face it architecture, you’re irresponsible

amidst the recent epidemic of obesity in this country, many people point to problem being the ever-growing number of fast food restaurants and poor eating habits among the populous. however, doesn’t our surrounding environment play a crucial factor in this as well? i recently read an article that posed the question–can architecture make you fat? after reading it, the argument does indeed make sense. if we live in an environment such as denser urban centers, we are forced to walk more due to the inconveniences of having a car and driving (i.e. new york). look at the god-awful environments developers and town planners are constructing in our suburbs… major sprawl and abnormally low density (atlanta, houston, dallas, …). i point out the following from the article:

“In very dense urban environments, you get local shops and facilities mixed up together,” says Townshend. “People tend to use those more. There’s an awful lot more walking involved, just because of the inconvenience of driving.” High-density housing, in other words, can help create what is known in the trade as the “eco-slob” effect, whereby the healthy, environmentally friendly option is also the path of least resistance.

By contrast, low-density housing leaves the resident with few options. If you want to get anywhere, you need a car. “Far too much housing is built on a cul-de-sac format with a huge great wall around it and one entrance in and out,” says Townshend. “It’s for motor traffic, with high-speed distributor roads around the edge of the compound. Usually these places have no local shops or facilities.” The cul-de-sac has another obvious disadvantage: it doesn’t go anywhere. When designing an exercise-friendly environment, connectivity is king. “What happens in really poorly designed housing estates is that people have very indoor lifestyles…”

so it’s apparent that architecture is not holding up to the social responsibility it holds (well in most social aspects… not just in terms of obesity). we must change people’s behavior, yet that change also must be the easiest solution and the environment must encourage such change in order for society to follow. with this in mind, according to the article we’re “back to the idea of the eco-slob: the healthy option has to be made the easiest option.”

architecture’s problems run much deeper than just this one issue… there’s a whole slew of problems that architecture completely ignores in favor of only answering to those with money. isn’t it about time that architecture gets its act together and stands up to what it actually defines itself as, responding to that which it says it responds to? no, i don’t have the complete answer at this point, but at least i, as well as others, are actually making an attempt to understand architecture’s disconnect with the people, with culture and with society overall.