$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')My view is that arrangements that worked in the past are not necessarily a good model for the future since we're already well into overshoot. In fact, people often make the case that cities of any kind are not sustainable, and cite past civilizations that burned themselves out by raping the surrounding countryside to fuel them. They often paint the ideal of individual homes supported by privately owned subsistence gardens as an ideal, something that the suburbs can be remodeled into, and the city with its skyscrapers can not.[/b].
PeakOil is You
THE Urban Sprawl Thread (merged)
Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue
by emersonbiggins » Wed 26 Nov 2008, 16:07:07
The best case scenario puts sub/exurbia still well at the mercy of increasingly costly water/sewer infrastructure, utilities, services and roads, and the other networks that bind suburbia into modern civilization. Frankly, as low as the densities are, they are still too high for full and complete decentralization into self-sustaining domiciles, b/c of the proximity needed for individual water wells, septic tanks, etc., so as not to deplete or pollute the common source for neighborhoods. Only rural homesteads provide the resources necessary to become self-subsisting, but this is obviously not an option for many.
I'd like to think that suburbia will respond in many creative ways to the problems at hand, and perhaps even thrive, but I don't fool myself into thinking that 90% of them aren't largely products derived from strong federal influence and the presence of cheap and available resources.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
George Carlin
George Carlin
-
emersonbiggins - Expert
- Posts: 5150
- Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Dallas
Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue
by nero » Wed 26 Nov 2008, 17:09:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkJ', 'A')s I mentioned, many cities don't have the undeveloped/underdeveloped building lots and large tracts of acreage, farmland, water etc, necessary for residential/commercial/industrial tax revenue growth. Because of this, to keep up with inflation and shrinking tax revenue they often raise tax rates, raise assessments, eliminate services, reduce services, charge for services etc.
The high taxes encourage/force more people to move out of the cities, discourage/prevent people from moving into the cities and discourage/prevent developers, builders, investors and landlords from investing in the cities.
Of course high taxes are only one part of many challenges faced by cities.
The high taxes encourage/force more people to move out of the cities, discourage/prevent people from moving into the cities and discourage/prevent developers, builders, investors and landlords from investing in the cities.
Of course high taxes are only one part of many challenges faced by cities.
My point was that it is entirely possible to design a tax system where there is less of a tax burden in the city than in the country. For instance you could have the land tax be proportional to the road frontage and area instead of being based on market value. Or how about no property tax at all and go with local government being supported purely by service fees and a sales tax. As long as the taxing jurisdiction is large enough that people can't move to competing jurisdictions then you can create any sort of tax insentives you want. I'm well aware that current tax systems favour suburban expansion.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
-
nero - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue
by mos6507 » Wed 26 Nov 2008, 18:01:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '
')I'd like to think that suburbia will respond in many creative ways to the problems at hand, and perhaps even thrive, but I don't fool myself into thinking that 90% of them aren't largely products derived from strong federal influence and the presence of cheap and available resources.
')I'd like to think that suburbia will respond in many creative ways to the problems at hand, and perhaps even thrive, but I don't fool myself into thinking that 90% of them aren't largely products derived from strong federal influence and the presence of cheap and available resources.
You didn't really answer my question. What's your prescription? Since you've written off the suburbs, what odds do you give that every square foot of parking space in the city will be torn up and converted into urban gardens? And if this happens, how do you think the fertility of the underlying soil is there compared to suburban lawns? What about the shade from tall surrounding buildings? How safe would these communal gardens be from the hungry masses? What are the odds that our current population can adapt in any way shape or form that could stave off collapse? If you say "slim to none" then this entire debate is academic at best.
I just think people like Kunstler have done the world a disservice for trying to sell the idea that the suburbs are the root of all the world's problems when they are a byproduct of far larger problems. Earlier in the thread, reasons were given why people might voluntarily prefer to live in the burbs rather than the city, but Kunstler types either ignore them, or they try to cast a judgmental finger at those who would dare to dream for a "caricature of a european chateau" rather than a nice cramped brownstone apartment where you can smell your neighbor's bad cooking, his BO, and overhear him beating his wife. Too many people have latched onto his message and continue to see only part of the bigger picture. People are far too programmed to look for convenient scapegoats.
As long as we ignore genuine human wants in favor of 'shouldas' then we will never get anywhere. People do not voluntarily make sacrifices for the greater good. That's tragedy of the commons for you. People will not rearrange their living conditions in some optimal way so we can all minimize our ecological footprint. Maybe if there were only 500 million of us, in which case our share of the earth's resources could be generous, but at 6.7 billion, no, we're not all going to live like a Calcutta peasant. People will try to make themselves as comfortable as their station in life allows and that means something akin to the suburbs will persist in one shape or another as an antidote to the crowded cities, regardless of tax structure and energy descent.
- mos6507
Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue
by cube » Fri 28 Nov 2008, 04:42:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'S')uburban sprawl actually began quite a long time ago. It was the locomotive that first allowed people to work in the city but go home to a nice little "ranch" home in the countryside.
....
Totally agree.....
wiki says:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s early as 1850, 83 commuter stations had been built within a 15-mile radius of Boston.
Anyone with a 15 mile commute was really "pushing the limits" of such technology.
I'm pretty certain a round trip commute time would of been at least 2 hours.
What's the old saying? The more things change the more they stay the same. A 2 hour++ commute sounds like what a lot folks do today. Why did people move 15 miles away from the city back in 1850? The same reason why people live 50 miles away from work today.
People like having "big" houses, it's a status symbol.
We can go back further to ancient Egypt. The word pharaoh means "great house".
The concept of being a "bigger man" than your neighbors because you live in a bigger house is not a new idea.
Crude oil did NOT change basic human wants, it simply allowed us to have more.
On a psychological / emotional level we aren't that much different than our ancestors.
- cube
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
