Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Urban Sprawl Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby mos6507 » Tue 02 Dec 2008, 16:05:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')I am not a fan of urban renewal / revitalization projects.


So you think blight will just go away on its own?
mos6507
 

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 02 Dec 2008, 18:37:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')
So you think blight will just go away on its own?


It will conveniently die without spreading, apparently.
Ludi
 

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby cube » Tue 02 Dec 2008, 22:55:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o you would walk away from valuable real estate for engineering, ecologic, or economics reasons?
If it was still valuable then it wouldn't have been abandoned.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507 wrote:', '.')..
So you think blight will just go away on its own?
I like Ludi's answer:
"It will conveniently die without spreading, apparently."
//
I have yet to see anyone challenge my assertion when I said such a program is nothing more then taking money from person A and giving it to person B.
I can only assume everyone agrees with me on that point right?
And if you agree on that point then that means government didn't really solve any problems then.
All the replies here are just bringing up completely different points.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby cube » Wed 03 Dec 2008, 13:00:56

I'm going to let this thread die a horrible death because frankly the first post was obviously a loaded question so it's not like I expected much to come out of it.

*heads back over to the econ section*
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Wed 03 Dec 2008, 17:40:11

All hail suburbia and 1200unit subdivisions! McManshions are fantastic and I love it when people drive their huge-ass SUVs 100ft to do pile up on carb-loaded groceries to make their fat-asses even FATTER.
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 10 Dec 2008, 17:48:19

BUMP

Let the debate rage on.
mos6507
 

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Thu 11 Dec 2008, 20:17:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', 'C')omparing the worst of cities with the best of suburbs is fantastically disingenuous. If only all suburbs were as leafy, connective and bucolic as those built in the early 20c, then there wouldn't be anything to dislike. Of course, postwar suburbs resemble nothing of the sort, do they?

Comparing the best of cities with the worst of suburbs is also fantastically disingenuous.

By some coincidence, there is an article on the oil drum that talks about the usual city vs. country sustainability debate. Maybe you should read it: A Resilient Suburbia


Your visceral city-hate has driven you to the dark side! Learn to love the city and all of it's little intricate joys.
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby Lord_Garth » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 00:52:25

You people have convinced me to hate the human race as much as you do. Thank you. I have manufactured a large quantity of weapons grade anthrax and will now go out and commit mass murder like I have been thinking about for a long time. I think I will enjoy it. I'm working on getting a large quantity of nuclear waste for use in a dirty bomb, too.
User avatar
Lord_Garth
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby Capitalism_and_Democracy » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 22:35:47

It's unfortunate that I'm late to this debate (argument?) but I think I have something to offer...

We can get a grasp on how the Federal Government has impacted sprawl by looking at those cities that developed pre-federal infrastructure spending, and comparing them against their post-federal spending counterparts. It is actually quite an interesting comparison.

Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, St. Luis, Chicago - these are all cities whose downtowns/major living areas were mostly established prior to major federal involvement in infrastructure spending.

Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco/Oakland, and basically the rest of California were all established post Eisenhower and the rise of federally funded infrastructure. How do the two sets of cities compare?

Please.... set aside your political affiliation here for the moment... take look at any published list of the most polluted cities in the United States. I pull from the Forbes list for 2006 (the first one I could find). Six of the top Ten most polluted cities in the U.S. are in California, another is Houston. New York and Philadelphia are the only east-coast cities to make the list (coming in low at number 9 and number 7 respectively), and they happen to be two of the densest cities in the Nation.

It is apparent that sprawl, or the extent to which a cities population is spread geographically, is directly impacted by the existence of suitable infrastructure. The only other explanation would be the agriculture that exists in California - but again here we find federal subsidies at the heart of the pollutant. And Houston, San Diego, and Los Angeles have very little agriculture to speak of ...

Every year the federal government spends over $70 billion on building roads and bridges... since each dollar spent increases the usefulness of automobiles, this spending represents a direct subsidy to the automakers. Since the most efficient way to fuel an automobile (to this point) is gasoline, it further represents a subsidy to the oil companies. Easy transportation decreases the incentive to live where you work (or go to school, or take vacation, etc), and thus over time would increase the sprawl of a given community.

