below and linked above offer readers of the Mirror of Justice diverse perspectives on these questions. I will not directly continue those parts of the thread. I appreciate Professor Bess’s generosity of time and spirit in responding (here) to my last post (here), on which he as a well-spoken expert in the field deserves the last word.

In this post, I want to turn the discussion toward our actual experiences and what they may say about whether we truly do appreciate the Urban Transect or the walkable settlement as an ideal, much less a rule. Have the members of the virtual community on the Mirror of Justice been drawn toward communities that allow walking to work? Or instead have we accepted, or perhaps even preferred, the demographic pattern of post-World War II America which has seen a geographic separation between home and workplace?

While no one leaves the private practice of law for the legal academy to become wealthy, law professors certainly enjoy a higher level of income than the substantial majority of our fellow citizens. If there are economic obstacles to urban versus suburban living, we generally ought to be able to overcome those financial hurdles if we so choose (including choosing to make it a priority in our spending decisions). In any event, the question of the moment is not urban versus suburban (as urban dwelling does not necessarily, or even usually, bring people within a ten minute walk to the office), but rather walkable proximity to place of employment.

So I wonder what proportion (I know there are some) of our fellow bloggers live within a five- to ten-minute walk of their law school offices? And, among the law professoriate in general, what percentage do you suppose would be able to walk from home to law school within ten minutes? Of those who are able to make the commute on foot within ten minutes, how many have children who are still in the home (or, better-stated, not yet adults)? As a follow-up question, that may cut even closer to the quick, even among those who are able to walk to work in ten minutes, how many do so on a regular, rather than occasional, basis (defining regular as, say, at least two times a week in all seasons)? And, if not, why not?

Although I’ve lived in more or less urban settings throughout my adult life, I’ve never lived within a ten minute walk (or even a ten minute bus or subway ride) of any of my urban places of employment. However, I did grow up in small towns or cities, so I do have some personal experience with the walkable human settlement (at least in theory). For example, I graduated from high school in Dillon, Montana, where it was indeed possible to walk from one side of town to another in about fifteen, if not ten, minutes. Like most other kids, I did walk to school. But, while physically possible for most, few people walked to work. The elderly were least likely to be walking the streets and sidwalks. And none of us were trudging through the Montana snows to the grocery store in the winter, or lugging home bags of groceries along the sidewalks even during milder weather. Was it a “walkable settlement”? Yes. As a practical matter did people actually walk to most of the daily amenities of life? That's is not my recollection. Was human flourishing truly dependent on walking everywhere for everything, even when possible?

The old “Field of Dreams” line went that "if you build they will come." If we build the walkable human settlement, will most people come? And if they do, will they really walk? And does it really matter, on a moral level?

(I acknowledge that walkability may matter on the level of human health, as only the kindness of my co-bloggers has caused them thus far to resist remarking on how the roundness of my body shape suggests that I could do with more walking in my life. In that sense, the use of the term "exercise" in my title to this post may be more than a pun. I take some comfort in the fact that our Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, whose approach to natural law has been central to our prior discussions and whose particular views on cities were quoted by Rick earlier, was not known in his time to be svelte. While human health is part of flourishing and thus has a moral dimension, I think that factor alone cannot justify elevating living within walking proximity of one's place of work to a moral imperative.)

Greg Sisk