<DrumBeat: April 17, 2008 The Oil Drum Policies to Develop a Low Emissions Transport Sector in Australia>

201 comments on Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

tommyvee on April 17, 2008 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Realistic, well-thought article.
I expect the future to be a hybrid of scenarios, some abandonment/squatting, some agricultural redevelopment and architectural re-use (Mcmansions as rooming houses/apartment buildings), some deconstruction and re-use, some burning for fuel, somethings we cannot imagine yet.
As you note, all of these options are already occurring somewhere. Edible landscapes are pretty common in my neighborhood, especially fruit trees. Plums are pretty much self-planting weeds here in Boulder. Food costs will incentivize people to convert their landscaping to something they can eat.
In years past, I have done a bit of deconstruction and a good bit of remodeling/repurposing of buildings. In capitol hill Denver, some buildings have been converted from big single-family dwellings, to apartment buildings, and back to high-end single-family since their construction around 1900.
But decaying, abandoned houses are a common sight in the exurban regions of New York and Indiana, so sometimes deconstructing and resuse is not worth the trouble.
In most of the world, the settlement pattern for agricultural villages is physical connection of houses (from Nepal to France to Mexico,etc., rows of connected houses line streets and footpaths). This provides big savings on heat, plus structural integrity, and community. Interestingly, the back-to-the-land pattern on the Oil Drum seems to be a separate house on 40 acres. Maybe some of the exurban McMansions will form the core of new agricultural villages, with the neighboring houses torn down for construction materials or fuel, and additions forming the familar rural hodgepodge of connected structures.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on April 17, 2008 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Edible landscapes are pretty common in my neighborhood, especially fruit trees.

Boulder CO is a remarkable place, but ultimately unrepresentative of the typical US suburban lifestyle. My edible landscape is likely in the category of far-less-than-1% of the yards here in Virginia.

Three factors are going to make it difficult to stay in Suburbia;

1. Subprime mortgages start many recent homeowners off with a major handicap, with too many people simply walking away from their homes; abandoned homes will become hideouts for transients and looters
2. Travel distance, especially for exurban. Biking, carpooling, vanpooling, and bus networks could make suburbia transportation possible, if enough people do that instead of clinging to the one-occupant auto commute.
3. 1/4 acre yards don't support a great deal of food production, especially with a house, garage, driveway taking up a goodly portion of that. If exurban 1-3 acres yards are counted, then they could have the potential to provide a substantial amount of food for the occupants, if the occupants decide to 'farm'.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
billonthehill on April 17, 2008 - 8:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Will,

To remain in suburbs most people will have to abandon the daily trips to the mall and learn to make do with what they have on hand. An average suburban lot may have anywhere from 3000 to 8000 sq. ft. of usable land that could have the majority of lawn removed and brought to plantable condition with little work.

Available fertilizers and water could be supplemented using grey water and human excrement properly composted. Getting people past the idea of using their own waste to feed their crops will be hard to accomplish but hunger is a powerful motivator. Improper composting of human waste may create to many disease outbreaks and have to be outlawed in order to prevent spread of chollera or other pathogens. Sewer treatment plants could begin composting their sludge similar to that of Milwaukee and their "Milorganite" product. Distribution on an as needed basis from the processing facility could supplement the available fertilizers to the area residents.

A typical lot if managed correctly could go a long ways to providing food sources to many of the suburban populations which could free up resources to be used for the inner cities.

I believe many layers of production will be necessary in order to prevent famine from becoming a part of our daily living.

In order to begin the move to sustainable communities many landscape firms could be selling these garden packages to residents beginning now. It is not too early to begin the shift to this and would be a great idea for some politician to seize upon as a "Return to Victory Garden" movement.

What better way to involve the general population in understanding our energy problems?

I hope we begin soon.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on April 18, 2008 - 4:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

An average suburban lot may have anywhere from 3000 to 8000 sq. ft. of usable land that could have the majority of lawn removed and brought to plantable condition with little work.

