I am starting to wonder whether we will really witness the end of suburbia as described by Kunstler. I am sure some suburbs will be emptied, but other suburbs seem ideal if there is a social collapse.

If you split the suburbs into three categories

  1. inner suburbs - on the east coast, many were built during the 50s, 60s and have evolved into satelite cities themselves. Many have (or had) rail systems linking them to the city. Ex. Towson MD, Vienna VA
  2. outer suburbs - newer suburbs that require lots of driving. Scads of 1 story strip malls etc.
  3. exurbs - suburbs of the suburbs, communities built far from everything, many of them tiny islands of mcmansions surrounded by farmland. (or farmable land)

It seems to me that the inner suburbs and the exurbs would fare best after peak oil. I suppose it will really come down to the rate of oil's decline. If we have a slow squeeze, the exurbs would be hurt more. With a sudden collapse I wonder whether people would have time to leave the exurbs.

I suspect we will have a slow squeeze for a few years and then a sudden collapse.

I believe the exurbs (as I described them) will actually be a desirable place to start a new town. The McMansions can be converted to multi-use or multi-dwelling buildings. Use the streets for open air markets and the surrounding vacant land to grow food.

I don't wonder about the death of the 'burbs at all--I'm convinced it won't happen.

The economics of the situation very strongly favor keeping the 'burbs alive and adjusting our transportation capital and patterns to match.  If the 'burbs "collapse", as Kunstler and many others keep saying, what exactly does that mean?  People just walk away from their homes?  If they sell, who would buy if things were that bad?  About the only buyers I could imagine would be farmers, who wouldn't pay anything near what the current owners would want for the property.

Right now, a lot of people who live far from their jobs are hurting because of high gasoline costs.  But they've barely begun to exploit the first-order conservation measures: Trading in (one of) their current vehicle(s) for something with much higher fuel efficiency, car pooling, reducing non-work driving, etc.  They don't need a Prius--trading in an SUV or mid-size car for a Yaris or Fit would yield a big drop in monthly gasoline bills.

Those steps will make a huge difference, and will buy the people in the 'burbs several years, very likely enough to stretch until electric cars go mainstream, around 2010, possibly sooner, depending on gasoline prices.  Once that happens, expect many people in the 'burbs to take the next step and adopt EV's in droves for their commuting cars, and the 'burbs are effectively saved.

If hydrogen fuel cells pan out down the road, fine.  If not, people in the 'burbs, who very often have more than one car/household, can limp along for quite a long time using 150-to-200-mile/charge EV's (and that's a pretty conservative estimate on the range, given recent battery advances) for most driving and a gasoline car for those rare, long trips.

Frankly, I don't think that people like Kunstler realize just how far society in general will have to collapse before we see the widespread disappearance of 'burbs.

Just a quick thought on cars--the people in the suburbs are facing increased gas costs, increased mortgage costs where they have ARMs, increased heating costs, and increased food costs.  They owe money on their SUVs; the SUVs will be worth zilch on trade-in or for sale, so they can't get out of the payment.  How are they going to be able to add a new car payment on top of all these costs to make this smooth transition?
Yes, this is particularly scary.

I believe that high inflation is the answer:

High inflation would do the following:

  • Reduce government debt
  • Reduce consumer debt
  • Fix the housing bubble
  • boost sales of US exports
  • jumpstart domestic manufacturing (imports would be more expensive, exports would be in demand)

Maybe it is time to buy gold and silver.

It won't reduce all consumer debt.  Credit cards will just boost the interest rate.  The only way you come out ahead is with fixed-rate debt.
Yes - one of the questions is just how far over-extended are most of the people who live in the exurbs?  I often have the impression of people working 2 jobs long distances away, and leveraged up the wazoo with variable rate debit.  But I don't know how much of this is really true.

Also, if we run electric light rail lines to these communities, they will remain viable to some extent.  I would expect them to eveolve into actual towns if they are to survive.

