Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. People living in cities don't face the same issues that people in the suburbs do?
And when am I telling people what to do? If you could find a statement where I explicitly said that people should do or behave a certain way, I will admit that I was wrong for making such a bold statement. Until then I'm going to say that you are taking my opinion of what *CAN/COULD* be done, and treating it as an imperative.
CAN you live a car-free life? Yes.
SHOULD you live a car-free life? Maybe. That's a personal preference.
WILL you live a car-free life? That's totally up to you.
Two of those questions are just that; Questions.
One of the questions implies a specific action should be taken; An imperative.
2.
3. Fair enough.
I'm not saying you can't live a car-free life. What I'm saying is not everybody's situation allows them to do so. You maybe able to live a car-free life, but situations may dictate i can't live a car-free life. People in the city face the same issues, but what I'm saying your issues aren't always going to the same as somebody who lives in a different enviroment.
Solar panels are no less practical in urban cores--and often, you get more direct economic benefit from putting a layer of insulation under your roof than solar on top of it. Or the solar installation doesn't need to be on the house itself--my electric utility gives the option of a small surcharge (about $6 a month) to purchase power from solar or other renewable energy sources (hopefully it's an idea that will spread as renewables see more widespread use.) Multi-family urban homes are generally more energy-efficient than single-family homes, both through shared walls and smaller square footage (less space to heat=less energy needed to keep things warm.) And if you live in a neighborhood close to where you work you can walk or bike, saving not just fuel but also the energy/resource cost of an automobile (it takes energy equal to many years' worth of fuel consumption to produce a new car.) In fact, proximity to work is more important than how "green" your car (or your house) is for purposes of carbon footprint:
Many suburban homes are built on former farmland--but things like leveling and paving (plus generations of assorted pollutants) typically ruin most of that good topsoil. So no, just because it's former farmland doesn't mean it will grow great crops any more than a dead racehorse will run fast. It may have done so before it was ruined, afterward not so much. And in the case of a lot of Southwestern cities, no, the soil is cruddy and there probably isn't enough water for agriculture. That being said, gardening is fun and productive, which is why urban gardening is coming into big-time vogue in a lot of cities, on vacant lots or small backyard plots. So, at most, suburban gardening comes out to roughly equal value.
And while the logistics of food distribution are definitely out of whack, the efficiencies of large-scale farming are greater than hyperlocal food production in all but the most fertile areas, even if energy/transportation costs go up significantly. In fact, it makes more economic sense for people to live in places like the Southwest, where soil is poor, and leave arable farmland for food production, then ship the food to the people by rail. In many cultures where arable land is limited (such as Japan or Italy) flat, arable land is rare, so people build up the side of hills too steep for farming or other places where plants won't grow.
So, in a lot of ways, urban life is more sustainable--and typically it takes less work than a sustainable approach in the outer suburbs.
Bold #1: Do you really think cities were not built on former farmland?
I'm not saying you can't live a car-free life. What I'm saying is not everybody's situation allows them to do so. You maybe able to live a car-free life, but situations may dictate i can't live a car-free life. People in the city face the same issues, but what I'm saying your issues aren't always going to the same as somebody who lives in a different enviroment.
Fair enough. I see what you're saying, and I understand your point as well.
But would you agree that people lived just fine without cars for thousands of years under much worse circumstances than anyone currently living does?
I would say, "Yes."
Are there some situations where there is absolutely no other possible option than to use a car and live in the suburbs of a city?
Yes, but situations like those are the exception, and not the rule.
For the most part people's actions put them into the situations they face.
For example:
People moving in droves to suburban areas and having to rely on their gasoline powered automobiles to get back and forth to where they needed to go has caused America to use more oil than we would have if everyone would have lived only, let's say, 5 miles from everything they needed for their daily lives.
So when people complain about how much money it is costing them to make their 20 mile one way commute into work, they only have the people who use more than necessary to thank for their rising fuel costs.
Fair enough. I see what you're saying, and I understand your point as well.
But would you agree that people lived just fine without cars for thousands of years under much worse circumstances than anyone currently living does?
I would say, "Yes."
Are there some situations where there is absolutely no other possible option than to use a car and live in the suburbs of a city?
Yes, but situations like those are the exception, and not the rule.
For the most part people's actions put them into the situations they face.
