[spudbuddy]

At 150 miles per week, you're lucky.
I live in the center of a large city, and a lot of people here have the luxury of leaving their cars parked except for certain kinds of trips...usually out of town.

It has always amazed me...if a so-called "bedroom" community outside this city has grown to a population of 50 - 80 thousand people, why the hell do more of those people not work in that community?

Somehow, this puny little burg of 80,000 people has no jobs (except bottom feeder service jobs.)
That in itself illustrates the wastefulness of the suburban and exburban design.

The easy answer to all this is that an oil-based economy has always been based on and encouraged the ramping up of energy use. The more it's used, the more cash flows in certain ways along certain flowcharts and winds up in certain pockets. It has been a kind of inextricable thing, interwoven in mutually supportive ways, yet ultimately destructive, as we are now becoming aware of.
For instance: if a huge corporate advertising budget represents 25 or 30% of the actual consumer cost of an item, there is also a jobs creation factor.

If a young art student who dreamed of becoming a real artist finds out, upon graduation from art school, an advertising agency will pay an art department pretty good money to churn out the stuff that shows up on billboards, in magazines, etc.
I used to know tons of people who dreamed of making movies and aligned their education in that direction.
I'm amazed when I hear their "movie-style" lingo now. They're talking the talk....but it's about making commercials. (which, for them, is where the money is.)
Cheap land (for anything other than food production) and cheap fuel having given us the spread and the sprawl.

This model has been popular for so long...the equation that buys size, floor space at the expense of motoring costs. For a long long time that looked so attractive.
I don't know how many times I've heard this: "Two dependable family cars @ $8,000 each per annum runing costs....but we saved maybe $200,000 on the cost of our home."

I am continually amazed at the amount of space that people need.
In my city, many families in re-sale homes are making do with what used to be the standard amount of living space (1200-1500 sq. ft.) These are still 3 and 4 bedroom homes. The vast majority of these families have between 1 and 3 children.
In the new suburbia, the same number of people are camped in double, sometimes triple that amount of space. And it will all take that much more heating and cooling fuel.

I did a job in an older first generation home yesterday: I walked in the front door (it was a hot day) and assumed they had the central air conditioning on. Nope. Shade trees. (Imagine that.) Plus the fact that the design construction of the home included pretty decent insulation, lots of good air flow. On an 87-dgree day, they were not spending a penny on fuel to make their place liveable.

The entire economic spread of suburbia, and the reasons why people located there, may have made sense when energy was cheap.
I am struck by the "nobility" of the long commute. This has become so interwoven into our culture that for a long time the logistics of it were not questioned.
Myself...I used to drive through suburbia playing this little game:
"I wonder what it will all look like 50 or 60 years from now, when the trees grow up. Will it age gracefully?"
Interesting question. Does anything we build anymore age gracefully?
Has that concept even survived, in the public eye?

In the next 2 or 3 years, I wonder what percentage of the population will actually re-locate...not just seriously reconsider it, but actually do it.
And where will they go?
I've noticed that the demand for inner city houses where I live has shot up sky high. Perhaps there will be a kind of contraction around here, as suburban populations begin to re-concentrate closer to the center.
As with most large cities in North America, here, the greater metro population is about 74% suburban.

The "long" commute is an interesting issue. I know of people who put in 75-100 miles a day or more, to get to their job. These are high-end jobs, and they're not living this way primarily to save money. Their choice has been because they want to live exactly where they live (small town or rural) for esthetic reasons.
And then there are the long commutes from city to city. This seems ridiculous.
We have to seriously consider how we have concentrated job locations, versus where people actually live.
Another little game I play: If I could magicallly "blip out" every private vehicle that I see on my city streets that is registered to an out of town residential address....what would disappear? One vehicle in three? Two out of five?
Why are they here? (work/shopping/entertainment/other)
Why aren't they doing those things in the communities in which they live?
Other than the irritation created by the gridlock and the congestion...when it doesn't make economic sense anymore, it just seems stupidly wasteful.


If a physician could measure all the sources of stress attached to modern living, what percentage of that stress could be attributable to commuting?
I imagine that measurment would be considerable.
On a concord jet...the commute from NYC to Paris can take, what....3 hours? Imagine spending that same amount of time to go 20 or 30 miles to work every day.
Many people spend enormous amounts of the lives just trying to get somewhere. For every hour I work (approx. 55 hours/ week) I spend about 10 minutes per hour worked commuting.
Imagine the difference when that climbs to 30 minutes per hour worked. Over the course of a year, that really adds up.
Trading away that precious commodity just doesn't make sense.
Add to that the necessity to pile on even more working hours just to pay for the means of transport...well, there's the treadmill.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't know how many times I've heard this: "Two dependable family cars @ $8,000 each per annum runing costs....but we saved maybe $200,000 on the cost of our home."

