Is Living in a New Urbanist Neighborhood the Answer to a Healthier Life?
Can you truthfully answer if someone asked what the name of your neighbors are? What about their hobbies?
Often times, communities are structured in a way that hinders a resident’s ability to get to know each other. This can lead a resident to feel a sense of isolation and disconnection from their own neighborhood. What if we take a step back and focus on making our neighborhoods excel in promoting resident engagement? This redesign of a community is called new urbanism, which is defined as “…a planning and development approach based on the principles of how cities and towns had been built for the last several centuries: walkable blocks and streets, housing and shopping in close proximity, and accessible public spaces” (Congress for the New Urbanism, n.d.).
In particular, what makes the concept of new urbanism appealing are the numerous positive benefits the residents experience living in this type of community. There has been several studies related to a person’s health and overall well being in connection to new urbanist communities. They focus on the advantages that families experience while living in new urbanist communities that highly promote walkability as the main option for transportation. The question still stands, is new urbanist communities the answer for an overall healthier life?
Let’s take a look at a notable example of a new urbanist community that resides in Austin, Texas, known as “The Mueller Community.” This area located in the northeast-central part of Austin was built after the city’s old airport relocated. This community is in close proximity to the University of Texas at Austin as well as the downtown area. This 700 acre community is filled with an array of parks, affordable housing, diverse restaurants, and most recently an Alamo Drafthouse Theater.
According to MuellerAustin.com, “With 20 percent of the neighborhood dedicated to parkland and open space, every resident will live less than 600 feet away from a community greenspace” (Mueller Central,n.d.). Having the option to walk to certain areas gives families an opportunity to engage with nature as well as spend time with each other.
Check out a virtual tour of “The Mueller Community” created by Austin Residents:
Here is the layout of all the neighborhood parks around Mueller. Notice how they connect together giving residents the ability to visit and interact with other people that may live in opposite sides of the community. Mueller is also known to host several community events throughout the year, especially for holidays seasons such as “Mueller’s Egg Scramble” for Easter.
Events such as these not only bring adults closer together, but also children. Thus establishing what a true community is suppose to be. In terms of grocery options, Mueller hosts their own farmer’s market every Sunday. This provides families around Austin the opportunity to buy healthier foods and vegetables instead of resorting to fast food.
Furthermore, Mueller offers affordability housing options for it’s future residents. According to MuellerAustin.com, “Households earning 80% or less of the median family income for Austin qualify for the opportunity to buy an affordable home at Mueller; households earning 60% or less of the median family income qualify for the opportunity to rent an affordable apartment” (Mueller Central, 2014).
However, the word affordable is subjective and dependent on your target audience. Mueller’s website further states that their affordable housing is known to cost between “$150,000 to approximately $190,000” (Mueller Central, 2014). Mueller’s main mission is to have a diversity of families within their overall community from all range of incomes, bridging barriers together. Mueller altogether brings not only an attraction, but is also an example of what a thriving healthy community can become.
The establishment of Mueller caught the attention of Texas A&M University Professor of Architecture, Xuemei Zhu who conducted a case study in 2013–2014 about how living in Mueller affected the physical health of its residents. Her study was published in Preventive Medicine in 2014. Zhu’s team delivered a self-reported survey both online and paper form to the residents currently living there at the time.
The survey included a transition section of “pre-move” to “post move” for the families that had recently moved to Mueller. This was done so the researchers could compare the variables from before and after families had lived in Mueller. Within the survey, the study variables included “… the outcomes (physical activities, social interactions, and neighborhood cohesion) and personal, social, and physical environmental factors that might have influenced those outcomes” (Zhu et al. 2014).
Zhu and her team found significant data that indicated Mueller had made a difference in their physical exercise. As it was reported, “From the 449 respondents, the percentage of residents who had ≥5 days per week with ≥30 daily minutes of moderate physical activities increased from 34.4% to 45.8% after the move…” (Zhu et al. 2014). This is a dramatic increase that shows how the structural design of Mueller as a walkable community is getting their residents to be more active during their day. The types of physical activities the residents engaged in included riding bicycles and walking around the neighborhood.
