spinofflive
Getty Images
Getty Images

OPINIONSocietyApril 16, 2020

Enjoying the people-friendly streets of lockdown? Let’s make them permanent

Getty Images
Getty Images

We’ve had a taste of what streets designed for people, not cars, could look like. Let’s take those lessons with us when we emerge from lockdown, writes Emma McInnes.

Our cities feel profoundly different these days. The whine and roar of traffic has been replaced with the chatter of birds, the squeals of delighted kids, and moments of welcome silence and stillness. For all its sadness, lockdown is allowing us to imagine how our streets could look, sound and even smell like, and it’s forced us to prioritise what’s actually important. Our streets are vital, and they deserve attention well beyond this crisis.

Covid 19 is undeniably causing pain and anxiety for many of us. We can and must acknowledge the cost of the pandemic, while also noting one of the many opportunities this moment has brought us: the chance to focus on our streets and neighbourhoods, and clearly see what needs to change to make them spaces where people can thrive.

We can start by learning to recognise the inequities and lack of ‘resilient design’ – the structures that allow people to safely and easily access essential services, get fresh air, or just pick up milk from the dairy – in many of our neighbourhoods. Covid-19 hasn’t created these conditions, but it has exposed them.

Once we have the virus under control, we’re going to begin the process of recovery. The government has set aside money for infrastructure that benefits communities, Councils are busy nominating shovel-ready projects, and NZTA is now open to new tactical urbanism initiatives – low-cost, temporary interventions in the built environment that improve the safety, accessibility and aesthetics of local neighbourhoods and city streets. Why not start the recovery by addressing the deficits in our neighborhoods that the lockdown has revealed for all of us?

1: Prioritise streets for people over cars

To start, we can give everyone equitable access to streets by slowing traffic speeds and lowering vehicle numbers post-lockdown. Before level four it wasn’t common to see many children in my neighbourhood, but now all the berms and streets are occupied with kids hanging from trees and playing with toys, because parents aren’t concerned about the dangers of cars. Children should be seen as our “indicator” species. The image below shows that children will use streets for play – and parents will let them – when the dangers of traffic are removed. The new rule should be: if children aren’t outside playing in your neighbourhood, then that’s a good indication that car speeds and traffic counts need to be lowered.

Source

It’s not just the movements of children that we can learn from. A lot of people who are out walking now don’t ordinarily walk around their neighbourhoods – because to be frank, a lot of our neighbourhoods aren’t nice to walk in. I’ve never seen a greater diversity of people out using the footpaths than now, including the young and old, parents pushing prams, and those with visible disabilities. How many of you are seeing some of your neighbours for the first time? It’s not just because most of us suddenly have nothing else to do.

Photo: Matt Lowrie

It’s because people are discovering that they like their neighbourhoods, and they like environments that support them to safely walk in. Before, we existed in different kinds of bubbles which disconnected us from our own neighbourhoods. In the mornings we walked out our front doors, straight to the car. In the evenings we drove to the gym, because who would want to walk or run on streets busy with traffic, and no one around? (A side note: I’m walking and running much more in the evening because I know there are people around and it makes me feel safer as a woman on her own).

Now, for many of us, it’s really damn nice to move in our neighbourhoods, even when sticking to the social distancing rules. It’s easy for us to confidently zigzag to give others bubble-room, not just because we must, but because we can! People are jogging in on-street parking spaces to avoid others’ bubbles, and they’re able to do this because, well, they know they won’t get honked at, or killed by, a metal box.

A man jogging in parking spaces, while two bubbles on the footpath clash, Kingsland, Auckland. (Photo: Niko Elsen)

While it’s great that we can use on all this extra road space right now, post-lockdown we’re going to need to widen those footpaths. As well as a man jogging in a parking space, the photo above shows two bubbles using the footpath, yet the footpath doesn’t have the capacity to allow them to pass safely.

Luckily, the government seems to get it. It announced last week that it will provide 90% of the cost to councils to implement ‘pop-up’ cycleways and widen footpaths to allow for the physical distancing that will likely be necessary for some time once we’re out of level four. Once the lockdown is over and cars return to our roads, we’re going to need to make sure that our footpaths have the capacity to carry all the people that use them. In Aotearoa, we have so few centimetres of footpath, and yet so much road space going to waste. This inequity needs to be rebalanced.

2: Design cities to give everyone access to a local park

As well as enhancing our streets, we need to ensure equitable access to our parks. I have never seen parks more openly valued and beloved than now. Why? Because in a park you can still get fresh air while remaining physically distant from those in your neighbourhood.

My Instagram is full of people who live in the inner isthmus of Auckland taking walks around their local park or reserve. But many others, in Auckland and beyond, are not so lucky. Post Covid-19, we need to re-examine access to parks by thinking differently about how to live well closer together.