Have you actually tried this? I've converted quite a bit of my lawn to garden, edible landscaping, and small grains, and it would not be correct to say it took "little work".

Most people will cling to their concept of how a suburban lawn should look, afraid of what the neighbors might think.
I'm all for the return to Victory Gardens, meanwhile Joe Sixpack rides around on his 28hp riding lawnmower and relaxes watching NASCAR truck races. Changing the mindset will be the toughest challenge, especially with climate change denialists and the Yergins of the world telling the Joe Sixpacks that they are on the right track, no worries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeMorin on April 17, 2008 - 5:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good "article".

Two problems that stand our are:

1.) The agriculturalization of suburbia will not generate enough revenues for those who don't already own outright, and for other necessities (e.g. heating, cooking, electricity, recreation, etc.).

2.) True enough, a desuburbanization is not likely other than many, many more becoming homeless. There is not enough walkable, urbanist environments to absorb such a migration, the lack of effective demand for the suburban properties and the premium price that walkable urban properties already command will also be prohibitive.

I think the answer may be to retrofit the drivable suburban environments to walkable urbanist ones (where necessities including food are available within walking distance to all), including the very active promotion of tele-commuting (including neighborhood facilities with fax machines, copiers, and tele-video equipment).

My considered opinion is that this can not and will not happen within the dictates of the so-called "free market". In other words, we need a planned economy.

Good luck.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on April 17, 2008 - 10:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

1.) The agriculturalization of suburbia will not generate enough revenues for those who don't already own outright, and for other necessities (e.g. heating, cooking, electricity, recreation, etc.).

Revenues? This idea is not a business idea, it is a survival technique. The point is self-reliance/sustainability. If everyone is growing the food they need, who would they be selling to?

My considered opinion is that this can not and will not happen within the dictates of the so-called "free market". In other words, we need a planned economy.

Because they have worked so well thus far? No, what will work to distribute resources better and create a more democratic ideal is a gold standard, trade-based economy with no central banks and zero usury. When growth is not the end, then free trade can be the means to a sustainable system. As long as money/wealth is created by the charging of interest, you will have an unsustainable economy.

As this applies to food, let people grow and trade what they need. Organizing beyond the community level would be a huge error leading us back to where we are now, or where China and the USSR spent most of the last century.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeMorin on April 17, 2008 - 11:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi CCPO,

My point was that without sufficient revenues/income, many if not most suburbanites will not be able to stay in their properties, and those who are working full-time will not be able to be food self-sufficient because of their career pre-occupations. Also, there is more to survival than growing food and I sincerely doubt that many can be self-sufficient (especially in urban and suburban environments)even in this one sphere (food).

Secondly, your knee jerk reaction to the previous failures of socialism does not preclude the idea that we would be better off if we had goals and plans for cooperative endeavors locally, regionally, and inter-regionally. The reason that America has been so successful (thus far) is more related to the rape of a virgin landscape rather than the merits of Capitalism.

Peace.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on April 17, 2008 - 11:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Ah, we are using different assumptions, Mike. I am always thinking in terms of where we end up, while you were speaking in terms of the transition period.

I still would think the "Victory Garden" would be used for supplementing the diet while moving to providing the entire diet as collapse gets further along. (I use collapse here not in terms of the end of civilization, but in the sense of breaking down and ending up something very different than it is now - almost certainly more localized, less regulated and possibly with federal governments that are but a shell of what they are now.)

There are people producing enough food in 4-5,000 sq ft. to keep one person fed for a year. Some homes have that much sq. footage! Turing lawns, parks, greenways and parking lots into gardens might provide enough to sustain small communities. I am doubtful this would work in large American cities. LArge cities will have o crate new ways to feed their people, depopulate, or find a way to provide value to the rural areas such that they are willing to provide food for them.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

201 comments on Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version