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a') city like Austin

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a') city like Austin

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't know how many times I've heard this: "Two dependable family cars @ $8,000 each per annum runing costs....but we saved maybe $200,000 on the cost of our home."

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')herman

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')herman

[pup55]

I am such a dolt, or was. It made sense at the time (sort of) because rents were also stupidly high.

But, you are right of course. That was the time that mortgage rates were running in the 12-13% range. The builders knew that in order to manufacture and sell houses, given the proverbial average salary, and 5% down, and rules that would not let you get a loan unless you had a certain income level, they could only build houses this size. Since then, interest rates fell, no one has to qualify, there is no such thing as a downpayment and nominal wages/salaries are a known amount, so they know they can build these 4500 sf houses and still sell them no problem.

That means that if you bought a 3000 square foot house in 1998 slightly closer to Dallas, you are screwed when it is time to sell it because Ms. House Shopper would rather have the new big one even if Mr. Shopper has to commute an extra 10 miles.

Meanwhile, another thousand square miles of good farmland gets paved over and replaced by 7-11's and pink flamingoes.

But, the whole system is dependent on the scarce resource, which is, in this case, availability of cheap mortgage money, which I think is more of an issue than the cheap gas. We will see.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I') am such a dolt, or was. It made sense at the time (sort of) because rents were also stupidly high.

[pup55]

Oh... ha ha...

by "I am such a dolt" I meant it to be "I am this kind of a dolt" or "I am just such a dolt" rather than "I am so much of a dolt". My illiteration is a little off.

Anyway we did not end up too bad out of it. When we unloaded ours, we got about what it was worth, and moved farther out in commuter land.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'O')h... ha ha...

by "I am such a dolt" I meant it to be "I am this kind of a dolt" or "I am just such a dolt" rather than "I am so much of a dolt". My illiteration is a little off.

Anyway we did not end up too bad out of it. When we unloaded ours, we got about what it was worth, and moved farther out in commuter land.

[pup55]

Don't know. You are right, that whole area is set up with tracks, or at least roadbed, already. Every one of those little suburban towns has a little old train station.

How tough would things have to get?

[spudbuddy]

I remember spending an interesting evening last year at work, looking at a real estate site in Davenport Iowa. I spent a lot of time looking at forclosure sales and cheap older homes...( like a huge 1870's mansion going for 130K)
It occurs to me now...that a lot of what I was looking at online was the classic inner city decay -
which makes me wonder:
There's plenty of existing older housing all over America - in small and large towns, small cities...sitting empty, boarded up, unused.
And yet the sprawl continues.
Does this not kind of seem obvious...that the whole game plan is to sell as many McMansions and McHouses as possible...to keep building more and more of this stuff, rather than utilize housing resources that are already there?
What I looked at in Davenport...in my city most of those old houses would be renovated as single family...or divided up into multi-unit (and many of these astonishingly tastefully done, as well.... which of course, creates a huge market for renovators to exploit.) In fact, the small contractor and subcontractor has enjoyed a real growth industry here.

I guess the real argument against all this (using Davenport as an example) might be that there is no demand for the older homes because that isn't where the jobs are...and yet, typically....the suburban sprawl around the old original urban core is as extensive as ever. (stretching 10 to 15 miles out of town.) So the jobs are somewhere close.
In the town of Cascade (about 60 miles north) the 2-block Main Street has actually survived pretty much intact. Lined on both sides with 2-story traditional brick buildings.
I walked down this street one night, looking up at all the second floor apartments over the stores. This was about 10 o'clock at night, after dark. Every single window was dark. Every one.
Which of course caused me to reflect - who lives up there?
The answer...no one.

So I'm looking at this picture: A country riddled with an infrustructure that is drastically under-utilized, while the McBoxes keep on going up.
And many of them selling at prices that make me constantly wonder how people can afford them.
I'm sure that not so far into the past, only multi-millionaires lived in 3 or 4 thousand square feet spaces.
These places sell to people now who make far less than that.

If you were to add up the total, entire dollar value of every piece of real estate in North America...based on existing fair market assessment...and then compared that to the actual equity that exists free and clear...I wonder what the actual deficit would be?
(that's a scary thought.)

[spudbuddy]

Pup-

You should go have a look at the rail forum.
If all those little suburbs still have stations intact, and the existing rail bed is still there, it wouldn't take much to put a light rail back in.
Beyond the cost, what it would really take is convincing people that rail commuting is the way to go. (The $25 gallon of gas?)