As a rule, every home should be no more than a five to 10 minute walk away from a park. Of course, this is dependent on the housing density in your local area. It is important to design beautiful, functional and compact housing, so that more of us can have greater access to our green spaces, and to each other. Detached single-family homes, like in the image below, are often low density housing, a spatial layout which leads to less frequent bus services, longer distances to commute, longer distance to other people, and longer distances to local infrastructure like dairies, pharmacies or parks, thus leading to increased car use.

Missing Middle Housing image by Opticos Design (Source)

We should be learning from the housing design of places like Italy and Spain where, despite suffering some of the worst outbreaks, residents have been spreading physically-distant connectedness that is enabled by compact yet very well designed apartments.

In those countries, apartment residents have balconies that face one another. They live far enough apart to enjoy some privacy, but still close enough to form an effective choir. Imagine trying to do this in New Zealand from detached single-family housing, with gigantic back yards and towering fences! Of course, both Spain and Italy currently have more severe lockdowns, but just look at the satellite view of Barcelona below – note the number of parks in residential areas where the apartments are up to eight stories high. That’s a lot of people who are able to access their local parks, via tree-lined streets, while remaining within walking distance of amenities such as green grocers and pharmacies.

A satellite photo of a residential area of Barcelona, Spain (Google Earth)

For comparison, here’s a similar sized area in Botany, Auckland. Yes, there are backyards, but it’s far harder to walk or cycle to your local park and to essential services. Local parks in areas like Botany are also often small, and lack shelter and play facilities.

A satellite photo of a residential area in Botany, Auckland (Google Earth)

3: Recognise the potential of the bike in times of crisis, and beyond

Another way that many of us are getting our daily state-sanctioned exercise is on the humble bicycle. Our streets are so quiet that it’s easy to maintain physical distance, particularly on wide arterial roads. Pre-lockdown, I tried to avoid cycling in traffic because my hearing impairment means I can’t hear cars behind me. Now I’m feeling much more relaxed cycling on larger roads without the traffic. It means I can get to the supermarket and back home to isolation much faster and more safely than usual.

We need to respond to the mass of people currently pumping up bike tyres that have been flat for years by getting emergency bike lanes in the ground now. People are discovering that they do actually enjoy riding their bikes – it’s just they don’t like doing it with all the traffic around, and with good reason. Despite the number of people cycling in Aotearoa during lockdown, injuries have dropped substantially. Protected bike lanes, and slowing speeds to create quieter streets, will help to ensure our communities are resilient in times of disaster, as well as in times when the worst we have to deal with is traffic congestion.

It will also help to alleviate future constraints on our public transport systems. In both normal times and times of crisis, it’s the people at the lower end of the socioeconomic totem pole (and mostly women) who are the biggest users of public transport. Many of the essential workers we’re currently relying on cannot afford a car, but continue to leave the house in order to support those who can work from home. As the great urbanist Richard Florida puts it:

“The virus has exposed a deep density divide: rich people density, where the advantaged can do remote work and order in delivery from their expensive homes, versus poor people density where the less advantaged are crammed together in multigenerational households who must head out on transit to work in crowded, exposed conditions. This density divide weakens all of us because vulnerable communities open all of us to the spread of the virus. A city cannot be safe if it is not equitable.”

Whether people are social distancing, or simply on a tight budget, it’s critical that people be offered easy access to safer and more cost-effective transport alternatives such as walking and cycling.

We don’t have to go back to business as usual when lockdown ends. We don’t have to accept the traffic noises that have become the soundtrack of our city lives. We can build more resilient communities, where everyone has equitable access to public spaces, and people can move around our cities – in times of crisis and of normality – without it literally costing the earth.

Emma McInnes is a founder of Women in Urbanism.

Keep going!
Getty Images
Getty Images

OPINIONSocietyApril 16, 2020

Even in extraordinary times, the right to privacy remains

Getty Images
Getty Images

Like many other of our rights and liberties, privacy has been upended by Covid-19. Privacy commissioner John Edwards looks at the hard choices we’re about to face.

Privacy was described in a seminal 1890 essay as “the right to be let alone”. Now, in April 2020, we find ourselves instead obliged to stay alone. The enforced privacy of our lockdown bubbles is quite different to the freedom and personal autonomy the essay’s 19th century authors envisaged.

But even in this shared crisis, privacy looks different depending on who you are. Spare a thought for those in overcrowded houses, unable to find space for a private moment as out-of-work parents and uncles and grandparents line up for the bathroom alongside out-of-school children.

Think also of the imposition of a cruel and desolate privacy on the victims of the disease, living their last hours in forced separation from families, comforted by uniformed and masked health professionals, but unable to be held or heard or touched by those closest to them.

In this new reality we have sacrificed our right to freedom of association and freedom of movement. We can be stopped and questioned by police about our destination or motivation if we venture away from home. Such are the sacrifices we have all made, that now “minding your own business” has become akin to disloyalty, as we crash websites established to dob each other in for breaches of the rules.

