How so? Houston proved it wasn't spot on with days' notice of a hurricane approaching. How were we supposed to evacuate major cities with hours' notice of the approach of Soviet bombers?

 

I realize much of the civil defense measures of the 1950s were only for morale (ie: "duck and cover"). But I can see that the decentralization of cities and industries actually made some sense from a narrow nuclear/strategic point of view.

^ pssst, I think KOOW means that interstates killed our cities

I see, "flee" as in move to the suburbs, rather than "flee" from the A-bomb.

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

 

Hiroshima's safer...

NIMBY-ism has little to do with it.  Mostly the problem is the lack of available land large enough to handle modern horizontal layout plants, and the large amount of tarmac they want for maneuvering trucks.  CERCLA has contributed to this.  But unless you want people getting sick, the blame really rests on the irresponsible former owners of the property.

 

There's no inconsistency in my position.  It is necessary to expand infrastructure sometimes, for any use.  We should just be smarter about how we make that investment, conserve our resources, take into account future maintenance, and give priority to protecting the investments we've already made.  That would be downright, well, conservative, I would think?

 

Leaving aside the fact that a lot of the issues were due to actions legal at the time, CERCLA is often overkill with respect to actually preventing illness.  Especially where area which is going to be paved over for truck manuevering is concerned, containment is a far cheaper option than removal.

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

 

Hiroshima's safer...

 

For you.

Great comparison, KOOW. It would make a great photo montage/comparison and a social statement (either posted online or at an art gallery). You could do that with other U.S. cities, particularly in the industrial Midwest/Northeast.

Great comparison, KOOW. It would make a great photo montage/comparison and a social statement (either posted online or at an art gallery). You could do that with other U.S. cities, particularly in the industrial Midwest/Northeast.

 

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

 

Hiroshima's safer...

 

For you.

 

Meaning?

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

 

Hiroshima's safer...

 

For you.

 

Meaning?

 

Avoid Detroit.

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

 

Hiroshima's safer...

 

For you.

 

Meaning?

 

Avoid Detroit.

 

I knew that already, except for Fishbone's restaurant in Greektown.   8-)

Enough Kids.

Ahh,  Detroit vs Hiroshima!!

 

Hiroshima's safer...

 

For you.

 

Meaning?

 

Avoid Detroit.

 

I knew that already, except for Fishbone's restaurant in Greektown.   8-)

 

Especially Fishbone's. Union Street is better.

I bought this book, and so far it's been a very good read.  I'd recommend it to anyone on this board.

That makes you think!!

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/270231

 

The “long emergency” and the new normal

 

CHARLES MOORE

AT LARGE

Published Thursday April 17th, 2008

Appeared on page A9

 

It is increasingly difficult to dismiss the sense that economic and social systems we've come to regard as "normal," locally and globally, are strained to the limit and breaking down. Crude oil nudging $112 a barrel send motor fuel prices to record highs. People in Haiti rioting and booting their prime minister in protest and frustration over skyrocketing food prices. People killed in food riots in West Africa. These seemingly disconnected phenomena are part and parcel of a perfect storm of converging factors including energy shortages, climate change, and a third-world population explosion that will oblige us to redefine "normal."

 

We are arguably already in what author and activist James Howard Kunstler dubbed in is 2006 book of the same title, The Long Emergency.

 

I don't always agree with Kunstler - 10 years ago he was profoundly mistaken about the impact of the Y2K bug, while I predicted by mid-1999 that it would be a transitory hiccup - but I think he's on to something with projected consequences of peak oil.

 

If you think high fuel prices of the past several months are a temporary economic blip and anticipate return to relatively cheaper oil prices of quite recent memory, you're likely out of luck. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says conventional world oil production peaked in May 2005, and the peak in all oil (including non-conventional sources like tarsands) is estimated to come in 2010.

 

...

 

Charles W. Moore is a Nova Scotia based freelance writer and editor. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]. His column appears each Thursday.

