Abstract

In the 1890s, the Rover Safety Bicycle entered the market, leading to a discussion in German cities about safety and speed in the street (R. Bauer). This discussion came up again in the 1920s and 30s, and especially after WWII, in relation to cars and pedestrians. The ‘jaywalker’ was removed from the street and relegated to the side (P. Norton).

In the case study “Middletown” (Lynd/Lynd, 1929), the observation is made that the car changed the town centre from a meeting point of people to a traffic junction of cars.

Individual observation, as well as a review of the literature, reveals a permanent process of city planning around the needs of motorcar owners: more parking space; more and wider roads; direct access to all facilities with cars; and acceptance.

The thesis of this paper is: small measures – such as greening the facades of houses, planting a few trees, establishing playgrounds or one-way roads, implementing electric mobile vehicles, inner-city tolls, or pedestrian zones in cities – are not enough. A more radical and fundamental approach is needed: at the centre of a healthy city project is the necessity to bring the pedestrian back into the street and to turn the power hierarchy in the city, defined by speed and horsepower, upside down. Slow is beautiful!

We must redefine what getting fast from A to B, which guides mainstream transport policy, actually means. To do so, we need to ask what is so particular at “B”? It’s the fulfilment of needs and participation in social life. In political debates and cityplanning, stakeholders tend to emphasise the “getting fast from” but don’t think about the “B”. B is often not a place but something people want to do – for example, go shopping, visit a doctor, meet people, etc. From a perspective of social practice theory (Schatzki, Giddens), routines and habits are important. These must be addressed, as well as individual town projects.