Friday, July 31, 2009

Taking a Different Path... or Avoiding the Apostle

Quite accidentally, I have found a new reason to praise neighborhood street grids: easily avoiding annoying neighbors. I was walking home the other, taking my normal path and passing the neighbor (he lives a couple of blocks from me) who is always sitting out on his lawn. We always say hello to each other as I pass, but on this particular day he decided to engage me in the most frustrating conversation I have experienced in a long while. After our usual greeting, as I continued to walk, he called after me, “Do you know the Lord?” Now, this is always a dangerous question because anyone that is brave enough to ask it of a complete stranger in a public place is likely to be a little too hardcore for my liking. I decided there was no way out of it, so I turned and said, “Yes, I’ve been a Christian for many years.” I thought maybe this would placate him so that I could get home and make dinner (I’m always starving by this time). Instead, he asked me what church I attend. I told him that I just recently moved in and have not found a home church yet, but that I attended the Lutheran church down the street once. This is when he explained to me that Lutheran pastors are “apostates” that lead their “flock” astray. He made sure to let me know then that he has several theology degrees (I said “Wow! That’s great”), so he obviously must know what he’s talking about. I knew from the beginning of the conversation that it would be interesting, but this was getting ridiculous very quickly. He proceeded to tell me that he is a pastor trained in the charismatic Assemblies of God tradition that “strictly follows Biblical teachings,” which apparently “no other church does.” He explained to me that God may have some grace for the “flock” of these churches for a little while, but “these pastors are held to a higher standard, they know better than to manipulate the Word, and they will pay dearly on Judgment Day,” which, according to him as he looked at his watch for effect, “is coming soon!”

It was at about this point when I began to slowly back away as he continued talking to me. He mentioned that he knew many senior pastors that were disqualified from being senior pastors because they weren’t married. I must have had a confused look (I’ve never heard of that rule!) on my face because he began to explain in an accusatory way (as if I, a Christian, should have known this and been appalled by it) that the Apostle Paul said that only married men could be senior pastors. Once again, he mentioned that he should know because he has “several degrees in theology,” to which I replied, “So I’ve heard.” He went on about the sinfulness of these pastors for a while as I nodded and continued to slowly back away. He then admitted that he was “Biblically divorced” (whatever that means) and out of a job, but he was looking to start a church. I don’t know why I decided to make the situation worse by asking a question, but I did. “So, if you start a church, will you be the senior pastor?” This got him all riled up. In, again, an accusatory manner, he slightly chastised me for thinking he would do such a thing. “You would think so, wouldn’t you! That’s what all of these so-called men of God are doing these days.” Then he said something that convinced me once and for all that I needed to avoid this guy from this point forward. “Don’t they know that only apostles can start churches?” I was completely dumbfounded. This guy actually believed that he was an apostle! I had learned my lesson at this point and didn’t answer or challenge him. I wanted to ask him how he came to personally listen to Jesus’ teachings while he was alive (the definition of an apostle); what makes him think his interpretation of the Bible is better than others; if he had ever eaten pork, stoned a prostitute, cast lots, or given everything he owned to the poor, as the Bible instructs. But I held my tongue and eventually told him that I needed to get home. Unbelievably, he found a way to mention one more time, “You know, my theology degrees…” before I finally got away from him.

After that experience, I thank God (whether my neighbors version of Him or my own) for gridded streets! Ever since that day, I have simply taken a different route home, which has not taken any more time to walk. If I lived in a suburban neighborhood, it is likely that, because of the suburban desire to have no through traffic, there would only be one path home. In a more urban neighborhood, however, there are always several different paths to one destination, which efficiently spreads traffic evenly throughout the streets… and provides me with a less annoying path home.

Disclaimer: I really do feel sorry for the guy, because he must be lonely with his penchant of proclaiming his religious superiority to others. If you are the praying type, please pray for him. I don’t mean to make fun of him, and I will never reveal who he is, but I began this blog with the purpose of describing my experiences as a pedestrian in Bethlehem… and this was quite an experience! It was one that I would not have had if I had passed his house in a car.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Recipe To End Obesity

To wrap up my series on obesity, I thought I would present some possible policy solutions to the problems that I have discussed. I’m not a huge policy-wonk, and I’m not a Washington insider, so I don’t have the greatest feel for what is feasible. Perhaps I’m too idealistic, but I tend to think that anything is possible, and when we stop striving for our ideals, we’ll fail as a people and as a nation. So, this is my best attempt at applying my ideals to practical solutions.

First, we need to change our development policies and processes. Currently, a city sets a zoning code for a plot of land, and developers must either conform to that code (which includes type and use of structure, density, setback distances, etc.) or apply for a conditional use permit with the city council. Most of the time, conditional changes in zoning are not granted for land uses that are seen as drastically different or incompatible with current surrounding areas. Some municipalities are stricter than others. One city might allow multi-family housing in a predominantly single-family neighborhood while another may not. Similarly, some cities might permit certain industrial sites to be converted to commercial uses while others would not. Very few cities, however, will allow a plot in a residential zone to be converted to commercial. There are a variety of reasons why this is frowned upon, one of which involves a fear among residents that a corner store or restaurant will bring too much unwanted traffic into their neighborhood, which may cause their property values to decrease. While this fear has not been corroborated by evidence (in fact, mixed-use neighborhoods tend to be better valued and are steadier over time), the NIMBYs (residents that have a history of opposing any changes to their neighborhoods by saying, “Not in my backyard!”) have significant power in local decision-making.

