The problem with the term "livable" as people concerned with habitation and transportation currently apply it to their concerns is that it makes them seem like pampered pussies.

How do they use it? What, to them, distinguishes a "livable" community from what we immediately assume should be termed an "unlivable" community? Basically, a "livable community" is one that is dense enough to make walking or bicycling the most convenient, i.e. the most appealing, option for most of our daily trips, be it to a grocery store or cafe or library or park. And for the trips that are not most conveniently made by foot alone or by foot on pedal, then one should have options, be it bus, car, streetcar, subway. A "livable" community is essentially one that allows its residents to lead a car-light to car-free life, and that provides them a variety of amenities that are nearby and conveniently accessible.

These people might salt their talk with other jive terms like "sustainable" or "smart growth" or "complete streets" but that's all dazzle-speak. Regardless of how they suss it up, the core of their concern is density.

The most "sustainable" communities we know are our densest cities. The areas of not only our smartest but also our most artful growth are our densest cities. The most lively and varied and "complete" streets that we'll ever walk or pedal or drive down or rail over or beneath or on are those of our densest cities.

But while cities may be the liveliest and (arguably) most desirable places to live, they are not at all the only places to live. We're a tough bunch. We live in sunny deserts, in snowy tundras, in forests, in plains, in mountains and valleys, on teardrop islands where some of us worship the detritus of others of us. And because we're living in all of these myriad places, all of these myriad places are by definition "livable".

"Livable" means "fit to live in". That's it. But a "livable community" implies a certain level of comfort and convenience. It implies the level of comfort and convenience that people who live in cities should expect in return for their higher rents. To paraphrase one planner's presentation that I recently heard: the higher housing price of walkable neighborhoods reflects the value people place on areas of mixed use.

So a "livable community", as people concerned with habitation and transportation currently mean it, is basically (1) built on a human, aka walkable, scale, (2) offers and accommodates multiple transportation options, (3) more densely populated than areas of predominately detached, single-family houses, aka sprawl.

Sprawl was built on an inhuman scale, specifically that of the automobile. Some cities were, too, and that's unfortunate but our best were not. Our best cities were built to accommodate humans in all our varied ways. And this is why, rather than calling these communities "livable", we should instead be calling them "humane".