If the dollar collapses overnight you don't need to worry about credit card debt. We are in completely uncharted territory.
The most dangerous words in financial booms are "This time it's different!". But the bust after the boom is always different. Compare 1900+, 1929+, 1966+, and 2001+. Each was different.
I think that is what will happen, but the big downside is that it will mean the US becomes much weaker internationally (ie other countries can buy up US industry very cheaply). I would expect the administration to resist that by putting in some form of control on purchasing (whether ad hoc, as with Unocal recently, or more systematically). But we then get the worldwide abandonment of free trade, and the re-run of the 1930s....
Don't expect to have an administration that would do anything like that. If something hits the media in a big way (like the Ports story or China buying an oil company)they will block it for PR gain but basically the days are long past when the USA was concerned about where the money comes from. In fact, with the exception of some tax havens like the Caymans, the global elite have more control over the USA than any other first world country and they have no intention of giving it up.  
I think TPTB will eventally choose to cut the credit fueling the American way of life. I think we will face conditions much like the collapse of other unsustainable frauds like the UUSSR and Argentina. I think a depression and loss of confidence in the currency are almost guaranteed. I think energy is the new standard for measuring wealth.
Kohesion -

You should have gotten in to silver and gold last year - the price for each has almost doubled this year....and oil companies have also done really well...

I actually did start last year. I wish I had started in 2001 when my paranoid (I thought) economist friends told me to.
I got in last year as well. My savings portfolio is split between precious metals (gold/silver mainly) and energy (oil sands, coal, and "big oil").

I think this up cycle still has a long way to go.

i dont think big oil is good investment - too many risks of overspending with declining net energy and being nationalized - small- medium north american plays are better
rwmcalister,

One of the replies to this situation that is starting to occur here, though I am not sure at what scale, and does require you not being up to your neck in debt - i.e. some disposable income that you can maneuver with is:

Buying a third car. I spoke with a couple yesterday in which both used their vehicles for work (not just to commute). Hers was a good Toyota, his a Silverado. He needs his to make deliveries occasionally. That is the operative word - occasionally. So he is thinking of a Prius for his regular work car and call on the Silverado when he needs it (1 day a week?).

To haul your boat or trailer, you need the gas guzzler, so maybe we just up the number of vehicles at home.

Lou... your answer to Kunstler is buy another car. He must be rolling on the floor laughing.
"If they sell, who would buy if things were that bad?  About the only buyers I could imagine would be farmers, who wouldn't pay anything near what the current owners would want for the property."

Selling is not the only option. You can default on your mortgage and walk away from the home. It's an economically rational thing to do anytime the value of your home falls far below the mortgage amount. Lenders spend a great deal of effort figuring out exactly when, why, and how people "choose" to default.

The "suburban wipeout" theory posits that many defaults would occur simultaneously, flooding the markets with repossesed homes and further depressing prices, leading to still more rational defaults. With their paper equity lost, and their credit scores in the garbage, home "owners" would need to seek alternative living arrangements (renting) and would likely have far less spending power for things like riding lawn mowers, plasma tvs, H-3s, etc. Voila, demand destruction.

"Flooding the market": There is an assumption there that the McMansion will be fit for sale...

If I've lost my service job, or likly to, maxed out my credit cards, and staring down the barrel of Repo. on the house with no equity build up why not "strip" the asset I "own" for cash rather than just give it back to the bank "as is"?

Gut out the water pipes and electrical wires for the copper scrap, sell off the high end bath and lighting fixtures to a "dont ask dont tell"  contractor for reuse, same with that high end kitchen stuff like the granite countertops and Stainless dishwasher and cooktop.

Next to go is that "floating floor" system thats wall to wall in the whole place (hardwood plywood strips) they can be removed without destroying them, and sold off.

At this point its pretty much a shell, but you'd never know from the outside...

Now I'm down to the "dive bar" and sell the front door keys to a local hood looking to site his pot "grow" house or crystal meth lab (make sure to leave the main breaker panel in place for him to hook up his sodium lights to he'll pay more that way).

