News   Jul 22, 2024
 616     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
 1.7K     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
 639     0 

The suburban lifestyle is no longer sustainable

jaycola

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
502
Reaction score
40
I don't know if this string will have legs but I found this article interesting from yesterday's Toronto Star. Many good points are made but I can't agree with all that was said.
http://www.thestar.com/article/645216

It discusses issues of urban sprawl and the future of cities and communities brought up at a recent Ontario Heritage Conference.

Here are a few points I found interesting.

"Suburbia is "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of world," said Kunstler. "We squandered our national treasure on both sides of the border on constructing an infrastructure for daily life that has no future.""

"Rather than scrambling to continue a lifestyle built around the car and the trappings of suburbia, it's time to redefine our way of life, they said, not only in the way we travel, but in the way we occupy the land, do commerce and produce food. Both foresee a return to smaller-scale local-based economies and a need to produce food close to home, on the "agricultural hinterlands" that have been sacrificed for suburban development.

"...the suburbs' decline will not be "like Godzilla coming and people screaming," but a tremendous demographic shift is coming and people will eventually relocate. He believes it will be to towns and small cities. "

"Cities are also in trouble, suffering from problems of scale and big metro-plexes like Toronto and Vancouver are going to contract substantially, although the old centres of the city will intensify,"

"The skyscraper will be in big trouble – these building types are strictly a creature of the cheap energy fiesta. There is no reason to believe we can afford to run these things down the line. You gotta stop building towers. No more towers – no more buildings over six or seven storeys high, period."

"...the future in communities where food and goods are produced locally; places with affordable housing, walkable neighbourhoods, public transit, public parks and civic squares. Friedman also said communities should be intergenerational, housing all ages in the same developments and that no one should have to drive to buy the daily necessities..."

While I agree that the success of cities will depend a lot on a local diverse economy, more locally grown food production, walkable neighbourhoods and modern mass transit, I can't see how cities like Toronto (GTA) can contract while we continually add tens of thousands of new residents to the city every year.

Why are skyscrapers less energy efficient to run than 6 story buildings?
Less land is required for a taller tower and are there not savings as a result of economy of scale?

They talk about a shift from the cities to smaller communities. Can we not fix suburbia? That would seem like a better use of resources already in place.
 
Transit-oriented development with mixed-use, instead of single-use, buildings should be encouraged. One should be able to walk from a transit stop, do your quick shopping, and get home without using a car or having to trek across vast asphalt deserts. No more big box stores that turn their backs to the arterial roads, presented blank walls without pediatrician entries (St. Clair and Keele is a good, sorry bad, example of this).

GO stations should have better links to local transit, not parking lots. Maybe auto service garages should be located at the stations, along with green grocers, dry cleaners, and convenience stores. That is so people can pick up their goods on the way home, instead of requiring special errand trips using their cars.

The only goods neighbourhoods in the suburbs are where the old villages have not been "improved", like Streetsville or Port Credit.
 
A lot of it is completely irrational. Energy prices have a ceiling (due to the substitutability of renewables/nuclear once oil reaches $250 or $300 per barrel), and that ceiling is much lower than the tipping point away from modern global supply chains and specialization. On the other hand, they are right that $250+/barrel oil will grievously harm suburbs, I don't think that means people will move to small towns. Mainly, there aren't enough small towns to accomodate everyone anyway (without making them large towns), beyond the fact that cities make global supply chains relatively efficient (especially once we get quality high speed intermodal rail). It's the hinterland that is expensive to serve.

I think our bigger challenges will be dwindling water supplies in the areas that grow our veggies, Florida and California. I can see a lot of that moving to hydroponic greenhouse production, closer to the point of consumption. Net zero energy consumption greenhouses are being developed (in the Netherlands), but they are very capital intensive. On the other hand, they can use water very efficiently, and grow food with much less or no pesticides. However, it may still make sense to grow food in tropical areas and ship it by high speed (by freight standards--even 100-150 mph) rail. You absolutely won't see farm skyscrapers, at least not without massive subsidies. That is a ponderously stupid idea. There is no price of energy that justifies it.
 