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')sn't where the jobs are

[spudbuddy]

Pretty dark irony-
everyone going for bigger/cheaper
but ultimately the most expensive.
I'm looking at two different sides of the same picture....
Some business located where people cannot realistically get to it,
except for the people who can afford the gas - except they're the kind
of people who would not work for that low a wage.
(read: strip malls and outposted just about everything)
Owners of 4000 sq ft+ McMansions whose livelihood is blown out of the water...
That's the tricky little shell game I watch these days. No matter how much refection, there is no way of knowing how this economy will weather rising fuel costs.
Automatically. pretty much the end of gigantism, I'd say.

Size-wise....I can understand the whole historical evolution...of all those addictions....to speed, mobility, easy motoring, cheap fuel, asphalt, spread, sprawl, techno-solutions, and all the rest of it. I guess we were just built that way.
But what I don't get is this size thing. For three decades now, we've been on this kick.
(Ironically...ever notice how baseball stadiums got smaller?) It's the one major league sport that decided intimacy was a greater attraction...in spite of moveable roofs, and other goodies...smaller seating capacity.

So many things increased in size. Supercenters. The mall of America.
If you think about it...the sheer amount of spaces that have to be heated and cooled.
I spent some time awhile ago looking at pictures of old factories in Detroit...during the Motown heyday.
That's what used to be built on the grand scale...the places where industry built things.
The old template of retail...even the model followed by the giant department stores in NYC (Gimbel's, Macy's) that spread their space out floor to floor.
Imagine a multi-floor Wal*mart.
Interesting...that not one exists. Not even one.
How high is an average box store ceiling?
How much indoor air above our heads, clear across America, do we pay to heat and cool?
Would a 6-foot clearance suddenly make us shriek with claustrophobia?

They want to enlarge the Panama canal. Pretty major construction project...a lot of money.
Bigger cargo ships, of course. Will make pretty gigantic patio planters one day....

It is heartening to think that so many of these little rr stations actually survived.
I can see many of these places networking (if they have this kind of transportation infrastructure.)
Otherwise, will they just become thousands more ghost towns?

Another thing I ponder...is some kind of mass migration toward cities.
Throughout southeast Asia, much of Africa and South America, this is what economic upheaval has produced...a trend toward urbanization and mega-cities. (because that's where the jobs and services are.)
Interesting - that during the Great Depression cities in North America didn't grow by that much. People moved around, as much as they could, looking for work. But they didn't cluster in cities.
I guess a return to a more traditional and sustainable mode of agriculture (as opposed to agri-business) will re-create an emphasis on rural again.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spudbuddy', 'P')eople moved around, as much as they could, looking for work. But they didn't cluster in cities.
I guess a return to a more traditional and sustainable mode of agriculture (as opposed to agri-business) will re-create an emphasis on rural again.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'D')on't know. You are right, that whole area is set up with tracks, or at least roadbed, already. Every one of those little suburban towns has a little old train station.

How tough would things have to get?

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spudbuddy', 'P')up-

You should go have a look at the rail forum.

[spudbuddy]

re: Nero's $5 gallon gas, and the economics of mass transit tradeoff and home location...
it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
The traditional model used for years by many people has been the tradeoff between a cheaper mortgage and more expensive transportation.

If a home buyer is looking at mortgage savings in the 100's of thousands, transportation costs in the 10's of thousands will always look more attractive.
However, if this is expanded over the period of a decade, the picture shifts dramatically.
Non-suburnanites always tend to look at this picture using a "quality of life" format...and often enough this isn't necessarily an economic factor, but one of time...the amount of time spent per week on the road.
I have always been amazed at the amount of time people around my city will put up with, on the road.

As far as the economics of fuel efficiency:
As fuel costs rise, people will cut down their mileage any way they can. For some, this might be as little as 10%...others may alter their habits considerably more.
I've heard the argument that better fuel efficiency just defeats the purpose, as far as conservation goes...because people will just drive more.
When comparing a 15mpg guzzler, and something in the 50mpg range, that would require a lot of mileage to cancel out the savings.
I'm starting to think that SUV's were always a lousy idea.
We have no business in the 21st century driving vehicles that get the same mileage as the monsters of the '50's got. Back then, you could gas up for a couple of bucks.
(think about what percentage of an average burger-flipper's paycheck that was.)
I can't remember exactly when SUV's hit the scene. Late 80's?
Did North America sort of go collectively brain-dead in the 90's?

For me, personally, that decade was kind of my own great depression, so fuel economy never stopped being a major issue.
Perhaps that is why an SUV became such a status thing.

If peak oil ultimately forces contraction of urban areas, no matter where one lives, distance from home to work is going to be a major factor.