If anyone in this forum honestly thinks that sprawl would be possible without the automobile - feel free to make your argument... the fact is that without federal spending on infrastructure, the automobile wouldn't be nearly as popular for the average consumer. Combine this with state regulation on the height of most buildings, and you end up with people that are incentivized on the one hand, and forced on the other, to grow out rather than up.

This is unfortunate because, as the poll of polluting cities demonstrates, the skyscraper is one of the most efficient human constructs on the planet ... had it not been for the rise of the automobile, there would be far more skyscrapers and a great deal less sprawl (and, subsequently, transportation related pollution).

Whatever you feel about the city, no one likes pollution ... you cannot deny that the federal subsidy for roads and other infrastructure has gotten us addicted, slowly but surely, to fossil fuels and long distance travel.
User avatar
Capitalism_and_Democracy
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue 16 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 17 Dec 2008, 05:04:44

You can push the resource usage around and try to hide ecological footprints but infinite growth in a finite world is unsustainable regardless of the urban planning model. People who look at reurbanization as "the" solution really aren't seeing the bigger picture.
mos6507
 

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Wed 17 Dec 2008, 06:24:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')
Sorry to expand things out to ReverseEngineer proportions.


Dang, I hardly have participated in this thread, and I get a mention here? I think I might have dropped in a post, but I'm not going to go and look it up, I'm gonna start from scratch here just on the last 2 pages of the thread.

The way things actually evolved is clearly a problem with the diminishing amount of Oil and the inability of personal transportation like the Automobile to ship everyone around all the time easily. With their current infrastructure and dependence on Oil, most cities and suburbs definitely appear quite Doomed, no doubt. However, does this mean we all are inevitably Doomed to live the life of Hunter Gatherers? While I personally would not be bothered by that outcome, I also do not think its the only possible sustainable one.

Now, I am going to write a scenario that takes place a LONG time in the future, after all the Zombie Wars and *hopefully* only a limited Thermonuclear Exchange somewhere in Pakistan, with most of the rest of the Mechanized Warfare remaining conventional until we simply can't produce more tanks and move them around the battlefields reasonably with any decent logistics.

Once the population dies off to something reasonably sustainable with what Oil is still left, we can begin to rebuild with that remaining fuel and our knowledge of how to collect energy elsewhere more sustainably. Remember, humanity built up quite a huge and complex civilization before Big Oil came to rule the world, and there is no reason to suppose that after a new Dark Age, plenty of Plagues and mass Die Off that civilization would not reorganize itself.

200 years from now, while the old cities might be wastelands in terms of anybody living there, they also are a TREASURE trove of materials that could be used for rebuilding. Steel in those buildings won;t rust out that quick, and copper wire coated with plastic insulators wont decompose that quick either. There will be stuff to mine in those cities that was mined before, cleaning it up and making it useful again will take work and energy, but that can be bootstrapped up over time. It starts with one Windmill with one motor reconditioned from old stuff, and it grows again from there.

As we rebuild, would we EVER want to, or could we even build cities along the model we did when Oil was plentiful? Obviously not, nor should we since its so obiously a very BAD model.

The model I would look to for sustainability would be one of Redundancy and small systems. Big centralized Power Generation is not sustainable, each small population has to generate its own power. Collection can come in the form of Windmills, small Hydro Plants and Sterling Engines that collect energy from the Sun via concentration of Heat. You build these things gradually over time with human labor and materials scavenged from the old civilization and knowledge preserved in books and libraries and passing down skills from one generation to the next. I do not think ALL the knowledge will ever be lost, anymore than all the knowledge was lost of the Ancients with the burning of the Great Library in Alexandria. There is in fact much more reproduction of knowledge now then there was then, even on Paper.

Individual sustainable communities can eventually evolve here, permaculture techniques for farming can be implemented gradually, an excess of collected energy relative to population size and its demands can be achieved. It will take time, generations in fact to recover from this debacle, but perpetual life as a Stone Age Hunter Gatherer? I think not, assuming we survive at all.

