[syn]

Hipster, I eschew suburbs like many a young urban planner, but this is not a dictatorship, and I cannot tell people what is a proper way for them to live.

This isn't an issue of telling people how to live. It's about public infrastructure. The suburbs are inefficient and wasteful. One can live a suburban lifestyle downtown if they choose to...but most don't simply because it doesn't make sense.

We need to redesign suburbs so that walking, public transit, etc. are viable options.

I'd also say we tell people how to live all the time. Almost everything we're allowed to do is regulated to some extent.

 

[salvius]

This isn't an issue of telling people how to live. It's about public infrastructure. The suburbs are inefficient and wasteful.

Public infrastructure, yes. But - if you tax the suburban infrastructure at such a rate as to cover maintenance costs, no problem. That's the direction many suburban municipalities are heading in. And suburban infrastructure is hardly unaffordable, unless you really space out development, which is not what is done in Ontario anyway. Planning for Ontario suburbs is, in fact, surprisingly good, if boring.

We need to redesign suburbs so that walking, public transit, etc. are viable options.

I agree. This, however, will take some time and will certainly not be up to the level of urbanity of our inner cities. Nor is that necessary.

I'd also say we tell people how to live all the time. Almost everything we're allowed to do is regulated to some extent.

Within limits. Obviously, there are regulations at play that you can't just buy a piece of agricultural land anywhere at any time and subdivide it into lots - there's clear consequences here that have to be carefully studied. But... that's different from telling over half the population that they no longer can live the lifestyle that they've chosen. It's not going to work. It's easy to get people on board for 'smart growth' as long as their lifestyle is not rocked too too much. So, again, I think the answer here is smarter suburbs - something that's being done. The idea that suburbs are done for, however, I fiercely challenge.

"The End of Suburbia and Economic Apocalypse" is merely another loony theory propagated by liberal urban elitists to further enhance their bottom line at the expense of the middle class. It is the new "cold war." These egomaniacs need to be ignored!

I don't think everything they say is insane, and I personally oppose suburbs as they are built if for no other reason than the fact that they are aesthetically ugly and completely uninspired. I think we can do better there, and there are some glimmers of hope.

But, I do wonder what the angle is here. I am far from subscribing to the anti-environment 'no global warming here' schools of thought, but I do think that some of it lies in the fact that the environmental movement has been able to effectively become a (relatively strong political force. Where there is politics, there is dishonesty. I do think a lot of (especially young) environmentalists who grew up in the suburbs - and who have well off parents - can be dangerous.

Some of the motives of, at least, some 'career' environmentalists have to be more deeply questioned. When Green Peace tells us that nuclear power is the worst thing in the world, that it means cancer for our children and another Chernobyl, and that it's unsustainable (note, for example, the utter dishonesty found here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379) we shouldn't just assume that because they've deemed themselves the protectors of the earth that we should follow everything they say, and that they are correct in their assumptions.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It should be remembered that Yorkville, Brockton, Parkdale, West Toronto, East Toronto, Swansea, Forest Hill, Leaside, North Toronto, New Toronto, Weston, Mimico, Long Branch, etc. were all suburbs of Toronto. However, they were better suburbs than what we got after World War II and the car oriented rules and by-laws that came along.

 

[spider]

Fwiw

As a long time taxpayer in North York let me point out that at the time of forced amalgamation with the old city of Toronto my municipality picked up my garbage twice a week instead of every second week and did it a hell of a cheaper than it costs me now in tax. I mention garbage collection only because it is easily compared. North York and other suburbs had money in the bank unlike the city. Slam the suburbs if you like, it is a culture thing, but it is not supported by the facts.

 

[LowPolygon]

^I agree. The thing I don't get is, who gives wingnuts like Kunstler a podium from which to speak? He just comes across as a tree-hugging, alarmist Marxist who makes Noam Chomsky seem reasonable because his ideas don't stand up to any kind of logic or empiricism.