The problem with this system is that, while the zoning policies sound good on paper, once those policies are used to guide design and development, the results are often disappointing. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans who admit that their ideal neighborhood is a bedroom community (only upscale single-family homes) think that current suburban bedroom communities are not visually appealing and are not ideally designed. According to my thesis findings, the reason for this disconnection between policy and design lies in the fact that we set the zoning policy before we have any clue what the resulting design should look like. Anton Nelesson, a New Jersey planner, found that when, in fact, residents of an area were gathered and asked to design and make a model their ideal neighborhood, people in every case (he conducted dozens and dozens of these workshops) built traditional, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. What does this tell us about how our zoning process should be changed? We need to take a cue from the Germans (who gave us the concept of zoning in the first place about 100 years ago) and design before we zone. Codifying a policy before we have an accurate vision of what it will result in is backward, but this is exactly what we do. A great deal of experience and research tells us that neighborhoods which are developed based on design, and not code, encourage more physical activity. So, Policy #1: Design before we zone.

Second, we should look seriously at how our land use and transportation policies can be better coordinated to provide for more options for people to get around. Currently, most cities and regions set land-use policies based on computer models that can only interpret automobile impacts. After land-use and road designs are set, then alternative forms of transportation are considered. This is the biggest reason why transit systems are ineffective and inefficient in most cities in which they operate. When an automobile-based environment is built, it is very difficult to go back and retrofit it with features that encourage transit use, walking, or biking. Most cities are unwilling to make the necessary changes, and for good reason: most of them would need to change so drastically that it would hardly be feasible. The solution lies in either laying a comprehensive transportation network first and building the city around it (which takes an up-front commitment that most cities are unwilling to make), or design land-use and transportation in tandem. While this is inherently more complicated than doing one before the other, its results would be much more equitable for all forms of transportation, including walking and biking. Marrying land-use to transportation policy 60 years ago would have made sloppy suburban development virtually unheard-of. Policy #2: Plan for land-use and transportation simultaneously and co-dependently.

Third, there is too much inconsistency and inefficiency in the divisions and collaborations between neighboring municipalities. This can be seen on the west side of Bethlehem where the city ends and Allentown begins. West Broad is a great mixed-use street with residences and local businesses; but as it crosses Pennsylvania Avenue into Allentown, it becomes predominantly commercial, which serves to bring in more traffic into the Bethlehem area than would otherwise occur. This has the effect of suburbanizing a perfectly good walkable urban neighborhood. Problems of this nature can be rectified through the authority of a strong regional planning body that can coordinate land-uses in areas in which one municipality transitions into another. Policy #3: Give strength to regional planning organizations.

Once the first three policies are in place, we can begin to look at laws that focus on public health initiatives, commercial disincentives for offering unhealthy foods, and consumer protection from those foods. Our fourth policy would actually be a set of policies that mandate the use of social marketing principles in every community to increase physical activity behaviors as a form of disease prevention. Social marketing is a well-established set of business and psychology strategies that seek to discover a population’s specific barriers to performing certain behaviors as well as discern the benefits that people experience from those behaviors. The goal of the research is to inform how best to implement an intervention that will break down those barriers while increasing the perceptions of the benefits. For example, a public health official might find through administering surveys to a random sample of city residents that the largest barrier to engaging in regular moderate exercise is that people are self-conscious about being seen exercising alone. Similarly, it is found that the benefit to exercising most identified by the same residents was the sense of accomplishment that is obtained. In order to address these two issues, the health official might decide to institute city-sponsored exercise clubs that double as support groups. These groups would allow residents to identify neighbors that enjoyed similar physical activities so that people could connect with the purpose of exercising in groups and encouraging each other to reach set goals. A set of policies that mandate city-specific interventions would go a long way in encouraging people to exercise more, thereby preventing obesity-related illnesses. Policy set #4: Obesity prevention through city-level social marketing strategies.

Fifth, while I would personally like government to ban certain foods outright, I know that this is not a popular or realistic solution. As an alternative (and probably more effective) solution, the federal government needs to create an incentive program for food producers, distributors, and restaurants. To begin with, food producers and distributors need to be rewarded with tax breaks and subsidies for meeting very stringent nutritional levels and punished with higher taxes for foods that have little nutrition or that are unnecessarily high in fat, sodium, or sugars. I’m not a nutritionist, so I can’t give specifics on how incentives could be tied to calories, fat, sodium, or sugar (mostly high fructose corn syrup) levels, but I don’t have to be a food expert to know that overkill on any one of those things should be discouraged and moderation rewarded. The two-headed goal would be to discourage unhealthy food while making it more expensive than good quality food (which is exactly opposite of how it is currently). Next, grocery stores should be encouraged to open in under-served areas (called “food deserts”) where low-income people often lack adequate access to high quality nutritious food. Tax incentives could be tied to the number of blocks away from under-served areas that the store locates. To top off this set of policies, portion sizes and calorie levels at restaurants should be incentivized to encourage healthier dining. As I discussed in a previous post, we are notoriously poor at recognizing how portion sizes impact our eating habits, and restaurants have taken advantage of this. In the case of restaurants, tax incentives need to be applied to an average of the establishment’s calories per order, which would be publicly displayed at each restaurant. Policy set #5: Encourage the production and sale of healthy foods and portions.

Finally, since we can only disincentivize and not eliminate unhealthy food environments, policies are needed to better protect consumers. Consumers should have the right to know what exactly it is that they are consuming (in the case of most soft drinks, 99% high fructose corn syrup… in case you didn’t know), where the food is coming from (the local farm or an industrial feed lot?), what unnatural chemicals or antibiotics were used to grow the food or to keep it from dying (please read Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma”), exactly how many calories are in the meal (taking portion size into account) set in front of them, and how many miles the average person would need to walk or run to work off those calories. Consumer rights should unequivocally be placed above industry rights, and consumers should not be afraid or feel powerless to raise hell when something isn’t right. If it isn’t the job of the government to protect its people, then what is? Policy set #6: Protect the consumer over industry.

