Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby careinke » Mon 05 Nov 2012, 23:11:26

It's only been a week, what if the power was out for a year? You can have the city, I like where I am.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Quinny » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 03:42:34

There is a big difference between a 'disaster' scenario where the rest of the country isn't affected and one where everyone's dealing with their own problems. Being a world financial centre following economic collapse that causes massive problems in 'producing' areas will be a very different story.

Uh Uh - I just said that and I live in England :(
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Tanada » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 08:07:37

I picked the third way and now live in a village of about 1500 people surrounded by farmland. This gives a nice mix of skills in a collapse situation but also the modern conveniences of telecommunication and big box stores not that far away in the University town just down the road a piece.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Cloud9 » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 08:11:23

I don't think we are getting the full story of how well the recovery is going. It is a bit early to call this one.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Pops » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 09:14:00

I also think Sandy is not the best analogy. It hit the economic center of the world a week before a hotly contested national election in which the role of government's is the central topic and within short memory of an utterly failed disaster response by a previous administration.
Unlimited funds isn't the same as resilience.

Still, I agree that walking to the corner to flirt with the boulangére is easier in the city than in the 'burbs. But that's today. If you are low income and lost in the sprawl today, you have a hard time getting around because the world is designed for Zoom-Zoom, not Shanks Mare. In the future, there will be resources within walking/biking/token distance for 'burbanites too even if it's just a garage converted into a bodega two 'sacs over.

"The end of the world as we know it" doesn't literally mean "the end of the world" otherwise you wouldn't say "as we know it". :-D
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Don35 » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 10:15:35

How does food and water get to the city if there is no fuel or power? I have food and water in abundance for years on my farm.
Everybody thinks they're righteous! Adam Baldwin "Jayne" Firefly/Serenity
User avatar
Don35
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby AgentR11 » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 11:57:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'W')hile NJ residents dealt with rationing & waited in 3-4 hour gas lines (often recieving no gas after stations ran out) and suffered electricity outages that still continue is some place Manhattan has been back up & running for days.


errr... I hardly think waiting in line for gas is a big deal.

I think the real problem is that we all feel a need to defend our selected bunkervilles by indicating why we think the other locations are bad. Personally, I doubt city or rural will be all that much different during the decline. I have some concerns about far suburbs, but I'm not sure they account for all that much housing, and certainly not enough for anyone to get bent out of shape over. I like both my small town home, and my rural redoubt, and having the option of the rural redoubt makes the small town home even more dependable. Everything here is within biking distance, and I routinely bike NOW to most places in town, most are within five miles or so, and so make for a very pleasant bike ride. I do have car & van, and will keep them well maintained for the foreseeable future, but they are not *necessary* for anything. (I don't like being rained on for one, but I think I'll survive the experience if it happens. I had my own personal thunderstorm while changing a bike tube once, and that pushed my loathing of being rained on off the chart.)

I don't need to suggest, "the cities will become desolate holes of starvation", in order to justify the choice of small town. I'm sure the cities will be taken care of well enough. Though the grinding descent into shoddiness will continue for all.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here simply isn't enough energy to maintain the suburban American lifestyle. However certain large cities (Washington, NYC) will be maintained by any means necessary.


Sure there is. Though the lifestyle will certainly change in the suburb, and especially far suburbs. And the maintenance of those cities does nothing to disprove that. It simply means the cities will be tolerable as well.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Newfie » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 12:42:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'I') don't think we are getting the full story of how well the recovery is going. It is a bit early to call this one.


Yes, I too get the sense we are not hearing the full story.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby dolanbaker » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 16:01:49

Wait 'till the Discovery channel of someone releases the "docu-soap" in a few months.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Hungrymoggy "I am now predicting that Europe will NUKE ITSELF sometime in the first week of January"
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 10:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Narz » Tue 06 Nov 2012, 16:06:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Don35', 'H')ow does food and water get to the city if there is no fuel or power?

There is always some fuel/power & it will be used to take care of cities at the expense of suburbs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Don35', 'I') have food and water in abundance for years on my farm.

I suspect most rural folks don't though, many are as probably as unprepared as suburbanites. The rural poor will always get the short end of the stick I think. Moving to a homestead is something to do only when you have the resources to make it work. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to do it but if you're poor you're better off staying closer to urban centers & jobs, IMO.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby kublikhan » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 09:15:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') also think Sandy is not the best analogy.
+1
Asking who has to wait an extra week after a disaster hits before power is restored is the wrong question to ask. Asking where one should live in the expectation that city services will continue to be funded is a better question to ask. Before glorifying US cities, take a good hard look at US policy towards cities and notice how poor it is and how it contrasts with most other countries.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ities and their surrounding inner-ring suburbs--what we will here call "metro" or "urban" regions--are the neglected stepchildren of American politics. More than half the population lives in them, and they suffer from all sorts of problems--from ghetto crime, unemployment, and racial segregation to environmentally-degrading and fiscally-unbalanced suburban sprawl.