His argument boils down to:

WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!! GET OUT NOW!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

a few questions:

please enlighten me as to which of Kunstler's arguments "don't stand up to any kind of logic or empiricism"?

also, in what ways do they fail to be logical or empirically grounded?

on a related note, a word of advice: You really need to hone your "dismissive arguing style" as it is dated beyond belief.

calling someone a "treehugger"?? also--uhm, a "marxist"?? Yikes, man, this makes you sound like Rip Van Coulter. Why don't you accuse him of trying to save the whales while you're at it.

if you're going to be stupid, its got to be up to the minute stupidity in order to grab the attention of busy people. there are a lot of stupid people out there vying for our attention, so you've got to be savvy.

for instance, don't you know that the latest in ignorant reactionary rhetoric would include:

"______ should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to _____, where it belongs."

get with it grandpa, you sound like you stopped reading newspapers in the Reagan era.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

for instance, don't you know that the latest in ignorant reactionary rhetoric would include:

"______ should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to _____, where it belongs."

get with it grandpa, you sound like you stopped reading newspapers in the Reagan era.

Ha, welcome to the 90s. "Tree-hugger" is certainly contemporary when you consider stuff like the fight to save that Oakville oak from a road widening (and that combination of environmental issues plus apple pie/main street nostalgia is pure Kunstler).

 

[urbandreamer]

Actually, Kunstler is the grandpa ... who needs to get with the times. He's a 1970's hippy. Probably smoked too much dope which makes him paranoid. And like those hippies, he's become part of the establishment.

The suburbs will continue to evolve; certainly, the urban plan must change to reflect a more compact footprint. That means more roads, but narrower roads; more commercial, but smaller lot sizes; more industrial, but less waste of land.

And, compared to automobiles, it is the subway car and lrt and public transit that have been the slowest to evolve.

Finally, the Chevy Volt will not change the world, but it may drive GM into bankruptcy....

 

[LowPolygon]

Actually, Kunstler is the grandpa ... who needs to get with the times. He's a 1970's hippy. Probably smoked too much dope which makes him paranoid. And like those hippies, he's become part of the establishment.

The suburbs will continue to evolve. Actually, compared to automobiles, it is the subway car and lrt and public transit that has been the slowest to evolve. The Volt will not change the world, but it may drive GM into bankruptcy....

what are these "times" that Kunstler needs to get with?
what is a "1970's hippy"? is this different from a "1960's hippy"?
also, which "establishment" is Kunstler part of?

 

[salvius]

a few questions:

please enlighten me as to which of Kunstler's arguments "don't stand up to any kind of logic or empiricism"?

I'll help here. Google "kunstler" and "dow." Even better, google "kunstler" and "Y2K." Kunstler has never met an end-of-the-society-as-we-know-it scenario he did not like.

His peak oil diatribe is similarly confused, this time not because we're not going to run out of (cheap) gas - we will - but because he's simply too stubborn to recognise that a) hydrocarbons from ancient animals is far from being the only fuel b) that alternate fuel challenges are less serious than he imagines them to be.

I'm going to put up just one example of his tired reasoning here, but it's as good as any:

"If we wish to keep the lights on in America after 2020, we may indeed have to resort to nuclear power, with all its practical problems and eco-conundrums. Under optimal conditions, it could take ten years to get a new generation of nuclear power plants into operation, and the price may be beyond our means."

Where to even start... Nuclear energy is relatively inexpensive, far away from being beyond means - just ask France. And if a country was serious about putting up reactors fast for a slight cost penalty, they certainly could do that too - just ask France. What exactly are the practical problems of nuclear? Kunstler doesn't tell us, because this is a mature technology. What eco-conundrum? The relatively trivial amount of waste produced and 'dangerous radioctivity' that has never killed anyone outside the Soviet zone?

Then we have a final piece of dishonesty:

" Uranium is also a resource in finite supply. We are no closer to the more difficult project of atomic fusion, by the way, than we were in the 1970s."

Uranium, coupled with Thorium - notice he does not mention it - is finite about in the same way as the lifespan of the sun if finite; we may as well forget about solar, we'll be running out of it... There's enough fissile material to go around, conservatively, for a long, long time (thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of years), even with expanding power demands.

The above was taken from:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

and the examples I give are but some of the many logical fallacies, inaccuracies, and outright disinformation paraded through the article.

