CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
Of course fires never hit the suburbs.
"S. California fires destroy hundreds of homes"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21405632/
|
|
|
- Thread starter Blixtein
- Start date
Of course fires never hit the suburbs.
"S. California fires destroy hundreds of homes"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21405632/
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Which would be better?
What's worse, is that if you do use transit (because you have a MetroPass) to get to the big box store, the entrance is nowhere near the transit stop. It's 180° around the single story giant building, on the other side. Now imagine, its winter.
You need an anchor for a screw. So you walk down to your neighbourhood hardware store, put down a few coins, and walk home.
Or, hop into your car, drive a few kilometres to the big box store, search the aisles, put down a few coins, and drive home. In the process, you use more gasoline than the item you purchased.
(And you can't get a lone anchor. You have to buy a box of anchors and screws, but you only wanted an lousy anchor!)Or, hop into your car, drive a few kilometres to the big box store, search the aisles, put down a few coins, and drive home. In the process, you use more gasoline than the item you purchased.
What's worse, is that if you do use transit (because you have a MetroPass) to get to the big box store, the entrance is nowhere near the transit stop. It's 180° around the single story giant building, on the other side. Now imagine, its winter.
syn
Senior Member
Do you have any numbers? I'm curious to see them.
LowPolygon
Senior Member
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.
i only wish that people were as handy and intrepid as you suggest...
i suspect most suburban dwellers will be absolutely helpless in the face of a social calamity...
urbandreamer
recession proof
If Kunstler has his way, and Deepend is right, I see mass conversion to the Amish!
(Btw, been there done that
(Btw, been there done that
salvius
Active Member
I do believe it's important to call him out on the fact that he is a armchair layman whose predictions tend to fizzle out. Now:
I think idiotic pessimism is every bit as damaging. Terrorists, mad cow, bird flu, crime, etc. I'd say we are told to fear for out lives and our way of living every second day. Any challenge that Canada is going to face is probably going to be fairly unpredictable.
We may all die out in a nuclear holocaust in the next few decades - it's entirely conceivable. I'm not sure what that sort of thinking achieves, though. As far as I can see, we're far from sitting still in regards to our current challenge. Sooner or later, something bad will happen - though I don't think we'll all wither away to dust - but what is the point of relishing this?
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Ahh, but SARS broke out in suburbia. Suburban lot sizes in 416 and 905 Toronto (except for precious few executive/estate tracts) are not big enough to feed people (parkland could be converted to pastures or grain fields but I have no interest in doing the math needed to see if it'd work). And remember all the house fires in Quebec during the Ice Storm when everyone started using fireplaces and candles?
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Deepend, I'm definitely on your side of this debate, but [North] Americans have been caught in the sweep of history before, and, astoundingly the most visible symbol of that is the automobile suburb.
I mean, in 1955, how many of the predominantly Jewish and Italian residents of the South Bronx could ever imagine that their neighbourhood would look like this in fifteen years?
The most astounding thing is that this wasn't the result of a war or famine or a greater economic collapse, but entirely self-inflicted.
If history rhymes, I don't think it's hard to imagine Americans retreating from suburbia in a similarly-scaled diaspora whether for energy or social/demographic reasons.
Glen
Senior Member
Toronto has yet to post there latest data so we must rely on 2006 FIR data. Compare Toronto's expense to that of Mississauga as a lower tier municipality combined with Peel as the upper tier.
Toronto
Misssissauga
Peel
2006 budgets: Toronto Mississauga
examples,
Admin hours per resident: Toronto 3.208 Mississauga/Peel 3.23
Fire Dept. hours per resident: Toronto 2.59 Mississauga/Peel 2.08
Fire Dept. cost per res: Toronto $120 Mississauga $122
Police : Toronto 1 per 355 residents Mississauga/Peel 1 per 490 residents
Transportation : Toronto $108 per resident Mississauga $303 per resident
The two areas that will be affected most by density are transportation and solid waste management. Both of which are not very large expenses. I will concede that it is difficult to make like for like comparisons, the point I am making is that within reason, suburban areas can be as financially as viable as large urban centres. Of course for public transportation this would not be the case, but the increased cost of vehicle ownership can be offset by lower housing cost. Furthermore the savings from not supporting the TTC $394 per resident, which omits fare recovery and capital expenditures.