It'll be at least 90 days post default untill "they" send someone around to actually check the house, maybe longer if you get the demand letters fwd'd to a mail "dead drop" and spin them a line of bullsh*t, by which time I'm long gone out of state.

Maybe drug guy has burned it down by then and the fire insurance may actually pay off the bank, "who cares", I'm broke...

We really don't know what "big bad" looks like, but this story goes on now below the radar of main stream media in small quantity, no reason to think it won't scale up" in my opinion.

I've actually seen just what you describe, on several houses that were reposessed in the next cracker-box neighborhood over.  The family dissappeared, the grass grew to be thigh high, the house was gutted, local kids broke in and vandalized everything, you name it.  Even the kitchen cabinets, A/C unit, and toilets were gone.

When the bank finally found buyers, they had to renovate before they could even move in.

Can you send photos? C'mon. We love you. Or at least send me the photos. You know I never publish what is not my own. I totally protect sources on anything. I have armies of tanks protecting my flanks and your flanks. And you know I love tanks.
i get you, lou.  that all makes sense assuming a downward slope in oil production.  it makes even more sense if people get scared into action bt some geopolitical high prices before the true peak.

this "roving bands" stuff is maybe an exciting idea, but depends on a real production drop-off.

Re: Kunstler.  He has a range of predictions regarding suburbs in various regions.  Phoenix, Vegas, Albuquerque and other big soutwest sprawls have double and triple threats of commuting+water issues+greater dependance on air conditioning.  K is more optimistic about smaller cities that have better water situations.  
The post-carbon institute/Richard Heinberg vision of re-localization imo is the most realistic future.  Either as a conscious choice or even as the end result of simply allowing greater pressure to force us into a shift.  
I think there will be "refugees"--not unlike the people who lost so much in Louisiana and fled not realizing that they would never return--who will find that life just isn't working in the SW desert metroplexes.  It won't happen overnight, just as Detroit didn't die overnight, but it is basically dead now.  
Matt, DC
The Detroit suburbs though are very much alive. Southfield, MI is on a par with Beverly Hills, CA in per capita income. It is home to two owners of NFL franchises, the Lions and that other dead rustbelt city Buffalo.
What does Kuntzler say about enclaves of the super rich?
EVs are not "free energy".  In particular, batteries are very expensive both in money and in energy terms.  The batteries in a Prius are about $4000 to replace.  And they are relatively small.  Let's assume that a pure EV with decent range is developed with batteries that cost "only" $20,000.  And assume those batteries last 10 years.  That's $2000 per year, which at today's prices buys one 600+ gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive well over 20,000 miles in an economical ICE-based car.  And that's just the cost of the batteries, not the electricity to charge them etc etc.  And as energy costs will increase, so will the cost of batteries, since their cost is largely a result of the energy of manufacture.  (And if the environmental costs of handling all those chemicals were ever truly internalized, the price would be higher yet.)

Another point: EVs, like PVs, even if they pay off eventually, are a method of putting up a large investment up front, for savings years later.  People who are in dire economic straits, struggling in an unsustainable exurb, or in a national or worldwide depression, will not be able to make such investments.

I also don't understand where people think the power for all electric vehicles is going to come from. Electric grids everywhere would need 10 times the capacity. WE already have a looming electicity supply crisis before running electric milkfloats everywhere.
As for those people who think Prius batteries etc. will become cheap - not a chance. Powered pallet trucks are used worldwide for loading/unloading 2 ton pallets in warehousing. An old fashioned lead/acid battery for one of those suckers is £1000 - 2000
Electric grids everywhere would need 10 times the capacity.

This is simply not true. Even in gas-guzzling US we can replace all our light vehicle fleet with only a moderate expansion of the electric grid.

US gasoline usage ~ 9.5 mln.bpd = 665 GW x 15% (gasoline-to wheels efficieny) ~ 100 GW net power

So, if electric cars are 70% efficient (including recharging losses etc.) we will need additionally 100 / 70% = 143 GW to power them.

Currently the US electricity grid has 700GW peak capacity and is providing 450GW on average yearround. We will need to expand it by only 32% to handle the electric cars. Sounds too far from impossible, IMO.

