<![CDATA[
<body background="../graphics/niceblue.gif" alt="Urban planning for livable city density and neighborhood livability." title="City planning for livable urban density and neighborhood livability." text="black">
<img height="500" width="387" src="../graphics/UBOR-2019-cover-fullpic.jpg" align="left" hspace="20" vspace="20" alt=" Hudson urban bill of rights" title="Hudson urban bill of rights"><br>
<center>
<div class="Sect">
<h1>Cities Fit for People:</h1>
<h1>The Urban Bill of Rights</h1>
</div>
</center>
<p>Few people are more dedicated to making urban life humane and attractive than urban planners and designers. But there is also no group that can do more damage to the cause of urban livability if they allow pet theories, resource management, and utilitarian assumptions to set their course, rather than a full understanding of the fundamental needs of those they plan for—people. Popular planning prescriptions like "smart growth," New Urbanism, and transit-oriented development have largely lost touch with the human beings they are meant to serve. To articulate and safeguard the needs, rights, and health of urban residents, therefore, the author proposes the following Urban Bill of Rights.<br>
<br>
</p>
<div align="left">
<h3><font face="Times New Roman,Georgia,Times"><i><b>"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world." — Eleanor Roosevelt</b></i></font></h3>
</div>
<center>
<p><br clear="left">
</p>
<p><font color="#bdbdce" face="Times New Roman,Georgia,Times"><i><b>Rights-based urban planning. Livable cities and neighbourhoods. Livability with density. Urban growth with livable neighborhoods.</b></i></font></p>
<div class="Sect">
<h1>Cities Fit for People:</h1>
<h1>The Urban Bill of Rights</h1>
<p><font size="4" color="black">by Sharon Hudson ©2010, 2011, 2019</font></p>
</center>
<div align="left">
<p>This paper presents a proposed “Urban Bill of Rights,” consisting of eleven personal space rights, and seven public space and access rights. The purpose of the Urban Bill of Rights (henceforth the “UBOR”) is to provide rights-based principles to guide change in the urban built environment and the processes that create it. It is intended to maintain livability in the current planning context, ensuring that cities become and remain humane and sustainable. The UBOR should be viewed as a critical and constructive partner to contemporary planning prescriptions such as smart growth and New Urbanism, as well as to any traditional urban planning or design approach. With cultural modifications, it can also help rapidly developing countries to build better cities from the outset, cities clearly grounded in the needs of the human beings that inhabit them.</p>
<p>My purpose in this paper is fourfold. Part I, “Naming and Claiming Urban Rights,” explicitly states our urban rights. The act of claiming rights rests on the groundwork of naming rights. When confronted suddenly with deservedly unwelcome developments and loss of livability, or even good developments that need refinement, affected citizens are often unable to articulate precisely what their needs are, what aspects of their existing quality of life they feel are at risk, and why these elements are important. The UBOR will help clarify and simplify these issues, adding power to the voice of the people, and defining specific livability goals for decision makers overseeing growing cities.</p>
<p>Part II, “Rights and Wrongs: The Moral Foundation of the UBOR,” places urban rights in the moral context of natural law, personal and human rights, access to the commons, and equity, and divorces the right to good quality of life from the property-rights tradition. Property (land)-based thinking dominates our approach to the urban landscape and our jurisprudence, undermining the commons and the needs of those who do not own real property. The right to good quality of life must be based on personhood, not property ownership. The UBOR focuses therefore on human rights, for the most part expressing already recognized human rights in spatial terms. Applying the UBOR means creating urban spaces in which human rights can be exercised.</p>
<p>Part III, “Ideals and Realities,” explores how the UBOR fits into current planning practices and urban realities. The built forms, spaces, and networks of a city may be attractive and/or impressive, but they do not create healthy and sustainable cities. Therefore the UBOR focuses not on the designs of spaces, but on the principles and functions that support human health and well-being, that is, what people need and how they get their needs met within the environment. Inevitably this is tied to utilitarianism, to top-down vs. bottom-up planning, to prescription vs. proscription, to political processes, to law enforcement, and to the other causes of the gap between the optimistic planning and the mediocre (or worse) realities of urban life.</p>
<p>Part IV, “What People Need” explains and demonstrates the need for each urban right and the harm that comes from ignoring these rights. The goal is to foster among urban dwellers a sense of entitlement to good quality of life, and the awareness and expectation of the specific attributes that create this quality of life. People cannot effectively claim what they do not feel entitled to, and the rules that deliver rights cannot be enforced merely by police action; the overwhelming majority of people must obey any rule voluntarily. This means the people must accept the legitimacy of, and the need to protect, the “right” that they are either demanding for themselves or refraining from taking from somebody else.</p>
<p>The paper concludes with a summary.</p>
</div>
<center>
<p><font size="6" color="red" face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"><i><b>Downloads:</b></i></font></p>
</center>
<p><a href="../community-info/Hudson_Urban_Bill_of_Rights_2019_with_cover_secure.pdf" target="_blank" title="Urban bill of rights to secure human rights in smart growth urban planning."><b>Download printable PDF version</b></a> of the full document including the footnotes. It cannot be converted to a .doc or other format. (For copying text, use this web page.)</p>