This has, by far, been the longest post yet (and probably the longest I will ever do), and I won’t apologize for it, because I think this subject is extremely important (and this post the most important of the obesity series). If any of you have suggestions for further policies, concerns with the policies I’ve mentioned, or want to debate me as to whether I’m making too big a deal over this issue, I welcome any of your comments.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

School Design Gets a Big Fat "F"

Perhaps the fastest growing portion of the obese population is school-aged children. Children as young as six are now struggling with obesity and other associated health problems, and research from past generations have shown that obese children are likely to become obese adults. There are many reasons why child obesity rates have grown greatly over the past 40 years. One reason is our food, which I have thoroughly discussed in a previous post. Another involves what children choose (or are allowed) to do for leisure time. Television is the big culprit, but is being quickly overtaken by computer games and the internet. Children used to spend a good proportion of their free time outside, running around, exploring, and playing games. Perhaps the biggest reason why children are playing outside less and less these days is because there is very little nature left in our cities to pique their interest. And the second most important reason why children now spend their free time in-doors is because parents fear for their safety. Richard Louv discusses both of these concepts in his book, “Last Child In The Woods.” Louv argues that ball fields and grassy areas are not as fascinating or beneficial for children as untouched natural areas, such as forests and creeks. Many of today’s parents grew up exploring their country-sides, swinging in trees, and swimming in local lakes. Today, however, many of these activities would apparently be unthinkable for parents to permit. Children wandering through the woods alone is a seen as a recipe for disaster, playing in trees could be an accident waiting to happen, rivers and lakes are heavily polluted and dangerous (this one is actually a valid concern and should spur political action among parents in support of local environmental standards), and predators could constantly be lurking in the bushes. Louv addresses these fears as well. He presents evidence that, while we are bombarded daily with reports and images of violent crime, including child abductions and the like, rates of these crimes have not changed since the 1950s. We simply have more access to these stories, and the media does what it can to sensationalize as much as possible. But again, perception is everything.

I believe that one of the most important culprits of childhood obesity is school design. Remember when schools were built within neighborhoods? These were schools that were placed within a 10 to 15 minute walk from most of the students that they served. The entrances of those schools avoided busy streets, were designed to be accessible from the neighborhood sidewalks, and parking lots were pushed to the back, kept small in the front, or placed on another plot of land altogether. There was actually need for schools to hire crossing guards because students could walk to school. There are still many great neighborhood schools in Bethlehem and downtown Salt Lake City, and I even attended one in West Phoenix, of all places. But most of these schools were built many years ago and their attendance boundaries were purposely limited. They don’t build them like that anymore! Now, most neighborhoods are planned without thought of integrating a school, and when a suburban neighborhood begins to grow to the point that a new school is warranted, districts try to get as much land for their money by purchasing large plots of land (usually farmland) in the middle of nowhere. These schools are planned to be many times larger than neighborhood schools, they are placed in the middle or to the very back of their monstrous properties, and the size of their parking lots are, frankly, ridiculous. Most are built a great distance from where a good portion of their students live; thus, they are likely to be located along busy major arterial roads. In some extremely suburban (pretty much rural) areas, there is no sidewalk access for the few students who would walk.

Because of poor planning and short-sighted school financial decisions, the number of children walking to school today is a mere fraction of what it was 40, 30, or even 20 years ago. The way these schools are designed, it is physically impossible for children to walk there. Sometimes it is impossible (or at least improbable, and mostly unsafe because of heavy traffic) for children to bike these routes. Students must either be driven by parents or a bus driver. But even bus transportation becomes improbable for these kids. In some areas, buses have to serve areas that are so spread out that some kids must catch the bus at 6:30 a.m. or earlier.

There have been some attempts to solve issues of safety in areas where walking to school is possible. These programs, such as Safe Routes to School and Walking School Bus, take a “safety in numbers” approach that, if you are worried about the safety of your child, is a good solution. But these programs are not feasible in areas where walking isn’t possible in the first place. We will never make any real progress on childhood obesity until we begin creating real neighborhoods (that includes schools, corner stores, offices, and restaurants) again. We can start by using current middle-of-nowhere school grounds as in-fill projects, creating completely new and traditional neighborhoods around them.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Oil, Technology, and Obesity

Conventional wisdom tells us that skyrocketing gas prices would mostly be a bad thing for America. Leisure travel would be severely restricted, food prices would also soar (since oil is intricately linked with our industrial food system, a topic for another post), jobs would be lost, and many businesses would die out. There’s no question that $20 per gallon gasoline would be catastrophic to our current way of life, but Christopher Steiner, author of “$20 Per Gallon,” believes that this catastrophe is necessary, inevitable, and will actually make us happier and healthier. Now, for a disclaimer: I haven’t actually read the book yet. I’ve read several articles on the book, all of them favorable, but I am not comfortable making claims about what the author is trying to say. However, I would like to take Steiner’s interesting premise and pretend as though I had thought of it first. The following is my reaction to the concept of $20 per gallon.

First of all, major increases in the price of oil are bound to happen. Peak oil is a concept that refers to the point at which oil production has reached its maximum and can only decline from then on. The United States reached its own peak in the 1970s, and production has decreased at about 2% per year ever since. Now, for the first time on record, oil production in oil-rich countries has begun to decline. OPEC nations are having to work harder to produce less oil. In the short-term, this means they will pass on the costs by marking up the price of oil. In the long-term, as oil wells continue to deplete, market forces will put crude prices on a severe up-swing. Analysts have been saying that we could be looking at $6.00 per gallon very soon!

It is my hope that the following will be the storyline of how America will respond. First, most Americans will realize the implications of these changes and welcome the high prices. Higher oil prices increase the ability for alternative energy products to compete. Pickens may return to his famous plan once again (it’s my hope that the feds, who are not so worried about making a profit, will actually come up with their own plan)! Exorbitant food prices at chain grocery stores will begin to push consumers to their local markets and gardens for fresher, more nutritious, less chemically-sprayed and well-traveled food. City planners, engineers, and developers will realize the true market potential for compact, mixed-use, walkable, and transit-oriented cities. The outer suburbs will slowly waste away. Disproportionate funding for roads and highways will stop, and an influx of former road funds will be thrown into local and regional (and eventually national) public transportation projects. People will begin walking again to obtain their basic needs. People will begin to work the land again, which is truly a great form of exercise. Our collective weight will decrease, which will have an extremely positive effect on our health costs. Finally, and most importantly, veteran pedestrians, such as myself, will be looked to with reverence and given book deals.

