GOOD was asked to attend The Design Difference, a charrette held by the Japan Society, Common Ground, and the Designers Accord. In this series, we’re examining design solutions to social problems and ways for designers to contribute pro bono work for the proposed solutions. Read the first and second posts in the series here.


In early November, dozens of designers, activists, and urban leaders convened for The Design Difference, a problem-solving workshop to develop fresh ideas and creative thinking for Brownsville, an underserved urban neighborhood in Brooklyn.

The Design Difference brought active local community organizers together with attendees from as far away as Tokyo for the two-day event. First we headed to Brownsville where we saw its seemingly-intractable urban problems, but heard loud and clear from residents that “Hope Is Inside.” We then met at the Japan Society in Manhattan for a day to brainstorm creative solutions. In this final piece in our series, I’ll outline the ideas and show how designers can get involved in their implementation.

Armed with the 27 concepts across six categories like health, food, and retail, Valerie Casey, who led the charrette, met with stakeholders from Common Ground to refine the concepts into five “priority areas.” Common Ground has been working on the ground in Brownsville for years, and its founder Rosanne Haggerty, who was named as a 2001 recipient of a MacArthur “Genius” Grant, is well-known for her transformative nonprofit and its innovative methods for battling homelessness.

But these solutions for Brownsville were even broader and more imaginative than she expected. “Many proposals went beyond design as an aesthetic intervention, to design as a way of improving the flow and functioning of community services, and enabling civic participation,” she says. “It completely opened our thinking to new ways of making Brownsville safer, healthier and more prosperous.”

Five Opportunities for Change

The priority areas will serve as a map for future action, a way of organizing the broad concepts that emerged from the charrette into a series of actionable projects where people can focus their efforts. Here are the five priority areas for Brownsville, as outlined and written by Casey and her team:

1. Branding Brownsville

This concept is perhaps the most difficult and important one to execute. For that reason it should come first. It sets the stage for all the other concepts, involvement, and work. This “branding” is not only a logo but a new identity, language, and strategy that surrounds the community, affecting the way Brownsville is perceived both from the outside and by its own residents. This concept development should use the Brownsville Partnership’s slogan “Hope Is Inside” as the launching point for this part of the process. This branding process could culminate in a concert or event to launch the brand.

2. DIY / Community Involvement

This concept centers around trading services and collaborative consumption. It will create a system that encourages residents to swap skills in housing repairs, etc (i.e. shareable.net). These interactions could take place by creating a central hub in the lobbies of the buildings or in other unused community spaces. Potentially incentives could be used to get residents to enroll and participate in the program, ensuring a more successful initiation of the concept, for example, a concept like a “Brownsville Cooks” cookbook.

3. Aesthetic Transformation & Redefining Public Spaces

This concept focuses on creating “welcoming spaces” combined with “community porches” that become destination points for the residents. These spaces may be an update or improvement of the already existing concierge/lobby security room in public housing. This concept embraces the idea of collective efficacy, where trust between Brownsville residents will increase through the act of sharing a space.

4. Encouraging Outdoor Activities

This concept centers around marking the history and existing positive people and features of Brownsville. The creation of walking trails will highlight these features. The trails will promote health, and incorporate (and create) wayfinding and branding. The trails will also increase safety by creating shared, neutral spaces and paths and by populating the outdoor spaces with more people and activity.

5. Economic Development & Bringing Resources to Brownsville

This concept involves creating a market that will create a community of vendors and provide a new retail experience in Brownsville. This could happen daily, weekly, or monthly and may draw more people with music, cheap coffee, food, and other offerings. This could also capitalize on the idea of a “district experience,” establishing Brownsville as the place to go for a certain product or service. For example, Brownsville was once famous for selling furniture and tailored suits—can this be revived? The organizational structure or business model of this market could perhaps come from a student competition or through a challenge posed on GOOD.

Since this outline was created, some change is already happening, says Haggerty. “Since the charrette, we’ve zeroed in on making the assets and spirit of Brownsville more visible—a combination of “branding Brownsville” by getting the “Hope Is Inside” message communicated in all our organizing activities,” she says. Brownsville has also started working on the “DIY/Community Involvement” front, says Haggerty. “Our amazing director, Greg Jackson, now organizes groups of young people each Saturday morning for a community clean up,” she says. “The young people are proud to do it, and they are getting so much positive feedback from residents.”

