Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Boring Cities Are Bad for Your Health (wired.com) 100

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Studies using new brain-mapping and wearable devices have shown that unstimulating urban architecture can harm residents' health, leading to increased rates of depression, cancer and diabetes. Research projects across Europe and North America, including the EU-funded eMOTIONAL Cities project and studies at the University of Waterloo's Urban Realities Laboratory, are measuring people's physiological responses to their surroundings. The findings are pushing architects and city planners to prioritize human wellbeing in design, with some cities like London's Newham borough now including happiness metrics in economic planning.

Boring Cities Are Bad for Your Health More | Reply

Boring Cities Are Bad for Your Health

Comments Filter:
  • ...bulldoze half the space in cities to make room for privately owned cars, taking architectural gems with it, or anything.

  • Retitled (Score:2, Insightful)

    by StormReaver ( 59959 )

    The the word "Boring" out of the title, and it's much more accurate.

  • Stockholm provides the best balance between urbanization and nature. Not only that, it provides the right stimulus to its citizens: amazement, excitement, inspiration, happiness, curiosity, comfort, enlightenment and a sense of connection to something greater than oneself: a sense of belonging.
    • Maybe I was captured by Stockholm and utterly I developed the Stockholm syndrome...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Good try but the correct response would have been "I have Stockholm syndrome you insensitive clod!".

  • So does having to be hyperaware on subway platforms.

    And don't forget the mental calisthenics that is remembering how to open up your absurdly complex bike lock.

    Urban environments are nice but for one crucial factor: they are inhabited by humans. Humans aren't meant to live in such close proximity. We are meant to spread out to distant treetops or caves or whatever. If we'd come up from ants or bees instead of apes, cities perhaps wouldn't bring out our worst aspects the way the do with us upright monkeys.

    • So does having to be hyperaware on subway platforms.

      And don't forget the mental calisthenics that is remembering how to open up your absurdly complex bike lock.

      Urban environments are nice but for one crucial factor: they are inhabited by humans. Humans aren't meant to live in such close proximity. We are meant to spread out to distant treetops or caves or whatever. If we'd come up from ants or bees instead of apes, cities perhaps wouldn't bring out our worst aspects the way the do with us upright monkeys.

      To your point, country village living is a more normal situation for humans. And our "tribal limits" are pretty much hardwired into us.

      In my wooded village, and especially on my street, we look at each other eye to eye, we say hello and have impromptu conversations, we know each other's names. There is more than just my street, but the streets and woods are constructed to segment everyone. When I'm in a large city, I do as the people there do, I don't look people in the eye, and acknowledge or converse a

      • In my wooded village

        Papa Smurf, is that you?

        • In my wooded village

          Papa Smurf, is that you?

          Did ya ever wonder how tired Smurfette had to be as the only woman in a world of blue dudes? But no doubt quite popular. But she's mine https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          • Gargamel introduced the concept of two genders to the Smurfs. He created Smurfette in an attempt to throw their society into chaos.

            (Sassette is the other female Smurf)

            • Naturally. According to science, white men created the idea of women so they could have someone to oppress.

              • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

                Naturally. According to science, white men created the idea of women so they could have someone to oppress.

                Humanity is so incredibly fortunate that there is a built in guilty party, and the cause of all problems. Pale skin? Getting close. Penis? Guilty!

                One of my favorite questions to ask inclusive people is "As a white male, am I responsible for slavery in the USA? The answer is always "yes".

                I follow up with "My ancestors escaped Eastern Europe in the 1920's, but you have made your judgement on 100 percent racist and sexist bigotry on your part."

                Much reeee erupts.

                • You read as a little more red-pilled than a few years ago. Just remember: one pill, not the whole bottle.

                • One of my favorite questions to ask inclusive people is "As a white male, am I responsible for slavery in the USA? The answer is always "yes".

                  I follow up with "My ancestors escaped Eastern Europe in the 1920's, but you have made your judgement on 100 percent racist and sexist bigotry on your part."

