Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading a article about how if Americans continue their present lifestyle then 1/3 will be diabetic by 2050. It got me to thinking about how much the landscape of a cities plays into the public health. Cities that are denser and more pedestrian friendly allow for its citizens to be more active, while ones that are more sprawled out discourage its citizens from being active. With this in mind it would seem that reducing sprawl should not be just an enviornmental or economic issue, but also a public health issue. Thoughts?
I was reading a article about how if Americans continue their present lifestyle then 1/3 will be diabetic by 2050. It got me to thinking about how much the landscape of a cities plays into the public health. Cities that are denser and more pedestrian friendly allow for its citiz ens to be more active, while ones that are more sprawled out discourage its citizens from being active. With this in mind it would seem that reducing sprawl should not be just an enviornmental or economic issue, but also a public health issue. Thoughts?
That is not true. Think logically for a second. Cities are FILLED with cars and buses and all types of congested automobiles. Major cities are always the ones with high levels of toxic fumes and pollution in the air. What makes you think most of them are pedestrian friendly and good for your health? I know for a fact most of the sprawled suburban communities are MORE pedestrian friendly than cities because I've lived in them and they are FILLED with sidewalks and trails and parks EVERYWHERE. And plenty of people go running and jogging and getting their exercise on. With clean air to breathe.
Agreed, it's not true. This has come up before on CD. The highest rates of obesity are in the inner cities. I believe I have posted links about this in the past.
I was reading a article about how if Americans continue their present lifestyle then 1/3 will be diabetic by 2050. It got me to thinking about how much the landscape of a cities plays into the public health. Cities that are denser and more pedestrian friendly allow for its citizens to be more active, while ones that are more sprawled out discourage its citizens from being active. With this in mind it would seem that reducing sprawl should not be just an enviornmental or economic issue, but also a public health issue. Thoughts?
I think there is some truth to that, but not much. Wealth is a much clearer predictor of health. Yes higher density and low car ownership means more walking but in my city, where obesity, heart disease, diabetes and HIV are remarkably prevalent, walking doesn't seem to make a dent in the problem.
Maybe it would be useful to examine if wealthy cities are healthier than suburbs of comparable wealth? The problem with this comparison is that crushing poverty, and its related health problems, is not as prevalent in suburbs as in inner cities and rural areas.
The obesity rates in inner city ghettos have little to do with development and everything to do with poverty when looking at truely urban, walkable cities.
Most urbanites get their recomended minimum daily exercise simply by living. By comparison most suburbanites spend their time at single locations, driving between them. From bed, to car seat, to office chair, to car seat, to couch, to bed.
The obesity rates in inner city ghettos have little to do with development and everything to do with poverty when looking at truely urban, walkable cities.
Most urbanites get their recomended minimum daily exercise simply by living. By comparison most suburbanites spend their time at single locations, driving between them. From bed, to car seat, to office chair, to car seat, to couch, to bed.
Maybe it would be useful to examine if wealthy cities are healthier than suburbs of comparable wealth? The problem with this comparison is that crushing poverty, and its related health problems, is not as prevalent in suburbs as in inner cities and rural areas.
I remember finding a study that did just that and posted it a while back. I could dig it up, but it'd take a bit of work. I think it found cities slightly healthier once you controlled for demographics, but the difference was small, and other factors could overwhelm it easily.
Not even midtown Manhattan is typically that full of people, except maybe in a few spots around rush hour. In that photo, there are so many people there it would be hard to walk at a good speed. You can see people overflowing onto the road because the sidewalk isn't big enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
What does the urban guy do? Please describe.
Walk more instead of drive everywhere for transportation. At least that's the idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