They’re also trying to locate and design a more prominent hub for the Brownsville Partnership’s activities. “We are looking for a space that can embody some of the excitement of Brownsville, and our comprehensive effort to make it a stronger, healthier community,” she says, one that’s closer to the housing projects, and has more of those “welcoming spaces” that are so needed.

How You Can Take Action

With the five priority areas laid out, the charrette has now moved into its most important phase: Engaging the design community in these solution areas. “We will need help in refining the ideas and figuring out how to implement them for little or no cost,” says Haggerty. “That will certainly mean enlisting designers to contribute their talents, suppliers to contribute materials, and lots of people to contribute their time and concern in building up this special neighborhood.” Common Ground is looking for creative input from designers and architects who can craft specific design responses to the charrette’s findings. Here’s how you can help:

If you’re a design firm and you want to contribute pro bono work for Brownsville, register with The 1% and send an email to designdifference[at]japansociety[dot]org with the subject line Design Firm alerting our team that you’re ready to be matched with a Brownsville client.

If you’re a designer or architect and you want to submit a design proposal for one of the five priority areas, send an email to designdifference[at]japansociety[dot]org with the subject Design Proposal and include a brief summary of your idea for Brownsville, as well as a link to your work.

If you’d like to volunteer or if you have resources to donate for an upcoming workday to help implement one of the ideas, send an email to designdifference[at]japansociety[dot]org with the subject Volunteer and you’ll be added to a future email list with more information about how you can get involved.

And if you’re interested in holding a similar workshop for a community near you, the entire charrette process engineered by Valerie Casey, from the schedule to various worksheets, has been made publicly available. (In fact, the charrette format itself has already been used by one of the participants, R. Streitmatter-Tran, who adapted the Brownsville model to an exercise for his design students in Vietnam.) For more background, you can also read about our research trip to Brownsville, see photos of the charrette, and download the charrette materials yourself: Here’s the Workshop Outline (PDF), the Brainstorming Map (PDF), and the Concept Worksheet (PDF).

Thanks again to the Japan Society for inviting GOOD to be a part of such a interesting experiment. And a very special thanks to Ayumi Sakamoto for her beautiful photos of the process. We’ll be following this story, and what we hope are many exciting developments for the residents of Brownsville.

Photos by Ayumi Sakamoto

  • Compared to driving, flying is extraordinarily safe – but why doesn’t it feel that way?
    Photo credit: RM Bulseco/Flickr, CC BY Millions of people fly safely every day, but when plane crashes do happen, they can be catastrophic.

    A commercial airplane crash can change how people behave long after the immediate tragedy. News outlets replay the images, people affected share their harrowing stories, and an extraordinarily rare event becomes easy to imagine. Some travelers cancel trips; others drive to their destination instead.

    These choices may feel cautious. Statistically, the alternatives people switch to may come with greater risk.

    Commercial airline crashes command attention because they are rare, catastrophic and beyond a passenger’s control. But the choice to avoid flying does not eliminate risk. As a new report from our research team at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University outlines, skipping a flight and opting to drive instead is typically much riskier, even if it doesn’t feel like it.

    Airline travel is safer than headlines suggest

    People tend to respond strongly to events that are vivid, while paying less attention to familiar hazards – the risks of which manifest more frequently but less visibly. As a result, efforts to avoid one danger can create another.

    In our recent peer-reviewed report, prepared with support from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Boeing Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety, we compared fatality risk in U.S. commercial aviation with other transportation modes, recreational activities, household hazards and occupational risks. While the Boeing Center receives some funding from The Boeing Company, it operates independently.

    We focused on commercial Part 121 airlines operating in the U.S. and analyzed data from 2016 through 2025. Part 121 carriers generally include large U.S. airlines and regional carriers that operate scheduled passenger service. Because fatal accidents are so rare, data from a single year would not have provided a stable risk estimate.