That despair is justified, we are just as commonly told, by an Iron Law of Urban Decay: As incomes rise, workers move to suburbia; when suburbs mature, they resist paying taxes to support the metro core; as the tax base declines and services deteriorate, the middle-class flees, leading to further erosion; poverty concentrates among those left behind, and they become "different"--disconnected from labor markets, without role models for advancement, lacking the human or financial capital even for bootstrap-pulling. In this context, we are told, the best that can be hoped from central cities is peace, or at least a segregation of the violence.

How did cities get into their current mess? There is no simple answer, but an important piece of the puzzle lies in American public policy. That policy is, in a word, anti-urban. A bias against cities, evident in contemporary public discourse, is a longstanding feature of the American political economy, and plays a central role in our tax code, major economic development programs, government purchasing, and other exercises of public power.

In contrast to most developed capitalist nations, American public policy slights urban renters in favor of suburban homes, urban bus and subway riders in favor of suburban automobiles, and urban infrastructure in favor of ex-urban and rural development projects. Simultaneously, we do not require non-metro regions to pay the costs of maintaining the poor and dispossessed who are left behind by such acts of favoritism. Whether this anti-urbanism originated in genuine concern about leveling the wealth of different regions, or in racism, or in some misplaced notion that the happiest life was always found behind the wheel of an automobile, the general effect has been to artificially lower the costs--to individuals and firms--of living and working outside our metro regions, while artificially increasing the costs of living and working within them.

Though it is hard to calculate precisely, the subsidy to non-urban regions is on all counts considerable--annually, on the order of tens if not hundreds of billions. We have spent trillions building non-metro roads, but nowhere near that on metro ones or mass transit. Federal annual funding for mass transit has never been more than one-fifth of highway funding, and state ratios are even more unbalanced. The overwhelming share of federal and state economic development program support also goes to non-metro sites--more highways, sprawl-supporting infrastructure, exurban tax credits and low-interest loans for new development. Similarly, the deliberate siting of military bases and other government facilities outside cities or more developed regions has been and remains deliberate national policy. So public policy substantially reduces the costs of living and investing outside metro areas, and thus encourages people to make those choices.
A New Urban Agenda
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby anador » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 09:22:08

from an earlier post on this topic:

"Part of the problem about talking about "Cities" rather than "Urban Places" is that it tends to confuse some peoples' understanding of the Topic.

I think its most useful to talk about urban places rather than cities. A city has an arbitrary implication of size and scope which is different from person to person. Indeed many people here that live in the suburbs consider themselves to live in a "city" even though it inst a particularly urban place: no mixed uses, single family single use zoning, auto dependency, etc.. Furthermore those that describe themselves as living in a rural village, may actually be living in an "urban place": shops close-by,relatively close together houses, mixed uses, etc...

My point is merely that urbanity is more important than the concept of city, especially in regards to power-down.

Part of the problem that Mumford saw occurring in the development of the suburbs was the distortion of what living in a city meant, it had once been very black and white; in the city- in the country. He saw the beginnings of the city centers being spaced out and De-urbanized, while the countryside developed and De-ruralized. The result was not "Garden Cities" the Utopian vision that Mumford, and Ebenezer Howard thought would occur, but Sprawl, the devilish waste-place we have been left with.

Bringing it back....

Humans have adapted to live in urban settlements for many dozens of millennia. Even non city building nomads establish mobile camps that have alot in common with city life: close proximity of non-related individuals, entertainment, work, all in close proximity. Urbanity pre-dates the city. Humanity is a social creature and meant to live in urban organizations. Even if this is a village of 100 or a moving hunting tribe of 50, the kinship of society is what urban organizations create.

After every major disaster, depredation, or war, people have always re-grouped, that is how society goes on.

Urban Places will always be a part of our future, because they are part of us, solitary confinement is a punishment to people.

The cities we will inhabit will be smaller, more compact, better defended.

There will always be people living where the major cities are, even if they are ruins, they occupy the most important transportation and resource nodes on the landscape (those founded before the 20TH C that is)

Rome and Alexandria both were depopulated for centuries, both dipping far below the 10k mark, before they eventually adjusted to a new system and were resettled again.