                  And then everybody clapped? Come on bro we all know that only happened in your head.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  I am fairly progressive and can tell you directly that you are not personally responsible for historic slavery in the United States. Your skin colour is irrelevant.

                  • What if he was a time traveler and used to be a general in the Confederacy or perhaps a sugar cane plantation owner in the Caribbean?
                    Because it would be awfully convenient if we could hold someone responsible for the centuries of racial problems we never bothered to fully address in this country.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      I'd settle for just offering the descendents of black people who were e.g. redlined the same deal, adjusted for inflation, that the ancestors of white folk got. No need to even assign blame, and totally fair.

                    • What if he was a time traveler and used to be a general in the Confederacy or perhaps a sugar cane plantation owner in the Caribbean? Because it would be awfully convenient if we could hold someone responsible for the centuries of racial problems we never bothered to fully address in this country.

                      I'm trying to parse that as possible sarcasm? How do you wish to assign accountability to the dark skinned africans who performed the "service" that supplied the slaves to the people sailing across the ocean? https://www.historynewsnetwork... [historynewsnetwork.org]

                      Do you hold them as accountable as pale skinned Europeans?

                    • I'd settle for just offering the descendents of black people who were e.g. redlined the same deal, adjusted for inflation, that the ancestors of white folk got. No need to even assign blame, and totally fair.

                      How about 50 percent "white" Americans, and the other 50 percent from the Africans who kidnapped the future slaves and sold them to the Europeans?

                    • ... and anyone who is Portuguese for piloting the ships.

                    • ... and anyone who is Portuguese for piloting the ships.

                      True dat. Let's take a different example. Should modern Germans be criminally punished for the little Oopsies they had in the 1930's and 1940s?

                      And India for their treatment of the Dalit (the lowest caste group - horribly treated, especially if the Dalit happens to be a woman. Ironic that they are called untouchables, as rape is essentially normalized. But yes they are fortunate the real oppressors are present day Americans. 8^/ https://equalitynow.org/news_a... [equalitynow.org]

                      But back to punishing people that had n

                  • I am fairly progressive and can tell you directly that you are not personally responsible for historic slavery in the United States. Your skin colour is irrelevant.

                    That's certainly a big plus.

                    I personally like the line from Dr. Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

                    I've been judged by some people who would say they are inclusive, yet utterly ignore that - even if they like to point to MLK as one of their touchstones. When one looks at race as minor physical characteristic differences sha

                • White male or not, all Americans are responsible for and benefit from slavery.

                  • White male or not, all Americans are responsible for and benefit from slavery.

                    That's really strange, Americans are quite a melting pot of different cultures from many geographical locations. Hear me out.

                    Your statement that I as a fair skinned mix of Eastern European and Italian whose grandparents all came over to avoid what was happening in Europe right after WW1, are responsible for US slavery, is kind of problematic.

                    Your logic of "All Americans are responsible" makes Dark skinned African origin Americans Responsible for slavery. Or did you forget that 'Murrica is not all "wh

                    • he way to eliminate the curse of racism is to stop being racist.

                      You are confusing the institution of slavery and racism. If you are talking about direct responsibility for American slavery, no one alive today is responsible. But we all get benefits from it and that inheritance does not depend on when our ancestors came over here. The difference for people who are descendants of slaves is that many of them are also still paying the price of slavery. Whether racism is one of those depends on how much it is a product of slavery and how much it was its creator. Either way,

                    • he way to eliminate the curse of racism is to stop being racist.

                      You are confusing the institution of slavery and racism.

                      My friend, explin You most specifically wrote "White male or not, all Americans are responsible for and benefit from slavery."

                      The set of all Americans correct me if I am wrong confused, includes people of just about every "race" on earth.

                      African origin, Chines origin, Inuit origin, Native American origin, Indian origin Russian origin, All east asian origin, every country in the entire world, all live here.

                      Those who are citizens are the very same people you claim are all responsible for American s

                    • our challenge is to write a dissertation on how African people are responsible

                      Because it was Africans who captured, enslaved people and sold them to slave traders. That is a short dissertation.