Of course, all of this is pie-in-the-sky stuff, and while I hope it happens exactly the way I predict (for somewhat selfish reasons, as the last part of the paragraph alludes to), it is so unlikely that I’m willing to bet on it. Steiner makes a claim that for every dollar per gallon rise in the price of gasoline, obesity will fall 10%. I think he’s right, but to a point. At the $6 level, obesity will decrease quite dramatically, but any higher and alternative fuel vehicles will begin popping up all over the place, which will be the quick death of the re-urbanization movement. The people that can afford to will move back out of the cities. The suburbs will be revived, and the cities will begin to decline again. While the environment will be significantly better than it is now, our health will begin to suffer once more. Finally, we may come full-circle when demand for oil gets so low that oil producers begin to practically give it away at prices cheaper than the alternatives. And, although alternatives would likely never go away, there would always be something to fuel our insatiable appetites for personal vehicles.

As far as obesity goes, as long as we continue our love affair with cars, alternative or not, we will keep getting fatter. Our cities will keep spreading out further and further, especially when the environmental costs are reduced. We’ll develop pedestrian motorized vehicles (we’re already seeing cops using them) that are accessible to almost everyone so that we no longer have to feel the inconvenience of walking or taking public transit ever again. Worst of all, alternative fuels will allow us to segregate our places of residence from our offices and markets to such an extent that those who will still want to walk will not be able to do so. We'll be locked in!

In summary, $20 per gallon will never happen, because we are just waiting until the very last instant in which it will no longer make financial sense to withhold alternative investment. And obesity rates will continue to climb as long as we rely on technology to make our lives “better.” Does this mean that I am for abolishing cars? No, I think there needs to be a middle ground where unnecessary car use is frowned upon and even marginalized and other, more active, forms of transporation are accommodated and encouraged; but if I were in-charge and had a choice of no cars or the scenario I laid out above, for the sake of us all, I would gladly do away with them altogether.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Fast Food's Double-Edged Sword

Since my “biggest fan” (aka, my mom) brought it up, I might as well go with it. There are two basic ways in which fast food restaurants have significantly contributed to not only the loosening of Americans’ belts but also to the ballooning of societies all over the world. The first is the most obvious: extraordinarily fatty (not to mention high in sodium) foods. This is what happens when you try to mass-produce large quantities of food in the shortest possible amount of time at the cheapest cost imaginable. Here’s how it works: In its basic form, fast food is nothing but a bland imposter of “slow” food; so, to get people to eat it, producers must add incredible amounts of fat and salt. Unfortunately for us, those are two very irresistible flavors to most humans. And it doesn’t hurt (from a fast food restaurant’s point of view) that we don’t really expect to get good, much less decent, quality food from a place where a hamburger costs a buck and is handed to us a few seconds after paying. We are okay with mediocrity, and it has been slowing killing us for years.

On top of the unhealthy food, the portion sizes have spiraled out of control (and this goes for “slow” food restaurants as well). There have been several high-profile books and films in the not too distant past (“Fast Food Nation;” “Supersize Me”) that have attested to the fact that what we now know as the small drink and small fries are actually larger than the original larges of each. We don’t really pay much more for them, but we get a ridiculous 30-some-odd percent more calories. This is all due to the joining of a trick of modern economics with basic human psychology. Products can be offered for almost free, and yet the companies that offer those products can make significantly more cash. Even when McDonalds is offering 30% more calories for $0.25 more, it is now so cheap to mass produce those calories that they are gaining a $0.245 extra profit. Why do we allow them to do this?

Brian Wansink, a Cornell food researcher, thinks it is because, when it comes to food, we have no clue when we are being duped. He conducted several experiments (including one where he rigged up a soup bowl to refill slowly from its bottom) to test how well people were aware of how much they ate. He found that participants ate more when they dined from larger dishware, and participants were prone to eating all of the food in front of them (even if it was being refilled without their knowledge). The most amazing part of his research is that when participants were told that they had eaten 400 more calories than the person across from them (the control), the participants emphatically denied it. Even when shown the rigged soup bowl, they still denied it. Fast food and other restaurants make gobs of money off of our denial (which they have known about for years); meanwhile, our health is paying for it.

The second way that fast food is making us fat is the way in which most of these restaurants are designed. Think about it… what is the most stereotypical feature of a fast food restaurant (hint: this is how most frequenters receive their food)? Drive-through windows are as much a part of American culture as the food that is served through them. They are meant to serve as a convenience to encourage people to drive to the restaurant; and this is exactly what people do. I don’t really blame these people, because there is absolutely nothing to encourage pedestrians to walk there. Walking across a busy fast food parking lot and competing with cars is uncomfortable at best. If you are in a hurry and want to go through the drive-through on foot (or even on bike), you will most likely be denied food. It is one more way in which suburbia has diminished the importance of all forms of transportation other than automobiles.

I have less of a problem with fast food joints that are located in downtown mixed-use buildings or high rises. There are no drive-through windows. A good portion of customers actually expel some calories before and after eating the food. They are still guilty of “calorie gouging” (my term), but it is a much less problematic situation when cars are taken out of the equation. I’ll write about this tomorrow when I discuss Christopher Steiner’s new book, “$20 Per Gallon.” Until then, “slow” it down, be conscious of what and how much you are eating, and, for heaven’s sake, have some standards!

