This site is really great. I was struck by this fact on there.

"Studies show that for every 10 minutes a person spends in a daily car commute, time spent in community activities falls by 10%"

Great perspective and provocation around the challenge topic, Amanda.

A great reminder of what makes a city lively – pedestrians!

Jane Jacobs, an activist in community and urban planning, argued in many moments of her life to shape cities as tight-knit neighbourhoods, where it would be possible to walk or take a bicycle to get where you wanted. She also said this would make cities healthy, not only because you can see and interact with your neighbours or walk down the street to the local cafe, but crime rates would drop because people are out on the streets, keeping watch. You’d get a place that is safe and vibrant.

Naturally, she argued against suburban development which meant the need for more highways and roads that linked the city together, especially when all the action still remains at the core of the city.

As someone living in the suburbs of Toronto, I can understand the point she was trying to make.

For the cities looking to restore vibrancy, I think it’s very important to work with urban planners. SPACE has to work together with the residents to provide a great place to live!

Very true Amanda! I'm even more a walker than a biker (easier and safer to think and dream while walking :-)...).
I think this goes hand in hand with biking:
http://www.openideo.com/open/vibrant-cities/inspiration/biking-to-the-city/
http://www.openideo.com/open/vibrant-cities/inspiration/biking-the-way-to-revitalization/

As for what makes cities walkable, the work of Alexander's and his patterns about streets, plazas and cafes are very relevant.
www.openideo.com/open/vibrant-cities/inspiration/building-living-neighborhoods/

The work by the architect James Sander's about rules of engagement is very relevant:
Incident: something happens; if nothing goes on, you don’t want to go down the street. e.g. artifacts, entrances (and possibilities of use), shops and store fronts. Related to the incidents was the principles of “relief”.
 Rhythm: an ordinary street passes by, a good street unfolds; a good street has a narrative, a rhythm, a bit.-Ambiguous spaces between public and private spaces: the NY stoop is the perfect example of this intermediate area where public and private are not only adjacent, but interlocking. This is very similar to Alexander’s pattern of the alcove, as a semi-private / semi-public space.
 Embraces and enclosures: streets as an outdoor room.
 Engagement and attitude: Buildings have a front and an end; but in the 1950′s and 1960′s architects started buildings which had no front and back, more like sculptural objects than spaces for living, engaging and interacting.
For more, see my notes after his talk at NYU last year: http://blogs.poly.edu/bsww/2011/04/10/rules-of-engagement-what-makes-a-street-a-good-street/

sorry for this long comment...