For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: New Urbanism is not the answer
...mainly because "there is no answer."
I had this discussion with one of my card-carrying NU professors at class tonight, who kept rebutting my comments with a simple "it's better/more sustainable/more efficient than what will get built otherwise." Nevermind that "sustainable development" is an oxymoron, and that even the vaunted New Urbanism still needs a robust capitalist system drawing in ever larger energy inputs in order to be developed and "sustained." "Bah" to all that, he says.
It didn't matter that I tried to explain that there will be no growth once energy inputs are necessarily expensive, driving up inflation in commodities & construction materials at rates that will put the idea of a homeowning middle class to demise once and for all.
His response: the inflation will be built into these homes, making them worth even MORE than if there were no inflation
My response: Wages will not inflate commensurate with costs of extraction, capital, eviscerating the middle class in the process.
His response: -blank stare- I guess a revolution is going to come.
Walks away talking on a cell
Besides almost assuredly earning myself a 'C' in this class, I was the most frustrated at not being able to convince someone that the lack of cheap oil is the end of modern civilization as we know it.
Ugh.
I need some help in crafting these arguments. _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Your professor - not unlike most people everywhere - has an emotional desire for an energy abundant lifestyle. He will never believe you.
The only solution I've found is to appeal to the emotions - fear and greed. Thus, higher oil prices create opportunities to make money. Or, higher oil prices create the risk of recession. Or even - a recession is coming, but there is a way to make some money.
As for the truth...you and I (and perhaps you as well, good reader)...are part of a select group who can bear the truth. Or at least a portion of it. _________________ Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn!
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
Yes to the appeal of fear and greed - there is definitely money to be made on the way down, in the absence of complete chaos, of course.
Hell, even Barter Town had an upper class that managed to stay "wealthy". _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 705 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
Quote:
Nevermind that "sustainable development" is an oxymoron...
As long as the word "development" is meant as a temporal act, and if the construct one is developing is "sustainable", then sustainable development is not an oxymoron. For example, we could go on developing a set of sustainable systems for a steady state civilization, perhaps while reducing our population with lower birth rates for that development period. I'm not saying this would be easy, but if it were done, then that would be sustainable development.
Quote:
... and that even the vaunted New Urbanism still needs a robust capitalist system drawing in ever larger energy inputs in order to be developed and "sustained." "Bah" to all that, he says.
Sure it is. But New Urbanism is only a name given for a basket of urban design strategies, much of which predate the rather late label. The NU ideas around higher density & walkable urban arrangements will become the unavoidable conditions within settlements (as long as we have them). We are going to have to develop that, but I doubt if any of it will be as tidy as what the people behind New Urbanism have in mind.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
dub_scratch wrote:
Quote:
Nevermind that "sustainable development" is an oxymoron...
As long as the word "development" is meant as a temporal act, and if the construct one is developing is "sustainable", then sustainable development is not an oxymoron. For example, we could go on developing a set of sustainable systems for a steady state civilization, perhaps while reducing our population with lower birth rates for that development period. I'm not saying this would be easy, but if it were done, then that would be sustainable development.
Let me reconsider - "sustainable development" as you've stated would indeed be sustainable, readying for the steady-state economy. That is not at all what most people are thinking of, however, when referring to the subject of "sustainable development". They're thinking "the greening of suburbia," Ozzie and Harriet, and no more 50-mile commutes. That, however noble a cause, is not sustainable per se, but is undoubtedly less impactive on the environment than conventional design.
dub_scratch wrote:
Quote:
... and that even the vaunted New Urbanism still needs a robust capitalist system drawing in ever larger energy inputs in order to be developed and "sustained." "Bah" to all that, he says.
Sure it is. But New Urbanism is only a name given for a basket of urban design strategies, much of which predate the rather late label. The NU ideas around higher density & walkable urban arrangements will become the unavoidable conditions within settlements (as long as we have them). We are going to have to develop that, but I doubt if any of it will be as tidy as what the people behind New Urbanism have in mind.
Agreed, NU is a new moniker for what largely amounts to good, old-fashioned urbanism, which, of course, dates back to antiquity. Yes, if we head in that direction, the world will be better for it, but I have a feeling that we will be interrupted by decades of stagnation before any real change can come about.
