That's a big part of why zoning is so dangerous. In most of the western world (Europe too on average), we pushed down population density so much that your typical destinations are much less likely to be within walking distance, so you don't walk.

▲

nine_k 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Indeed. In NYC I do 98% of my shopping by walking. I can reach my doctor by walking. My daughter used to walk to school because it was a 10 minutes walk (and an excellent school).

That would be impossible in a suburban setting; at best, one of these destinations would be within the theoretical waking distance, but without the walkways.

▲

Schiendelman 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Absolutely. There's a reason body fat percentage in New York City is so much lower than anywhere else in the US!

▲

Gigachad 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This is something I've visually observed all over Australia. The walkable areas are noticeably fitter. I don't think all of those people just happen to care about fitness more, they just spend more time moving to get between places rather than sitting all day.

▲

Schiendelman 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Absolutely! Fitness scales super closely with localized population density.

	▲	Earw0rm 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is a recent phenomenon. The original reason for low population density was agricultural work, which - even in the early days of mechanisation - was plenty physical. Living in exurbia to work and consume like a city dweller is a new kind of stupid.

▲

Herring 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah pretty much the only way to scale exercise to entire populations and over entire lifetimes is to design it directly into the cities.

▲

Schiendelman 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The crazy part is you don't even have to DESIGN it, the market is desperate to build walkable density because it's so much more profitable than anything else. You just have to LET landowners build upward.

▲

Herring 5 hours ago | parent [-]

But then you'll run into traffic/parking issues unless you have a good public transit and land use policy (e.g. bikes, trams, mixed use development, etc). That requires such good design skills few cities have mastered it (Tokyo, Copenhagen, Singapore).

	▲	Schiendelman 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I know it seems this way, but all you have to do is not subsidize driving with government provided parking, and not build highways, and there's no traffic problem, because people don't get cars in the first place - they don't have anywhere to put them and there's no highway to punch through dense neighborhoods. Transit and bike infrastructure can always be built after the fact through public demand. When you let go, the people who WANT to live in high density without cars FLOCK to what gets built. In fact, if you really stop zoning, there's a decent chance companies will ASK to operate transit for you, because those population densities and no free car competition can make it profitable. This happens in many cities! Mixed use development happens if you let it happen. Banks and developers like money, and mixed use makes way more money, so they want to build it. Sometimes they fuck up and don't, and those land owners pay the price and retrofit. And that's fine. Again, just let them. In high engagement Western societies, where people get involved in politics and urban planning, "design" universally leads to car subsidies and shitty outcomes. The market does a way better job.
	▲	Gigachad 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It really doesn't take that much at all. You just have to allow apartments and mixed use zoning, and not actively chop up the land with stroads. Human populations naturally gravitate towards walking, and it's pretty much active sabotage of the outside environment that has broken this.