Page added on July 5, 2013
Don’t worry, it’s just a movie. Scene from the 2010 film “The Book of Eli.” Photo: Warner Bros.
It’s a staple of summer disaster flicks: the scene of a panicked populace trying to get the hell out of Dodge. Or, after the bomb is dropped, a band of bedraggled survivors picking their way out of smoking ruins, hobbling along a shattered freeway littered with dead cars, empty except for the decaying remains of their occupants.
It’s all good fun in a movie like The Book of Eli. But Escape from New York is just a movie after all.
In the real world people aren’t fleeing the top cities like New York, Paris and Shanghai. Instead, they’re pouring in. And who can blame them?
In the United States alone, winning cities still have a lot to offer: Hot jobs with investment banks or at top medical centers; Foreign films, indie rock shows and used bookstores with quirky cafes; Ethnic restaurants, ethnic festivals and ethnic markets; World-class museums, art galleries and universities. And a hefty dose of people watching.
But for an increasing number of homesteaders, greenhorns and back-to-the-landers, the excitement of being right at the center of things is outweighed by the growing challenges of living in a megalopolis in an age of permanent economic decline.
As a weakened economy starts to rub up against the natural limits of life on Earth — such as peak oil and climate change — the biggest cities may become less and less attractive places to live. Here are the top three reasons why.
Photo: o palsson/Flickr.
So far, only rusted-out industrial towns like Detroit and Stockton, California have gone broke to the point where they’ve had to cut back big on municipal services such as schools, streetlights and police. By contrast, even in today’s tough economy, somehow New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other glam cities have managed to look more sparkly than ever.
City Hall may be covered in marble, the convention center may be booked solid through 2025 and corporate profits may be up. But ordinary workers in these winning cities could still be going broke, due to high costs for housing, parking and incidentals required to keep up with the Joneses. As the most attractive cities become playgrounds for the rich and privileged, the middle and working classes are being priced out.
And while essentials like food and water may still account for only a small part of a megacity dweller’s monthly budget, in a peak-oil future of higher energy costs and strained water resources, pumping in water and trucking in food from hundreds of miles away will start to break the bank, requiring more and more families to have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the (rising) rent.
Photo: Thomanication/Flickr.
Even as megacities more difficult to afford, they’ll continue for some time to pull in desperate immigrants and wide-eyed strivers from rural areas. It will take decades for reality on the ground in expensive, dead-end megacities to halt a century of get-rich-quick wishful thinking pushed along by continual advertisements for the allures of big city life in the form of movies and TV shows set in cultural and shopping capitals such as Los Angeles and Miami.
Even as the Internet allows more and more people to work outside of big urban centers, the advantages of “clustering” for certain technical and white collar jobs will continue to draw in highly paid professionals to Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley or Boston’s Route 128 biotech corridor.
And because corporate offices will require receptionists, janitors and window washers while upscale families will need maids, dry cleaners and nannies, big cities will also continue to attract low-paid workers, who will find themselves either relegated to a shrinking urban ghetto or to cheap suburbs further and further away from their jobs in town.
Photo: 7 july
/Flickr.
Everybody’s heard of the urban heat island effect, where cities of one million people or more can be up to 6 degrees higher than surrounding rural areas during the day — and up to 22 degrees higher at night. With climate change, big cities could get hotter faster than everywhere else making it even more expensive to live there because you’ll have to run the AC more.
This will be especially true in the new, sprawling cities of the West and South that were only made possible by air conditioning and cheap oil. Sunbelt sprawltowns such as Las Vegas, Houston and Phoenix — which recently sweltered under record 119 degree temperatures — will experience increasing numbers of heatwaves which may ultimately make them unlivable for children, the elderly and others susceptible to heat stroke.
But Boston, New York and Washington won’t be spared. More temperate megacities will also suffer hotter, stickier summers, requiring more AC. That will drive up electric bills and stress already overtaxed power grids, likely ushering in an era of brownouts and widespread blackouts as in 2003 — in turn, disrupting business and adding yet more costs.
East Coast cities will also have to contend with a future of increasingly weird weather, with regular repeats of the two deadly storms of 2012 — the derecho and Superstorm Sandy. As hundred-year storms start to hit every decade (or more often), many coastal cities will lose some of their most valuable waterfront real estate to sea-level rise.
When will FEMA run out of funds to keep (poorly) rebuilding New Orleans? And what will happen to Miami when South Florida begins to merge with the Caribbean?
Photo: Dougtone/Flickr.
Sounds bleak, doesn’t it?
