Virtually everything American society has done for the past 100 years has made it easier for us to be fatter, said James Sallis, a San Diego State University psychology professor, and others who gathered recently at the American College of Sports Medicine's annual meeting.
"We've built an unhealthy world in a lot of different ways," said Sallis, who was once dubbed an "obesity warrior" by Time magazine.
Sallis contends change will come only when the public demands walkable development, more federal money for parks and bike paths and even a tax on industries that promote sedentary lifestyles (he pointed to video game makers, movie theater chains and even electric Segway scooters).
I feel like Mr. Cool from Coolsville cuz that's what I'm always saying. Attitudes don't make people lazy and slaves to their cars, the evironment we've been living in has engendered that attitude. Change the environment and attitudes will move along with it.
Roody
06-17-06, 07:03 PM
I think the "new urbanism," like Denver's Stapleton project, is great, but we're also seeing "old urbanism" coming back into style. According to our local paper, an older area that has many walkable and bikeable features is currently the part of my city that has the fastest rising housing values.
fuerein
06-17-06, 07:26 PM
I agree and disagree. We need to change the environment before the public at large will seriously change from a severe sedentary lifestyle. However, just changing that will do nothing. Have you ever seen anyone go into a stripmall? I've seen people go in and park at the far end to shop at a store at the end of the mall. Then, they get back in their car and drive to the middle of the strip mall to shop at a second store 3-4 stores down from the one they were just at. Most strip malls I have ever been at have plenty of pedestrian access areas, but people are happy to get in and drive 50 yards. There almost has to be a forced change in my opinion.
nedgoudy
06-17-06, 10:29 PM
Peak oil will be the great equalizer
and all the pig men (notice the Seinfeld
reference) and women will pay dearly
for their sedentary lifestyles.
Having already lost my weight and
found a way to keep it off, I will ride
my bike with pride and perhaps feel
for the poor *******s... a bit anyway.
Chris L
06-17-06, 11:39 PM
There's just one problem here, the rats are the ones who continually vote not to change their maze, and for all the articles written in various journals or media outlets looking for a scapegoat to blame on why people are getting fatter, I can't see the situation getting any better anytime soon. Personally I think the only effective way to influence people is to set an example. Be seen to be car free everyday before worrying about changing any environments. It will only be when others take up that example that there will be any realistic prospect of urban areas being redesigned.
becnal
06-18-06, 03:54 AM
Change the one thing one actually has control over: oneself.
Roody
06-18-06, 08:03 AM
There's just one problem here, the rats are the ones who continually vote not to change their maze, and for all the articles written in various journals or media outlets looking for a scapegoat to blame on why people are getting fatter, I can't see the situation getting any better anytime soon. Personally I think the only effective way to influence people is to set an example. Be seen to be car free everyday before worrying about changing any environments. It will only be when others take up that example that there will be any realistic prospect of urban areas being redesigned.
Sorry, but I don't understand--how is riding "to set an example" not political riding? If you're convincing others to change their behavior, you're engaged in either political action or marketing. So welcome to the club!
Chris L
06-18-06, 11:20 AM
Sorry, but I don't understand--how is riding "to set an example" not political riding? If you're convincing others to change their behavior, you're engaged in either political action or marketing. So welcome to the club!
Personally I'm not riding to change anyone's behaviour. In fact, I'm not totally convinced that I particular want to see more people riding ( http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=155944&highlight=popular )However, the OP in this thread was talking about the design of cities and the effect it has on either encouraging or discouraging people to ride. Fact is, the design of cities is just a symptom of the existing preferences of the majority, and consequently, it's unlikely to change in the forseeable future. IF you want to see more people riding (and I'm not totally convinced that we do), the only way to do it is to set an example.
Note, however, that marketing and political action are not the same thing. A marketing exercise is one that shows the positive and practical aspects of riding, which might just interest someone. A political exercise is one that tries to force people into riding, either through making them feel guilty about driving, or asking the government to do it for you. That's been tried for years, and it just doesn't work.
Roody
06-18-06, 12:24 PM
Personally I'm not riding to change anyone's behaviour. In fact, I'm not totally convinced that I particular want to see more people riding ( http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=155944&highlight=popular )However, the OP in this thread was talking about the design of cities and the effect it has on either encouraging or discouraging people to ride. Fact is, the design of cities is just a symptom of the existing preferences of the majority, and consequently, it's unlikely to change in the forseeable future. IF you want to see more people riding (and I'm not totally convinced that we do), the only way to do it is to set an example.