Ok, we all already knew suburbs were unsustainable, but, um, I have to ask this.
Exactly how can large metropolises contract, while haveing and influx of people while only having 5-6-floor buildings??:confused:

Really, some of these columnists need to think about what they're writing before they do.

In response to the post above, exactly how do oil prices have a ceiling? What's stopping then? If oil ran out TOMORROW, a litre of oil would become more expensive than a tonne of gold. There's nothing stopping prices, it's all supply and demand. If supply is running out, and demand still high, prices will skyrocket.
 
But we're not going to run out of oil tomorrow, so your point is moot. There is abundant fossil fuel left (more coal than oil or natgas), the question is whether we should pay the ecological price to extract and use them. In the long run, there is a ceiling on the price of energy. It would take time to create alternatives, but once the business case is there, without subsidies, the alternatives will expand very rapidly. Of course, the intervening year may be very painful, especially if we suffer through some short term spikes above $300, or $500 per barrel. Of course, at that point people will make major adjustments to the way they live their lives. Transit ridership will skyrocket, people will move closer to work, better insulate their homes, etc.
 
Ok, we all already knew suburbs were unsustainable, but, um, I have to ask this.
Exactly how can large metropolises contract, while haveing and influx of people while only having 5-6-floor buildings??:confused:


Rome grew from 30,000 in 350 BC to over 1,000,000 by AD 120. Then it collapsed to 10,000 by the year 1000. It only returned to over 1,000,000 by the 1930's. It is now over 2,718,768. And Rome didn't have skyscrapers in 120, but they had roads. Not freeways, but roads nonetheless. Roads not for cars, but for people to walk on.
 
Howard Kunstler wants to tell you where to live, and how you should live when there. He joins a long line of people who would like to engineer society to suit what they see as fit. If you don't happen to conform, you are deemed to be unsustainable.
 
Maybe Howard would also like to explain how people will abandon the suburbs, yet those homes will maintain their value so the increase in fuel cost would not be offset by a lower cost of living. Going from an SUV to sub compact car with a 20% reduction in mortgage payments would cover a substantial increase in energy cost.

It is remarkable people like that can get an audience.
 
The new increment of development is not going to be whole blocks or the 10-acre [four-hectare] plot. It's going to be the individual building lot – that's the financial scale we're going to be capable of.

This statement warrants a little discussion. I do think that the individual lot is where density can be increased in the city centre, as well as the suburbs, with the smallest affect on existing services and infrastructure.

Putting triplexes and fourplexes in place of the monster home the monster homes that have been replacing the little bungalow on the 50 foot lot would be a good start.

These properties could be financed on an individual basis. The homeowners could work with developers to create an attractive multiplex that would keep them in their homes and neighbourhood as well as provide them with a stable, long term source of income.

Target areas for this development where the existing schools and municipal services have an excess of capacity or where capacity could be ramped up easily and efficiently.
 
It is remarkable people like that can get an audience.

Well, just because he addressed the ACO/CHO conference doesn't mean he directly, narrowly, dogmatically reflects unanimity within said organizations--anything but. Otherwise, something like the TD Centre would be deemed heritage-unworthy.
 
And Rome didn't have skyscrapers in 120, but they had roads. Not freeways, but roads nonetheless. Roads not for cars, but for people to walk on
.


actually I remember once hearing Traffic in Rome got so bad that movement of goods on large wagons was allowed to be done at night.
 
Census: Big cities now growing quicker

Interesting article on US migration patterns based on the last census. Money quote: "Suburban sprawl may not be dead, but it's certainly on hiatus".

CENSUS: BIG CITIES NOW GROWING QUICKER
Housing crunch, recession and gas prices have slowed migration to suburbs
The Associated Press | Wed., July 1, 2009

WASHINGTON - Reversing a decade-long trend, many of America's largest cities are now growing more quickly than the rest of the nation, yet another sign of an economic crisis that is making it harder for people to move.