If anyone wants to take a stab at expensing sprawl from a municipal standpoint be my guest.
adma
Superstar
Well, in due time, the suburbs themselves'll be a great place to go for a screw. All those McMansions-turned brothels, y'know. (Poetic justice, given the aesthetics involved.)
Archivist
Senior Member
Oil has us under a barrel, and we're not getting up
It's not cyclical or speculation - it's the end of an era
MICHAEL WARREN
Globe and Mail: June 24, 2008
The Age of Abundance is over. It started its decline when crude oil careered through $80 a barrel last year. Most of us were too busy enjoying the late-summer weather to notice. Crude oil has more than doubled in price over the past 12 months, and every other form of energy is following suit.
The economies of the Western world have been built on the availability of relatively cheap energy. If oil and natural-gas prices remain where they are or higher, it will have a devastating impact on our consumer-driven standard of life.
But before we go there, let's consider the arguments advanced by the optimists.
An investment analyst I know often says, "The cure for high prices is high prices." He asserts that all commodities are cyclical, including oil. They all react the same way. When prices get too high, we find ways to use them more efficiently or we find substitutes.
Two years ago, when oil was trading at $60 a barrel, he and many others were convinced that the price wouldn't go any higher than $80. Today, with the price pushing $140, he argues that his thesis is still correct - it's just taking a little longer to materialize.
My analyst friend is not alone. Last week, the chief economist of National Bank Financial said oil should fall back to the $80 range over the next couple of years. He argues that the current price is being driven largely by speculators - the bubble is bound to burst.
I don't think so. There is growing evidence that oil is skyrocketing in direct response to the basic laws of supply and demand. China, Russia, India, Brazil and many other emerging economies are fuelling their own growth with oil, just as the West has for the past century. Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets maintains that this new demand is "more than making up for the price-induced drop in consumption in North America, Europe and Japan."
He also minimizes the role of speculation: "Even if speculators took physical delivery of all the future oil contracts they have bought over the last five years, it would only divert from the market about a fifth of the new oil demand from China during that period."
And world oil inventories have remained within their long-term average. So this seems to rule out hoarding as a reason for the unprecedented price rise.
Oil permeates our lives. It's in the roads we drive on and the roofs over our heads. We wrap our houses and our food in it. We walk on it, sit on it and wear it. When it's refined into gasoline, it is the most efficient and portable form of energy we have yet discovered.
The optimists are wrong. It is not like any other commodity. And the market is simply reflecting our gluttonous dependency.
Energy costs have risen so fast that we can only guess at what it will mean for our future way of life. But the early signs are everywhere.
There are daily news reports about escalating gasoline prices. A recent survey shows that 53 per cent of Canadians have already begun to change their transportation habits. Gasoline theft is becoming commonplace.
The era of cheap world air travel is likely over. The airline industry is in free-fall. Food prices are rising, largely due to transportation costs. Year-round fresh fruit is destined to be a luxury. Suburban homes that require long commutes and two cars are already losing value.
Marine shipping costs have reportedly jumped 72 per cent since last year. Our material standard of living depends on the affordable movement of goods.
Don't be surprised to see the price of imported clothes, electronics and many other staples start to climb. Some analysts are already forecasting the demise of discount chains, such as Wal-Mart, that source most of their merchandise from countries that are thousands of expensive kilometres from their major markets.
Everything to do with tourism will suffer. Instead of going on vacations, more of us will be taking "stay-cations," learning to enjoy what our own communities have to offer, whether we want to or not.
Inflation, which has been under control for nearly two decades, is showing signs of raising its ugly head again. Interest rates are bound to follow, and people on fixed incomes at or below the poverty line will be hit the hardest. They still have to eat, heat their homes and fuel their cars.
There may be a few upsides to this scenario, but not many. As the cost of imports rise, more of what we buy may be grown and manufactured closer to home. These goods will be more expensive, but they will help to create domestic jobs. More walking and cycling certainly won't hurt our health. And not having access to those tasteless, hard tomatoes every winter won't be much of a sacrifice.
If soaring costs slow consumption of carbon-based fuels, then maybe the environment will be an early beneficiary. We might even begin to see serious efforts in Canada to develop more dense, energy efficient cities that take greater advantage of existing infrastructure.
Overall, however, this not good news. Economic suffering on a large scale has already begun, and most governments, including our own, seem oblivious to the impact of runaway energy costs and the burden they will place on the most vulnerable in our society.
