6 ms·

That's a big part of why zoning is so dangerous. In most of the western world (Europe too on average), we pushed down population density so much that your typic

That's a big part of why zoning is so dangerous. In most of the western world (Europe too on average), we pushed down population density so much that your typical destinations are much less likely to be within walking distance, so you don't walk.

nine_k 4mo ago
Indeed. In NYC I do 98% of my shopping by walking. I can reach my doctor by walking. My daughter used to walk to school because it was a 10 minutes walk (and an excellent school). That would be impossible in a suburban setting; at best, one of these destinations would be within the theoretical waking distance, but without the walkways.
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  Absolutely. There's a reason body fat percentage in New York City is so much lower than anywhere else in the US!
  - Gigachad 4mo ago
    This is something I've visually observed all over Australia. The walkable areas are noticeably fitter. I don't think all of those people just happen to care about fitness more, they just spend more time moving to get between places rather than sitting all day.
    - Schiendelman 4mo ago
      Absolutely! Fitness scales super closely with localized population density.
      - Earw0rm 4mo ago
        This is a recent phenomenon. The original reason for low population density was agricultural work, which - even in the early days of mechanisation - was plenty physical. Living in exurbia to work and consume like a city dweller is a new kind of stupid.
        Schiendelman 4mo ago
        Yep, and we caused it, through the massive subsidy to cars that was the federal highway program. Many tranches of spending, from ~1937 forward, caused this.
- acuozzo 4mo ago
  > That would be impossible in a suburban setting; Not necessarily true. The "village center" idea Jim Rouse used in his design of Columbia, MD could be used to solve the problem. All of these things are within walking distance if you live in Columbia's village of Wilde Lake (and, of course, your health insurance covers the primary care physicians in walking distance). I'm guessing you're thinking of typical "stroad" suburbs, but alternatives are possible and do exist. Unfortunately, the suburb has to be the product of planning like Columbia. Typical "emergent" suburbs turn into unwalkable ones.
  - Schiendelman 4mo ago
    The fact that alternative designs are possible is almost irrelevant, because the problem is that you don't get people to agree on the same things. You get one example of something like that and it never replicates. If you want public health outcomes, actual scale, you get much better outcomes by not having that regulatory system at all.
- camdenreslink 4mo ago
  Really depends on the suburb. Where I live in NYS (a suburb of Buffalo) all of those things are within walking distance if you live within the village limits.
  - Schiendelman 4mo ago
    It's interesting - whether examples of potential destination categories are within walking distance doesn't move the needle on health (physical or mental) outcomes, compared to absolute residential density moving the needle tens of percent.
Herring 4mo ago
Yeah pretty much the only way to scale exercise to entire populations and over entire lifetimes is to design it directly into the cities.
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  The crazy part is you don't even have to DESIGN it, the market is desperate to build walkable density because it's so much more profitable than anything else. You just have to LET landowners build upward.
  - Herring 4mo ago
    But then you'll run into traffic/parking issues unless you have a good public transit and land use policy (e.g. bikes, trams, mixed use development, etc). That requires such good design skills few cities have mastered it (Tokyo, Copenhagen, Singapore).
    - Schiendelman 4mo ago
      I know it seems this way, but all you have to do is not subsidize driving with government provided parking, and not build highways, and there's no traffic problem, because people don't get cars in the first place - they don't have anywhere to put them and there's no highway to punch through dense neighborhoods. Transit and bike infrastructure can always be built after the fact through public demand. When you let go, the people who WANT to live in high density without cars FLOCK to what gets built. In fact, if you really stop zoning, there's a decent chance companies will ASK to operate transit for you, because those population densities and no free car competition can make it profitable. This happens in many cities! Mixed use development happens if you let it happen. Banks and developers like money, and mixed use makes way more money, so they want to build it. Sometimes they fuck up and don't, and those land owners pay the price and retrofit. And that's fine. Again, just let them. In high engagement Western societies, where people get involved in politics and urban planning, "design" universally leads to car subsidies and shitty outcomes. The market does a way better job.

nine_k 4mo ago

Indeed. In NYC I do 98% of my shopping by walking. I can reach my doctor by walking. My daughter used to walk to school because it was a 10 minutes walk (and an excellent school). That would be impossible in a suburban setting; at best, one of these destinations would be within the theoretical waking distance, but without the walkways.

Schiendelman 4mo ago
Absolutely. There's a reason body fat percentage in New York City is so much lower than anywhere else in the US!
- Gigachad 4mo ago
  This is something I've visually observed all over Australia. The walkable areas are noticeably fitter. I don't think all of those people just happen to care about fitness more, they just spend more time moving to get between places rather than sitting all day.
  - Schiendelman 4mo ago
    Absolutely! Fitness scales super closely with localized population density.
    - Earw0rm 4mo ago
      This is a recent phenomenon. The original reason for low population density was agricultural work, which - even in the early days of mechanisation - was plenty physical. Living in exurbia to work and consume like a city dweller is a new kind of stupid.
      - Schiendelman 4mo ago
        Yep, and we caused it, through the massive subsidy to cars that was the federal highway program. Many tranches of spending, from ~1937 forward, caused this.
acuozzo 4mo ago
> That would be impossible in a suburban setting; Not necessarily true. The "village center" idea Jim Rouse used in his design of Columbia, MD could be used to solve the problem. All of these things are within walking distance if you live in Columbia's village of Wilde Lake (and, of course, your health insurance covers the primary care physicians in walking distance). I'm guessing you're thinking of typical "stroad" suburbs, but alternatives are possible and do exist. Unfortunately, the suburb has to be the product of planning like Columbia. Typical "emergent" suburbs turn into unwalkable ones.
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  The fact that alternative designs are possible is almost irrelevant, because the problem is that you don't get people to agree on the same things. You get one example of something like that and it never replicates. If you want public health outcomes, actual scale, you get much better outcomes by not having that regulatory system at all.
camdenreslink 4mo ago
Really depends on the suburb. Where I live in NYS (a suburb of Buffalo) all of those things are within walking distance if you live within the village limits.
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  It's interesting - whether examples of potential destination categories are within walking distance doesn't move the needle on health (physical or mental) outcomes, compared to absolute residential density moving the needle tens of percent.

Herring 4mo ago

Yeah pretty much the only way to scale exercise to entire populations and over entire lifetimes is to design it directly into the cities.

Schiendelman 4mo ago
The crazy part is you don't even have to DESIGN it, the market is desperate to build walkable density because it's so much more profitable than anything else. You just have to LET landowners build upward.
- Herring 4mo ago
  But then you'll run into traffic/parking issues unless you have a good public transit and land use policy (e.g. bikes, trams, mixed use development, etc). That requires such good design skills few cities have mastered it (Tokyo, Copenhagen, Singapore).
  - Schiendelman 4mo ago
    I know it seems this way, but all you have to do is not subsidize driving with government provided parking, and not build highways, and there's no traffic problem, because people don't get cars in the first place - they don't have anywhere to put them and there's no highway to punch through dense neighborhoods. Transit and bike infrastructure can always be built after the fact through public demand. When you let go, the people who WANT to live in high density without cars FLOCK to what gets built. In fact, if you really stop zoning, there's a decent chance companies will ASK to operate transit for you, because those population densities and no free car competition can make it profitable. This happens in many cities! Mixed use development happens if you let it happen. Banks and developers like money, and mixed use makes way more money, so they want to build it. Sometimes they fuck up and don't, and those land owners pay the price and retrofit. And that's fine. Again, just let them. In high engagement Western societies, where people get involved in politics and urban planning, "design" universally leads to car subsidies and shitty outcomes. The market does a way better job.