Census data released Wednesday highlight a city resurgence in coastal regions and areas of the Midwest and Northeast, due to a housing crunch, recession and higher gas prices that have slowed migration to far-flung suburbs and residential hotspots in the South and West.

The 2008 population figures show New York and Chicago made gains from higher births, while Philadelphia stanched population losses from earlier in the decade. Also showing rebounds were industrial centers in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., Columbus, Ohio, and Lincoln, Neb., with economies focused on finance, health care, information technology or education. Detroit, with its ailing auto industry, declined.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore., all on the West Coast, registered growth, boosted partly by foreign-born immigrants who moved into and stayed in gateway cities. In contrast, former hotspot areas in Nevada and Arizona had significant slowdowns, as well as inland regions in California.

"Cities are showing a continued vitality as hubs of activity even as some suburban and exurban areas go through tough times," said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. "It emphasizes the buoyancy of large established cities with diverse economies and populations."

Frey and other demographers said many of the population shifts could be longer-lasting. They noted that while the Sunbelt region is still growing, it is unlikely to return to the torrid growth rates of earlier in the decade before the housing bubble burst.

President Barack Obama has pledged to upgrade mass transit and push energy conservation, high-speed rail and other urban priorities. That could create shifts in residential patterns and city life, especially for younger couples and small families more likely to move.

"Suburban sprawl may not be dead, but it's certainly on hiatus," said Mark Mather, associate vice president of the nonprofit Population Reference Bureau. "Even if the economy recovered tomorrow, it might take a while for people to change their behavior. Attitudes just don't change overnight."

Transit helps growth
Robert E. Lang, co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, predicted that upscale, inner suburbs with developed transit systems will see bigger gains in the future. He noted that while far-flung exurbs have been steadily losing population, closer-in Virginia suburbs such as Arlington and Alexandria just outside Washington, D.C., jumped 3 percent and 2.9 percent in 2008, respectively, to rank among the 20 fastest-growing cities.

"In Arlington and Alexandria, we're seeing hints of a new growth model," Lang said, citing changing demographics in which there are fewer U.S. households with kids.

"These were places that were losing population. But they tore down the shopping malls, developed the transit system and put up apartment housing to accommodate singles and childless couples," he said. "They're a decade ahead of Lakewood, Colo., Tempe, Ariz., and other Sunbelt regions that now have transit."

Census estimates show:
# The 10 largest cities grew about 1 percent from the previous year, buoyed by sharp gains in Chicago and fewer losses in Philadelphia, compared to 0.9 percent for other cities. For much of the decade, the big cities had grown at roughly 0.5 percent — half the rate for elsewhere in the U.S.
# New York continued to be the nation's most populous city, with 8.4 million residents. Los Angeles ranked second at 3.8 million. Rounding out the top 10 were Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Dallas, San Diego and San Jose, Calif.
# For metropolitan areas greater than 1 million people, the growth rates of cities grew 1 percent, compared to 1.1 percent for suburbs. In 2001, city growth was half the rate for suburbs — 0.8 percent for cities compared to 1.6 percent for suburbs.
# New Orleans was the fastest-growing city in 2008, rising 8.2 percent from the previous year. Still, its population of 311,853 residents lagged its pre-Hurricane Katrina level of 484,674 in 2000. The city's population dipped in 2006 to 210,768.
# Four of the 10 fastest-growing large cities were in Texas: Round Rock, McKinney, Killeen and Fort Worth. North Carolina had two cities in the top 10, Cary and Raleigh; California also had two, Roseville and Irvine. Gilbert, Ariz., also was on the list.

The Census Bureau estimated annual population totals as of July 1, 2008, for cities, defined by boundaries of incorporated areas. The agency used local records of births and deaths, Internal Revenue Service records of people moving within the U.S. and census statistics on immigrants.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31669241/ns/business-us_business/
 
Comparisons of municipal growth are a bit dodgy unless no annexations have taken place...and many have taken place in south/west cities. Phoenix actually has an Annexation Request Form and quarterly boundary updates on its website!
 

Back
Top