Creating Density in Downtown

[Detroitnerd]

I care about the area. If it wasn't for my wife, I would leave Florida in a heartbeat and move back to the Detroit metro area. That is my roots. My extended family lives in an arc from Mt Clemens through Ann Arbor. I would love to boat again through Lake St Clair and the St Clair Flats.

Detroit itself, south of Eight Mile and east of Telegraph is pretty much dead to me. It is just a lot of memories from the forties and fifties that will never come back. I drove my grandkids back through my old home area [[Whittier between Harper and Kelly and it just made me want to cry.

Sorry to hear that. I guess, in some ways, we younger pups are lucky. We have all the stories of the good times and bad, but aren't saddled with all those memories when we look at Detroit. It's more likely, therefore, that to us, what is there is interesting and what isn't there is ready to find a new purpose. We can't see what it was [[except in old pictures and films) but we do see something that could be. That's where it always starts anyway.

It may be difficult to understand why we have hopes and dreams for our city center, but I do urge you to look past those personal losses. What happened to Detroit wasn't -- and isn't -- inevitable. It was a product of great and small decisions, the ramifications of which were perhaps little-understood at the time.

Anyway, don't lose hope. There will always be some sort of settlement at Detroit. Unfortunately, we may have to lose a great deal more -- as a region, as a state, as a country -- before we understand why our cities are important.

As another poster mentioned, people adapted to the idea of not having a Detroit. It is my hope that we can reverse that, and then people will adapt the other way: incredulous that the metro ever tried to live without it.

And thanks for sharing. It is often a might nice place to live, I agree.

[EL Jimbo]

So then, CLEAN the CESSPOOL. You see, for many of us, it's NOT a given that "we are all 'us.'" Excuse me: those thugs and robbers and rapists and whatnot are not included in "us." Wipe the pus from the oozing sore; then, and only then, maybe will it heal.

And this is why we will fail. It doesn't matter who did what to get where things are now. Playing the blame game won't solve a damn thing. The question is how are WE going to clean the cesspool. If you don't want thugs, robbers, and rapists in our community, then how are WE going to accomplish that? The city can't fix itself by itself. It's going to need the cooperation and support of the entire region and the entire region has a vested interest in its success.

[Fury13]

And this is why we will fail. It doesn't matter who did what to get where things are now. Playing the blame game won't solve a damn thing. The question is how are WE going to clean the cesspool. If you don't want thugs, robbers, and rapists in our community, then how are WE going to accomplish that? The city can't fix itself by itself. It's going to need the cooperation and support of the entire region and the entire region has a vested interest in its success.

I was speaking in collective terms; however, the police have to do SOMETHING. Right now, the DPD is a joke. They have no effect on public safety. Nothing against the dedicated officers, but they need more staffing -- probably 300 percent more.

Federal funding for more law enforcement could help.

[casscorridor]

I don't have some arbitrary target for Detroit's population. But, with resources growing scarcer, I don't see how we can maintain the shrinking metro. How will we pay for 1,200 square miles of roads, sewers, water pipes and traffic signals for a population that's shrinking, regionally? The answer seems to be that we would want to concentrate what population we have in a tighter area, thereby saving on infrastructure and energy. We entice people to move and where we can actually provide infrastructure we can afford, get it?

Yes, exactly. This is why Detroit's population will most likely begin to increase within the next 10 years. There are sooooo many people on this forum who say Detroit will shrink below 700,000 or even as low as 500,000. I don't see this happening. There will be migration from suburbs into the city, as new housing stock will be concentrated in urban areas, not in the far flung suburbs. Therefore, due to deteriorating housing stock, increasing costs of living and trasportation, people will find the city more desirable. I think the physical layout of suburbs has little do with the choice to live there. My generation, the 18-30 crowd, HATES suburbs and want to live in cities. The problem is that there are so little options in Detroit, so they move elsewhere, as in outside the Metro region. This is slowly beginning to change as the first few innercity neighborhoods have started to develop, such as Cass Corridor/"Midtown."

The last 50 years: steady growth concentrated in undeveloped areas, "virgin" land. Nearly everything built past the city limits was built in the last 50 years, all oriented around the car.

