The End of Suburbia

[Slick Vik]

Very interesting documentary. Basically spells the end for Houston pretty soon.

 

[Houston19514]

ROFL   Just one lie picked out from the video...  Maine to Florida on I-95 and never able to see open countryside?  Who was that moron?

[august948]

Very interesting documentary. Basically spells the end for Houston pretty soon.

Keep dreaming.

[samagon]

That documentary was made 10 years ago.

 

There's a lot newer information that's a bit more relevant.

 

I haven't seen this particular documentary, but most of them don't explain 'peak oil' correctly.

 

It's not the end of oil, it's the end of cheap oil, as the easy wells dry up (Saudi Arabia, etc) the costs to pull it out of the ground go up. 

 

This doesn't spell doom for Houston, it spells doom for the lifestyle of driving a truck every day of the year 30 miles to/from work. 

[livincinco]

Did you see the article in the Charon a couple of weeks ago that showed that 80% of homes sold were outside the beltway? The rat of sprawl is increasing in Houston, not decreasing.

[Slick Vik]

Did you see the article in the Charon a couple of weeks ago that showed that 80% of homes sold were outside the beltway? The rat of sprawl is increasing in Houston, not decreasing.

 

Yes because people aren't thinking long term. Once the price of oil becomes so high, people will reconsider living out in the boonies, because the price of transportation will be astronomical, and Houston's politics have put it in a position where there is no public transit alternative. And this suburban lifestyle is causing pain for the rest of the world indirectly. Makes no sense that USA uses 25% of the world's resources. There are a lot of indirect costs for the entire american population, higher airline fares, higher costs for all products since they are shipped via air/train/trucks, etc. Just a matter of time before stuff hits the fan.

[august948]

Yes because people aren't thinking long term. Once the price of oil becomes so high, people will reconsider living out in the boonies, because the price of transportation will be astronomical, and Houston's politics have put it in a position where there is no public transit alternative. And this suburban lifestyle is causing pain for the rest of the world indirectly. Makes no sense that USA uses 25% of the world's resources. There are a lot of indirect costs for the entire american population, higher airline fares, higher costs for all products since they are shipped via air/train/trucks, etc. Just a matter of time before stuff hits the fan.

It's not the oil that allows for sprawl, it's the private vehicle. That vehicle can and will be powered by things other than oil as prices rise. Same thing with bulk transport. The only real danger is a sudden and sustained very large spike in oil prices that doesn't give us time to adapt. If oil prices rise gradually, new technologies will come on line and suburbia will be saved for future generations to enjoy. Thanks to fracking, oil production in Texas has doubled in the last few years and makes it even more likely that we'll see a gradual increase in oil prices rather than a catastrophic spike.

[Slick Vik]

It's not the oil that allows for sprawl, it's the private vehicle. That vehicle can and will be powered by things other than oil as prices rise. Same thing with bulk transport. The only real danger is a sudden and sustained very large spike in oil prices that doesn't give us time to adapt. If oil prices rise gradually, new technologies will come on line and suburbia will be saved for future generations to enjoy. Thanks to fracking, oil production in Texas has doubled in the last few years and makes it even more likely that we'll see a gradual increase in oil prices rather than a catastrophic spike.

 

Fracking has its own issues, like damaging water supply. And the private vehicle was made into a must have due to the confluence of the federal government, developers, and general motors. It was not some kind of natural process. The "American Dream" is a profiteering racket that made a lot of people very rich.

[august948]

Fracking has its own issues, like damaging water supply. And the private vehicle was made into a must have due to the confluence of the federal government, developers, and general motors. It was not some kind of natural process. The "American Dream" is a profiteering racket that made a lot of people very rich.

The private vehicle has a long history of precursors that predates developers, GM, and the US Government. People have wanted and needed to move themselves about in better ways than walking since the dawn of time and have found ways to do that. Cars running on petroleum are just the most popular of the recent transportation innovations. As prices rise, other options will emerge and suburbia will be saved.

[Purdueenginerd]

Predictions of the demise of oil have been predicted for over 100 years. Oil will never run out.. it is a commodity chemical. Only when the energy needed to extract petroleum, surpasses the energy output of petroleum will you see a change in automobile use. This is called Energy Return on Investment 

 

In addition, the end of urban sprawl doesnt mean the end of Houston at all. Oil, may not be used as the fuel of the future, but it is still used in thousands of other chemicals that are not constrained by the energy market. 

 

Even if gasoline isnt used in the future, the innovation brought out about will likely result in infrastructure implementation for the electric car, or hydrogen car.  

 

 

[RedScare]

Yes because people aren't thinking long term. Once the price of oil becomes so high, people will reconsider living out in the boonies, because the price of transportation will be astronomical, and Houston's politics have put it in a position where there is no public transit alternative. And this suburban lifestyle is causing pain for the rest of the world indirectly. Makes no sense that USA uses 25% of the world's resources. There are a lot of indirect costs for the entire american population, higher airline fares, higher costs for all products since they are shipped via air/train/trucks, etc. Just a matter of time before stuff hits the fan.