<p><a href="../community-info/Hudson_Urban_bill_of_rights_summary_2019_secure.pdf" target="_blank" title="Urban bill of rights to secure human rights in smart growth urban planning."><b>Download 4-page summary PDF:</b></a> This summary, which is convertable to text format, contains the list of rights and a synopsis of the major points in the full document.</p>
<p>A "<a href="../community-info/Hudson_Urban_Bill_of_Rights_UDAP_Briefing.pdf" target="_blank" title="City planning for livability in compact urban neighborhoods."><b>Briefing</b></a>" on the following document, which appeared in the December 2011 issue of <i>The Journal of Urban Design and Planning</i> (Institution of Civil Engineers, U.K.).<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div class="Sect">
<h2><b>PART I: NAMING AND CLAIMING URBAN RIGHTS</b></h2>
</div>
</div>
<center>
<h2><b>The Urban Bill of Rights</b></h2>
</center>
<div align="left">
<p>The purpose of the following rights is to ensure human health and well-being in the urban environment, within private and public spaces and the political processes that create them.</p>
</div>
<center>
<h2><b>Personal space rights</b></h2>
</center>
<div align="left">
<dl>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>1. The right to see the sky, the sun, and significant greenery (e.g., a vista, a yard, a park, a planted streetscape, or a balcony for plants) from within one’s dwelling unit.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>2. The right to enjoy natural passive ventilation within one’s dwelling unit.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>3. The right to enjoy peace and quiet within one’s dwelling unit with windows open, especially at night.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>4. The right to sleep and experience night without excessive artificial ambient light, and to view the stars in the night sky from a location within one-half kilometer (a quarter mile) of one’s dwelling unit.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>5. The right to be free in one’s home and neighborhood from pollution of air, water, soil, and plant life.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>6. The right to be free from undesirable local environmental change caused by poor design and upkeep of public spaces, such as wind and noise canyons, absence of sun or shade, impaired drainage or groundwater supply, etc.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>7. The right to neighborhood surroundings free from excessive visual blight.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>8. The right to neighborhood surroundings that respect and maintain the cultural integrity of the community.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>9. The right to adequate space for storage, hobbies, and other personal activities in and around each dwelling unit, including interior and exterior play space for children in family housing.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>10. The right to automobile parking space for each household, usually one to two spaces per household.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>11. The right to personal security in one’s neighborhood, and to equal and adequate police, fire, and emergency services, which shall not be infringed on the basis of income or neighborhood character.</b></i></font></h3>
</dl>
</div>
<center>
<h2><b>Communal space and access rights</b></h2>
</center>
<div align="left">
<dl>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>12. The right of equal access to urban and rural mobility, regardless of income. If automobile use is discouraged through pricing mechanisms, then local, regional, and national transit must be available, adequate, and low cost.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>13. The right of access within walking distance of one’s dwelling unit to nature, recreation, outdoor exercise, and potential discovery, including parks, open space, and areas inhabited by wildlife.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>14. The right of convenient access, on foot if possible, to basic daily needs, such as good quality food at reasonable prices, daily household and medical supplies, and laundry facilities.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>15. The right of reasonable access, by foot, private vehicle, or transit, to public schools and places of employment.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>16. The right of equal access to the commons and to taxpayer-funded and other public facilities, such as government buildings, libraries, museums, parks, bridges, and roadways, and to public meetings.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>17. The right of access to places to sit, and clean and safe public restrooms, in urban public spaces and commercial districts that are intended for use by substantial numbers of people for several hours or more.<br>
<br>
</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<h3><font color="black"><i><b>18. The right to participate in and guide, through equitable, representative, open, and democratic processes, land use and other policy decisions that affect oneself, one’s neighborhood, and one’s community.</b></i></font></h3>
<dd>
<dd>
<p>The goal of the Urban Bill of Rights is to guarantee livability for all urban residents as we increase urban density, so we can build much more healthy and functional cities for the twenty-first century than most of us live in now. The rights are intended to guarantee that the built environment fosters personal well-being, comfort in the home, and access to urban facilities, resources, amenities, and services.[1] In addition, planning cities according to the eighteen listed urban rights yields the following five important environmental, social, and economic benefits:</p>
<p><b>1. Reduction of urban sprawl and protection of greenspace:</b> Since ancient times the wealthy have used their country homes to escape the filth, noise, and crowds of the city, but this escape is now becoming environmentally insupportable. Despite some heartening news that a few well-designed urban centers have recently managed to attract young professionals and seniors,[2] urban flight to the suburbs, even in traditional "livable" European cities, continues. The reason is simple: mediocre or poor urban quality of life.[3] By making urban life more attractive and viable for more people, honoring the urban rights will keep more people in cities and thereby protect greenspace and agricultural land from suburban sprawl. In addition, by promoting our own (human) access to nature, and promoting respect for our own (human) environment, the urban rights will encourage our respect for the environments of other species.</p>