The next 50 years: steady growth, but very little new development of virgin land is likely to occur. All new development will take place in existing communities. Federal, state, and local regulations and incentives will accelerate this process. So, no new land is used, where will developers choose to develop? Will it be infill in the suburbs, where land has become expensive, roads congested, and even though there seems to be a lot of empty land, there really isn't because it is all privately owned. In Detroit, on the other hand, there is thousands of acres in land banks, for incredible cheap prices, where developers can basicaly build anything they like, without having to pay for new infrastructure such as sewers, roads, etc. And with new transit options, such as light rail, and an increased desire for urbanity, I see most development in the next 50 years occuring in Detroit, rather than its suburbs. What does this equate to? Population growth. Maybe not a huge increase, but by the 2020 or 2030 census at the latest we will see increased population numbers for the first time since the peak around 1950.

[313WX]

Not necessarily. I hear more and more people say, "I'm from Birmingham" or "I'm from metropolitan Detroit" or "I'm from Westland, that's near Detroit."

The kicker with the current generation is "I'm from SE Michigan".

[ASR89]

I drove out to Novi last week to meet some folks for dinner at a place called Lucky Strike. I'd never been out that way before except once when a friend drove us to 12 Oaks Mall at night. There was so many stores in the area between 12 Mile and Grand River off of 96. But all of them were so sprawled out with seas of parking lots in front. From the main roads, I had to drive down branches of branchs of roads to get to a parking lot. We have big box stores here in Westland, but the sprawl I saw in Novi was of a different calibre.

Imagine what it would be like to concentrate those stores, restaurants, etc in skyscrapers downtown. Instead of driving from multiple stores which are all spread out, walk to an elevator and choose a floor.

It's very unfortunate that the city has fallen so low. We all know the things that need to be done, or would help, in revitalising the city.

I hate to sound like a doomsday nut, but I agree with what has been said about providing resources over such a large metro area. On that note: Whilst the price of oil and gasoline are relatively low right now, they won't stay that way. $4/gallon gasoline hurt a lot of people's pocketbooks in 2008. The metro is so spread out and our transit isn't reliable. I don't know if it will be 10 years or 100 years, but there will eventually be a time when oil production will have peaked and demand will be higher than supply. Alternatives can only go so far and oil-based fuels would probably be rationed for policecars, firetrucks, shipping trucks, etc. If things get really bad, I could see streetcar lines frequently running down residential streets into main arteries with light rail and more streetcar lines. Like said, I don't picture that happening any time soon, but it's probable decades from now.

I read a figure that like 1/3 of Detroit's land is vacant. The powers that be could try to create a dense walkable community out in the boondocks, but why do that when you could build on land that used to be dense and walkable? There will be people who would rather move out of the region than move to Detroit, but there are a lot of young folks that would probably give it a shot if things were cleaned up. Cities like Troy and Novi won't be sustainable next century.

People say it's impossible for Detroit to bounce back, and many would think my view of the future is impossible too, but you never know. When I was little, I wouldn't have thought gasoline would ever be $4/gallon and I thought the graphics of Donkey Kong Country were the best ever. People have said commuter rail will never return to the region, but it will be soon [[although a bit reduced service than I'd hoped). Amazing how things change in 10-15 years.

[ndavies]

Sorry, but as I correctly argued three years ago, oil cannot and will not stay at $100 a barrel. At $100 a barrel the entire worlds economy shuts down. This in turn leads to recession which drive fuel prices back down. Since our elected officials won't put huge taxes on fuel, the only way you get to $4.00 a gallon gasoline is if Oil hit $100 a barrel.

China and India's fuel consumption is predicated on us buying their products. They have a very limited home consumer market. If we can't afford to buy things, they have huge overcapacity. Their overcapacity will drive prices back down when we stop buying things. We stop buying things when fuel hits $4.00 a gallon.

Every single time oil has gone above what the market is willing to pay we have had a pretty severe recession. This is what happened in the late 70's, early 80's, it's what's happening now, it is just the same old cycle repeating itself.

[EL Jimbo]

Sorry, but as I correctly argued three years ago, oil cannot and will not stay at $100 a barrel. At $100 a barrel the entire worlds economy shuts down. This in turn leads to recession which drive fuel prices back down. Since our elected officials won't put huge taxes on fuel, the only way you get to $4.00 a gallon gasoline is if Oil hit $100 a barrel.

