The Oil Drum

143 comments on Thursday open thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

louGrinzo on May 4, 2006 - 10:26pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rwmcalister on May 4, 2006 - 10:59pm

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?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Will on May 5, 2006 - 6:30am

Lou... your answer to Kunstler is buy another car. He must be rolling on the floor laughing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wisco on May 5, 2006 - 8:33am

"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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

john milton on May 5, 2006 - 12:28pm

"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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fallout on May 5, 2006 - 2:23pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on May 6, 2006 - 3:18am

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on May 5, 2006 - 8:55am

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mshortridge on May 5, 2006 - 9:22am

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on May 5, 2006 - 3:20pm

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?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

vtpeaknik on May 5, 2006 - 9:49am

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.