Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
A more reason why people who live in NYC put up with living in NYC: Quite frankly, living in the suburbs can make you sick. Or at least that's the implication from a study the Rand Corporation did. The study found that "suburban sprawl is linked to the incidence of many chronic health ailments," such as high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches and breathing difficulties. Roland Sturm, a Rand economist, said, "This is the first study that analyzes suburban sprawl and a broad range of chronic health conditions, We know from previous studies that suburban sprawl reduces the time people spend walking and increases the time they spend sitting in cars, and that is associated with higher obesity rates. This probably plays an important role in the health effects we observe.” Word - think about those huge Big Gulps people get during their commutes. People don't need 64 ounces of soda for the ride home; we saw Super Size Me. Other fun findings:
- The findings suggest that an adult who lives in a more sprawling city such as Atlanta willhave a health profile similar to someone four years older — but otherwise similar — who lives in a more compact city such as Seattle, according to researchers.Gothamist would like to thank the Rand Corp. doing this study, because it's just another reason why we love our teeming city, full of crazy expensive rents, crazy people, expensive habits and anything else you could possibly want, so much.
- The study found no link between suburban sprawl and a greater incidence of mental health problems. - The findings appear in the October edition of the journal Public Health, in an article titled: “Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health.”
Areas with the least suburban sprawl: New York City; San Francisco; Boston; Portland, Ore.; Miami; Denver; Chicago; and Milwaukee.
Areas with the worst suburban sprawl: the Riverside-San Bernardino region of California; Atlanta; Winston-Salem, N.C.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Bridgeport-Danbury-Stamford, Conn.; Knoxville, Tenn.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Detroit (really?).
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
As a native Detroiter sort of, I can indeed say yes. Detroit has severe sprawl -- no one wants to live in the city so all the auto execs and such build these new homes out in the 'burbs. Most people who say they are from Detroit, myself included, are from the Detroit suburbs. Most people who say they are from NYC are from NYC and not Yonkers.
It's all relative. I moved from one of the apparently worst (West Palm Beach) to this area. But West Palm Beach doesn't really have an "urban" area; at least not nearly to the extent of the major metropoli. I think the "disease" part of this comes from the suburb's inherent lack of culture and community that our major cities offer.
A big part of the problem here is large lot size, which leads to low-density habitation and thus very little in the way of concentrated commercial developement. There's a movement afoot called "zero-lot-line" development, which I think takes its cue from Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian plans. Basically, smaller lots with the houses placed on one edge of the boundary instead of the middle of the lot. So there's less distance to walk to get to places. Instead of an 80' or 100' wide suburban lot, maybe a 40' lot (as opposed to standard city lot of 20' - 30').
I visited one of these developments - a retirement community - with my parents about 10 days ago, outside an old town center in rural Virginia. The idea is to ring the old town center (which now has a sort of agricultural bohemian flavor) with a few hundred "active adult" homes on small lots, to create a walkable new town on top of the old one. The county in turn has invested in some community infrastructure elements, such as grants and tax incentives for a new YMCA, and a new county park and sewage treatment facility. (The county will get tax ratables, but no new children to educate, so it's a great deal.)
In most of the county I describe, lot sizes have to be at least two acres, ostensibly to prevent suburban sprawl, which means almost 100,000 square feet - which as a square would be 315' on a side - more than ten city lots. So it's smart development to build the town in close to an old center, and then keep the fringe rural and agricultural.
The problem is getting younger people to adopt more modest land consumption. A lot of people like a big yard, and if you have kids there are practical justifications for wanting more land.
I thought that the statement in the headline was usually spoken only figuratively. Glad we have an actual, scientific reason to stay away now...
Seems to me the problem isnt the distance between people's houses, its the fact that you have 100% residential areas that are separated from commercial ones with large expanses of highways and roads that no one can walk on to begin with. These commercial areas are strip malls, huge warehouses surrounded by parking lots. What makes a city a city in my view is the way commercial and residential spaces are mixed which favors walking. Places like L.A. are not real cities in my view, just a collection of suburbs linked together. Unless you happen to live off of one of the boulevards, you have to drive to get anywhere.
Ditto Jenny, I am a native "Detroiter" who lives 40 miles out of the city. The Detroit suburbs spread over all of southeast Michigan. Most of Detroit is too run-down and crime-heavy to actually live in, but we all work there. And sprawl is so bad that you must drive everywhere. Everywhere. I would have to walk a mile to buy a can of coke; four miles to rent a video. You live in your car, especially since traffic is so bad that it takes over an hour to drive to work. So if you're wondering why we have poor health, look at how we spend three hours a day trapped in the car.
Only proves city dwellers are pussies.
Children can be raised in large cities just fine. Why do people think they need a big yard to 'properly' raise children? Are they raising people--or cows?