It is no surprise that your risk of heart attack increases for up to 6 hours after exposure to high levels of vehicle exhaust pollutants.
Simplistically put, this presents us with a couple of questions:
1. Do we deal with the source and opt for low carbon technology-low polluting cars?
or
2. Do we look at the design of our streets, plant more trees, open up airflows by keeping buildings low alongside major roadways?
Health Impact Assessments are now used as part of the planning toolkit for new developments. Alone they cannot change public opinion, let alone industry preference for profit. Knowing the health impact, the cost to society, individual cost (potential for someone we love suffering a heart attack), in conjunction with public and corporate education we can make a difference. Option 2 will provide short term benefits. In the long term option 1 has to be the way forward as greenhouse gas levels rise, costs increase, and public health diminishes. One without the other, in any timeframe, is a poor solution however.
Studies from all around the world continue to show us that without urban greenspace we suffer reduced public health. When that greenspace is well designed to include cycleways, walkways, play areas, community ammenities our demand for motorised trasnsport is reduced, while we gain from an increased sense of wellbeing.
Sustainable communities thrive on coherent street-scapes, routeways where wildlife-friendly planting, the elderly, children, bikes and play can happily coexist. Our generation is the last to remember free play, schools without allergy advisors. The doomsayers believe we have tipped the balance too far and can do nothing to change the environment our children will inherit. I believe we can make a difference. Options 1 and 2 are happening now. We just need to be get with the program!
Urban design, sustainable development, musings and observations
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Thursday 28 April 2011
Urban design for sustainable living
Christchurch is another example of a city rethinking its basic layout and design. Open space and low rise develoment is vital in earthquake prone areas. Out of the challenge of natural disaster comes an opportuntity to pause and design along more sustainable greenspace lines.
The challenge comes in creating the linkages between the various parts of the city. Paris developed Nation as the commercial hub, and kept the city centre low rise with historic parks and gardens. Nation is hated as a souless landscape of highrise, wind tunnel, shaded streets. However the parks and gardens of the city centre are beautiful and attract residents and visitors alike. The river is an integral part of the city and people are aware of its rise and fall and the impact that has on the economy (barge traffic stops when the river is in flood as barges cannot fit under the bridges or through the tunnels), the peripherique (city ring road) closes when flooded. The residents of the city are aware of their environment, with a much closer relationship with the natural world than in other great cities.
I believe part of the success of the urban design of Paris comes from the connections between people and the environment. Those who work in Nation do so for as short a time as possible before returning home to the suburbs, the banlieu and arrondissements of the centre, to the parks and gardens, the window box, balcony and roof terrace oases that make up the greenspace of Paris.
Of all the world cities I have lived in, I believe it is no suprise that the people of Paris are the happiest. They have beautifully designed public open space, can observe the seasons, grow their own air filtering greenery, fruit and flowers, experience nature, even if they live in a compact apartment. Having lived and worked in 4 continents and several islands I have developed an awareness of design in a wide range of cultural and climatic zones. A happy, healthy, sustainable lifestyle is what we aspire to. I founded the design practice Greenstone Design UK to address this need.
How to cost effectively fit people into office spaces, serviced with good transport links, proximate housing, shops, schools, healthcare and growing space, away from fault lines, flood plains and areas of ecological significance is the question. I think Paris has many of the answers.
The challenge comes in creating the linkages between the various parts of the city. Paris developed Nation as the commercial hub, and kept the city centre low rise with historic parks and gardens. Nation is hated as a souless landscape of highrise, wind tunnel, shaded streets. However the parks and gardens of the city centre are beautiful and attract residents and visitors alike. The river is an integral part of the city and people are aware of its rise and fall and the impact that has on the economy (barge traffic stops when the river is in flood as barges cannot fit under the bridges or through the tunnels), the peripherique (city ring road) closes when flooded. The residents of the city are aware of their environment, with a much closer relationship with the natural world than in other great cities.
I believe part of the success of the urban design of Paris comes from the connections between people and the environment. Those who work in Nation do so for as short a time as possible before returning home to the suburbs, the banlieu and arrondissements of the centre, to the parks and gardens, the window box, balcony and roof terrace oases that make up the greenspace of Paris.
Of all the world cities I have lived in, I believe it is no suprise that the people of Paris are the happiest. They have beautifully designed public open space, can observe the seasons, grow their own air filtering greenery, fruit and flowers, experience nature, even if they live in a compact apartment. Having lived and worked in 4 continents and several islands I have developed an awareness of design in a wide range of cultural and climatic zones. A happy, healthy, sustainable lifestyle is what we aspire to. I founded the design practice Greenstone Design UK to address this need.
