Monday, May 14, 2007


As some of you know, I tend towards being pretty urban-centric. One of my biggest reasons for enjoying city life is the fact that it is a very walkable community. That's because there are sidewalks on every block. I enjoy being able to walk to the drugstore, the grocery, or a restaurant.

One of the biggest problems with many suburban subdivisions, in my estimation, is their lack of sidewalks. I think it cuts down on community connectivity and is detrimental to health. Studies have shown that suburban residents tend to be more obese.

Never did I think, though, that suburbanites were actually opposed to sidewalks. I always figured that they weren't there due to poor planning by villages or cheap developers who didn't want to foot the extra cost. Turns out I was wrong.

Says Northbrook resident Hubert Frank,
We came here for the green grass, we came here for the suburban environment and for the schools. I think we have a beautiful street, and sidewalks would take away that beauty.
The kids in the neighborhood walk to school via the street. Safety first, you know. The article notes,

Some say sidewalks could disturb trees and landscaping, and others fear who might come sauntering through their neighborhoods.

Sidewalks, it seems, represent some of the things people move to more rural-feeling subdivisions to escape: Foot traffic. Noise. Concrete. Taxes.
Yes, the miscreants that sidewalks inherently bring are insidious...


Oneway the Herald said...

Yuppies are less likely to be obese than suburbanites because yuppies are the most materialistic segment of the population. Not exactly a virtue.

"Hey, great abs, dude, have another Red-Bull-and-Vodka."

Westy said...

Not exactly a virtue.
So we should move towards obesity as a signal that we're not materialistic?

Westy said...

Further quantification.

Westy said...

Apparently it's a problem in Minnesota too.