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Tipping the Scales Toward Pedestrian Designs

The field of urban planning has recently latched on to research that has linked a geographical area’s growth pattern to its inhabitant’s body-mass index. In other words, a city with 200,000 residents that has a very low population and housing density and full of standard suburban features (cul-de-sacs, arterial streets, buildings set far back in the middle of their properties with large parking lots, etc.) will have larger people than a city of the same size that is more dense and urban in nature. Research has shown this to be true both at a regional level (counties, metropolitan areas, large cities) and the local level (small cities, towns, neighborhoods). The concepts behind these findings have to do with how accessible goods and services are to pedestrians. If people are not able to walk (the American Medical Association recommends walking as a healthy activity that almost everyone can do) to accomplish any of their daily activities, they are less likely to walk at all and, thus, are more likely to gain weight. There are, obviously, other factors that contribute to our 66% overweight and obesity rate (overeating, excessive availability of calorie-dense foods, perceived safety, etc), but this is a very important and often overlooked factor.

American culture views losing weight in a very peculiar way. We know that it involves both what we consume and how much energy we expend, but we are constantly searching for ways to do it by only changing one of those factors: I’m mostly talking about food. Have you seen the commercials promoting the “miracle” diet pills that require no exercise to lose a ridiculous amount of weight in an even more ridiculous amount of time? Of course, if it sounds too good to be true… But we love the idea that we could possibly do no work but reap all of the benefits as if we did. The diet pills might succeed in sapping bodies of excess water weight and other fluids (and thus necessary nutrients), but this is extremely unhealthy. Others will try to lose weight by simply trying to cut their calorie intake in half, but their bodies – those things they are trying to exert their mastery over – will ultimately betray them by holding on to as many of those drastically reduced calories as it possibly can, as a body does during famine. You cannot lose weight in a healthy way by simply changing your food behaviors. You must couple a healthy change in eating with an increase in physical activity.

Many people have finally relented to this truth and are beginning to listen to public health officials (who have been saying this all along) when they give new ideas for becoming more active. The biggest problem with this, however, is that most of these appeals for increased physical activity fail because of one fundamental problem: the majority of our built environments are not designed for sustained physical activity. Sure, many suburban neighborhoods are quiet (thus exceedingly safe for pedestrian activities) and have access to parks or greenways, but there is little incentive and no good practical reason for anyone living in these areas to actually get out and walk. If I find that I need a couple of eggs and a grocery store is within a ten minute walk, and I don’t have to wade through a sea of cars in the parking lot to get to the store, I have a practical reason and significant incentive (no need to use expensive gas, and even get some moderate exercise out of it) to huff it by foot. If, however, the store and other destinations are only reasonably accessible by car, then a large set of walking incentives are not available to me.

I am especially attuned to this concept right now because I have no choice but to walk. While Bethlehem is mostly a great place for someone without a car (my barber and bank are right down the street in areas where I don’t have to compete with drivers), there are some frustrations. The only grocery store near me is a 15 to 20 minute walk away, and once I get there, I have to walk across a 5 acre parking lot. In fact, I should be going to get groceries right now, but I’m procrastinating because of its massive inconvenience. I have absolutely no access to a post office. If things are this difficult for an uber-pedestrian such as myself, imagine what it would be like for someone who is more normal who has lost access to a car.

My point being: if local, state, and federal governments are really serious about addressing obesity, they will have to begin by providing physical incentives for people to get outside in the form of making amenities and necessities convenient to get to without motorized vehicles. This can occur through smart land-use policies that provide more of a balance in home, work places, and marketplaces. No more of this separation between homes and destinations. Another strategy that must occur is the redesign of our building positions on their lots. This is as simple as switching the positions of buildings with their parking lots so that the building fronts the street and the parking is accessed from the back. This is a good way to encourage both drivers and pedestrians to frequent the store. These solutions (there are many others) are currently illegal in most areas of the country, but I can’t think of a conceivably good reason for that.

If you are concerned about how the growth patterns of your community, city, or region are contributing to obesity and its resulting serious health problems (heart disease, hypertension, type II diabetes and other such diseases that are driving the largest portion of our skyrocketing medical costs), go to your elected council meetings and make your views known. If they dismiss you as a radical, find other “radicals” in your area, organize a group, find a sympathetic community leader, and make it difficult for them not to listen.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Southside Bethlehem

While waiting after work in Southside Bethlehem for the bus to come, and while looking out the window as the bus drives through the Southside, I often notice that I am the only white person around. This is interesting to me because there are white people that live and work in the Southside, but they are simply nowhere to be found. On the other hand, people of African or Hispanic or Native American or Middle Eastern origins are all around town, walking along the sidewalks, entering and exiting local businesses, gathering in small groups of neighbors to talk about the day’s events.

I begin to wonder if the white residents and workers of the Southside have purposely retreated into their own private worlds. This would be consistent with what has happened in other areas. White people tend to feel threatened and unsafe in areas of high concentrations of minorities… especially low-income minorities. Therefore, whites often abandon these areas for “safer” areas. I know I’m guilty of this. I am always a little nervous while waiting for the bus on the Southside, and I still have a fear of walking too far up and down 4th Street. Of course, anyone who has spent any time walking around the Southside knows that this fear is ridiculous. Everyone that I have come into contact with on the Southside is very friendly, which catches me off-guard a little bit. Why is that? Why do I have to assume that someone with a darker skin color than mine in a low-income neighborhood is out to get me? Logically, and from experience, I know this is not true, and it is especially not true in the lively and community-centered Southside. But I still feel threatened. Maybe it’s my own arrogance that makes me think that I am special enough for some stranger, even a menacing one, to take notice of. Maybe it is a reaction that I learned as a child. Maybe it’s a natural reaction, as some claim. Or maybe it is a consequence of the negative sensationalist leanings of our media (cliche, but true when you think about it). I’m really not sure which one it is, but it creates a unique and difficult to solve problem when it comes to walkability.