For example:
People moving in droves to suburban areas and having to rely on their gasoline powered automobiles to get back and forth to where they needed to go has caused America to use more oil than we would have if everyone would have lived only, let's say, 5 miles from everything they needed for their daily lives.
So when people complain about how much money it is costing them to make their 20 mile one way commute into work, they only have the people who use more than necessary to thank for their rising fuel costs.
#1. Groundhog Day! Most of us in the burbs DO live within about 5 miles of most everything we need. The job tends to be the exception, but sometimes not even then. I've looked up the stats on this more times than I wanted to, but the number of pepole with mega-commutes is small. And what do you do, pray tell, when your office moves, like my husband's just did this summer? Are you supposed to quit the job you have where you've built up seniority, pay scale, etc? Or are you supposed to sell the house you've lived in for 22 years and move closer? We'd be farther from my job if we did that, and we'd go from living in a place we really like to one that is, frankly, more auto-centric suburban than where we are now.
#2: There is plenty of blame to go around with oil prices.
Fair enough. I see what you're saying, and I understand your point as well.
But would you agree that people lived just fine without cars for thousands of years under much worse circumstances than anyone currently living does?
I would say, "Yes."
Are there some situations where there is absolutely no other possible option than to use a car and live in the suburbs of a city?
Yes, but situations like those are the exception, and not the rule.
For the most part people's actions put them into the situations they face.
For example:
People moving in droves to suburban areas and having to rely on their gasoline powered automobiles to get back and forth to where they needed to go has caused America to use more oil than we would have if everyone would have lived only, let's say, 5 miles from everything they needed for their daily lives.
So when people complain about how much money it is costing them to make their 20 mile one way commute into work, they only have the people who use more than necessary to thank for their rising fuel costs.
1. I agree that people were able to survive without cars years. I would also say people did fine without internet, cell phones, taxies, buses, email, and alot of other things. The reality is in today's society you need to have different options.
2. I think its being too simplistic to say everybody can live 5 miles from everything they need. Not everybody's life is confined to needing to be close to a grocery store. Not eveybody can live within 5 miles to their job. Some people need to live close to an airport, some people need to live close to their parents because of health reasons, or they need to live close to a certain hospital. I'm coming up with different examples, but the major point is, saying that everybody can live close to everything is impractical.
3. If people complain about the cost of gas because of where they live, that's there problem. I don't feel sorry for them because gas prices go up.
#1. Groundhog Day! (1)Most of us in the burbs DO live within about 5 miles of most everything we need. (2)The job tends to be the exception, but sometimes not even then. (3)I've looked up the stats on this more times than I wanted to, (4)but the number of pepole with mega-commutes is small. (5)And what do you do, pray tell, when your office moves, like my husband's just did this summer? (6)Are you supposed to quit the job you have where you've built up seniority, pay scale, etc? Or are you supposed to sell the house you've lived in for 22 years and move closer? (7)We'd be farther from my job if we did that, and we'd go from living in a place we really like to one that is, frankly, more auto-centric suburban than where we are now.
#2: (8)There is plenty of blame to go around with oil prices.
1. I would love to see the stats saying AT LEAST 50.1% (because you said "most of us") of people living in suburban areas live within 5 miles of their place of business.
2. You mean the thing that people travel to and from 5 times a week? The place people probably go to the most?
3. Alright.
4. No one is suggesting that a majority of people make "mega commutes" into work.
5. Adapt? Change?
6. I don't know. This is America. You're free to make any decision you want.
7. Well, that decision reflects what is more important to you; Job or Home. Sometimes, even living in the #1 area, people have to make tough decisions.
8. Most of it lies with the people who own gas guzzling vehicles that never use them for their intended purposes.
1. I agree that people were able to survive without cars years. I would also say people did fine without internet, cell phones, taxies, buses, email, and alot of other things. (1)The reality is in today's society you need to have different options.
(2)2. I think its being too simplistic to say everybody can live 5 miles from everything they need. Not everybody's life is confined to needing to be close to a grocery store. Not eveybody can live within 5 miles to their job. Some people need to live close to an airport, some people need to live close to their parents because of health reasons, or they need to live close to a certain hospital. I'm coming up with different examples, but the major point is, saying that everybody can live close to everything is impractical.
3. If people complain about the cost of gas because of where they live, that's there problem. I don't feel sorry for them because gas prices go up.
1. You mean like private AND public transportation?
2. So you don't need to live close to a food supply? Technology has given us the ability to live farther away from our food supply, but to say that not living near a food source is not necessary is rather , to emote the least.