Gradually we will rebuild to communities and cities that were about the size and scope they were in 1750, except better because we will have electronics and we will have transportation somewhat better than the horse and buggy, though that will probably be used frequently also. Small towns will evolve again that sit at points along navigable rivers, and some also along Rail lines. Oceans will be transited by some Sailing Ships, and some ships powered by Bunker Fuel, with refurbished old hulls from the Oil Era.

Small Cities will exist for trade, which will be mostly Barter. Gold and Silver will be reviled by all as the work of Satan, and anyone who uses them for trade purposes will be strung up by their gonads, along with anyone who proposes a banking system and loans money at interest. This will be known and passed down to all members of the society as PURE EVIL, and anyone who even TRIES such a scheme will be Burned at the Stake IMMMEDIATELY. LOL.

The communities which evolve will all have their own little power plants, of several different types, and use animal power and human power for transportaiton within reasonable distances. Children will once again play outside with balls and sticks, instead of Nintendo Games, and they will be physically healthier and happy laughing children again, instead of human pincushions that tattoo their bodies and turn themselvs into canvas.

It will come eventually, just this sick culture must die first, and the earth needs time to heal itself from the damage we did. Most will die here, but in the end a few will make it thru, and Humanity will be reborn, better the next time round.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why Sprawl is a Conservative issue

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 17 Dec 2008, 10:37:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', '
')Once the population dies off to something reasonably sustainable


I don't think "all is well after armageddon" narratives are very productive in debating where we go from here.
mos6507
 
Top

Sprawl

Unread postby Mike Morin » Wed 01 Jul 2009, 22:34:54

Sprawl is the word.

Sprawl is associated directly with the development, improvement, diffusion, and direct sales and use of the personal automobile and its concomitant (and enabling) growth of the petroleum resource and industry.

According to James Howard Kunstler http://www.kunstler.com/Mags_Bruegmann.html , "sprawl was an emergent, self-organizing system made possible only by lavish and exorbitant supplies of cheap fossil fuels". Kunstler estimates that 80% of everything ever built in the United States has been built according to the sprawl pattern.

You astutely note that 1950 seems to be an approximate turning point for a form of more entropic, less dense, (more automobile oriented) sprawl. Continuing improvements in fossil fuel exploration science and technology, drilling and refining, and applications technologies had the United States awash in fossil fuel oil by WWII and after. The perceived endless domestic supply of approximately 1950 combined with a worldwide expansion in discoveries and production led Eisenhower to implement import quotas in the late 1950s.

A byproduct of the crude oil refining process is asphalt. As the oil industry grew along with the automobile industry in the early 1900s, so did the distribution network of fuels, filling and service stations, and the economic impetus to pave, pave, pave. A definite turning point in the sprawl/automobile culture was the National Highway Act of 1950, which imposed Federal gasoline fees to finance the Federal Interstate Highway system.

Ironically, about this time, a petroleum geologist named M. King Hubbert was mapping the history of exploration, discovery, and production in the lower 48 states and discovered a pattern which led him to predict that the production of domestic oil would peak in the early 1970s. He was mostly scoffed at, ridiculed, and ignored until his predictions came true in the 1970s. Petroleum Geologists, worldwide, have accepted Hubbert's methodology and applied it to worldwide oil (and natural gas) resources and have almost consensually concluded that worldwide oil and gas production has peaked about 2005 or at the very latest 2015. Most known, exploitable reserve fields, worldwide, are already past their peak production capabilities.

"Between 1948 and 1972, consumption in the U.S. grew from 5.8 to 16.4 million barrels per day. While significant, this three-fold increase was greatly surpassed by societies in other parts of the world: Western Europe's use of petroleum grew sixteen-fold and Japan's 137-fold. This global increase in fuel consumption was tied to the automobile; worldwide automobile ownership rose from 18.9 million in 1949 to 161 million in 1972. The United State's contribution to this growth was significant—an increase from 45 million to 119 million in little more than two decades."
(http://www.eoearth.org/article/Petroleu ... er_Reading).

