I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on the future of America and its cities.  I believe our country is right now at a MAJOR turning point in its history in terms of economy, social factors, lifestyle choices, etc. that will fundamentally change the way we will live versus how we have been living up to this point, an I believe much of it will be for the better.

 

Given the major changes now being thrust upon us, specifically gas prices and the housing crisis, this will likely fundamentally change the mindset of what we deem important in lifestyle choices.  I do not think the populace yet realizes the full extent of high gasoline prices, it does not just affect the dollars you put in at the pump; it is going to raise the prices for EVERYTHING across the board.  Every item you purchase has a large transportation cost attached to it: groceries, consumer goods, household items, etc., there is just not going to be as much disposable income available anymore.  Housing location will be key regarding gasoline prices, you will now likely require large down payments for housing or very strong credit and income, no more stated asset/future income loans obviously, and rising natural gas prices will affect a decision regarding the size of your home.  Location-wise, people may now tend to take a serious look at homes near transit lines where this was not a concern 12-18 months ago.

 

Most of our central cities were already undergoing significant reinvestment, and this mess will likely do nothing but help fuel this as the older parts of our metros are already established and were built around transit and its infrastructure.

 

So I ask this, where does everyone see this going in the future?  Is this a boon for our central cities and a signal of the beginning of the end for massive suburban growth?  Will only the rich be able to afford large suburban homes, and their related driving and utility costs?

 

Let's hear from you!

Coincidentally, I just saw this article in a topic in the Transportation section, The True Cost of Sprawl, which relates to some of the same points I am talking about....

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89231809

 

Life in the 'Burbs: Heavy Costs for Families, Climate

by Elizabeth Shogren

 

Michelle Carvalho fills up the 20-gallon tank in her Nissan Altima once every five days or so. The amount of gas she and her husband burn is the biggest reason the family's greenhouse gas emissions have more than doubled since they moved from the city to the suburbs.

 

Morning Edition, March 31, 2008 · Millions of Americans have moved to the suburbs in the past 60 years, drawn by the lure of larger houses and cheaper prices. But until recently, few were aware of the impact those choices had on the environment.

 

...

I was going to bring this up, too.  Great minds, and all that... :)

 

Though the gas crisis is going to get worse before it gets better (and it will get better evenually), I think that it has the hidden benefit of bringing people back to this city (and others that have suffered greatly from the spawl).

 

As gas prices go up, I think more and more people will look for places to live that are closer to work, and will want communities in which they can walk to everything.  I think we're already starting to see this in Cleveland, and I'm sure it's happening in other cities, too.

 

It's surely one of the reasons I moved.  Before, driving in from Concord, every day, I'd use a tank of gas per week.  300-some miles.  Thirty-six dollars (at the time).  This past week, my first full week of driving from the new place to work, I logged a whopping ninety miles.  I filled my tank half-way and it lasted me over a week.

 

Gas crisis?  What gas crisis? :)

I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on the future of America and its cities.  I believe our country is right now at a MAJOR turning point in its history in terms of economy, social factors, lifestyle choices, etc. that will fundamentally change the way we will live versus how we have been living up to this point, an I believe much of it will be for the better. Let's hear from you!

 

Hi,

 

Your viewpoints reflect those of many others across the country in these days of economic and political uncertainty. However, the answers, like many things in life, depend on factors we cannot see clearly right now but which surely will be crystal clear to us in another few years.

 

Many take it as a given that the Petroleum Age has peaked and that prices for petroleum based products (Gasoline, Diesel, plastics, chemicals) can only continue to rise. While that is the conventional wisdom, Oil prices have historically spiked in the past, only to later rapidly drop again at some point. Can that happen again? Maybe. Doubtful we will ever see $1 a gallon gasoline again but just a couple of years ago giant SUV's were the kings of the American road and no self-respecting middle or upper-class family could be without one. (or 2 or 3) And this is long after the so called "energy crisis" of the 1970's. Only time will tell if this meteoric rise in Petroluem prices is permanent or just a spike to be followed by a downturn. Given that energy costs have risen so dramatically, the incentive to come up with new alternative technologies has never been greater. Bright minds in the U.S. invented the atom bomb and put a man on the moon-it is a nation of innovators and creative thinkers. You can almost bet that somewhere in some sterile corporate lab or maybe even in a tinkerer's dusty garage someone or a team of someones is working towards making the next major alternative energy breakthrough. The financial rewards for finding and bringing an affordable and sustainable alternative (to Petroleum) energy to the market are almost beyond comprehension. I'm a bit of an optimist, so I think the spike in Petroleum energy prices is just the kick in the behind we frankly needed to motivate us into finding a long-term solution. Potentially even seawater could be an almost limitless supply of energy if we could discover an inexpensive way to extract hydrogen from it.

 

Having said all of that, the reality is that our country (the U.S.) as well as some others, are in a real pickle right now. I agree that the sky-high energy costs, sub-prime credit mess, housing/real estate crisis and political uncertainty may mark this period in U.S. history as a watershed moment. I 100% agree with you that the economic justification for living in far-flung suburbs is quickly fading in this current harsh economic environment. The back-to-the-cities movement, which is an anti-sprawl sub-set within the "Green" movement, was alive and well even before the current energy crisis. Four dollars a gallon (or higher) gasoline only provides more momentum to bring people back into the urban centers where more jobs, resources, and services exist. We must not forget that only a few generations ago Americans were a nation of family-owned farms with only a small percentage living in urban centers. The Industrial Revolution, which was fueled with cheap energy, helped transform us into a nation of city-dwellers but the connection with rural living was maintained with the concept of suburbs and continued cheap energy costs. We are now living in a time of increasing global scarcity, not only of energy resources, but of many vital raw materials such as iron, copper, aluminum, manganese, and more. Recycling is mandatory to conserve resources and help keep up with global demand.