China and India's fuel consumption is predicated on us buying their products. They have a very limited home consumer market. If we can't afford to buy things, they have huge overcapacity. Their overcapacity will drive prices back down when we stop buying things. We stop buying things when fuel hits $4.00 a gallon.

Every single time oil has gone above what the market is willing to pay we have had a pretty severe recession. This is what happened in the late 70's, early 80's, it's what's happening now, it is just the same old cycle repeating itself.

This is changing...and rapidly so. It's an economy of scales thing. They have a small middle class...but it is growing. If only 15% of each country's population works its way up to middle class status, they will have as many middle class citizens as the entire population of the United States. If they both reach 30% status, it will be DOUBLE our population. At that point, they will no longer be so reliant on us for their economic growth [[and resource consumption).

[Hermod]

If SE Michigan comes back, all of the industrial facilities that are modern, in good shape, and vacant are in southern Oakland and Macomb Counties and spread along the I-75 corridor going north to Flint. Why take over a "brownfield" in Detroit [[and the permanent liability for such) when you have good facilities available cheap in the counties? Why spend a lot of money rehabbing skyscrapers in Detroit when you have vacant and modern office facilities in Southfield and along Big Beaver?

[Detroitnerd]

If SE Michigan comes back, all of the industrial facilities that are modern, in good shape, and vacant are in southern Oakland and Macomb Counties and spread along the I-75 corridor going north to Flint. Why take over a "brownfield" in Detroit [[and the permanent liability for such) when you have good facilities available cheap in the counties? Why spend a lot of money rehabbing skyscrapers in Detroit when you have vacant and modern office facilities in Southfield and along Big Beaver?

Because, in the long-term, we use less resources and travel less when we build everything closer together. That's why there probably should be a program on the order of Europe to subsidize tight, urban development, fund mass transit that promotes density, tax cars and car-oriented development, and promote soil remediation in urban centers.

It isn't in one person's interest to do it. It isn't in one business' interest to do it. The market won't sort it out. That's why we need to have intense and aggressive rethinking of our national development policies to promote what's sensible for the future, instead of subsidizing the same old sprawl that we can't even afford to keep up anymore.

The alternative is that we can let our inner city go fallow, pour tremendous monies into maintaining the suburban infrastructure we already have for diminishing returns, until we drive off the cliff.

[ndavies]

This is changing...and rapidly so. It's an economy of scales thing. They have a small middle class...but it is growing. If only 15% of each country's population works its way up to middle class status, they will have as many middle class citizens as the entire population of the United States. If they both reach 30% status, it will be DOUBLE our population. At that point, they will no longer be so reliant on us for their economic growth [[and resource consumption).

It's not happening anywhere near as fast as you think.You're assuming China's Jobs pay like our jobs. China is still paying slave wages to it's factory workers. Those factory workers are not moving out of poverty. They are not moving into the middle class. They have virtually no purchasing power. The assemblers of the cars cannot afford the products they build.

China has a huge surplus of labor. This keeps them from having to raise wages, thereby keeping their people stuck in poverty. This stops them from becoming first world consumers. There was a recent article in businessweek about the severe lack of buying power by Chinese worker.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rosperity.html

[Det_ard]

Even if oil somehow does maintain a $100/barrel price, improvements in automotive efficiency will make it seem, to your wallet, like oil is only $50/barrel. The economic incentive to discover and capitalize on technological efficiency improvements is huge with expensive oil. With researchers and companies all across the world working on it for years to come there's little reason to believe they'd fail.

Relying on high oil prices to force the repopulation of Detroit requires unwarranted assumptions about our ability to deal with transportation efficiency. I'm not willing to bet that 25 - 50 years from now our fleet MPG is going to be close to where it is today. I would be willing to bet that with hybrids, EVs, lightweight composites, new vehicle designs and things not yet invented our efficiency will several multiples of what it is today.

If, for the sake of argument, we assume the automobile cost per mile doesn't go sky high, and perhaps gets even lower, what does the city/suburb equation look like then? If we rely on oil prices to revive our beat-up cities we're counting on a "push" that may never occur. Better, IMO to work on the "pull" of the city. Make it more attractive to the average person who values safety and good schools more than the urban pioneer.

[Detroitnerd]

Even if oil somehow does maintain a $100/barrel price, improvements in automotive efficiency will make it seem, to your wallet, like oil is only $50/barrel. The economic incentive to discover and capitalize on technological efficiency improvements is huge with expensive oil. With researchers and companies all across the world working on it for years to come there's little reason to believe they'd fail.