Regarding battery costs you are both assuming that they will stay the same after batteries become mass produced by millions and after every car producer in the world starts investing billions in researching and improving them.

Unfortunately, EV's are not anywhere near 70% efficient. Try 30%-40%.
A link? A typical DC electric motor efficiency is around ~90% and the cycle efficiency in a lead-acid battery is 85-95%. Lithium-Ion batteries should perform even better. Yes there would be also losses in the charger, the transmission etc., but they will be less significant and the overall efficiency should be no less than 50-60%, IMO.

But even if we take the 30-40% as a worst case, it will translate in 250-333 GW needed additionaly. By building some additional power plants and utilising the current grid (recharging the cars at night etc.) the task would be well within reach. And of course we will have to learn to conserve - not such a pain to do, or a thing that would force you out of your home.

Perhaps you are equating fuel cells with storage batteries. 3-phase motors are over 90% efficient and batteries give back over 80% of charge. Coal plants are 30-40% efficient which is twice that of most car engines.
I also think suburbs will like as not turn into satellite mini-towns. Lots of land to grow stuff, more if you break up driveways etc., and those big houses can hold chicken coop, storage, etc.

I don't want to get started on Kunstler here, but I will say: Scroll down a bit in the clusterfuck archives to where he had to endure a day or so without electric power in his hometown.

What do you think will happen when people lose their jobs and begin to miss payments on their mortgages and cars?  Do you think that the bank will just let them squat there for free, until they "get back on their feet"?  Or do you think that it won't matter b/c the banks will be in as sad shape as the general population?

I have the feeling that many of the neighborhoods in the burbs and exurbs that no longer have viable work within a close radius will have trouble staying viable.  It is nice to talk about ripping up the concrete and roads to grow crops, and using 3 acre exurb estates, but I'd have to believe that the people who own them (the rich, the banks, etc.) would have something to say about it.

Does anyone know the historical presidence of the depression?  Were families evicted from their homes?  Did a higher population own their homes outright?  I think that the economic impact of job losses will be more devistating than the personal pain of paying more for a gallon of gas.

(this isn't so much directed at you fleam, as the rest of the thread.  I just had to fit it in somewhere.)

I look to the model of what happened post-WW II to pre-WW II housing.  With the help of several forms of g'ovt. support, people were induced to leave well built homes in established neighborhoods (with excellent commuting often times) to new built (and increasing poorly built) homes.  Once a few % of homes were abandoned, or the "wrong people" moved in, real estate values plummetted.  Entire neighborhoods were abandoned, with much lower density, to poor people.

In Phoenix, there is a bias against "old homes" (apparently old starts somewhere between 20 and 30 years) because they are  a problem to upkeep and they are "too small".  The current standard of construction is quite low and will not "hold up".

My prediction is that once growth stalls in Phoenix, the rate of shrnkage in population will match the prior growth.  The 20% of the labor force in construction will move away first.  Retirees, with limited transportation needs (and Phoenix has almost zero heating needs) will move close to the VERY limited light rail lines.  Existing homes will be rebuilt into multi-family housing.  Vast stretches will be row after row of mainly abandoned homes with the odd hold-out here and there.

Who wants to live in a neighborhood with 1/3 of the homes empty ?  1/2 ? 2/3 ? 4/5 ?

Declining urban services will drive more away.

Yes, electric cars will appear, but older, poorly constructed homes in empty neighborhoods will appeal to few.

There is a "stampede" herd mentality in real estate.  The herd has stampeded to Phoenix, they will stampede away just as quickly.

Yes, the suburbs and exurbs have lots of land, but did the developers leave the topsoil in place?  It depends on how much earth was moved to smooth out the building sites.  In the wake of converting rolling farmland to townhome developments, I've seen a lot of exposed orange soil just seeded with grass and covered with straw.  I wouldn't count an a quarter acre lot of that stuff being particularly fertile.

Even resodding won't return much topsoil, though it probably makes for a prettier lawn.