<p><b>2. Reduction of the carbon footprint:</b> By increasing quality of life and preventing overcrowding, the urban rights ensure that most people can live happily in relatively compact urban areas over the long term. This will reduce the carbon footprint of the human species because of the energy efficiencies of urban living.</p>
<p><b>3. Increased social equity: </b>Because so many low income people live in cities, and these rights apply equally to all people and neighborhoods, the greatest beneficiaries of the urban rights will be the poor, which will increase social and environmental equity. The rights provide critical protections for renters, who mostly occupy high density urban areas. In the future, as suburban life becomes more expensive, the percentage of lifetime urban renters will probably grow. Measures that ensure that renting in urban areas is pleasant for the long term increase both the well-being of individual residents and the health and stability of neighborhoods and communities.[4]</p>
<p><b>4. Increased personal and social health:</b> The urban rights help create healthy communities by guaranteeing that the basic physiological, psychological, and social needs of human beings are met. Generally speaking, healthy and stable neighborhoods require a diversity of ages. By addressing the needs of children, long-term livability, and the ability to "age in place," the urban rights not only benefit individuals, but also neighborhood health and community continuity.</p>
<p><b>5. Economic efficiency:</b> By creating healthy communities, fulfilling the urban rights will ultimately save cities money. The downstream economic benefits of urban livability—better physical and mental health, more secure and curious children, reduced crime, increased confidence in government, increased participation in civic life, and so forth—are not as obvious and attractive to city officials as the quick taxes and fees generated by thoughtless development, but they are critical to a city's long-term fiscal health.</p>
</div>
<center>
<p>* * * * * * * * * *</p>
</center>
<div align="left">
<p>Having named these urban rights, let me immediately state that I propose these rights in the American cultural and economic context and for an American audience. Although I believe basic human needs are universal, other cultures will have different values, expectations, priorities, and resources, and hence different livability standards, and can formulate their own rights based on these.[5] Nonetheless, promulgating a list such as this may prompt developing cities in other countries to proactively incorporate their own livability standards into their planning before solidifying their built environments. It is easier to incorporate standards into a new city than to retrofit an existing city.</p>
<p>Additionally, the UBOR is intended to guarantee a <i>minimum</i> acceptable level of livability, not an <i>optimal</i> level. Some neighborhoods have an overabundance of certain rights. For example, they may have wonderful views, far in excess of what is provided for in rights #1, #4, #7, and #8. This is good, and a local government may or may not choose to protect these views, but nothing in the UBOR should be construed as a reason to damage these views or reduce them to the minimal level. However, in decision-making affecting views, the UBOR would help to clarify two things: the maximum damage permitted to good views, and how these views compare with views of others when it comes to distributing view resources. Or, when it comes to sun access, how much is enough? Does a resident have to be able to see the sun every daylight hour every day of the year? No. Is it enough to see the sun peek over the building next door for five minutes per year, while standing right next to the window and looking skyward? No. Can you be subject to nighttime noise every night? No. Five nights per year? Maybe. The access rights are flexible and deliberately somewhat vague; one could drive to a grocery several miles away, or walk to one several blocks away. The access rights do not mandate any particular option, as long as there is "access." As with all rights, the courts, or the court of public opinion, or standard practices, would over time clarify the reasonable limits of the rights.</p>
<p>The UBOR is a declaration of human rights and adds to the package of modern social justice movements.[6] But before looking at the UBOR in the tradition of human rights, let's look at why the UBOR is necessary. The need for guarantees of urban livability has been greatly hastened by acute concern over environmental degradation and climate change. Human rights are most at risk when people are frightened. The looming specter of global warming has created a "crisis mindset" that now permeates urban planning. Although crises galvanize needed change, they also galvanize hysteria and create openings for those with ideological or self-interested agendas, which they advance to cure the problem at hand. Nervous and chaotic environments also tend to expand the power of moneyed interests and the tyrannical tendencies of governments, and decisions made under the influence of hysteria are rarely good ones. So, as useful as crises are in finally focusing attention on their causes, it is equally important to control the consequences of overreaction.</p>