Relying on high oil prices to force the repopulation of Detroit requires unwarranted assumptions about our ability to deal with transportation efficiency. I'm not willing to bet that 25 - 50 years from now our fleet MPG is going to be close to where it is today. I would be willing to bet that with hybrids, EVs, lightweight composites, new vehicle designs and things not yet invented our efficiency will several multiples of what it is today.

If, for the sake of argument, we assume the automobile cost per mile doesn't go sky high, and perhaps gets even lower, what does the city/suburb equation look like then? If we rely on oil prices to revive our beat-up cities we're counting on a "push" that may never occur. Better, IMO to work on the "pull" of the city. Make it more attractive to the average person who values safety and good schools more than the urban pioneer.

The costs of cars are more than the oil it takes to fuel them. We have to create infrastructure for them, lay a few hundred square feet of concrete for every one on the road. More than half the energy used by cars is in their creation and disposal. Then there's run-off, tire fragments, and, foreseeably, a river of mercury, lithium, cadmium and nickel due to batteries.

The idea that MPG performance is going to make cars "sustainable" is kind of a silly gag. We'd do much better to reserve cars for emergency vehicles, police, fire, taxis and trucks and pursue a multimodal system that encourages density.

[Det_ard]

The costs of cars are more than the oil it takes to fuel them. We have to create infrastructure for them, lay a few hundred square feet of concrete for every one on the road. More than half the energy used by cars is in their creation and disposal. Then there's run-off, tire fragments, and, foreseeably, a river of mercury, lithium, cadmium and nickel due to batteries.

The idea that MPG performance is going to make cars "sustainable" is kind of a silly gag. We'd do much better to reserve cars for emergency vehicles, police, fire, taxis and trucks and pursue a multimodal system that encourages density.

I acknowledge the ancilliary costs. Many people, throughout the world, find personal automobiles to be worth it due their their unparalleled ability to provide personal mobility. That utility is going to be a big impediment toward transitioning to the model you describe in your second paragraph.

I agree that dense clustering is more efficient in many respects and allows transit to work better. I get it. But most people prefer to make the trade-offs necessary to live the suburban lifestyle, as hard as it may be for unbanophiles to understand. That's the biggest obstacle to what you envision.

[Bearinabox]

I agree that dense clustering is more efficient in many respects and allows transit to work better. I get it. But most people prefer to make the trade-offs necessary to live the suburban lifestyle, as hard as it may be for unbanophiles to understand. That's the biggest obstacle to what you envision.

I disagree that this is what "most people" prefer. The proportion who prefer this is far less outside SE Michigan, and almost nil in most of Europe, which suggests to me that the widespread preference for suburban living in this area has more to do with the dysfunction specific to Detroit than with some innately human attachment to cul-de-sacs and strip malls.

[Detroitnerd]

I acknowledge the ancilliary costs. Many people, throughout the world, find personal automobiles to be worth it due their their unparalleled ability to provide personal mobility. That utility is going to be a big impediment toward transitioning to the model you describe in your second paragraph.

I agree that dense clustering is more efficient in many respects and allows transit to work better. I get it. But most people prefer to make the trade-offs necessary to live the suburban lifestyle, as hard as it may be for unbanophiles to understand. That's the biggest obstacle to what you envision.

When you make automotive vehicles do it all, you cripple their unparalleled mobility. Forcing every driver, good, passenger, cop, fireman, delivery person, worker, etc., etc., etc., to use a vehicle to go everywhere means clogging our roads with so much traffic they can't get around. The alternative is to create massive access freeways that destroy the urban fabric and, therefore, cities.

You talk about cars as modes of choice. So be it. What are our other choices?

Let's present real alternatives to car-only urban design before we talk about the inevitability of everyone driving everywhere, OK?

[ndavies]

I disagree that this is what "most people" prefer. The proportion who prefer this is far less outside SE Michigan, and almost nil in most of Europe, which suggests to me that the widespread preference for suburban living in this area has more to do with the dysfunction specific to Detroit than with some innately human attachment to cul-de-sacs and strip malls.

Sorry, you're confusing what they want with what they can afford. My European family members are exteremely envious of our large suburban properties, They would love to have the large cars and suburban lots we have. They always ask how I can afford what I have. They believe these things must be outragously expensive just like it is where they live.