It could be even more barren under bituminous driveways and roads.  What is the effect of leaching that stuff into the soil for a few decades?

Whoever thought to snag all that topsoil will be sitting pretty.

The topsoil was trucked away, bagged, and sold at Garden Centers prior to construction. This strip mining of fertility is the first stage of "profit taking" in the process of suburb construction. 4" or so is put back down around the houses after build to "sort of sustain" the lawn sod.

"Rip up the roads" and start farming again? well fine, you'll find 6" of compacted gravel under the pavement, and infertile "sub soil" under that. I say infertile because it has no "tilth", no large size organic components to hold water, provide PKN to plants, or sustain soil critters (from microbes through to worms and bug larva, all of which are part of the working community that is soil.

Yes the top soil can be "rebuilt", but to do so in a way that will "scale" i.e. not just trucking in "good soil" from some other exburb strip mine, requires Pemaculture methods which are very slow.  You need to work back up a sucession of plants species that can grow on marginal and damaged lands until you can get it to the point of being marginal pasture (i.e. goats not sheep or cows) That will start getting some manure on the land which is good!

Then we can start the nitrogen fixing cover crops etc. Think in terms of a few millimeters of net topsoil buildup each year, with hard effort from skilled farmers. Maybe "Grade B" land after a century of proper management a a smile from mother nature!

The legacy of fertile soils is more valuable than we really know how to calculate in an age of overshoot and impending price spike demise of chemical intensive farming in my opinion, and the trashing of the now exburb lands of North America a crime against our grandchildren of huge magnitude.

But at least they will have plenty of work to do  < black humor

I am familar with the efforts to recover the degraded lands and environment left by their sheep farming ancestors.

Planting nitrogen fixing lupines (with a bit of fertilizer) is the usual first step, then shrub trees.

They have only been doing this for ~50 years, so they are still experimenting with the Steps 3 & 4.

Sure, we would expect different Permaculture choices for rehabilitation to be made in say Texas than Toledo, different again in Toronto. I was just trying to make the point that some folks "don't get" that the process of suburb creation does not just cover over the good land that was there with a thin layer of plastic and concrete that can be peeled off and we're back at "square 1", rather it more or less destroys the qualities of the place that allowed our species, and many others to make a living growing our food crops in it.
when i picture suburbs, i see typical lawn-shrub-tree landscaping on increasingly small lots.  and a lot of "yard waste" exported each week.  i'd think a garden club could bootstrap such a community with vegetables, fruits, and nuts pretty easily.  it's a smaller problem than acres scraped flat and left that way.
I suspect Kunstler would argue that exurbs are as bad as rural living.  He believes there will be roaming gangs of heavily armed people that will be hard for individual families to fight off, no matter how heavily armed they are.
How far can these roaming gangs move in a day? Without cars maybe 15 miles. How would they decide which way to go? Of the upper middle class expects these gangs to be mostly black teenagers so shoot first and talk later will be considered self defense.
The roaming gang theory is just a fantasy of racist enculturation.
How far can these roaming gangs move in a day? Without cars maybe 15 miles.

Who says they'll be without cars?  The "Mad Maxing" around scenario sort of implies that there are still cars.  

How would they decide which way to go?

Where the food is, presumably.  

Of the upper middle class expects these gangs to be mostly black teenagers so shoot first and talk later will be considered self defense.

In that case, white gangs will have no trouble at all.  ;-)

I don't think that would be an effective defense, anyway.  Farmers have a serious disadvantage against raiders.  They have a lot of property to protect, and a relatively low population density.  Raiders aren't planning to stay, so they'd be willing to do things settlers would be reluctant to do.  Shooting missiles at the house from far away.  Sabotaging water supplies.  Burning forests and fields.  Destroying infrastructure.

Tainter found that people moved closer to cities as collapse approached - because isolated farms and villages were vulnerable to raids.  I bet it wasn't just gangs of urban teens, either.  It was probably the armies of neighboring cities/states.  

Bikes, scooters?