SUBURBIA, THE AUTOMOBILE, AND OBESITY
The truth about Canadian society.
So, in class we’ve finished up with WWII and we’re on to the post-war unit (unfortunately we still have our WWII test next week…). We’ve gone over the post-war consequences, the new superpowers after WWII and the origins of the Cold War. Now we’re focusing on the social changes that took place in Canada during the 50s and 60s. So far, the things that I really related to were the introduction of urban sprawl and the increased use of the automobile in daily life. These aspects of society first originated in the 1950s and since then they have come to be known as a major characteristic of Canadian life. Though they come with some benefits, there are also reasonable drawbacks to suburbia and the automobile. They’ve made Canadian society more family-friendly, but how have they affected the health of families? How do urban sprawl and cars play into the rising obesity rate of today?
POPULATION INCREASE — THE BABY BOOM AND IMMIGRATION
I think that to understand the effects of suburbia and the car, we first have to go back and look at their causes. After WWII, Canada experienced an enormous population surge that impacted all aspects of life during the following decades. This population increase resulted from the high immigration rates after the end of WWII and the “baby boom”. With the baby boom, there was a huge increase in the number of babies born between the years 1945 and 1965 due to prosperous economic times and peace. As a result, there was an overwhelming demand for new homes in which Canadians could raise their families and 1.1 million housing units were constructed. Thus, the 1950s became the first decade of “urban sprawl” in Canada as planned subdivisions were built on the periphery of cities, and farms gradually disappeared.
URBAN SPRAWL AND THE AUTOMOBILE
So know that we know how the suburbs came about, what about the car? Although the car had been in popular use long before the 1950s, it was during this decade that the automobile really became a “necessary” component of Canadian life. Living in the suburbs was made possible by the automobile and paved roads which linked suburban homes to essential services in the heart of the city (e.g. the CBD, Central Business District, where many people had their jobs). The construction of the Trans-Canada Highway (started in 1949) also symbolized the increasing importance of the car. During the 1950s and 1960s, Ontario’s Highway 400 systems were established and expanded; these types of highways had become the principal routes for transportation in Canada by 1970. But now the question is; has the automobile done more harm to Canadians than benefit?
URBAN SPRAWL AND OBESITY
So now, what’s so bad about urban sprawl? Well, first of all suburban communities are bland and materialistic; even some critics in the 1950s realized this. Second of all, they result in a heavy reliance on automobiles as the main method of transportation, thus reducing the opportunity for daily physical activity and causing higher obesity rates in suburban residents. The fact that suburban communities are spread over a large area of land and usually do not have mixed land-uses (i.e. they’re split up into residential areas, industrial areas, etc.) means that residents usually have to drive for even the simplest of errands. One might say that people could just walk and use public transportation in order to arrive at their destinations. However, the low population density of suburban communities makes public transportation less effective. Therefore, long waiting times or complex bus routes discourage people from taking this path. The lack of physical activity that suburban residents are thus subject to has caused higher obesity rates among the Canadian population and various other issues.
THE CANADIAN NATIONAL POPULATION HEALTH SURVEY PUBLISHED IN 2001 SAID THAT ALMOST ½ OF CANADIANS ARE OVERWEIGHT AND 1 IN 6 IS OBESE.
Since the 1950s, Canada’s population has greatly increased, as have suburban communities and obesity rates. As a result, we have started to see the serious health consequences obesity can have. We now know that obesity can lead to diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, some cancers and osteoarthritis. Various studies have shown that people living in low-density suburbs get less daily physical activity than people living in high-density cities due to the insufficient “walkability” of their communities. These studies also link increased diabetes cases, heart disease occurrences and the high blood pressure of patients with urban sprawl. Obesity is also having an economic impact. For example, in 2000-2001 it cost the Canadian healthcare system $4.3 billion; $1.6 billion for hospital care, drugs, and doctors and $2.7 in other costs such as lost earnings because of illnesses and premature death (“The Health Impacts of Urban Sprawl”, Ontario College of Family Physicians). Though not entirely at fault, urban sprawl still has played a significant role in causing these obesity-related issues.
