<DrumBeat: December 10, 2008 The Oil Drum Introducing: TOD: 'Campfire'>

103 comments on A Resilient Suburbia 4: Accounting for the Value of Decentralization

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

jewishfarmer on December 10, 2008 - 10:37am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Jeff, I've been a fan of this series, but I'm more troubled by this contribution. I believe there's a case to be made for suburbia, but perhaps not this one. To accept your contentions is to accept that structurally, suburbia is less hierarchically structured than cities, which I tend to think it is not presently true. To a large degree, suburbs are precisely a product of urban hierarchy, the place where the culture of hierarchy gets frozen and reproduced - that is, where those who are the products of urban hierarchical culture move when it is time to reproduce. If you intend to argue that a peak oil crisis will render suburbia more flexible and less structured when it is isolated, I think you need a better case and a more explicit analysis.

I agree that suburbia has potential in terms of decentralization - but, not, I think necessarily in opposition to cities, but because suburbs in many cases are structurally similar to older-style cities. That is, many have similar population densities 19th and early 20th century milltowns and small cities. They come with large quantities of built space that could easily be adapted to production and sale, and room for interstitial additions. And while they are dependent on resource distribution, they both have the capacity to meet some needs, and are also closer to natural resources - to those hinterlands that provide natural resources. There is no reason, for example, for me to transport the food I produce all the way to New York City, because there is a more-than-adequate demand for it in the suburbs and small cities near me. I think the land-export model applies here - unless the cities remain centers of wealth, able to radically outbid the suburbs and small cities around them, more and more resources are likely to stay in place.

Sharon

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on December 10, 2008 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Of course, local consumers have an economic advantage over more distant consumers, because of the cost of transportation. Also, it's easier for a local producer to deny food to a distant stranger than to deny food to a local consumer.

Another way to look at it is in terms of local consumption as a percentage of production. I just ran some number for some net oil exporters. Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively went from 38% and 18% to 43% and 23% from 2005 to 2007 (consumption as a percentage of production, total liquids).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on December 10, 2008 - 11:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

local consumers have an economic advantage over more distant consumers, because of the cost of transportation

But large farming corporations also have the advantage of economy of scale, greater leverage in futures contracts, and lower overhead. They also have greater political influence through lobbying and targeted campaign contributions. Not that I like any of the above (I most certainly do not.), but that is how the situation is playing out right now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on December 10, 2008 - 11:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think you are talking about producers; he was talking about consumers. Anyway, I would want to live in an area that had a wide variety of local produce and locally produced goods, for a lot of reasons. Ideally, associated interactions would be as face to face as possible.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on December 10, 2008 - 12:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think you are talking about producers; he was talking about consumers.

True, but local consumers imply purchasing from local producers. Distant consumers imply distant (agro-factory) producers. Economy of scale, etc, are factors that currently offset the local advantage. Anyone who has seen The Future of Food, however, realizes the problems we face with industrial agriculture and seed monopolies.

I am growing 45+ fruit and nut trees, tending 20'x80' garden, and raise a small flock of sheep, so I heartily agree with the thrust of the vision in your comments.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jerryd on December 10, 2008 - 7:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Will has good points and this concept can be done on smaller lots too. In our energy, commodity constrained future future.

Many people will start to work from home as the cost of going to work in time, money means one needs to produce 1/2 as much for the same real income.

How it can be done is producing RE power like solar steam engines, windgens, collecting local biomass to convert to electricity, fuel pellets, ect along with growing food like will does though I'm thinking on a much smaller plot like 1/4acre. A dozen fruit, nut trees and a greenhouse/garden supplies the occupants with food, cash.

These can bring in a good living because the costs are so low without work travel time, lunch, clothes, lack of time to do things, find deals costs are much lower, running costs are under $400/person/month plus mortgage so one doesn't have to make much.

I live on about $250/month total cost since my mortgage is paid for food, clothes, utilities,
transport which is easy to make in my garage building custom EV's, ect in my small shop.

Starting from scratch on a site this RE, food growing, workshop could be done for under $50k
plus land.

Urban, suburban both have their good points. Transport costs will drop a fair amount as we switch to cool smaller vehicles mostly powered by renewable produced electricity or mass transit powered by the same. In my present EV gets about $.06/mile total costs because it's lightweight and aero.

And it's adjustments like these that will give economist heartburn. If big business, oil, coal, gov don't get reasonable many more will do as I do which will hurt them big time.

It's what we did in the 73 recession which rove the price of oil back down to under inflation
adjusted rates to before the oil embargo though without the electric cars but by car pooling, smaller cars, fewer trips, vacations, ect. In fact this recession, oil pricing looks a lot like then.

jerryd

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bellistner on December 11, 2008 - 1:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In my present EV gets about $.06/mile total costs because it's lightweight and aero.

