RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
the270.com wrote
Ha ha ha, the suburbs are the new cool
By wyliemac | October 11, 2007
With all due respect to the Columbus Underground urban apologists, but you really ought to rethink your urbanery (i.e. urban snobbery). I know you don’t want to admit it. But the suburbs are cool. Need proof? Check out Detail’s “Is it time to move to the suburbs?”
So let’s think local. And for me, Dublin is local. We’ve got TehKu. We’ve got Corazón. We’ve got Old Dublin. We’ve got Giant Dancing Bunnies. And of course, we’ve got giant freakin Corn. Oh yea, we’ve got the Dublin Irish Festival.
Yea, we might not be a very walkable city. But we’ve got excellent bike paths. So please CU urban guys, stop putting the ‘burbs down. You know who you are.
Related Stories:
My personal take,
You’re going to be hearing a lot more about energy and resource shortages in the coming months and years. They won’t be temporary, and they will challenge us all to rethink, down to the most basic level, the ways in which we live and even survive.
Urban living, popular or not, is going to become much more the “necessary norm” for most people, as high density living and work arrangements, both probably in much smaller accomodations than what has been popular since the mid-1990s boom, will provide the best energy efficiency.
So therefore, in full reversal of a trend born at the end of WWII, people will be moving back into the central cities in droves, the greatest beneficiaries of this new trend being the “old guard” cities of the Midwest and Northeast (i.e. Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, New York, etc). Again, this won’t be driven so much by a sudden burning desire amongst the people, as it will be by the sheer necessity of the times. When water tables and taps in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Charlotte run dry, you can bet there is going to be major upheaval and population exodus from those recently most sought-after places.
But also oil and it’s availability, or lack thereof, is going to play a crucial factor in the seismic shift coming to the way in which we view our world. Americans may be willing to sacrifice virtually everything else to keep their cars running, but what happens if you just can’t get the fuel out of the pump in the first place?
When we arrive at this point, and I suspect that we will sooner than later, I wouldn’t bet against suburbs going the way of the Dodo bird. Oh sure, some will survive. But they’ll probably have to reorganize as farm towns, eco-communities, or something of the sort that doesn’t exclusively depend upon the automobile to drive its economy.
Most of the “old-guard” cities at least have some sort of non-gasoline-powered mass-transit option available, and they will benefit tremendously for it, in addition to the fact that they are often well-situated along major waterways and rail lines for supplies. Columbus could definitely use some momentum in getting some of those proposed light-rail lines up and running.
I think there’s general consensus that we’re going to have to rely less on *oil.*
The question is if that necessarily means we’re going to have to rely less on *energy.*
Very, very different concepts.
But also oil and it’s availability, or lack thereof, is going to play a crucial factor in the seismic shift coming to the way in which we view our world. Americans may be willing to sacrifice virtually everything else to keep their cars running, but what happens if you just can’t get the fuel out of the pump in the first place?
Most of the “old-guard” cities at least have some sort of non-gasoline-powered mass-transit option available, and they will benefit tremendously for it, in addition to the fact that they are often well-situated along major waterways and rail lines for supplies. Columbus could definitely use some momentum in getting some of those proposed light-rail lines up and running.
Okay, so there’s no fuel at the pumps. How do goods get transported to, lets say a Grocery store? Everything is currently shipped via truck.
Aren’t all the transportation options that are well-situated along major waterways and rail lines still dependent on oil / diesel?
But also oil and it’s availability, or lack thereof, is going to play a crucial factor in the seismic shift coming to the way in which we view our world. Americans may be willing to sacrifice virtually everything else to keep their cars running, but what happens if you just can’t get the fuel out of the pump in the first place?
Most of the “old-guard” cities at least have some sort of non-gasoline-powered mass-transit option available, and they will benefit tremendously for it, in addition to the fact that they are often well-situated along major waterways and rail lines for supplies. Columbus could definitely use some momentum in getting some of those proposed light-rail lines up and running.
Okay, so there’s no fuel at the pumps. How do goods get transported to, lets say a Grocery store? Everything is currently shipped via truck.
Aren’t all the transportation options that are well-situated along major waterways and rail lines still dependent on oil / diesel?