IN 1985, 2514 DEATHS IN CANADA WERE OBESITY-RELATED. IN 2000, THIS NUMBER NEARLY DOUBLED TO 4321.
“CANADIANS WHO ARE OVERWIGHT AND OBESE ARE AT GREATER RISK OF DEVELOPING CHRONIC DISEASES (HEART DISEASE, STROKE, CANCER, AND DIABETES) THAT CAN LEAD TO EARLY DEATH” — Heart and Stroke Foundation
This issue is especially significant to me and to many people I know because we, like the families of the 1950s, have decided to live in the suburbs. Though I can’t complain too much, the thing I really hate is the reliance on the car and the lack of sufficient daily activity that is a result of that. We literally have to drive everywhere; to school, to the mall, to the community centre, to the library, to sports facilities and to wherever else we need to go. I find that the great distances of the suburbs also make it hard to be independent and meet up with my friends without having to be driven by my parents. Furthermore, I play rep volleyball and many of my practices are in the farthest corners of the suburbs. So, I end up having to drive for an hour (½ hour there, ½ hour back) to attend a two-hour volleyball practice (not to mention that my poor dad doesn’t even get to exercise after having driven for so long). Many times, mainly during the summer, I’ve suggested to my parents that we bike somewhere, however, they often say that the distance is too long and will take too much time. All of this is in stark contrast to what I’ve seen in many European cities. For example, when I went to Amsterdam I saw many people biking to work and multiple-level parking lots for bicycles. The idea of using daily transportation as an opportunity to exercise is just so appealing to me that I find it hard not to be disgusted by the urban sprawl in the GTA.
ABOUT ¼ OF URBAN TRIPS IN MOST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE MADE BY WALKING OR CYCLING. IN CANADA, ONLY 10% OF TRIPS ARE MADE BY WALKING OR CYCLING.
So how does all this relate to the baby boom, suburbia and the automobile in the 1950s? Well, the birth of urban sprawl took place in the 1950s and through all the things mentioned above, its impacts are increasingly prevalent in today’s society. The 1950s’ idea of a house in the suburbs being a dream come true has stuck around until today and the health of Canadians has been heavily impacted because of this. However, people are beginning to understand the detrimental effects of urban sprawl and “new urbanism” has started to take hold, resulting in “smart growth” urban plans for a healthier and sustainable future.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THE 1950S RISE OF SUBURUBIA?
The 1950s rise of suburbia has had a huge impact on the way many Canadian live their lives today. Since the introduction of “urban sprawl” in the 1950s, it has continued to spread and become more influential in society. According to many studies, suburbia has resulted in less daily physical activity and increased obesity rates. This has in turn affected the health of Canadians and the economic burden on the Canadian health system. While suburbia may have been the right choice in the 1950s, the reluctance to create new, environmentally-friendly and sustainable communities is now having a detrimental effect on the quality of life in many Canadian communities. For these reasons, we should know about the rise of suburbia in the 1950s, the conditions that led to it at the time, and why we need to change this pattern of development for good. If we’re not careful, our suburban lives and the reliance on automobiles that they cause will result in rampant obesity and an endlessly degrading quality of life.
Works Cited:
Seliske, Laura, William Pickett, and Ian Janssen. “Urban Sprawl and Its Relationship with Active Transportation, Physical Activity and Obesity in Canadian Youth.” Urban Sprawl and Its Relationship with Active Transportation, Physical Activity and Obesity in Canadian Youth. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2012002/article/11678-eng.htm>.
MLewyn. “Sprawl and Obesity: NYC as a Case Study.” Congress for the New Urbanism. N.p., 28 Oct. 2012. Web. <http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2012/10/sprawl-and-obesity-nyc-case-study>.
Mckee, Bradford. “As Suburbs Grow, So Do Waistlines.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Sept. 2003. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/garden/as-suburbs-grow-so-do-waistlines.html?pagewanted=all>.
Written: Friday, December 27th, 2013