How to cost effectively fit people into office spaces, serviced with good transport links, proximate housing, shops, schools, healthcare and growing space, away from fault lines, flood plains and areas of ecological significance is the question. I think Paris has many of the answers.
Thursday 10 March 2011
Nature may be good for health
I just found this article from BBC News from 2008. It was news then and the message bears repeating
Green spaces 'reduce health gap'
A bit of greenery near our homes can cut the "health gap" between rich and poor, say researchers from two Scottish universities.
Even small parks in the heart of our cities can protect us from strokes and heart disease, perhaps by cutting stress or boosting exercise.
Their study, in The Lancet, matched data about hundreds of thousands of deaths to green spaces in local areas.
Councils should introduce more greenery to improve wellbeing, they said.
This study offers valuable evidence that green space does more than 'pretty up' the neighbourhood
Dr Terry Hartig
Uppsala University, Sweden
Across the country, there are "health inequalities" related to income and social deprivation, which generally reflect differences in lifestyle, diet, and, to some extent, access to medical care.
This means that in general, people living in poorer areas are more likely to be unhealthy, and die earlier.
However, the researchers found that living near parks, woodland or other open spaces helped reduce these inequalities, regardless of social class.
When the records of more than 366,000 people who died between 2001 and 2005 were analysed, it revealed that even tiny green spaces in the areas in which they lived made a big difference to their risk of fatal diseases.
Although the effect was greatest for those living surrounded by the most greenery, with the "health gap" roughly halved compared with those with the fewest green spaces around them, there was still a noticeable difference.
Stress buster
The change was particularly clear in areas such as heart disease and stroke, supporting the idea that the presence of green spaces encourages people to be more active.
However, the researchers, Dr Richard Mitchell from Glasgow University, and Dr Frank Popham, from the University of St Andrews, said that other studies had suggested that contact with green spaces also helped reduce blood pressure and stress levels, perhaps even promoting faster healing after surgery.
They wrote: "The implications of this study are clear - environments that promote good health might be crucial in the fight to reduce health inequalities."
They called for planning authorities to consider making more green spaces available to improve the health and wellbeing of their residents.
In an accompanying article in The Lancet, Dr Terry Hartig, from the Institute for Housing and Urban Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, wrote: "This study offers valuable evidence that green space does more than 'pretty up' the neighbourhood - it appears to have real effects on health inequality, of a kind that politicians and health authorities should take seriously."
David Tibbatts, from GreenSpace, a charity which promotes parks in urban areas, said that they were threatened by "decades of decline" in some areas.
"The study confirms what we have been saying for many years - parks are important for health and everyone should have access to high quality, beautiful and vibrant green spaces. "Unfortunately, despite the benefits green spaces bring to communities, our research has shown a decline in park services that has spread across more than 30 years.
"Despite increase recognition of their role in areas such as improved health, far too many parks teams find their revenue budgets are still under continuous threat."
Professor Barbara Maher from the Lancaster Environment Centre said her research had shown that roadside trees improve health by protecting people from pollution.
"Urban and roadside trees may be an under-used resource both in terms of acting as natural 'pollution monitors' and actively screening people, especially, children and the already ill, from the damaging health effects of particle pollution," she said.
Green spaces 'reduce health gap'
A bit of greenery near our homes can cut the "health gap" between rich and poor, say researchers from two Scottish universities.
Even small parks in the heart of our cities can protect us from strokes and heart disease, perhaps by cutting stress or boosting exercise.
Their study, in The Lancet, matched data about hundreds of thousands of deaths to green spaces in local areas.
Councils should introduce more greenery to improve wellbeing, they said.
This study offers valuable evidence that green space does more than 'pretty up' the neighbourhood
Dr Terry Hartig
Uppsala University, Sweden
Across the country, there are "health inequalities" related to income and social deprivation, which generally reflect differences in lifestyle, diet, and, to some extent, access to medical care.
This means that in general, people living in poorer areas are more likely to be unhealthy, and die earlier.
However, the researchers found that living near parks, woodland or other open spaces helped reduce these inequalities, regardless of social class.
When the records of more than 366,000 people who died between 2001 and 2005 were analysed, it revealed that even tiny green spaces in the areas in which they lived made a big difference to their risk of fatal diseases.
Although the effect was greatest for those living surrounded by the most greenery, with the "health gap" roughly halved compared with those with the fewest green spaces around them, there was still a noticeable difference.
Stress buster
The change was particularly clear in areas such as heart disease and stroke, supporting the idea that the presence of green spaces encourages people to be more active.