Note, however, that marketing and political action are not the same thing. A marketing exercise is one that shows the positive and practical aspects of riding, which might just interest someone. A political exercise is one that tries to force people into riding, either through making them feel guilty about driving, or asking the government to do it for you. That's been tried for years, and it just doesn't work.
I agree that encouraging people to ride is difficult, and probably not worth too much personal effort. (BTW, I posted something to this effect on the same thread you linked to above.) However, I think encouraging people to use cars much less is worth some effort. Clearly the two, cycling and carfree, are very different issues. The world would not necessarily be a better place if more people rode bikes, but it would be much better if fewer people drove cars.
I think the main motivator will be neither marketing nor politics. People will become carfree in significant numbers only when they believe it is a better economic choice. Politically, the only way to speed this along is to raise taxes on cars and/or fuel, as Europeans have done to good effect for decades now. Marketing might be one thing we actually do on this forum--showing others that carfree is already a good economic choice for many people, and that bikes can be a valuable tool when one is decreasing car dependency.
nedgoudy
06-18-06, 06:40 PM
Marketing might be one thing we actually do on this forum--showing others that carfree is already a good economic choice for many people, and that bikes can be a valuable tool when one is decreasing car dependency.
The SYSTEM controls marketing except for
bits and pieces of the Internet and the Congress
sold humon beings out on that last week.
The corporate persons of the world will dictate
what the majority thinks, eats, drives and what
happens to their **** after it is processed. (Just
how much of it is fed back to us as food.) Make
no mistake about that.
The only world in which bicycles will play a
big role will be in a post apocalyptic - post peak
oil, environmentally devastated world. Then the
pickens will be ripe for the Joe Kochanowski's of this world.
http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/2position_up.jpg
Even if conditions become so bad that people
complain or riot in the streets, Homeland Security
will beat those people to death or use some hi-tech
form of death or stun ray on em rendering them impotent
(a weapon that is undoubtably just months from production
- note the 30 Billion Dollar Secret ops budget of the Pentagon for 2007)
and the FASCISTS will make sure that trucking routes and essential
government and corporate personnel have access to gas and
the rest of us will be SOL.
Mark my words people, especially you young'ns.
The end is near! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
bragi
06-19-06, 02:08 PM
The SYSTEM controls marketing except for
bits and pieces of the Internet and the Congress
sold humon beings out on that last week.
The corporate persons of the world will dictate
what the majority thinks, eats, drives and what
happens to their **** after it is processed. (Just
how much of it is fed back to us as food.) Make
no mistake about that.
The only world in which bicycles will play a
big role will be in a post apocalyptic - post peak
oil, environmentally devastated world. Then the
pickens will be ripe for the Joe Kochanowski's of this world.
http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/2position_up.jpg
Even if conditions become so bad that people
complain or riot in the streets, Homeland Security
will beat those people to death or use some hi-tech
form of death or stun ray on em rendering them impotent
(a weapon that is undoubtably just months from production
- note the 30 Billion Dollar Secret ops budget of the Pentagon for 2007)
and the FASCISTS will make sure that trucking routes and essential
government and corporate personnel have access to gas and
the rest of us will be SOL.
Mark my words people, especially you young'ns.
The end is near! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
I think that's a tad pessimistic. People generally do what they think is best for them and their loved ones, and, eventually, enlightened self-interest (and really expensive fossil fuel) will move people away from car-dependent urban sprawl towards a more human-centered, sustainable model. Just look at Vancouver BC; that's what the future could look like. A "Road-Warrior"-type hell-world is not a forgone conclusion.
TimJ
06-19-06, 05:10 PM
There's just one problem here, the rats are the ones who continually vote not to change their maze, and for all the articles written in various journals or media outlets looking for a scapegoat to blame on why people are getting fatter, I can't see the situation getting any better anytime soon. Personally I think the only effective way to influence people is to set an example. Be seen to be car free everyday before worrying about changing any environments. It will only be when others take up that example that there will be any realistic prospect of urban areas being redesigned.