With regards to automobile-centric sprawl, I echo Kunstler warning as I quote him: "all the existing stuff built according to the pattern of sprawl ... will drastically lose its usefulness and its relative "market" value. What's more, the discontinuities to come in the global energy picture will pose challenges so severe to industrial society that we will be lucky to salvage anything resembling civilized life altogether."

That is why, I strongly recommend that we do everything within our human capabilities to educate, advocate, and implement a concerted rebuilding plan committed to reducing automobile usage by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years and begin implementing such a fossil fuel demand side management program and economic supply side reallocation plan almost immediately, if we are to have any hope, whatsoever, of avoiding the greatest extinction of life, particularly the human sort in the next 50 to 100 years.


Mike Morin
Eugene, OR
Mike Morin
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu 11 Jun 2009, 13:26:53

Re: Sprawl

Unread postby anador » Thu 02 Jul 2009, 08:30:17

Kunstler doesnt estimate the 80% figure. The National Homebuilder's association has reported that 80% of all residential structures built since 1950 are ranches or raised ranches. As a point of fact it is unlikely to see these structures in a growth pattern that is not "sprawl", I believe thats where he got the figure from.

Sprawl is both a symptom and "because of planning law" largely the cause of our current economy and the energy crisis.

He has a great weekly podcast by the way at http://www.kunstlercast.com
@#$% highways
User avatar
anador
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 17:31:18

Re: Sprawl

Unread postby pup55 » Fri 14 Aug 2009, 14:54:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e do everything within our human capabilities to educate, advocate, and implement a concerted rebuilding plan committed to reducing automobile usage by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years


Great idea.

I live in the epicenter of suburbia, the population of the county is close to 1 million now. To get anything like this done, you have to get the County Commission to tell the planning department to make it so.

Here is the county commission:

Chairman: Good old boy former insurance salesman.
District 1: Former school teacher
District 2: Bankruptcy and Finance attorney
District 3: Photocopier Salesman
District 4: Real Estate Developer/broker

All of the above as candidates, including the former school teacher, reported substantial contributions from real estate developers and attorneys, car dealerships, and others whose interest is directly associated with sprawl. The district 3 guy actually received a contribution from the District 4 guy.

Further review shows that many of the same builders, insurance people, engineering companies, auto dealers and others also contributed to the other candidate in the election (thus hedging their bets)....

So, we have a bit of a problem. The county commission is bought and paid for by sprawl. They can no more vote against it than they can vote against their best friend....which in some cases is one and the same.

Suggestions?
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Sprawl

Unread postby Mike Morin » Thu 20 Aug 2009, 19:04:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e do everything within our human capabilities to educate, advocate, and implement a concerted rebuilding plan committed to reducing automobile usage by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years


Great idea.

I live in the epicenter of suburbia, the population of the county is close to 1 million now. To get anything like this done, you have to get the County Commission to tell the planning department to make it so.

Here is the county commission:

Chairman: Good old boy former insurance salesman.
District 1: Former school teacher
District 2: Bankruptcy and Finance attorney
District 3: Photocopier Salesman
District 4: Real Estate Developer/broker

All of the above as candidates, including the former school teacher, reported substantial contributions from real estate developers and attorneys, car dealerships, and others whose interest is directly associated with sprawl. The district 3 guy actually received a contribution from the District 4 guy.

Further review shows that many of the same builders, insurance people, engineering companies, auto dealers and others also contributed to the other candidate in the election (thus hedging their bets)....

So, we have a bit of a problem. The county commission is bought and paid for by sprawl. They can no more vote against it than they can vote against their best friend....which in some cases is one and the same.

Suggestions?


Interesting case study.

1.) Ignore the whores (local, county, state and national politicians and the bureaucrats).
2.) Watch the whores and pimps (the Capitalist business interests) wither away.
3.) Educate and organize the people.


In Peace, Friendship, Cooperation, and Solidarity,

Mike Morin
http://groups.google.com/group/world-un ... ooperation
Mike Morin
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu 11 Jun 2009, 13:26:53
Top

Previous

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron