Suburbs are unsustainable?

[Augustiner]

Or, all bad regional planning aside, it could be called rejecting education, expecting cradle to the grave employment as a birthright, and refusing to undertake any diversifying of the economy has led to a decade of recession that lead much of the region to suffer decline.

Fair enough if that's your theory, and I agree with you to an extent, but that should really go in a completely separate thread.

[DetroitDad]

What the Heck is going on with these gas prices, man?

From CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/24/news...ices/index.htm

Gas prices: Brace for another surge

.....Oil prices have already jumped $12 this week, which means that drivers can "expect gas prices to be 37 cents higher" in the coming days, he said

The rise in gas prices could have severe consequences for the U.S. economy, which has rebounded from the recession of 2008-2009 but remains relatively fragile.

A 10% increase in oil prices would cost U.S. consumers some $40 billion a year, said Julian Jessop, an economist at Capital Economics. That's the equivalent of a 0.4% reduction in real incomes.

But Jessop warned that generalizations about the relationship between rising oil prices and economic growth have proven unreliable in the past. Much depends on how widespread the turmoil in the Middle East region becomes, and how long it lasts, he said.

Jessop expects oil prices to ease later in the year, and while global economic growth will be moderate, it should be enough to sustain a gradual rise in energy prices.

"We do not expect the oil price to be pivotal," he said.

Other economists disagree.

Mark Zupan, an economist at the University of Rochester's school of business, said that every economic downturn over the last 40 years has been caused by upward spikes in oil prices.

[DetroitDad]

We talked about peak oil several time in this thread [[some of the missing videos earlier in this thread, were about peak oil issues, and are now out of date). We were discussing that the 2008 economic crash was triggered by Summer oil prices. So our economy collapses at $140. Decreased demand would then follow. Finally, decreased demand would be followed by a recovery period until prices get back up to that $140 mark. Except, this time the mark is lower, due to devaluation of our currency.

The Summer of 2008's high oil price was a decline in reserves, issues with peak oil, investor speculation, and unrest in the Middle East.

[DetroitDad]

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on price

The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.

The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.

The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.

However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.

According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil".

Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.

One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."

It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.

"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."

The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more cables. "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."

A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.

It also reported major project delays and accidents as "evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production." While fears of premature "peak oil" and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.

In the last two years, other senior energy analysts have backed Husseini. Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian last year that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.

Jeremy Leggett, convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "We are asleep at the wheel here: choosing to ignore a threat to the global economy that is quite as bad as the credit crunch, quite possibly worse."

[DetroitDad]

Gaddafi orders oil sabotage, source tells Time columnist

Time magazine's intelligence columnist reported on Tuesday that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has ordered his security forces to sabotage the country's oil facilities, citing a source close to the government.

In a column posted on Time's website, Robert Baer said the sabotage would begin by blowing up pipelines to the Mediterranean. However he added that the same source had also told him two weeks ago that unrest in neighboring countries would never spread to Libya -- an assertion that has turned out to be wrong.

"Among other things, Gaddafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities," Baer wrote. "The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos."

[DetroitDad]

Economy Faces New Threats

A spike in oil prices due to spreading unrest in the Middle East is the highest profile problem, but not the only one.

Economists are also worried about the push to cut government spending, the end of stimulus from the Federal Reserve and the bull market in stocks running its course.

While none of these factors might be enough to tip the economy back into a recession individually, "pile up enough headwinds and you're going backwards," said David Wyss, chief economist with Standard & Poor's.

[DetroitDad]

We were talking about skyscrapers at one point in this thread. Here's an article which backs up the premise that skyscrapers are not sustainable.

http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opin...tall-buildings

[wolverine]

We were talking about skyscrapers at one point in this thread. Here's an article which backs up the premise that skyscrapers are not sustainable.

http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opin...tall-buildings

It's a minor issue when you look at the benefits of mega job centers. Having a ton of jobs in one place will always outweigh the problems associated with the spatial arrangements of a metro's residential population. There is sense to the argument posted though. Apparently the Chicago loops office growth will be heavily limited if we dont add more commuter trains or subways. We're working on it, but it proves job center density is contingent on access to the rest of the city and metro

[DetroitDad]

It's a minor issue when you look at the benefits of mega job centers. Having a ton of jobs in one place will always outweigh the problems associated with the spatial arrangements of a metro's residential population. There is sense to the argument posted though. Apparently the Chicago loops office growth will be heavily limited if we dont add more commuter trains or subways. We're working on it, but it proves job center density is contingent on access to the rest of the city and metro

Those things are going to be tough to renovate. I see some of these newer buildings as being somewhat of an enigma when thinking about future renovations. A perfect example was the design for Cadillac Center, on Campus Martius Park.

