 |
| Life expectancy differential in urban areas - Washington, DC, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation |
“We say, ‘You are what you eat.’ Well, we are what we build.” Susan Piedmont-Palladino, Curator, National Building Museum
The built environment has a tremendous impact on health and
wellness, and nowhere is this more evident than in our cities. In a 2013 study
released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, it was found that being
born (and living) just a few metro stops apart in Washington, DC can mean a
difference in life expectancy of up to 7 years. Where babies born to
mothers in Northwest Washington DC, Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Virginia,
and Montgomery County, Maryland can expect to live to be 83 or 84 on average,
that average drops to just 77 or 78 years for residents of Southeast Washington
DC, and parts of Prince Georges County Maryland. For those familiar with
the Washington, DC metropolitan area, these figures probably don’t come as much
of a surprise - there is a very evident socio-economic gap between the
communities of Northwest DC and those to the Southeast. And Washington,
DC is not unique in this sense. All around the world, cities are divided
by a complex and often entrenched set of factors relating to wealth, opportunity,
and policy which, as the study above points out, can be a major detriment to
the health of the cities inhabitants. Increasingly, the built environment
is being looked at as a key influence on community health, wellness, and
prosperity.
In a recent panel discussion on ‘Creating Healthy Places’
sponsored by The Urban Land Institute, Scott
Kratz, the Director of the 11th
Street Bridge Park in Anacostia, addressed this succinctly: “Your zip
code should never determine your life expectancy.” In his view, place
is the largest determinant of health. As an architect and designer, this
concept reinforces my own belief that the environments we create are never
benign. The buildings and public spaces we help build are more than just
projects to place in a portfolio – they are real places with a very real impact
on the lives of people who live in them. At the most basic level, the built
environment should promote and ensure both individual and community health.
 |
| "Creating Healthy Places - The 11th Street Bridge park and Beyond" Panel Discussion |
An Evolving View of Cities and Wellness
Today, the concept of health is better expressed by the word
‘wellness’ which describes a much broader view of personal prosperity. In
the past, being healthy was considered mostly a personal choice. Do you
eat well? Do you exercise and stay active? Do you practice good
hygiene? To a certain extent, this is still true of course, but we now
know that there are many more external factors that influence health which
exist outside the realm of personal choice. And this is where the
role of the built environment – and ourselves as designers– becomes critical.
This changing view on health acknowledges that the physical environment
of cities and the inherent services they provide can impact the wellness of
entire communities. Numerous studies are beginning to quantify the
benefits of cities designed with health and wellness in mind. Living near
parks and open space promotes
happiness and mental health which correlates to a decrease in unemployment and
increase in insurance status and income. Food Deserts – areas without
access to a full range of fresh and healthy food options – are linked to higher rates of
obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other long-term health issues.
And many jobs
cannot be reached without access to comprehensive public transit options.
These are just a few examples, but the message seems clear – for healthy
communities, we need to design cities with robust and inclusive access to open
space, food health, transportation, safety, and education.
Housing and Full Spectrum Communities
In the same panel discussion, Maureen McAvey, a Senior
Resident Fellow at The Urban Land Institute also touched on upward mobility and
the idea of maintaining community as a contributor to wellness. She noted
that many residents in low-income neighborhoods are faced with a difficult
choice upon moving up the economic scale. In order to attain property or
a lifestyle with increased access and benefits, the residents are forced to
either leave their current community or stay and continue to struggle with the
issues that exist in many low-income neighborhoods. Instead, McAvey argues that
we need to design “full-spectrum” communities where all levels of housing and
access to services are represented to allow for upward mobility within the
community.
New Generation, New Thinking
McAvey also sees potential for change being initiated by the
younger generation of city-dwellers. “The new generation thinks
differently, so we have an opportunity to design our cities differently.”
Where decades past have seen movement out of urban centers and a heavy reliance
on vehicles, the new generation is trending towards moving back into the city
and leaving cars behind. Many young people today are willing to trade-off
large living spaces for a better location. The sharing-economy is also
helping to reinvent the idea of urbanity. Car and bike-share systems are
re-shaping the way residents and tourists get around the city.
Airbnb-style accommodation networks are revolutionizing the way people find
housing without long-term lease or purchase commitments. And companies
like Uber are allowing people to use their own goods and services to become
micro-entrepreneurs. This collaborative
consumption stresses sharing over ownership and empowerment over
reliance.
Tweet