 

On a personal level, I cringe every time I see a re-habable house or commercial building carelessly demolished and not a single material resource is even salvaged or recycled. This means that all of the energy and resources that originally went into obtaining the materials and then building the structure are now wasted, hastily taken in a large dump truck to add more wastes to our rapidly filling landfills. I've read sources that claim up to 25% of all materials in landfills come from structural demolitions. While it's true that not 100% of every demolition is salvagable or recylable, a surprisingly large amount of it is.

 

Plumbing provides recyclable copper, brass, and lead. Electrical wiring the same. Window glass can be recycled, wood structural members can be salvaged and reused. The nails used to put a house together can be reclaimed as scrap iron. Non-salvagable wood products can be turned into mulch, or reprocesssed into building materials (MDF board) or even burned for fuel. Bricks, especially the old bricks laid with soft lime mortar, can be readily reused. Asphalt roofing can be reprocessed into new asphalt roofing and by-products. I believe even sheetrock can be reprocessed in some usable way.

 

I know a lot of folks would be quick to pounce on this approach as costing way too much as it would involve a lot of manual labor, sorting,  and takes a lot of time. So what? Is a quick and cheap demolition of a structure via a backhoe or bulldozer without saving or recycling anything really a GOOD thing!? In an era of increasing scarcit and environmental consciousness, the senseless waste of resources is the one thing we cannot afford to continue doing. I'd like to see municipalities increase the costs of permits for non-recycling demolitions (unless there's an actual threat to public health because of toxic materials) to where recycling, or even better, rehabilitation, is the economically preferred alternative.

 

Since I presume you are from Cincy, your City is a textbook case where wide-spread rehabilitation of deteriorated urban and near-urban housing stock makes perfect sense. While some locals would argue new is always better, there's a great deal of appreciation by locals and outsiders (myself) for the historic buildings and homes that make Cincinatti so unique and livable. Tearing down these structures which collectively make up your city's character makes no sense in today's reality. You invited viewpoint/opinion input, so that's my 2 cents worth... I look forward to reading other views and thank you for starting this thread.

John S.

I agree somewhat with John. As evidenced in the article, despite the extreme woes of having the big house in the suburb, the Mom just chalks it up to "what her family needs" (paraphrasing).  Most of the people I work with, who are your average midwesterner, seem to be of the same mind.  They complain about the price of gas but nobody's planning to move any closer.  Our department secretary often talks about not having a lot of extra money for her daughter, who is now in college, but despite my painting a clear picture of how much annually she could save by taking public transportation, and in fact offering to come to her house and ride to and from with her for a few days so she could see what it's like, her answer is simply, "Yeah, I know I should."  People are not willing to give up their comfortable lifestyles, their big cars, and frankly a lot of them have had quite a bit of disposable money available to them and only have to make a few changes to now make that money available for gas.  I often wonder what it will take to unseat people like my boss, who throw money around like it's so much paper - $200 under armor shirts for her kids to play hockey in, the whole family goes out for dinner almost every night of the week, the commute to and from brunswick every day in a big mini-van, and her "addiction" to expensive purses that can easily run $1K each. 

Your boss sounds like my kinda girl!  lol

In a sense, the gas prices and mortgage crisis really are one of the best things that have happened to society.  Well, let me rephrase, rather, something that needed to happen to keep people from moving out to no-mans-land.  But, as everything goes, it is all cyclical.  This period of time will see far less people moving further out along with shorter drive times to work.  As the supply goes up, the prices will continue to fall on homes, and people will be right back out to no-mans-land.  But, for the time being, lets take advantage of the fact that peolple don't want to be that far out, and rebuild the cities that exurbans helped to dismantle from 1960 to 2005.

The challenging part of this is that so much of the business has moved out there as well, so if we are really talking about reducing travel times and saving gas, the logical move is not really to move 'back' to the city, but rather to bring city-style development closer to the employment locations. Why would someone move into the city and be farther away from where they worked instead of living in the suburb closest to their place of employment.

 

To really change things, the big office complexes in suburbia will have to go dark as their corporations move back downtown to take advantage of the transit systems that are more rational than the trying to get bus service to a hundred different complexes.

People often don't want to change for fear of the unknown. When forced to change their lifestyles by a new circumstance, such as rising fuel prices and its kissing cousins of declining housing markets and rising food costs, many may wonder what they were afraid of.

 

Five years ago, when I first became aware of peak oil, a web site on the topic got its moderators together for predictions of the impacts of a post-peak oil world. Bear in mind that these were the moderate voices on the issue, not the doomers or the cornucopians, and they did not try to predict whether global oil reserves would deplete slowly or rapidly:

 

Alternative energy -- given the world's immense oil appetite and the low energy density of options (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc.), it would take 20 years before the nation could "painlessly" transition over to a combination of alternatives. A crash program on the scale of the Apollo space program or the Manhattan Project could reduce that transition period within 10 years of a national consensus, but would involve some economic hardships (reduced spending for other programs or expanding the nation's debt, thereby causing higher interest rates, unemployment, etc.). Greater use of ethanol was predicted to have serious impacts on the price and availability of grains (and ultimately meats and dairy products from livestock which feed on grains) on a global level. But as economies get hurt by higher energy costs and, later, by reduced energy supplies, the less able they would be to afford funding research into oil alternatives.

 

Food -- Not only would the increased use of ethanol affect the availability and cost of food, but so would the rising cost of fertilizers and fuel for farm vehicles. Fertilizers are made from petroleum (natural gas, which is skimmed off the top of oil reserves). The post-World War II agricultural miracle of mechanized farming is wholly dependent on oil.

 

Fuel shortages -- These would manifest themselves first in the world's poorest countries, which could least afford to bid against the richer nations for oil supplies on the global market. Once the poorest nations saw their economies collapse and no longer used oil they didn't produce for themselves, the developing nations would start to see shortages occur until their economies collapsed. Next would be the "first world" nations.

 

Transportation -- Air transportation was considered the "canary in the coal mine" by the prognosticators. Due to the lack of affordable alternatives for jet fuel, they said airlines would be one of the "first facing the worst" in each nation's economy to suffer and fail. The airline service remaining might not be affordable to anyone but the rich.

