It's Better To Plan For Human Behaviour Than Work Against It

I've come to think of a seemingly banal interaction with my condo board - actually, a number of them, but this one is both the most ridiculous and the quickest to explain - as a harbinger of our times. 

In the condo townhome development where my partner and I live, there's a pretty laneway with slate tiles and nicely landscaped garden beds. Bike posts are also everywhere, adding to the aesthetic (in my opinion). A few bike posts are in the garden beds. Unsurprisingly, people park their bikes there.

It seems this was completely unanticipated.

Condo board members took to our community Facebook group to hector residents for parking their bikes in the garden beds (where the posts are). Apparently, it should have been obvious they were only allowed to secure the tops of their bikes to the posts, with the bikes themselves expected to be angled so the tires remain on the slate (I should mention these posts are fairly deep within the garden beds).

I suggested it may make more sense to either move the bike posts, or landscape in such a way that allows clearance for the typical bike to be secured to the posts without disturbing the garden - as coming from a design background, I know from experience that you get the best results when you design for what people will actually do, not what you think they should do.

This was not well received

The idea of designing for what people do continues to give board members sneering amusement, whenever they again rant in the group about something residents have done that they should not have done.

People parking their bikes in the garden beds remains common among these complaints - along with tons of other things that could easily have been resolved, long ago, through more thoughtful design. 

Another great example of bad design (that is even quicker to explain) can be found in the book The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman (a pioneer of people-centred design). When both sides of a door look the same, it can be confusing to know whether to push or pull. People often resort to putting up signs, but a better solution is to design the door with different features on each side. For example, a handle on the pull side and a metal plate on the push side. This way, people can easily understand how to use the door without needing signs. 

The idea is to make the action so intuitive that it happens almost automatically, without you really having to think about it.

I wish more people in positions of power would adopt this way of thinking - where responsibility is taken for creating better systems that anticipate and account for human fallibility, without pointing fingers or dispensing punishments.

Garden beds are just the beginning - let's look at urban design in a broader context.

The 15 minute city is a people-centric urban planning concept that aims to make daily life easier by creating urban areas where work, shops, and leisure activities are all within a short walk or bike ride from your home. 

Some authorities, however, wish to distort this concept for policing instead of improving communities.

At first, I thought the controversy around the idea was merely a result of post-lockdown anxiety - that after being restricted from leaving their homes, those against it were (somewhat understandably) paranoid that making it convenient not to venture far from home was an effort to stop them from leaving.

Unfortunately, some of the oppositional concerns have a more direct catalyst.

The city of Oxford in England has proposed a trial run of traffic filtering aimed at reducing congestion during peak traffic times. Under the plan, residents would be required to obtain permits to drive through the filters, which would be enforced by cameras. Drivers caught without a permit would be fined £35, with the penalty increasing to £70 if not paid within two weeks.

Aside from limiting car traffic to main roads, the goal is to promote pedestrianism, cycling, and the use of local amenities, thereby reducing pollution.

While that may sound nice in and of itself - my concern is that using repressive measures such as fines and cameras to enforce 15 minute city principles completely misses the point. 

The intent of this concept was to encourage developers to build more livable places, not to impose restrictions on people. Instead of punishing inefficient travellers, the focus should remain on pushing decision-makers to create communities that make it convenient and appealing to reduce unsustainable forms of travel.

While it may be hyperbolic to completely demonise 15 minute cities on the basis of this one example, it is not unreasonable to oppose more punitive applications of such ideas, as a rule.

Particularly since many climate change initiatives also suffer from this weakness in application - a temptation to punish, instead of taking on the more difficult challenge of designing solutions that make desirable behaviour feel effortless.

It's apparent that people can respond positively to behavioural changes they find appealing, such as the use of reusable bags (because they are often stronger, more attractive, and can carry more groceries than single-use bags) and energy-efficient lightbulbs (since they are more cost-effective than incandescents).

Having said that, it's also important to recognize that many of the most effective ways to combat environmental challenges can't be controlled on the scale of individual behaviour, but rather require governments and businesses to completely rethink systems and fund more transformative innovation.

Regrettably, rather than supporting the development and adoption of superior alternatives (such as plant-based corn plastic straws), impractical ideas like Canada's single-use plastics ban (which instead promotes the use of products like paper straws that disintegrate in liquid) are often adopted uncritically due to their perceived virtuousness.

It's this preference for symbolic gestures over more practical and innovative solutions that illustrates the larger problem of superficial environmentalism, which fails to address underlying systemic challenges and hampers progress in discovering truly sustainable alternatives.

This is true even to the extent that those in charge will fight against sustainable alternatives that arise independently, if it means they have to make meaningful systemic changes.

Consider remote work - yet another lockdown leftover that makes some people anxious, but with real potential to enable many to live better lives.

The ability to work from anywhere presents a great opportunity to transform local communities, both in cities and in smaller contexts, to make staying close to home easy and desirable so people don't make unnecessary trips - using 15 minute city principles in an approach people will appreciate and embrace.

One might assume that governments would also readily embrace and encourage remote work, given these benefits and the widespread positive reception from the digital workforce. 

One would be mistaken.

In an effort to protect property values and support struggling small businesses that built themselves around office crowds, many municipalities have resisted the idea - prioritising short-term economic interests over responding to remote work as a catalyst to transform cities in a more vibrant and sustainable way.

This is another impractical idea - not least because it won't save cities, anyway.

Commuting to work in an office five days a week will never again be a prevalent norm; we broke that pattern for too long, and too many companies and individuals have made a permanent transition. As a result, businesses and services dependent on revenue from the paradigm of the five-day work week will not be able to sustain themselves, even if a few more people are forced back to the office a little more often.

The “solution” of pressuring people to continue to trek to the office regularly (even on a reduced basis) so they may still need to occasionally buy overpriced sandwiches in the downtown core is indignant, and it also fails to ensure the viability of cities in the long run.

While the intention may not have been for this change to become permanent when companies shifted to remote work in March 2020, that should not deter us from fully embracing it and adopting a more intentional approach to capitalise on the opportunity. 

In light of the tremendous changes we've already seen in the transition to remote work, cities are in an incredible position to rethink the antiquated concept of central business districts. 

Instead, they can embrace the development of mixed use neighbourhoods that strike a better balance between work, play, and living spaces - resulting in more vibrant, convenient, and inclusive communities.

The notoriously NIMBY Toronto city council finally made one positive change in this direction - allowing multiplexes in all neighbourhoods, which weren't previously permitted in many areas of the city due to restrictive zoning laws.

Besides being a first small positive step towards addressing the affordability crisis that has been driving people away from the city for quite some time, this could also represent a positive step towards adapting to the new reality of a city that no longer revolves around its offices.

This is how we can breathe new life into the city, rather than just sustaining it on life support.

In its wider context of urban renewal, this action also illustrates how leaders can resolve problems in a more direct and productive way, rather than getting distracted by looking for blame elsewhere.

Instead of hectoring people on an individual level about what they should do, we should always push to make the changes we want to see easier, systemically.

Let's not forget the allegory, on a much smaller urban scale, that you should keep bike posts out of garden beds (literally and metaphorically) if you don't want flowers (or expectations) crushed.