![]() | Abundant Skies: 8 Principles for Successful Rainwater Harvesting | The Oil Drum: Local | Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets | ![]() |
42 comments on Smart Growth Gets a New Look
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
42 comments on Smart Growth Gets a New Look
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search
Blogroll
NY Blogs
- Gothamist
- Starts & Fits
- Aaron Naparstek
- Baloghblog
- One Atlantic
- bikeblog
- Curbed
- Urban Digs
- OnNYTurf
- Daily Gotham
- StreetsBlog
Local Organizations
- NYC Peak Oil Meet-up
- Peak Oil NYC
- Transportation Alternatives
- Time's Up
- Straphanger's Campaign
- Regional Plan Association
- Green Homes NYC
- Tri-State Transportation Campaign
- Harbor Rail Tunnel
- Auto Free NY
- Walk NY
- Bridge Tolls Advocacy
- Vision 42nd Street
- Car Free
- Right of Way
- Upper Green Side
Local Media
National Peak Oil Sites
Webrings
|
|
|
|
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
During the week I take car of my granddaughter and live at my son's house in Burnsville, MN, an older outer ring suburb of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro area. Back around 1950, half the jobs and half the services were downtown. That is no longer the case. Jobs and services are isotropic. Suburbs are self-sufficient and travel goes in all directions. Job security is low, these days, and many people do not know where they will be working in the coming years. My son and daughter-in-law bought a house in Burnsville because it is wooded, has many parks, excellent services, a good school system, is centrally located in the south Metro area and has good travel logistics. There is no reason for them, or me, to ever go downtown.
I think we have to get away about thinking in terms of core cities vs. suburbs and getting everybody moving into core cities. I went downtown yesterday, and I hated it. The only times I ever go into the Minneapolis core is to go to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Otherwise, I avoid it. I never go to downtown St. Paul. I go to the St. Anthony Park area of St. Paul because that is where my younger son lives. He lives there because it is wooded, is tucked away from the rest of the city, and has excellent logistics for getting to the University of Minnesota campus, where he is a graduate student. He lives farther from a supermarket than my son in the suburbs does.
My younger son had a friend who spent a year in a job driving all over the metro area measuring cell phone signal strength. He said the observation that really struck him was how dispersed jobs were in the Twin Cities. There was no location that did not have industrial activity. The jobs were not concentrated downtown; they were everywhere.
If we develop public transport systems that feed traffic from outer suburbs into the downtown, we will miss most of the travel people have to do. Travel, today, is highly isotropic, not linear.
Human beings are a generalist, opportunistic species. We are scattered all over the globe exactly because we are not specialized. We are good at a lot of things but not great at one thing. In our evolutionary history we have opted for extensive utilization of resources over intensive. That has been our survival formula, and it has worked for us. It means we want to spread out. If we wanted to congregate in vertical cities, we would have done so. The fact that the U.S. has only one vertical city is a sign that that is not how we want to live.
The automobile did not create the desire to spread out. That already was a part of our psyche, our operating system. The auto simply gave us the ability to do so. Changing our society so that humans live in high density urban agglomerations that are liveable and not third world slums, is a very expensive process. Many green advocates see that as utopic. I see it as dystopic, based on human evolutionary history.
Considering the rapidly approaching end of portable fossil fuels, increase of green house gas emissions, and need to provide transportation for the billions of people on earth, development of systems of linear, electrical, rail-based transport will be essential; however, keep in mind that such systems will have to be much more isotropically oriented than most people are accustomed to thinking.
JHK covers this territory to a certain extent-he labels it the Jimminey Cricket syndrome-what I want I must get because I want it. Of course people like sprawl but transit doesn't work too well without density.
The inexorable downward decline of the urban density gradient has been fueled by cheap gas and massive highway spending, coupled with gains in farming efficiency that freed up Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, etc. from their farmland roles. There had never in the history of humanity been a period like the 1990s in the Twin Cities where gas was so cheap, highways so plentiful, and food so cheap.
Start turning these trends around and perhaps the denisty gradient does begin to steepen: food and farmland with higher values, gasoline more expensive, highway projects questioned due to costs and questionable long-term need. Homeowners at the periphery of the Twin Cities and many American cities are now finding out that the homesite they bought into was a bad deal due to commuting cost. People are not stepping tin to take their place, but it can't easily be reconverted to farmland either.
The people in the Twin Cities are fortunate to have one decent light rail line in place and will soon have another connecting the two downtowns. These are good things.
I don't understand why you hate downtowns. To be on Nicollet Mall at noon when the farmers' market is taking place and all those office workers are buying fresh veggies is a sight to behold, and it reminds us why the standard urban model performed so well in the first place.
I'm a retired North Dakota farmer. There is nothing downtown I want. I'm not interested in the bars, the concerts, the trendy shops, the traffic, the noise, the sensory overload. The Walker Art Center is an ugly, ugly building with the face of an angry robot. The inside is just as ugly as the outside and screams anomie.
At my son's house in Burnsville I'm a block from Red Oak Park and two blocks from Highland Park, places I take my granddaughter twice a day. There's a commons area within my son's immediate community that has large grassy areas and paved walkways that are not next to car traffic. I can watch Coopers Hawks nesting and yesterday a doe and fawn ran across the street in front of me. I'm a 15 minute walk from Mexican and Thai restaurants, two Russian grocery stores, and a drug store, as well as several other services. I'm a 15 minute bike ride from two Cubs and one Aldi's supermarkets and a Target and hundreds of other stores, restaurants and services. For a city, it's pretty quiet, except for airplanes going up and down the Cedar Ave. glide path. When I look out my son's sunroom windows, all I see is trees, a slough and no buildings. The neighbors are friendly and know each other.