There will be chaos in cities and their populations will rapidly decrease, but they will never be totally abandoned."
@#$% highways
User avatar
anador
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 17:31:18

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby dinopello » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:13:50

Power went out here for about a week in residential areas after the Derecho this year. Our downtown streets had power before most of the surrounding residential areas and so everyone was walking to and gathering in the restaurants (AC/Beer and Food) and it was actually kind of nice. It was hot as hell in your house so people wanted to be outside in any case.

The most disruptive thing in the region was the lack of traffic signals for those that did need to drive. They were out for 2-3 days all over. A 15 minute car trip turned into a 2 hour, stress-filled ordeal with observation of accidents everywhere. I did one of these trip to see my mom at her assisted living place and that was the last car trip I took for a week. Of course cable and internet was out but the real strange thing for some was phone and cell service were out for several days (including 911 for a time). That really made people feel like they were back in the stone age (you couldn't call and see how someone was doing).
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby dinopello » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:24:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anador', 'I') think its most useful to talk about urban places rather than cities. A city has an arbitrary implication of size and scope which is different from person to person. Indeed many people here that live in the suburbs consider themselves to live in a "city" even though it inst a particularly urban place: no mixed uses, single family single use zoning, auto dependency, etc.. Furthermore those that describe themselves as living in a rural village, may actually be living in an "urban place": shops close-by,relatively close together houses, mixed uses, etc...


Exactly, it is really hard to converse between people when there is not a common dictionary. I think you captured "sub-urban" well although it is not always single family dwellings. Single-use is a more specific and accurate definition. An office 'park' is sub-urban as is an isolated high-rise apartment or a cul-de-sac, isolated house pod or a shopping mall.

Some of the other nomenclature for urban I use is

Neighborhood - Distinct, geographic area of ~1/2 mile radius or less with a defineable center and contains all the types of things needed for daily living (live, work, play)

Village - An urban area consisting of a single neighborhood

Town - An urban area consisting of multiple neighborhoods

City - A large town that also typically contains sophisticated infrastructure and cultural amenities and may have some specialized districts (neighborhoods) like a theatre district or market district (still not single use though)
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Narz » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 13:20:21

kublikhan, that was an interesting article. Thanks. It just strengthens my view that cities are a superior way to live than suburbs though. Hopefully in the future we will take better care of our cities.

I remember reading a right-wing slam of Obama claiming he wants to rebuild the strength of our cities (God forbid! :shock: ) at the expense of the suburbs. The subtext was probably racism as usual (from the right-wing).
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby Newfie » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 17:18:05

Make up your own mind.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/speci ... _2011.html

I live in one of the little "oasis" surrounded by red.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby kublikhan » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 23:19:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he article is hopelessly outdated.
I agree that article was old but the same issues still exist today. As Narz pointed out, it even started to grab political attention during the campaign with right wing accusations that Obama wanted to "burn down the suburbs, take away everyone's car, and relocate suburanites into the cities to be packed in like sardines" or some such nonsense. Of course the accusation was ridiculous, but it magnifies the point that this issue has not gone away. There is some encouraging progress being made with more focus being paid to cities and attempts made to arrest the decay, but this country is still in love with automobiles and suburbs and hostile to spending suburban tax dollars on decaying cities. I agree with you and Narz that cities are a better model than suburbs, but unfortunately this view still appears to be in the minority. Here, these articles were from last month:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat’s really weird is that even though the political system accepts a high level of cross-exposure and geographic wealth redistribution at the federal and state level, there’s a ton of hostility to this concept at the regional level.

Ironically, that’s the level where there ought to be the greatest sense of common purpose and good neighborly feelings. And yet, at least in the Northeast, when you start talking about regional tax bases people get all apocalyptic about mixing the suburban tax dollars with the city tax dollars. I’m inclined to believe it’s a race thing, but whatever the reason is, people need to wise up because there’s a huge amount of income inequality within metros. However important you think that is as a standalone issue, one area where it creates a big problem is funding public services.

Within metro regions, you see these huge disparities in public service funding. One suburban tax base will have super fancy schools, and then right next door there’s an urban tax base with dilapidated schools. Despite the obvious exposure suburban micro economies have to city crime and poverty, there’s just massive resistance to the idea that any suburban residents’ tax dollars would be used to improve conditions in cities.
High Inequality Within US Metros Calls for Regional Tax Bases

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his past weekend I came across a video of a fellow named Stanley Kurtz. I had heard a little about him this summer when his book, Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for Cities, was released. I must admit that I found the notion so absurd that I essentially ignored it. The thesis conveyed in the title is ridiculous and you don't have to be a reader Strong Towns to know that. Anyone who has worked in or seriously looked at the budget of a suburb would understand. Suburbs have the near-term illusion of wealth, but long-term, core cities are vastly more productive.