Automobiles were next in vulnerability. Absent a major and immediate breakthrough in alternative energy, gasoline powered cars would shrink in size until they were no longer affordable to most people (cost includes the car's materials, many of which are made from petroleum products). Electric cars were considered a possibility, but again needed more research to increase their range/speed. And in order to accommodate replacing a sizable portion of the world's car fleet (not to mention America's), it would mean constructing hundreds of nuclear power plants and beefing up the electrical grid big time.

The biggest benefactors of peak oil are predicted to be telecommuting (though computers are going to up in price a lot since each computer requires 10 times its weight in fossil fuels to produce and ship), water shipping (though many developed parts of the world aren't near navigable waterways), railroads and mass transit (particularly if electrified -- trains, streetcars and trolleys require little electricity to get underway and regenerate electricity when braking). But buses and diesel-powered locomotives were predicted to be relegated to more lightly used routes.

 

Financial institutions -- Banks and lenders would begin failing and the housing market would tank. I specifically recall the mortgage industry as being declared as particularly vulnerable, given all the questionable loans that were doled out in recent years at variable interest rates. Interest rates would rise and homes would be foreclosed en masse (yes, they actually predicted that because many people who took on loans could barely afford paying them, let alone the higher prices of gas, food and clothing (did I mention polyester and other clothing materials are made from petroleum). The prognosticators actually predicted that the suburbs, especially the post-1980 exurbs, would become largely vacant.

 

Population -- This is the scariest one. The carrying capacity of the world's population would decline when oil supplies start to decline. How fast this decline happens depends on how fast oil depletes on a global scale (in geologic terms), and the effective depletion rate (in terms of geo-political issues, such as nations preferring to export less oil to keep for themselves, environmental restrictions, financial constraints).

 

Of course, these constraints wouldn't matter if the world was flush with excess oil production. It's not and the market is getting tigther all the time. That (and all the evidence we're seeing around us) are telltale signs that we're either at or near the peak in global oil production.

 

For more on these and other predictions, one good source is James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency." Also read Richard Heinberg's "The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies." Both are doomers, but many of their predictions and those by other observers are already coming to pass.

No matter what the problem - global warming, high gas prices, subprime, etc - the culprit and the cure is always the same: stop "sprawl", rebuild cities, etc.  This has been going on for 20 years now. It's post hoc justification of a previously desired result.

 

Here's another way to deal with the gas crisis: move more jobs closer to the suburban fringe to reduce the number people with long commutes.  Actually, this has been going on for some time now with most job growth in addition to population growth happening in the burbs.  Also, it is just as easy to build more small homes, apartments and condos in the burbs as it is downtown.  Actually, it is easier in many respects.

 

Global warming, high gas prices?  Do you see the connection there?  Maybe that is why people suggest stopping sprawl to alleviate both those problems.  I've seldom heard anyone suggest that subprime lending was a culprit or cure for sprawl. In fact, in Ohio, it has been more of a problem for central city neighborhoods.

 

Decentralization will be less efficient than recentralization.  By dispersing population, jobs, and services, you are making it less likely that people can access the job they want, or the service they want, or that employers can access the labor force they need without requiring a longer commute.  Transit also doesn't work as well if it has to service many smaller nodes than if it is servicing one large node.  This holds true even if we are talking about New Urbanist style TOD's.  They simply don't have the economy of scale that a centralized Downtown with a large base of people living nearby has.  How exactly do we think we can achieve that scale in Westlake, and Beachwood, and Independence, and Avon, and ......?

Global warming, high gas prices?  Do you see the connection there?  Maybe that is why people suggest stopping sprawl to alleviate both those problems.  I've seldom heard anyone suggest that subprime lending was a culprit or cure for sprawl. In fact, in Ohio, it has been more of a problem for central city neighborhoods.

 

 

I don't think its been more of a problem for central city neighborhoods, just easily accessible and easier targets to "highlight".

 

You can best believe that the suburbanites are starting to feel it.  My cousin lives north of chagrin in Beachwood.  3 people on her block lost their homes, keep in mind these are people who had good mortgages, but took out loans for homes bigger than what they needed and more money than they could actually afford.  The 'burbs were just able to hide this mess a little longer, just like they do for crime and other issues.

 

 

I'm sorry, but to say that the suburbs are just hiding crime or foreclosure is BS.  Yes, there is crime and foreclosure in the suburbs, but it is still nowhere near what is being faced in the central cities of Ohio.  On the coasts it may be worse in suburbs than central cities, because the lower middle class who can afford a home but just barely often live on the urban fringes.

I'm sorry, but to say that the suburbs are just hiding crime or foreclosure is BS.  Yes, there is crime and foreclosure in the suburbs, but it is still nowhere near what is being faced in the central cities of Ohio.  On the coasts it may be worse in suburbs than central cities, because the lower middle class who can afford a home but just barely often live on the urban fringes.

 

I personally think that the 'burbs "camouflage" crime and other negative statics.

Gas crisis?  What gas crisis? :)

 

 

You obviously are not paying 4.19 a gallon... 

^Is it that high already? I haven't had to keep track in a while. Even though I don't drive a car anymore I'm concerned about food/commodity prices.

They have skyrocketed in the past month, CDawg

Gas crisis?  What gas crisis? :)

 

You obviously are not paying 4.19 a gallon... 

 

Oh, I am, rest assured (well, I think it was closer to $3.90, yesterday).  It's just that when I only fill half the tank, it's only about twenty bucks, and that reminds me of the good ol' days. :)

I'm sorry, but to say that the suburbs are just hiding crime or foreclosure is BS.  Yes, there is crime and foreclosure in the suburbs, but it is still nowhere near what is being faced in the central cities of Ohio.  On the coasts it may be worse in suburbs than central cities, because the lower middle class who can afford a home but just barely often live on the urban fringes.

