CREJ

16 / BUILDING DIALOGUE / December 2018 Denver Development: Designing for Livability and Equity I recently participated in a presentation and panel discussion affiliated with the Mental Health Center of Denver. The question posed to the panelists was both am- bitious and timely; “How do we make Denver a most livable, and equitable, city for all?” From a design perspective, this question need- ed to be unpacked and investigated before it could be repackaged and delivered to an audi- ence, due to the subjective nature of the term “liv- able,” and the recent scholarship that points to the inherent conflict between creating environments that are “livable” and “equitable.” To begin, let’s look at the term livability. Amidst a plethora of urban planning jargon, how does one differentiate a “livable” city from a sustainable, eco, resilient, smart or intelligent city? As noted in the book “Livable Cities from a Global Perspective,” “common attributes of each term include concepts that inherently make a city more livable, including the need for walkability, a variety of housing types, mixed land uses, preservation of open space, oppor- tunities for civic engagement, job opportunities for all, respecting community character and local heri- tage, quality educational facilities, low crime crates, and balanced transportation options.” Not a small list – especially when considering the recent pace of development in Denver. What distinguishes the concept of livability from the other terms mentioned is that, in the words of Hilda Blanco, “Livability is a human standpoint: How does a place, a city, support human life in its many dimensions?” While sustainable design is a broad concept that may be viewed from an ecolog- ical standpoint, livability, despite being highly con- nected to sustainability, not only elicits us to think about how to design as stewards of the environ- ment and the earth’s limited resources; it focuses on how the design of cities can either support or prevent basic human rights including access to housing, transportation, jobs, food, clean water and air, infrastructure, nature and community. Over the last three decades (and arguably the ad- vent of IDEO, a global design and innovation com- pany, in the early 1990s,) a huge shift has occurred in the design industry in the sense that many dif- ferent design professionals – from product to archi- tectural to urban designers, are more aware of the concepts and practices of human-centered design. IDEO defines human-centered design as “a pro- cess that starts with the people you’re designing for and ends with new solutions that are tailor made to suit their needs. Human-centered design is all about building a deep empathy with the peo- ple you’re designing for; generating tons of ideas; building a bunch of prototypes; sharing what you’ve made with the people you’re designing for; and eventually putting your innovative new solu- tion out in the world.” While the process of proto- typing is often more feasible in the product world than the planning profession, the idea of planning cities around the aforementioned characteristics of livability is a notably human-centered approach to how we think about our urban environments – a welcome change from the utopian, flawed visions of planned developments such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City, the disastrous Pruitt-Igoe, or Robert Moses’s many expressways that arguably created the separation of classes in New York City. What’s only recently become a more pressing con- versation is how to incorporate equity into the de- velopment process of creating livable communities. Urbanist and scholar Karen Chapple talks about the tension between livability and equity in her book, Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions: Towards More Equitable Development.” She writes, “The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines livability as a community ‘with multiple modes of transportation, different types of housing, and destinations located close to home,’ evoking both diversity and accessibility. But the popularity of livability is due, in part, to the increasingly glob- al phenomenon of entrepreneurial cities trying to attract capital and its talent. Equity, however, is an afterthought.” For many, this quote might hit close to home. Denver is growing at breakneck speed, as developers continue to respond to what the Downtown Denver Partnership refers to as an “increased demand for residential, office and hotel product propelled by strong population and job growth.” Therefore, the more conversations professionals across disciplines might have about integrating so- cial equity, defined by Chapple as “creating equity in outcomes such as the equal distribution of life chances, access to basic needs, and the chance to realize one’s full potential” and equity in process, or democratic representation (and voice) in planning processes” is critical to shaping cities, including Denver, that are not only meeting new residents’ desire for livable urban centers, but also addressing existing communities’ needs and aspirations while creating pathways for stability and economic mo- bility. Immediate opportunities to begin thinking about equity in architecture and planning are how city, design and development professionals continue to address inclusive strategies related to transporta- tion, affordable housing, and equal access to robust community resources. How do we rethink existing policies and practices to address the needs of new residents while supporting and enhancing oppor- tunities for existing residents? Applying this lens to the city’s continued growth, as well as thoughtful analysis of successful precedents related to equita- ble inclusive design, is an important filter that we might all think about creating a more livable AND more equitable Denver. \\ Creative Content Beth R. Mosen- thal, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Anderson Mason Dale Architects