 

[junctionist]

As a long time taxpayer in North York let me point out that at the time of forced amalgamation with the old city of Toronto my municipality picked up my garbage twice a week instead of every second week and did it a hell of a cheaper than it costs me now in tax. I mention garbage collection only because it is easily compared. North York and other suburbs had money in the bank unlike the city. Slam the suburbs if you like, it is a culture thing, but it is not supported by the facts.

The suburbs like North York didn't have to tax as much because the roads and sewers were either built or subsidized by the developer. As Toronto is an older city, there's more to repair and add than development fees could fund. Look at Mississauga, a municipality now raising taxes higher than the rate at which Toronto is raising taxes. All of that infrastructure now has to be rebuilt, and the city lacks the money, so taxes must be raised sharply.

The other financial problem is unfair downloading of social services. Toronto has traditionally been where the most social services where available, so the city was hit the hardest financially when the Harris government downloaded the various programs.

Those are facts. It's an unfair comparison.

 

[junctionist]

Obviously, there are regulations at play that you can't just buy a piece of agricultural land anywhere at any time and subdivide it into lots - there's clear consequences here that have to be carefully studied. But... that's different from telling over half the population that they no longer can live the lifestyle that they've chosen. It's not going to work. It's easy to get people on board for 'smart growth' as long as their lifestyle is not rocked too too much. So, again, I think the answer here is smarter suburbs - something that's being done. The idea that suburbs are done for, however, I fiercely challenge.

I agree, as I've mentioned before, the suburbs are going to stay. Some radical yet very easy new regulations could be added. These include the elimination of parking lots that meet the street, requiring entrances for pedestrians from the sidewalk, requiring a grid of streets, intensifying commercial use, and limiting the size of surface parking lots.

 

[Glen]

Public infrastructure, yes. But - if you tax the suburban infrastructure at such a rate as to cover maintenance costs, no problem. That's the direction many suburban municipalities are heading in. And suburban infrastructure is hardly unaffordable, unless you really space out development, which is not what is done in Ontario anyway. Planning for Ontario suburbs is, in fact, surprisingly good, if boring.

That is an important point that is generally dismissed. The suburbs are not much more expensive, from a municipal cost side, than urban centers. All one has to do is compare budgets of 905 cities to that of Toronto, the cost/person for relevant expenses, in-light of lower density, does not have much of an effect.

I don't think everything they say is insane, and I personally oppose suburbs as they are built if for no other reason than the fact that they are aesthetically ugly and completely uninspired. I think we can do better there, and there are some glimmers of hope.

I would love to have seen the developers marketing material for such developments..............

"Second Phase now selling, even uglier than the first"

 

[Glen]

Finally, the Chevy Volt will not change the world, but it may drive GM into bankruptcy....

Maybe, maybe not. What is most certain is that within a relatively short period of time, less than a generation?, the notion of a new car that 'burns' anything, will be laughable. The electrification of the automobile is inevitable. And using an ICE to power one will be equivalent to heating your house with a coal stove.

 

[LowPolygon]

I'll help here. Google "kunstler" and "dow." Even better, google "kunstler" and "Y2K." Kunstler has never met an end-of-the-society-as-we-know-it scenario he did not like.

His peak oil diatribe is similarly confused, this time not because we're not going to run out of (cheap) gas - we will - but because he's simply too stubborn to recognise that a) hydrocarbons from ancient animals is far from being the only fuel b) that alternate fuel challenges are less serious than he imagines them to be.

I'm going to put up just one example of his tired reasoning here, but it's as good as any:

"If we wish to keep the lights on in America after 2020, we may indeed have to resort to nuclear power, with all its practical problems and eco-conundrums. Under optimal conditions, it could take ten years to get a new generation of nuclear power plants into operation, and the price may be beyond our means."

Where to even start... Nuclear energy is relatively inexpensive, far away from being beyond means - just ask France. And if a country was serious about putting up reactors fast for a slight cost penalty, they certainly could do that too - just ask France. What exactly are the practical problems of nuclear? Kunstler doesn't tell us, because this is a mature technology. What eco-conundrum? The relatively trivial amount of waste produced and 'dangerous radioctivity' that has never killed anyone outside the Soviet zone?