An area’s walkability is determined primarily by its amenities geared toward pedestrians. A neighborhood that contains finely-gridded, narrow streets with a variety of different kinds of destinations (shops, civic areas, parks, etc.) is much more walkable than one with wide streets that invariably end in cul-de-sacs and only contains an endless array of cookie-cutter houses. In other words, areas that are built to accommodate modes other than car-travel and that have interesting things to see are more walkable than areas that do not. But there is another side to walkability, and it is probably more obvious than what I’ve just described. A neighborhood can have very narrow, interconnected streets with wide sidewalks and a slew of very interesting places to visit, yet it could also be extremely unwalkable. Why? Because that neighborhood is unsafe (think central Allentown) or is perceived to be unsafe (such as some think of the Southside of Bethlehem). Safety is the key, and, unfortunately for the Southside, perception is everything. But the situation is more complicated with the Southside. Here’s why: white people don’t feel safe, so they don’t walk there but, instead, stay confined within the safety bubbles of their houses and cars (or university campus); people of color, on the other hand, feel completely safe and apparently feel no need to spend their free time anywhere but outdoors. This is the sign of a strong, vibrant, and sustainable community that the white residents, unfortunately, have (or want to have) little or no part in. This, however, is not an unusual occurrence. For those of you Salt Laker’s, this same dynamic is taking place on the west side in neighborhoods such as Rose Park (you know, the place often referred to as the “ghetto;” try walking its streets sometime, and you’ll be amazed!) where the neighbors of color are out and about being neighborly and the white folks have fenced off their yards. This is the future of American community, folks, and white people are largely missing out!

I won’t even pretend to know how to rectify this situation. It might be that the best thing to do is nothing, allowing white Southside residents to eventually see that their community is changing for the better without them. And it is changing for the better. The Southside seemingly gets a new locally-owned and operated business every week, and those businesses have, for the most part, been sustainable (compare that to just about anywhere else in the country right now!). The Southside also is having tens of thousands of dollars per year invested in building façade and weatherization (and other energy efficiency) improvements. And perhaps most importantly, a major bank (or any bank, for that matter) has finally committed to opening a branch on the Southside (translate: the powers that be think the Southside is worth investing in again).

I don’t mean to make this a racial issue, but what else can it be? And while most racial segregation issues (whether intended or not) have seemingly benefited the white community in the past, this is one instance in which they (or we, since I’m white) are, decidedly, at a disadvantage.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

A Bus-rider's Manifesto... or Rantings from a Moderate

Riding the bus in the morning is pretty relaxing for me. Once I get on and swipe my card, my responsibility for navigating myself through the world suddenly diminishes for about 20 minutes. It’s almost like entering a time warp where life is suddenly put on hold. Since the last time I got off the bus, I was responsible for: walking home without getting hit by a car or running into other pedestrians; getting the mail; making my own dinner; doing some exercises; keeping myself somewhat busy and entertained; going to bed at a decent hour; falling asleep; waking up when my alarm goes off; taking a shower; making and eating breakfast; making myself look presentable; being sure the door is locked when I leave home; walking to the bus without getting hit by a car or running into other pedestrians; and getting on the correct bus. Of course, we don’t always notice that we are constantly responsible for these mundane tasks, and suggesting that many of these things are worth taking note of is utterly ridiculous (at least for normally functioning people); but the truth of the matter is that, for most of our lives, when it comes to the actions that we take, the responsibility-buck stops with us as individuals (how’s that for a conservative political statement!).

Yet, when I step onto the correct bus and swipe my fare card, I begin to partake in 20 minutes of absolutely no responsibility for my whereabouts. Until I again have to take responsibility for myself by pulling the stop cord at the right time, I am completely at the whim of the bus driver. The driver could veer totally off course and end up driving across the U.S./Canadian border, and I would have no control over the matter. I become completely dependent on another person. As scary as this sounds (and it is scary when you step onto a bus and put your trust in the driver for the first time), it is strangely liberating to willingly give up control over that portion of my life. We tend to think that we have attained the epitome of freedom when we first strike out on our own, or when we get in the car and take responsibility for getting ourselves somewhere, but maybe it is just an illusion. Maybe being reliant on others, something not so highly thought of in our culture, is the real ticket to freedom (there’s the liberal in me!).

I don’t think many other people have come to this epiphany, however. I have come to this conclusion because of the noticeably miniscule numbers of transit riders in Bethlehem and around the country. The numbers in Bethlehem are around 2% (an estimate that is very much rounded up), while ridership around the nation is somewhere between 3% and 4%. Amazingly, these are actually stark increases from a few years ago after gas prices spiked. Ridership, however, is still so low that many people who are anti-public transit have pointed out that most transit systems (in fact, according to some, all but San Francisco’s BART) are less energy efficient and emit more pollution per person than private automobiles do. The sad truth is that they are correct in most cases.

But it’s hard to blame the pro-transit lobby for this. What most people don’t realize is the unbelievable (believe it!) amount of money that the government spends each year to encourage automobile use. The latest estimates – which include subsidies to oil companies and car manufacturers, tax deductions to car owners, construction of new roads in newly expanded suburban areas, tax breaks for buyers of newly-constructed homes (which are only able to be built in new, outlying suburban areas), costs of environmental destruction, and lost savings by intentionally pricing foreign alternatives (such as the amazingly cheep and clean Brazilian sugar cane ethanol) out of the market – put annual government subsidization of automobile infrastructure at almost $500 Billion! If you think the Recovery Act was wasteful and unnecessary, you may want to begin thinking seriously about how your car is also part of America’s bottomless borrowing pit. I’ll say it again: $500 Billion per year! And the worst part of all of this is that even with all of this money flowing into our transportation infrastructure every year, we are still a couple of trillion dollars behind on our infrastructure up-keep. That is how inefficient our 1.3 car per capita system is!