                      Why don't you write a dissertation on why any modern American is responsible for slavery or the slaughter of native Americans. Or any other historical event for that matter. We are responsible because we claim the benefits and have to live with the consequences.

                      What is most interesting is you appear to believe that no one on earth is racist other than Americans

                      Actually no. Which is why I specifically referred to American racism.

                      Kinda seems to be a common narrative among people who would claim to be concerned about such things.

                      Perhaps that's because they are Americans who recognize they are

                    • our challenge is to write a dissertation on how African people are responsible

                      Because it was Africans who captured, enslaved people and sold them to slave traders.

                      Thank you! That's the response I wanted.

                      You see, why should Africans who had nothing to do with thd slave trade be held. responsible?

                      Tell me that all humans that live on the African continent responsible for the group who was actively responsible. Since it is in your declaration all Americans, and Just like Martin Luther King is responsible as he is an American - unless you are going to do a real tapdance. Nelson Mandela, as an African, is just as responsible.

                      Don't you just hate thinking your stat

                    • Don't you just hate thinking your statements through to find they come up with weird contradictions

                      What contradiction?

                      You asked how "Africans" were responsible. I told you. If you asked how much responsibility the typical current resident of Africa has I think the answer would be very, very, very little.

                      Your argument seems to be that no one alive today is responsible for slavery. But the reality is that there are still consequences of slavery that we need to deal with and benefits that we derive from past slavery. That makes us "responsible" for it. You seem to confuse responsibility and blame.

      • And also, we can't all be spread out in the utopian manner. There are too many people on the planet. I don't like cities that much, but I really am getting tired of the city haters constantly pulling up stupid stereotypes and then claiming that by living 100 miles from the closest doctor and having to wrestle bears for their food that they're healthier. Oh wait, I'm making up stereotypes just like they are!

        Honestly, I'm likely to retire in a small town, and it makes me nervous because it's likely to be w

      • Didn't we try that in the USA in the projects?

        No, we didn't. Housing projects were designed, built and maintained to house poor people in one spot. And often the least attractive spot. If the spot became attractive, they tore down the project and kicked the poor people out to build more attractive housing.

        • Didn't we try that in the USA in the projects?

          No, we didn't. Housing projects were designed, built and maintained to house poor people in one spot. And often the least attractive spot. If the spot became attractive, they tore down the project and kicked the poor people out to build more attractive housing.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Hey - cool story bro! Read on Subsidized housing.

          • Your link is to "subsidized housing", of which "the projects" were a specific variation. Many of them got torn down when gentrification lead to an increase in inner-urban land values.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "And don't forget the mental calisthenics that is remembering how to open up your absurdly complex bike lock."

      Come on, we know you've never ridden a bike.

      "Urban environments are nice but for one crucial factor: they are inhabited by humans."

      Same with rural environments, only in urban environments people don't shoot your pets.

      "Humans aren't meant to live in such close proximity. We are meant to spread out to distant treetops or caves or whatever. If we'd come up from ants or bees instead of apes, cities perh

    • And don't forget the mental calisthenics that is remembering how to open up your absurdly complex bike lock.

      Bragging about finding bike locks too complicated is a weird flex, but you do you.

      • No, bragging about living in a place where anything that isn't bolted down grows legs in 30 minutes or less is the weird flex.

        I lock my doors, but I don't expect that my lawn chairs would get jacked if I leave them outside.

        • No, bragging about living

          No, you really were bragging about how hard you find bike locks. Maybe I'm just naturally smart but I've never found my bike lock required "mental calisthenics".

        • And yet, in the country there is crime. Murder even. Highest murder rates happen in small rural towns (because the small population means a spree of 5 murders a year gives a huge per-capita rate). Cars and trucks get stolen from farms. Heck, cattle rustling still happens! People will be people no matter where they live.

    • From my body plan, it is clear that my ancestors have adapted to using elevators not to climbing trees.

  • May you live in interesting times, but in a boring city

    • May you live in interesting times, but in a boring city

      Awesome sig!

