Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?

[bahua]

We never used to, and all the other forums I post on, and have been on, people never do. Is there a reason you started enforcing this rule bahua?

Sorry you never noticed it or read any of the hundreds of threads that have been edited to remove copyrighted material, but it's been going on for a very long time. Also, it isn't a rule. It's a law.

[kcmetro]

Sorry you never noticed it or read any of the hundreds of threads that have been edited to remove copyrighted material, but it's been going on for a very long time. Also, it isn't a rule. It's a law.

Not on phog.net.  That site must be exempt from any such laws. 

[ShowMeKC]

As far as I know, if they don't have a copyright mark on their picture, and that it is on a website that is open to the public (as well as searchable on Google), and the fact that I NEVER claimed it was mine, doesn't that mean I didn't break the law?

Copyright laws were written to keep people from stealing work done by others, NOT to to defend the selfish and self-centered.

bahu, I'm sorry, but do you have a law degree? If so, then I would trust your word on it being "the law"...

Either way, I'm out... If the rules are going to be so strictly enforced, then there ain't no point in casually being here for conversation.

[chrizow]

use your internet skills to answer the question of whether republishing material on websites is "against the law."  one does not have to have a law degree to figure it out.  surely you're aware of any number of activities that are against the law, SMKC, even though you don't have a law degree?

[bahua]

This isn't complicated stuff, Devin. Copyright is pretty clear, especially when an organization's policy is able to be condensed into one short paragraph. Since you're posting here, you agreed to the registration agreement, and you've agreed that anything you post is immediately entered into the public domain. That means that the material you post immediately belongs to the world, and can be used in any way that anyone wants, without attribution. For you to publish someone else's copyrighted material to the public domain is a gross violation of the copyright on that material.

I have an extremely hard time believing you don't understand the concept. I personally just think you're being obtuse.

[ShowMeKC]

Do I not also have the right to post and use material that is already in the public domain?

Besides, how in the heck was I supposed to know that material isn't to be used? Someone does a Google Search, the image pops up... They click it, then click it again when it pops up at the top of the screen, and use it...

Heh, besides, that chart may be theirs, but there are millions that are EXACTLY the same with the same information...

So funny how idiotic our modern world is... Especially this country.

But as I said, I'm out... More important things to do as it is...

[bahua]

I don't think I'm a legal scholar. What I don't know about law could fill several stadium-sized libraries. But I still immediately had a red flag go up in my mind when I saw you post that picture. It didn't take much effort to find out that what you had done broke the law. It's not that difficult to be conscientious.

[Highlander]

I've loosely followed this "end of oil" discussion, but It seems to me that everyone, in every country, and every economy, would be subject to the same supply issues you just talked about. At what point do these other countries start cutting back on their usage? If Americans dropped 5% since the beginning of the year, why won't these other places that have caused the 1.3 million barrel per day increase feel the prices and need to cut back as well? At what point does demand for gasoline peak?

I agree that we Americans will continue on even at double the current price of fuels, but I think given the opportunity we will be eager to switch to alternatives as soon as we can. I could purchase a vehicle right now that gives me almost 4 times the gas mileage that I currently get, which would be less consumption / $$$ for me than I used ten years ago. And I will probably switch as soon as I can make it work. It seems to me that there are so many more daily discussions about alternatives in the news, and more and more people are "working on it". Maybe I'm naive, but I know that these discussions were few and far between just a few years ago.

I guess I'm more like AKP, optimistic about the possibilities and thinking that we will be better for it in the long haul.

I'm probably a glass half empty type of person.  The reason why oil demand has increased is due to more people using it than ever before and population growth.  High prices will definately have a dampening impact on demand but that has not happened yet on a worldwide basis.  I think the reason it has happened in the US is because of our society is so inefficient in terms of gasoline uses.  While AKP is right that we have improved energy efficiency, but instead of profiting from that, we just end up using more energy.  Our transportation efficiency, however, is very poor.  But even if we reduce oil consumption worldwide by 10%, we only drop from using 30 to 27 billion barrels per year which still leaves us on a collision course with depletion because the worldwide oil industry only finds less than one-third of that per year.  Much of those resources are being found by national oil companies now some of which are happy to sell it as a profit to all takers, while others such as CNOOC (China) have a more mercantile approach in securing reserves for the state.  It's interesting that while oil companies are making a lot of money now, they are essentially going out of business with their current business models, especially the larger ones because they cannot replace their production.  They may have several years of remaining reserves but they just cannot find appreciable new reserves to replace production and most of them are admitting this and looking outside the realm of oil now.  The stock buy backs are occurring because they simply do not have the capital projects to spend the money on, there is not that much of the world that remains accessible to western companies and much of what is, is pretty picked over.

I actually grew up in the burbs and prefer to live in the burbs and have no hate for the burbs or the people there like many here.  People do not live in American cities simply because they do not have to (largely because of cheap oil and lot's of space).  I have no problem with that, with two kids in their teens, I probably will go suburban when I return to the states hedging my bets that my own predictions are still a few years off. 

In a perfect world where energy was infinite, I would not see a problem.  I just wonder how much longer we can sustain our spreadout lifestyles.  It's not that other technologies are not available, they are, but the truth is that none of them are anywhere near as convenient and efficient as rolling up to a gas station and getting a weeks supply of fuel in 5 minutes.  Sure we can do the same with hydrogen and biofuels (maybe) but we will pay substantially more for these than we do for oil right now because it takes nearly as much energy to create them as they yield.  Electric cars will be nice to have but very limited compared to what your car can do now.  We have suburbs only because we have had 50 years of cheap oil which makes life there very convenient.  I'm just wondering how people will react when that lifestyle becomes more expensive and less convenient. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

  I'm just wondering how people will react when that lifestyle becomes more expensive and less convenient.   