Another view:

_____________________

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3833

 

Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

 

Posted by Prof. Goose on April 17, 2008 - 10:00am

Topic: Alternative energy

Tags: climate change, food, peak oil, self sufficiency, suburbs, united states (list all tags)

 

This is a guest post by Aaron Newton, who is working with coauthor Sharon Astyk on the forthcoming book, A Nation of Farmers. Aaron contributes at Groovy Green; he also blogs at Powering Down. Aaron is a land planner and garden farmer in suburban North Carolina, seeking ways to transform the current course of human land use development in an effort to prepare for the effects of global oil production peak and its outcome on automotive suburban America.

 

There is little doubt that during that last 60 years we here in America have transformed our manmade landscape in a way that is fundamentally different from any form of human habitation ever known. While many have flocked to this new way of organizing the spaces in which we live, critics have noticed the shortcomings and have loudly pointed them out. It’s been suggested that the development of the suburbs here in the U.S. was a really bad idea. Author James Kunstler describes suburbia as, ‘the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.’ The ability of most citizens to own and cheaply operate an automobile means we’ve had access to a level of mobility never before experienced. The outgrowth of which has been a sprawling pattern of living that changed the rules about how and where we live, work, and play and how we get there and back. We are now more spread out than ever before, mostly getting back and forth from one place to another by driving alone in our cars. This could turn out to be a really bad thing.

 

As the cost of fueling those cars increases, it’s becoming obvious we’ve foolishly put too many of our eggs into one basket. And as America wakes up to the realities of a changing climate, it’s also painfully obvious that soloing around in a huge fleet of carbon emitters isn’t the most thoughtful way to transport ourselves from one side of suburbia to the other. The question is, as the expansive nature of suburban life becomes too expensive, both economically and ecologically, what will we do with this great ‘misallocation’ of resources?

 

...

KJP,

 

Thanks for posting that wonderful article above.  I reviewed it (all too briefly) at lunch today and it really got me to thinking.  I suspect we, indeed, are at the end of the era of both cheap fuel and cheap food.  That will have major ramifications on life going forward.

 

While the future rarely turns out like anyone predicted, a lot of the elements the author talked about are likely to be present in society 20 years from now. 

 

Lately I've been thinking a lot about my human footprint (or carbon footprint, if you prefer).  I just spent the weekend planting rows of berry bushes for future consumption.  Last night I told my wife I may switch to drinking Ohio wines, insted of French wines, due to the overall impact of shipping (she said I was willing to make GREAT sacrifices for the planet!). 

 

Anyway, I started thinking about my impact on the earth a few months ago after watching an Australian show that translatted the environmental impact of a typical Aussy houshold into lot size (in other words, the energy/food/trash consumption of the famile was translatted into an equivilent homeowner property requirement, which was often 30x larger than what the family owned.

 

so I appreciate your posting of the above article. I have a geothermal system at my house now, my won septic, and room to grow some of my food.  I'm planning on adding more insulation to my house this summer, and have recently started to think about packaging waste in products I buy, and especially have been thinking about the global transportation usage of items I buy (like bananas).

Thinking of this a little more...

 

All the talk about home owners raising their own food (or a least a small fraction of it) focuses on growing vegitables.  I haven't heard much about other food products.

 

But let's face it... most people consume much more wheat, milk, chicken, and beef than we do veggies.  I can see a shift toward less meat and more veggies, but there is not much talk about suburban homeowners growing wheat or retaining a dairy cow.

^I could live without a cow, but it would kick @ss to have my own hen for fresh eggs.  Not sure how zoning codes feel about that, however.  Or neighbors.

^Those things are meaner than mother f#ckers... or the males are anyway. I'd rather never have poultry products again.

^And the males don't even lay eggs!, the lazy f%$&s.

^ my wife whants chickens.  I pointed out that neither the neighbor nor the county would prevent us from having a few of thems.  But the coyotes sure would!

 

My house actually had a chicken coup on it up until about 10-12 years ago.  Unlike most of you, I have a barn with a feeding trough, a silo for storing corn, and a small orchard (12 trees, about half are apples).  Now if I only had the $8 million it took to buy the golf course behind me and re-unite it with my land and re-sestablish the farm!!!!!!