But at this current point in time, it is unrealistic for everyone, no matter where they live, to have EVERYTHING they need to live their lives within 5 miles of their residence.
It COULD be done, but it is not yet a possibility for a majority of people.
And for further reference and use, I think you should take care in using the words "need" and "want". They are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things, and should be treated as such.
I need water, air, food, shelter, and clothing to live.
I want a TV, I don't need it.
I need internet for work.
Completely different concepts.
3. You may not feel sorry for them, but don't worry, the government will cut them another financial break so they don't have to change a single thing about their lifestyle .
First of all, I don't appreciate you messing with my post.
Secondly, why must you always put words in my mouth (or on my screen, as the case may be)? I said:
Quote:
Most of us in the burbs DO live within about 5 miles of most everything we need. The job tends to be the exception, but sometimes not even then
. That is one thought, not two, btw. I didn't say most live within 5 miles of their place of business.
Here are the stats from my suburb, by length of commute time. I can tell you, I have a 10-12 min. commute that is 4.5 miles.
Travel time to work Less than 5 minutes: 217
5 to 9 minutes: 986
10 to 14 minutes: 1303
15 to 19 minutes: 2288
20 to 24 minutes: 2103
25 to 29 minutes: 704
30 to 34 minutes: 888
35 to 39 minutes: 199
40 to 44 minutes: 321
45 to 59 minutes: 566
60 to 89 minutes: 286
90 or more minutes: 111
Percentage of workers working in this county: 76.1%
Number of people working at home: 707 (6.6% of all workers)
(1)First of all, I don't appreciate you messing with my post.
(2)Secondly, why must you always put words in my mouth (or on my screen, as the case may be)? I said: . That is one thought, not two, btw. I didn't say most live within 5 miles of their place of business.
Here are the stats from my suburb, by length of commute time. I can tell you, I have a 10-12 min. commute that is 4.5 miles.
(3)Travel time to work Less than 5 minutes: 217 5 to 9 minutes: 986 10 to 14 minutes: 1303
15 to 19 minutes: 2288
20 to 24 minutes: 2103
25 to 29 minutes: 704
30 to 34 minutes: 888
35 to 39 minutes: 199
40 to 44 minutes: 321
45 to 59 minutes: 566
60 to 89 minutes: 286
90 or more minutes: 111
Percentage of workers working in this county: 76.1%
Number of people working at home: 707 (6.6% of all workers)
Here's how you put words in my mouth (in addtition to this)
Quote:
(because you said "most of us") of people living in suburban areas live within 5 miles of their place of business.
which I did no say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
Okay, a cop out it is.
The truth of the matter is, and one you seem to not want to recognize (or at least put in writing), is that everyone couldn't live in a suburban utopia.
Because once more people move into the suburbs it stops becoming the "get away from it all" that is once was.
Because houses sit on 1/4 to full acre lots, new stores have to be built further away. And being father away means using more gas to get there.
And virtually every single person will use their personal vehicles when they want to go somewhere, so there will be less oil sooner than had people lived a lifestyle that allowed them to ditch their car WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT.
And on this note, if everyone moved into the city, and was able to walk to get places, the price of gas would drop. And because the cost of gas dropped, it would cost less to ship goods around the country. And because it costs less to ship things that means it will cost less to buy things.
So it seems like the "suburbs = sustainability" only if people are willing and financially able to continue to pay for the ever rising fuel costs of shipping their goods through the sticker price of said goods and services.
Would you like to explain to me how I'm wrong and how living a suburban lifestyle is more sustainable than me walking/riding public transit to all my destinations?
I would really like to hear from you personally, rather than me having to imagine what your thoughts are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
Imagination! I have given you full reign over this scenario, and you give me some cop out that says it's just too much to even give the old "college try" and convince me that the lifestyle and environment that YOU PERSONALLY LIVE would be sustainable for everyone who currently lives in a city.
But it does seem like you are insinuating that suburban lifestyles cannot be sustainable for the citizens of the United States. If it was sustainable, I would think that people would be jumping all over the opportunity to show and explain how if everyone lived on a quarter acre lot of land with plenty of roads connecting everything, how that it would be more sustainable than living in a city.
But, alas, no one is saying everyone can live in a house with a yard like theirs.
Everyone can live in an apartment like mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
, to emote the least.
