This week I had the pleasure of attending a London First Talk, where Dr Will Norman was the guest speaker. Dr Norman has the responsibility of occupying the first Walking and Cycling Commissioner position for the London Mayor. Dr Norman aptly reminded the audience of the challenge London faces to accommodate an additional 1.5 million more people by 2020.  This increase must be accommodated into the existing Greater London fabric. It is therefore very clear Greater London must prioritise its space for people, as opposed to vehicles, and focus on innovative ways to support liveability. This ambition is captured in the Mayor’s “Healthy Streets Approach” from the 2018 Transport Strategy, which seeks to “prioritise human health”. Dr Norman shared two anecdotal accounts, one of an elderly women, who lived across from a park where she was able to build social capital and maintain her health. Following an injury her mobility prevented her from crossing the road to her local park due to the volume of traffic which has now contributed to a decline in her overall wellbeing. I was wondering as he finished this account how many people had desisted from using the park due to the noise and intimidation from the increase in traffic and what impacts the increased noise had on the health of the local community as a whole.
 
New London Architecture (NLA) has just completed its fifth survey of tall buildings in the capital. The results showed a total of 510 buildings over 20 storeys, an increase from the 455 from the previous survey. The survey shows the majority of these buildings will be located in two boroughs containing a population of acute diversity and complex needs. Like all global cities, London at a neighbourhood level, is populated by everyone across the spectrum of poverty and affluence. Dr Norman’s call to arms to motivate Londoners to take up walking in the capital is indeed commendable and essential. However, the design detail found among the tall buildings across London, lack local relevance and each applicant lacks the expertise to viably “prioritise human health” in real terms.  For the majority of whom these towers are being filled, most are prominently absent or upwardly mobile. Recently, I attending a design review of a master plan for a high density mixed-used scheme, I was reminded yet again of the consistent apathy these schemes have for the actual liveability of mixed-use residential high density schemes next to a transport artery without access to green space. When I asked the Architect about the obvious volumes of disruptive noise set to impact the 700+ residents of this scheme, I was met with reassurance that those moving into the scheme would expect or be accustomed to such conditions. Or are they? According to The Economist’s recent article The burbs are back, “millennials were less likely to live in urban areas than young people were in 2000.” Course the narrow scope of the article does not permit a comparison of earnings of those aged 25-34 today versus those aged 25-34 in 2000. For this could be a contributing factor. However, there is a reaction from those who can’t afford to live in London but recognise the alarmingly inhumane conditions these new tall buildings bring with them.
 
Sarah Williams Goldhagen’s book Welcome to Your World details the latest cognitive neuroscience evidence that has revealed the majority of daily human cognitions are non-conscious. More importantly, this new field has demonstrated the impact details in our everyday environment have on our health, the majority of which we are not aware of. “When something happens in the world or in our minds, that “something” is always situated, in our bodies, in a given time, and in place.” (p45) Winlow and Hall in their book Rethinking Social Exclusion rightly point out the effect “non-places” have on “social excision” where “features are intended only to be looked at {…} rather than walked through and enjoyed.” (3). Goldhagen uses the example of studies surrounding a school to qualify the evidence that a “poorly designed school’s internal corridors-enervate us, so killing us with boredom that they exacerbate stress, sadness and even addiction. We want to escape, to flee to a more cognitively engaging and healthful place.” (2) Very recently depression has ranked as the most common disease affecting urban populations today. Is it not time we hold those profiting from the endless “non-place” accountable?
 
In conclusion, the second anecdotal account Dr Norman shared was one of being an observer of a group of school children. When the group was tasked with designing an alternative to public transportation for the future, it was unanimous that their vision be a city of fun places filled with space for opportunities of enjoyment. It is 30 years since the WHO began the Healthy Cities movement, clearly too few know about it.  I fear what this generation has begun has irrevocable ramification, I hope not, all generation deserve a sustainably healthy city in which to have fun.

References

1. Welcome to Your World: How the Built Environment Shapes Our Lives, Goldhagen, S.W., Harper Collins, 2017. P.4
2. The burbs are back, The Economist, Volume 427, Number 9088 (p.36)
3. Rethinking Social Exclusion, The End of the Social?, Hall, S., and Winlow, S., Sage Publications Ltd, 2013, p.124

Annalise V Johns, London-based urban designer brings us the latest discussions from some of the most interesting urban design events around London over the last few weeks.
Want to share what's being discussed in your city? Email us.

The following is a reflection on the topics discussed at two recent London Society event. The first a launch of Professor Richard Sennett’s latest book Building and Dwelling: Ethics for a City, and a talk by Town Planner Colin Wilson, on How to Plan London, all of which took place amid the close of the consultation for the revised publication of the London Plan.
 
Local political challenges aside, global urban trends namely; the unforeseen impact of automation, the complex presence of plastic, the explosive rise in depression and obesity, and thanks to #metoo, a global awakening to the true reality of parity across all thinkable domains and its impact on economies, I am struck by the lack of dimension provided by these thought leaders on how best to shape a city, and one as intricate as London. Professor Sennett, Mr Wilson and the London Plan continue the age old discussions of spatial organisation; greenbelt or not, density or not, and formal or holistic design, however, in light of growing evidence illustrating the impact urbanism is having on the health of all living creatures; these responses seem rather prosaic.
 
The latest revisions to the London Plan liken it to the American Tax system. Its primary focus on “Good Growth” and “doubling the current rate of homebuilding” are devised in a framework to create a London built for sustainable transport and active travel. How possible is this when as Colin Wilson astutely pointed out, of the 180 policies found in the London Plan a mere 30 are used. It is evident from the growing number of inhumane developments being approved in London, policies are not understood and certainly not taken seriously. What is very clear is built environment experts still lack understanding as to the true influence environment has on human health and the London Plan provides no further clarity of this.  
 
A recent study published in the Lancet analyses the “salutogenic effects” natural environments have on mental health and how “urbanicity serve as background factors that potentially trigger or amplify suicidal motives.” The study goes on to say analysis carried out in the Netherlands “confirm the mental health-supporting characteristics of {…} natural environments.” More research is needed but there is a growing body of evidence showing the importance materials within the built environment have on various aspects of human health.
 
A fascinating talk was given at the Future City Catapult in London (15.03.2018) on Neuroscience for the Built Environment. Areceli Camargo shared her explorations into the neurological studies of particular materials and its impact on humans. Reflecting on the changing epidemiology by focusing on non-communicable disease as they affect women in particular, is to start with an intention beyond good growth and instead for an outcome with far reaching preventative mechanisms that result in multiple benefits to society including economic growth. Built environment professional are responsible for the communities whose lives are being shaped through design choices, therefore to create designs that do not adhere to the role of preventative health care measures are operating in vacuum. Materials now exist for streets and furniture to absorb pollutants and excesses of noise pollution. The science exists to make cities for complex natural ecosystems to thrive and reverse climate change, therefore to not adopt such approaches to all built environment working practices seems unprofessional. Progress in this area is a matter of leadership and political will, on the one hand, and of proactive and deliberate measures and accountability, on the other. We need more of all that.