Will suburbs be the new SUV's?

by mtippett | November 27, 2008 at 03:07 pm

190 views | 10 Recommendations | 10 comments

If we don’t take the opportunity created by the current crisis, suburbs will be like an SUV in the next decade - unwieldy and unwanted.

This is a point that James Kunstler has been making for some time on his blog. Here is a characteristically brilliant exceprt from his latest post.

All the activities based on getting something-for-nothing are dead or dying now, in particular buying houses and cars on credit and so it should not be a surprise that the two major victims are the housing and car industries. Notice, by the way, that these are the two major ingredients of an economy based on building suburban sprawl. That's over, too. We're done building it and the stuff we've already built is destined to loose both money value and usefulness as the wrenching transition goes forward.

Call me an optimist, but i think going local, building community, investing in humanity, getting away from the combustion engine and polluting energy, etc. is a good idea.

In the Information Network Age this doesn't mean our lifestyles can't continue to improve radically, the way they have been at the same exponential rate that information, complexity and order have been increasing since the Big Bang, 13.9 billion years ago.

If trends continue the way they have been in solar (even the US Great Depression was a minor and temporary dip, in recent years), solar will be cost competitive with fossil fuels on the consumer market for making electricity in about 4 years and in about 19 years will be able to supply the world's energy needs by itself. In addition, breakthroughs and gains are being made at similar rates in wind, wave, tidal, geothermal and others. We have the technology for great mass transit and electric cars, and many will be on the mass market within years.

I think we do need to cut the bloodsucking bankers out of the loop, though- the Fed and Wall Street blew up the housing market into a global economic meltdown and have been having parties- they should be under investigation. The US Constitution authorizes Congress to coin money. Is there a downside (for the People and the public interest) to abolishing the Fed, banning interest and charging a tax on money?

The NATURAL ECONOMIC ORDER

According to this article, In Worgl, Austria in 1933, at a time the town had 1/3 unemployment thanks to the Great Depression (which the bankers caused by hoarding money and refusing to extend credit after they blew up that stock market), they tried it and it led to the rate of money circulation increasing drastically; the tax gave people an incentive to spend, invest long term in sustainability, hire people and loan money; the ban on interest stopped killing the value of money, prices dropped, the economy grew, money increased in value and there was full employment- everyone was a good credit risk. The central bank found out and shut it down; but we're living in the Network Age.

Seeking feedback from anyone, especially debunking- i don't like believing lies and BS.

"I think we do need to cut the bloodsucking bankers out of the loop"

The only way to do this is to stop using banks. Don't use credit cards, debit cards, bank machines, and if possible try to get paid in cash and pay in cash. Most importantly....don't store your money in any financial institution. Don't let them make money off your money.

Almost impossible but it should do it!

not bad advice, Mike- i went with a credit union over a year ago; my money stays in my community and is invested soundly- plus i get better rates and fees, and have access to waaaaay more free ATMs than even BofAss thru the credit union coop network. Banks hate credit unions, and i suppose have made it as hard as possible to compete in the risky rigged markets the Wall Street Pigs have caused to blow up and meltdown- just as well.

Wonder too if the newspaper (&the ones publishing them) is going the same way as the SUV (&carmakers)...

I am a huge supporter of livable urban density but most Americans and canadians with families could not afford to live in urban centres. If $500,000 buys you 2500 a square foot home in the burbs it would cost over $1.0 million to get something even close in the city and most people simply cannot afford that. Add to that the market shifts that would occur as people en mass began selling their suburban homes (price collapes) while at the same time buying urban homes (pushing those prices up). The result would be catastrophic for families. And remember not everyone wants to live in a place like Mexico City or Tokyo (even if they can afford to do so).

Homes are cheaper outside of the city because of cheap fuel. When this fuel becomes more expensive the affordability of remote living goes away and therefore the city becomes more affordable. Whether or not you agree with the virtue of suburbia they are becoming untenable in the same way SUV's are -- for the same reason.

That may be true but I think substitute goods (electric vehicles and decent public transit) will solve the problem. I am indifferent about the suburbs as I live in the city but I have many friends that will buy a a couple of Chevy Volts before they move to the city. If you can afford to house an entire family in $500 - $1000 per square foot housing in the city you can afford to live in the burbs too. It boils down to personal preferences and a lot of people like have yards, gardens, private pools and the quiet that only comes from living in low density communities.

But the problem with electric cars is that they still need power. And where will this electricity come from?

Electricity can be generated from so many sources. It is far easier than a petrolium burning engine to power. Hydro, Solar, Wind, Tidal, Biomass, and burning traditional sources like coal and LPG just to name a few. With any combination of those we have far more capacity than we will need for many generations. It would be easier to build that infrastructure than to try to house all our families in 200 story towers in ugly, crampped future cities that would resemble sets from Blade Runner. Imagine taking Vancouver (with its problematic geographical restrictions like the Pacific Ocean and the local mountains) and trying to accomodate the 2 million people currently living in the Lower Mainland by adding them to the city's existing 600,000 population. You want to see social unreast - that is how to do it.

Living in any neighbourhood of a metropolis would be ideal for many people if only urban and suburban planning were actually taken seriously by successive civil governments and officials didn't bow down to the dominance of the automobile. A wonderful book, A Pattern Language, set out community design principles for sustainable, people-friendly neighbourhoods 3 decades ago, and the principles stand the test of time. It's worth checking out.