Suburbia, the next slum? (Chicago, Barrington: purchases, school, vouchers)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by rockinrolla

Incidentally, about your established infrastructure point, what do you think would happen to it if it now had to support all them outlying suburbanites forced back towards the city? Hello, marked increased use equates to marked increase in wear and tear, equating to marked increase in co$t$ that need to be paid for increased upgrade/upkeep.

I'm assuming you understand that people require infrastructure (and cause wear and tear on said infrastructure) whether they live in the sticks or in the city. The difference is that infrastructure can be built more efficiently (per capita) when density is greater. Furthermore, there's a lot of underutilized/abandoned infrastructure in established urban areas.

[rockinrolla]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

I'm assuming you understand that people require infrastructure (and cause wear and tear on said infrastructure) whether they live in the sticks or in the city. The difference is that infrastructure can be built more efficiently (per capita) when density is greater. Furthermore, there's a lot of underutilized/abandoned infrastructure in established urban areas.

It's elemental my dear doctor watson, wear and tear is greatest where the population is concentrated most. Hence, example, euclid road in palatine will probably see twice (and then some) the life of, say, western ave in bucktown.

But ok, if we're talking about efficient per capita use of infrastructure, yes, fine, it's most efficient where density is greatest. So? It's more efficient to house people in apartment blocks as opposed to single family homes. And really, it's even yet more efficient to room families in one room apartments that share bathrooms and kitchens with other families. They did it in the soviet union...my mom lived for years like that until her parents were finally granted a private apartment.

No thanks.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by rockinrolla

Subsidized farming, meaning, there's too much of it. More crops are being grown, faster than ever, utilizing land more efficiently. Hence, it's a saturated industry, that equates to a smaller profit for anyone other than big farms that produce in bulk (by farm standards). Consequently, save for niche markets like organics and such, going going gone are the days of the small family farms, who increasingly rely on those subsidies to stay afloat.

In other words, nobody is "destroying all of our farm land". There's merely a surplus of it, put on sale by their rightful owners, which in turn gets bought out, and developed into DESIRED communities, which, regardless of your perceptions, are not any more subsidized than the city.

Incidentally, about your established infrastructure point, what do you think would happen to it if it now had to support all them outlying suburbanites forced back towards the city? Hello, marked increased use equates to marked increase in wear and tear, equating to marked increase in co$t$ that need to be paid for increased upgrade/upkeep.

Ignoring the short sightedness of that view, two things need to exist in order for these communities to be desired. First, highways have to be built to connect them to job centers. Thus far, there's been no shortage of political willingness to do so, regardless of how ridiculous the project has been. The State recently spent $730 million to build a 12 mile extension onto I-355. The (few) communities which benefitted only contributed something like $20 million. I'm still scratching my head over that one. We could have done a lot of upgrades to the CTA rail system with that money, and it would have benefitted a lot more people.

Fuel also needs to be cheap enough so that it's cost effective to drive from point A to point B -- which you have to do a lot in most exburbs because few are walkable. When we lose that key ingredient to exburb desirability, something is going to need to be done. They still have to be connected.

Nothing against the exburbs but I don't want to be footing the bill when we have to come up with another way for their residents to get around. It will be more efficient to shift focus to adaptive reuse of underutilized/abandoned infrastructure in established urban areas. Yes, we will still have to provide transit for the outlying suburbanites who move back towards the urban centers but we will get much better transit "bang for the buck" due to greater density, as Sukwoo pointed out.

[jetgraphics]

Considering the question: will suburbia become the next slum? If the cost to live in suburbia rises, those who can afford to stay, will. Those who cannot, will not.

In the coming decades, do you think the cost to live in a sparsely populated area, without access to mass transit or other low cost transportation, will rise, fall or remain the same?

Using the example of 1890s America, when the "new" electrified rail mass transit was being introduced, the streetcar suburbs were generally developments serviced by the urban railway companies. These suburbs were compact, and most retail and services located close to the streetcar route, for easy access by folks walking by.