 

 

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2008/04/14/daily22.html

 

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 5:56 PM EDT

MORPC: Changes needed to accommodate Columbus growth

Business First of Columbus

- by Matt Burns Business First

 

The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission is taking a glass-half-full perspective with the lull in Central Ohio development amid the economy's slowdown.

 

"If anything, this gives us a good chance to take a step back and look at a new reality we're facing and think pragmatically about how we're going to grow when the next spurt comes," said Matt LaMantia, the commission's regional development coordinator.

 

The commission is helping to paint a picture of the area that includes Franklin and 11 nearby counties with its 2008 State of the Region report, released Wednesday. The document, which the commission plans to adjust and redevelop as new data are unveiled, shows a number of shifting trends among Central Ohioans, the land and the economy that put the region at risk of being unable to sustain itself.

 

"When you look at the big picture, with fuel prices, food prices and carbon emissions, all of those different issues are interrelated in a lot of ways. And if we don't address those proactively, we're going to be behind the eight-ball, so to speak," LaMantia said.

 

...

I don't think the average homeowner has the acreage to raise a substantial amount of cereal or pulse crops, or livestock with the exception of a goat.  With intensive farming methods the average homeowner might be able to raise a good portion of the fresh veggies they would need for the growing season, with some to preserve for winter. 

 

Of course, pigs and poultry can be left to wander the streets, like they were prior to the 20th century.

Has anyone been watching the series John Adams on HBO?  I find it interesting the first lady hated the newly constructed White House because "it was in the middle of nowhere" (and it was, at the time).  It seems our desire to spread out began way before the automobile.  As soon as people figured out better ways to find their own piece of paradise, so to speak, they did it.  It seems like you're going to have to change more than policy to get the  outcome you are looking for here; you're going to have to change human nature.

Has anyone been watching the series John Adams on HBO?  I find it interesting the first lady hated the newly constructed White House because "it was in the middle of nowhere" (and it was, at the time).

 

But lucky her, they put a Mall in right nearby.

shs96,

 

Sheesh, Of course cities have been expanding outward since the beginning of time. What many people fail to understand is the difference between growth and sprawl. Simple difference: When metro areas expand outward and the population densities and wealth in existing neighborhoods don't decline, that's growth. When metro areas expand outward and densities/wealth in existing communities fall, newer communities are taking from older communities (and invariably with state and federal subsidies that people in the older communities pay to expedite their own demise). That's sprawl.

 

To sum up:

Growth = good

Sprawl = bad

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

Has anyone been watching the series John Adams on HBO?  I find it interesting the first lady hated the newly constructed White House because "it was in the middle of nowhere" (and it was, at the time).  It seems our desire to spread out began way before the automobile.  As soon as people figured out better ways to find their own piece of paradise, so to speak, they did it.  It seems like you're going to have to change more than policy to get the  outcome you are looking for here; you're going to have to change human nature.

 

Your point?  The first lady didn't want to live there.  They probably built the White House where they did because there was enough land.  If anything, this shows that some people would much prefer to be "in the heart of it all".

 

Of course there will be some that want to be in the middle of nowhere...but suburbia is hardly an escape from the congestion of the city anymore.  The main concern, I feel, is safety...and that is something which would improve if people collectively migrated back towards cities.

Comparing the growth of the 200 years ago to current day sprawl is an apples to watermelons comparison.

Has anyone been watching the series John Adams on HBO?  I find it interesting the first lady hated the newly constructed White House because "it was in the middle of nowhere" (and it was, at the time).  It seems our desire to spread out began way before the automobile.  As soon as people figured out better ways to find their own piece of paradise, so to speak, they did it.  It seems like you're going to have to change more than policy to get the  outcome you are looking for here; you're going to have to change human nature.

 

The White House, conceived in 1790, may have been "in the middle of nowhere" when Abigail moved there in 1800, but it was a central component of a great city planned in 1791 by L'Enfant. The whole city was "in the middle of nowhere." But it grew into a grand, dense metropolis and followed L'Enfant's plan.

