Freakonomics: Urbanization (NY Times)

[10023]

Thought this was interesting, even if some are a bit extreme and alarmist. Certainly food for thought / conversation here:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ics-quorum/?hp

December 11, 2007, 2:01 pm
How Should We Be Thinking About Urbanization? A Freakonomics Quorum

By Stephen J. Dubner

Urbanization has been climbing steadily of late, with more than half of the world’s population now living in cities. Given the economic, sociological, political, and environmental ramifications, how should we be thinking about this? We gathered a quorum of smart thinkers on this subject — James Howard Kunstler, Edward Glaeser, Robert Bruegmann, Dolores Hayden, and Alan Berube — and posed to them the following questions:

This year marked the first time in human history that more people lived in cities than in rural areas. What problems and opportunities does this present? What effects has it had on our local and global culture? Economy? Health?

...


Some interesting passages:

"One thing that almost nobody is paying attention to: the skyscraper will not be a viable building type in our energy-scarce future. Six or seven stories must be the practical limit in a new age when electric supply is not necessarily as reliable as it has been in our time. Cities overburdened with mega-structures will have a severe liability."

"The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins."

"People in cities are much more economically productive; urban density has been a wellspring of innovation for many millenia. Cities sometimes have a bad reputation because of their association with problems like poverty, pollution, and disease; but this association does not imply causation.

Cities are full of poor people because cities attract poor people, not because cities make people poor. Millions of the least advantaged come to urban areas not because cities are bad for them, but because cities are good for them."

"Of course, this huge outward migration of people has caused problems, just as the migration to the cities did. And public authorities have once again tried to slow or halt the process, now pejoratively called “sprawl,” often with the explicit aim of preserving the distinction between the urban and the rural. This effort is likely to be just as futile as the effort to stop people from moving into the cities, and just as likely to be counterproductive."

[PhxSprawler]

Personally, I do not agree with some of the negative doom's day opinions. Skyscrapers are efficient in saving more land availability for plants, parks, and simple nature. Energy technology is moving in the right direction. A growing percentage of skyscrapers are using geothermal, wind, and solar enery to become sustainable, self-contained entities. I cannot imagine this trend will reverse any time soon!

Second, the "suburb" may die as we know it, but there is also a growing trend to urbanize decaying suburbs. Unless our population starts to sink (Example: rustbelt), our suburbs will continue to become urban hubs. The sprawling Los Angeles area is a prime example, as Pasadena, Long Beach, Irvine, and Riverside introduce plans to change their vertical landscape. The same trend can be observed in Seoul, Shanghai, Dubai, Paris, London, D.C., Seattle, Salt Lake City, etc, etc, etc.

[mhays]

1. Highrises can foster extremely efficient transportation.

2. They can also have outstanding ratios of floor area to surface area, a key part of reducing heating and cooling cost.

3. They can also reduce the use of construction materials vs. separate structures for occupants.

4. Dense living reduces land usage.

5. Many additional factors include basics such as each individual not needing a weed whacker, just one roof to maintain vs. several hundred, and so on.

The suburban model is far less efficient overall. I wouldn't worry about highrise cities.

On the other hand, yes, supertalls can be inefficient.

[totheskies]

Hmm, quite a thinker of a post....

If I were to pick the most efficient form of living, I'd go with rural. The idea of self-sufficiency and environmental replenishment is far better than the clutter and noise/air/land pollution that cities cause. However we can't all be farmers, so urban living is a distant second to rural in terms of environmental efficiency. Even with supertall buildings, the suburbs are ultimately much more wasteful than the cities. As for the major skyscrapers, we are moving towards the ability for them to actually power themselves through solar energy and other "green" measures.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

1. Highrises can foster extremely efficient transportation.

2. They can also have outstanding ratios of floor area to surface area, a key part of reducing heating and cooling cost.

3. They can also reduce the use of construction materials vs. separate structures for occupants.

4. Dense living reduces land usage.

5. Many additional factors include basics such as each individual not needing a weed whacker, just one roof to maintain vs. several hundred, and so on.

The suburban model is far less efficient overall. I wouldn't worry about highrise cities.

On the other hand, yes, supertalls can be inefficient.

well said. highrises have amazing built-in efficiencies that more than offset the elevator energy needs.

and yes, the law of diminishing returns does mean that constructing a 150 story mega tall like the chicago spire is less efficient than building three 50 story towers of equal usable floor area.

[VivaLFuego]

Scarce electricity meaning highrises are inefficient?

Has he ever heard of nuclear power? Wind turbines and solar panels on the building to power basic systems?

I call anti-capitalist quasi-academic neo-green hogwash on this premise, or at least on the participants.

[nath05]

Kunstler is all doom and gloom and it really annoys me. What will happen in the (more) 'energy scarce future' is we will slowly, haltingly, and sometimes painfully adjust our style of living to meet the realities of the world around us, whatever they may be. The skyscraper will be feasible and the suburbs will not be ruins or scrap yards. The physical form they take on may change, but they won't go extinct.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ In addition to shooting down that crap about skyscrapers not being efficient, WE ARE NOT HEADED FOR AN ENGERY SCARCE FUTURE. There is a reason why we use capitalism, it will automatically find away to supply our demands. So as long as we continue to demand energy, we will find a way to supply it. I would postulate that we will eventually just start building an assload of nuclear power plants because they are hands down the most efficient source of energy, yes they produce a little nuclear waste, but the radiation released really isn't that dangerous unless you eat it or something. Regardless of the saftey of nuclear power, as energy prices rise further that will only give more incentive to find a way around fossil fuels which will lead to new ways to provide the energy we want. There will be not "energy scarcity" in the future...