Suburban conservatives believe that their wealth is being confiscated to support transit systems and other urban living schemes. Many urban dwellers (our readers excluded) seem to believe this narrative as well, but cite the fairness of redistribution from the more fortunate to the less as the basis for the system.

Here's the counterintuitive part: the money generally goes the other way. Areas that are established and developed -- particularly Minneapolis and Bloomington -- subsidize the small towns and rural areas on the periphery that are were trying to quickly suburbanize. And that is just direct tax subsidy, it doesn't include the enormous subsidies of highway building, expansion of sewage treatment capacity and the over sizing of key trunk infrastructure to handle peripheral expansion, things like ramp meters that penalize urban dwellers to the benefit of suburban commuters, tax incentives like the home mortgage interest deduction and programs for development from FHA, Freddie, Fannie and HUD, which does not support productive mixed-use development.

I sat with the Mayor of Memphis, A.C. Wharton, and explained to him how the poorest neighborhoods of the city were contributing more in taxes -- producing a far higher rate of return for the city -- than any of the neighborhoods built in the post World War II "growth" spurt. Yet the city and the region were spending the vast majority of their resources trying to induce more of the unproductive land use patterns on the outskirts of town. We now have the maps and data to back up those assertions (I will share those here soon). Mayor Wharton is not only a good man, but an intelligent one, so these revelations hit home hard.

Some of us live in cities, angry at the SUV-driving commuters and their environmentally destructive lifestyle, not to mention their gun-toting, FOX news watching, church-going, small government inclinations. We're so upset with it all that we demand that taxes be raised to fund programs to address these ills, revenue that disproportionately comes from urban areas and is redirected to support the suburban lifestyle.

Some of us live in suburbs, angry at the transit-loving urban folks and their condescending ways, not to mention their gun-hating, MSNBC-watching, big government inclinations. We're so upset that we demand an end to government programs and subsidies, a large portion of which are essential to the very lifestyle we live.

To me this is bizarre. What is even more bizarre is how our politics feed into this. Here's the ray of hope: I have met with public officials at the local level all across the country. I have met with countless state legislators and policy advisors. I have yet to meet a decision-maker (specifically, I'm referring to non-employees) that does not immediately grasp the Strong Towns message. I've found that it affirms something they intuitively know to be true -- that our current approach is not productive and their city is trapped in the late stages of a Ponzi scheme -- but that they have had a difficult time explaining to their constituents.
The Incoherence of Place and Politics
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby kublikhan » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 23:22:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')Cities don't need help. (Maybe poor folk do.) Gentrification is the driving force behind urban, even-suburban development today. It started in the big Eastern Cities back in the 1980's especially New York in Soho then Tribeca, and continued to all the rust-belt cities and the Northwest. My wife returns periodically to her beat-up rusted Western PA ex-coal/steel town. They now have coffee shops and fine restaurants. Finally. Yeah.
Gentrification made some progress in revitalizing some parts of US cities. But it is not the policy shift that we really need to refocus on cities. In Chicago, gentrification brought some growth and development in the loop. But the effect has not spread to the rest of the city and you can still find the signs of decay.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ake no mistake about it, the central cores of the nation's largest cities are doing better than at any time in recent history. Much of the credit has to go to successful efforts to make crime infested urban cores suitable for habitation, which started with the strong law enforcement policies of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

However, to characterize the trend since 2000 as reflective of any "flocking" to the cities is to exaggerate the trend of downtown improvement beyond recognition. Among the 51 major metropolitan areas (those with more than 1 million population), nearly 99 percent of all population growth between 2000 and 2010 was outside the downtown areas (Figure 1).

Overall, the average downtown area in the major metropolitan areas grew by 4000 people between 2000 and 2010. That may be a lot of people for a college lacrosse game, but not for a city. While in some cases these increases were substantial in percentage terms, the population base was generally small, which was the result of huge population losses in previous decades as well as the conversion of old disused office buildings, warehouses and factories into residential units.

Trends in the Larger Urban Cores: The downtown population gains, however, were not sufficient to stem the continuing decline in urban core populations. Among the 51 major metropolitan areas, the aggregate data indicates a loss of population within six miles of city hall. In essence, the oasis of modest downtown growth was more than negated by losses surrounding the downtown areas. Virtually all the population growth in the major metropolitan areas lay outside the six mile radius core, as areas within the historical urban core, including downtown, lost 0.4 percent.