Has anyone been watching the series John Adams on HBO?  I find it interesting the first lady hated the newly constructed White House because "it was in the middle of nowhere" (and it was, at the time).  It seems our desire to spread out began way before the automobile.  As soon as people figured out better ways to find their own piece of paradise, so to speak, they did it.  It seems like you're going to have to change more than policy to get the  outcome you are looking for here; you're going to have to change human nature.

 

Perhaps not human nature.  But certainly among Americans, the importance of personal space is strong.  I've heard in some cultures it isn't.

 

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with.

Perhaps not human nature.  But certainly among Americans, the importance of personal space is strong.  I've heard in some cultures it isn't.

 

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with. [/color]

 

Why is it that Americans were willing to comply with them, and supposedly even favored them for the 340 years after Jamestown and Plymouth, but suddenly in the last 60 years we don't? Our genetics hasn't changed. Only our wealth, our avoidance of wartime damage at home, and the people in power have changed in the past 60 years with respect to our past and that of many other nations.

Perhaps not human nature.  But certainly among Americans, the importance of personal space is strong.  I've heard in some cultures it isn't.

 

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with. [/color]

 

Why is it that Americans were willing to comply with them, and supposedly even favored them for the 340 years after Jamestown and Plymouth, but suddenly in the last 60 years we don't? Our genetics hasn't changed. Only our wealth, our avoidance of wartime damage at home, and the people in power have changed in the past 60 years with respect to our past and that of many other nations.

 

Nail, meet head.

 

Um, I mean, head of nail, meet business end of hammer.

 

Oh, whatever. KJP is right, E Rocc is wrong.

 

Perhaps not human nature.  But certainly among Americans, the importance of personal space is strong.  I've heard in some cultures it isn't.

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with.

 

Personal space is relative.  If 5 acres of land was the norm in suburbia, people on 1/2 acre lots would feel cramped.  If people were used to urban living, I believe they wouldn't feel cramped.  I have all the personal space I need, but I know part of why I feel that way is because that is what I am used to.  Hopefully, future generations won't have the opinion that they need a 1/2 acre of "personal space".  I mean, really, what do most people in suburbia do (or avoid) with that space?  The important personal space is inside your living quarters, and there's just as much of that in the city as in the suburbs.

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with. [/b] [/color]

 

I'd be happy enough if we just ditched the "pro-sprawl" policies.

Perhaps not human nature.  But certainly among Americans, the importance of personal space is strong.  I've heard in some cultures it isn't.

 

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with. [/color]

 

Why is it that Americans were willing to comply with them, and supposedly even favored them for the 340 years after Jamestown and Plymouth, but suddenly in the last 60 years we don't? Our genetics hasn't changed. Only our wealth, our avoidance of wartime damage at home, and the people in power have changed in the past 60 years with respect to our past and that of many other nations.

 

Our ability to transport ourselves quickly and conveniently changed too.  Let's not forget that.

 

Let's also remember that the population during those times was largely rural, and "sprawled" even more than it is now.

 

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with. [/b] [/color]

 

I'd be happy enough if we just ditched the "pro-sprawl" policies.

 

Serious question, and not just to X:  Do you (all) consider "Section 8" a "pro-sprawl" policy?

Serious question, and not just to X:   Do you (all) consider "Section 8" a "pro-sprawl" policy?

 

I consider it an enabler and the biggest "co dependant" multi generational addiction in the US!

As far as I know, Section 8 doesn't create much demand for fringe housing.  I would say that the slum clearance policies that led to the original public housing complexes was a better example of a pro-sprawl policy.  Those resulted in the demolition of walkable, dense, mixed use neighborhoods to be replaced by more auto dependent, less dense, single use complexes.

As far as I know, Section 8 doesn't create much demand for fringe housing.  I would say that the slum clearance policies that led to the original public housing complexes was a better example of a pro-sprawl policy.  Those resulted in the demolition of walkable, dense, mixed use neighborhoods to be replaced by more auto dependent, less dense, single use complexes.

 

I won't disagree with you on "urban renewal" and its results.