Here is a map of central Austin illustrating the pattern of “high score” walking centered around the Mueller community.
In addition, an earlier study similar to Zhu’s team was conducted in 2009 by Tamara Vehige Calise, who works at Boston University School of Public Health. The case study, published in Preventing Chronic Disease in 2013, focused on the physical activity within the Mueller community. Their survey also measured the difference of how active the residents were before and after they moved into the neighborhood. However, this case study divided the survey into three different groups that were identified as “low, middle or high” activity groups depending on the resident. It was reported, “we saw the biggest increase in pre- to post-move total physical activity in the low-activity group (mean increase, 176.3 min/wk) compared with the middle- (mean increase, 69.5 min/wk) and high-activity groups (mean decrease, 67.9 min/wk)” (Calise et al. 2009).
They also stated that all three groups had increased in physical activity within the neighborhood. The ultimate question Calise and his team were trying to answer was whether the people’s motivations were internal or a result of the environment. After the research was conducted, the results led to support their assumption that it was indeed the environment that made people more active rather than just the people. It is interesting to see how Zhu and Calise’s case studies within Mueller overall still maintained the same results of residents achieving a higher level of physical activity, even with a five year difference.
Another case study conducted by Robert Stevens and Barbara Brown, published in The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity in 2007, focused on measuring physical activity changes among children and the places where they lived. Their research had different groups which included children who lived in a new urbanist walkable community, a mixed walkable community, and a community that was less walkable. All of the children were in fifth grade and they focused on two elementary schools in particular.
The children and their parents were given self-report surveys which included information about their walks to school everyday. Stevens and Brown’s team also had the children wear accelerometers to measure how active the child was throughout the duration of the case study. The data collected revealed that overall “community walkability related to more [moderate to vigorous physical activity] MVPA during the half hour before and after school and, among boys only, more MVPA after school” (Stevens and Brown, 2007). This case study further illustrated that walkable communities can increase a young child’s exercise in their day.
The positive effects of what a New Urbanist neighborhood can offer its community continued to spark the interest of several researchers around the United States. In particular there was another case study published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Planning Association. It was conducted in North Carolina by Daniel A. Rodríguez and his team. They wanted to find out if a new urbanist neighborhood can actually be proven to encourage physical activity among its residents. Similar to the other studies, they compared a new urbanist neighborhood to a suburban neighborhood within the area.
Residents of both neighborhoods were sent surveys with questionnaires “relating to household demographic and physical characteristics (height and weight); travel patterns; attitudes and preferences for the built environment; and physical activity frequency and location…” (Rodríguez et al.) Furthermore, each of the residents had to write details of their physical activity and report it in their own travel diary. However, there are limitations to self-reported surveys as people may either lie or forget certain details when answering them, but the researchers acknowledged this within their study.
The study revealed “residents of the new urbanist neighborhood spent more time being physically active in their neighborhood than did residents of the conventional neighborhoods” (Rodríguez et al.) This study as well provided more evidence of new urbanist neighborhoods creating a difference and promoting more physical activity among its residents.
The idea of incorporating retail stores and various attractions within close proximity of new urbanist neighborhoods like the Mueller community inspired a case study in Portland, Oregon. The study was led by Hollie Lund and was published in Journal of the American Planning Association in 2008. She wanted to find out if the positive claims of new urbanism environments were in retrospect true. Lund analyzed a total of eight neighborhoods through self-reported surveys evaluating not only resident’s behavior on traveling, but also resident’s interaction with each other. The neighborhoods that were part of the study were identified to be a mixture of being “inner-city” and “suburban.”