Care to explain? Could you explain how people vote to keep development the way it is? Last I checked, most development occures at the zoning level, and then passed on to private developers, and neither is subject to vote. You could make a chaos butterfly arguement about how voting eventually translates into this municipal district acting that way, but can you seriously argue people cast their votes with zoning regulations in their mind? Can you tell me the last person you voted for on a municipal level who was somehow directly involved in city planning? I don't mean the governor or mayor, I mean a city council member of facilities district chairman or something.
I don't like that word "scapegoat". It's the sort of word you see narcissists use a lot. The basic argument being only people have themselves to blame for [however they suck] so there's nothing anyone can do about it, by the way, I don't [suck that way]. There's no consensus via votes or market forces that designed our cities. I don't know why anyone would think that's how this country got shaped but it seems to be a popular misconception. Market forces normally do not zone property because property is zoned and developed prior to anything you could call market pressures. Someone puts a big buy on a lot not because anyone voted for a big buy but because big buy was looking to expand, did their due dilgence and decided the area in question could support one of their stores. Who voted for that? It was zoned for commercial use by a zoning board composed of people whom I believe are appointed. How is it that this new big buy doesn't have pedestrian access? Big buy isn't interested and it didn't cross the board's mind, or they didn't care either.
Where's the votes or the invisible hand guiding that? Now people start shopping there and it's a big hit, does that mean the will of the majority wants that big buy there with no pedestrian access? No, it simply means there's a big buy there with no pedestrian access, and there are enough people to support it.
Make no mistake, our urban environment is not the result of any will of majority, it's the result of the logistics of urban development in this country. Mainly, it's often left up to the developers what the end result is, and unless required to consider the community around it by the municipality, the developer is only interested in maximizing the bottom line which means easy automobile access. People did not vote for, ask for, or desire their cities to be built as they are and yet they are subject to it. It can change, but it doesn't happen at the individual level, it happens at the community level. You may be an ubermensch but most people just live their life according to the context they were placed in.
AlanK
06-19-06, 05:32 PM
I feel like Mr. Cool from Coolsville cuz that's what I'm always saying. Attitudes don't make people lazy and slaves to their cars, the evironment we've been living in has engendered that attitude. Change the environment and attitudes will move along with it.
I agree completely. For the arguments related to abstract concepts like 'freewill' and 'choice', humans, like all other animals will tend to adapt to the environment in a way that is easiest for them.
Most people are so dependent on their cars because their environment (in most US areas) encourages people to drive almost everywhere. But if you look at a city like NYC, most residents don't have cares because it isn't efficient - in most cases, the subway is more efficient than driving, and it's easy for people to walk to most places.
Still, even with a change of environment, people are still creatures of habit who are generally resistent to change. I read an article about someone who drives 5 blocks from his home every Sunday to buy coffee, then drive back home to drink it (when he could just as easily walk there).
Chris L
06-21-06, 02:42 AM
Care to explain? Could you explain how people vote to keep development the way it is? Last I checked, most development occures at the zoning level, and then passed on to private developers, and neither is subject to vote.
Developers build what is going to sell. In other words, they build the sort of neighbourhoods that people want to live in. The fact is, most people are only concerned about car access to their neighbourhood or their house. If you don't believe me, try designing and developing a different style of neighbourhood and see how far you get. And let's not forget who voted for the politicians who have the final say in approving these developments. If developers weren't designing and building things that people want, they wouldn't stay in business for very long. If politcians didn't provide policies that people wanted, they wouldn't stay in government for very long.
What it all comes back to is this. People who really want to use their cars less, will find a way to do so. Others will simply find excuses. Rather than sit and argue back and forth, and try to make people feel guilty about driving, I've taken the approach of walking the walk. Of living the way I want to, and demonstrating that yes, it can be done if you put your mind to it. Personally, I think that is a far more effective approach than simply trying to make people feel guilty about their choices or (more often) asking the government to do it for you.
You may be an ubermensch but most people just live their life according to the context they were placed in.
In that case, people are even stupider than I thought.
gwd
06-21-06, 08:37 AM
Care to explain? Could you explain how people vote to keep development the way it is? Last I checked, most development occures at the zoning level, and then passed on to private developers, and neither is subject to vote.
In the region where I live the development patterns have been part of the election time debate for at least 20 years. So someone besides me must be voting partly on how the candidates express themselves about develpment issues. Here in DC the mayor's representative attended a bike to work rally in the late '90s and promised the bikers the new mayor would work to make the city more bike and pedestrian friendly and he seems to be making good on that promise. Since then we've gotten many more bike facilities. At that time I lived in the suburbs where the politicians were promising "more roads". I moved to the place where the politicians were promising "more bikes" and don't regret it.