 

Actually, we DO have an alternative.

[august948]

Makes no sense that USA uses 25% of the world's resources.

That actually makes a lot of sense since the US output is around 22% of world production.

[Slick Vik]

That actually makes a lot of sense since the US output is around 22% of world production.

 

Do you think 4% of the world's population should be using 25% of the world's overall resources, not just oil? It's not right.

 

And hydrogen fuel cell technology is a bridge to nowhere, basically a false hope that has been sold for a while with no real results. Suburbanization is not a sustainable lifestyle, and it's just a matter of time because reality becomes a hard truth for hundreds of millions.

[IHB2]

That actually makes a lot of sense since the US output is around 22% of world production.

 

 

stop picking on slick - when he goes off on these death to personal transportation rants he's just too target-rich.

[jt16]

The US consumption of oil peaked a few years ago (fuel economcy standards), all while production is up pretty radically domestically with the new shale oil plays.  The US now produces 7Mil BBls/Day of oil.  Add in Canadian heavy oil sands/tar and I think the doom and gloomers for oil use are on the wrong side of the equation.  There were articales written around 100 years ago that spoke about the US running out of oil, yet here we are.   

[august948]

Do you think 4% of the world's population should be using 25% of the world's overall resources, not just oil? It's not right.

When that 4% of the world's population is producing 22% of the world's GDP then, yeah, that's fair and proper. Sometime in the far future output % and population % will probably come somewhat into alignment, but for now the disparity in development between regions of the world is too great for that to be a useful metric.

I would like to know where the 25% stat comes from. I hope that's not a direct quote from Michael Moore.

[ToryGattis]

August948 has already said it, but it bears repeating: the personal vehicle is never going away.  It may certainly switch off the internal combustion engine, but it'll just run on some alternative energy.  Maybe natural gas.  Maybe batteries charged overnight at home.  Maybe tiny econobox hybrids getting 100+ mpg (see Europe, Japan).  We're too wealthy of a society to go back, and we're only getting wealthier.  As is every other country on the planet (well, except North Korea), and they all start buying cars at about the same GDP/capita (so much for the conspiracy theory).

[Slick Vik]

When that 4% of the world's population is producing 22% of the world's GDP then, yeah, that's fair and proper. Sometime in the far future output % and population % will probably come somewhat into alignment, but for now the disparity in development between regions of the world is too great for that to be a useful metric.

I would like to know where the 25% stat comes from. I hope that's not a direct quote from Michael Moore.

 

So 22% of the world's resources that the US uses all come from the US?

[Slick Vik]

August948 has already said it, but it bears repeating: the personal vehicle is never going away.  It may certainly switch off the internal combustion engine, but it'll just run on some alternative energy.  Maybe natural gas.  Maybe batteries charged overnight at home.  Maybe tiny econobox hybrids getting 100+ mpg (see Europe, Japan).  We're too wealthy of a society to go back, and we're only getting wealthier.  As is every other country on the planet (well, except North Korea), and they all start buying cars at about the same GDP/capita (so much for the conspiracy theory).

 

Maybe 1% of us are getting wealthier, but last time I checked the wealth inequality gap is rising exponentially in this country, and the government has resorted to a sequester due to budget fallacies.

[Purdueenginerd]

Youre getting off topic a bit. Socioeconomic arguments are probably not best suited for this board. Though income disparities are a problem, that doesn't refute what august948 has said. 

 

And as for the US using 22 percent of the worlds materials... I say... So what? Its their problem to build the demand and build the infrastructure. In fact, they are: Have you missed the globilization movement for the last 2 decades?

[livincinco]

Slick - you always portray this as if people are being sold a way of life that they will someday come to their senses and realize how wrong they have been. I'd argue that personal transportation and the suburban lifestyle are desired by many people. The idea that it's not sustainable assumes static technology.

Cities will continue to sprawl because that's what many people want. The idea that a dramatic rise in oil prices will drive people from their cars is a fallacy because its just as likely to drive innovation to reduce the impact of the increased prices.

The minute someone delivers an electric car that provides a range that allows a full day of driving without requiring a recharge at a competitive price, or a comparable innovation, the whole game changes. I would argue that the probability that happens in the next twenty years is high.

[Slick Vik]

Slick - you always portray this as if people are being sold a way of life that they will someday come to their senses and realize how wrong they have been. I'd argue that personal transportation and the suburban lifestyle are desired by many people. The idea that it's not sustainable assumes static technology.

Cities will continue to sprawl because that's what many people want.

 

The people want it because of a systematic, methodical collusion between developers, General Motors, and the federal government. Sprawl didn't just show up out of thin air, it was all methodically planned out. The people that "want" it are just pawns in a much bigger game.

[Purdueenginerd]

I'm no fan of Urban Sprawl, or the suburbs but a better argument against urban sprawl, would be to use quality of life, financial strain on local governments, segregation, and overall urban community. In my opinion, these are better arguments against sprawl than the global oil market. 