I think the point is more metaphorical in that at some point, you will refuse to pay the cost of getting fuel from the pump. The theory would be that you as a consumer have the least purchasing power when it comes to fuel because at best you represent yourself and maybe a family. Large companies that move massive amounts of goods can take the pain in the rise of resource prices due to shortages much more easily than you can because they can pass some of that on to you, some they can absorb in lower profits or reducing expenses elsewhere. Now, you or I can only absorb so much pain at the pump before we are going to curtail our activities that rely on said resource. That would leave more fuel for transportation of goods and services (though we might see a decrease in certain goods from faraway locales), but decidedly less for consumers because they won’t want to pay the price to have it.
You can move goods and services by methods other than fossil fuels, for example we’ve been fielding nuclear submarines for decades, so it’s not as if it wouldn’t be possible.
^^^ The same can be said about cars. Why can’t cars run on some other energy source? We can already plug in our cars. If car companies were forced to consider fuel consumption and find alternate means of power than more progress can be made. (See our federal gov’t can do more to be “green”)
I think oil production is long from over considering the untapped regions yet to be discovered. More likely Atlanta’s water reserves running dry will happen before any oil runs dry.
If the pumps ran dry within the year, I wouldn’t be moving into the central city. Quite the opposite, I will move to a farm in Holmes Co. and be living among the Amish and work at home (telecommuting). Want to stay clear of any urban areas when riots break out due to the following:
Goods, even more today than 10 years ago require road transport. Everything you shop for will skyrocket considering a lot of the U.S. manufacturing is in foreign countries and how is farm (rural) goods going to get to you. Long distance = large cost to transport goods.
Any area that requires large amount of imported goods would suffer.
Do you honestly think we are in danger of running out of oil? From the different stories I have read in Newsweek, Time, etc over the last few years, it seems there are many untapped places for oil in the world, the problem is more the shortage of refineries. New ones aren’t being buildt when the old ones catch on fire or close down. I think that the more serious question is why hasn’t the US built any new oil refineries since the 70s…
lots of geologists seem to think its a possibilty. The question should not benecessarily how much oil is left, it should be how difficult is it to extract.
I don’t think we’re gonna run out of oil in this decade, or the next really, but I think that as demand continues to rise and the totally quantity of oil decreases there are serious issue that need to be looked at. I think the number one issue is efficiency of energy use. Yes, moving goods is important. Doing so on trains is generally relatively energy efficient for moving things long distances, where as truck transport is pretty poor.
Air Travel is another area that needs to be considered. Air travel is the fastest method of travel currently in the conuntry. It is also ridiculously energy constly (ever think about how much energy it takes to get a big plane into the air…..alot of jet fuel). For long trips, I don’t think there are really any good substitutes, but for short trips (>300 miles), there are less energy costing ways (rail) to get there in similar lengths of time. Unfortunately, these aren’t even options under our current tranpo network.
It all comes down to how we look at the idea of efficiency. Are speed and flexability more important than energy use/fuel consumption? This is where choices need to be made.
We are never going to run out, but I think it will be over 100$ a barrel in less than a year?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
This thread has touched on transportation issues as how they relate to living and working in suburbia vs. downtown-ish. It made me think about this.
All indications are that we’re going to get some street cars in the downtown area. It has often been suggested that this is just the first step in a wider mass transit system for the metro area.
If this grand vision comes to pass, does anyone think that this will be a boom for suburbia? Won’t light rail encourage more sprawl? I’m generally agnostic about urban v. suburb, but I think that light rail would be an advantage for the suburbanite, and would add to the “cool” factor that was the original point of this thread.
We are never going to run out, but I think it will be over 100$ a barrel in less than a year?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Interesting line from that wiki page:
Once oil goes high and stays high, seems we can get all the oil we’re going to need.
All indications are that we’re going to get some street cars in the downtown area. It has often been suggested that this is just the first step in a wider mass transit system for the metro area.
If this grand vision comes to pass, does anyone think that this will be a boom for suburbia? Won’t light rail encourage more sprawl? I’m generally agnostic about urban v. suburb, but I think that light rail would be an advantage for the suburbanite, and would add to the “cool” factor that was the original point of this thread.