Before long, this will become the political issue that trumps all others.
Michael Warren is chairman of The Warren Group Inc. and a former Ontario deputy minister, chief general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission and CEO and president of Canada Post Corp.
------------------------
A good enough column - but I do wish that articles like this pointed out that world oil production has been flat since the middle of 2005, neither rising much, nor decreasing much, but essentially just bobbling along. Every few years, the Saudis announce major increases in the oil they will produce, and have not since 2004 met their stated targets. Yet the media report this with a kind of breathless "it will be the most they produced since 1981!". They also don't report that production does not equal exports, Saudia Arabia and the UAE have realized that they better build their own economies and that's requiring a LOT of oil (as is their increased population), so they are exporting less than they used to. I've been to Dubai, and you literally do not cross the street without a car - in the cooler time of the year!
It's not cyclical or speculation - it's the end of an era
MICHAEL WARREN
Globe and Mail: June 24, 2008
The Age of Abundance is over. It started its decline when crude oil careered through $80 a barrel last year. Most of us were too busy enjoying the late-summer weather to notice. Crude oil has more than doubled in price over the past 12 months, and every other form of energy is following suit.
The economies of the Western world have been built on the availability of relatively cheap energy. If oil and natural-gas prices remain where they are or higher, it will have a devastating impact on our consumer-driven standard of life.
But before we go there, let's consider the arguments advanced by the optimists.
An investment analyst I know often says, "The cure for high prices is high prices." He asserts that all commodities are cyclical, including oil. They all react the same way. When prices get too high, we find ways to use them more efficiently or we find substitutes.
Two years ago, when oil was trading at $60 a barrel, he and many others were convinced that the price wouldn't go any higher than $80. Today, with the price pushing $140, he argues that his thesis is still correct - it's just taking a little longer to materialize.
My analyst friend is not alone. Last week, the chief economist of National Bank Financial said oil should fall back to the $80 range over the next couple of years. He argues that the current price is being driven largely by speculators - the bubble is bound to burst.
I don't think so. There is growing evidence that oil is skyrocketing in direct response to the basic laws of supply and demand. China, Russia, India, Brazil and many other emerging economies are fuelling their own growth with oil, just as the West has for the past century. Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets maintains that this new demand is "more than making up for the price-induced drop in consumption in North America, Europe and Japan."
He also minimizes the role of speculation: "Even if speculators took physical delivery of all the future oil contracts they have bought over the last five years, it would only divert from the market about a fifth of the new oil demand from China during that period."
And world oil inventories have remained within their long-term average. So this seems to rule out hoarding as a reason for the unprecedented price rise.
Oil permeates our lives. It's in the roads we drive on and the roofs over our heads. We wrap our houses and our food in it. We walk on it, sit on it and wear it. When it's refined into gasoline, it is the most efficient and portable form of energy we have yet discovered.
The optimists are wrong. It is not like any other commodity. And the market is simply reflecting our gluttonous dependency.
Energy costs have risen so fast that we can only guess at what it will mean for our future way of life. But the early signs are everywhere.
There are daily news reports about escalating gasoline prices. A recent survey shows that 53 per cent of Canadians have already begun to change their transportation habits. Gasoline theft is becoming commonplace.
The era of cheap world air travel is likely over. The airline industry is in free-fall. Food prices are rising, largely due to transportation costs. Year-round fresh fruit is destined to be a luxury. Suburban homes that require long commutes and two cars are already losing value.
Marine shipping costs have reportedly jumped 72 per cent since last year. Our material standard of living depends on the affordable movement of goods.
Don't be surprised to see the price of imported clothes, electronics and many other staples start to climb. Some analysts are already forecasting the demise of discount chains, such as Wal-Mart, that source most of their merchandise from countries that are thousands of expensive kilometres from their major markets.
Everything to do with tourism will suffer. Instead of going on vacations, more of us will be taking "stay-cations," learning to enjoy what our own communities have to offer, whether we want to or not.
Inflation, which has been under control for nearly two decades, is showing signs of raising its ugly head again. Interest rates are bound to follow, and people on fixed incomes at or below the poverty line will be hit the hardest. They still have to eat, heat their homes and fuel their cars.