    • Next time my HOA accuses me of paining my house in purple paisley, I'll say that I'm only doing it to raise the health of my neighbors, who'd otherwise be stuck looking at the same boring aproved rancid salmon color all day.

  • Architects are nasty, vein, untalented bastards who want their pathetic creations to STICK OUT, not blend in with the lovely old buildings around them.

    They call building that fit in "pastiche" and hate it, while people want that because IT LOOKS NICE.

    They don't get famous for building nice stuff that fits in - they build to show off to other shitty architects and hate building WHAT PEOPLE LIKE.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfron_Tower#/media/File:Balfron_tower.jpg

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Yep, that's all architects, not an absurd generalization at all. If only there was a school that could teach architects how to design things that people wanted and could use.

  • Something you see daily that doesn't change in any way is not stimulating. Thus, architecture can have zero impact on someone's mental state in the way they claim. There are better studies saying plants in cities make people happier and healthier. I, for one, just wouldn't live in a large over-dense city. Noise and traffic tend to make people unhappy too. That's not a study. People just know that.
  • Local governments don't need new age Happiness Metrics, they just need to stop giving permission for shit modern architects to put up their disgusting monstrosities and let the people, not architects or their planner chums, choose what will be built, or demolished.
    • Fuck Newham's planners, architects and their happiness index.

      A street in Newham:

      https://imgur.com/a/oRXaPfm

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        Replying to your own posts to make it look like there's a single person that agrees with your bias? LOL

        • I replied to illustrate my post, you prick.
          Now tell us how much you love the planning and architecture in that image and which fucked-up schools teach architects that that is what people want.

          Bias?!
          Yes, I'm biased!
          And that "bias" is the bias of normal, decent people for nice towns and against the anti-social architects and planners who have fucked up Newham and everywhere like it, building stuff to further their own careers, but doing nothing for the people who have to live in that ugly shit.

          And those shit

        • I don't know if you realize this... your userID is really big so you are kind of new to slashdot, but this website doesn't have a way to edit your post after you submit, so if you get some inspiration later and want to make an addendum, the only way is to reply to yourself.

      • That looks like a victim of building for car dependence. Bring on LTNs and an end to the default dominance of cars.

        • Low traffic is shit. It does not give the space back to the human beings.
          Car *free* is what we, city residents, need.

          But, anyway, planners cannot themselves decide to remove cars from an area.

          They can - without pathetic Happiness indices or any other academic bullshit - stop approving shit buildings by shit architects and only approve buildings that the residents want.

          • Re:Happiness metrics?! Just stop architects' shit! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Thursday January 02, 2025 @01:57PM (#65057647) Journal

            Low traffic is shit. It does not give the space back to the human beings.

            LTNs, not just low traffic. In my area one of the LTN modal filters was upgraded by re-paving it so it's a large paved area with a cycle path. I'm pretty virulently anti-car and even I was surprised at just how much space has been given back to people from just a couple of lanes of traffic.

            Car *free* is what we, city residents, need.

            I would be happy with a massive reduction in cars. I did drive recently (hire car) and got completely rinsed for parking, something like 17 quid for 5 hours. I did reflect at the time that it's (a) painfully expensive and (b) that's a good thing because it's near a very large train station and there are better options on almost any other day. I mostly go by train, rarely by bike, but no trains on xmas day.

            I would be very happy blocking way more junctions and even whole roads and turning the space into plazas, and slashing the number of parking spaces, and returning that space to people. It's pretty absurd that to rent a car-sized plot of land would cost tens of thousands a year, but the space is given entirely for free to car owners.

            There is pretty much no car reduction method I'd say no to.

            only approve buildings that the residents want.

            You'd never get anything done that way. Residents didn't want the Eiffel tower either and now it's arguably the preeminent symbol of the entire country, and people would riot if you tried to day it down. It's the same for removing cars. People object strongly, then within a few years they'd object strongly to reintroducing cars.

            What people really do is object to change.

            • "There is pretty much no car reduction method I'd say no to."

