<The Auto Efficiency WedgeThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: February 12, 2007>

82 comments on C2C – the Emerging Energy Technologies Summit – day 2

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

karlnick on February 11, 2007 - 2:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Are you sure that a minority want the Transit Oriented Design? I know that at least in sweden is it hardest to find an a apartment in the three largest cities and it is in these cities the best public transport is avaible.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Laurence Aurbach on February 11, 2007 - 5:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've assembled a review of market preference surveys and forecasts at The Market for Mixed Use & Walkability. In general, about one-third of the American public has a preference for transit- and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods with attached and small-lot housing. However, the preference rates for specific features vary considerably, from 15% all the way up to 75%, depending on the population sampled and the features in question.

What's more, the forecasts for market preferences over the next 20-35 years project big changes in the demographic makeup of the American population, and an associated increase in demand for transit/pedestrian oriented communities. Some researchers are forecasting there will be no demand whatsoever for new, large-lot, exurban McMansions by the year 2025.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on February 11, 2007 - 9:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am afraid that at this late date, we are kind of stuck with what housing we have. Once peak oil ( and natural gas) hits, there will be much less building. If nothing else, (people and businesses) will not be able to get 20 or 30 year mortgages. As a result, if we want more density, it will have to be families moving together into a subset of the existing housing stock. If this is planned correctly, it can greatly reduce the fuel needed for natural gas heating. It might also make public transportation more feasible.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 11, 2007 - 10:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

With 2/3rds the building materials used in 2006 (and related energy), I believe that we could build much more energy efficent housing (comfortable, desireable) for twice as many people.

The fellow I am helping repair & improve his shotgun house (12' x 36' + 7' x 8' bathroom added on) lives comfortably as do I in my small apartment (1890s house cut up into 6 apartments). So existing housing & commerical.industrial structures can be adapted to denser living; although even this takes copper, labor, insulation, walls, etc. Just less energy & materials.

The annual energy savings by boarding up most McMansions could build housing for a large # of people. So I do not see the US as being completely trapped with our current Urban Form.

The US made a major transition in Urban Form from 1950 to 1970+. We can do it again.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Todd on February 12, 2007 - 1:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Alan,

I love your posts. I like your thinking. But at heart, you are a cornucopian who is trying to maintain the status quo. The core of your beliefs, I believe, is that the changes you suggest will somehow allow a consumptive, consumer society to continue. If that isn't the case, why do people need the kinds of transport you advocate? And, I might include goods transportation.

We could pack a zillion people into a compact cube where they never had to go anywhere. Ever. And, it would sure be energy efficient. But this isn't what I believe you believe.

I would argue that, to use the trite expression, it might be better to give the "man" 40 acres and a mule than the direction you essentially advocate.

Todd

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Squalish on February 12, 2007 - 5:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If your root goal in using this site is to plot the downfall of society, do it somewhere else. A cabin on 400 acres, perhaps.

Most of us prefer finding a way to preserve human life and our current way of life - anything that can mitigate peak oil and global warming is a blessing, not a stumbling block on the way to apocalypse/communism/hippydom.

BTW Alan: you might have missed my reply in our last discussion, as it was posted a few days after the thread was.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 12, 2007 - 6:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

it might be better to give the "man" 40 acres and a mule than the direction you essentially advocate

We do not have enough mules ! And given the population shifts from rural to urban and then to suburban; I support a shift back to urban from suburban more than a shift all the way back to rural.

Quite frankly, a human scale urban life can be more rewarding and socially benefical than an isolated rural or suburban existance for most people.

I think that the social isolation of suburbia results in much of the shopping mall "entertainment"/consumptive behavior. I think that a walking neighborhood with Urban rail can result in a significantly higher quality of life with far fewer resources being consumed. That may make me cornucopian, but that is *N*O*T* the "status quo" (except for me personally and a few other New Orleanians :-)

OTOH, After the ASPO conference, I toured (with a group) the soon to be opened Greenbush commuter rail project south of Boston. It linked a series of New England villages with an average population (guess) of 20,000; Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset, Scituate and Greenbush. Another alternative, suburban living on a human scale that could become low energy. Cluster more around the new train station; walking and biking locally. Not for me, but a viable low energy alternative post-Peak Oil for others.

And the "40 acres & a mule" with a trip to town every other Friday (weather permitting) will satisfy others.

We have 300 million Americans. One size does not fit all. But my solution could fit a majority (perhaps a slim majority) of Americans.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 12, 2007 - 9:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A 12' x 36' home with a 7' x 8' bathroom added on is not what I would consider a "consumptive" lifestyle. Yes, in-door plumbing (which I like and support :-) aand more space than the average Chinese (or Japanese) but not dramatically more.

I would rather consume good music, great tasting food, beautiful architechure and enjoy my neighbors than mall shopping, etc. None of the above requires large amounts of energy or other material resources.

Good music takes no more energy (perhaps less) than Britney Spears, great tasting food (using mainly local ingredients) may use less resources than a Happy Meal from McDonalds, Beautiful architecture takes little more than strip malls & McMansions and spending time with your neighbors uses far less energy than commuting alone everyday in a SUV.

Yes, I want to "consume", but not the stereotypical American pattern of consumption.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Metric: 3.7 m x 14.75 m home with 2.1 m x 2.2 m bathroom

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.