As opposed to the $500 billion car fund, how much does transit get? Let’s just put it this way: even with our new pro-transit administration, stimulus funding only allocates about $9 billion (of the almost $800 billion) toward public transportation projects. You might say, “Well, of course! Why should we provide any more funding for a system that only serves about 3% of us?” This becomes a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Does transit struggle because of lack of funding, or is funding withheld because of low transit ridership? The answer, right now, is both, and until we break the cycle and start funding it (and stop unfairly pitting in against a favored automobile industry), it will never become efficient and convenient enough for people to want to ride. And I feel sad about that, because I want others to experience the same liberating dependency that I feel every time I sit in those cramped, bucket seats. I want my bus to be packed and overflowing. Mostly, I just want transit to be given a fair shot and to give people more of a choice in transportation (there’s that conservative in me again!).

Tell me what you think. Should we allow transit to compete?

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Comments lost in cyberspace...

It has come to my attention that comments have been left but are not showing up on the page. I am not sure if there is something wrong with the page or if the commentors did something wrong. So, here's what I want you to do. First, please leave a comment on this posting... it doesn't have to be anything insightful, just say "here." Then, read the following posting, as that is the real post for today. Lastly, comment on that one and tell me what you are thinking. It's as simple as 1-2-3. Go!

Community Reinvestment Act and the Mortgage Crisis

On my way to work, and again on my way back home everyday, I pass through the south side of Bethlehem, an area that has been ravaged over the years with massive disinvestment that is just now beginning to come back. Part of the reason that this area is beginning to bounce back has to do with local enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act. For those of you that are not up on your 1970’s community development policy, CRA was created during the Carter administration with the purpose of putting pressure on banks to invest a good portion of their deposits in the form of loans to the communities in which their branches exist. CRA was also meant to take further action on banking practices of “red lining,” in which areas of cities were literally marked off with red marker to advise lenders not to disperse credit to those areas. This redlining was essentially what happened to South Bethlehem, a community composed of mostly minority citizens. It wasn’t until various community organizations began to act as holistic financial institutions that things took a turn for the better. These nonprofits used private and public grant funds to begin loaning money to local entrepreneurs and homeowners to start businesses, buy homes, and make building façade improvements, while at the same time providing comprehensive financial education, expert support, and other such services that make it extremely difficult for the borrowers to fail. Not only has this strategy helped the community invest in itself, but it has spurred demand for outside investments, such as the new Sands casino. I can’t help but think that banks who have a history of redlining missed out on a great amount of future capital.

CRA has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, with many people calling for its repeal based on the belief that it led to our mortgage meltdown. The argument goes like this: CRA forced banks into an abundance of sub-prime loans, which were unsustainable for the new homeowners once the fine-printed rate increases came due. I don’t think that CRA, at least the way it is currently structured, is faultless in this whole matter, but I can’t put much stock in this argument. CRA forced banks into ridiculous loan practices? No more than banks forced sub-prime mortgages on prospective homeowners. The fact is, there was no force involved with any party. CRA was encouraging sub-prime loans without actually placing any enforcement on the way in which those loans were structured or distributed. Originally, because housing values kept increasing (to the point where some people actually began to believe that they would keep increasing forever), banks were making gobs and gobs of money off of these unconventional loans. They could hand out a high rate, variable loan, or an ARM that would balloon in the near future, and fully expect that the recipient would soon come back and either refinance or take out a home equity loan, further making money for the bank. Homeowners also had little reason to second guess the system, because everyone seemed to be benefiting from it. I could stop throwing away my money on rent and start paying a mortgage, without any money down, and start building equity. And since I assumed that my home value would keep increasing, I could take a loan backed by that equity to improve my quality of life. This was a system that seemed to benefit everyone. Then, of course, everything crashed and it was all exposed as a sham.

Many would say that CRA should be the one with the most blame here because it is at the top of the process; however, I have a hard time giving it too much blame. Again, the law isn’t perfect, and it is in the process of being improved considerably, but I believe the blame lies mostly on the banks, and somewhat less on homebuyers. I could make the greed argument against the banks, and it would be true, but it is so overdone that it has little effect anymore. My argument is that the banks were focusing too much on their short-term investments that they completely ignored the fact that they could make so much more in the long run (by averting a housing bubble) by taking the kind of holistic approach in more credit-risky neighborhoods that the South Bethlehem nonprofits have taken. Instead of making it a point to deceive homebuyers in order to potentially make a lot more later, why not work with the homebuyers to help them succeed, which would in turn lead to more wealth creation in the area. I fault the homebuyers to a lesser extent because of the deception practices of the banks, but I still do fault them. Many were innocent victims, but some were just plain stupid. It’s one thing to be duped into a bad mortgage, but it’s quite another to deplete their equity. The “American Dream” came back to bight many of them in the ass. But as far as the CRA is concerned, I place the least amount of blame on the intent of the law itself because increasing investment in neighborhoods that need it and eliminating redlining is simply the right thing to do. Forget about profits; forget about the “virtues of the free market.” There are some things that are more important than money, and this is one of them.

Now, if only the law could make sure that the right investments are made… but that’s a subject for another post. Anyone want to refute me? I welcome your comments.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Honk if you agree with me

My days begin by leaving my apartment and walking ¾ of a mile to a bus stop, where I take the F bus to the south side of Bethlehem to work. As you can imagine, I end my work day the same exact way, only in reverse. So far, this has worked out fairly well. The weather has been mostly perfect… according to locals, a little too perfect. Apparently, this is a very unusual summer weather-wise. It rained all through June, and it has rained at least a couple times per week in July, which has kept the humidity to a minimum. It has also kept things fairly cool, which I have appreciated greatly while trying to not turn on my air conditioner. It hasn’t been all perfect, however. The beginning of last week was hotter and stickier than I had yet experienced. Then on Friday, torrential rains began to fall halfway through my bus ride home, and I had to partially walk home in it. My umbrella was somewhat helpful, but it is still uncomfortable walking around in wet dress clothes.