However, the researchers, Dr Richard Mitchell from Glasgow University, and Dr Frank Popham, from the University of St Andrews, said that other studies had suggested that contact with green spaces also helped reduce blood pressure and stress levels, perhaps even promoting faster healing after surgery.
They wrote: "The implications of this study are clear - environments that promote good health might be crucial in the fight to reduce health inequalities."
They called for planning authorities to consider making more green spaces available to improve the health and wellbeing of their residents.
In an accompanying article in The Lancet, Dr Terry Hartig, from the Institute for Housing and Urban Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, wrote: "This study offers valuable evidence that green space does more than 'pretty up' the neighbourhood - it appears to have real effects on health inequality, of a kind that politicians and health authorities should take seriously."
David Tibbatts, from GreenSpace, a charity which promotes parks in urban areas, said that they were threatened by "decades of decline" in some areas.
"The study confirms what we have been saying for many years - parks are important for health and everyone should have access to high quality, beautiful and vibrant green spaces. "Unfortunately, despite the benefits green spaces bring to communities, our research has shown a decline in park services that has spread across more than 30 years.
"Despite increase recognition of their role in areas such as improved health, far too many parks teams find their revenue budgets are still under continuous threat."
Professor Barbara Maher from the Lancaster Environment Centre said her research had shown that roadside trees improve health by protecting people from pollution.
"Urban and roadside trees may be an under-used resource both in terms of acting as natural 'pollution monitors' and actively screening people, especially, children and the already ill, from the damaging health effects of particle pollution," she said.
Sunday 27 February 2011
Should city officials be responsible for addressing the rising costs of obesity and chronic ill health?
I think city officials could make some simple changes to how they allocate their (shrinking) budgets that would go a long way to helping the situtaion. The WHO has stated that depression will be the 2nd biggest cause of ill health glolbally by 2020. A leading cause of depression has been shown to be a disconnection from the natural world, alongside social isolation. Ergo, if city officals supported the planting of a bio-diverse mix of edibles around our communities (fruit, nuts, berries), allowed natural play on vacant lots, in fact gave the city back to the people, we would be encouraged to go outside, (exercise in the fresh air), eat free, locally-sourced fresh food (nutrition), chat to others (reducing social isolation), learn about the natural world through being in touch with its rough edges, rather than piped streams and neatly mown lawns in the local park or school play ground, and we would value our environment as we would have had direct experience of the birds, bees and trees.
Type 2 Diabetes, heart disease and some cancers are linked Obesity and an unhealthy lifestyle. Obesity is linked to depression, often as a result of lack of access to quality outdoor experience in natural greenspace. Of the 6 leading health concerns on the UK's list, ( is the USA's list similar? Probably) all can be tackled cost effectively with early intervention greenspace programmes.
So yes I believe that city officials should be looking for 'joined up thinking', coordinated approaches to urban planning, public health, schools, play and design. If the local authority is paying out for schooling and healthcare, they need to get value for their expenditure. This is certainly what our practice is working towards. We work with the community to design healthy, liveable sustainable communities.
Type 2 Diabetes, heart disease and some cancers are linked Obesity and an unhealthy lifestyle. Obesity is linked to depression, often as a result of lack of access to quality outdoor experience in natural greenspace. Of the 6 leading health concerns on the UK's list, ( is the USA's list similar? Probably) all can be tackled cost effectively with early intervention greenspace programmes.
So yes I believe that city officials should be looking for 'joined up thinking', coordinated approaches to urban planning, public health, schools, play and design. If the local authority is paying out for schooling and healthcare, they need to get value for their expenditure. This is certainly what our practice is working towards. We work with the community to design healthy, liveable sustainable communities.
Wednesday 16 February 2011
Sensory gardens and natural play
I met an officer from a UK local authority last week who bemoaned the plethora of pirate ships that had gone in all over her county in the last 24 months. With apologies to my friends in the equipment industry, pirate ships are expensive, fixed, unchanging pieces of kit, and some can be problematic in terms of entrapment issues as described by John. A landscape led play site costs the same to maintain, less to install, and the kids can make anything of it as they wish.
In this year of bio-diversity more needs to be made of playable sensory planting and the cost effective nature of natural play provision. We need some equipment and to do more than to plonk random 'natural' items - smooth boulders and peeled logs - in a space, but not much more.
In this year of bio-diversity more needs to be made of playable sensory planting and the cost effective nature of natural play provision. We need some equipment and to do more than to plonk random 'natural' items - smooth boulders and peeled logs - in a space, but not much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)