<p>Whether you call it smart growth, compact development, urban intensification, or densification, compact urban living will be a large part of our future because of its efficient use of energy, space, and time. In crowded cities with rising housing costs, smart growth advocates have aligned with "affordable housing" advocates (and developers) to create a formidable lobby for speedy densification. Indeed, affordable housing is needed, and most smart growth ideas are good ones, and would be welcomed by neighborhoods if presented respectfully to the people and enacted with their participation. But unfortunately, smart growth has become the new planning orthodoxy—even "groupthink"—and academic refinements of smart growth are lost at the policy level. Many smart growth advocates in city planning departments are passionate advocates or ideologues, performing social engineering experiments that will affect the built environment for generations, with little concern for real human beings or the realities of human behavior. Even those with desirable ideas on the built environment often have authoritarian and undemocratic ideas about public process. For example, an early smart growth handbook, <i>Smart Infill</i> by Stephen Wheeler,[7] which otherwise contains many good ideas, advocates gutting local zoning laws and presents various strategies for disempowering citizens in the planning process. Typically, smart growth advocates believe that the loss of individual rights and local livability is more than justified by the critical work of saving the planet. But of all the actions that might be necessary to save the planet, and which might deprive people of their rights in order to do so, destroying the livability of cities is probably the least effective and the most counterproductive.</p>
<p>In the UBOR, I have divided the urban rights in to personal space rights (such as the rights to sufficient living space, greenery, sky, sun, fresh air, quiet, dark nights, automobility, etc.) and access rights (access to recreation, shopping, schools, employment, public facilities, etc.) The former rights are most affected by the<i> design</i> and <i>density</i> of new residential construction; the latter rights mostly by the <i>locations</i> of homes, businesses, and transit within cities and regions. Unfortunately, many contemporary planning agencies have become so focused on access issues that the personal space rights are being ignored and undermined—including the rights of the residents of new buildings and the residents of existing neighborhoods. For example, if a new building lacks adequate space or parking or access to greenery, it violates the rights of its own tenants. If a new building places a wall less than ten feet from the only windows of some existing dwelling units, removing all sunshine and views, this violates the rights of everyone thus affected. Of course, some people will move, and the new residents of the damaged building will be those without financial means to live in a nicer place. This is one way to create "affordable housing,"—that is, by reducing the livability and thus the price of existing housing, while wealthier and more demanding people move away. With unconstrained population pressure, however, this will reduce housing quality but not its price. Meanwhile, everyone who moves to suburbia increases environmental problems with their extra driving and consumption.</p>
<p>But why would anyone reduce the livability of existing housing in order to create new housing? The only rationale is that "livability" is a finite commodity, so urban planning is a zero-sum game in which all residents compete for a limited supply of space, sky, sun, trees, parking, quiet, darkness, etc. Therefore one must take livability away from some residents in order to provide it to other residents. But this is only true if population pressures and natural limits on space have already combined to create a borderline unlivable situation, for example, in parts of Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Manhattan. Instead of reducing existing livability, such cities should stop adding new housing and attracting new residents. However, very few cities have approached the carrying capacity of their livability, and therefore they have no basis for reducing livability for anyone.[8] If certain <i>neighborhoods</i> have reached their acceptable population capacities, urban areas must find other places to put new development, or stop growing. This is no crime in a country full of beautiful places to live. In fact, dispersing the population nationally increases the security of the country, and overall livability for both overcrowded areas and under-resourced areas. New or expanding cities should be planned with higher densities in mind.[9]</p>
<p>Holding the false view that adding more people requires sacrificing livability goes hand in hand with, or is proffered as an excuse for, laziness and a lack of imagination in urban planning. It's easier to make demands on powerless homeowners than on powerful developers and industries. It's difficult to address blight and noise and light pollution. It's hard to grow trees in cement. It's hard plan ahead for those who will need housing assistance (especially if the numbers are infinite), and even harder to say "wait while we do this right" or "sorry, we can't accommodate you here" to suffering people. It takes some imagination to build a new development that offers all the personal space rights, but it takes a lot of imagination (and site-specific planning) to carefully squeeze a few more people into existing neighborhoods without damaging current residents. However, existing residents will only welcome increased population if all these things are done.</p>
<p>Before Jane Jacobs, an urban planning guru for many, died a few years ago, she bemoaned in an interview the fact that smart growth planners now display the same hubris, top-down mindset, and lack of creativity as the large-scale redevelopment planners she struggled against 50 years ago. Yet there is also a lot of constructive momentum behind the reformation of cities to create sustainable, high quality living, if we can channel this energy in the right direction and prevent widescale mistakes. This is why citizens need to articulate clearly at this moment what they want, and what they will not accept, in urban planning. Instead of merely fighting bad developments—although that, too, is vital—citizens need to present decision makers with a clear vision based on their own living experience, to either augment or counter, as the case may be, the hasty densification agendas of the planning and development communities. "Smarter growth" must balance the efficiencies of compact living with basic acknowledgments and protections of human rights and guarantees of humane urban environments.</p>
<br>
<br>
</body>
]]>