 

I personally think that the 'burbs "camouflage" crime and other negative statics.

 

So what you're suggesting is that more or less all of the suburbs out there are doing this, somehow, but that central cities aren't for some reason?  That seems implausible.

Yes I am.  Most cities have various neighborhoods and the media is center in the middle of the city, so of course it a bigger target.

 

Some areas of cities don't have the resources to explain why something has happened or the community support to mobilize and fight misconceptions.  Look how the PD portrays some areas of the Cleveland.

 

Personal experience.

When we burglarized, my parents neighbors and the neighbors on Courtland couldn't get together fast enough to put a spin on the burglaries so that word wouldn't get out and so that people wouldn't think the are was unsafe.  The mayor got blasted for not protecting the area and was "summoned" to a "famous local family's" home.

 

During the next 2/3 years, we had more police presence on the street that Id ever seen.    One "famous" neighbor even went so far as to say, "we need to build a great wall on Scottsdale so those people from the southern heights can't get into our area"

It's not just suburbs that hide their skeletons, rich inner city neighborhoods do the same thing. *cough-hydepark-cough*

^Is it that high already? I haven't had to keep track in a while. Even though I don't drive a car anymore I'm concerned about food/commodity prices.

 

yes its that high.. mind you its a full service station..

The first station in the area to actually put unleaded over 4/gallon.

I drove right on passed it and went to the Giant Eagle and used my 40 cent off/gallon and payed 3.55/gallon.. and that sounded cheap.. 

 

I use to use the kroger gas discount when I lived in the Nati last year.. its nothing at all like Giant Eagle's gas discount.. Kroger should take a lesson from GE!!!

 

 

 

I use to use the kroger gas discount when I lived in the Nati last year.. its nothing at all like Giant Eagle's gas discount.. Kroger should take a lesson from GE!!!

 

Boo marketing ploys. We're all just paying for it indirectly through food prices.

KJP Wrote: (regarding post peak oil predictions) Financial institutions -- Banks and lenders would begin failing and the housing market would tank. I specifically recall the mortgage industry as being declared as particularly vulnerable, given all the questionable loans that were doled out in recent years at variable interest rates. Interest rates would rise and homes would be foreclosed en masse (yes, they actually predicted that because many people who took on loans could barely afford paying them, let alone the higher prices of gas, food and clothing (did I mention polyester and other clothing materials are made from petroleum). The prognosticators actually predicted that the suburbs, especially the post-1980 exurbs, would become largely vacant.

 

KJP,

 

The mortgage lending crisis was largely created by the lenders themselves. They made tons of money by bundling sub-prime mortgage loans and reselling them in the secondary markets (as mortgage-backed securities) At the time, these activities didn't seem nearly as risky as they do now in hindsight. The U.S. in the early 2000's was experiencing a national housing "boom" causing demand to soar while home prices and values were increasing at double-digit yearly rates in some hot markets. Everyone knew this kind of balloon expansion couldn't go on forever, but so many people were making so much money that no one really cared about the obvious risks. Financing wizards worked overtime to come up with a slew of new exotic loan "products", such as Alt-A loans, which require no income verification.  "Teaser" adjustable rate mortgages-with ultra low initial interest rates-allowed people who couldn't qualify income-wise for a fixed rate mortagage to get into a new home-the expectation was time was on everyone's side and all of the potential problems would take care of themselves.

 

Despite the obvious risks, mortgage loan insiders pointed out the steady appreciation in property values which, if continued, would reduce the level of risk to the lenders. In other words, if someone got in over their heads, they could put the property back on the market, quickly cash out, and pay off the lender. It was a giant house of cards/dominoes and all that was needed was a slight shift downward in demand (which happened in over-built areas) to nudge the snowball rolling downhill.

 

Billions upon billions of dollar losses later, the cold, sobering reality has hit home. Of course, rising unemployment, rising gas and food prices, (as well as many other less visible increases) have really put a squeeze on the housing markets. A bargain mentality has taken hold of would-be home buyers as they wait on the sidelines until the market hits bottom, thus supressing demand even further. Borrowers who run into financial trouble now owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth in today's market. The lenders have had to adjust their balance sheets and tighten up their lending guidlines but otherwise, it's business as usual.  On a side note about supply and demand: suppose a new, abundant,  ultra cheap, energy source was rushed to the markets. The demand and the price of Oil would plummet and gas prices might soon go back to 1960's levels. (adjusted for inflation)

 

As for the outlying suburbs, they are the most vulnerable to high energy prices because of the commuter phenomenon. Urban dwellers benefit the most in today's situation because of inexpensive mass transit and shorter commuter distances. The far-flung suburbs could not exist if it had not been for the automobile. Before the automobile, communities were densely built because most people walked to work, school, shopping, or took a horse or buggy/wagon to reach the same. Only with the coming of short rail commuter lines-the interurbans- to early suburban areas, (which were still densely built in comparison with today's sprawling suburbs) did communities grow out of their dense urban cores. With alternative energy sources now ramping up in response to demand, doubtful the horse-drawn 19th century urban model will ever re-appear, but continued high energy costs will surely put a brake on run-away suburban sprawl for the foreseeable future.

 

John S.

 

 

John, Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful response. My comments were that, while the lenders made themselves and homeowners vulnerable to a financial crash, it was the rise in gas prices that fueled it. My beliefs come from reading articles such as these.......

___________________

 

Spike In Gas Prices Help Burst Housing Bubble, A Portland Economist Suggests

Oregonian - Online

April 30, 2008

Dylan Rivera 

 

First it was the faltering economy. Then came rising commodity prices.

 

Can steadily increasing gas prices also be blamed for bursting the housing bubble?

 

Yes, says Portland economist Joe Cortright of Impresa Inc. 'The gas price spike popped the housing bubble,' he writes in a new report called 'Driven to the Brink.' The report, funded by CEOs for Cities, a pro-urban Chicago-based nonprofit, advances an argument gaining steam in national urban planning circles  Rising gas prices have made it less attractive to live in suburban neighborhoods that require driving to work, shop and fun.

