Cities that breathe free

Lisa Rochon of the Globe & Mail looks forward to Toronto’s first car-free day.

In Copenhagen, 80 per cent of the movement through the city centre is foot
traffic. It took 40 years of systematic removal of vehicular lanes and car
parking to get to this point. During that time, 100,000 square metres once
dominated by traffic have been turned over to 100,000 square metres of
public squares and promenades dedicated to pedestrians.

On Sundays in Tokyo, some of the major shopping districts are closed to
automobile traffic. They’re known as “pedestrian paradises.” Heaps of
bicycles are left unlocked along the sidewalks of major intersections.

These cities are nurturing the mobility culture — people who want to move
with ease through the city. They expect public transportation to be fast,
efficient and elegant. They want to ride their bicycles to work without
fear of amputation by a passing car — they want to walk because it’s part
of a daily pleasure. In 1996, the Copenhagen Declaration was presented at
the Car-Free Cities annual general meeting. Mobility was defined as “an
expression of freedom and an integral part of modern society. Mobility is
part of our culture.”

What kind of city do you belong to — one designed for mobility? Or do you
have a sense of paralysis, like you’ve been spending too many years
sitting in traffic?

Ten million Canadians drive to work alone each workday. But, in this
country, there is a mobility city where people walk and bike to their
downtown destinations about as much as they drive. There are generous bike
lanes and greenways for pedestrians to travel through much of the city.
There are traffic signals that privilege the wish of the pedestrian or the
biker to cross immediately. This is the mobility city called Vancouver.
Since 1994, walking and biking into the downtown — largely because of the
increase of condominiums in the core — has dramatically risen to
represent nearly one-third of all traffic…

There comes a point when the invasion
of cars is so great — on our streets, in our front yards, in parking
lots — that it triggers a collective “Enough already.” Car owners are not
a legally protected class of people. Why should their rights be privileged
over others? Even Americans are starting to reconsider their marriage to
the vehicle.

23 May 2002
22 years today. no longer shockingly young. no updates lately since there’ve been uploading problems at home and work. sorry! will be back next week.

10 May 2002
yay! My name’s becoming less popular! “Payton” was the 167th most popular given name for girls and 256th most popular for boys born in the U.S. in 2001, down from 165/222 last year –
though it’s still ahead of Pablo, Douglas, Lance, Abby, Cynthia, Gracie, and Brooklyn. (Brooklyn?)
Apparently, two degrees separate me from the “Choir Boy” bank robber.

Obesity as social disease

A response posted on Plastic about obesity:

“_especially if you are a short but muscular person_”

Are there really that many of them? I should know, since I prowl bars and street corners and subway trains looking for these guys, but they’re few and far between.

“_The diet and weight loss industry is a 3 Billion dollar a year industry._”

And which of these industrial complexes do you think is larger, wealthier, and more powerful both in Washington and in the nation’s hearts and minds?

*Make money off people gaining weight*: cattle ranchers and corn farmers, fast food and soft drink executives, cardiologists, television programmers, automobile assembly technicians, etc.
*Make money off people losing weight*: dieticians, personal trainers, tofu saleswomen, yoga instructors, bicycle lobbyists, fashionistas, etc.

No contest there.

Sure, this comparison borders on the absurd — but do the food companies make money off people eating unprocessed organic vegetables from farmers markets… or off people eating canned, frozen, pre-cooked, microwaveable Processed Food Product? A more obvious example: the federal agency that administers nutrition programs is the Department of Agriculture (not HHS!), whose primary duty is to promote agriculture. It promotes agriculture by getting us to eat more. Hm.

Big Pharma — do they make money off of healthy people, or sick people? C. Everett Koop claims that 75% of American healthcare expenditures are spent cleaning up lifestyle illnesses. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer — if only people ate better, we could knock a huge hole in Pharma’s budgets.

The infomercial hawkers and their Ab Crunchers — oh, give me a break. Pitting AOL Time Warner, GM, ADM, and Nabisco against… Ronco.

“_However, our lifestyle… gives our society an immense economic advantage_”

And is that necessarily a good thing?

Okay, here’s an example. Our auto-centric transportation system is the costliest in the world — America spends 50-100% more (as a percentage of GDP) on transportation than most of our industrialized peers (about 25% more than Canada and Australia, which have even more vast and empty interiors than the U.S.). One way to look at this is “well, good, spending this money boosts GDP, right, especially in the automotive and construction sectors.” Another way to look at it is that maybe we’re not getting a good value here. Does our transportation system do its job — getting us where we need to go at a reasonable cost? (Cost here is widely defined: personal costs like money, time, and convenience — but also social or environmental costs like safety, health, reliability, sustainability, efficiency, and pollution.) Or does our transportation system fixate on moving A and B to C and D, never mind the costs? And if so, could we find efficiencies in the transportation system — and use what we’ve saved (think macroeconomically here) to invest in other national priorities?

I would argue that America’s auto-centric, though supplemented by airplanes, transportation system is not a good value. Parts of the U.S. and other industrialized nations move goods and people more efficiently using a combination of modes: road, rail, air, water, and foot. Creating a truly multimodal transportation system (through transportation and urban land use policies) wouldn’t just promote good human health, but would also save on many other costs.

(And then, of course, there’s the bigger question: does more money actually make us better off? More money doesn’t make us Americans [since we’re already rich] happier or healthier, it doesn’t necessarily improve life outcomes and expectancies. So why fixate on economic growth?)

Point being: obesity is a disease of affluence, and like all diseases of affluence, it’s a prime example of the economy growing at the expense of health and quality of life. More profits can be made by people overconsuming (and then consuming even more to ameliorate said effects of overconsumption) than by having people consume responsibly in the first place.

I’m not interested in blaming the overweight. I’m equally not interested in blaming the victims of any other social disease (poverty, racism, etc.) — and obesity, to a much larger extent than most are willing to say, is a social disease.

Full disclosure for “fat threads”: I’m about 5-10% below my ideal weight and have no personal interest in “apologizing” for overweight people. I do, however, have a personal interest in improving the lot of tofu saleswomen and bicycle lobbyists.

8 May 2002
depths of corporate numbskullery: corporate anthems that combine tunes on the far side of awful with lyrics plucked from the worst of management self-help books. eeeew. somehow, it
seemed more innocent back in the ’50s.
what will future archaeologists make of SUVs?
when is petty crime not? when it’s in or around Arcata.
“Anti-vacuum cleaner forces took direct action… liberating oppressed auto sweepings from their canister bastilles…”

4 May 2002
new on the site: separate photo album of chicago infill and first sight. plus, new photos in other albums. once I figure out a self-updating TOC system, I’ll put up Post.

23 April 2002
This from TA’s e-bulletin: “Real environmentalists know that the best thing they can do for the Earth is live in a city and take public transit.”

“The belief that glasses are unsexy is a subtle way of saying that brains aren’t sexy… Wit and brains make any woman sexier.” salon.com.

Oh why, oh why, can’t our newspapers be anywhere near this bold?
Recently updated: cafes, leaflets.

19 April 2002
Harold Henderson in the Reader quoted a sentence of mine! It’s from an Issue Brief I wrote for work, though, so MPC got the credit. Just like
when Tom Corfman in the Tribune quoted my (clairvoyant) prediction of subleases and new construction flooding the downtown office market, in an unsigned piece credited to my then-employer. The life of a ghostwriter.