The BEST Post-Peak U.S. Locations Thread

mmasters

I think there's quite a lot of people on the board that aren't living in the best places and are thinking of relocation so best we all gang up and hash it out.

So on that note:

Where are the best places to relocate in the US for the future (all things considered)?

Here is the general criteria I can think of to base a decision off of. This criteria can of course be debated and furthered but the end goal is to deduce places that are relative best fits.

Location Criteria:

1) Locality of Natural Resources: Water, Agriculture, Livestock.

2) Someplace where the weather is not a big issue. No hurricanes, freezing winters, 120 degree summers, etc...

3) Not near any "mega" cities/suburbias: NYC, LA, etc...

4) Away from military bases.

5) People are educated or somewhat educated.

6) Not out in the middle of nowhere or a completely rural area.

____________________________________________________

Personally, I currently live in New York City.

I really don't think this isn't going to be the best place to live post peak.

The infrastructure of the city requires a massive amount of energy to keep in motion, dependency on material goods is high, everything is imported and the population is huge. Even basic resources here are at a premium relative to most other places.

Although in the short-term it isn't a bad place to be considering the lack of need for a car, however given enough time the rising cost of goods here will outweigh this I am sure.

So anyways a few years down the road I'm going to have to get out.

bonjaski · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 07, 2006 Posts: 135

The infrastructure of the city requires a massive amount of energy to keep in motion, dependency on material goods is high, everything is imported and the population is huge. Even basic resources here are at a premium relative to most other places.

hm no, i don't think so

since lquid fuel is our main problem,
i think its better to live in a megacity

you still will have all your comfort,

transport of food to the city could be optimized

there is no need for cars in a megacity, at least not here in Europe, so no need for liquid fuel;

and also transport from one mega city to an other megacity could be optimized;

i think the main problem of USA are all those spread little cities that demand travelling over long distances;

and what is a megacity? over 1-200.000 citizens?

pstarr

I have said this several times on these boards: there is no "best" place to be post-peak. This is not a Fortune Magazine "Best Places" competition. An area that seems okay might on inspection turn out all wrong. And a place you wouldn't consider surprise you.

You must understand an essential consequence of oil depletion: Localization of agriculture, resources, production, nutrient and energy cycling, economy, consequence, and chaos will change the rules completely. We will see a spacial miniaturization of cause and effect. Entire regions will fragment and local climate, topography, demographics, and especially transportion systems become paramount.

In another words, local community characteristics become important. I would not want to be in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn or anywhere on Long Island. On the other hand Manattan is wealthy and defensible (connected to the poor areas of the city by only a half dozen bridges and several tunnels) And it is connected by major rail lines and barge (very cheap forms of transportation) to the breadbaskets of the United States.

The same goes for suburban areas: some are good, some are bad all over the US. Those folks who have open arable land, year-round water, proximitry to public transportation systems, and public services and security will be better of than those stuck exurban vacations communities, ranchettes, farmettes, etc. with no one around to help, no public transportation, no local agriculture community.

The best off: Small towns in rural, rich agriculture areas (not dry prairies states) near railroad or navigatable water ways, and within striking distance of big cities for industrial supplies.
_________________
director

ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap wav

MattSavinar · Elite Joined: May 09, 2004 Posts: 1990

MattSavinar · Elite Joined: May 09, 2004 Posts: 1990

pstarr

coyote

I think I'm probably in one of the very worst places right now: San Diego county. Absolute water trap, low culture, ridiculous sprawl, no public transportation to speak of. Oh, there's the trolley that goes down the coast but that's about it.

I think one of the biggest factors is: where are there people you know, and can rely on? My first choice is the Pacific Northwest (no surprise there), but I'm also seriously considering Nashville, because I have a lot of good family there, and land is considerably more affordable than it is here on the Pacific. Nice town.
_________________
"If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy

pstarr

I don't know. Anywhere in coastal Calif. is pleasant and near the Central Valley for an endless supply of food and water. Why are you picking on San Diego? For a postpeak crap hole consider Las Vegas, Houston, or Miami. Most of the buildings in these cities will be uninhabitable without cheap airconditioning. For that matter consider Detroit or Houston or LA or Boston or all of Long Island Shocked

_________________
director

ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap wav

coyote

mmasters · Last edited by mmasters on Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

LadyRuby

mmasters

LadyRuby

coyote · Last edited by coyote on Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

thuja

Being an Oregonian I can say that Ashland is a beautiful place...but the prices are incredibly high for housing and there are serious water shortage problems looming. Once you get south of Eugene, you've got more drout and H20 shortage problems to contend with. Shasta area is great- the prices for homes are less and you have timber and more water; but man its far away from anything and what do you do for a living? Especially when the economy really tanks.

Here's a few of my top picks--- Eugene, Astoria, Hood River, Olympia, Bellingham, Port Angeles and parts of the Willamette Valley- Woodburn, Salem, etc. These are all moderately sized towns that have sufficient rainfall, timber for building and heat, hydroelectric power and a generally liberal outlook and good homegrown pot that makes people a little more mellow and community oriented around these parts.

So Peak Oil Californians with equity-- Sell up and buy a nice home for 2-300,000 in any of those towns. Downsize, cut the credit cards and grow some veg in that backyard. Life is good here. But don't tell your friends about it...lol