 

In metro areas where home prices are falling, they're falling more steeply in suburbs than in central areas. In metro areas with strong inner city neighborhoods -- like Portland -- prices of centrally located homes continue to rise while the region's prices fall.

 

......

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89803663

 

Home Prices Drop Most in Areas with Long Commute

by Kathleen Schalch

 

Morning Edition, April 21, 2008 · Economists say home prices are nowhere near hitting bottom. But even in regions that have taken a beating, some neighborhoods remain practically unscathed. And a pattern is emerging as to which neighborhoods those are.

 

The ones with short commutes are faring better than places with long drives into the city. Some analysts see a pause in what has long been inexorable — urban sprawl.

 

The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area has been hit hard. Prices tumbled an average of 11 percent in the past year. That's the big picture. But a look at Ashburn, Va., about 40 miles from the center of town, finds a steeper fall.

 

............

As for predictions, no one can say this wasn't anticipated. Please note the date.....

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

Gas Prices: The Tipping Point Toward Better Development? ULI’s Nationwide Survey Explores Consumer Attitudes

For more information, contact Trisha Riggs at 202/624-7086; E-mail [email protected]

 

LOS ANGELES (November 3, 2005) — Higher gas prices are causing Americans to alter their driving habits and to either use or consider using transit if the option is available, according to a consumer survey released today by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The survey results reinforce the need to build and rebuild urban regions in ways that offer alternatives to car-dependent development, according to representatives of the Institute.

 

Conducted for ULI during the first week of October by independent polling firm Harris Interactive*, the survey queried 1,000 adults** in all regions of the United States. The primary objective was to measure consumer attitudes toward transportation issues, including: transportation behavior—modes people use for both commute and non-commute trips; why consumers choose or reject alternatives to driving; the extent to which people would use or consider using an alternate mode of transportation; and the likelihood of using commuter rail transit or bus service. The survey was released during ULI’s annual fall meeting, held this year in Los Angeles.

 

Respondents of all ages, in all regions and all locations (urban, suburban and rural) listed gas prices as one of the top three issues of concern, ranking behind education and crime. Interestingly, traffic congestion consistently ranked lowest among the concerns, with about two-thirds indicating that their commute had stayed the same over the past two years.

 

...

 

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=42077&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

KJP replied:

"In metro areas where home prices are falling, they're falling more steeply in suburbs than in central areas. In metro areas with strong inner city neighborhoods -- like Portland -- prices of centrally located homes continue to rise while the region's prices fall."

 

KJP,

 

While this may be true, it is not the whole story. Suburban housing respresented the most hyper-inflated portion of the housing boom market. Financing gimmicks abounded to get people who really couldn't afford the mortgages, into the newly-built homes. Existing older home sales (i.e., in more centralized urban areas) have been more stable because fewer creative mortgaging schemes were applied to this segment of the housing market. A traditional lending rule-of-thumb is that one's monthly mortage, taxes, and insurance, should not exceed 33% of a homeowner's disposable income. A lot of mortgage companies "fudged" the figures creatively to put people into mortgages. Some home builders even offered 1-2-3 "buydown" mortgages in which the builder paid part of the monthly mortgage payment for the first 3 years post-closing to help the borrowers "qualify" for a larger mortgage. As said, the most speculative and creative segment of the sub-prime mortgage mess was often in newly built suburban areas. In more urban areas, there have also been plenty of foreclosures, in particular from borrowers/investors who bought speculative properties to later "flip" for a profit. Property appraisers have especially been in the hot seat lately because many capitulated to lenders and realtors who dictated to them how much a given property should appraise for. With all of the malfeasance that was going on in the lending-real estate industry, I personally feel the spike in gas prices has had a marginal impact on the market downturn. For certain, $4+ a gallon gas is not going to help the market to recover anytime soon, in the suburbs especially, but the whole credit crunch and mortgage mess would have likely happened even if gas prices had remained stable.

 

John S.

 

Here's my prediction (since that's what this thread is about, the future): As gas prices (and thus prices of food, clothing and other products) continue to rise, you will see more home foreclosures, including those with mortgages having low, fixed interest rates. I don't think I'm a doomer -- I consider others who make money off being pessimistic like Kunstler to be doomers -- but I do think that there are going to be entire subdivisions of abandoned homes in every US city (especially cities that are in arid regions or lack access to navigable waterways) unless there are energy technology breakthroughs soon. Doomers don't add those words after my "unless." They think we're screwed no matter what and that many people will die of hunger. I think the American way of life for the past 50 years is screwed, but that people will improvise and muddle through.

It amazes me how many people I hear in public complain about gas prices and say "The president needs to do something about these high gas prices". They're saying he needs to do something about the PRICE of gas, which A. has little to do with him, and B. Isn't a long term solution. I usually agree in conversation with these people by saying "yeah, we should invade and bomb more countries". People are so concerned with how they can maintain their current lifestyle instead of considering alternatives. With talk about gas prices being as popular as talk about the weather, I honestly don't recall anyone outside of a few of my smart friends, say "Bush needs to fund alternative energy" or "we need state controlled smart growth policies". No, it's always "Bush needs to wave his magic wand and lower gas prices".

Wait-- he doesn't have a magic wand?  Oh. :|

 

:lol:

 

I think the American way of life for the past 50 years is screwed, but that people will improvise and muddle through.

 

Agreed.  I think people will do a little better than muddle through, though.  It'll get worse before it gets better, but it will get better.

I don't see why Americans don't think that the price of gas should adjust for inflation.

For all of human history, there has never been anything as wasteful and self-destructive as the American suburb.

 

You owe Kunstler a nickel in royalties for that quote....

 

Specifcally, he said "suburbs are the greatest misallocation of resources the world has ever known."

Glad to see my topic taking off and spurring some great dialogue and intelligent responses.  The only beef I have with some of the nay-sayer articles is a quote like this...

