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 think you missed my point, or maybe I didn't make myself clear. We have discussed the obesity issue on Urban Planning several times. The main conclusion is that income level, not place of residence, determines the extent of obesity. I suggested a search to see what is already known.
Yup. You have to question the sources when the first presumption is that a dense, compact, incorporated municipality is the "right" environment for people to live in. All the statistics were based on this presumption. Looking at the statistics they seemed hardly indicative of anything. A 3% difference on obesity? Where was the analysis on the "accuracy" of their statistics? Even the political polls admit 3% one way or the other (a 6% window). If that were the case here the outcome could actually be just the opposite based upon their own numbers and error ranges.
That would be asking too much. It is far easier to make claims under the veil of anonymity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
OK, the first cite is from an advocacy group. 'Nuff said.
Yup. The conclusions are pretty weak and make unsupported claims. I don't know anyone living in hamster-style housing that relies on bicycles or walking to get to work. On the other hand most everyone in houses on lots has lawn care every week. You won't find that in condos. The two story houses on lots require trips up and down stairs. You won't find that in most condo buildings because residents take the elevator. You'll also see more kids riding around on bikes in typical suburban housing areas - not so with downtown condo living. In the end what's the pretext of the study? Trying to force people to live in "compact" areas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
The second is from 2004. Here is the conclusion: "This cross-sectional study found tha thigher levels of urban sprawl were associated with an increased risk for being overweigh tor obese among adults. If the association between urban sprawl and risk for being obese suggested by the results of this study is real, then urban sprawl may be contributing to a significant public health problem. . . Because of the magnitude of these problems, the association between urban sprawl and risk for being obese warrants further attention."
In 2006, the author and another did this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1586006/ (I posted it in one of our previous discussions about obesity here on UP.) Here are some of the findings: "Much of the focus of this research has been on the design and form of suburbs. It suggests that several features of the suburban built environment such as low densities, poor street connectivity and the lack of sidewalks are associated with decreased physical activity and an increased risk of being overweight. But compared to suburban residents, inner city populations have higher rates of obesity and inactivity despite living in neighborhoods that are dense, have excellent street connectivity and who's streets are almost universally lined with sidewalks."
So WRT "sprawl", researchers decided suburban forms contribute to obesity and then tried to make the facts fit their conclusion. The answer, IRL, is more complicated, as always.
I looked up the topic on Google, it seems that there are not a lot of more recent studies. Here's another from 2006: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/2006...e-city-suburbs "When it comes to obesity, a person's income and education probably trumps location, the researchers note."
This doesn't seem to be a big interest in public health right now.
The health argument is an excuse for marketing condo living, cramped living quarters, etc. People are expected to pay more for less under the pretext of "healthier" living. Some people blindly believe it. The odd part is why anyone other than the real estate marketeers use all these pretexts to promote hamster-style living, less private space, etc. It certainly is not out of an altruistic concern for the health of others.
People keep buying into the luxury shoe box community idea. I don't know if they think that proximity to city center or the high rents are a status symbol, or what, but I'm definitely not on board with it.
Developers are in their glory watching people sign up for these apartments like they're standing outside an Apple store on launch day in September.
You just end up moving back farther out when you start a family, so I don't really "get" the "walkable" thing. Parking has never been a problem. I'd have to be the kind that goes out every night to appreciate a living situation like that. I'm more comfortable driving from afar at my current rate of going out - 1 or 2 nights a week.
I understand that many don’t “get” walkability and that is their preference. That does not necessarily mean they are telling me that I should not like it also. But that goes both ways. When I or ferraris say we don’t “get” cul de sacs, it does not necessarily mean we are saying others shouldn’t like them too.
And that is not to say there aren’t many urbanists who do (wrongly in my view) claim their way of life is superior. There are. But don’t act like they are the only guilty party. Literally just a few threads down from this there is someone arguing that preferring big dense cities to smaller less dense ones is equivalent to drinking raw sewage over clean water. That’s the most “my preferences are better than yours” attitude I have seen in awhile.
I understand that many don’t “get†walkability and that is their preference. That does not necessarily mean they are telling me that I should not like it also. But that goes both ways. When I or ferraris say we don’t “get†cul de sacs, it does not necessarily mean we are saying others shouldn’t like them too.