Then we have a final piece of dishonesty:

" Uranium is also a resource in finite supply. We are no closer to the more difficult project of atomic fusion, by the way, than we were in the 1970s."

Uranium, coupled with Thorium - notice he does not mention it - is finite about in the same way as the lifespan of the sun if finite; we may as well forget about solar, we'll be running out of it... There's enough fissile material to go around, conservatively, for a long, long time (thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of years), even with expanding power demands.

The above was taken from:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

and the examples I give are but some of the many logical fallacies, inaccuracies, and outright disinformation paraded through the article.

That's what i like--someone who knows how to think! I appreciate that you know how to form an argument…

I agree that no one should read Kunstler without the awareness that 1) he has been at it a long time, and 2) has made over the top apocalypticism his stock in trade and 3)--most importantly--that "he has been wrong before".

This is basic ‘Shoot The Messenger 101” stuff and not all that interesting.

The larger issue is the belief of some that there is nothing that could ever disturb or disrupt our way of life. Kunstler is an alarmist. I think that’s the point. How else does one get the attention of people hooked not just on oil, but an idiotic optimism?

To continue to insist that alternatives fuels exist, that they are economically viable, that nuclear energy is cheap etc etc is to miss the point entirely.

The issue for people like Kunstler is not that alternatives exist (we all know they do)--but that there is VERY LITTLE REASON to believe that North American governments and corporations are ever going to have the wherewithal or the wisdom to meaningfully embrace those alternatives, and make the hard changes that are about to be forced on us.

The reason that people continue to believe that "everything will work out" is because North Americans are extraordinarily simpleminded when it comes to the understanding of history.

Unlike much of the rest of the world, we have no history of starvation and famine, of millions dead in wars fought on our soil, of ethnic cleansing, of genocide, we never had the Holocaust or the Plague.

We simply can’t imagine a world where change is forced on us, where a crisis becomes so large that it threatens our social fabric.

This is a tragic and fantastically deluded point of view. Its also incredibly arrogant: bad things always happen 'over there'--to people who don't look like us.

Food riots in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Indonesia, Egypt, and Haiti. Wow, what a drag for them…don’t they have Costco there?

Kunstler may be over the top, but the idea that North Americans are permanently immune from “really bad things happening” is a tragic misapprehension. To speak of our suburbs as if they will exist into all eternity, that “the suburbs will never end” just belies a vast ignorance of the history of civilization.

In the end the question is: What is the particular principle being enacted that definitively proves that the North American way of life is the ONE culture to be immune from the sweep of history?

 

[Glen]

The reason that people continue to believe that "everything will work out" is because North Americans are extraordinarily simpleminded when it comes to the understanding of history.

Unlike much of the rest of the world, we have no history of starvation and famine, of millions dead in wars fought on our soil, of ethnic cleansing, of genocide, we never had the Holocaust or the Plague.

We simply can’t imagine a world where change is forced on us, where a crisis becomes so large that it threatens our social fabric.

This is a tragic and fantastically deluded point of view. Its also incredibly arrogant: bad things always happen 'over there'--to people who don't look like us.

Food riots in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Indonesia, Egypt, and Haiti. Wow, what a drag for them…don’t they have Costco there?

Kunstler may be over the top, but the idea that North Americans are permanently immune from “really bad things happening†is a tragic misapprehension. To speak of our suburbs as if they will exist into all eternity, that “the suburbs will never end†just belies a vast ignorance of the history of civilization.

In the end the question is: What is the particular principle being enacted that definitively proves that the North American way of life is the ONE culture to be immune from the sweep of history?

If you are going to make such leaps, I will join you.

Those who choose the 'suburban' way of life have considered history. It is logical in times of major upheaval to be able to survive. A large detached home offer many benefits to that end. Being located in less dense areas with an independent HVAC system diminishes the likelihood of disease transmission. A large lot provides can be converted from lawn use to food production. A single family home would be less susceptible to fires compared to an apartment, when we are reduced to burning wood scarps and newspaper for heat.

Maybe suburbia is a product of awareness to some of the issues to which you speak.