I’ve been reading through the LA County Department of Public Health’s report (PDF) on Life Expectancy in Los Angeles county. It’s not only interesting because it measures the life expectancy of Santa Clarita residents (a flat 80.0 years), but it shows the leading causes of death in the County as a whole for men and women:
According to Wikipedia generic “heart disease” is the leading killer in the United States, accounting for 25.4% of all deaths in the US. So its rank as the number one killer of both men and women in LA County is hardly surprising.
But who would have thought homicide and motor vehicle crashes account for the #2 and #3 causes of premature death respectively for men in LA County? Do men get into that many crashes in LA County that it ranks as the #3 killer of us? Apparently so.
Sadly, homicide ranks as the #1 killer of blacks and Latinos in LA County, according to the report. Lung disease is the #2 killer of whites behind heart disease, followed by motor vehicle crashes. As the report notes, risky behavior contributes heavily to these causes of death.
Speaking of health and motor vehicles, there’s another aspect to the report that applies to us here locally. I don’t think Santa Clarita is more or less obese than any other community, but the report notes that obesity “is one of the greatest challenges facing Los Angeles County” and that, taken together with diabetes, “threatens to halt and even reverse the gains in life expectancy we’ve achieved.”
As many planners and so-called new-urbanists have argued for years, increased obesity rates are a direct result of suburban, car-friendly and pedestrian-unfriendly development (see this 2003 NYT story “As Suburbs Grow, So Do Waistlines” for a sample). And this report takes that same line, arguing that city planners and decision makers ought to “increase access to safe places for residents to walk, bike, play and exercise” and “incorporate health considerations in General Plans, transportation plans and redevelopment activities.”
And I think “incorporating health considerations” is one thing the City of Santa Clarita (and arguably Newhall Land with Newhall Ranch) is trying to accomplish with its “valley of villages,” ped-friendly concept. Of course one SCV man’s ped-friendly, jobs/housing balanced development is another man’s high density OVOV nightmare (that they moved here to escape from!) so therein lies the crux of the matter.
This is one of the reasons I choose to live in Newhall and one of the reasons I’d live in Valencia: they are relatively walkable compared to other areas of the SCV like Stevenson Ranch. And this report backs that idea up: living in walkable communities contributes to a healthy, more active lifestyle.
By the way, residential development anticipated in OVOV results in fewer residential units than the existing general plan documents.
Jason:
Can you break out the planned unit split now versus OVOV between City and County? I’d like to see the specifics!
Go Newhall. The trees are great and you see lots of people out walking or bike riding both morning and evening.
That happens to be my old hood. It is the Valencia Central Valley. It indeed has great access to paseos and the South Fork Trail
JohnB, I grew up in that area, and we called it “the lowlands” (cf. the Summit) or “the ghetto of Valencia”, given that it was old relative to many of the other neighborhoods that comprise Valencia. Either of these labels is more descriptive and helpful than a reference to the housing tract. People living outside of the lowlands were referred to as “hill people” (evocation of Appalachia intentional); they lived at a slightly higher altitude and were spoken of in strictly disparaging terms.
I quite agree that it’s the best place in all of Santa Clarita.
I, too claim lowlands as my first SCV home, probably mere blocks from iHeart’s stomping grounds. Aside from the galvanized steel plumbing, it’s a swell place to live.
Old Orchard II is south of Wiley, a different hood.
A little trivia about “the lowlands” before there was such a thing. From the 1930′s thru the early 60′s that piece of beloved property that I once called home as well was a 4000′ runway. It ran SE to NW from current Wiley Canyon to just behind Granary Square (site of the terminal).
I think the correlation between obesity and suburban living relates more to age, the necessity that women work, and the need to spend more time commuting to work than to the lack of recreational opportunities. When you’re young and without children or a long commute it is much easier to find the time to work out or make time for fun physical activities. Also, when both parents are working, and the weekends are spent doing household chores and hauling children to soccer games and such, there is a much bigger reliance on fast food than is healthy.
It is hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle in our go-go-go society. My advice to young couples starting out today would be to strive to live on one income and not get caught up in the modern suburban lifestyle competition.
I’m just kind of confused… here we are in the red-headed step child district and I see people walking everywhere, but they are not necessarily in the best shape. There are parks everywhere, which are super crowded! Hmmm… as a previous teacher in this area, children could identify TV programs, video games, and the latest McDonald’s toy faster than they could their math facts. For some reason, I don’t think a closer paseo will remedy that…
I’d love to see Jason Smisko reply to my question from yesterday! I always like it when a City representative posts something to sell their position but won’t respond to a question.
I think obesity has more to do with the availability of calories than physical exercise, particularly in adults. When one looks at paintings from centuries ago the upper classes that had access to calories and had servants to do their physical labor one sees moribundly obese folks, and gout was a huge problem (Benjamin Franklin suffered from it.) Obesity was not rampant because the rest of the population was constantly suffering from borderline famine.
In the 21st century in North America there is wide availability of calories and much less physical labor, so it becomes arithmetic. Walking helps but one literally needs to walk about 10,000 steps or the equivalent of 6 miles a day to have any meaningful reduction in weight, something difficult to do without a treadmill.
This American Life had a segment about how, when people who have spent a lot of time in refugee camps where food is always short, come to this country as refugees they have to be prepared in advance for the sight of huge people. Remember their only experience of Americans are AID workers and soldiers, who are on the fit side, and movie and TV images.