We are headed towards an ad-hoc (sub)urbanism. _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 705 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
bobaloo wrote:
I work as a planner, and the buzzword of the year is sustainability, but of course no one actually has the slightest clue as to what it means.
I usually shut them up by reminding them that my definition of sustainability is "can you do it without oil?"
I work as an architect in a sizable firm here in LA, and I've been sitting in on a "sustainability" taskforce as an observer. The cluelessness behind our coming energy crisis leaves me speechless. The global warming issue seams to be the only concern surrounding our current system. Most think that everything can be fixed with a bit of tinkering here and there. Nobody's even considering the fact that we need a completely different civilization altogether. And of course, much of the time is devoted toward crafting a greenwash "sustainability statement." I asked the question of what is meant by sustainability, and all I got was blank stares.
I like your definition of sustainability. Of course, having to do without oil would mean that my firm will have to close its doors.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
emersonbiggins wrote:
Besides almost assuredly earning myself a 'C' in this class, I was the most frustrated at not being able to convince someone that the lack of cheap oil is the end of modern civilization as we know it.
Ugh.
You're having trouble because expensive oil is not the end of modern civilization. You have this extremely naive view that the modern system is fragile. It isn't. You can physically carpet bomb a modern country for years on end, and it still keeps on running, like a clock.
In the late 70s/early 80s, world oil production dropped by 15%, and nobody even batted an eye. I was there, and I didn't even notice anything unusual was happening, let alone the "end of modern civilization". Go out to your local freeway during rush hour, and look at it. That's exactly what the freeway looked like in 1983, after global oil production had dropped by 15%.
Even in the extremely unlikely event that oil drops so fast and so low that there is danger, modern society is not going to fall over like a creaky hot dog stand. A national emergency will be declared, and it will be the most dead serious crap you can possibly imagine. Zero money, fried infrastructure, fuel shortages, plague, mass death... That's not going to collapse anything. All those conditions are just par for the course in wartime.
The metaphor for modern civilization is not a house of cards, where you pull one out and it all falls apart. It's more like a roach infestation. _________________ Peak Oil Debunked
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
JohnDenver wrote:
emersonbiggins wrote:
Besides almost assuredly earning myself a 'C' in this class, I was the most frustrated at not being able to convince someone that the lack of cheap oil is the end of modern civilization as we know it.
Ugh.
You're having trouble because expensive oil is not the end of modern civilization. You have this extremely naive view that the modern system is fragile. It isn't. You can physically carpet bomb a modern country for years on end, and it still keeps on running, like a clock.
In the late 70s/early 80s, world oil production dropped by 15%, and nobody even batted an eye. I was there, and I didn't even notice anything unusual was happening, let alone the "end of modern civilization". Go out to your local freeway during rush hour, and look at it. That's exactly what the freeway looked like in 1983, after global oil production had dropped by 15%.
Was there not a global recession? Did not millions of people have to adjust to somewhat lean times and even unemployment/underemployment?
It wasn't as simple as swapping out Chevelles for Civics - that's an equally naive view, IMHO.
And the good times that followed shortly thereafter certainly allow us to gloss over the bad, almost as if it never happened at all.
We won't have the luxury of a blissfully brief lull in the economy.
JohnDenver wrote:
The metaphor for modern civilization is not a house of cards, where you pull one out and it all falls apart. It's more like a roach infestation.
Interesting metaphor. How bad is the infestation so far, good sir? _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4272 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
Just an observation, but i'm guessing the highways look a little different then they did back in the early 80's. I mean there are almost 100 million more cars on the road!!!
226.5 million Americans in 1980
300+ million NOW
156 million registered cars 1980
241 million registered cars 2006
Carpet bombing will change a country. You bomb someones water supply or their electric supply and you'll Fark them up big time. Ever listen to Carlin's speech on electricity and the prison system? It might not be exactly how it would work, but things WOULD NOT be the same. I can't internet either
I think the building boom is about done and the only thing that will be built sustainably will be the fire in Joe Sixpacks living room to keep warm because he can't afford $15 natural gas. _________________ "Oil is going up because we use too much oil, and the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling"
-President Bush 11/07/07
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
bobaloo wrote:
I work as a planner, and the buzzword of the year is sustainability, but of course no one actually has the slightest clue as to what it means.