What's your wH/Mile?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jerryd on December 10, 2008 - 8:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Will has good points and this concept can be done on smaller lots too. In our energy, commodity constrained future future.

Many people will start to work from home as the cost of going to work in time, money means one needs to produce 1/2 as much for the same real income.

How it can be done is producing RE power like solar steam engines, windgens, collecting local biomass to convert to electricity, fuel pellets, ect along with growing food like will does though I'm thinking on a much smaller plot like 1/4acre. A dozen fruit, nut trees and a greenhouse/garden supplies the occupants with food, cash.

These can bring in a good living because the costs are so low without work travel time, lunch, clothes, lack of time to do things, find deals costs are much lower, running costs are under $400/person/month plus mortgage so one doesn't have to make much.

I live on about $250/month total cost since my mortgage is paid for food, clothes, utilities,
transport which is easy to make in my garage building custom EV's, ect in my small shop.

Starting from scratch on a site this RE, food growing, workshop could be done for under $50k
plus land.

Urban, suburban both have their good points. Transport costs will drop a fair amount as we switch to cool smaller vehicles mostly powered by renewable produced electricity or mass transit powered by the same. In my present EV gets about $.06/mile total costs because it's lightweight and aero.

And it's adjustments like these that will give economist heartburn. If big business, oil, coal, gov don't get reasonable many more will do as I do which will hurt them big time.

It's what we did in the 73 recession which rove the price of oil back down to under inflation
adjusted rates to before the oil embargo though without the electric cars but by car pooling, smaller cars, fewer trips, vacations, ect. In fact this recession, oil pricing looks a lot like then.

jerryd

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bryant on December 10, 2008 - 12:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

large farming corporations also have the advantage of economy of scale

I think this is very much open to debate:

  • http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=19931856622

    • A simple search will turn up dozens of similar articles.

    greater political influence through lobbying and targeted campaign contributions

    I think this really explains the profitability of "big ag". Consider the use of health and safety regulations in denying market access to small producers. I believe that ignoring or removing these barriers would seriously undercut the advantages of "big ag" especially in dairy and value added processing. In my experience, your reputation for quality and care among your neighbors is way more important than having the local Department of Health's approval.

    And since small producers are mostly satisfying local demand...

    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    jeffvail on December 10, 2008 - 11:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    I agree that, as presently structured, suburbia and urban settlement are roughly equally hierarchal. I do think, however, that the very distributed land ownership model present in suburbia (which, admittedly, is far to vague a term here) is critical. I think, ultimately, the peak oil crisis will render most present institutions untenable, and as a result those areas currently characterized by more distributed land-ownership will trend toward more decentralized (and, in my mind, more sustainable and fulfilling) replacement structures, whereas those areas currently characterized by more concentrated land-ownership will trend toward a more feudal replacement structure...

    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    Iaato on December 10, 2008 - 7:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    Great thesis, Jeff. The question is just how "very distributed" the land ownership model is in suburbia? While there is surplus energy for personal transportation, suburbia may represent the best of both worlds in terms of natural resource contributions/green space and urban concentrations of energy, materials, and specialized jobs (Odum). But without surplus energy, there is no personal, private transport, and the green space may not be an adequate footprint to support the dispersed, decentralized type of lifestyles that the future will require. Maybe inner suburbs won't make it, and outer, more dispersed suburbs and exurbs will do OK?

    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    mhelie on December 10, 2008 - 1:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    http://www.patternlanguage.com/archives/alexander1.htm

    A CITY IS NOT A TREE

    The total separation of work from housing, started by Tony Garnier in his industrial city, then incorporated in the 1929 Athens Charter, is now found in every artificial city and accepted everywhere where zoning is enforced. Is this a sound principle? It is easy to see how bad conditions at the beginning of the century prompted planners to try to get the dirty factories out of residential areas. But the separation misses a variety of systems which require, for their sustenance, little parts of both.

    Finally, let us examine the subdivision of the city into isolated communities. As we have seen in the Abercrombie plan for London, this is itself a tree structure. The individual community in a greater city has no reality as a functioning unit. In London, as in any great city, almost no one manages to find work which suits him near his home. People in one community work in a factory which is very likely to be in another community.

    There are therefore many hundreds of thousands of worker-workplace systems, each consisting of individuals plus the factory they work in, which cut across the boundaries defined by Abercrombie's tree. The existence of these units, and their overlapping nature, indicates that the living systems of London form a semilattice. Only in the planner's mind has it become a tree.

    Emergent Urbanism
    http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com

    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    DCLA on December 10, 2008 - 10:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    I bought A Pattern Language a couple weeks ago, this makes me even more intrigued to read it. Interesting, thanks.

    Comments can no longer be added to this story.

    103 comments on A Resilient Suburbia 4: Accounting for the Value of Decentralization

    Comments can no longer be added to this story.

    | Show without comments | PDF version