 

Sprawl showed up, with the advent of the Automobile, so sure, you can say that there was collusion that GM wanted to make money on their product---- roads a pretty good way of doing that. Guess what, people wanted that, which is why the market flourished. The federal government never marched into real estate offices and forced people to move. The federal government never propogated white flight. The federal government didnt create the baby boomer generation. Sure it may have encouraged it, but that was the will of the people. 

[Slick Vik]

I'm no fan of Urban Sprawl, or the suburbs but a better argument against urban sprawl, would be to use quality of life, financial strain on local governments, segregation, and overall urban community. In my opinion, these are better arguments against sprawl than the global oil market. 

 

Sprawl showed up, with the advent of the Automobile, so sure, you can say that there was collusion that GM wanted to make money on their product---- roads a pretty good way of doing that. Guess what, people wanted that, which is why the market flourished. The federal government never marched into real estate offices and forced people to move. The federal government never propogated white flight. The federal government didnt create the baby boomer generation. Sure it may have encouraged it, but that was the will of the people. 

 

Yes but when there are such things like school funding bias towards subarbs and against urban environments, and cheaper housing in suburbs due to the subsidization of the federal government, general motors buying up streetcar lines and ripping the tracks out causing people to want to buy cars in the first place, you can't help but feel the sense of a thought out plan. The average joe is just a sucker in the bigger scheme of things.

[livincinco]

The people want it because of a systematic, methodical collusion between developers, General Motors, and the federal government. Sprawl didn't just show up out of thin air, it was all methodically planned out. The people that "want" it are just pawns in a much bigger game.

I would apply Occam's Razor in this scenario, but you didn't address the rest of my question. Your argument is based on the scarcity, expense, and environmental impact of fossil fuels. I don't see that as a constraint due to innovation.

[livincinco]

Yes but when there are such things like school funding bias towards subarbs and against urban environments, and cheaper housing in suburbs due to the subsidization of the federal government, general motors buying up streetcar lines and ripping the tracks out causing people to want to buy cars in the first place, you can't help but feel the sense of a thought out plan. The average joe is just a sucker in the bigger scheme of things.

You do realize that the streetcar networks were originally developed due to massive subsidies from electric companies and real estate developers though right?

[Slick Vik]

I would apply Occam's Razor in this scenario, but you didn't address the rest of my question. Your argument is based on the scarcity, expense, and environmental impact of fossil fuels. I don't see that as a constraint due to innovation.

 

What innovation? I'm yet to see any results beyond an expensive electric car with a 40 mile range and a hydrogen fuel cell theory that has yet to produce anything. We've already seen with air prices immediate effects of what fuel prices do. I think it would be best if we were taxed heavier like European nations and faced a $6-$8 per gallon price, to really see a change in the way of thinking in this country.

[livincinco]

What innovation? I'm yet to see any results beyond an expensive electric car with a 40 mile range and a hydrogen fuel cell theory that has yet to produce anything. We've already seen with air prices immediate effects of what fuel prices do. I think it would be best if we were taxed heavier like European nations and faced a $6-$8 per gallon price, to really see a change in the way of thinking in this country.

Check out the Nissan Leaf with a range of 120 miles and a price tag in the low 30ks. Innovation is coming because of self interest by car manufacturers. Look at the windfall Toyota has achieved from the Prius.

[IronTiger]

If you're so bent on suburbia's death, the thing that probably will end happening is the socioeconomic structure prior to suburbs (which were first created by trains and streetcars): the center of town is where the wealthy live, followed by middle class, followed by the poor in the outskirts. In this case, the poor people would be living in the suburbs. 

 

At least that's what I remember from a history class.

[Purdueenginerd]

Yes but when there are such things like school funding bias towards subarbs and against urban environments, and cheaper housing in suburbs due to the subsidization of the federal government, general motors buying up streetcar lines and ripping the tracks out causing people to want to buy cars in the first place, you can't help but feel the sense of a thought out plan. The average joe is just a sucker in the bigger scheme of things.

 

 

I'll just leave this link here for you to read in regards to GM buying up streetcar lines... GM is not the sole reason for the deterioration of mass transit in the US. Even in cities with Strong Mass transit systems there exists vast and abundant suburbs. NYC, Chicago, and DC all have very large urban footprints. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

 

School funding bias towards suburbs appears to be a byproduct relic of racism and segregation.  Cheaper housing in the suburbs is a product of land availability, population density and desireablity. Theres a reason a new home in Midtown costs $300,000 and a new home in Spring costs $150,000. Coincidentally you can probably buy an old home in the 3rd ward, for $80,000. The only federal subsidy that really comes into play for those three homes involves property tax deductible. 

 

Can local government do more to promote growth in the urban core? Sure! You won't hear any qualms from me about that. 

 

Regardless, youve changed your argument again.  First you were indicating that the global oil market will lead to the downfall of suburbia. I think we all here refuted that. Now your argument is, that some "evil conspiracy" to build more suburbs is at play. In my opinion, suburbs exist because of economic conditions and racial discrimination for the last century. Nearly every city in North America is experiencing a rebirth of their city core in the last decade. Perhaps the racial discrimination, or the economic advantages associated with the suburbs are reduced. I dont know...