    Across several measures of risk exposure, including distance traveled, individual boardings, hours spent traveling, annual risk and lifetime odds, the data consistently shows that U.S. commercial aviation is exceptionally safe.

    For the same distance traveled, we estimated the fatality risk as about 626 times higher in a passenger car or truck than on a commercial airline. The risk associated with motorcycle travel was more than 22,000 times higher than commercial airline travel. Even highway bus travel, itself a relatively safe option, carried about nine times the risk of commercial airline travel over the same distance.

    When risk is measured per passenger boarding, the numbers remain striking. From 2016 through 2024, the long-run estimate was approximately one passenger fatality per 97.7 million boardings on commercial airlines.

    These numbers do not mean flying is risk-free, just that the risk is small enough that researchers need many years and enormous amounts of exposure to estimate it. Across the 10-year study period, 73 people died in accidents involving commercial airline travel in the United States.

    These findings complement earlier research. A peer-reviewed 2013 study comparing U.S. transportation modes examined data from 2000 through 2009 and also identified commercial aviation as the safest way to travel. A 2018 study using data from the same period similarly ranked commercial aviation as the safest mode.

    More recently, a 2022 study analyzed U.S. news coverage, travel patterns and accident data from 1996 through 2017. It found that increased news coverage of aviation accidents was associated with more road traffic and more fatal road accidents in subsequent months.

    The 9/11 aftermath and the risk of avoiding risk

    The aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks provided a powerful example of how behavior can shift risk from one setting to another. Air travel declined sharply after the 9/11 attacks. Subsequently, researchers were able to investigate whether fear of flying led to additional deaths on the road.

    Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer analyzed traffic patterns for the final three months of 2001 and estimated 353 excess road deaths nationwide. He characterized many people’s decision to drive rather than fly as an attempt to avoid a “dread risk”: a low-probability event in which many people could die at once.

    Four lanes of traffic on a highway
    After a high-profile plane crash, road traffic can increase. AP Photo/LM Otero, File

    Transportation researchers Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan later reanalyzed the period. They used road fatality trends from the first eight months of 2000 and 2001 to estimate how many deaths would normally have occurred during the final three months of 2001. They then compared that estimate with the number actually recorded in the past three months and calculated 1,018 additional road fatalities from October 2001 through December 2001.

    But their findings complicated the idea that people who avoided flying merely drove to the same distant destinations. Much of the increase occurred on local roads, not interstate highways, and pedestrians and bicyclists experienced a disproportionate share of fatalities. This pattern suggests that travel behavior may have changed more broadly after the attacks, perhaps because people canceled longer trips, stayed closer to home or changed their daily routines.

    It is hard to pin down how much of this increase was related to people changing their travel patterns in response to the 9/11 attacks, since these studies cannot track each individual’s transportation decisions.

    But both studies suggest that a collective effort to avoid a highly visible danger can increase exposure to ordinary hazards whose victims are less visible. When more people choose to drive rather than fly, the roads become busier and the number of traffic deaths can rise.

    The question shapes the risk estimate

    One reason discussions about risk become confusing is that there is no single way to measure it. The answer to the question “Is it safe?” depends on what you measure.

    How much risk does a person face for each mile traveled? What is the risk of one trip? How much risk accumulates during one hour of travel? What is the chance of dying from this cause in a year or over a lifetime?

    These are legitimate questions, but to make a valid comparison, you need to look at the same measure of risk for both types of transportation. Comparing the risk of one flight with the annual risk of driving, for example, mixes unlike quantities.

    A traveler deciding whether to fly or drive between two cities can compare the two modes over the same trip or distance. This comparison provides a clearer perspective than comparing a highly visible plane crash with a familiar daily routine.

    Time matters too. In our estimates, an hour in a passenger car or truck carried about 74 times the fatality risk of an hour aboard a commercial aircraft.

    Feeling in control is not the same as safety

    Driving gives people a steering wheel, a brake pedal and the belief that their skill can protect them. Flying asks passengers to place control in the hands of pilots, airlines, regulators, air traffic controllers and a complex technical system. Psychological research has linked a stronger sense of agency – the feeling that people control their actions and their outcomes – with greater risk-taking. That difference in perceived control helps explain why a rare aviation disaster can feel more threatening than routine road travel.

