 | Summer Streets a Success! | The Oil Drum: Local | Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, Lots of Square Feet) |  |
29 comments on Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
29 comments on Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
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
True, population densities do provide an economy of scale. Rail transport being one of many that NYC has, but, NYC is not the self sustaining type of old European city most have a fantasy of. There is, so to speak, too much of a good thing. The population density of NYC is a Cancer, gone out of control. It's not about how much "money" is sent out of NYC, it's about how much energy it sucks back in, and where that energy comes from.
Energy, is the issue.
Suburbia is the "energy sucking sound", not NYC.
Looked for link (forgot to benchmark it), but NYC uses 1/4th the electricity/capita of average Suburbanite. (US urban areas average half of Suburbia). Minimal water pumping certainly helps NYC (Phoenix uses about 20% of it's electricity for water pumping).
NYC and New Orleans were (pre-Katrina #s) tied for fewest miles driven (VMT) by residents of any US cities. So minimal liquid fuels as well as electricity.
Bringing 1 million in from Suburbia (and abandoning a few suburbs) would save significant amounts of energy.
Best Hopes for NYC,
Alan
How much energy went into just the 3rd water tunnel for NYC? But that's the past. It's not even about the present Alan, it's about the future, as this webby site details so well with the numbers and future forecasts for energy. Abandoning a few suburbs will not solve this problem. Creating sustainable communities out of the rubble will. Large, super dense populations singing and holding hands while they truck in the food? Yup...
Well, let's see, where would I rather be when the electricity goes out for a few months?
NYC? NOLA? LA? Maybe not so much....
Katrina was but a small taste of some bitter drink, some might say. I did not care for it. Homo Rapiens have a tendency to go animalistic, very quickly.
Best hopes for staying alive...I will, hope you do, but those in NYC or NOLA will have a tough row to hoe....
A TBM (tunnel boring machine) in that size range would use about 15 MW (when not down for cutter replacement, jams etc. TBMs might operate 15% of the time). Figure for a couple of decades. Add concrete lining, chlorine wash, tailings removal, etc.. All told trivial within the context of this great city.
Service life in centuries, perhaps millennium.
New York gets 2 GW from their half of Niagara Falls, New York is a major buyer from HydroQuebec (and they want to develop more hydro and wind power), New York has decent wind potential (best on East Coast from vague memory) and smaller hydro.
If electricity is limited, it makes sense to use it in the most efficient and most productive places. NYC is certainly the most efficient (4x Suburbia) and economically the most productive. NYC could bring back light manufacturing (once half of USA clothing was sewn there (vague memory). The port will remain, and the railroad access.
There is room for discussion if a post-Peak Oil NYC will be larger or smaller, but there will be a NYC.
You used the phrase "sustainable communities in the rubble of Suburbia". THAT is a fantasy ! The soil is gone, they lack social contact to create viable communities, *ALL* infrastructure was built for unlimited cheap oil.
An Iowa with six, or even sixteen times today's population is certainly possible; with more labor intensive agriculture as a main employer. Sporadic electricity when the wind blows. But Suburbia is a complete write-off. No topsoil (it was scrapped off and sold for post-1970 suburbs), little oil for anyone, and only Boston type walkable suburbs connected by rail to big cities stand a chance.
Best Hopes for NYC,
Alan
It's all fine if you ignore any counter points, Alan.
For instance on soils, lots of people have mentioned umpteen times that raised bed gardening is quite possible, and we are talking about people contributing to their own food, not large scale agriculture.
A lot of your work on rail is very valuable, but there is no need to over-emphasise every point against suburbia to do so.
Raised bed agriculture requires topsoil plus humus in those raised beds.
Where does one get topsoil ? Well, one can buy it. Taken from the latest subdivision development where the topsoil was scrapped off.
Rob Peter to pay Paul.
I was an apartment manager while in school (free rent :-). The barren landscape depressed me (could hardly grow weeds). I was told by an "old timer" that this apartment used to be a cotton field.
I decided to plant a shade tree between semesters. I dug/pried my way down through 2.5 feet of rock fill till I found the cotton field. At least 5 inches of good topsoil covered by rock fill. Not sure why they did not scrape off the topsoil first.
Suburban farming can work in selected spots, but the majority of modern Suburbia I have seen has ruined fertility. And few Suburbanites have the knowledge and skill required for significant food production.
Alan