In the 1950s America, the private automobile fueled the expansion into the new suburban sprawl, designed to accommodate the automobile and its infrastructure. (Ex: retail and services located in strip malls, shopping centers, with acres of parking)

In the 21st century America, without cheap and plentiful petroleum, if private automobiles (however fueled) are not available nor inexpensive, and there is no electrified rail mass transit, both types of suburbs are at risk. Likewise, retailers and services based on the old expectation may suffer - as evidenced by the Shopping Mall closures.
WorldChanging Seattle: The Future of Shopping Malls: An Image Essay
deadmalls DOT com
Tracking the dead and dying retail establishment does not bode well for a nation whose major activity is the "service sector", which is dominated by retail sales.
People who are trapped by rising costs of suburbia, don't have as much discretionary income to spend. That, in turn, affects the community's prosperity.

Assuming that there will be no single catastrophic event, but a gradual decline in general prosperity, lifestyles with rising costs will be less attractive, while those with lower costs will become more attractive.

If you agree with that conclusion, and are currently invested in the suburban lifestyle, you may wish to relocate to an area that will be better served by the changing transportation system, less dependent upon retailing for its prosperity, and close proximity to sources of necessities like food, power, and so on. You might have to refit your shelter to be more frugal, reducing consumption of resources, in order to better survive.

I suspect that relocation to more population dense areas - small towns, villages, etc - that are on or near mainline railroad tracks or navigable waterways, will be more economically viable for the long term. Proximity to farmland is probably another bonus. As is any area supplied by hydroelectricity. In addition, rebuilding dead malls into mixed use communities, with on-site housing and services, constitutes a village of sorts.

And if the "dollar bill" tanks, international trade may suffer, and what you can't find, make or do yourself, you will do without.

[rockinrolla]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Ignoring the short sightedness of that view...

Oh? Please feel free to elaborate.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Ignoring the short sightedness of that view, two things need to exist in order for these communities to be desired. First, highways have to be built to connect them to job centers. Thus far, there's been no shortage of political willingness to do so, regardless of how ridiculous the project has been. The State recently spent $730 million to build a 12 mile extension onto I-355. The (few) communities which benefitted only contributed something like $20 million. I'm still scratching my head over that one. We could have done a lot of upgrades to the CTA rail system with that money, and it would have benefitted a lot more people.

Fuel also needs to be cheap enough so that it's cost effective to drive from point A to point B -- which you have to do a lot in most exburbs because few are walkable. When we lose that key ingredient to exburb desirability, something is going to need to be done. They still have to be connected.

Nothing against the exburbs but I don't want to be footing the bill when we have to come up with another way for their residents to get around. It will be more efficient to shift focus to adaptive reuse of underutilized/abandoned infrastructure in established urban areas. Yes, we will still have to provide transit for the outlying suburbanites who move back towards the urban centers but we will get much better transit "bang for the buck" due to greater density, as Sukwoo pointed out.

I thought 355 is a tollway and the money the local communities provided was towards building the interchanges in their communities. So how does issuing bonds to pay for a tollway take money away from the CTA. I understand your argument but you used a lousy example.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by rockinrolla

Oh? Please feel free to elaborate.

Why is advocating destroying farmland because you believe there is a present surplus shortsighted? If I have to explain that, you'll never get it.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

I thought 355 is a tollway and the money the local communities provided was towards building the interchanges in their communities. So how does issuing bonds to pay for a tollway take money away from the CTA. I understand your argument but you used a lousy example.

You are correct but it's not so much that it was taking money away as it was a question of priorities. Any bond issuance potentially creates risk to the taxpayer. So why allocate that risk to something which was arguably unnecessary?

[rockinrolla]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Why is advocating destroying farmland because you believe there is a present surplus shortsighted? If I have to explain that, you'll never get it.

Ooh, dense and condescending, all in one package.
First off, einstein, it's a fact, not a matter of belief, lolz. Second, it's not destroying agriculture any more than you shopping at an army surplus store is taking the shirt off a soldier's back.

As for converting a farm into a housing development...if the farmer wants to sell it, feel free to go buy it, throw on a pair of overalls, hop on a tractor, and away you go, farmer john. Otherwise, if the county the farm is in is ok with it being turned into whatever, what's it to you what the buyer does with it?

Your explanations are not hard to get, Bru. They're just hard to agree with.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

I suspect that relocation to more population dense areas - small towns, villages, etc - that are on or near mainline railroad tracks or navigable waterways, will be more economically viable for the long term. Proximity to farmland is probably another bonus. As is any area supplied by hydroelectricity.

You sound like James Howard Kunstler.