Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl

Smart Growth America  published the first national study to establish a direct association between the form of the community and the health of the people who live there... over a decade ago. The report that was also covered by BBC, the New York Times, USA Today, and NPR confirms the adverse relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. The results are not surprising. Here's what we found out:

• people living in counties marked by sprawling development are likely to walk less and weigh more than people who live in less sprawling counties
• sprawling counties are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure
• the results hold true for factors of age, education, gender, race, ethnicity
• people in sprawling areas are missing out on significant health benefits that are available simply by walking, biking, climbing stairs, and being active as a part of everyday life
• 55 percent of Americans would like to walk more instead of driving;
• 52 percent would like to bike more

Now, onto the shocking part: We've been building, are building, and will continue to build communities - and not just ex-urban, but places we classify as cities - that prove detrimental to our health (think of many southeastern cities, like Atlanta). Instead we should be putting limits to our growth and thinking about maximizing space and becoming as efficient as possible. There are several reasons to do so besides the health benefits; less reliance on automobiles as well as the non-renewable fuel sources that come with transportation, conservation and preservation of land and habitat, the ability to create a more localized economy, closer-knit communities, etc. For starters that means less parking lots which is essentially dead space that promote driving. It's alarming that in some cities parking space covers a third of the land area, becoming such a dominant feature of our built environment that it has started to define it. Such dull environments obstruct our motivation and creativity. Limiting growth also means establishing city limits, mixed-use zoning regulations, transit-oriented development, narrow streets, and not just dense but compact development.

While American cities may not have much on our European counterparts, below are the 10 cities with the largest share of their populations in functional urban cores (most compact), and they may compare the closest. It wouldn't come as a surprise if some of these cities were also the most fit.
 

1. New York City (97.3 percent)

2. Buffalo (94.5 percent)

3. San Francisco (94.0 percent)

4. Boston (89.7 percent)

5. Hartford (87.4 percent)

6. Providence (86.5 percent)

7. St. Louis (84.1 percent)

8. Minneapolis (83.5 percent)

9. District of Colombia (83.4 percent)

10. Philadelphia (83.4 percent)

These should be the years for compact growth, urban infill, core renewal. How much containment and smart growth is possible? Hopefully the possibilities are not endless - at least spatially. But it all starts with a plan. 

_________

Sources & Links:

Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl / Smart Growth America 

Almost Half of America's Biggest Cities Are Basically Built Like Giant Suburbs 

Urban Cores, Core Cities and Principal Cities  

America's Suburb Future

Urban vs. Suburban Growth in U.S. Metros 

U.S. Cities Are Slowing But Suburbs Are Growing

City Sprawl from 2000-2010 / CityLab 

Most Sprawling US Cities by Rank / CityLab

Parking Lots as Public Spaces / NY Times