People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

that is because ppl walk from hot dog cart to hot dog cart

http://www.bestplaces.net/images/in-articles/energetic-cities.jpg

^^^ urban walking

new york city includes lots of car-oriented sprawl - staten island, outer queens/bronx/brooklyn. but more importantly it has lots of poor people and lots of minorities and there are correlations w/r/t income and race. that list = fairly dense rich white people places.

I wouldn't be surprised if south of harlem manhattan would top the list. at the very least, it would be on it.

rich ppl are always skinny

even if they live in the suburbs and take two hour helicopter rides 2 work everyday

note that most of the bay area makes it - just not the east bay - where there are poor people. and black people.

xp

so what exactly is the correlation between skinniness and race/class that you are making here? (Note I'm not saying there isn't one, just as I never said walking wasn't healthier than driving, but I'm curious what connection you're making).

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/07/07/the-connection-between-obesity-and-poverty/

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6456

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6459

manhattan:

According to the 2010 Census, 48.0% of the population was non-Hispanic White, 12.9% non-Hispanic Black or African American, 0.1% non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native, 11.2% non-Hispanic Asian, 0.3% from some other race (non-Hispanic) and 1.9% of two or more races (non-Hispanic). 25.4% of Manhattan's population was of Hispanic or Latino origin, of any race.

iatee, I'm not asking if there's a correlation between poverty and obesity. I'm asking what conclusion you're drawing from that correlation and how it relates to the context of this thread.

because the first things that spring to mind for me are diet, and lack of leisure time and money to spend exercising. neither of which have anything to do with urban density, walkability, or suburbs.

1. there are correlations between 1. poverty 2. african-americans 3. hispanics and obesity. (and aa/hispanic + poverty, obv)
2. there is a negative correlation between living in a walkable city and obesity
3. the first correlation is strong enough to overwhelm the 2nd when we're looking at 'new york county' - which has sizable populations of both. if you can find the numbers for manhattan's white population alone, I guarantee you they'd be on this list.
4. sf, the 2nd densest place in the country and 2nd skinniest has fewer african-americans and hispanics and more asians. and the county next door - with even fewer minorities - is #1.

this was all just an explanation as to why nyc doesn't make that list while sf does.

puerto rican girls that are just dyin to meet you

Wow, on the 2011 version of that CNN site that wk linked, the suburb my job is in is ranked the #13 best place to live in the US!

the first correlation is strong enough to overwhelm the 2nd

so whatever factors cause that correlation (diet for example) overwhelm the health benefits of dense, walkable urban living.

yes...even people who live in dense, walkable urban areas can't eat shit and not get obese

lol wk is yr m.o. on this thread to find like "the loophole" or something? this is like when you were all, "dense cities are bad because of ports" or whatever

not getting to spend two months of winter in st. bart's overwhelms the benefits of having to take the bus to work

this was all just an explanation as to why nyc doesn't make that list while sf does.

I understand that, but it also illustrates the point I've been trying to make that obesity is a complex problem, and the simple observation that walking to work is healthier than driving is barely worth mentioning in a discussion of how our cities should be built.

oh good god

yeah that's why it didn't even come up til like the 2600th post

Speaking of density.

I understand that, but it also illustrates the point I've been trying to make that obesity is a complex problem, and the simple observation that walking to work is healthier than driving is barely worth mentioning in a discussion of how our cities should be built.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/RaAhBBk4Tnovfjrn72zh52Aqo1_400.png

'they should be built on the moon!'

lol wk is yr m.o. on this thread to find like "the loophole" or something? this is like when you were all, "dense cities are bad because of ports" or whatever

my m.o. is to laugh at the people like you and iatee who have an overly simplistic "hey, let's all live in Manhattan and ride our bikes to work!" view of the world.

you are an idiot

yeah they want every1 to live in brooklyn

max wants us all to live in New Hampshire iirc

first of all i would NEVER live in manhattan second of all i want everyone to live in new hampshire and bike to work

xp as laurel has already explained

max is obese & he lives in brooklyn iirc

but if "people from the suburbs are icky conservatives and everyone who drives places is fat and i hope all the dogs die" is oversimplistic, then call me [something oversimplistic]

you are an idiot

well yeah, we already established that I'm a member of the klan so the idiocy is a given

wk, the k stands for klan

white klan

the white stands for white power

my m.o. is to laugh at the people like you and iatee who have an overly simplistic "hey, let's all live in Manhattan and ride our bikes to work!" view of the world.

I think people should bike to work but I don't want everyone to, then we would look like this:

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/fch/images/chinese-bikes.jpg

and that's kinda a crappy street too...it would be nice if *some* people could bike to work and not have to fear for their lives though. I also do not live in manhattan...it's not the worst place in the world, but it can give people a misleading perspective on 'the city'. I basically want everyone to live in amsterdam or paris.

they are really nice places you should visit

only some parts of manhattan are nice to walk imo. I don't like the area around penn station and union square and the big avenues that are like 4 lanes wide. I do like the areas like, uh, the areas with all the shops and narrow streets and relatively wide sidewalks.

i don't think union square is 'nice' but i think it can be great being there. it would feel weird to judge such an active urban space on its kinda sensory appeal or feel rather than on what it offers there (ostrich eggs @ whole foods)

manhattan kansas looks nice

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/5/2010/manhattan-ks.jpg

I would offer up center city philly as being my ideal of a walkable US city - the area bounded by say, front street to schuylkill e/w and from, hmm, washington to either spring garden or girard north/south. that's a nice place to walk.

iatee can you recommend an amsterdam neighborhood in which construction crews are not working 365 days a year with plastic orange or green cyclone fencing around the site and giant husqvarna earthmovers in the middle of the bike/walkway? lol trick q there is no such neighborhood, amsterdam means "city of plastic cyclone fencing" in english

due to pedestrian plazas on broadway / bike lanes on 17th, the north and west sides of union square are considerably nicer. 14th street is hellish.

I also really like center city. the streets are considerably more narrow than in nyc, which is why it feels so much more pedestrian-friendly than outside-of-historic downtown manhattan.

xp

ive lived in new hampshire it was ok

aero I think you were just high

it would be better if all your friends lived there lamp

lol I've been going to a-dam since '95 - when it kind of did resemble the walker's paradise you describe - last couple of times I've been there it's a fucking wreck imo, cities need to let the damn streets breathe instead of "improving" all year round and amsterdam is a prime offender in this regard (so's paris imo)