[Bearinabox]

Sorry, you're confusing what they want with what they can afford. My European family members are exteremely envious of our large suburban properties, They would love to have the large cars and suburban lots we have. They always ask how I can afford what I have. They believe these things must be outragously expensive just like it is where they live.

Det_ard was claiming that people will pay whatever it takes to maintain suburban lifestyles. I don't think this is the case, unless the alternative is an extremely dysfunctional city.

I also don't think your relatives speak for all of Europe, and don't think the suburban phenomenon here has much to do with large lots. The southwestern part of Southfield has huge lots, but that doesn't stop people from moving from that area to houses on smaller lots further out in the sticks.

[Det_ard]

I disagree that this is what "most people" prefer. The proportion who prefer this is far less outside SE Michigan, and almost nil in most of Europe, which suggests to me that the widespread preference for suburban living in this area has more to do with the dysfunction specific to Detroit than with some innately human attachment to cul-de-sacs and strip malls.

I've read the surveys and most people in the US prefer suburban living. Actually, the most popular choice was to be on the outer fringe, close to "stuff" but almost in the country. Basically the leading edge of sprawl. Of course that only lasts 6 months until the next sub goes in, but that's the ideal for many.

As far as Detroit being so unique amongst US cities, I've live in several [[downtown, as used to be my preference) and our city/suburb preference proportion seems pretty close to others. Of course, our central city lacks the livability of some others in the US which does drive the suburban option higher here.

[Long Lake]

I disagree that this is what "most people" prefer. The proportion who prefer this is far less outside SE Michigan, and almost nil in most of Europe, which suggests to me that the widespread preference for suburban living in this area has more to do with the dysfunction specific to Detroit than with some innately human attachment to cul-de-sacs and strip malls.

I really disagree with this.

Having lived in Europe for three years [[Cologne, Germany), I would say Europeans [[and Asians, for that matter) love cars, highways and sprawl every bit as much as Americans.

The difference is that Europe has no room for sprawl, and very tight land-use regulations. The same is true in much of Asia.

If given a chance, however, Europeans [[or Asians) would LOVE to live the lifestyle we have.

For example, ask any of the many German expat engineering types that live in Oakland county. They LOVE their colonial-style homes on big lots, they are crazy about their big, fancy cars, and think places like Somerset and Twelve Oaks are fantastic.

Or ask the new Fiat folks who are arriving. Let's see, older cramped apartment in a minor Italian city, or huge, modern, spacious Bloomfield Township home on wooded lot. Better schools and shopping too.

What this means, [[IMO) is that the ONLY way you will change land-use patterns in Southeast Michigan is by either: 1. Changing the laws or 2. Creating a reason for dense agglomeration [[for an extreme example, what makes Manhattan so desirable?).

[Bearinabox]

I've read the surveys and most people in the US prefer suburban living. Actually, the most popular choice was to be on the outer fringe, close to "stuff" but almost in the country. Basically the leading edge of sprawl. Of course that only lasts 6 months until the next sub goes in, but that's the ideal for many.

What Americans don't get is that the "close to stuff but almost in the country" ideal can actually be realized in a transit-oriented development pattern, unlike in the car-oriented model where, as you say, it "only lasts 6 months until the next sub goes in." I have an acquaintance who lives on the fringe of the Munich metro area, in a small town with a train station and a little downtown area. Immediately behind his house is miles of wide-open land, but he can hop on a train and be in the center of Munich in 40 minutes. He's lived there for twenty years, and the wide-open field is still there. He owns a car, which he chooses not to drive to work in the city because the train is so much cheaper and more efficient. It's my understanding that Detroit had much the same model when we still had a functional and widely-used transit system, with places like Royal Oak and Birmingham offering much the same close-to-the-city-but-surrounded-by-open-space feel.

As far as Detroit being so unique amongst US cities, I've live in several [[downtown, as used to be my preference) and our city/suburb preference proportion seems pretty close to others. Of course, our central city lacks the livability of some others in the US which does drive the suburban option higher here.

I'm confused by this part of your post. It seems to contradict itself. Is our city/suburb preference proportion comparable with anywhere else in the country, or does the lack of livability here make more people want to live in the suburbs? And if the same proportion of people want to live in the city here as elsewhere, why do we have so many more empty buildings in the city than anywhere else?

