Doctor Blames Health Problems On Developers

Posted by: Nate Berg

23 August 2006 - 6:00am

Where people live has been shown to relate directly to how much they exercise, as well as to excessive child obesity and the increasing incidence of diabetes. Real estate developers are being held to blame for creating auto-reliant, unhealthy towns.

"Since World War II, said Dr. Richard Jackson from his office in UC Berkeley's University Hall, the majority of communities have been built for cars instead of people. What may have been good for the cars, however, turns out to be bad for people."

"In 1973, Jackson said, 66 percent of kids either walked or biked to school. In 2000, only 13 percent did so. Perhaps the biggest reason for that drop-off has been the practice of building schools on cheap land, located farther away from housing developments."

Jackson warns that planning officials can no longer ignore the connection between environment and public health. He says health considerations should be intrinsically tied into every development plan, and real estate developers should be held to a higher standard before plans are approved.

Full Story: CITY SLEEKERS

Source: The San Francisco Chronicle, August 19, 2006

Childhood Exercise

Submitted by Claire Bozic on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 06:51.

I don't think enough credit is given to the "culture of fear" that has been developed by excess coverage of child abductions by the newspapers and popular culture (crime shows, talk shows). Even in areas where it is reasonable for children to walk and bike around the neighborhoods and walk to school, a very large number of parents are afraid to allow their children to do so. Parents actually want their children to stay home, "where it is safe." Whereas our parents sent us out the door in the morning with an admonition to stay out of trouble and be home for dinner, today "stranger danger" is everywhere. Children's freedom of movement has suffered. Every outlet is telling us that "the world is far more dangerous for children now than it ever was." I haven't seen any hard evidence to support this idea. If it is not true, we need a campaign to promote this too. Also, I grew up in the country with miles of undeveloped land all around. For shopping and going to school, we were equally dependent on the auto/school bus but there weren't high rates of obesity. Do children who live in very rural areas have the same rates of obesity as suburban kids?

Its Not Just the Developers

Submitted by Ken Firestone on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 04:43.

Thanks to zoning codes and land use policies, the developers are pretty much forced to build the crap that they build. The elected officials and the traffic engineers are as much to blame.

There is profit to be made in offering people a choice. TND and TOD properties, as well as existing urban properties often sell at a premium. And if there is one thing developers want, its to make profits.

Origins of ordinances.

Submitted by Dano on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 08:44.

Thanks to zoning codes and land use policies, the developers are pretty much forced to build the crap that they build.

We must remember that the electeds pass the ordinances, and we must also remember what drives the electeds.

There are cities that are greatly influenced by developers and thus their codes are driven this way. In other cities, codes are driven by landowners to protect property values.

IOW, it is hard to make blanket statements about zoning and LU policies, except to say that it depends where you are, and that money drives policies forward. If more money is to be made in compact development, then we can expect more compact development in the future.

Best,

D - You have to remember

Submitted by perryair on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:15.

D - You have to remember that large developers (the same ones who have enough money to have any political influence) also WANT the regulation. It means higher prices for properties and additional costs of entry to the market, shutting out any would be new competitors.

This in addition to the fact that only current residents have any voting stake - the new residents who would supposedly have the greatest to gain by increased density don't have any vote in the matter whatsoever.

The only thing that drives electeds is staying in office and increasing their power. Its not always as simple as 'follow the money'..

But I think the larger point

Submitted by perryair on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 14:13.

But I think the larger point of the matter is that developers only build things because of the hand they are being dealt. Developers have only two constraints. 1 - build as quickly as possible and 2 - make as much money as possible. Some would argue that #1 is tied into #2 - making only one constraint, but I digress.

With regards to #2 - this is driven from the consumer demand side. What people want, people get. Most developers don't want anything to do with a new and unfamiliar product. They want to build what the next guy built, as long as that next guy made a good buck. Its a good set up for making a good buck yourself.

That being said, even if there is a consumer side demand for something doesn't mean that any given developer will have the fortitude and bankroll to build it. Development is very much a 'tipping point' industry. They need proof that something works before they try it but who is the one that tries it first?

With regards to #1 - They only want to build what causes the least amount of headache and hassle to build. If building townhomes makes community members come out and oppose the development leading to 6 months of delay but building single family houses leads to sailing through community board meetings and getting approvals, guess what ends up getting built?

Here the answer is complex as well. If developers had fewer constraints from p&z, community boards, water management districts, fire departments, dot, etc, they would have an easier time experimenting with new types of product without fear of massive delays to the project. They could also just end up building some horrible subdivision anyways.

In either case, whatever link health actually has to development, its really not on the developers to change. Its on the people that shape development to change the ways in which they shape it.

I agree that it's up to the

Submitted by urbandesignr on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 03:35.

I agree that it's up to the approval authority.
I'm working on (what I call) an overplanned subdivision. It is different in nearly every design respect compared to other subdivisions in the local governement area, roads are narrower (down to 5m wide), 70%+ retention of trees and native vegetation, on-lot stormwater treatment and storage, no turf, etc.

All of these things have been a big draw card for potential buyers, the lots are expensive, but exist in a "natural" bush setting. Council has had an impossible time approving the development because it breaks nearly every rule in their design guideline. Recreational, safety and visual amenity are key factors in getting people to use walking paths and cycleways, and this development has achieved this with a reasonable degree of success. But at what cost, when there has been an uphill battle at every step of the project?

Mike- Urban Workbench

Communication Breakdown?

Submitted by Dano on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 07:17.

But at what cost, when there has been an uphill battle at every step of the project?

Sounds to me like Planning Staff didn't coordinate with Council & Planning/Zoning Comm. to let them know what's coming down the pike.

Best,

Zoning changes.

Submitted by Dano on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 13:13.

Thank you perryair.

Large-lot res zoning benefits _existing residents_ by protecting their investment; thus, homeowners pressure electeds to maintain older large-lot zoning designations to keep crowds away and maintain property value.

Small-lot res zoning benefits many _developers_, as finer parcelization allows more homes and greater return over original investment (higher DU/ac = more houses and greater gross income/ac).

Thus, although the Planetizen headline may be misleading (as you have commented on elsewhere), the 'developers' aspect is about older developments rather than newer developments wrt lot size.

The larger issue in the article is about a) design and b) siting of schools far from developments (as developers want to maximize ROI & negotiate away from siting schools on their property).

Design guidelines and standards can alleviate the design issues that contribute to negative health impacts. The school siting issue I don't have a good answer for, sadly.

Best,

School Siting

Submitted by Ricardo on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 13:29.

I think school siting has a lot more to do with school boards and boards of education that have to purchase the land for school sites than with developers and ROI. School Boards buy land out away from established communities because it is cheaper than land closer in. A well located brand new school would most likely increase the value of a developer's residential project (plus building for the government can be very profitable also) so I doubt they would shy away from building shcools or siting them on there property (unless a school would wipe out their entire project).

Agreed.

Submitted by Dano on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 14:12.

I agree, Ricardo, that schools usu are sited on cheapest land. Having savvy boards and BOEs will allow good investment and can result in good purchases.

Developers can be incented to site schools nearby, and sometimes are, but the acreage needed for a school is a big tradeoff and a development must have sufficient acreage to do so.

A piecemealed area with multiple developers likely won't be able to do this (lack of economy of scale), thus resulting in far-off siting.

Best,