    A shadowed traveler pulling a suitcase through an airport, with the tail of an airplane visible out the window.
    Airline passengers don’t have the same sense of control over their vehicle as drivers, so flying can feel more uncertain and dangerous. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

    Media attention also matters. A major airplane crash is treated as news of national or international importance. Road deaths occur across many locations and at different times, so the public does not see the cumulative toll.

    The emotional intensity of coverage does not mean journalists are wrong to cover crashes. It just means audiences need context alongside the images.

    Crafting better risk communication

    Telling anxious travelers that flying is “safe” is rarely enough. Research on risk perception shows that people do not judge danger through statistics alone. Fear and vivid images also shape how risky an event feels. But providing more context about the risks from other forms of transportation can still help.

    Effective communication about risk does not minimize tragedy or dismiss the real fear people may feel. But it can help people understand that when millions of travelers shift from one type of transportation to another, the risk moves with them.

    For travelers, the practical question is not whether an option has zero risk. No option does. The question is whether a choice reduces their total exposure to risk or merely replaces a frightening, highly visible risk with a greater one that feels routine.

    To put the rarity of fatal airline events into perspective, an average of 2.48 million travelers passed through TSA screening each day in 2025. Modern commercial aviation in the United States has achieved a safety record that is difficult to grasp precisely because fatal events are so unusual.

    When fear leads people away from that system, the safest-feeling decision may not be the safest decision at all.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stressimprove mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • The tourism industry is slowly waking up to solo travelers’ needs
    Photo credit: Sebastien Goldberg on UnsplashAs more and more people live alone, solo travel is becoming increasingly popular.

    Solo travel is surging – and an industry still largely built for two is taking note.

    Google reported in April 2026 that online searches involving “solo travel” hit an all-time high this year, with queries for “women solo travel” reaching a 15-year peak. Hilton’s 2026 trends report found that 26% of travelers planned to take a trip alone this year, and that nearly half said they planned to add solo days to the front or back of a family trip.

    The issue isn’t new. In 1992, marketing researchers identified the solo consumer as an underserved market. But as tourism researchers have documented, the accommodation sector treats double occupancy as the default unit of consumption, which often slaps a “single supplement” charge on customers when they travel without a partner. The industry essentially penalizes travelers for arriving without a second body to fill the other half of a room they aren’t using.

    The reason why so many hotels, cruise lines and tour operators still base prices on double occupancy is that their costs – the room, the berth, the coach seat, the guide – don’t fall by half when the second person fails to materialize. But the supplement isn’t just a pricing convention. It’s the clearest signal the industry sends about who it built the product for.

    I’m a scholar who studies what I call the solo economy: how institutions and markets adapt, or fail to adapt, to the rise of single living. I’ve written before about how retail and restaurants still design for pairs.

    Travel is further along than most in recognizing this cultural shift. It’s also a useful case because the industry has started on the easy part of the problem but barely touched the rest.

    Demographics matter, but not the way you’d think

    The broader shift toward solo living is real. In 2025, 39.7 million Americans lived alone. That’s 29% of all households, up from 20% in 1975. Married couples, meanwhile, fell to 47% of households from 66% 50 years earlier.

    Those numbers alone don’t explain solo travel. Some of that decline went to people living alone; some went to unmarried couples, who are still a party of two on a booking page. Married people take trips alone. Single people travel with friends, siblings and parents, and plenty of them have logged serious hours as an extra wheel. Living alone and vacationing alone are different behaviors with different causes.

    What connects them is the erosion of a single assumption: that every adult arrives with a plus-one. That assumption is weakening at home, and it’s now encountering the booking page.

    Price is the easy rung

    One response by the travel industry has been to shave the single supplement. For example, the tour operator Tauck announced this year that it’s waiving the single supplement on a class of its riverboat cabins across more than 250 European river cruise departures and reducing it by up to US$600 on 105 land departures.