That is the $64,000 question.  And the answer will really depend on where the people live, that is by city or region.  And, also remember, there are many couples where both are working, and those jobs may not nearby each other, and what happens more and more the woman may make more than the man (in a man/woman relationship).  So, other words, the answer is very complex.

In KC the suburbs just might win out over the city.  The job market is not centralized and likely will never be.  There just might be as many professional jobs in the suburbs as there are in the central urban area.  Yes, mass transit may just as well be non-existent in the suburbs but if one can get to work and back home in an electric car without using oil (or less than a gallon of gas in a gasoline powered vehicle) then why care about the cost of oil.

I have read a few articles in national mags about how some are adapting to higher transit costs and for those that live in the burbs many have replied about cutting back on their trips "downtown" for eating and entertainment preferring and discovering places closer to home.


As far as I know of noone has a crystal ball to look into and see the future.  So we just might have to wait for ten years or so to see which person is right.

[mean]

I have read a few articles in national mags about how some are adapting to higher transit costs and for those that live in the burbs many have replied about cutting back on their trips "downtown" for eating and entertainment preferring and discovering places closer to home.

Sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Wishful that they were even going downtown in the first place for dining and entertainment.  Yes, I concur with that.

[mean]

Yeah, nobody goes downtown to eat in any city anywhere. It's a wishful pipe dream.

[bahua]

Claws: retract them.

[Midtownkid]

Yeah, nobody goes downtown to eat in any city anywhere. It's a wishful pipe dream.

Am I missing the &&?

Tons of people in cities like Chicago, NY, DC etc go downtown to eat.  People in KC do too, now.  I love going downtown to eat in DC and when I'm home I take every excuse to eat downtown...(not that it is very far for me)

[mean]

Am I missing the &&?

Have you ever seen me use that? Might as well just type LOL SARCASM!

[bahua]

The ampersand undoes whatever wit the previous text may have contained. It's ridiculous and has no basis in anything.

[Midtownkid]

Yeah, looking back it seems pretty obvious...Sorry...I'm tired today!!  

[aknowledgeableperson]

Yeah, nobody goes downtown to eat in any city anywhere. It's a wishful pipe dream.

I never said that noone goes downtown to eat so what is the big deal.  All that was said was that some people in the suburbs have cut back on going downtown to eat and for entertainment.

[mean]

I never said that noone goes downtown to eat so what is the big deal.  All that was said was that some people in the suburbs have cut back on going downtown to eat and for entertainment.

Wishful that they were even going downtown in the first place for dining and entertainment.  Yes, I concur with that.

Does not compute.

[ComandanteCero]

The way American metropolitan areas are today - fragmented, sprawled out and diffuse - I think it's more likely that several activity nodes will develop throughout the urban region, with traditional urban cores remaining the largest node, and that a regional mass transit system will grow to connect them.  I think in the case of a drastic rise in fuel prices that result in transportation issues it's more likely that businesses will move out to where their employees are than have thousands of folks relocate closer to their work.  I think it's wishful thinking that a majority will move back to the core, it's more likely that folks will cluster around these suburban nodes where possible.

Of course, the problem with this in American metro's is that many businesses rely on a labor pool that covers a large swathe of the economic spectrum, and our cities (suburbs in particular) tend to be economically segregated.  If offices move out to College Boulevard to be near their execs, middle management types, etc etc they get farther away from their lower wage folks (receptionists, custodians, etc etc).  The solution will probably have to be a combination of building a mass transit system that effectively moves folks around the region and building more mixed income developments in the burbs. 

I think that fuel cost aside, there are other forces that might lead to this scenario. 

Demographically, single people and childless couples, be they young, old, or middle aged continue to grow as a proportion of the population (i think they are already the largest group) and that population doesn't need as much space as others do.  I don't think that means this segment is all going to end up in high rise apartments downtown, but i do think many of these folks won't opt for a single family home, they might end up in townhomes, duplexes, and apartments, etc etc.  And this will have a densifying effect regardless of where they choose to settle (urban areas or suburban areas, walkable or auto oriented). 

The costs of building and maintaining infrastructure for low density auto oriented sprawl is really high, and the country as a whole is facing a massive backlog of deferred maintenance on infrastructure as a whole (at federal, state and local levels).  It's going to be less and less appealing to build new ring roads and highway expansions.  I'm guessing new municipalities will still go for the sprawl set up as new folks pour in, but more "mature" suburbs, like Overland Park are already facing the issues of maintaining existing roads while trying to build new ones.... the cost per person will at some point become so onerous (by way of taxes needed to support them) that the municipality will either have to attract more folks per mile of infrastructure (i.e densifying), have newcomers pay more of the cost of building new infrastructure, or find other revenue sources to help defray costs.

There's also the aesthetic/taste argument... lots of folks want the "Plaza experience" nearby.

Either way, I think our urban regions will continue to evolve as they always have.  Sixty years ago if you had told someone living in urban KCMO that in a few decades many of the vibrant neighborhoods around them would be literally wiped off the map, that more than half of the folks in the core would be gone, and that artists would be living in downtown warehouses they probably would have scoffed.  I don't doubt there will be drastic changes over the next 50 years, some of them good some of them terrible, but with proper planning and foresight the good can outweigh the bad.