Much has been said about our spirit of community, of common purpose, of our resilience. The prime minister has implored us to be kind, and for the most part we have. We applaud the dedication and bravery of some of the most overlooked of our workforce – the supermarket stackers, the nurses, the courier drivers. This crisis, like many others before, can bring out the best in us.

But it can also bring out the worst: the censorious, the finger-waggers, the hoarders, the profiteers, the fearful, the ignorant. Those whose self-righteousness impels them to post scornful comments online about those afflicted with the disease; the vigilantes who, rather than entrusting authorities to investigate apparent incidents of non-compliance, rush to post their judgement in the court of Facebook, or Twitter, or the comments section of their favoured blog.

Right now privacy must give way to science, and to the wider public health imperative that our response to this crisis must be driven by evidence – evidence that is also information about the spread of the disease, the success or failure of the mitigations, or about whom you have been in contact with for more than 15 minutes in the last 14 days.

Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

As my office works with those managing the crisis, we try to stimulate reflection on the decisions currently being made using some fundamental questions informed by our privacy values:

  • Will it work?
  • Is the proposed use of information proportional to the problem?
  • Can it be reversed after the crisis passes?

In times of crisis there can be a temptation to drop any number of standards and protections. To call for the opening of databases, and for the greater sharing of information.

My predecessor left me with a mechanism created after the dust of the Canterbury earthquakes cleared: the Civil Defence National Emergencies (Information Sharing) Code 2013. The code is triggered when a state of emergency is declared, and allows agencies to disclose or use personal information for the purposes of managing the emergency, including delivering financial assistance. We are now operating under the code, so privacy concerns are currently little impediment to the appropriate management of the pandemic.

But there are limits. There have been questions about whether an agency has the right to ask a DHB if any of the clients it needs to visit have tested positive for Covid-19. Why should it have that right? The whole point of lockdown is that we are assuming everyone has the virus, and taking universal precautions to fend it off. If you take more precautions to visit a household with a confirmed case, does that mean you would drop your standards for a visit to one that might have an asymptomatic, untested, undetected carrier?

Many digital service providers hold boatloads of location information about where we’ve been, and who else has been there. Should authorities be able to access location data from Spark, Vodafone, Google, Apple and Facebook to help with contact tracing? Will it work?

Contact tracing is very resource intensive. It requires trained professionals to identify anyone who might have been exposed to a confirmed case. Technology has a role in supporting their work, but if the technological net is cast too wide, and more geolocated “contacts” are identified than those who have actually come within infectious range, there is a risk that the burden on the contact tracers will be increased, and more people than necessary diverted into further isolation.

Governments around the world are rushing to develop contact tracing apps. It is difficult to make them mandatory, because it is too easy to simply leave your phone at home if you don’t trust it. So building in privacy is essential for getting buy-in based on trust. Israel discovered this when its initiative utilising the intelligence services was ruled unlawful by the High Court.

The extraordinary Google/Apple joint initiative announced this weekend provides a solution based on good evidence. The new contact tracing technology will not allow governments to access location data about users, but it will provide an interoperable Bluetooth function that will ensure “clinically significant” contacts who are also using the app will receive a public health message once a user is tested positive.

Contact tracing apps could soon be monitoring our every move (Photo: Getty.)

Back to New Zealand. It’s important that businesses that get the wage subsidy pass it on to their employees. It makes sense to publish the names of the recipients, so employees can assist with auditing and help identify those rorting the system, or not passing the subsidy on to the staff. But what of the self-employed, the sole traders? Should their details be published also? Why should a sex worker, with no employees, be put off seeking the income assistance every other earner is entitled to, for fear of exposure? They shouldn’t.

What will privacy look like after this initial tsunami has passed, when we start heading back down through the levels? There’s a high likelihood that when you next go to a restaurant you’ll have to sign in, potentially leaving your name and contact details (required for possible future contact tracing) exposed to every subsequent patron to come in. We at the Privacy Commissioner’s office have thought about that, and give some advice here.

When life returns to whatever normal means in a few weeks’ time, privacy will still be there. Privacy is nothing if not contextual. What will we be talking about then? Will landlords be able to ask about the Covid-19 status of prospective tenants? Probably not. Will the emergency standards of security for working at home be OK once we return to business as usual? Also probably not – you might want to add passwords to those Zoom meetings and take a closer look at the T&Cs.

Will we be talking about the need for government to know where you’ve been, and who you’ve been within two metres of? I hope not.

There will be much to learn and reflect on once we are allowed back to normal life, and for years to come. Those of us who don’t like to waste a crisis will be thinking about how the new ways of doing things these past few weeks can be carried into our future. And my office will continue to measure those changes against the same standards as before: Will it work? Is it necessary? Are there better ways which better protect privacy?

Except hand washing. It looks like we’ll keep hand washing either way.