I usually shut them up by reminding them that my definition of sustainability is "can you do it without oil?"
LOL I know what you mean. I am an account manager for a software company, working for a large financial institution (in Australia probably quite small by world standards)
And everyone is patting themselves on the back by "going green" and the sustainability buzzword. All the while investing in the global resource binge.
*shakes head* it's truly amazing to watch.
Each passing day makes me more doomerish _________________ "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2610 Location: The Urban Village
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
emersonbiggins wrote:
...mainly because "there is no answer."
That's right, no answer. There are responses, however. NU is a better response than business as usual. It may have come too late. There is controversy between NU as a 'better growth' movement in terms of greenfield development and NU as a reconstitution/relearning of 'old urbanism' in infill development. The primary difference between NU and traditional urbanism is that NU has to grapple with what to do with cars. Cars and human-oriented settlements are in conflict. There are still lots of cars out there, and they have to be stored somewhere or else whatever is done doesn't sell. There are constructs such as the transect and smartcodes that people associate with NU, but these are just technicalities that help overcome the bureaucratic inertia of business as usual.
In the end, NU is about the physical form of human settlements. It promotes ideas that have been proven empirically over thousands of years (yet were repidly discarded upon arrival of the car) The closest thing the charter says about sustainability is
Quote:
We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
While individuals may have views about what NU is or isn't, the Charter defines what it is
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
emersonbiggins wrote:
...mainly because "there is no answer."
I had this discussion with one of my card-carrying NU professors at class tonight, who kept rebutting my comments with a simple "it's better/more sustainable/more efficient than what will get built otherwise." Nevermind that "sustainable development" is an oxymoron, and that even the vaunted New Urbanism still needs a robust capitalist system drawing in ever larger energy inputs in order to be developed and "sustained." "Bah" to all that, he says.
It didn't matter that I tried to explain that there will be no growth once energy inputs are necessarily expensive, driving up inflation in commodities & construction materials at rates that will put the idea of a homeowning middle class to demise once and for all.
His response: the inflation will be built into these homes, making them worth even MORE than if there were no inflation
My response: Wages will not inflate commensurate with costs of extraction, capital, eviscerating the middle class in the process.
His response: -blank stare- I guess a revolution is going to come.
Walks away talking on a cell
Besides almost assuredly earning myself a 'C' in this class, I was the most frustrated at not being able to convince someone that the lack of cheap oil is the end of modern civilization as we know it.
Ugh.
I need some help in crafting these arguments.
The big problem with new urbanism is that it would require massive reengineering of entire cities (especilaly in the US). We generally don't have the energy/time/money to this on a time scale anywhere near sufficient to offset the consequences of fossil fuel depletion. It is the sort of project that would take the best part of a century, even if we still had substantial fossil reserves to support the required manufacturing. So the only solutions that count in the short-term are those that work around the infrastructure that we have got.
That isn't to say that new urbanism is a waste of time. Simply that it won't solve our immiediate liquid fuels crisis in a useful timescale. A lot also depends where you live. In the UK and europe, most cities were constructed before the automobile made an appearance and remain relatively compact, although suburbs have grown around them in the decades since.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: Re: New Urbanism is not the answer
emersonbiggins wrote:
...mainly because "there is no answer."
There is no one lasting and ever true answer but there are some answers that are valid for certain places and times. Right now New Urbanism isn't the worst responce.
Personally I feel that there is too much of a "design" approach in NU as I have encountered it. But, as others in the thread have said, urbanism is a decent responce right now. Depending on what you mean by urbanism it might not be sustainable forever but as a step that is better then the current thinking and suitable for some period during the future I think it has a lot going for it. It won't be as nice and clean and perfect as the designers say it will but nothing ever is as perfect as designers make it out to be.
Clearly if you expect a massive collapse of civilization its not the right responce but then if you see a massive collapse coming soon why are you taking a class dealing with NU? If all you can see is zombie hordes then no responce is correct which makes any responce perfectly acceptable.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
