Ben Cohen, Staff Writer—
It is a truism in urbanist circles that col- lege is one of the only times in an American’s life that they will benefit from living in a responsibly planned built environment. Walking to and from daily tasks, bumping into friends on the way, eating and recreating in common spaces that are accessible and open to the public, living a life (largely) free from the car and the commute: these are things that are true for many college students, but sadly not for most Americans.
We are lucky to attend a school that represents this sentiment. Our campus is compact, generally walkable, and is even a designated arboretum (we have a lot of trees). It is arranged such that third places (spaces we go to socialize or do ac- tivities that aren’t home, work, or home- work) are mostly accessible and usually free. Denison owes much of this layout and built infrastructure to a plan developed by Frederick Law Olmsted Sons, a preeminent firm responsible for planning iconic sites such as Stanford and Central Park.
This plan is the reason for the central path, why so many of us are concentrated on east and west quads, and why so much of our campus feels to flow from one part to another on foot. It was, and continues to be, a very good idea.
That said, part of being an active citizen of a community you value is criticizing it, endeavoring to make it better.
Denison is an outstanding example of some urbanist principles, but there are a number of problems that I think deserve our attention. This perspective raises many questions. I will focus on just one here: Denison forces us to be unduly reliant on cars. A major factor is the lack of bike infrastructure. When compared to similar campuses, Denison’s lack of infrastruc-
ture is remarkable. The existence of this infrastructure precedes usage, with programs like repair shops and bike-share services, as well as painted bike lanes, and sufficient storage spaces encouraging and allowing for cycling culture to grow.
This culture is largely absent here, and very few Denisonians consistently use bikes to get around. If we ever want to see that change, these problems should be addressed.
More bike racks should be placed in high traffic, well monitored areas, for example. The ones that exist shouldn’t be blocked or left in disrepair. Painting bike lanes on Washington Drive and Pearl Street would make biking on and off campus much safer. Offering repair services, a bicycle co-op, or bike-share service (common on many liberal arts campuses) would lower
the barrier of entry that geography and cost introduce.
Additionally, campus policies that encourage cycling and make it easier to own a bike should be implemented. This might include theft recovery, educational programs, and efforts to increase visibility for cycling on campus (figuratively but also literally).
Americans tend to see bikes as a good tool for exercising, which they are, but not as a viable transportation option. Although Granville’s hills do make trips into town more difficult, increasing ‘bikeability’ on campus might reduce reliance on cars to get around (and it would connect Denison to one of the best bike trail systems in Ohio).
There are a number of reasons why Denison is a relatively car reliant campus, including the lack of connectivity to public transportation in Granville and the lack of a robust bike culture in Granville, but, by making alternative transportation options more accessible, this need not be the case forever.
Ben Cohen ‘25 is a philosophy and politics and public affairs double major from Columbia, MO.