Well, don’t despair. If you can’t abide suffocating in traffic on the 405 in L.A. or shelling out $4,000 a month for a studio apartment in Manhattan, and if you want to enjoy a future that’s more resilient in the face of rising energy costs and climate change, there is another way. Consider these alternatives to the megacity:
10 Comments on "Broke, crowded & hot: Top 3 reasons to flee big cities"
Frank Kling on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 12:40 pm
George Soros and other rich guys buying farmland in South America means that the “lungs of the Earth” where 1/3 of the planet’s oxygen is generated is becoming pot-marked with cancer as the rain-forests are being razed at astonishing rates. I returned from Colombia where it was reported based on satellite imagery that in just one department-San Jose de Guaviere- the chain saws and bulldozers are now decimating 300,000 hectares or 750,000 acres annually. Animal and plant species are driven extinct before they can be discovered. Such fucking madness.
J-Gav on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 5:06 pm
View from Paris (France, not Texas. though I lived in that state for a couple of years too):
I agree with the basic premise of this article and have been trying to persuade my family to get out of Dodge for years. Resistance is due to (now sagging) money-making opportunites in the city, access to important services, feeling that this is ‘where it’s at,’ i.e. news and Kultcha hub etc, as the author mentions. Sure, there are drawbacks to rural living – a feeling of relative isolation for long-time city-dwellers, potential difficulties integrating into local culture, dependency on the automobile … the key is to find the right combination. For me that entails: 1 – being in/near a small or medium-sized town with rail service; 2 – developing some relationships in the area before moving; 3 – having enough quality soil for at least a kitchen garden; 4 – having available or ‘close-enough’ essential services (medical, cultural, technological).
Staunton, Virginia sounds pretty good, or maybe a smallish rust-belt town like Cumberland, Maryland, where the Archdruid JM Greer now lives. Pittsburg and Detroit sound like pretty weird choices on the other hand …
I also disagree with the article in its assertion that it will take decades before the present urbanizing trend is reversed. I reckon one decade will do the trick. By then, it’ll already be too late as joblessness soars, squalor increases, services break down, crime thrives, etc. Once all that really starts to bite, the mass exodus from large urban centers will likely get kinda messy.
csatadi on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 5:32 pm
A prepper would appreciate something Detroit has and LA doesn’t have: natural sweet water source. 🙂
BillT on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 5:49 pm
Pittsburgh is not the Pittsburgh of old. It is a nice small city at the confluence of two navigable rivers. Yes, it is 300 miles from NYC and 250 from DC, but that is good. Yes, winters are cold, but you cannot have everything.
Plantagenet on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 6:51 pm
Small cities are also more closely tied to local agriculture—good for locavores.
J-Gav on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 7:19 pm
BillT – Pittsburg, which I don’t know, certainly seems like a better place to be than Detroit, which I do know (and always hated, except for the baseball team – I was there for Denny McClain’s 30th victory …), but I think you’ll agree: Why be IN any city, as opposed to outside and accessible to one …
ricardo on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 10:26 pm
Pittsburg is also the whitest city in America, their residents should be proud.
GregT on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 10:42 pm
The #1 top reason to flee big cities, FOOD.
All 3 of the scenarios above point to food scarcity. The 3 thousand mile diet will come to an end, and there isn’t enough agricultural land close enough to most major cities to sustain current populations. We can survive without a vibrant economy, in crowded spaces, in a changing climate, but not without enough food.
BillT on Sat, 6th Jul 2013 3:16 am
Yes, of course being outside is best. Even Pittsburgh is good, but being outside far enough to live independent is best. It is just a likely place for trade to be possible (rivers/railroad) without the hordes like NYC Metro (8,000,000+) or even Detroit (2,000,000+) vs Pittsburgh (~250,000).
DC on Sat, 6th Jul 2013 8:11 am
Small cities wont survive the coming super-environmental\economic collapse that’s heading our way. For a time, the present, while resources are still comparatively plentiful, small towns can act as relief valves to urban sprawl for those so inclined. But, eventually, when things start to come apart, the small\medium sized towns will also have to be abandoned. A reverse migration will take place as a combination of economic and environmental factors force people to move back to large cities. Not because they want too, but because the govt and circumstances will force people too. The ex-urban areas will be enviromental dead zones, except for areas where labor intensive farming is still possible. Those areas will be used to extract w/e resources and food remain, to be shipped to crumbling cities that the govt has retreated too.
But until that future arrives on your doorstep, small towns could be nice places to be, at least, until they stop being to nice places to be.