[Det_ard]

When you make automotive vehicles do it all, you cripple their unparalleled mobility. Forcing every driver, good, passenger, cop, fireman, delivery person, worker, etc., etc., etc., to use a vehicle to go everywhere means clogging our roads with so much traffic they can't get around. The alternative is to create massive access freeways that destroy the urban fabric and, therefore, cities.

You talk about cars as modes of choice. So be it. What are our other choices?

Let's present real alternatives to car-only urban design before we talk about the inevitability of everyone driving everywhere, OK?

Traffic isn't really a problem here. We're not Mexico City. We're a spread out area where the car works best for most people. While I'd love a great transit system and used them extensively when I lived in other cities, here, due to chicken and egg issues, transit here is marginal and great transit is probably too costly to justify given our low-density wide footprint with decentralized work locations.

I know many would like to see the region re-made with much higher density, intensive transit, etc. Lets put that in the 200 year plan, because our population level and distribution for the foreseeable future won't justify it.

BTW, I know you probably disagree vehemently with everything I've written but that's my perspective as someone who's been a CBD-dweller in every city I've lived in but now falls into the suburban mode.

[Detroitnerd]

[[for an extreme example, what makes Manhattan so desirable?).

That's interesting. Of course, Manhattan was a terrific port city in the beginning. It had New York Harbor, and then an island that was soon developed and ringed with piers. But, of course, it had geographical limits, and excellent bedrock for building tall buildings.

Other cities that have had geographical limitation have been similarly intelligently developed: San Francisco, Montreal, etc.

But, one careful point: Don't you think that Europeans who'd come to the United States would have come here because they value that sort of lifestyle? It's not that what you say isn't true, it's just that it is a skewed sample group, as well as merely anecdotal. When Europeans start ripping up their cities for freeways and building miles of colonial-studded cul de sacs, then let's discuss.

[Det_ard]

I'm confused by this part of your post. It seems to contradict itself. Is our city/suburb preference proportion comparable with anywhere else in the country, or does the lack of livability here make more people want to live in the suburbs? And if the same proportion of people want to live in the city here as elsewhere, why do we have so many more empty buildings in the city than anywhere else?

While I don't have numbers handy I think if you looked at the proportion of people in most major city regions that live in the urban part versus the proportion that live in the suburban part you'd see a pattern in which Detroit is not a significant outlier. That's my impression from living/working in a half-dozen US major metros. I think Detroit's proportion is tweaked toward suburban given the issues in our CDB but I think it would only move the numbers a bit.

[Detroitnerd]

Traffic isn't really a problem here.

Yes, because we've spent about 60 years building freeways, interstates, expressways, parkways, trunk roads, upgrading traffic signals while our population has either declined or flatlined. Yes? Doesn't that have a wee bit to do with our lack of traffic problems?

We're not Mexico City. We're a spread out area where the car works best for most people.

Who can afford it. And who like driving. And who don't mind having to pay for gas, oil, insurance, lessons. Or having to chauffeur their children around. Or living in a landscape where you have to get into your car, drive, park, get into your car again, drive and park again to get a newspaper or something. Or the people who aren't blind, deaf, handicapped, too elderly, etc. But, yeah, for the other people, which is by now whittled down to a smaller group than I think you imagine, it's GREAT!

While I'd love a great transit system and used them extensively when I lived in other cities, here, due to chicken and egg issues, transit here is marginal and great transit is probably too costly to justify given our low-density wide footprint with decentralized work locations.

That's why we're discussing the idea of creating density. You don't debate how to create density by saying, "We're too low-density and decentralized to create density." That's silly.

I know many would like to see the region re-made with much higher density, intensive transit, etc. Lets put that in the 200 year plan, because our population level and distribution for the foreseeable future won't justify it.

I imagine you in the boardroom of Ford Motor Company in 1910. "Well, given the fact that people all ride streetcars or horses, and very few people own cars, and that the roads are so bad, there's just no market for this product. Let's declare bankruptcy and try again in 200 years." Sheesh. The Tin Lizzie would still be on the drawing board.

See, this is what I'm saying. We need visionaries. The next 100 years are going to be radically different from the last 100. And we need to prepare now for a world where resources, especially energy, are in much smaller supply. The acceptable "realism" of today will be a farce tomorrow. Let's get ready for the future.