And the worst idea for efficient non-obese citizens?

Yup, you guessed it, it's spending your scarce tax dollars on limo-enabled golden vanity projects like the Stuff it, Tax Payers (STP) bid for the Deeply Boring Tunnel (DBT) replacement for the much more functional (and cheaper) Viaduct.

Best of all would be a tear-down replacement with a surface road, but that would create only 50 percent more local jobs than the DBT, whereas a rebuilt Viaduct would create 100 percent more local jobs for half the price.

Got Fat?
Well, yeah! I grew up in the city, and walked everywhere, school, after-school job, friends' houses, corner store. We only used the car about once a week to go to the big grocery, never had a weight problem, nor did any of my friends. Move to an acreage in Alberta, have to drive *everywhere*...become intimately acquainted with the term "muffin top." Ew.
I weighed 10 lbs less when living in Berlin, a very walkable, bike-rideable, transit friendly and car-unfriendly city. Gained it right back when I moved back to Lake Shitty. So, agreed.

And @1 - wrong thread. BTW, do you have a job?
Cool. So when can we can start blowing up the suburbs?
It's absolutely true and any of us who's lived in L.A. sprawl vs. Seattle density can testify.

I moved back to L.A. 3 years ago. Even in Long Beach which is a little more pedestrian and bike friendly i don't walk everywhere like I did in Seattle and I gained 20 lbs.

I miss Seattle's layout enormously.
Science is starting to make the case that walking is an unexplored key to battling obesity? This level of science is so ridiculous.
This will be the hot topic at Oddfellows all afternoon.
This NPR story is over 7 years old. Just pointing that out.
Um, duh?!
@3: Ditto. I gained around 15 lbs. the first month after I moved from NYC to West Seattle.

It's gone now, along with the other 35, thank g-d.
Most people who live in cities do live in suburbs. City dwellers have nothing to be smug about. Since most people live in cities, cities are the problem.
Regardless of this info, don't city officials and urban planners already have a huge incentive for compact, walkable neighborhoods?

An apartment building brings in a heck of a lot more property taxes than a SFH. More people per acre means more tax revenue for smaller service areas. AND assuming more walking means less driving, that is less destruction to roads as well as less emergency service requirements.
@11, I....what?
@11 um, guy, the definition of a suburb is that it isn't in the city.

If you live in Bellevue or Seattle, you live in a city, no matter what your tax-subsidized rich neighbors in The Highlands told you.
Researches [sic] recently found a significant link...

And by "recently" you mean 2003, the date of this story.
@13, 14: Then why do we talk about "smart city planning" and "urban sprawl"?…

Will, Richmond BC is a city. Burnaby is a city. And everyone drives everywhere. They are good examples of urban sprawl.

I don't see what's so difficult to get about this.
@16 they have transit, n00b. In fact, they've even got light rail.

I used to work in Richmond, BC and lived in Burnaby, BC. They never were suburbs.

At least not since WW II.

Now, PoCo ...
@17: Scarborough, Ontario also has transit. Are you saying Scarborough is not an example of suburban sprawl?

On second thought, don't answer that.

And thanks for making my point for me about Richmond and Burnaby. Here's Wikipedia's example of "a typical Richmond home":…

Suburb vs. Urban is really completely useless, like 1st world and 3rd world. Parts of Seattle are less dense than parts of Renton. Maple Valley and Microsoft are employment centers just like UW and downtown Seattle. People live in Downtown Seattle and drive everywhere, and others live in Issaquah and don't own a car.
The stupid thing is, there's probably a good argument to be made against my statement @11, but you're not going to be making it. So I'll check out now, if you don't mind.
Thanks Josh @19. That's kind of what I was getting at. Anyway, I'm abandoning you to Will. Best of luck.
Irena, I just didn't understand what you were trying to say with that sentence @11. I think the walkability factor is meant to be more applicable when people live in city 'hoods that are way closer together. I'm sure I'd want a car if I lived in the CD and had to walk ten blocks or more to get to a grocery store, but since I'm on the hill where everything I need is within a two-block radius, I don't need a car at all and end up doing a lot of walking and carrying of heavy things like groceries and cat litter. I notice that friends/family from areas where you typically drive to everything come and visit, they're always complaining and gasping like I'm making them walk a trail of tears...
@17: The entire Washington, D.C., metropolis has transit, noob. You going to tell me that isn't sprawl???

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.