[DetroitDad]

Price at pump to keep on rising

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, blames Middle East unrest for the higher gas prices and predicts they could reach $3.75 a gallon or more.
That can lead to a setback in the nation's economic recovery, he said.
"When we get over $3.75, we are looking at very serious consequences for the economy," Kloza said.
National analysts estimate that oil selling at $100 a barrel or more will stall economic recovery predicted at nearly 4 percent in the United States this year, and actually reduce economic growth by 0.2 to 0.3 percent.
Additionally, that could translate into less hiring and higher unemployment numbers.
Americans are less prepared to absorb the spike in gasoline prices than they were the last time prices rose this high, in 2008, because unemployment is higher and real estate values are lower, said David Portalatin, an analyst for the market research firm NPD Group.


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110228/...#ixzz1FJlkAC3c

[wolverine]

Those things are going to be tough to renovate. I see some of these newer buildings as being somewhat of an enigma when thinking about future renovations. A perfect example was the design for Cadillac Center, on Campus Martius Park.

I'm not sure what you mean. Most Class A office space will remain as is. Column grid arrangement and ceiling heights of buildings built after the 1960's will prove themselves useful for almost eternity since many new tenants opt to build out these spaces to their liking. Additionally many of these buildings have proven themselves capable of achieving various levels of LEED certification and immense energy savings. If you don't have an economy, yes these buildings will sit empty, but most American cities don't have any problems filing them.

Pre-war buildings are a different story. Either they go boutique / commercial loft office space [[like the building I work in) or else hotel or residential. Many office tenants here are facing a crisis right now because owners and management will not renew their leases, and face the issue of having to move to another building. Try signing a 10 year lease for a full floor in a downtown 1920's building here in Chicago. They'll laugh at you, and maybe offer you a couple years or less. Landlords don't want to be stuck having to ride out some tenants long lease, when their building is suddenly worth more as something else. Old buildings are going condo and hotel with the end of the recession, and new office buildings marching westward of the loop. The big shifts can also be seen in NYC. There's plenty of space here and in almost every US downtown...even crowded ones like mid and lower Manhattan, and SF.

The problem? Access. And the article validates in this premise. The subways are covercrowded, the buses are pointless to even try and board, the suburban commuter trains full.

[DetroitDad]

I'm not sure what you mean. Most Class A office space will remain as is. Column grid arrangement and ceiling heights of buildings built after the 1960's will prove themselves useful for almost eternity since many new tenants opt to build out these spaces to their liking. Additionally many of these buildings have proven themselves capable of achieving various levels of LEED certification and immense energy savings. If you don't have an economy, yes these buildings will sit empty, but most American cities don't have any problems filing them.

Pre-war buildings are a different story. Either they go boutique / commercial loft office space [[like the building I work in) or else hotel or residential. Many office tenants here are facing a crisis right now because owners and management will not renew their leases, and face the issue of having to move to another building. Try signing a 10 year lease for a full floor in a downtown 1920's building here in Chicago. They'll laugh at you, and maybe offer you a couple years or less. Landlords don't want to be stuck having to ride out some tenants long lease, when their building is suddenly worth more as something else. Old buildings are going condo and hotel with the end of the recession, and new office buildings marching westward of the loop. The big shifts can also be seen in NYC. There's plenty of space here and in almost every US downtown...even crowded ones like mid and lower Manhattan, and SF.

The problem? Access. And the article validates in this premise. The subways are covercrowded, the buses are pointless to even try and board, the suburban commuter trains full.

Right, but on a macro level, we are building disposable skyscrapers which I can't see lasting more than a few generations or less.

[DetroitDad]

Discussion and articles concerning the Global Food Crisis of 2011.

[DetroitDad]

10 Reasons a Super-Cycle in Oil Is Inevitable

"NEW YORK [[TheStreet) -- The argument has been made that the super-spike we saw in oil prices into 2008 was a simple aberration. As we are all slaves to the benefits of crude oil, this is the preferred path of thinking. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is turning out to be much different. What waits is a super-cycle in oil prices that takes crude oil prices to levels that are currently thought of as highly unlikely or impossible...."

[Scottathew]

The suburbs are sustainable, at least the first few rings are. This is my vision for the future:

Detroit and the region solve their issues and Detroit becomes a viable, city with some vibrant neighborhoods and respectable schools. Detroit becomes a place where it's safe and diverse. The first ring of suburbs will take a hit, as over the next couple decades housing becomes more affordable and the once "pristine" neighborhoods become a melting pot themselves. Not to say that Detroiter's moving into the first ring of suburbs is a bad thing, but the reality is that it will lower home values.

20-30 years from now I hope that people start moving back into Detroit. Just as Mayor Bing and others are envisioning, it won't be all at once. It will start in certain neighborhoods and organically grow outward.

If the revitalization of Detroit does happen [[decades from now) the outer suburbs will start to die off as affordable housing in the urban core would then be desirable. If we build light rail that goes deep into the suburbs the neighborhoods around those lines would become very desirable.

[iheartthed]

I'm not sure what you mean. Most Class A office space will remain as is. Column grid arrangement and ceiling heights of buildings built after the 1960's will prove themselves useful for almost eternity since many new tenants opt to build out these spaces to their liking. Additionally many of these buildings have proven themselves capable of achieving various levels of LEED certification and immense energy savings. If you don't have an economy, yes these buildings will sit empty, but most American cities don't have any problems filing them.

Pre-war buildings are a different story. Either they go boutique / commercial loft office space [[like the building I work in) or else hotel or residential. Many office tenants here are facing a crisis right now because owners and management will not renew their leases, and face the issue of having to move to another building. Try signing a 10 year lease for a full floor in a downtown 1920's building here in Chicago. They'll laugh at you, and maybe offer you a couple years or less. Landlords don't want to be stuck having to ride out some tenants long lease, when their building is suddenly worth more as something else. Old buildings are going condo and hotel with the end of the recession, and new office buildings marching westward of the loop. The big shifts can also be seen in NYC. There's plenty of space here and in almost every US downtown...even crowded ones like mid and lower Manhattan, and SF.

The problem? Access. And the article validates in this premise. The subways are covercrowded, the buses are pointless to even try and board, the suburban commuter trains full.

In NYC conversion of pre-war towers into residential is pretty much limited to lower Manhattan. But lower Manhattan has been a [[relatively) struggling office market for decades.

[wolverine]

In NYC conversion of pre-war towers into residential is pretty much limited to lower Manhattan. But lower Manhattan has been a [[relatively) struggling office market for decades.

I didn't want to get into an in depth discussion on the cities I mentioned, but you are correct, and midtown manhattan shows tremendous promise for new office highrises. Even now at the tail end of the recession most people don't realize the millions of square feet of in-demand, unbuilt office space in NYC. 15 Penn Plaza [[if it gets financing will assist in providing this space. Additionally, other areas of the city are due for more vertical development like the planned Hudson Yards mega project.

[wolverine]

Right, but on a macro level, we are building disposable skyscrapers which I can't see lasting more than a few generations or less.

What do you apply "generation" to? That can mean alot of things. I'm not convinced considering buildings dating back to the 50's still serve their original purpose as offices. The difference between pre-war and post-war building were how they were designed in relationship to natural and artifical lighting. We know today we can build and renovate huge boxy structures and reduce energy loads substantially by replacing conventional flourecent lighting with energy efficient fixtures.

There's nothing in human history yet that tells us highrise buildings can't last forever. They can be maintained to preserve them structurally, and renovated to make them viable economically. What you suggest isn't really happening anywhere....except maybe Detroit where modern office buildings are sitting empty. That's maybe your problem. You are using the doom and gloom situations you are familiar with around you to justify your logic....which no...does not apply on a macro level

[iheartthed]

What you suggest isn't really happening anywhere....except maybe Detroit where modern office buildings are sitting empty. That's maybe your problem. You are using the doom and gloom situations you are familiar with around you to justify your logic....which no...does not apply on a macro level

LOL, yeah that was apparent several hundred posts ago.

[DetroitDad]

Well, yeah, I might be completely wrong, but then again...

Right and wrong are relative to the possible scenarios, and which one actually happens. Yes, my views are based on an apparently different point of view than the one you appear to be embracing. My own view is based on the United States being a much poorer country during a time of increased global turmoil or hardship. However, I don't necessarily think you are wrong. I just think the scenario you are embracing has relatively few repercussions for those who do not embrace it. On the other hand, my chosen scenario is at least worth looking into.

Anyway, I don't really care about arguing about the sustainability of skyscrapers, I just thought I'd share the article. I personally am choosing to live in Michigan, and I think Michigan will not be building too many skyscrapers in the future, whether they are sustainable or not.

What do you apply "generation" to? That can mean alot of things. I'm not convinced considering buildings dating back to the 50's still serve their original purpose as offices. The difference between pre-war and post-war building were how they were designed in relationship to natural and artifical lighting. We know today we can build and renovate huge boxy structures and reduce energy loads substantially by replacing conventional flourecent lighting with energy efficient fixtures.

There's nothing in human history yet that tells us highrise buildings can't last forever. They can be maintained to preserve them structurally, and renovated to make them viable economically. What you suggest isn't really happening anywhere....except maybe Detroit where modern office buildings are sitting empty. That's maybe your problem. You are using the doom and gloom situations you are familiar with around you to justify your logic....which no...does not apply on a macro level

[DetroitDad]

LOL, yeah that was apparent several hundred posts ago.

How's that Chicago Spire going, Wolverine?

While Wolverine and his friends are busy investing in the current bull trap, here's another video link in which Hans Rosling discusses world global population growth. This is relevant because it clearly illustrates why things will be changing in the United States. This is a small contributing factor towards why "business as usual" is over for the United States.

Remember, the suburbs, like skyscrapers, are possibly unsustainable for not any one reason, but rather because of a mix of reasons culminating at a breaking flash point all in a relatively short amount of time. One of those reasons is that we [[USA) are currently fighting this new reality.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, I think Kunstler was like: OK, so you have a 100-story high-rise. It's in Chicago. One day, the natural gas doesn't get through the pipeline. The building gets cold. The pipes freeze. The building gets flooded with ice from top to bottom. It's a huge pain in the ass to fix it. The gas gets shut off again. It happens again and again. Finally, it's no longer profitable to repair the building due to external stresses.

On the plus side, we get about 15 percent of our NG from Canada.

Bad side: That's half their production capacity.

[mwilbert]

This seems more of an argument against cities in general than against skyscrapers in particular. Both need to import a lot of energy from outside, but skyscrapers require a lot less energy per square foot than spreading the same space around would. People generally haven't had to design skyscrapers to be resilient to intermittent loss of energy supply [[except for emergency generators) but there isn't any reason they couldn't.

[Detroitnerd]

This seems more of an argument against cities in general than against skyscrapers in particular. Both need to import a lot of energy from outside, but skyscrapers require a lot less energy per square foot than spreading the same space around would. People generally haven't had to design skyscrapers to be resilient to intermittent loss of energy supply [[except for emergency generators) but there isn't any reason they couldn't.

I don't see how this is an argument against cities. Cities have existed for thousands of years without natural gas, coal, oil, etc. How do you feel that this is an argument against cities in general?

[wolverine]

How's that Chicago Spire going, Wolverine?

While Wolverine and his friends are busy investing in the current bull trap, here's another video link in which Hans Rosling discusses world global population growth. This is relevant because it clearly illustrates why things will be changing in the United States. This is a small contributing factor towards why "business as usual" is over for the United States.

Remember, the suburbs, like skyscrapers, are possibly unsustainable for not any one reason, but rather because of a mix of reasons culminating at a breaking flash point all in a relatively short amount of time. One of those reasons is that we [[USA) are currently fighting this new reality.

I'm not really investing in anything, just living and saving.

- I walk / bike to work everyday...even when it's snowing
- Buy food locally, and support small businesses around me
- Live downtown
- Don't own a car

Neighborhood and building benefits
- Building sorts our recycling
- Bike racks
- Farmers market
- All new and renovated construction around us has green roofs.


Okay, so I fail one category since highrise living is apparently evil. I don't live in a skyscraper, just a 22 story building. But didn't you say somewhere else, you lived in an elevator building as well? Also going way back to the crowded thing, my neighborhood at one time was an embarassing mess of parking lots. All of that filled in with highrises, department stores, and small commercial buildings. No space left, but the difference is it's walkable. More people living downtown and walking to stores, restaurants and work. I don't see how that's a bad thing.


My lifestyle choices were not because I was told sustainable living was good, rather because it was convenient. I think there's a lot of people out there who might find living closer to work or supporting local business quite the nice change. But if it doesn't work, hey that's your own choice, not mine.


Detroitdad, I respect your interests in the subject, and yes, I do agree much of the country is still heading down the wrong path in terms of metropolitan growth and way of using and producing energy. I just can't see where you draw the line, and also take what's fact instead of a matter of opinion. Yes, we are certainly in trouble, but some of the doomsday scenarios are bit of a stretch.