Where do you live where all the elected officials are mute about development issues?
jamesdenver
06-21-06, 10:22 AM
Stapleton is great, and the houses and sidewalks are very walkable and people friendly (garages in back, greenbelts and nice sidewalk buffer zones), but in visiting it my experience is that there are still not enough "small" shops and services. There's a big grocery store at one end, and some small restaurants, but it's still a decent walk, where as my neighborhood has small shops (or at least convenience stores) within .5 miles of almost all houses.
Public transport to downtown is good, but for now it seems like an "island" of new urbanism, which is disfunctional unless it's connected to the rest of the city. I think more streets are being built towards the east which will be better connections to aurora.
Not complaining, just observations. I love the carriage house style garages with offices and bedrooms above them, it is a great neighborhood and done right, just could be improved by integrating commercial and residential even MORE.
I think the "new urbanism," like Denver's Stapleton project, is great, but we're also seeing "old urbanism" coming back into style. According to our local paper, an older area that has many walkable and bikeable features is currently the part of my city that has the fastest rising housing values.
World Tour
06-21-06, 10:30 AM
Don't forget TIME! There's a relation to speed/time. We don't have much time these days, hence car vs. bicycle. The car's a time machine relative to a bicycle. We'll need a LOT of slowing down which I don't see in the future.
Chris L
06-21-06, 03:27 PM
Don't forget TIME! There's a relation to speed/time. We don't have much time these days, hence car vs. bicycle. The car's a time machine relative to a bicycle. We'll need a LOT of slowing down which I don't see in the future.
One of the main reasons I cycle to work is because it's actually faster than trying to drive through the traffic.
cerewa
06-21-06, 04:51 PM
Don't forget TIME! There's a relation to speed/time. We don't have much time these days, hence car vs. bicycle. The car's a time machine relative to a bicycle. We'll need a LOT of slowing down which I don't see in the future.
You say we don't have much time these days, but I think it's more that we don't think we have much time these days. Sure, some people really don't have enough time, but mostly it's an attitude. So many technologies in this world are supposed to save us time, and yet people are under the impression we have even less time than we did decades or centuries ago. The days haven't gotten any shorter and the earth's rotation hasn't gotten any faster.
chennai
06-21-06, 05:23 PM
I think the "new urbanism," like Denver's Stapleton project, is great, but we're also seeing "old urbanism" coming back into style. According to our local paper, an older area that has many walkable and bikeable features is currently the part of my city that has the fastest rising housing values.
Interesting. Stapleton is more "walkable" than a typical suburb, but it remains very car-centered. Walking is nice in Stapleton - to enjoy an evening or watch a pet poop or both. Yet, a Stapleton denizen cannot do the "important" things in his or her life without a car.
The older neighborhoods tend to have been developed in a less car-centered way, and, as James mentions, one can still do some important things without a car - library, some grocery shopping, schools, church, and work.
(Stapleton also has some of the hallmarks of a typical suburb. Some are because of the car-centered development. It is cut into chunks by large multi lane arterials. It is more or less an enclave - largely separated from surrounding communities because the planners intentionally did not connect the grid. Little local shopping. Lower income dwellings near the arterials. Income segregation.)
Wouldn't it have been great if the city had done transit to Stapleton before doing the development?)
chennai
06-21-06, 05:48 PM
Don't forget TIME! There's a relation to speed/time. We don't have much time these days, hence car vs. bicycle. The car's a time machine relative to a bicycle. We'll need a LOT of slowing down which I don't see in the future.
I think the often repeated "time machine" comment is frequently false - and whether it is true or not depends a great deal on where one lives. Traveling around central Denver by bike is, if not faster than taking a car, pretty close. That's mostly a function of the relatively short distances (0-10 miles) I typically go. And that I can go literally door to door without needing to store and fetch a car.
But the point of the original post - the connection between obesity and driving - also highlights another problem of the "time machine" shibboleth. I know many drivers who schedule gym or workout time to prevent weight gain and to stay in shape. I get a big chunk of what they get at the gym just by moving around the city without a car. Is a car really "saving time" for these people? I think the answer is no.
