How town planning can make us thin and healthy: Architects show that more green space and less housing density has a clear affect on public health
I am very fond of something called “The Egan Wheel”. It has 8 segments, each forms a component in the description of a sustainable community. One segment is design another is health. This article shows really interesting the explicit link between the two. It provides those of us interested in the nature and shape of future and evolving rural settlements with much food for thought. As usual those propounding the virtue of planning in terms of public health are stuck in an urban rut but that doesn’t make this article any less interesting from a rural perspective.
It isn’t hard to find an architect who will tell you that vast swathes of the British urban landscape are ugly, grey and unappealing – nor would you struggle to find people who agreed with them. But could it be that the look and the layout of our cities is actually bad for our health?
A new report from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) sets out to prove just that. Comparing rates of physical activity, childhood obesity and diabetes in England’s nine most populous cities, RIBA have found a clear correlation between the amount of green space, density of housing in urban areas, and the overall health of the local population.
They have also pinpointed the cities with the best and worst records on these key public health measures. Birmingham has the fewest physically active adults, while Liverpool has both the largest number of obese children and the highest rates of diabetes.
On the other end of the spectrum, the citizens of Leeds can boast the highest levels of activity while Bristol has the best outcomes for obesity and diabetes.