I think it will make the suburbs cool, in so much as they will be better connected to the urban core where you will find musuems and sports and concerts and a crap load of jobs.
Lightrail will benefit the suburbs especially if people can subscribe to the “Park and ride” idea.
Actually, looking at other cities, it can actually bifurcate the suburbs, somewhat. You’ll see “off route” and “on route” suburbs. For example, the Washington, D.C. Metro goes well out into suburban neighborhoods, but the D.C. suburbs extend far, far beyond the current western teminus of the Metro. Even if the new line to Dulles Airport (which lies out in the western suburbs) gets finished, the suburbs will have pushed beyond even there by then.
In the New York area, you could even break suburbs down into three tiers, not just two: those served by local trains (NY Metro), those served by regional rail (LIRR, etc.), and those served by neither.
In Columbus, even with a very dense light rail network (one that would cost many times as much as any plausible budget we’ll have), the outer spokes of the wheel would probably be Polaris, Easton, Rickenbacker, etc.–all of which would still have development beyond them at this point. You’d have to connect all six capitals of the counties around Franklin (Delaware, Marysville, London, Circleville, Lancaster, Newark) and have a complete all-of-MORPC rail network to actually leapfrog the burbs at this point.
Just thought I’d follow up the six-month anniversary of this declaration with a link to a story in today’s Dispatch:
Will the exodus to the hinterlands run out of gas?
If we define “cool†as something new and hip that the general public has not quite caught on to yet, but will soon become commonplace… then no, the suburbs are not cool.
If suburban sprawl is indeed on it’s way out with rising gas prices, then I think that makes it the exact opposite of cool.
Will the exodus to the hinterlands run out of gas?
If we define “cool†as something new and hip that the general public has not quite caught on to yet, but will soon become commonplace… then no, the suburbs are not cool.
If suburban sprawl is indeed on it’s way out with rising gas prices, then I think that makes it the exact opposite of cool.
Agreed….When I read the title I almost flipped out, now that I read Walkers post, I am comforted in my strong beleif that the suburbs are a nemesis to building strong downtown economy. I really dread going any further north than Clintonville unless it is to go to Alum Creek Dam to run stairs or to Highbanks or the Observatory or Bent Tree golf course–destination spots that have been enveloped by the sprawl.
I wonder how cool Dublin would seem if Columbus never existed at all? Or worse, if urban Columbus deteriorated to the point it resembled Detroit? I understand why people live in suburbs. I don’t understand why they think suburbs are immune from the problems of the central city.
And Upper Arlington, Bexley and Grandview are a hundred times cooler than Dublin… freakin’ nouveau riche!
(that was my response on the 270… didn’t realize I was 6 months late to the party :wink: )
And Upper Arlington, Bexley and Grandview are a hundred times cooler than Dublin… freakin’ nouveau riche!
How many roundabouts and multi-million $ concrete corn fields do these burbs have???? Huh? Thats what I thought. DCHS 4 Life :wink:
i just read every post here as i sit in my lewis center front room. we live in the burbs because when we moved back here, we really wanted a great school for the boy. it totally sucked at first. the schools here (olentangy) are excellent. so we stayed.
my husband works 7 minutes away. we spend about 35 per week on gas. i think that’s pretty good. i love clintonville and the short north and all that. but i also love knowing that if my kid is starting to slide, even a little, in school, i get an email right away from his teacher to check on him.
so whatever floats your boat. though i would love to go to studio 35 more often but i don’t want to pay for the gas!!
Schools in Bexley, UA and Grandview are miles closer to downtown and much higher rankings than Olentangy. Also, if you lived downtown you could send your child to one of the best schools ever until the 8th grade, St. Joseph’s Montessori. I am so thankful to be out of the burbs….I think there is a link to suburbs and increased the divorce rates.
I just looked at the website for St. Joseph’s as I hope to have my daughter fulltime by next school year, and I must put her in catholic school, but jesus christ 7500 a year. I went to catholic school my entire life almost, and not even my high school was 7500 it was around half of that, oh how times have changed. Ok, just looked up the tuition at my old high school, it is 4250. Not bad actuall.