How can city governments ensure better public health?

A Legible London sign, intended to encouraging walking. Image: Applied Wayfinding.

Crossing the street while texting could cost you your life. If you live in Honolulu, even if you survive, thanks to legislation passed earlier this year, it could also land you a hefty fine.

The Hawaiian capital is not the only city trying to get us to look up from our phone. Hayward, California, introduced snarky signs in 2015, reminding us to “Cross the road, then update Facebook.” Singapore installed LED lights on the pavement at crossings to prevent accidents involving people who don’t look up from their phones. Antwerp in Belgium and Chongqing in China have text-walking lanes, and Mumbai and San Francisco have no-selfie zones, while Rexburg in Idaho banned pedestrians from using phones when crossing the street in 2011.

The increase of urban populations around the world is putting pressure on local governments to tackle the preventable health problems caused by air pollution and lifestyle, and some cities are stepping up to the challenge. In London, for example, TfL’s Planning for the Future is investing billions of pounds to develop the city’s transport and lower emissions. And almost 100 cities have joined the World Health Organisation’s European Healthy Cities Network, which aims to improve public health.

But traditional methods of improving a populations’ health – offering free cooking classes and handing out leaflets on how to stop smoking – aren’t enough any more. In these innovative times, cities are starting to play a more involved role in changing our behaviour. Public health researchers in California, for example, installed signs in San Diego International Airport, to encourage people to take the stairs instead of the escalator, which led to twice as many people opting for the former.

But Theresa M. Marteau, director of the behaviour & health research unit at the University of Cambridge, says that far more radical change is needed. “While information-based approaches to changing behaviour can raise awareness of a need for change,” she says, “they are generally, at best, weak interventions for achieving such change.


“There is no doubt that the design of cities and towns is key to population and planetary health. Re-designing these to reduce or remove the use of fossil-fuelled vehicles and increase walking and cycling is just one such change.”

Susan Claris, a transport planner with the consultancy Arup, agrees that cities need to adjust their infrastructure. “Buildings should be designed so that the stairs are the first thing you see and they are inviting to use.” At the moment, she notes, the lifts or escalator are often the first thing you see, “with the stairs hidden away behind closed doors”.

Such re-designs are important, because cities have the potential to reshape human behaviour. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently published a paper titled, “Persuasive Cities: Health Behavior Change at Scale”. It argued that, “according to social cognitive theory, any well-designed environment can become a strong influences of what people think and do”, concluding: “As cities continue to grow… the design of future urban places will become more dominant in impacting human behaviour.”

The key to this level of change lies not in brand new infrastructure, but in the use of technology, according to Arup’s Claris. “Thanks to new technologies, the physical city is changing,” she says. “With sensors and cloud computing, streets are becoming smarter and more interactive. The city can now monitor and analyse activity levels, actively advocate walking and cycling routes, as well as create a layer of play, fun and games onto the streetscape.”

All this, she says, is enabling cities to play a growing role in public health and wellbeing, “away from the traditional posters, leaflets and other traditional campaigns”. By combining better design and better incentives, cities can make sure that “the healthy choice is the fun, easy, convenient and attractive choice”.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how Henry Ford and IKEA could provide the key to solving the housing crisis

A flatpack house designed by architectural firm Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners, on display at the Royal Academy, London, in 2013. Image: Getty.

For many people, the housing market is not a welcoming place. The rungs of the property ladder seem to get further and further out of reach. There are loud calls to build hundreds of thousands of new homes (and equally loud demands that they’re not built in anyone’s back yard).

If there was ever a time to introduce mass-produced affordable housing, surely that time is now.

The benefits of mass production have been well known since Henry Ford’s car factories made the Model T back in 1908. It was only made in one colour, black, for economic reasons. Not because it was the cheapest colour of paint, but because it was the colour that dried the quickest.

This allowed the production line to operate at faster, more cost effective, speeds. And ultimately, it meant the product could be sold at a more attractive cost to the customer.

This approach, where processes are tested to achieve increasingly efficient production costs, is yet to filter properly into the construction of houses. This makes sense in a way, as not everybody wants exactly the same type of house.

Historically, affordable mass-produced housing removed a large amount of customisations, to ensure final costs were controlled. But there is another way. Builders and architects have the ability to create housing that allows a level of flexibility and customisation, yet also achieves the goal of affordability.


Back in 2006, the “BoKlok” approach to affordable housing was launched to great acclaim in the UK. Literally translated from Swedish, the term means “live smart”. Originally created from a collaboration between flat-pack favourite IKEA and Swedish construction giant Skanska, the BoKlok housing approach was to allow for selected customisation to maximise individuality and choice for the customers. But at the same time, it ensured that larger house building components were duplicated or mass-produced, to bring down the overall costs.

Standard elements – wall panels, doors, windows – were made in large numbers to bring the elemental costs down. This approach ensured the costs were controlled from the initial sketch ideas through to the final design choices offered to the customers. The kitchens and bathrooms were designed to be flexible in terms of adding additional units. Draw and cupboard fronts interchangeable. Small options that provided flexibility, but did not impact on overall affordability.

It’s a simple approach that has worked very well. More than 10,000 BoKlok houses have now been built, mainly in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with a small number in the UK.

But it is only part of the architectural equation. The affordable housing market is vital, but the cost of making these homes more adaptable is rarely considered.

Flexibility is key. The needs of a house’s inhabitants change. Families can grow (and shrink) and require more room, so the costs of moving house reappear. One clever response to this, in BoKlok homes, has been to allow “built in” flexibility.

Loft living

This flexibility could include a loft space that already has flooring and a built in cupboard on a lower floor which can be simply dismantled and replaced with a “flat-pack style” staircase that can be purchased and installed with minimal disruption to the existing fabric.

Weeks of builders removing walls, plastering and upheaval are replaced by a trip to the IKEA store to purchase the staircase and the booking of a subcontractor to fit it. The original design accounted for this “future option” and is built into the core of the house.

The best approach to new affordable housing should consider combinations of factors that look at design, materials and processes that have yet to be widely used in the affordable housing market.

And the construction sector needs to look over its shoulder at other market places – especially the one that Henry Ford dominated over a century ago. Today’s car manufacturers offer customised options in everything from colour to wheel size, interior gadgets to different kinds of headlamp. These options have all been accounted for in the construction and costing of each model.

The ConversationThey share a similar design “platform”, and by doing so, considerably reduce the overall cost of the base model. The benefit is quicker production with the added benefit of a cost model that allows for customisation to be included. It is a method the construction sector should adopt to produce housing where quality and affordability live happily together.

David Morton, Associate Professor in Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.