EDIT: Mildly interesting single data point: http://bikerefugee.blogspot.com/2006/06/bike-v-car.html
gwd
06-21-06, 08:24 PM
Don't forget TIME! There's a relation to speed/time. We don't have much time these days, hence car vs. bicycle. The car's a time machine relative to a bicycle. We'll need a LOT of slowing down which I don't see in the future.
Thanks Cerewa, Chennai and Chris L. Repeatedly debunking this myth gets tedious.
Roody
06-22-06, 12:13 PM
When you're talking about liveable urban design, you're talking about decreasing the distances that people have to travel. You need to design cities where the workplaces, shops and schoools are decentralised and located much closer to peoples' homes. This is the main strategy to remove the "time machine" considerations that actually are important in contemporary cities. And it seems that this consideration is a failure in the Stapleton project.
I grew up in Highland Park, MI--a city that sprang into existence around 1910 when Henry Ford built his first big auto plant there. Ironicall, at that time, car-centered urban design was not yet the norm, even around a Ford plant. Worker housing--executives down to floor sweepers--was built within a couple miles of the plant. Stores and schools were a short walk from everybody. Unfortunately, and also ironically, Highland Park basically died 50 years late--when cars became the preferred mode of transportation.
chennai
06-22-06, 01:04 PM
When you're talking about liveable urban design, you're talking about decreasing the distances that people have to travel. You need to design cities where the workplaces, shops and schoools are decentralised and located much closer to peoples' homes.
It's "decentralisation" and its potential for changing the social as well as the physical environment that is one of the main reasons I have grown so hostile to car-centered development.
But I wonder whether part of my thinking about this was wrong - the impact on local business. Specifically, I thought that a shift away from car transportation would mean that the business currently being done at big box stores would go to local businesses instead. But, I think maybe I have confounded "local" and "small."
Decentralizing would lead to more small businesses but would it lead to more locally-owned businesses? I don't know the answer.
Roody
06-22-06, 08:53 PM
Well, decentralisation, i believe, would cause Walmart and the other big chains to lose some of their competetive edge, which is largely a result of economies of scale. But before the auto age, many of the stores in small town business districts were chains. Especially Kresge (now called KMart!), Woolworth, Ben Franklin, A & P and the like. the largest retailer for nearly a century was Sears & Roebuck, which did most of its business through catalogues.
chennai
06-22-06, 10:25 PM
Well, decentralisation, i believe, would cause Walmart and the other big chains to lose some of their competetive edge, which is largely a result of economies of scale. But before the auto age, many of the stores in small town business districts were chains. Especially Kresge (now called KMart!), Woolworth, Ben Franklin, A & P and the like. the largest retailer for nearly a century was Sears & Roebuck, which did most of its business through catalogues.
I think Walmart et al. couldn't exist without the auto. The volume that they need to get the economies of scale wouldn't exist.
The more I think about small v. local, the more I think that there would be more local ownership. No one local could compete with a Walmart, but locals can compete with a Starbucks or even (the now absent) Ben Franklin.
Hoot.
06-22-06, 11:05 PM
Stapleton is great, and the houses and sidewalks are very walkable and people friendly (garages in back, greenbelts and nice sidewalk buffer zones), but in visiting it my experience is that there are still not enough "small" shops and services. There's a big grocery store at one end, and some small restaurants, but it's still a decent walk, where as my neighborhood has small shops (or at least convenience stores) within .5 miles of almost all houses.
Public transport to downtown is good, but for now it seems like an "island" of new urbanism, which is disfunctional unless it's connected to the rest of the city. I think more streets are being built towards the east which will be better connections to aurora.
Not complaining, just observations. I love the carriage house style garages with offices and bedrooms above them, it is a great neighborhood and done right, just could be improved by integrating commercial and residential even MORE.
Just dont cross the street of Quebec. Its .5 miles from nice lil strip malls and the local ghetto... lol
I have actually "inspired" (the word most often used) many of my friends either start riding or get back on the bike. I've gone bike shopping with 3 and heard of friends of friends that tried biking because of meeting me and hearing how much I ride and why. This is all in my first year of not being able to drive. Show people the glamorous side of it....
chennai
06-23-06, 11:42 AM
Just dont cross the street of Quebec. Its .5 miles from nice lil strip malls and the local ghetto... lol
If by "ghetto" you mean Park Hill, you need to look more carefully before you speak. If you mean Stapleton, not absolutely everyone is upper middle class. There is some low income housing on the west edge near the busy streets.