 

If by "fringe housing" you mean developments in Brunswick, Auburn et al it absolutely does create that demand.  The buyers are people who were comfortable in their inner ring suburban communities...until the Section 8 people started moving in.  And I'm not talking about race or even necessarily about economics, but lifestyle.  I know that Bedford (at least) has talked about attempting to teach renters, basically "how to live in the suburbs".

Perhaps not human nature.  But certainly among Americans, the importance of personal space is strong.  I've heard in some cultures it isn't.

 

But yes, "anti-sprawl" policies aren't something people are likely to willingly comply with. [/color]

 

Why is it that Americans were willing to comply with them, and supposedly even favored them for the 340 years after Jamestown and Plymouth, but suddenly in the last 60 years we don't? Our genetics hasn't changed. Only our wealth, our avoidance of wartime damage at home, and the people in power have changed in the past 60 years with respect to our past and that of many other nations.

 

Our ability to transport ourselves quickly and conveniently changed too.  Let's not forget that.

 

Let's also remember that the population during those times was largely rural, and "sprawled" even more than it is now.

 

Rural = Sprawl?

 

Wow. We really need to create a standardized glossary of terms here.

^Indeed sir. I teach through pictures.

 

A google image search of Rural

 

A google image search of sprawl

I like the rural pictures better.

As far as I know, Section 8 doesn't create much demand for fringe housing.  I would say that the slum clearance policies that led to the original public housing complexes was a better example of a pro-sprawl policy.  Those resulted in the demolition of walkable, dense, mixed use neighborhoods to be replaced by more auto dependent, less dense, single use complexes.

 

I won't disagree with you on "urban renewal" and its results.

 

If by "fringe housing" you mean developments in Brunswick, Auburn et al it absolutely does create that demand.  The buyers are people who were comfortable in their inner ring suburban communities...until the Section 8 people started moving in.   And I'm not talking about race or even necessarily about economics, but lifestyle.   I know that Bedford (at least) has talked about attempting to teach renters, basically "how to live in the suburbs".

 

The folks that used to live in areas of concentrated public housing may feel the same about that program, too.  But that's besides the point.

 

I don't think Section 8 itself is what is driving the sprawl you are talking about- a culture clash is.  And it is a culture clash which has been exacerbated and forstalled by restrictive zoning and building codes, which keep housing in the suburbs artificially unavailable to the low income at the same time that FHA loans, mortgage deductions, and infrastructure investments made them artificially affordable and available to the middle income.  We've used gov't policy at various levels to allow the middle class to move out while keeping the low income in the central city.

It'd be interesting to know how this trend is playing out in Ohio's cities.

Me too. I'm trying to get information for a possible article.

We'll just get our resident urbanOhio brokers to comment, if they can.  :wink:

 

Downtown Cleveland and attached (adjacent) areas, the areas with the highest number of home sales and new construction in Cuyahoga county?

 

Heck, I'm not real estate broker nor do I claim to be but the next area I "think" a boom will happen in is Univ. Circle/Fairfax/Glenville.

Funny we should be discussing this. Apparently we're not the only ones....

 

CEOs for Cities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact:

Sheila E. Redick, 901.412.4351

[email protected]

 

Housing Bubble Popped by Spike in Fuel Costs, New Analysis Shows

Outlying Suburbs Hardest Hit with Devalued Real Estate

 

CHICAGO – While predatory lending and sub-prime mortgages have taken the blame for the

dramatic decrease in housing prices and the glut of foreclosures nationwide, a new analysis

shows that rising fuel costs played a significant role in the collapse of America’s housing bubble.

 

That’s according to a new report released today by CEOs for Cities titled “Driven to the Brink:

How the Gas Price Spike Popped the Housing Bubble and Devalued the Suburbs,” by economist

Joseph Cortright.

 

“The popular narrative on the collapse of housing prices has only blamed exotic lending

practices,” said Cortright, “but the much more important story is about how higher gas prices have

re-drawn the map of urban real estate values. Vibrant central cities just got a whole lot more

valuable.”

 

...

 

For a digital copy of Driven to the Brink, email [email protected].

 

http://www.ceosforcities.org/