[BenGoble]

Hello all,
I'm an architect from Manchester currently working on a masters and I'm interested in studying the effects of peak oil on the form of cities.

I've done my research am aware of the flaws within the the purely renewable solution to the problem, which these quotes are confirming:

"On average, wind and solar renewables can provide a maximum of 20 percent of a regions power. Past that point either intermittancy factors cause too many interruptions, or the cost of maintaining so much backup base load becomes too high."
The End Of Oil - Paul Roberts

"We see wind and solar saturating the energy market around 2030, constrained by their intermittancyu restrictions."
Gerry Stokes, Director of U.S. Joint Global Change Research Institute

I am also aware of the the fact there are approximately a trillion tons of coal still available that could fuel the entire world for 150 years, post peak oil, and that's not even including the heavy oils and tar sands that would eventually become economically viable. But if we are to meet the U.Ns targets of 50% of the world's energy coming from carbon free technologies by 2050 then we must surely need to cut down on energy useage and barring algae solutions or hydrogen cell technology being developed prices for fuel are going to rise exponentially.

What effects do you think these issues will have on city shapes? There's the most probable answer that cities will become denser and suburbs die out where there is not good transport links... but can anyone elaborate on these ideas? or does anyone have any information they can link me to that highlights research done on this topic?

I'm looking to test ideas out on LA, the ultimate car-centric city, where the sprawl will be most affewcted.

Thanks, and apolagies for the stupidly long post, I just wanted to make clear I have a good understanding of the energy market.

Ben

[ROCKMAN]

Ben

I'm not as familiar with LA but I would suggest reviewing Houston, Texas. I doubt any major metro area is more car centric then us (and that goes for gun centric too). But we've had detailed discussions about the "death of the suburbs" and Houston might not fit such a dismal future. For instance, though we still have a central business district the burbs have developed their own centers per se. The only commute to the city center involves employment or cultural/sports events. Though many still drive downtown to work by themselves many also use mass transit. Beyond gov't transit some suburban "cities" have developed their own private mass transit for their "citizens".

For a least 10 years there has been a downtown redevelopment of housing but it is limited and priced such that it would still be cheaper to pay $10 gasoline and live in the burbs. The redevelopment was spurred by the desire to cut transit time and not save on fuel costs.

Not my expertise but I just don't see that increasing population density to reduce energy consumption will be driving the issue in much of the US. The Houston model of decentralization seems more likely for many areas of the country IMO. It might not be the most efficient or conserve as much energy but it would be acceptable to many. A better plan isn't better if it isn't adopted.

[VMarcHart]

"On average, wind and solar renewables can provide a maximum of 20% of a regions power. Past that point either intermittancy factors cause too many interruptions, or the cost of maintaining so much backup base load becomes too high." The End Of Oil - Paul Roberts

It could be a little higher with demand curbing and management.

[BenGoble]

The primary effect of peak will be reduced energy to redesign anything. Peak oil is synonymous with entropy.

... And I completely agree it will be. It's an urbanism course and the point is not to redesign cities, for me at least, but to predict where our cities will go. Now from my research it would appear so far that cities will reduce in size as energy costs make living in suburbs difficult. Currently this is not the American way, but whos to say America won't go back to the days of Conservation in the 1970s? By all accounts from the energy market, America will have to change.

telling Americans to do more with less is not enough. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy,"

Dick Cheney

A statement following the California blackouts, encouragin Americans to keep using energy as they do, rather than conserve energy.

For a least 10 years there has been a downtown redevelopment of housing but it is limited and priced such that it would still be cheaper to pay $10 gasoline and live in the burbs. The redevelopment was spurred by the desire to cut transit time and not save on fuel costs.