 

Say you drive 10,000 miles a year, Pozdena said. With a car getting 20 miles per gallon, you would buy about 500 gallons of gas a year. If gas prices rise by $1, you'll spend about $500 more in a year. 'That pales in comparison with any other cost in owning a home.' But the gas price argument makes sense to Peggy Hoag, a top-producing real estate agent who works with clients in inner Portland and Washington County. 'The commute is the thing I hear about the most.' Some neighborhoods near Washington County's high-tech corridor seem to be holding their prices well, said Hoag, of Prudential Northwest Properties. But for the most part, homes in the inner east side of Portland are fetching higher prices, she said.

quote]

 

I understand the authors point about the math, but gas has gone up roughly $1.50 (I know this fluctuates), but most 2 person households in the suburbs drive a hell of a lot more than 10,000 miles a year, and most have 2 cars.  She also does not mention the other costs: oil changes, tires, air filters, wear and tear, etc.  There are a lot of other costs than just the price of gasoline.  It just seems like an overly simplified view.  Plus, $500 is $500 it may not seem like a lot, but if you are supporting a family on one income, $500 is a lot.

 

^I love that book. He was able to verbalize what I had been thinking and feeling for quite some time. Yes, he's a doomer, but I feel his take on the future isn't that far off; maybe a little extreme in some areas, but he raises valid questions that aren't getting asked, let alone answered. His blog "Clusterf*ck Nation" is one of the funniest, dead-on tragic things I read all week.

    Regarding the future of cities in the wake of energy scarcity, he believes the large "metroplexes" (Atlanta, Phoenix, houston, Dallas, Vegas, for example) will take the hardest hit. For most of you on this thread, I probably don't have to explain why. He does hold out hope for America's smaller cities and towns, especially those along navigable waterways/bodies of water (he specifically mentions current Great Lake port towns that are underutilized). "Our largest cities will get smaller, but will redensify around their urban cores and waterfronts." I agree with this totally. I feel that going forward, our section of the nation(the Great Lakes region), along with the Pacific NW are in the best shape to come out of the coming energy crisis. We are blessed with access to waterways and rail, a temperate climate, abundant freshwater (I can't emphasize this enough) a large, diverse, and still productive agricultural sector, along with a skilled workforce that still knows how to make and build things. In this regard I am optimistic, though cautiously so.

      *The cities that will prosper will do so for the same reasons cities prospered for centuries: location, i.e. transportation advantages; and the states/cities that rebuild and expand their transit systems first will have a HUGE competitive advantage over everyone else. That's why I feel that RTA missed a huge opportunity when they decided to save a few bucks by running diesel busses down Euclid instead of an electrified rail line. It's going to be better than before, but not as good as it could've been. We'll see. And passenger rail systems have to be rebuilt NOW. Further into the future I can see "rails to trails" becoming rails again; maybe even canals being reused in some areas. This oil problem is here and it's permanent. Most of us are going to live to see an amazing transition take place over the coming decades, (much like our great-grandparents did) it's going to be difficult and mean a lot of hardship to a lot of people, but it's also going to be fascinating, and I think our society will come out of it better off.

      *Those cities that are surrounded by or adjacent to productive farmland will be better off than a lot of places that are down south and out west. Duh. Our climate and access to fresh water gives us (the Water Belt?)an enormous advantage over those currently 'hot' places to live right now; Vegas (no future), Phoenix, etc. I would seriously rethink a move out there right now.

      *Lastly, and this doesn't get mentioned a lot, those towns we call 'rust belt' now have a large population of skilled craftsman and trades people that are resourceful and can build things. Going forward, these will be the people that keep our cities and towns running and functioning amid shortages of pretty much everything (compared to now). We will have to repair and reuse, not throw away. My vision of the future doesn't include a lot of PR people, masseuses, mortgage brokers, interior designers, etc, etc. A lot of occupations that exist today didn't 100 years ago and they will dissappear in the future as peoples' priorities will neccessarily change (notably feeding your family) and disposable income and free time diminish. Food production and distribution will be paramount, and it will become more labor-intensive in the absence of fossil fuels to run machinery, and produce fertilizers and pesticides. Everything will be more hands-on and local, by neccessity.

      Cities have a future, but not the way they're currently configured. Some have a better future than others. It pleases me to see many of you contemplating these kinds of questions and pondering answers. I've read some great posts here. Some of us have begun to take action, even better (my brother and I tilled up our backyard and planted a garden).

    **Have any of you Kunstler fans read his newest novel, World Made By Hand? An interesting take on the future, no doubt a lot gloomy, and he assumes the worst happens (climate change, terrorist nukes) along with the Peak Oil scenario. Peak Oil is here, but I certainly could do without the nukes. :-)

   

     

It amazes me how many people I hear in public complain about gas prices and say "The president needs to do something about these high gas prices". They're saying he needs to do something about the PRICE of gas, which A. has little to do with him, and B. Isn't a long term solution. I usually agree in conversation with these people by saying "yeah, we should invade and bomb more countries". People are so concerned with how they can maintain their current lifestyle instead of considering alternatives. With talk about gas prices being as popular as talk about the weather, I honestly don't recall anyone outside of a few of my smart friends, say "Bush needs to fund alternative energy" or "we need state controlled smart growth policies". No, it's always "Bush needs to wave his magic wand and lower gas prices".

 

^ I totally feel you here.  I was talking to someone one on the phone recently and they were griping about how Bush needs to do something and we need to tap into additional oil reserves and basically do whatever's necessary to get more oil to get lower prices.  After going on, he thought I'd hung up because I was so silent; I couldn't say anything... I couldn't agree less with him and I knew it would be fruitless to argue my point.

 

I can only hope that people begin to actually look more at conserving fuel and other resources, taking public trans when applicable, making less trips to here and there, walking more to get to places when applicable, and so on and so on.  We're still a while away from having true, abundent, and sensible solutions for moving away from oil as a primary fuel source; but in the meantime, we can take steps to conserve what we have instead of continuing to attempt to maintain our same lifestyles which are not sustainable in the long run.

