Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Corella wrote: Means for US, middle and south Europe adjusting down, also caused by laws of economical war.
miljenko wrote:I've always wondered whether the great cities of the world such as NYC, Chicago, LA, Tokyo, Shanghai, Singapore etc. have any chance of surviving after the oil crash.
As the debate continues in Toronto over whether it’s better to raise children downtown or in the suburbs, a new study suggests urban centres are considered too expensive for families with two or more kids.
Most GTA home buyers would make such downtown virtues as walkable access to amenities and rapid transit their priority in choosing a home if they could afford it, according to an RBC-Pembina poll released Monday.When money was a factor, 59 per cent of respondents with two or more children said they would prefer dwelling in large detached homes in car-dependent neighbourhoods. When price wasn’t a factor, it was only families with three or more children that preferred the larger dwelling (just over 40 per cent).
If price were not an issue, 81 per cent of respondents said they would prefer to live in a smaller home in a “location-efficient” neighbourhood where they can walk or take rapid transit and achieve shorter commute times over a larger house or yard, according to the poll.
“We shouldn’t have to live in the type of city where you live in a condo as a single person and move out to the suburbs as a family and move back to the city as seniors,” said Ms. Burda, the study’s author. “We should be able to have the types of diverse housing that can accommodate all demographics and be affordable to do so.”
“If you’re paying $5,000 a year to service a car and pay for the insurance and the fuel but you live closer to work and you don’t have to pay that, you can take those cost savings into consideration when you’re doing your mortgage financing and looking at your cash flow and budgeting,” Mr. DeMone said.
Cities were manufacturing centers, where resources were brought together to create implements, tools for living. (Cities were built on rivers/oceans, for transport.) Culture/arts were just diversions to that role. Now Kulture/Arts are kind of the main business of American cities. Cities are also dumping grounds for the poor. The stuff is made in suburban industrial parks or in China.Newfie wrote:Also, how do you define "city."?
As our population grows small towns become suburbs, and then neighborhoods oflarger population centers. Bronx was once a town in NY.
The entire NE us region,from South of DC to above Boston is now one huge "city."
So I was surprised to see the comment about thousands of "cities," but understand the different perspective.
Newfie wrote:Being an Easterner I tend to think of the large population masses surrounding the urban core. But Atlanta, for instance, is more spread out and will likely react differently than Philadelphia. So your answer will depend upon point of view and vary city by city.
I am probably the only one on this site from the great NE megalopolis and thus may see with different eyes.
BTW, how is Atlanta doing with the drought? A bit ago they were in a bind for water.
Newfie wrote:My point was simply that we probably all have different ideas, or visions, when we say the word "city."
The word is too broad in meaning for any kind of useful discussion.
Gary, Indiana..... Reno ..... Philadelphia .....will have different fates.
This process is already underway. Suburbs are increasing in population size, density, and as employment centers. Light rail is making a comeback. Meanwhile, many US cities have shrinking growth rates, sometimes even a declining population. I am not convinced suburbs are going to die off anymore than cities are.pstarr wrote:One advantage that the suburbs have is their low density and wood frame/stick construction. It will be pretty easy to re-vision, de-construct, and re-construct a (stupid, poorly sited, poor designed) single family home from its 1/8 acre lot into a larger multi-family, multi-use building. That New Building would then share the advantages of older city structures (more energy efficient, shared multi-purpose spaces, security, community) with the advantages of modern construction (thermal/sound insulation, flexible/creative building material, airiness, lightness).
The State of Metropolitan America: Suburbs and the 2010 CensusThe combined growth rate for cities in the 100 largest metro areas dropped to a little more than half that from the prior decade. The aggregate picture obscures the continued strong relationship between city and suburban growth within metropolitan areas. cities and suburbs increasingly share common attributes, both across and within our major metro areas.
Traditional downtowns account for only one in five jobs in metro areas. By contrast, more than 45 percent of metropolitan jobs now lie at least 10 miles from the downtown core—outside the Beltway, if you will. Employment decentralization blurred the traditional economic distinctions between cities and suburbs; in doing that, it helped blur their demographic distinctions as more groups settled close to where the jobs are.
Affordable housing is suburbanizing, too. A mixture of policy changes like fair housing laws and subsidies for low-income homeownership, combined with the aging of suburban infrastructure, has made suburban housing more accommodating of racial and ethnic diversity. Nearly half of all voucher holders, and more than half of all rental units priced below HUD’s Fair Market Rents, are located in suburbs.
We need not an exclusively city or suburban perspective on the census, but rather a metropolitan approach to managing America’s continuing demographic transformation.To conclude, there’s not only an economic imperative to think and act more metropolitan in America, but also an emerging demographic basis for doing so. The 2010 Census shows that suburbs and cities share increasingly common attributes and associated challenges.
Areas with the fastest growth included suburbs of metropolitan areas in the South and West, such as the region around Orlando, Fla.; the "Research Triangle" area of North Carolina; the northern Virginia exurbs of Washington, D.C.; and the areas surrounding such cities as Las Vegas, Atlanta, and several cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin). As in previous decades, many rural areas lost population, including much of the Great Plains and northern and central Appalachia
Within metropolitan areas, most U.S. population growth during the past century has taken place in suburban areas, rather than central cities.
Stranded in suburbia: Why aren’t Americans moving to the city?Somewhere on the way back to the city, Americans got sidetracked.
Polling by the real estate advising firm RCLCO finds that 88 percent of Millenials want to live in cities. Their parents, the Baby Boomers, also express a burning desire to live in denser, less car-dependent settings. But in the past decade, many major cities saw population declines, and the overwhelming majority of population growth was in the suburbs. Methinks we may have jumped the gun on the whole collapse of the suburbs bit.
Listen, I don't mean to belabor this point. This is all just to say that the urban renaissance is not fait accompli. And that's why, in the coming months, I'll be exploring ways that we can nudge the great urban revival along. I'm going on the assumption that while Americans seem to have an ideal vision of urban living, the reality of it often fails to stack up to the fantasy. I also think that our discontent often fails to provide the motivation to change our less-than-ideal, but perfectly comfortable suburban way of living.
Users browsing this forum: Econ101 and 16 guests