The study reported two significant findings which were: “ (1) when combined with pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, locating everyday amenities such as parks and retail shops within a neighborhood can increase pedestrian travel and neighbor interaction within a community, and (2) people who walk around their neighborhood are more likely to interact with and form relationships with their neighbors” (Lund, 2008). Consequently, Lund’s study reemphasized the benefits of what residents may experience living in a new urbanist neighborhood, both contributing to their health as well as improving social interaction.
Next, I thought I would take a personal trip and experience the Mueller community in person. I visited one of the most known parks in the neighborhood, Mueller Lake Park.
I was immediately awestruck seeing the grand lake surrounded by the trail that loops around it. People were setting up their designated area to get ready to fish in the lake. There was tremendous amount of green space and for a Monday afternoon there was quite a bit of families playing in the park. I even witnessed a family having a barbecue using the community grills placed around the park and offering food to people that walked by. Just walking the full trail, I felt part of the community as everyone was welcoming and smiling as I walked past.
Dory Moreno, a resident that lives close by Mueller Lake Park, said in an interview, “ I like that the park is convenient to where I live. It’s always really well kept, even when it gets busy in the weekends. It seems like they always do a really good job with keeping the park clean.”
Also, when I arrived at the park there was a community exercise group working out together near the entrance. I thought this was a perfect idea of encouraging physical activity among the residents of Mueller. This exercise group is something I would like to see more neighborhoods around Austin take action in.
The park also featured a playscape with an enormous, unique sea-monster sculpture named “Nessy” created by visual artist Dixie Friend Gay from Oklahoma. This beautiful sculpture definitely attracts visitors to stop by and take pictures.
Check out and experience a section of the Mueller Lake Park yourself by clicking around the panorama photo here:
All in all, these case studies had a notable pattern that living in a “new urbanist” walkable community increases a person physical activity and promotes social interaction. It is quite interesting to know where a person chooses to live has a great impact on their life. Our country would be greatly different if more cities adopted new urbanist designs within their local neighborhoods. Can you imagine living in a country designed to promote physical activity rather than relying on automobiles as the main source of transportation? Several serious issues may potentially be reduced such as obesity among children and air pollution from vehicles with the adoption of new urbanism. Nevertheless, new urbanist neighborhoods can offer many positive benefits towards its residents and promote a healthier lifestyle.
References
Calise, T. V., Heeren, T., DeJong, W., Dumith, S. C., & Kohl, H. W. (2013). Do Neighborhoods Make People Active, or Do People Make Active Neighborhoods? Evidence from a Planned Community in Austin, Texas. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E102. http://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.120119
Congress for the New Urbanism. (n.d.). What is New Urbanism? Retrieved April 6, 2018, from https://www.cnu.org/ website: https://www.cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism
Lund, H.(2008) Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69:4, 414–429, DOI: 10.1080/01944360308976328
Mueller Central. (n.d.). Parks & Open Spaces. Retrieved April 6, 2018, from http://www.muelleraustin.com/ website: http://www.muelleraustin.com/thinking-green/parks/
Mueller Central. (2014). http://www.muelleraustin.com/uploads/plan/mueller-2014-community-report.pdf. Retrieved April 6, 2018, from www.muelleraustin.com/ website: http://www.muelleraustin.com/uploads/plan/mueller-2014-community-report.pdf
Rodríguez, D., Asad J. Khattak & Kelly R. Evenson (2007) Can New Urbanism Encourage Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with Conventional Suburbs, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72:1, 43–54, DOI: 10.1080/01944360608976723
Stevens, R. B., & Brown, B. B. (2011). Walkable new urban LEED_Neighborhood-Development (LEED-ND) community design and children’s physical activity: selection, environmental, or catalyst effects? The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 139. http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-139
Zhu, X., Yu, C.-Y., Lee, C., Lu, Z., & Mann, G. (2014). A Retrospective Study on Changes in Residents’ Physical Activities, Social Interactions, and Neighborhood Cohesion after Moving to a Walkable Community. Preventive Medicine, 69 Suppl, S93–S97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.08.013