And that is not to say there aren’t many urbanists who do (wrongly in my view) claim their way of life is superior. There are. But don’t act like they are the only guilty party. Literally just a few threads down from this there is someone arguing that preferring big dense cities to smaller less dense ones is equivalent to drinking raw sewage over clean water. That’s the most “my preferences are better than yours†attitude I have seen in awhile.
I don't think there are *too* many people who oppose "walkability". We may all have different definitions of it, however. The cul-de-sacs in my neighborhood do not make walking difficult. The largest cul-de-sac has 9 houses and is about 250 feet long. That is not far to walk to the main road and then over to the bus stop about 1/4 mile away. If that's keeping one from taking transit, one does not want to use it (assuming one is able-bodied, but that's an assumption with "walkability". Unfortunately, Google has chosen to label my home, so I'm not posting a link. You can Google "Louisville, CO" and look at the map for yourself.
And when people who live in suburban cul-de-sac neighborhoods are accused of contributing to various health/social problems in the US/world, such as obesity, air pollution, traffic congestion, transit hostility you are saying we shouldn't like it, or even live there!
I don't think there are *too* many people who oppose "walkability". We may all have different definitions of it, however. The cul-de-sacs in my neighborhood do not make walking difficult. The largest cul-de-sac has 9 houses and is about 250 feet long. That is not far to walk to the main road and then over to the bus stop about 1/4 mile away. If that's keeping one from taking transit, one does not want to use it (assuming one is able-bodied, but that's an assumption with "walkability". Unfortunately, Google has chosen to label my home, so I'm not posting a link. You can Google "Louisville, CO" and look at the map for yourself.
And when people who live in suburban cul-de-sac neighborhoods are accused of contributing to various health/social problems in the US/world, such as obesity, air pollution, traffic congestion, transit hostility you are saying we shouldn't like it, or even live there!
Not sure why you are bolding “are” as if you are disputing something I said when I a) never said that sacs contribute to health or social problems and b) i actually agreed in my last post that many urbanists wrongly say their lifestyle is superior.
If you don’t like the idea of telling others what they should or shouldn’t like or where to live, then surely you disagree with that other post in the thread below about raw sewage that I mentioned?
I'm pro-choice. I don't care where you live, I care where I live. Some urbanists are holier-than-thou and don't approve of other people's lifestyle choices, but I'm not like that. It's a free country, and we can each find a way of life that we like.
I do think that urban sprawl can be a bit much if you're trying to go from, say, the southeast suburbs of Chicago to the far northwest ones - that's about 100 miles - but those settlement patterns are more due to school problems in the city and to heavily subsidized highway construction than they are to actual consumer preferences.
Anyone who is not a boring Puritan will see nothing wrong with having such watering holes in their local neighbourhood.
But do they allow sheepdogs inside? LOL
You know, now that I think of it, I had a bar (definitely NOT a pub) at the end of the street where I lived, and there was an adult bookstore across the street from the bar and a few more shady businesses. I lived on a street off San Carlos in San Jose. San Carlos was (is) a busy street and from my house, you could walk to the county hospital, Santana Park, the shopping center behind Santana Park (El Paseo de Saratoga), and Valley Fair shopping mall, plus a few more places.
But I don't recall a lot of problems because of the bar. When people left the bar, they drove down San Carlos to get home or to catch the freeway. If they ever drove up my street, I never heard them.
This is the Urban Planning forum. Suburbanites who love suburbia and hate density will disagree with many posts and generally the entire theme here. I'm a suburbanite, but I have thought about leaving, and maybe should have done that years ago.
The suburb is one of the worst ideas ever, since it destroys farmland and increases consumption of everything.
This is the Urban Planning forum. Suburbanites who love suburbia and hate density will disagree with many posts and generally the entire theme here. I'm a suburbanite, but I have thought about leaving, and maybe should have done that years ago.
The suburb is one of the worst ideas ever, since it destroys farmland and increases consumption of everything.
LOL, right! Cities sprang up fully developed prior to European settlement. They were here when Columbus landed. Heck, they were here when the Vikings landed. Thus, no farmland was destroyed for the cities.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-30-2018 at 07:50 AM..
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.