    Another touring company has taken a more committed approach to adjusting its offerings: Aurora Expeditions sets aside 10 dedicated solo cabins on every sailing across its three ships, with no single supplement, through its 2026 and 2027 seasons.

    Then there’s Norwegian Cruise Line, which was early to the shift. In 2010, it introduced Studio staterooms aboard Norwegian Epic: Small cabins designed for one passenger, sold at single-occupancy prices and arranged around a keycard-access Studio Lounge reserved for solo travelers. The trade-off is less private space, but at a price for one, with access to a room full of fellow travelers going it alone.

    Norwegian then expanded solo categories in 2024 from nine ships to its full 19-ship fleet. But on ships without Studios, much of the expansion was relabeling. Cruise Critic reported that standard double-occupancy rooms would likely be reclassified rather than retrofitted. And by Norwegian’s own account, the Studio Lounge is reserved for guests in Solo Studios – so the fleetwide solo categories come with the discount but not the room full of other solo travelers.

    That’s the difference between repricing and redesigning. The 2010 Studio was a purpose-built 100-square-foot (9 square-meter) cabin that cost Norwegian something to construct. The 2024 categories are, in many cases, the same rooms as before, with a new label and a discount. The solo traveler pays less than two people would, but it’s still more than half for a room sized and built for two. A cabin sold to one occupies the same space as a cabin sold to two, and the industry still counts berths.

    There’s a cleaner approach. Yotel sells a room type it calls Solo – 114 square feet (about 10 square meters) in New York City, maximum occupancy one, at the bottom of its price range. Nothing was subtracted to make it. It was built at that size, for that guest, and priced accordingly. That’s what designing for one looks like, and it’s rare enough that a tiny room counts as progress.

    At a long table covered by flowers and plates of food, a diverse group of travelers shares a meal.
    Many solo travelers seek control over their experiences and schedules, but they still seek a social component. Keriliwi on Unsplash

    Traveling alone doesn’t mean being alone

    A common mistake in designing for solo travelers is assuming that solitude is the product. It isn’t.

    In the same 2026 data showing record interest in solo travel, Google found that searches for “travel groups” and “tour groups” also hit record highs. A Mastercard survey of more than 15,000 consumers across 11 countries found that 39% of international travelers had already taken a trip alone — and 7 in 10 international leisure travelers were interested in solo experiences built to connect them with like-minded people.

    The contradiction makes sense when you acknowledge that privacy and isolation are two different things. A person can want total control over where to go, when to eat and when to return to the room – and still want company at dinner.

    The issue with double-occupancy pricing is that it assumes the customer brings their own company. But when only one person books, the operator has to address the pricing problem – whether or how to discount; and a product problem – how to supply a social component. Waiving a solo supplement solves the first issue, but it ignores the second. Norwegian understood this in 2010 by creating its lounge for solo travelers.

    The pitch is easier when the product is for one

    For all these changes, travel advertising often still runs on couples: two glasses of wine, two lounge chairs, two silhouettes against a sunset. Sandals Resorts built an entire resort category around the premise.

    When solo travel does appear, it gets a different script. The traveler is adventurous, on a journey of self-discovery. AARP’s current solo-travel guide emphasizes personal growth and self-reliance. Even Norwegian closes its solo pitch by reassuring the reader that “you’re pretty good company.”

    The effect is to mark solo travel as exceptional at precisely the moment it stops being exceptional. Nobody reassures a couple that they will enjoy the balcony. Calling a solo traveler “brave” can be a compliment, but it can also reveal the assumption that traveling alone is abnormal, even when that’s changing.

    That all said, parts of the tourism industry have taken big steps over the past 15 years. But treating solo travelers as an audience rather than an accommodation is harder. It’s about selling them what they have already said they want: control over the trip, and access to other people, on their own terms.

    Marketing researchers named this opportunity in 1992. Thirty-four years later, the industry is still learning to build for one. Meanwhile, the solo traveler is standing at reception, holding a credit card, waiting for someone to design a room.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Work

New York passes SAFE for Kids Act to protect children from social media addiction

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Internet

Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’

Money Culture

Millions of Illinois residents wake up to find that $2.6 billion of their medical debt has been eliminated