Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

Why Aren’t We Building ‘Emotionally Connected’ Cities? A Guest Post by Peter Kageyama

[ Thank you to the folks at Infrastructurist for permission to repost this piece – Aaron. ]

We think of city infrastructure in a particular way – sort of like bones and connective tissue in a body; the major structural components that support our existence. Beyond the bones, we need to include key pieces that nourish our higher selves- our minds and spirits. If cities are merely paved surfaces and police and fire service, there is nothing that distinguishes one place from another. But this isn’t the case: The Gallup Soul of the Community survey from 2008 to 2010 found strong correlations between peoples’ emotional attachment to the communities they lived in, and higher levels of local GDP. They also found a link between passion for and loyalty to places, and the health of the local economy.

These results should not be surprising — we all recognize that when children, pets, plants or even objects are loved, they thrive (yes objects – just look at the car of someone who loves it). So this emotional dimension to infrastructure should not be seen as superfluous. Not long ago, the medical community discounted the idea that sunlight, plants, laughter and human proximity were inside the serious discussion of medicine. Today, the best hospitals like the Mayo Clinic employ design teams to incorporate gardens, social activity rooms, and more to improve patient outcomes. These elements do not take away from the core science and technology, but rather provide a necessary compliment to our overall approach to health.

So why is it so hard to think about these elements for our cities today?

Politics has played a key role in this dilemma. Politicians don’t want to appear frivolous and insensitive to fiscal challenges, so they say “no” to things that make a city fun, like the arts, culture, design, landscaping and events.

Instead they fill potholes, because when people are polled, they typically cite potholes as their chief concern. But filling potholes wins the politicians and cities very little love. There is no emotional capital in return for that investment. At best, people will say that the roads don’t suck quite as bad.

But invest in a little emotional infrastructure like a dog park or a piece of public art that kids can actually play on, and you get love and emotional engagement in spades.

Or do something symbolic that reinforces the emotional connection people crave with their communities. Look at Durham, North Carolina. In early 2011, a group of private citizens, with no official city support, created the “Marry Durham” event which they described as the largest “civic union” in history. On March 19th, 1,600 brides and grooms married not each other, but the city of Durham. Their vows included promises to keep the streets clean and safe, to shop local, to protect their environment, to support their city’s arts and culture, to cherish diversity, and to elect responsible leadership. The event, done entirely by volunteers, raised over $25,000 for local charities.

Yes, we need to pave our streets and fix potholes — but there is more to a city than that. My worry in the current economic/political climate is that we will fixate only on these traditional “essentials,” and in doing so undermine the very thing that is keeping many communities going – the love, affection and loyalty that people have for their places. We need to expand our expectation of “essentials” and include that which speaks to our higher selves, and invest at least a little in beauty, fun and engagement. This does not take lots of money — it takes creativity, imagination, and an awareness of its importance.

When I ask people what they love about their cities, the answers always involve small things that often cost little or no money — a comfortable place to people watch, a favorite street corner, a local dog park, a street festival or outdoor movies in the park. These things are like a handwritten note that accompanies the formal gift — the note is just as important as the actual gift, because of the thoughts and emotions conveyed within it. The cost is incidental, but their impact is significant.

Cities today need that emotional connection with their citizens. City authorities have to make hard choices, and those choices will no doubt anger some. But this anger is a function of the level of emotional capital the city has put in the bank over the years. Cities that have emotionally-connected citizens will see those same citizens do extraordinary things for their cities. Take the Durham example. Emotionally engaged citizens were the source of this event, and in the coming months/years, our cities will need engaged citizens to fill the widening gaps between the communities we desire and the communities we can afford.

Ultimately, we need to invest in the “infrastructure of love” because emotions matter. They play a critical role in our decision-making process since they tell us what to value. If we are not emotionally attached to our cities, it shows. And things we don’t value become disposable, so we feel free to walk away from them without a second thought because we have little emotional or other investment in them. When we love someone, we are willing to do more for them, to make sacrifices — we forgive shortcomings and fight for them. Emotions are contagious, and our cities need them now more than ever.

This post originally appeared in the Infrastructurist on May 17, 2011. Reprinted with permission.

Topics: Architecture and Design, Transportation, Urban Culture

6 Responses to “Why Aren’t We Building ‘Emotionally Connected’ Cities? A Guest Post by Peter Kageyama”

  1. John Morris says:

    The other big thing people love about many of these things is they often played an active role in creating them or influencing them.

    They represent the hopes, dreams and desires of real people in a way most of the centralised projects don’t.

    We could describe the downtown in most cities as the place the average person, small owner can’t influence or control. The part of the city arranged by oh so smart insiders and political figures “for our own good”.

  2. Matthew Hall says:

    This sounds a lot like the old idea of “social capital” to me. Hard as it is to quantify this, I’ve often been left with the impression that some places have a lot more social capital than others and that this explains a lot about the fortunes of places over time. Places like Durham where almost everyone seems to be a transplant have to work hard to build social capital while places like Philly, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati seen to have so much it gets in the way of local development efforts. I agree that this is a very important factor in city and regional development.

  3. Greg says:

    Is the “infrastructure of love” the same thing as a “no-tell motel”?

  4. Kaid @ NRDC says:

    Many thanks to Aaron and Peter for this post. I couldn’t agree more and, by coincidence, published a related article (“What does ‘the pursuit of happiness’ mean for communities?”) on my own blog today. I welcome all comments on it.

  5. stlplanr says:

    Just insert more “emotional elements” into the “essentials” (infrastructure).

    When you re-do a bridge, include public art. When you build a new school, include a community center. When you build or retrofit a street, preserve and add trees.

    And these things don’t have to be expensive. Branded crosswalks are just paint. Co-locating schools, parks, libraries and recreation centers can actually save money over building separate facilities. And art can be functional, if used for seating, railings, way-finding, etc.

  6. Rod Stevens says:

    I grew up there, my family has been from there for the last 100 years, and the only thing that seemed “abnormal” living there was that the rest of the world seemed so unreasonable in continuing to act as it did, i.e. tearing down old buildings, building ever larger freeway networks, etc. There was an environmental ethos that took hold there in the 1960s and it never let go. Perhaps the only difference with other places is that people applied the lessons closer to home.

    Portland has had economic problems for a long time, going all the way back to 1973, when it felt its first timber shock. Nor has the city ever had very great colleges. (Reed is good, but strange.) I and most of my friends, who could afford it, went off to college in other places. Then, when we came out in the early 1980s, the economy was so bad that we had to hang out in New York, San Francisco and other places where we could get jobs. Yes, there were people who struggled through the recession there, but the thought was “why not do something with my career right out of college.” Most people I know did return to Portland, after a 15 year hiatus, and by 1990 many had come back. The city was richer for the skills we had developed elsewhere.

    And that is probably the benefit of any city that knows who it is, has something to offer, and draws people to it and back to it from afar: it picks up skills. Much of the entrepreneurial activity in Portland has come from people moving there, people who saw an opportunity that locals didn’t. There has been California and New York energy coming in, and that is a good thing. Even better that the people who bring that energy come because of the character of Portland, and therefore fit in. I get so tired of seeing other cities promote themselves with slogans. If they’d only be who they already are, and making living there better for the residents themselves. Perhaps that is Portland’s “secret”.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile


Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio


Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.



Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures