Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?

[aknowledgeableperson]

He says that sprawl doesn't necessarily cause environmental problems. To back that up, he imagines that if everyone lived in sprawled out communities we MIGHT not have any problems if we find alternative energies to support these communities. Well that seems like an awfully big pipe dream. First you need to find alternative energies that can provide as much energy as cheaply and efficiently as fossil fuels, secondly, you'll have to find an infrastructure that can provide that energy to far flung communities as efficiently as our current grid system. Some pretty big assumptions.

There was a program on the Science Channel that I referred to in a post on another subject matter, Future Cars.  In the episode I was referring to these scientists believe that the auto of the (near) future will be powered by hydrogen.  And to refuel these vehicles one would go to a refill station that generates the hydrogen on the spot with the water and electricty sources already there.  And then one could go home and plug the car into the home's electric system and help power the house.  Somewhat farfetched but I believe the point is we really do not know what the future holds, do we?  One thing for sure is that the cost of energy on the nation's economy, as I have been told, has become less since the 70's.  Yes, we use more energy but that is the result of our changes in living plus having more people in our society.

You have a pretty big assumption yourself.  And that is we will be unable to find other energy sources and distribution systems better than we have now.  With some of the stuff I have read in mags and seen on TV I just might have a far different assumption than you.  The developer of the Telsa car states he can go 250 miles on fuel that will cost $5.00 and that car is already going through trials.  If that is true then that would take us back to the time when gasoline cost the driver around $.40 a gallon.

[mean]

There was a program on the Science Channel that I referred to in a post on another subject matter, Future Cars.  In the episode I was referring to these scientists believe that the auto of the (near) future will be powered by hydrogen.  And to refuel these vehicles one would go to a refill station that generates the hydrogen on the spot with the water and electricty sources already there.  And then one could go home and plug the car into the home's electric system and help power the house.

As nice as that sounds, I remember hearing stories like this back when I was a kid. Surely you remember them better than I do.

[KCPowercat]

even if electric cars were here today and afforable for all, it would still benefit us to not spread out and continue to eat up farm land....and even in an electric car, people don't want to spend their time  commuting to work and back....of course as more people start telecommuting, that could be less of a factor. 

I find it more responsible to not just use and move on further out for greener pastures...and leave the old to rot.

[KCMax]

You have a pretty big assumption yourself.  And that is we will be unable to find other energy sources and distribution systems better than we have now.  With some of the stuff I have read in mags and seen on TV I just might have a far different assumption than you.  The developer of the Telsa car states he can go 250 miles on fuel that will cost $5.00 and that car is already going through trials.  If that is true then that would take us back to the time when gasoline cost the driver around $.40 a gallon.

And how would the development of alternative energies by beneficial exclusively to sprawled areas? Why would they not be beneficial also to dense areas?

I'm not assuming anything - alternative energies might be developed. But to base your defense of sprawl on something that speculative is silly.

[aknowledgeableperson]

It is not the idea of sprawl vs urban density, it is more about what is in it for everyone no matter if they choose to live in the suburbs or in the center of a city.  The development of alternative energy or renewable energy sources benefits everyone but it benefits everyone is different ways.  If these new energy sources are not developed urban life just might be a lot more different than it is now, and not different in a positive way.  Instead of living in 900 sq ft lofts the new living quarters just might be 300 to 400 sq ft costing 3 times as much than those larger lofts.  And forget about many food products.  The cost of shipping would be prohibitive and food prices will be much higher than now.  You want a German beer or a glass of French wine you will probably forget about it since the price would be so high because of transportation costs.

alternative energies might be developed

I would replace "might be" with "are being" developed.  We have wind farms already in existence.  Solar panels are already in use.  Geothermal energy is used in places.  Electric cars are almost here.  Hydrogen powered autos are in use.  Compressed natural gas autos are in use.

But to base your defense of sprawl

I am not defending sprawl.  Sprawl is and will be with us no matter what.
Kansas City was never as dense as the eastern cities in the first place.  And the beginning of the age of the streetcars made it less dense since people could move out of the "city" and into the "suburbs" and still have a job in the city.  The commuting between Conn. and NYC did not start with the auto, it started with the commuter rail lines.  And if (and that is still an if) KCMO and its metro area do develop some sort of mass transit system KCMO suburbs will not die off.  They 'may' still prosper more than KCMO's core itself since people can take the train to work and go home to their families at the end of the day, just like those on the northeast coast.

[ShowMeKC]

Sprawl is and will be with us no matter what.

How can it still be here when cars will be severely diminished in number in 50-100 years and possibly almost completely gone in the coming centuries?

Not to mention that the economy is going to be going away from being based on big business back to being about small, local businesses that people don't commute to.

[kcmetro]

How can it still be here when cars will be severely diminished in number in 50-100 years and possibly almost completely gone in the coming centuries?

If cars disappear in the coming centuries, so too will civilization.  There's no way we can sustain our world population or current economic/societal structure without advancements in technology.  Those same advancements in technology, if discovered, would transform the car into a completely clean and energy efficient mode of transportation.  If those advancements in technology are not discovered, then it's back to the stone age for mankind.