We may have a lot of laborers in this part of the former industrial heartland, but many are just that -- laborers. They aren't necessarily craftsmen. What we do have in this part of the world are Amish and Menonnites who are craftsmen. They may become tomorrow's teachers, not just the homebuilders in the exurbs (especially in places like Geauga County east of Cleveland).

^Yes, that's true, we are 'blessed' with a sizable amount of "unskilled" labor such as UAW and Steelworkers, though it's much more skilled than in the past; what I'm getting at is current/former tool&die guys, machinists, millwrights, building trades, etc. We have a lot of those guys up here, and we're going to be better off for it.

    Totally agree about the Amish comment. My folks' place is near a decent-sized Amish settlement in Ashtabula County and my dad bought all the lumber for his barn from an Amish sawmill. The Amish will be beating people away with sticks (not really, but you know what I mean) when our chickens come home to roost.

    Going along with this theme, KJP, please see my response to one of your comments over in the Trav/Reloc section, the "April showers/May flowers" thread. I chuckled out loud and had to respond.

Jonmoxon wrote: "Regarding the future of cities in the wake of energy scarcity, he believes the large "metroplexes" (Atlanta, Phoenix, houston, Dallas, Vegas, for example) will take the hardest hit. For most of you on this thread, I probably don't have to explain why. He does hold out hope for America's smaller cities and towns, especially those along navigable waterways/bodies of water (he specifically mentions current Great Lake port towns that are underutilized). "Our largest cities will get smaller, but will redensify around their urban cores and waterfronts." I agree with this totally. I feel that going forward, our section of the nation(the Great Lakes region), along with the Pacific NW are in the best shape to come out of the coming energy crisis. We are blessed with access to waterways and rail, a temperate climate, abundant freshwater (I can't emphasize this enough) a large, diverse, and still productive agricultural sector, along with a skilled workforce that still knows how to make and build things. In this regard I am optimistic, though cautiously so."

 

Greetings from a fellow Ron Paulite,

 

This is an interesting discussion thread even though it is somewhat obscure as to how it exactly pertains to Urban Ohio. I have some friendly connections to Ohio (a long-time close friend in Lakewood; a couple of other good friends relocating now from Indianapolis to Cincinatti) and when my home in Fort Worth (about as inner-city as one can get-our home is within walking distance of the County Courthouse) sells, my sights are pointed towards Ohio and Cincinnati in particular.

 

I've always been a bit of a futurologist or some might call it a visionary. In 1989 my wife and I bought a neglected Victorian era home in a gang-ridden downtown neighborhood. I saw the potential here and a Ft. Worth Star-Telegram article in 1991 highlighted my vision for the neighborhood. Fast forward to the present and my neighborhood is now being rapidly gentrified with high-rise condo towers featuring million-dollar plus units. Not exactly my original vision-of a restored historic district in a quiet setting of distinguished old homes. Therefore we are now selling (likely to a developer) and taking our vision for neighborhood improvement with us to a place where it could happen.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, the so-called "Sunbelt" is not where it's at these days. As has been pointed out here, the vast sprawl of Sunbelt cities was based on inexpensive oil, long commutes, and an adequate supply of fresh water. Houston and it's countless 'burbs are spread out over 500 square miles! As has been pointed out in previous postings, water is a very precious commodity and "artificial" cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix have a very finite water supply with demand quickly out-pacing supply. Texas Oil baron T. Boone Pickens is quoted as saying that past wars were fought over oil but future wars would be fought over fresh water. The upper Midwest, which includes Ohio, is of course, water-rich, a natural asset of incalculable value. On a side note: read today that market-savvy Mr. Pickens just ordered $2 billion dollars worth of wind generators from General Electric. If that is not conclusive proof of continued high oil and energy prices, then I don't know what is.

 

I predict the net population drain in the upper Midwest, mainly brought on by the decline in manufacturing, will sharply reverse course within a few years. If climate futurologists are correct and rising sea levels are possible in the next few decades due to global warming, we will have a large displaced population of people from coastal areas which will have to seek new homes. I predict many will find their way to the Midwest.

 

The U.S. Southwest is now experiencing a population explosion of another kind: immigrants. (both legal and illegal) Many are from Latin American countries and Mexico, This large, rapidly growing population is changing the demographics and culture of the southwestern United States. Latino advocacy groups often refer to it as the "Browning" of the Southwest. While assimilation and integration of these new immigrants is slowly on-going, some (primarily Causcasian) alarmists are quietly pulling up stakes and relocating to areas where the "old" American culture still holds sway-for many its the traditional American Midwestern Heartland.

 

Midwestern housing is still relatively affordable and the Midwest still has some of the best and most fertile croplands in the U.S.. all of these are potentially big pluses in a future plagued by shortages of every kind. Sustainability is the key word for the future and again, the Midwest has the resources for sustainability in the long term.

 

Of course, the doomsayers are quick to caution us with tales of the unknown, such as nuclear holocausts, rogue asteriods wiping out the planet, and violent, destructive storms becoming common .(which actually seems to be happening to a certain extent) Regardless, if you add up the factors, the Midwest, inlcuding Ohio, are in a good position for the future-the old, low-tech, low energy demand resources which gave rapid growth to the Midwest in the 19th Century are still available today while petroleum and abundant water may soon not be. Only time will tell how accurate future predictions are but the Midwest appears to have a lot going for it.

 

John S.

 

^John S., thanks for your informative and insightful posts; any city in Ohio would be lucky to have you.

Great comments John S.!

Does this mean my unsold house in Detroit will be worth meeeeelions some day?

Hi All,

(blushing) wow! thanks everyone for the kind comments! BTW, I'm a native born Midwesterner (eastern rural Kansas) so there's no love lost between me and the big ole' Lone Star State. In fact, I hope to be moved out-of-state before "Dubya" is out of office and comes back to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area to permanently roost.

