I only left my suburb once last weekend, and it was excellent. As boring as it may sound, it turns out that this highly local lifestyle is not only good for the environment, but is one that appeals to many of us. Rather than spending our time driving between amenities and activities, most of us would like to be able to walk or cycle to most of those things that contribute to living a good life. And governments are starting to take notice.
In recognition of the social and environmental benefits that flow from people staying out of their cars and getting out into their own neighbourhoods, cities around the world have been announcing plans to improve liveability by adopting the 20- (or 30-) minute neighbourhood concept. Plan Melbourne describe this as being 'all about "local living" — giving people the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home'.
But what do we mean by 'everyday needs'? Does this mean the same to all people? Some researchers have emphasised the importance of tailoring neighbourhoods to meet the specific needs of residents — an outcome that can apparently be achieved by doing geographic analyses that track local behaviour.
According to Dr Este Geraghty, chief medical officer and health solutions director at Esri: 'One community may need to focus on providing sidewalks and green spaces to encourage residents to get more physical activity, whereas another community might prioritise affordable housing projects.'
It's true that we all have different priorities when it comes to making our neighbourhoods liveable. I conducted my own highly scientific survey (on Twitter) by asking people to share their top priorities, and responses differed in a number of key respects. Some placed specific value on nice bars, hipster cafes and somewhere to eat dinner, while others were more focused on fresh food, playgrounds and libraries with storytime. Partly this difference reflects the fact that some of us are home during the day (either with children, or for reasons of age, health or employment), while others work elsewhere during the daylight hours and appreciate features that bring our neighbourhoods to life in the evening.
One of the biggest differences between Sydney and Melbourne's plans is that Sydney has tried to include work within its 30-minute zones, while Melbourne has explicitly left work out of its 20-minute neighbourhoods.
Sydney is apparently struggling to implement its vision largely due to urban congestion, unaffordable housing and a lack of public transport in the outer suburbs. By leaving work out of the picture, Melbourne has freed itself up to focus on the needs of those not in the workforce (and, presumably, on workers when they are actually at home). In doing so, Melbourne is acknowledging the specific importance of locally accessible neighbourhoods to people who spend most of their time at home and who are at higher risk of social isolation when they can't walk to the local shops or meet other parents at the local playground.
"The fact is that most of these amenities are paid for by public money. Their abundance in the inner-city is more of a reflection of history and social capital than anything else."
But regardless of our places of work, most of us do seem to want the same things: accessible footpaths (and cycleways); community gathering spaces, like parks, beaches, and cafes; and decent public amenities, such as local shops, libraries, bulk-billing GPs, quality public transport and schools. And we all appreciate it when our neighbourhoods are nice places to be at due to features such as trees, natural beauty, low traffic, and an absence of eyesores like parking lots or industrial buildings.
Although it might seem like this shopping list of neighbourhood features is excessive, the benefits that flow from enabling people to walk (and cycle) around their neighbourhoods are pretty impressive. Not only is it good for the environment and for public health, but it enables people to build community and strengthen social networks.
Let me give you just one example. The local shops in the Canberra suburb of Scullin had being suffering a slow demise that culminated last year with the closure of its supermarket. While some small shops stayed open, the reduced foot-traffic was marked. In response, a small group of residents decided to open a new shop that was specifically designed to bring people together. And so the Scullin Traders was born. It's not a supermarket, but it does serve decent coffee, basic groceries and gifts, and it has worked to bring the community further together.
As one local told me, 'It's been transformative. We can do things in a short walking distance that used to be a drive to another suburb. Kids are making new friends. People are looking out for escaped pets.'
Of course, without the action of local residents, and a full-time volunteer roster to keep it going, Scullin Traders wouldn't be viable. So, while I'm 100 per cent in favour of local community initiatives, there also has to be a way of ensuring equity of access. For me, that's the central issue here — the incredible inequality that currently exists in our access to these basic features of a good life. While many inner-city suburbs are replete not only with hipster cafes, nice bars and restaurants, but also footpaths, cycleways, open green space and quality public amenities, many people in the more affordable outer suburbs have to drive to almost all of these.
Some might argue that this is precisely why people pay such high prices for real estate in the inner suburbs, but the fact is that most of these amenities are paid for by public money. Their abundance in the inner-city is more of a reflection of history and social capital than anything else. People living in the outer suburbs have just as much right to these public services and would benefit just as much (if not more) from having access to attractive public space and to being able to meet their daily needs on foot. The social and environmental benefits would also flow to all of us in building healthier, more resilient communities and significantly reducing pollution.
So let's all do more to build up the amenity and sense of community in our local neighbourhoods, but let's also keep equity on the agenda and ensure that 20-minute neighbourhoods are a right, not a privilege.
Dr Cristy Clark is a lecturer at the Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice. Her research focuses on the intersection of human rights, neoliberalism, activism and the environment, and particularly on the human right to water.
Main image: Main St Croydon, in Melbourne's outer-east.