[ShowMeKC]

It won't be going back to the stone age, but rather just back before the car.

We will still be based on commercial jobs instead of industrial, however the car will be severely diminished, as well as airplanes. Travel will be by water, by rail, by animals, by foot, by mass transit and by bike (or some other single-person form of transport).

Cars cannot continue to exist as much as they do now, even with alternative forms of power/energy. The car is simply just NOT an eco-friendly or sustainable form of transportation whether it pollutes or doesn't pollute.

[DaveKCMO]

Cars cannot continue to exist as much as they do now, even with alternative forms of power/energy. The car is simply just NOT an eco-friendly or sustainable form of transportation whether it pollutes or doesn't pollute.

this is true. while the car's footprint once built will be reduced, the manufacture and transport will still be incredibly resource intensive for a long time to come.

[ShowMeKC]

Not to mention we would still need massive road and highway systems that cost A LOT to maintain and build...

Asphalt will continue to go up in price and it'd be cheaper to use concrete, however I think concrete needs more maintenance. Many streets in the city might go back to brick, stone, etc... since it's aesthetic, low maintenance, good for drainage etc...

However those types of streets are also inconvenient for cars.

How can we possibly keep maintaining not only our level of automobile usage, but also our infrastructure that supports it? The mass of streets and parking, the interstate system, etc...

[kcmetro]

Not saying I think the traditional form of the car will stick around, but just that it will be around in some way...most likely in this form.

[LenexatoKCMO]

It will be interesting to see if this reverses the most consistent trend in cars the last few decades.  Almost all cars have steadily gotten bigger and heavier each and every model cycle for the last thirty years.  You have to look long and hard to find examples where a new model cycle came out and the car actually got slimmer and/or lighter.  Today's Civic is bigger and havier than the original Accord, etc.  People haven't even noticed, but the typical family sedan today is starting to rival the land yachts of the sixties and seventies for size and weight.  I know most of the manufacturers have started rolling out new smaller models, but I will be curious to see over the next few years if they actually put some of the existing models on a diet and reduce weight/size. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

It won't be going back to the stone age, but rather just back before the car.

We will still be based on commercial jobs instead of industrial, however the car will be severely diminished, as well as airplanes. Travel will be by water, by rail, by animals, by foot, by mass transit and by bike (or some other single-person form of transport).

Cars cannot continue to exist as much as they do now, even with alternative forms of power/energy. The car is simply just NOT an eco-friendly or sustainable form of transportation whether it pollutes or doesn't pollute.

Cars, trucks and streets will always be around.  You cannot have rail going down every street.  Trucks will be needed to move items from one location to another on streets, such as when one moves from one home to another or from the warehouse to the store.  You will still need trucks, and streets and highways, to move farm goods from the field to storage and onto processing.  Roads and highways and transportation will be needed to move people from the city to small towns and from one small town to another.  And on and on.

The only thing that will truely replace cars will be the flying vehicles found in the Jetsons.

[ShowMeKC]

Again akp, I think you need to listen more to people that know about things like this... And not just base things on your own ideas/hopes...

[KCFutbol]

Again akp, I think you need to listen more to people that know about things like this... And not just base things on your own ideas/hopes...

No one "knows about things like this". All you can do is theorize.

[nota]

The only thing that will truely replace cars will be the flying vehicles found in the Jetsons.

How 'bout "Beam me up Scotty?"

[aknowledgeableperson]

Again akp, I think you need to listen more to people that know about things like this... And not just base things on your own ideas/hopes...

And maybe you need to expand beyond those who just cater to your thoughts.  There is a world of many different opinions out there, some good and some wacky.

[ShowMeKC]

I'm not going to expand to those that want to continue the status quo and aren't concerned with sprawl or it's elimination and the limitation of the automobile...

The difference between sprawl and smart, sustainable growth is like a human...

Someone who is careless, gluttonous and wasteful/lazy will gain weight and also gain significantly in their size.
However someone who is smart and takes care of themselves will only gain weight through gradual aging/growth and gaining of muscle.

Sprawl of course, is comparable to the excess fat in a person, and Sustainable and smart growth is the muscle... Both contribute to weight, but one is bad and the other is good.

[Midtownkid]

And not just base things on your own ideas/hopes...

That is exactly what you are doing.  Streets in cities all becoming cobblestone and brick again...come on!  Some select streets may, in some historic districts...but I'm sure a new kind of pavement would be invented if we really couldn't make asphalt anymore.  A previous pavement would be good, stop so much water from running off.  BTW, not to be an asshole, but didn't you proclaim you were done with KC Rag a week or so ago?  "I'm out!!!"

[ShowMeKC]

I didn't say I was out of KC Rag... Just out of that discussion, don't know why you thought that, unless you were hoping it was true...

It isn't MY own ideas, it's a combination of traditional/historical Christianity mixed in with writings/lectures given by some modern day folks like Jane Jacobs, James Howard Kunstler, Andres Duany etc... Not to mention also a little bit of the "green" and "environmental" movement mixed in. And more Socialist ideas also mixed in...

So it isn't my own ideas.