 

Worth considering is that Obama is a Chicagoan and City dweller-assuming he is elected, I think his administration will be kindly disposed towards the inner-cities. Assuming further that Edwards is his eventual VP, I expect a vigorous anti-poverty program to help the inner-city poor which will help positively transform a lot of currently hopeless inner-city neighborhoods. While I oppose the "Urban Renewal" wholesale neighborhood demolition policies of past administrations, more enlightened rehabilitation incentives programs geared towards older housing stock as well as new compatible infill housing could help turn a lot of older city neighborhoods into magnets for new growth and prosperity.  Someone with political pull needs to be working to lay the groundwork for such programs right now, if they haven't done so already. While I still think Mr. Paul had the best program, realistically, Obama is the likely next president. For older cities with higher rates of poverty and large minority populations, that could potentially be the best thing that has happened in a long time. Thanks again for the kind words-I hope to vote with my feet in the near future.

John S.

^I think Obama will have a hard time beating McCain.

 

It will be interesting to see how each will approach this issue of "the future of cities." Both seem to be on the alternative energy bandwagon.

 

One thing is for sure, for any "vigorous" plan geared toward urban areas, it's going to take more than money to correct issues like horrible mismanaged schools, corruption and poverty.

 

p.s. Ron Paul is great.

What if a gallon of gas hit $10 a gallon? On MSN's Money section was posted this article:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/WhatIfGasCost10DollarsAGallon.aspx

 

Interestingly, one of the conclusions reached if gas prices rose to $10 a gallon levels was that suburbanites would flock en masse to inner-city townhomes to avoid long commutes. I think even at the current $4 a gallon level, that trend is already picking up momentum. The fact is, abundant cheap energy seems to belong to the past and all of the American culture that was based on that premise is becoming obsolete. I think suburban sprawl has now met its worst enemy and will soon wither and die. Larger cities, which have traditionally been regional employment and housing centers, are now in for a renaissance. Ditto for the energy efficient but long neglected trains and railroads.

 

Over-the-road-truckers are buckling under financially in record numbers as fuel costs escalate faster than they can recoup by raising their rates. American railroads of the past were one of the most efficient transportation and supply distribution systems ever created. American towns and cities lived or died dependent on their access to railroads. In a sky high fuel-priced world, railroads are still kings of efficiency. Railroads declined only because cheap fuel made the less-energy efficient trucking industry possible.

 

I think someday we will  look back to this period in time and say that is when things changed...much as folks in the early 1900's saw the automobile age and cheap fuel quickly making the old horse and buggy era obsolete. What comes next must by necessity be smarter, more efficient, and sustainable for the long-term. The days of giant SUV's, exurbs extending miles into the countryside, and run-away consumptive, gluttonous waste, are at an end. I can almost hear a collective "Amen" being said in the background.

 

John S.

^Yes, but. I think a major issue that doesn't get addressed in this topic is: who is going to buy all those suburbanites' homes to allow them to move into the city? Those homes will be essentially worthless. And if people just walk away from their mortgages that means the destruction of banks (the Fed can't save them all) and capital to keep our economy functioning. And God forbid, if gas rises to $10/gal, I'm guessing we'll have much larger problems than 'commuting costs'...think about the price/availability of food in that scenario. Cities may well be the last place you want to be.

    Gas may very well eventually hit the $10 mark, but let's all hope it's a decade or 2 away. :|

This happened once about forty years ago except the direction was reversed and civilization didn't end. How do you think Detroit got to be the way it did. Basically the market responds. You'll see spikes in arsons (already happening). You'll see a flooded rental market, not happening yet but it could. Essentially, some of these places will go ghetto as houses decline with little care given to them.

^Yes, but. I think a major issue that doesn't get addressed in this topic is: who is going to buy all those suburbanites' homes to allow them to move into the city? Those homes will be essentially worthless. And if people just walk away from their mortgages that means the destruction of banks (the Fed can't save them all) and capital to keep our economy functioning. And God forbid, if gas rises to $10/gal, I'm guessing we'll have much larger problems than 'commuting costs'...think about the price/availability of food in that scenario. Cities may well be the last place you want to be.

    Gas may very well eventually hit the $10 mark, but let's all hope it's a decade or 2 away. :|

 

If the suburbs are doomed then grass will grow in their streets and homes will be plowed under for expanded farmland. A few of the houses (not the McMansions)  might be jacked up and moved closer to urban areas. Some suburbs are probably destined to become future slums-that has already happened in some places. (such as some former suburban neighborhoods I personally witnessed in Edmond, OK) Anyhow, the decline of peak oil has ramifications that will take decades to play out. I think the American public is incredibly resilient and will adapt and innovate as necessary. We survived the Civil War, the Great Depression, as well as the political turmoil of 1968-doubtful what is to come would be much worse than any of these national trials.

John S.

Here are my predictions:

 

1. Regions where there is a scarcity of water resources, such as the major cities in the southwest, will see prolonged periods of drought (much more so than now) and water quantities will not be replenished sustainably in major reservoirs. There will be rations of water, similar to what has happened in Australia.

 

2. Oil and petrol prices will continue to rise, breaking the $5 barrier by mid-2009. Hybrids will break the 2 million mark in 2010 (1 million mark was broken last month). The federal government will begin heavily investing in fuel cell and hydrogen technologies, and will begin heavily subsidizing alternate fuel sources that are renewable and clean. Many products that were dependent upon oil (e.g. plastics industry) will switch to corn or other bio-degradable plastics.

Excellent article, KJP! It really highlights well the differences between American and European cultures where high fuel prices have long been the norm. Bring on that TGV!

John S.

Don't discount the possibility of company towns returning. If we are talking about livable, walkable communities then people need to live near where they work. Some of this does sort take place already - see Thompson/Cengage leaving Oakley for Mason, but it could happen on a much broader scale and to be honest with the internet it could just as effective for a large corp to build a town from scratch out than invest in the core. The difference is that they would have housing for their workers near to the workplace.