              Erm, excuse me? I booked the 30 minute argument!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Car dependence is just a symptom of much bigger problems. The UK, for example, literally can't build anything that isn't shit. It's illegal, nobody would insure it, nobody would buy it. Shit is mandatory and universal.

          You cannot polish a turd. Well, Myth Busters proved that you can, but not *this* turd.

          • Car dependence is just a symptom of much bigger problems.

            I disagree: there are a large number of different factors all centered around the supremacy of cars over all else. Regulatory, legislative and societal, cars are treated as a special case where the all the usual rules don't apply. It seeps in at all levels.

            Here's a fun example. Cambridge has a rather unusual mass transit system, first of its kind in the UK, and rare worldwide: a guided bus. It's actually kind of neat, but I digress. Anyway there have

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Those are all symptoms of not being able to build good towns, and not even being able to imagine what those would look like.

              Take a look at road safety stats for Japan. Most roads don't even have a separate pavement, bikes are everywhere, and somehow it's safer and a much nicer place to live.

              It's completely alien to most Brits and they can't comprehend how it works so well. Can't even understand it really, they always try to frame it in British terms, which would make it shit.

              • Those are all symptoms of not being able to build good towns,

                How is a concerted press and political campaign against cyclists a symptom of not being able to build good towns? It's culture war nonsense from the right aiming to divide and especially against people who cannot drive (who skew poorer).

                Second, the guided bus is between St Ives and Cambridge. To build better towns in that regard you'd have to start a thousand years ago. Though Cambridge is pretty nice to bike around. I live there for a while and i

  • "Car Culture" creates soul-crushing architecture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Thursday January 02, 2025 @09:49AM (#65056913) Journal

    If you build a place to prioritize cars, that place will eventually resemble a parking lot.

    I want you to visualize a parking lot in your mind. Visualize yourself standing there. Sitting there. Setting up a dining table and eating a meal there. Going to bed there. Driving to work in another parking-lot-city, where you sit at a desk in the parking lot trying to work. And then on the weekends, put the fam in the car and drive to tour a distant parking lot.

    That summarizes 90% of the experience of living in a US metro area.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      100% this. It's similar in Canada which is why I like to escape periodically to a place with great urban design like The Netherlands. Cities and towns there are fantastic places that put people first.

    • Major metro areas are less car dependent... Accomplishing day-to-day activities without a car outside of a major metro in the US is usually extraordinarily difficult.

      Suburbanites often must spend multiple hours a day driving. The solution is urbanization. https://slate.com/business/202... [slate.com]

  • Doesn't have to look good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Thursday January 02, 2025 @11:31AM (#65057191) Homepage

    I doubt it has much to do with how "interesting" or "pretty" a building is but more to do with how hard your brain has to work to tell the difference between one location and the next. If everything is exactly the same and "fits in" nicely, then you have to work really hard to figure out where you are. If you are in an area where every building is unique, then you will have a much easier time building a mental map. Subdivisions where every house has one of 5 building templates are a worst case scenario and you have to rely on street signs or navigation apps.

    These little tiny extra loads on the brain are small individually but would add up to a lot of wasted mental energy.

  • When I first started working full time I lived in the suburbs and worked in an industrial part of a city. I would get depressed driving into work when the trees would disappear and everything looked dirty/rundown. I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

  • Being chased by muggers and psychopaths is anything but boring.

  • In the scheme of things, nothing contributes to depression like isolation. Run-down cities tend to be places where people live an isolated life.

    By contrast, people who live in "boring" rural areas, tend to socialize much more, and experience depression less. https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com].

  • Important topic, for sure, but the article itself is thinly written, simplistic and borders on incoherence.

    From the article: "...the second half of the 20th century, pioneering thinkers such as American author and activist Jane Jacobs and Danish architect Jan Gehl began highlighting the inhuman way our cities were being shaped, with boring constructions, barren spaces and brutal expressways... It was an inconvenient truth that seemed to contradict mainstream architectural thinking."

    Just, no. Everything in

Slashdot Top Deals

At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon

Close