Rockman

This statement is completely true.. currently, but the point of this question is that post-peak, gas prices will go through the roof and in all probability it would then be cheaper to live in the centre rather than in a burb.
It's also fair to say the US has actually sold itself down the river with it current dependance on OPEC oil. Not that Britain is much diffrent, but since the energy usage is double that of britain per capita head, it's pretty clear the U.S. will need to change something.
I'm also looking into the possibility that the Third world may leapfrog the developed nations as it builds its economy based on renewable energies.

Finally, I agree VMarcHart, conservation is the way forward, but as is clear from the above Rockman's comments, American's are unwilling to change and won't do untill it's too late.

[ROCKMAN]

yep...that's what I what I thought we were chatting about. But you're point is well taken. Much of the suburban centers have focused on those non-industrial activities you describe. I know a big chunk of IT has located in these areas as well as many service industries. The port area in Houston remains the most depressed urban setting in a 50 mile radius. Distribution is still the key activity for the port.

[BenGoble]

Ah, I actually really agree with Mr Pstarr! even after he insulted my proffesion (probably a builder haha). The trend post-peak will be reversed, Globalisation moving to Relocalisation. Could lead to some really interesting things in cities. Though probably also closely followed by an overall reduction in industry and consumer culture dying a death. Maybe.!

[ROCKMAN]

I agree with your sentiment Ben but I cannot foresee a day when gas reaches a price where 500,000 Houstonians will abandone their $150,000 single family units for $500,000 downtown condos. Especially if there are no buyers for those then untenable burbs. That's where I think many visions part: there's how we should have designed urban growth vs. what we are finacially capable of doing with our current mess. It's easy for clever folks to design plans in retrospec. But that's not the problem at hand IMO.

[BenGoble]

True! very true. Hmmmm, well it would seem those Houstonians are going to be paying a lot of money for oil and gas. As I say I'm not trying to say everyone must move, I'm just trying to predict trends and I suppose your point highlights the main issue with the concept. Thanks

[ROCKMAN]

Yep...it is a well designed trap here in Houston. For future reference I'll point out a key tool in the whole process: annexation. I think it’s relatively uncommon in the rest of the country but it has been THE tool of urbanization here. The city of Houston has the legal authority to take over any suburban area. even across county lines. Though it might sound ridiculous, but eventually the cities of Houston and Dallas (240 miles north) could one day share city limits. Essentially the city waits until an area is developed (along with it’s tax base) and then snatches it. It’s important to understand how taxing works in Texas. There is no state income tax and thus real estate taxes are the fuel for municipalities. Own the suburbs and you own the tax base.

Add this to some of the cheapest housing construction costs in the US with limitless wide open and flat land for expansion and you have the perfect formula for suburban sprawl. Though it might not work for most of the country, I think a continuation of this suburban decentralization is the best option. If we can’t move the people to centralized employment and consumption then we can relocate as much of those factors to the suburbs. Otherwise someone is going to have to pony up many hundreds of billions of $’s it would take for relocation. And I can promise that it won’t be paid by the city, county, state or the tax payers.

Yep…we have met the enemy and he is us.

[ROCKMAN]

Ben,

Your comment regarding Houstonians paying the price for gas brought back an ancient memory. Some 30 years ago an abundance of Texas skiers in Colorado led to a common bumper sticker in those parts: "If God had meant for Texans to ski he would have made bullsh_t white!". And this led to Texans wearing t-shirts declaring: "God did want Texans to ski...he gave us oil!"

A little humor to brighten up a somber thread.

[BenGoble]

As much as it's all very 'Malthusian', hard times, doom and gloom and dystopian futures, I can't help but think it's going to be interesting times, dealing with all these issues and new ideas. Anyhow I'm an optimist and pretty much believe whilst all the research says future = bad, I'm sure we'll find a way around it.

sounds like a nice house

[BenGoble]

He was an efficiency expert in around when President Carter went on his conservation drive in the 70s. It just pretty much means making things that do the same job or better but without using stupid amounts of unneccesary energy. i.e. a SUV. The ultimate of pointless, unless you actually live on a farm or something where it can properly be used.