5 ms·

For one, we can start to treat city planning as a healthcare issue. Limit zoning restrictions that currently make driving everywhere the most convenient choice

For one, we can start to treat city planning as a healthcare issue. Limit zoning restrictions that currently make driving everywhere the most convenient choice, stop all freeway expansion projects, and make as many walkable, bikeable, friendly neighborhoods as possible. If people want/need to go outside and walk or bike to accomplish their daily chores, they won’t need to think about exercise as much because it’ll just be an automatic part of their routine. The best kind of health outcomes are based on societal changes, not personal responsibility (“you need to go to the gym and punish yourself” has been failing us). And people will be happier too, if they are more connected to their community (after the initial grumbling about how “hard” it is). It’s so hard to walk/bike around in the US that I don’t blame people for not doing it more (as an avid walk/run/biker myself). That doesn’t mean we get rid of all current development and suburbs, but just eliminate the current restrictions which enforce that lifestyle, and let people’s communities start transforming slowly into healthier ones.

zepppotemkin 4y ago
That would be nice but I don't see that happening outside of boutique cities like bentonville you really need to start fresh or force it before hitting the inflection point
- californical 4y ago
  When things like tax revenue-per-acre starts adding up, it’ll also be more affordable to live in denser areas. By removing zoning restrictions, some communities will start becoming more walkable & mixed-use than others. Since it’s more cost efficient, it’ll be cheaper to own a townhome in a dense area than an equivalent townhome in a sprawling area (after the market equalizes & we can keep up with demand, because it’ll be sky-high for those walkable townhomes at first). But if zoning is reduced, supply will start to catch up. People in sprawling communities will start needing to pay more for taxes for things like road maintenance etc since they have much higher costs per person than a dense area, further starting to push people to favor dense areas. Are people willing to pay the actual cost of living in remote areas like suburbs? It’ll happen slowly at first, but just removing the current laws that prohibit that sort of development may actually enable those changes to happen automatically
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepppotemkin 4y ago
    everything's possible it's hard for me to imagine how it would work in some sprawling places like texas eg. houston or austin I could that happening new/growing suburbs outside of cities like that though like as you say if they commit to a sane design/zoning before it's to late
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
People will literally rezone entire cities rather than saying we need to eat less food and workout more.
- californical 4y ago
  My point was that making it a personal choice seems to be failing us. We’ve been telling people to do that for decades, and they’re not — make it a societal choice so that it’s individuals are automatically enrolled in a system that promotes their health rather than forcing them to sit in a car seat for hours per week
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    I find it fascinating, from an social science perspective, that in other critical areas of society social shaming is encouraged, but when it comes to human fitness we will invent PhD theses worth of reasons for why that's not allowed. I 100% agree with you though, the physical structure of (most) US cities makes this difficult if you yourself don't prioritize it, or you can't afford to.
    - chownie 4y ago
      Fat shaming just doesnt work, the only provable outcomes are mental illness and weight gain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ It's also a huge glaring actor/observer asymmetry issue, you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment?
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        >you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment? Subdivisions basically didn't exist in the US in the 1950s; they were only just being invented then. People lived in smaller towns and cities and walked around a lot more. Even in the 80s, kids were walking around outside a lot, without adult supervision. Now that's basically illegal in most places, so kids stay in their suburban homes all day playing video games. And, as usual, you can compare to other countries. In other places, there's less of a car culture, people walk around a lot more, and there aren't many obese people.

zepppotemkin 4y ago

That would be nice but I don't see that happening outside of boutique cities like bentonville you really need to start fresh or force it before hitting the inflection point

californical 4y ago
When things like tax revenue-per-acre starts adding up, it’ll also be more affordable to live in denser areas. By removing zoning restrictions, some communities will start becoming more walkable & mixed-use than others. Since it’s more cost efficient, it’ll be cheaper to own a townhome in a dense area than an equivalent townhome in a sprawling area (after the market equalizes & we can keep up with demand, because it’ll be sky-high for those walkable townhomes at first). But if zoning is reduced, supply will start to catch up. People in sprawling communities will start needing to pay more for taxes for things like road maintenance etc since they have much higher costs per person than a dense area, further starting to push people to favor dense areas. Are people willing to pay the actual cost of living in remote areas like suburbs? It’ll happen slowly at first, but just removing the current laws that prohibit that sort of development may actually enable those changes to happen automatically
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zepppotemkin 4y ago
  everything's possible it's hard for me to imagine how it would work in some sprawling places like texas eg. houston or austin I could that happening new/growing suburbs outside of cities like that though like as you say if they commit to a sane design/zoning before it's to late

ed25519FUUU 4y ago

People will literally rezone entire cities rather than saying we need to eat less food and workout more.

californical 4y ago
My point was that making it a personal choice seems to be failing us. We’ve been telling people to do that for decades, and they’re not — make it a societal choice so that it’s individuals are automatically enrolled in a system that promotes their health rather than forcing them to sit in a car seat for hours per week
- remarkEon 4y ago
  I find it fascinating, from an social science perspective, that in other critical areas of society social shaming is encouraged, but when it comes to human fitness we will invent PhD theses worth of reasons for why that's not allowed. I 100% agree with you though, the physical structure of (most) US cities makes this difficult if you yourself don't prioritize it, or you can't afford to.
  - chownie 4y ago
    Fat shaming just doesnt work, the only provable outcomes are mental illness and weight gain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ It's also a huge glaring actor/observer asymmetry issue, you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment?
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment? Subdivisions basically didn't exist in the US in the 1950s; they were only just being invented then. People lived in smaller towns and cities and walked around a lot more. Even in the 80s, kids were walking around outside a lot, without adult supervision. Now that's basically illegal in most places, so kids stay in their suburban homes all day playing video games. And, as usual, you can compare to other countries. In other places, there's less of a car culture, people walk around a lot more, and there aren't many obese people.