Debate 30 - Notes

1. The economic benefits of acting on this issue are striking compared with the dis-benefits of doing nothing (comparison made with climate change). The logical conclusion would point to investment in urban design in the manner of Copenhagen.

2. But there appears to be a disconnect between having facilities – such as those provided under principles of new urbanism – and their use. People are not using them. There is a tension even when there is optimal design. Question as to whether new urbanism has achieved what it set out to. Is provision of facilities on their own enough? What else do we need? Research is required.

3. The ‘Mend’ programme (www.mendprogramme.org) cited. Designed to address childhood obesity through effective planning but disconnect noted between contemporary design, policy-making and health. Society hardwired to live unhealthy lives with the consequences we see around us. Architects and engineers should engage much more with residents and other building users, with back up from education (through school, GPs etc.). Just providing solutions was not enough by itself – there would only ever be limited uptake. Community engagement should be part of the programme for all new schools, hospitals etc..

4. There is a lack of disposable time compared with disposable income. A re-balance required. The demand for energy saving equipment is related to perceived time shortage. Re-design of towns should tackle this.

5. The whole community should be considered. Sport/dancing/clubbing noted as important ‘community’ forms of exercise. Should avoid tightly compartmentalising society – e.g. cycle lanes are only necessary because of the presence of cars.

6. Debate accused of being a buck-passing exercise. Important that connections should be made.
   - Why can planning consent be obtained for unsustainable buildings?
   - Hospitals are a complete nightmare. There is policy on this but it has had no effect.

7. The main difference is between being in and out of doors. In England we have recently learnt to sit out of doors again but there is still no room for children to play. Safe open space a necessity.

8. The Slower Speeds Initiative (www.slower-speeds.org.uk) cited. It targets 20 mph for streets where pedestrians and cars can mix. There were 10 years to act on climate change (ref. Stern review) and the energy intensity of life styles needed to be brought down. The biggest area of open space in the UK was the road network but it was being managed entirely for cars. This was an iniquitous system. In order to achieve a 3 to 4 times expansion of walking and cycling the road network must be made to work more fairly.

9. Are climate change and obesity different sides of the same coin?

10. How much was this issue related to mobility? Most facilities are not on the route between living and working which are themselves becoming further apart. Similarly different generations of the same family living at greater and greater distances. There are no longer jobs in the village where you were brought up. Perhaps a new localism was necessary.

11. The success of the congestion change in improving London for pedestrians was noted. But it had had to be brought in by (fascist?) dictat. People won’t make a less comfortable life-choice.

12. Urban design will play a large part in creating solutions that can deal with both sustainability and obesity but research into effectiveness required. They could only be part of a wide range of necessary measures.

13. The re-use of roads a ‘powerful idea’. But this discussion ran against a strong libertarian impulse – such that it produced the response “How dare you even talk about this?” It was necessary to talk about money and economics to get serious attention.

14. Comparison with the debate about benefit of health & safety campaigns. The example of New towns cited – they were a fantastic natural experiment. There was a myth of the ‘nice community’ but no-one uses the bike routes in Milton Keynes. Good intentions are not enough.

15. The area around Kings Cross station cited. The public space was alien with cycle death traps only recent remedied. Who owns? Who will take responsibility?

16. Where were the good examples in the UK. Have yet to see an example of good design that really works. Need for an energy diet rather than energy expenditure. The importance of Planning Policy Guidance note No. 6, introduced by John Gummer, noted. It limited out of town development, could similar powers be used to limit the provision of fast food franchises in certain areas (distribution of food outlets not equitable – poorest areas have the most health damaging features) – would this action have more effect than any planning or design measure?

17. 60% of car journey less than 5 miles. Time pressures and the difficulty of modal shifts noted and that the bicycle out performs all other forms of transport within this distance for reliability and speed. But safety a major concern and deterrent. The effect of cycle lanes in Gloucester noted where safety worsened.

18. The planning briefs for hospitals and health buildings questioned. Briefs required a good site & landscape features but insisted on accommodating as many cars as possible for commercial reasons. GPs surgeries were required to have max no. of car spaces. Consequentially surroundings have deteriorated.

19. The way we make planning decisions has changed. The Victorians had no professional planners which was very useful as it created a multi-disciplinary approach. We need ‘urban doctors’ capable of joined-up thinking.

20. Design does not have all the answers, but a large amount of homes now being built. What should the standards be?

21. Have heard a lot about ‘design fascism’ tonight. Private transport (cars) should be designed into developments. We live and work in different places – it is necessary. You should also separate cycling from pedestrians and cars.

22. You must live on a different planet – all this is just paranoia. Perhaps lifts should all start on the 3rd floor of buildings to ensure we all get exercise!

23. There were 500 million cars in the world in 2000. But by 2050 there will be 5 billion! It is a global problem and not only a health issue and not only behaviour or only design, but both. Sustrans (www.sustrans.org.uk) cited. They have a programme that works house by house and that achieves remarkable shift in modal use and results in an intolerance of bad urban design. That leads ultimately to political activism for a better environment.

24. Copenhagen was, 30 years ago, where we are now. Political will and professional will and ability combined to result in the Copenhagen of today.

25. Segregation of cars, cycles and pedestrians not necessary when the space isn’t available. Reducing speeds to below 20 mph reduces the violence.

26. Children adapt more easily to new ideas and ways of life. Work with them. Pioneer nursery cited where children stay out of doors in all weathers.

27. There is an opportunity for the Olympics to be an exemplar of good practice.

28. There are already many examples of good practice in Europe.

29. UK groaning under obesity epidemic. Surely Olympics should be realisation of vision of improving health, social condition etc. Olympics must deliver healthier, better place to live.

30. Sometimes you have to make policy without the research evidence to back it up. There are so many other aligned advantages in making improvements to the urban realm etc. that we should just do it anyway.

31. Key decisions on the Olympics will be taken within the next sixth months not way in the distance

32. Must have an influence on procurement policy to improve the ways things are delivered – a more progressive approach required.

33. There are only very loose links between obesity and the design of the built environment. Note that you need to run three 4 minute miles to burn off 1 bar of chocolate. (hunter-gathers used 1200 kilo-calories to get a meal whereas a trip to Tescos needs 145). But the figure of £31 billion between acting and not acting on this is very significant.

34. There are patterns of addiction (consumption/eating/exercise/mental health), a zeitgeist that underlies all of this. Local Authorities have power to promote wellbeing, but do not seem to know what to do. That in itself is a huge problem for planners. A robust multi-perspective policy response is necessary.

35. Local Authorities struggle to get involved in local health issues. Would the Department of Health put money into the Olympics if it resulted in lower long-term health costs? What investments will result in lower health budgets?

36. You are an anxious middle-class audience – not demographically representative. Cars are a lifeline for the disabled and those with several children; they offer great freedom. Coronary heart disease rising. Threat of both obesity and cancer can be removed by diet, not-smoking and moderate exercise – with the plus of benefits to mental health. See the results in third world counties of not having all our benefits. We need to do the simple and easy things and facilitate them. 1 in 3 children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime if we do nothing.

37. Warning: Re-engineering society by design may increase inequalities. There are natural experiments going on (new towns etc.) that we should be monitoring and studying. We will be smarter if we find ways of measuring causes and effects. We need to find the evidence.

38. Everything tonight a bit faint hearted. We need to act now (without being fascist). Comparison cited of Drainage in the 19th century. Urban management has an important role, but activities need to be joined up. But there is a need to get on with it. Health inequalities are appalling. Food deserts persist in our cities. There is a need to benefit the poorer sectors of society.