Why would I want to go downtown, where everything, except Loring Park, is concrete? When my wife was going to graduate school at the University of Minnesota, we lived on the West Bank in the Riverside apartment tower complex. It was all concrete. You can bring vegetables to the Nicollet Mall, but it's still all concrete.
These blogs tend to focus on metro areas. What about the rest of us? On weekends I'm in Mankato, where my wife is a professor. This is a community of 45,000 and has city bus service. But what about the rural area surrounding Mankato and its small towns? There's an aging population. It's going to need the American equivalent of the Turkish "dolmus" bus system in the future, but something like that never gets discussed. Our permanent home is in northern Minnesota near the Canadian border. Bears outnumber humans. I'm 14 miles from the nearest village; 45 miles from the nearest city; 110 miles from the nearest SMSA; 250 miles from the metro area. If you don't have a car, your mobility is seriously curtailed. There is no public transport. Winter lasts six months; continuous snow cover goes from Halloween until after Easter. The temps Portland has in winter, we can get in July.
If one thinks that changing our transportation system will be expensive, changing housing practices for Americans will be an order of magnitude more expensive and difficult. That's the point I was trying to make. There are no fill-in areas in the Twin Cities metro area inside the outer ring suburbs, unless one is talking of pouring a lot of concrete to build high rise condos. And then these people will be commuting from the core city out to their jobs in the suburbs, unless you want to move the jobs and schools and services into the core cities too. That's a lot of real estate to change.
Let's think about how to move people efficiently using linear transport to meet an isotropic flow. That's a difficult and expensive enough problem without also trying to move real estate.
You correctly describe the current living and working patterns of most Americans. But if we are to make the conversion to more efficient energy use in the realm of personal transportation, I believe that the current patterns will need to change. Perhaps the solution for the United States is not the central core and radial commuter rail lines of London, Paris, or Tokyo - but parenthetically, imagine how much more fortunate people in those countries are already to have an efficient public transport system. But people will need to adjust their commuting behavior to center their lives around the nearest public transport station, and use bicycles or other low impact solutions on the final part of their daily journeys. Surely high density developments around those stations is an essential part of the solution, whatever pattern of linkages prevail between the stations - radial, isotropic, or other.
High density development is like moving the mountain to Moses. It requires huge real estate investment while at the same time not obviating the need for change of transportation infrastructure. There may be many good reasons for high density urban residential and commercial construction, but not as a primary way of solving our transportation problem.
I think the last two decades have been the bottom of the barrel in residential housing design: the ugliest, most oversized houses in American history; the housing corollary of the SUV. However, it is easier to move Moses to the mountain; that is, we're going to have to work with what we've got, because the job will be expensive enough without getting into real estate as a solution.
I think a more cost-effective approach would be to focus on legislation to provide for health insurance and pension plan portability. That would allow people to change their jobs to shorten commuting distance without losing those two essential parts of modern life. When my grandmother visited us from Austria 40 years ago, she said America was an uncivilized country because it didn't have national health insurance. Well, we still have our expensive mish-mash of private insurance and people are trapped in long commutes because they can't afford to give up their benefits.
There may come a time when they no longer have a choice but to give up their long commutes and their jobs with it. The immediate economics of losing money to keep going to a job that most people only begrudgingly do anyway, will see many people just give up and drop out. What will they do all day long in their cold suburban reposessed McMansions? Beats me but deer hunting might be on the menu around your sons place.
Do you really think the USA will become the first country to ever figure out how to combine low density development and inexpensive, first class public transit? Why should the taxpayer subsidize your need to live in the wilderness?
Taxpayers didn't subsidize my decision to live in the wilderness. We're quite self-sufficient and we help each other out first before running to the government. I can pump my water by hand, grow my own food and fuel, use an outhouse, and am not dependent on city services. My son's house is not a McMansion. It was built in 1971 and is quite modest by today's standards. He has less lawn to mow than I have around my Mankato house, which was built in 1860 and sits on a city lot.
If it weren't for people like us in the "wilderness" growing food and fiber, producing energy, mining raw materials, cities couldn't exist. The economy starts with us, producing "new wealth" every year. This wealth comes primarily from harvesting the sun's energy. Everything else is recycled wealth. All biological systems are totally dependent on a continuing flow of energy inputs, whether it's autotrophs synthesizing organic molecules or heterotrophs harvesting that synthesized biomass. Sometimes we forget what's important.
The main point I am trying to make is that changing real estate as a way to solve a transportation problem is much more expensive than, yes, building a first class public transport system in a country with a dispersed population. It's fine with me if people want to go with the new urbanism and build new or recycle existing buildings in core cities; however, that is not a primary solution to our major energy problem.
I am working on a white paper called "Energy Systematics for Sustainability," and I have been thinking a lot about how we can convert to sustainable energy production and use. You can look at my other postings on this site to see some of the ideas. Whatever we do will have to be done systematically if it is to succeed. Changes will be major and will be driven by events rather than by our wishes. Unfortunately, our national politicians are seriously behind the learning curve on energy and are trailing, rather than leading, indicators.