LJ Urban Home
ProjectsT ShirtsVideoContactGet Our RSS Feed
Think of This as Real Estate Development 2.0. LJUrban is a team of eco-urbanists aspiring to dream big, live small and do good. We're real people who make a living building places for real people to live. And we are passionate about empowering others to do something to make a difference. So, chime in.  We're listening.

An Eco-Urban Answer For Obesity

October 26th, 2006 · 3 Comments

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.

While not usually a topic I spend much time on, Ursula’s post on a Fat School brought the issue of childhood obesity to the forefront of my mind.

Let’s take the kids out of it because, as Ursula’ rightly points out, “they learn by example”. Why don’t we see the same trend among the Swiss (known for consuming more pounds of chocolate than any other culture in the world); or among Irish (sorry, ale doesn’t count as a low calorie beverage), or Chinese (rice isn’t exactly a stellar feature of the South Beach diet)? A friend of mine moved here from Denmark about 6 months ago; the parting request of one of his friends was, “Send me picture of a really fat American.” Hardly makes one feel patriotic, does it?

Ursula’s statement that “$5500 a month to teach your fat child not to sit in front of the TV or the PC (oops!) seems a little steep” points toward at least one of the variables contributing to this national problem: inactivity. And here’s where the eco-urban connection hits home: if you build a city that caters so completely to the automobile, you make “exercise” an activity you have to set aside time for (thus, the advent of the “workout”). Not everyone has that time or the money (most don’t, in fact). In other countries, this isn’t a problem because people’s normal daily lives require walking, but our cities and suburbs, by and large, are no longer walkable. In many ways, this circles back around to Calthorpe’s vision of “kids on bikes.”

The steep price of a special Fat School could also be extrapolated to national implications, only everyone pays that price. Here’s one of many examples: health problems increase the trend toward employee “absenteeism” which translates to less productivity and higher insurance requirements, the cost of which then gets tagged onto the public in rising prices and costs of living (ie. taxes). Imagine what all those dollars saved could be better spent on! Perhaps, some would trickle down to fund the great city “endowments” spun out by CentralCityOpinion and LivingInUrbanSac.

Granted, the issue of nationwide obesity has many other contributing variables. Commercial food production and agro-business has much to blame (which is why supporting organic food and farmers markets, as much as possible, is so important). Likewise, the ad/media people need to step up some. Parents need to be empowered to make healthier choices for their families–a variable that travels deep into the depths of social reform. Give me enough time and I could (and probably will) find the eco-urban connection for each of these. However, the words of Donna Shelala, former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary are enough to illustrate how important holistic, long-term, city planning is to everyone’s wellbeing.

“Years ago, the flight to the suburbs was triggered by a desire to get away from the dirty downtowns, and into a cleaner living environment. But, in the process, we have created more health problems. By putting people into cars, and not making areas more walkable and attractive, we have created health problems for adults and children.”

Jason

Tags: TEMP-innerblogposts · author: jason · bicycles · pop culture · random musings · transportation

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 CentralCity // Oct 26, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    When I was a kid , we used to play outside . . .

  • 2 Stephen Gross // Nov 1, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    How can we better market “walkability” to people who are used to, and like, driving everywhere? The message “walk more, it’s healthy!” works for some, but alienates many. So much of the pro-walking argument is based on long-term benefits, such as reduced incidence of heart disease. But people don’t usually change their habits based on long-term rewards. What short-term benefits can we tout? Does walkability need to be a central aspect of the public campaign, or can it be an ancillary benefit of a broader policy effort?

  • 3 Jason // Nov 1, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    I started an reply to Stephen’s well-formed questions, but it got to long for a a comment, so go here to see my initial thoughts.

Leave a Comment