Even when the radius is expanded to 10 miles, the overwhelming majority of growth remains outside. Approximately 94 percent of the aggregate population growth of the major metropolitan areas occurred more than 10 miles from downtown (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows that more than one-half of the growth occurred 20 miles and further from city hall. Further, the population growth beyond 10 miles (10-15 mile radius, 15-20 miles radius and 20 mile and greater radius) from the core exceeded the (2000) share of population, showing the continuing dispersal of American metropolitan areas (Figure 4).

Chicago: The Champion? The Census Bureau press release highlights the fact that downtown Chicago experienced the largest gain in the nation. Downtown Chicago accounted for 13 percent of the metropolitan area's growth with an impressive 48,000 new residents. However, while downtown Chicago was prospering, people were flocking away from the rest of the city. Within a five mile radius of the Loop, there was a net population loss of 12,000 and a net loss of more than 200,000 within 20 miles (Figure 5). Only within the 36th mile radius from city hall is there a net population gain.

As we have observed before, 2000 to 2010 was, unlike the 1970s and other decades, more friendly to the nation's core cities, although less so than the previous decade. Due to the repurposing of old offices and other structures, sometimes aided by subsidies, small downtown slivers may have done better than at any time since before World War II. But the data is clear. Suburban growth was stronger in the 2000s than in the 1990s. The one percent flocked to downtown and the 99 percent flocked to outside downtown.
Flocking Elsewhere: The Downtown Growth Story
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Cities > Suburbs for PeakOil

Postby kublikhan » Wed 07 Nov 2012, 23:26:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')hat should be troubling to the white/racist/republican crowd is that poor folks are being driven out of the core cities, further into the older suburbs, closer and closer to the White-Flight Zone. Now there is a recipe for, you know, a 'tense situation.' Am I glad I live behind the Redwood Curtain.
The original article I posted talks about this issue. The older inner ring suburbs are now increasingly included in the decay of the city. Middle class residents are fleeing to the newer outer ring of suburban development. Pretty sad model of development. Here's a more recent article on the subject if you were interested:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust as older Northeastern and Midwestern cities began their downward spiral in the 1950s, losing both population and relative wealth, now it's the turn of their first-ring suburbs.

Responding to evidence in recent Census reports, a gloomy audience at the Bloomington Arts Center on Wednesday night watched clips from two films by Andrea Torrice depicting the decline of 1950s-era suburbs near Philadelphia and Cincinnati. Panelists then lamented some of the same trends in Brooklyn Park, Richfield, Robbinsdale and other first-ring Twin Cities communities. Increasing poverty, crumbling infrastructure, struggling schools and abandoned strip malls were all part of the discussion, as were reductions in population, tax base and political influence.

Everyone seemed to agree that shifting racial patterns complicate the picture. As the new Census results show, African-Americans, Hispanics and East African immigrants are moving to the inner suburbs in large numbers, not only here but across the country. Their hopes for better schools and jobs, safer streets and tolerant attitudes aren't always realized, however.

Panelists Ahmed Adam Jama, a Somali-born businessman, and Melissa Krull, superintendent of Eden Prairie schools, discussed a bitter dispute over school boundaries that placed immigrants and some white families on opposites sides. It echoed the kinds of fights common in major cities 40 years ago.

Because the towns went up so rapidly after the Second World War, their infrastructures are crumbling all at once, he said. Taxes must rise in order to fix streets, parks and schools and to maintain police, trash pickup and other services. But if taxes rise, middle-class residents move farther out. As middle-class residents move, businesses and jobs follow. Ghost malls, weedy parking lots and rental houses appear. The tax base falls farther and decline becomes inevitable, especially as government budgets shrink to the bone and political clout shifts to the outer edge.

Decline as government policy
But there's another way to think about first-ring decline — and to imagine a solution.

Back in the 1950s, the decline and decay of older cities wasn't really an inevitable consequence of market forces, as most believe, but a product of deliberate federal policy. Congress authorized mortgage loans (GI and FHA) aimed at subsidizing returning servicemen and their families. The government also secured sources of cheap foreign oil and undertook the largest public works project in history — the Interstate highway system. The result was a massive social engineering project that encouraged middle-class whites to abandon cities and move to what became first-ring suburbs.

I'm not saying that Washington set out to punish older cities. Nor am I suggesting that no middle-class flight would have happened if not for federal subsidy. I am suggesting that federal policy aided and abetted the process. Those same policies remain in place today, along with zoning, taxing, lending and design practices that encourage developers to abandon old property and build on new ground farther out.
Policies that built first-ring suburbs in 1950s now foster their decline
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests