Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't understand what you are saying here. If I sold my house in the city to move to the burbs, it gets a new owner/taxpayer and I go somewhere to pay taxes. I don't understand "abandoned"

That isn't how it has worked over the last fifty+ years - at least not until recently.  There isn't a new person moving into older areas to match every person moving out - we have typically depopulated older areas.  Remember, "newer, bigger, sparser" is where the demand has been.  You may not have any trouble finding a buyer for your place, but as we move further and further out, eventually things start thining out in the wake. 

[LenexatoKCMO]

Don't be sorry at all. Just seeking to learn. Thanks for your help.

FWIW-regarding jurisdiction, it has finally dawned on me that I think I'm the one with tax understanding problems. As 'burbs, I'm thinking of Parkville and OP and Liberty, etc-all with different tax structures. I believe that everyone else here is speaking of 'burbs, but inside KCMO.

The analysis is easier to sketch out if you look at a move from old to new in the same city, but the problems are much the same. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

How are unincorporated parts taxed? I don't even know what an "unincorporated" part of the city is except that we got no services from KC.

If you are "unincorporated" then you are not living in a city, you are living in a part of a county that is not within "city limits".  You have no city taxes, only taxes by the county, school district, fire protection district, and so on.

Get a copy of your property tax bill and you will see a breakdown.

[KCMax]

Interesting discussion.

Freakanomics: What is the Future of Suburbia?

Kunstler: “The suburbs have three destinies, none of them exclusive: as materials salvage, as slums, and as ruins.”

Brueckner: "If [gentrification] continues in a significant way, large numbers of suburban households looking for urban stimulation may end up switching places with minority central-city dwellers, stirring the ethnic pot in both places.”

Archer: “Suburbia will be flexible, it will be smarter, and it will be hybrid.”

Berube: "High oil prices and the imperative to address global climate change will help spur denser residential development along transit corridors outside of cities.....A move toward more metropolitan collaboration on these issues, borne of economic necessity, may further blur the traditional political boundaries that define suburbs."

Levy: "There will be more clusters of taller buildings, surrounding more public transportation, and populated by people who don’t look a lot like — or earn as much at least at first — as those now living next door."

Matt Yglesias: Policy Choices will affect suburban destiny

The past half century or so has been dominated by rules about maximum lot occupancy and minimum lot size, parking requirements, and floor area ratio caps that were designed to produce something like the suburbs as we know them. Insofar as we keep those rules, the future will resemble the present. Insofar as we change them, things will change.

[staubio]

Interesting discussion.

Freakanomics: What is the Future of Suburbia?

Kunstler: “The suburbs have three destinies, none of them exclusive: as materials salvage, as slums, and as ruins.”

Brueckner: "If [gentrification] continues in a significant way, large numbers of suburban households looking for urban stimulation may end up switching places with minority central-city dwellers, stirring the ethnic pot in both places.”

Archer: “Suburbia will be flexible, it will be smarter, and it will be hybrid.”

Berube: "High oil prices and the imperative to address global climate change will help spur denser residential development along transit corridors outside of cities.....A move toward more metropolitan collaboration on these issues, borne of economic necessity, may further blur the traditional political boundaries that define suburbs."

Levy: "There will be more clusters of taller buildings, surrounding more public transportation, and populated by people who don’t look a lot like — or earn as much at least at first — as those now living next door."

Matt Yglesias: Policy Choices will affect suburban destiny

The past half century or so has been dominated by rules about maximum lot occupancy and minimum lot size, parking requirements, and floor area ratio caps that were designed to produce something like the suburbs as we know them. Insofar as we keep those rules, the future will resemble the present. Insofar as we change them, things will change.

The full article is worth reading. What I found most interesting is Kuntsler is now dogging on cities as anachronisms of the energy era as well, arguing the small towns surrounded by self-sustaining agriculture will be the new future. He also said that high rise dense living isn't the most sustainable. He is starting to get a little too coo coo for my tastes, predicting the apocalypse of everything to stay on the cutting edge.

[aknowledgeableperson]

He is starting to get a little too coo coo for my tastes,

Yeah, especially since he is saying things that are counter to your way of thinking.

Maybe he is finally starting to see some light.

[staubio]

Yeah, especially since he is saying things that are counter to your way of thinking.

Maybe he is finally starting to see some light.

Actually, if you're following my argument, you'd note that it is his "apocalypse everything" attitude coupled with his inconsistencies that I decry -- but I appreciate your inflammatory and irrelevant response!

[ShowMeKC]

Actually I think he is right about skyscrapers/highrises. Don't you realize how much it takes to build one as well as keep it up and running?

Yes, in the future we will be farming locally a lot more IMO, and therefore, the larger cities won't be as sustainable unless they can keep surrounding farms producing enough food for them.

Seriously, think about it, how can an area like NYC sustain its population when the nearest farmland is probably 60 miles away or more.

KC IMO is kind of tetering on the sustainable edge. We will have to convert our suburbs back to farmland, and even add some villages. But atm I think Kansas City will be sitting good for energy and food.

[LindseyLohan]

The first opinion made my think of naturallylocal.com.

We are going to turn into China....we will be riding bicycles living in an overcrowded polluted core....

[aknowledgeableperson]

This make not be the appropriate topic for this article but it does offer some insight into future energy ideas, and one could draw that the suburban dream remains.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151732

Zakaria: How important is it to increase the energy efficiency of our buildings?
McDonough: There's no question that energy efficiency in existing buildings and new buildings is one of the lowest-cost ways to save immense amounts of energy. Buildings account for about 40 percent of our energy consumption, and existing buildings will be the primary infrastructure for many years to come. So … it's a ripe place to be looking for energy savings. Cost-effective energy-reduction strategies could yield anywhere between 25 and 50 percent.

What are some of the key technologies that will do this?
A lot of this is common sense. For one thing, we want to stop heating, cooling and lighting ghosts [using] intelligent, wireless controls that can sense when people are present and when they're not. We're starting to see windows that have tremendous thermal properties. And then sealing up the houses, weather-stripping and insulation are very … effective.
...

In the United States, we have a preference for single-family houses, which are less efficient than urban centers. Is the future going to require greater population density?
I think we're going to see two things: one is that we're going to recognize that one size does not fit all and that this propensity we've had for everyone to be in a single-family house will probably shift. We'll have cities for younger people and elders who want more contact and convenience. There is a point in a family's life, when you're raising a couple of kids, [where] you might want to be in a place where they have grass to play on. But that doesn't mean that's the only offering we should be giving our citizens, and I think we will see greater celebration of density.
...

You say we need to move to renewable energy, and seem to focus on solar. Why?
Direct solar is distributed, it's generally available to most of the planet and it can be applied at the local level. I think about our highway system—phenomenal achievement, but also phenomenal opportunity, because we can [put up solar panels along] all the highways. We can solar-power the railroads. Amtrak can basically let out its airspace for solar collectors. It's already got infrastructure, it's already got power, it's already got distribution. It's an opportunity waiting to happen.


Plus from another article

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145876?tid=relatedcl

Your car runs exclusively on electricity, but GM and Toyota are working on so-called plug-in hybrids, which also feature a gas tank to extend the range. Why didn't you do the same?
We spent a lot of time last year looking at plug-in hybrids and ultimately concluded that it would not be a very good car. You're forced to compromise. Because you need both a gasoline-powered engine and a big battery, neither can be very good, and the engine will be a weak engine. It's just not where the future lies. We'll be able to offer a car with a 305-mile range roughly three years from now.

Most people travel less than 50 miles a day.
And 99 percent of travel is under 200 miles [a day]. There is the occasional road trip, but that's actually pretty rare, and for some people it's never. Our second model will address that rare case in two ways. One is to allow people to switch out the battery pack, so you can go to a battery-change station just like you'd go to a gas station. The second path is to have a high-speed charge. If you have a high-powered onboard charger, you can get an 80 percent charge in 45 minutes. If you're going from L.A. to San Francisco, which is about a 400-mile trip, you can drive 200 miles, stop for lunch, charge your car in the restaurant parking lot, finish lunch and continue the remaining 200 miles to San Francisco.
...

Do you think all cars will be electric?
Absolutely. In 30 years, a majority of all new cars produced in the United States, perhaps worldwide, will be electric. And I don't mean hybrid. I mean pure electric.

When you plug into an outlet, you're in effect plugging into coal, because a lot of the electricity produced in the United States is coal-fired. Does that bother you from a global-warming perspective?
I'm very familiar with the "long tailpipe" criticism. I have another company, SolarCity, which is the largest provider of solar power to homes and businesses in California. The solution is to get a SolarCity solar panel on your roof and then have an electric car. It takes actually only a small solar-panel setup—of about 10 by 15 feet—to generate 200 to 400 miles a week of electricity for your car.
...

What you're describing is a pretty optimistic future. You believe that American industry can successfully refashion the transportation sector to run on renewable energy?
I am actually fairly optimistic that we will solve this problem. But there's an important caveat there, which is, we cannot be complacent and just assume it will happen. There needs to be strong government action. There needs to be private investment; there need to be entrepreneurs that attack this problem. We will solve this problem—but only if we do all that.


With the proposals by Gore and Pickens it might appear that the personal auto is not dead and if it is not dead then it would appear that the suburbs would be dead.

[ShowMeKC]

This is a great podcast... Many great episodes:
http://www.kunstlercast.com/

[KCMax]

The full article is worth reading. What I found most interesting is Kuntsler is now dogging on cities as anachronisms of the energy era as well, arguing the small towns surrounded by self-sustaining agriculture will be the new future. He also said that high rise dense living isn't the most sustainable. He is starting to get a little too coo coo for my tastes, predicting the apocalypse of everything to stay on the cutting edge.

Kunstler seems sane compared to Antus: services will get so expensive, people's paychecks will simply go to the government. Yea, okay.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The conclusions reached in this article are not universally accepted but what if it is true?  Or if it even comes close to being true?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... spx?page=1

If you're frustrated over the high cost of gasoline at the pump, don't trade in your Hummer for a Vespa just yet: A leading energy analyst is telling clients these days to prepare for crude oil to retreat back below $65 per barrel over the next three years.

How could it happen? He says conservation, new drilling, efficient new vehicles, alternative energy sources, a rising dollar and a global recession will combine to blast prices back to the Stone Age -- or at least to last year's levels.

[KCMax]

The conclusions reached in this article are not universally accepted but what if it is true?  Or if it even comes close to being true?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... spx?page=1

If you're frustrated over the high cost of gasoline at the pump, don't trade in your Hummer for a Vespa just yet: A leading energy analyst is telling clients these days to prepare for crude oil to retreat back below $65 per barrel over the next three years.

How could it happen? He says conservation, new drilling, efficient new vehicles, alternative energy sources, a rising dollar and a global recession will combine to blast prices back to the Stone Age -- or at least to last year's levels.

Oil prices will remain high as long as (1) China and India keep ramping up demand; and (2) there is volatility in the Middle east. Having slightly more conservation and slightly higher MPG here in the States isn't going to change that much.

[ShowMeKC]

Oil prices are not going to go down significantly ever again. The average is going to keep going up every year from here on. (as it has been)

[Highlander]

Oil prices will remain high as long as (1) China and India keep ramping up demand; and (2) there is volatility in the Middle east. Having slightly more conservation and slightly higher MPG here in the States isn't going to change that much.

While we include all these conditional statements, remember we (as a world) use 30 billion barrels per year.  We find less than a third of that.  While there is no doubt Iraq and probably Iran contain a huge amount of undiscovered oil, by the time that gets to market the world will have used the equivalent to those reserves in the meantime. 

You are right about US consumers losing some control over the market from a demand perspective.  Even when the US was cutting its consumption during the height of the gas price shock by 800,000 barrels per day, world consumption actually increased by 1.3 million barrels per day.  As long as worldwide population growth proceeds at the current rate, I do not see demand for oil dropping significantly regardless of what we do in the US.

[Midtownkid]

Oil prices are not going to go down significantly ever again. The average is going to keep going up every year from here on. (as it has been)

Oil has be been steadily falling in price for the last few weeks actually. (price per barrel)  Watch the news?

[AJoD]

Does anyone here remember what was being said about the future of oil prices in the late 70s/early 80s price spike?  Was there a similar (I assume) "high prices are here forever" mentality?  And if so, is there reason to be more certain now?

I mean, I realize there are different factors in play now (e.g., the ascendancy of China)...but it's not like there weren't good, sound reasons for thinking that oil would remain forever high back then.

I'm curious how the two situations compare.

[aknowledgeableperson]

In the 70's oil was withheld from the marketplace which then created shortages which then created lines at the gas pumps, rationing, and dry pumps.
Presently we do not have oil being withheld from the marketplace.  Price increases over the past year are due to many factors.  There is much dispute over those factors and how they have affected the pricing but there has been a substantial drop in oil prices for the past month.

So, for the 70's, many realized that once OPEC resumed the flow of oil prices would drop.  And people realized that prices would not drop to the very low prices before the sales restriction since OPEC's goal was to increase the price of the product it provided. Now, for the present, as the speculators exit the marketplace that factor will disappear from the pricing structure.  What remains is the normal (if there is such a thing) supply and demand factors and noone currently knows how that translates into prices.

My guess is oil prices will be heading to levels below $90 and will be below that level 3 years from now.  There might be an occasional spike due to political reasons but I think that whatever party wins in Nov. steps will be taken to take us away from our dependence of oil for security reasons.

[OPIchabod]

There might be an occasional spike due to political reasons but I think that whatever party wins in Nov. steps will be taken to take us away from our dependence of oil for security reasons.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. Both parties plan to take us away from our dependence on foreign oil.

Big difference.