For too long, discussions surrounding the improvement of our roads and streets have been dominated by cold, hard numbers. Planners, engineers, and policymakers frequently cite quantitative data, focusing on metrics that, while important, often overshadow the fundamental human element of urban design. The conversation is usually centered around collision statistics, the effectiveness of safety infrastructure, the segregation of road users, traffic generation rates, intersection Level of Service (LOS), Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Lost in these calculations is the essence of what streets can and should be: places of diverse “togetherness.” Despite lofty policy goals aimed at community building and social cohesion, the concept of streets fostering human connection is rarely prioritized in practical design and implementation.
This oversight is a critical flaw. As architect and urban designer Jan Gehl aptly points out, cities should be designed to support the “human condition.” His vision of the “Soft City,” elaborated in David Sims’s 2019 book, champions the integration of natural environments with built structures that encourage social interactions beyond the confines of buildings. This philosophy calls for designing roadways with people, not just cars, at the forefront. The pandemic era, with its surge of “Slow Streets” initiatives, offered a glimpse into how streets could indeed bolster the social fabric of cities. However, much of this pedestrian-centric prioritization has unfortunately been rolled back. While some temporary interventions faced challenges, such as insufficient community consultation, the broader principle of human-centered design that fosters togetherness remains largely absent from mainstream transportation planning. It is imperative that planners, engineers, designers, and policymakers embrace this concept of togetherness, breathing new life into our streets and moving beyond the simplistic and restrictive notion of roads solely as conduits for vehicles.
But what exactly does “togetherness” mean in the context of street design? It signifies cross-cultural connectivity nurtured through shared experiences within a common space. Currently, when urban planners and policymakers discuss connectivity, they typically refer to grid networks, focusing on the arrangement of intersecting streets and the efficiency of movement between residential areas and workplaces. While this perspective has its place, it often lacks a crucial dimension: human sensitivity. It overlooks the human values and the vulnerabilities – physical, emotional, and cultural – that individuals bring to their interactions within the roadway environment. Urban networks should strive for more than just quantitative intersection efficiency. They should be designed to bring people together, providing the very framework for our public lives and serving as a genuine foundation for public and civic engagement.
Streets possess the potential to transcend their function as mere roads. They can evolve into vibrant public spaces that nurture human systems in harmony with environmental and natural systems. Imagine streets that are not only functional but also beautiful, permeable, and adaptable to a multitude of activities – accommodating various forms of transport and becoming integral parts of community life. They can be meticulously designed to complement the unique character of each city and its land use patterns, simultaneously enhancing income accessibility and promoting social mobility through climate-conscious, multimodal travel options. Well-conceived street networks are pivotal in creating sustainable cities that cater to the environmental, social, and economic needs of their inhabitants. However, to truly thrive, streets must be lively and inviting, attracting people for reasons that go beyond just driving through them.
The idea of streets fostering togetherness may seem radical, particularly given the historical prioritization of automobiles in Western engineering and the disproportionate impact of law enforcement practices on marginalized communities exercising their right to public space. Cars have undeniably dominated urban streets for decades. This car-centric approach, which separates and prioritizes automobiles over other modes of transport, establishes a hierarchy, a form of tyranny of the automobile. Consider the seemingly innocuous example of a striped bike lane. While it aims to create a safer cycling environment on busy streets, the very act of striping and separation underscores the dominance of cars. The allocation of space inherently favors automobiles, granting them more perceived “rights” to the road than cyclists or pedestrians. If a car double-parks in a bike lane or causes a “dooring” incident, fault often initially falls on the cyclist, reflecting this spatial prioritization: Why couldn’t the cyclist have swerved into the car lane to avoid the obstruction?
In stark contrast, a mixed-flow environment fosters interaction and shared responsibility among all road users, as demonstrated by the Slow Streets initiatives. In Chicago, for example, planners observed a remarkable 350% increase in pedestrian traffic and an 85% surge in bicycle traffic on a corridor designated as a Slow Street, alongside a 50% reduction in local car traffic. Streets can be reimagined as shared spaces – safe, slow, and sustainable. When implemented effectively, shared spaces, echoing the vision of “naked streets” championed by Hans Monderman, allow people to walk, cycle, and simply “be” in the street, free from rigid delineations and roadway separation. This deliberate ambiguity fosters safety, as the perceived “chaos” heightens awareness and compels individuals to engage in a continuous form of interaction and mutual consideration – a true embodiment of togetherness.
Furthermore, we can draw inspiration from scholars like myself, Borja Ruiz, and Vikas Mehta, who advocate for incorporating amenities that extend the use of streets beyond mere transit corridors. By providing seating, infrastructure, and other features, we can build upon the social connections forged during the pandemic. Planners, engineers, and policymakers have the opportunity to solidify the infrastructure of togetherness, moving beyond temporary “pop-up” safe streets to thoughtfully integrate elements like pedestrian signals, varied surface materials, level curbs, and street demarcations that explicitly invite non-automotive traffic. Creating streets for togetherness also necessitates the inclusion of benches, gardens, landscaping, public art, play areas, and other infrastructure that supports social gathering and community building. These elements echo the communal spirit of Dutch woonerfs, residential streets designed to prioritize person-to-person interaction among all modes of transport.
Public authorities can also enhance street frontages to create greater visual appeal and pedestrian interest. This can be achieved through artistic signage, personalized storefront designs, opportunities for permanent curbside dining or parklet installations, and incentives for neighborhood-serving commercial activities along the streetscape. Crucially, planners and engineers should begin to visually represent cities that are vibrant and full of people engaging with each other in public spaces. City plans and renderings should depict diverse communities walking, cycling, conversing, playing, dining, protesting, and collectively bringing life to the very heart of their cities.
These actions, while seemingly straightforward, are profoundly important as we navigate the post-pandemic landscape and establish a new sense of normalcy. Despite the evident success and public demand, Slow Streets programs in cities ranging from San Francisco and San Diego to Miami and Chicago have begun to be dismantled. However, the valuable lessons learned from these experiments should be retained and applied, even at the micro-block level. While there are formal and informal methods for traffic calming, creating bike lanes, and incorporating green infrastructure, citizens possess the power to advocate for change, take localized action, and “own” their streets. Encouragingly, city officials are increasingly receptive to this grassroots advocacy for people-centric street design.
In conclusion, streets designed to foster togetherness must become a cornerstone of future city development, driven by both environmental and social justice imperatives. Regardless of background or socioeconomic status, transport fundamentally relates to dignity, self-respect, and the sense of community we cherish. Transportation, in its most meaningful sense, is about community cohesion, bringing us together as one – making “togetherness” not just a desirable outcome, but a true synonym for a more holistic and human-centered approach to transport and urban life.
*Dr. William (Billy) Riggs**, Ph.D., AICP, LEED AP, is a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Management, and a global thought leader in the areas of future mobility and smart transportation, housing, economics, and urban development. He is the author of the book End of the Road: Reimagining the Street as the Heart of the City. He can be found on Twitter at @billyriggs.*