Overall, the weather has treated me well, but it’s the drivers that I have a little bit of a beef with. One day last week while I was walking home, someone drove by honking their horn. I know this person was honking at me because I was the only visible person in the area. This seems pretty innocuous, but I have some prior experience with this and know better. My ego would like to imagine that whomever it was thought I was so good looking that some noise had to be made, but I know this isn’t it because they only saw me from behind (not my best feature). No, this car honked at me simply because I was an easy target. If you are prone to getting your kicks from trying to embarrass other people, there is no easier way to do this than to drive by a pedestrian that is walking where no one else is and honk obnoxiously. I made an even easier target than normal because I was dressed up and carrying my bag on my shoulder. This didn’t bother me much, but it got me thinking about the psychology of drivers.

There have been several sociological studies done that have suggested that people become somewhat insensitive to normal human conduct and morally-blind, even sociopathic, while in the driver seat. Now, I’m a pedestrian at heart, and I’m pretty laid-back, but even I have experienced this while driving; and I’m sure you have too. Think about how you react when someone cuts you off. Yes, there’s somewhat of a life-threatening aspect to this in its extreme, but most of the time there is little risk of harm. It is just dang annoying! The natural reaction is to throw your hands up in a “What are you doing!?” motion, and hurl some choice words, if not choice fingers. But think about how your reactions are different if someone cuts in front of you in a crowd or in line at Starbucks. You are likely to be less aggressive, because you are in the physical presence of other human beings, which, even if you are enraged, causes you to control and sensor yourself. Some claim that this difference is simply a power trip that comes with operating such a powerful piece of machinery, but I think it has more to do with the fact that life seems to takes on a completely different form when viewed through the windshield of a moving vehicle. It is tough to establish any kind of emotional or psychological connection with another person when you are in a vehicle and he or she is not, which inevitably causes drivers to see pedestrians, and animals for that matter (“dogs are worth 50 points!”), less as living beings and more as objects that are potentially slowing you down. This is even more the case when considering how drivers conceptualize other drivers. Although this is not the root cause of road rage (that’s a deeper, individual psychological problem), it is the trigger! I am not saying I know for sure that the driver that honked at me saw me as less than human, but the situation sure made it easy for the driver to do something that would be, in almost any other circumstance, socially unacceptable.

What do you think? Tell me your stories.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Bethlehem By Foot

As a student of urban design and planning policies, I find myself constantly analyzing the streetscapes of the environments in which I spend my life. My eyes have been trained to notice some of the subtle details that the average person simply passes by and takes for granted. For example, rounded curb corners are prevalent in suburban areas, because those areas have chosen to make automotive travel as easy as possible (in this case, to minimize the need for an automobile to slow down while turning a corner). While this design may save a little bit of gas by utilizing momentum instead of requiring the vehicle to accelerate from a stand-still, rounded corners are a nightmare for pedestrians, because drivers have learned that they do not have to slow down much at all to make those turns, thus they are less likely to notice the pedestrian trying to cross the street. Indeed, these areas as they are designed are not meant for pedestrians, whether a crosswalk exists there or not.

My life has recently changed somewhat drastically. After graduating with a Master's degree from the University of Utah and searching endlessly for employment, I finally achieved what almost 12% of American college graduates right now have not: I got a job... in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania! Although the job doesn't pay what I know I'm worth, and I'm not doing what I really want to be doing, I am employed. And thank God for that! But I am also suddenly alone. My wife of three years will remain in Salt Lake City to finish her graduate program until December, when she will drive across country to her new home. For the purposes of this blog, the key concept in the previous sentence is this: she has our only car. Now, I'm sure that we could afford to buy a second car, even on the pitiful wages that I am making, but considering that we already spend almost $400 per month (including payment, insurance, gas, and up-keep) on the one car, it would be great if we could save $4,000 to $5,000 per year (and unknown amounts of carbon and soot pollutants) by not investing in another vehicle.

So, this leaves us with the current situation: I am in a brand new city by myself for 6 months, 2,000 miles away from the only vehicle I own. Luckily, Bethlehem is a very old city; therefore, it was built before automobiles dominated. In the downtown and the older neighborhoods, the streets are generally narrow (which serves to slow traffic), the buildings front the street (which gives pedestrians a comforting sense of partial enclosure), cars are perpetually parked on the sides of the streets (further protecting pedestrians from the already slowed traffic), and all of the areas have been zoned for mixed uses (which, above all else, makes pedestrian travel possible and worth while). I hasn't taken me long to realize that this Christmas City USA (as it is known) has a great deal to teach us about how cities are meant to function. On the other hand, there are also many areas in which Bethlehem can improve.

This blog is meant to call attention to these areas of excellence and those in need of improvement, with the hope that readers without any urban design training, and perhaps those that have never thought about these issues before, will begin to take notice of their own environments and seek for ways of improving them. We live in a society that values democratic participation, especially in local governmental issues. City design should be one of these issues, because, as I will discuss in posts to come, the design of our environments has strong impacts on our behaviors, our physical existence, and even our psyches. I hope that I can convince you of this so that you will try to influence your own local policies for the betterment of your communities. Even more than this, as I have just alluded to, this blog is meant to be a commentary on current design policies, their resulting impacts, and suggestions for new policies that are based on real-world examples and current research. I will do this through multimedia as much as possible, so look for some embedded YouTube videos in the near future.

I don't pretend to know everything, and I'm sure that some of my points will make some readers uncomfortable, and perhaps even anger a few. If I can create any kind of response from my blogging, either positive or negative, then I've done what I have set out to do. I will be sharing my journey of living in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania for six months without a car, and I want you to share with me your own thoughts in return. Please leave comments, insights, questions, talking points, and your own examples of your living environments. This blog is not so much for me to document my unusual life over the next half year, but it is more about sharing my knowledge and experiences with you for your benefit and general enrichment of you and your communities. If you find that I am not doing this effectively, please let me know and suggest how I can do it better.

On that note, let's get on with it!