There may be a few upsides to this scenario, but not many. As the cost of imports rise, more of what we buy may be grown and manufactured closer to home. These goods will be more expensive, but they will help to create domestic jobs. More walking and cycling certainly won't hurt our health. And not having access to those tasteless, hard tomatoes every winter won't be much of a sacrifice.
If soaring costs slow consumption of carbon-based fuels, then maybe the environment will be an early beneficiary. We might even begin to see serious efforts in Canada to develop more dense, energy efficient cities that take greater advantage of existing infrastructure.
Overall, however, this not good news. Economic suffering on a large scale has already begun, and most governments, including our own, seem oblivious to the impact of runaway energy costs and the burden they will place on the most vulnerable in our society.
Before long, this will become the political issue that trumps all others.
Michael Warren is chairman of The Warren Group Inc. and a former Ontario deputy minister, chief general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission and CEO and president of Canada Post Corp.
------------------------
A good enough column - but I do wish that articles like this pointed out that world oil production has been flat since the middle of 2005, neither rising much, nor decreasing much, but essentially just bobbling along. Every few years, the Saudis announce major increases in the oil they will produce, and have not since 2004 met their stated targets. Yet the media report this with a kind of breathless "it will be the most they produced since 1981!". They also don't report that production does not equal exports, Saudia Arabia and the UAE have realized that they better build their own economies and that's requiring a LOT of oil (as is their increased population), so they are exporting less than they used to. I've been to Dubai, and you literally do not cross the street without a car - in the cooler time of the year!
urbandreamer
recession proof
Once again, like Kunstler, Warren is using his position in the media to influence people. Meanwhile, the reality: neither of them know what they're talking about!
The price of oil will fall, much like the real estate market falls, Google stock falls, everything goes up and down. Let's see where the price of oil is in 2012.
The price of oil will fall, much like the real estate market falls, Google stock falls, everything goes up and down. Let's see where the price of oil is in 2012.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The price of oil will fall, much like the real estate market falls, Google stock falls, everything goes up and down. Let's see where the price of oil is in 2012.
Except that oil is not renewable.
While food prices go up, new food plants could be planted to replace the food used. However, once the oil is used, you have to explore and look for new oil fields, and there is only finite places to look. That is why the price of oil is going up, we're using it up.
Archivist
Senior Member
What I find interesting about Urbandreamer's post (and the many other comments that I hear that resemble it) is the unqualified belief in market mechanisms that they reveal. The kind of attitude that blithely compares a non-renewable resource like oil with a service like google, while calmly asserting that those that feel differently don't know what they are talking about, can really only arise from a perfect belief system, and that system is the market mechanism. I think we live in an age that is no less ideological than the US in 1955.
While the market can do many things very well, it has no mechanism, no trigger that would cope with a non-renewable resource. That's why urbandreamer's comment is actually interesting, there is no frame of reference for him to understand what is happening with oil, therefore, anyone who indicates anything different from his preconceived reality must be grossly mistaken.
Oil has much more in common with cod than with google (in fact, cod in theory are quite a bit more renewable than oil), and the comparison between the two is laughable and below comment.
While the market can do many things very well, it has no mechanism, no trigger that would cope with a non-renewable resource. That's why urbandreamer's comment is actually interesting, there is no frame of reference for him to understand what is happening with oil, therefore, anyone who indicates anything different from his preconceived reality must be grossly mistaken.
Oil has much more in common with cod than with google (in fact, cod in theory are quite a bit more renewable than oil), and the comparison between the two is laughable and below comment.
urbandreamer
recession proof
No, what I am saying is like gold and uranium last year, oil today is being driven upwards by speculators. In an ideal market, without hype and speculation, oil would be perhaps at $90/barrel right now. So like Google, or gold, or whatever is trendy at the moment, hedgefunds are taking advantage of the hype, the fear, the average investor and driving up the price of oil. It has gone up too fast; are you ready to short it down?
And yes, I believe in technicals, not fundamentals. Technically, oil is overpriced. Fundamentally, it is at the peak for this cycle, because consumers are rapidly switching to more efficient cars, etc.
Long term, oil will go up. But, by the time we're at $1000/barrel, the air car will be popular....
And yes, I believe in technicals, not fundamentals. Technically, oil is overpriced. Fundamentally, it is at the peak for this cycle, because consumers are rapidly switching to more efficient cars, etc.
Long term, oil will go up. But, by the time we're at $1000/barrel, the air car will be popular....