That quote about suburbs is also bullshit, they will always still be there because people will always want their space whenever possible. Therefore the demand for space will win out over slightly higher energy costs and preserve the suburbs. They might shrink a little bit, but there will always be people who want to live in a more open space.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by nath05

The skyscraper will be feasible and the suburbs will not be ruins or scrap yards. The physical form they take on may change, but they won't go extinct.

^ Why, because you said so? I agree with your optimism about skyscrapers, but in the next century how exactly are we going to sustain these incredibly wasteful, land consuming suburbs that we've built?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by totheskies

Hmm, quite a thinker of a post....

If I were to pick the most efficient form of living, I'd go with rural. The idea of self-sufficiency and environmental replenishment is far better than the clutter and noise/air/land pollution that cities cause. However we can't all be farmers, so urban living is a distant second to rural in terms of environmental efficiency. Even with supertall buildings, the suburbs are ultimately much more wasteful than the cities. As for the major skyscrapers, we are moving towards the ability for them to actually power themselves through solar energy and other "green" measures.

I don't think rural is that good.

You can theoretically make rural living pretty sustainable. But most people don't conform to sustainable practices.

First, they'd probably pave a lot of land, several, or many, times what's paved for the average apartment building on a per capita basis. Paving arable land is counterproductive.

Second, they'd probably want to travel around beyond walking distance. Travel is far more efficient when people are close together. Public transit loses its viability when you get below a certain density.

Third, most people would probably want computers and flushing toilets and so on. Providing infrastructure for low-density rural sprawl is extraordinarily inefficient. (Septic tanks? On that scale? You've got to be kidding.)

The most efficient, sustainable model is for a few people to be in rural areas producing food on the fewest acres possible, ideally without pesticides and so on, and for the rest of us to be in as little land as possible, using as little energy and resources as possible. The best thing most of us can do for the environment is to live in an apartment, not buy much stuff, and walk to work.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't think rural is that good.

.

Yeah it pretty much sucks. Which is why after millions of years we've advanced to a point of urbanization.

[totheskies]

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't think rural is that good.

You can theoretically make rural living pretty sustainable. But most people don't conform to sustainable practices.

First, they'd probably pave a lot of land, several, or many, times what's paved for the average apartment building on a per capita basis. Paving arable land is counterproductive.

Second, they'd probably want to travel around beyond walking distance. Travel is far more efficient when people are close together. Public transit loses its viability when you get below a certain density.

Third, most people would probably want computers and flushing toilets and so on. Providing infrastructure for low-density rural sprawl is extraordinarily inefficient. (Septic tanks? On that scale? You've got to be kidding.)

The most efficient, sustainable model is for a few people to be in rural areas producing food on the fewest acres possible, ideally without pesticides and so on, and for the rest of us to be in as little land as possible, using as little energy and resources as possible. The best thing most of us can do for the environment is to live in an apartment, not buy much stuff, and walk to work.

Oh I know it sucks, but keep in mind I am from Arkansas. I tend to associate a rural lifestyle with an "isolationist" principle, but communities can still exist. For instance, my grandparents took me to where my granny was raised in the Delta region- an area called Rower. Even in the late 90s, this area of say 80 people had like 6 cars between them, and walked everywhere that they went. The nearest store was 14 miles away, unless you felt like swimming across the Mississippi River. The community was composed of highly impoverished BUT self-sufficient African Americans. That's my impression of rural, not these mass production farms that use high tech harvesters and spread harmful pesticides.

[totheskies]

LOL, I'm gonna leave that up, but it embarrassing to share stories like that on an urban forum. But the community had so many positives... shared ownership of everything, a real caring for everyone there, and a die-hard work ethic. I guess coming from situations like that, it's hard to understand why urbanists and suburbanists are so selfish and materialistic (eventhough I'm WELL infected by the urban life now).

[10023]

But that's a 3rd world existence, basically. And there's a reason human societies have been steadily moving away from that sort of lifestyle for millenia.

The fact is that the city is here to stay. Urbanization is here to stay. Rome had a million people before oil, combustion engines, electricity or even steam power. Our cities will be powered by nuclear power or wind and solar or even things we haven't thought of yet, but they will continue to grow larger. That's the only way to sustain humanity's growing population and increasing specialization (which, of course, is much more efficient than having each and every person be self-sufficient).

However, I can see the argument that suburbs, as we know them today, have a bleak future. Suburbs began roughly 100 years ago with commuter towns built along rail networks. These were fine, and they filled a natural desire of people to live in a more peaceful and quiet environment, and the means of transport that allowed people to live in a bucolic village and work downtown were relatively efficient and sustainable. But the post-WWII suburban sprawl may very well end up being a temporary aberation.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 10023

"One thing that almost nobody is paying attention to: the skyscraper will not be a viable building type in our energy-scarce future. Six or seven stories must be the practical limit in a new age when electric supply is not necessarily as reliable as it has been in our time. Cities overburdened with mega-structures will have a severe liability."

"The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins."

"Of course, this huge outward migration of people has caused problems, just as the migration to the cities did. And public authorities have once again tried to slow or halt the process, now pejoratively called “sprawl,” often with the explicit aim of preserving the distinction between the urban and the rural. This effort is likely to be just as futile as the effort to stop people from moving into the cities, and just as likely to be counterproductive."

Is it just me, or are these passages massively contradictory to each other?

[Cambridgite]

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't think rural is that good.

You can theoretically make rural living pretty sustainable. But most people don't conform to sustainable practices.

First, they'd probably pave a lot of land, several, or many, times what's paved for the average apartment building on a per capita basis. Paving arable land is counterproductive.

Second, they'd probably want to travel around beyond walking distance. Travel is far more efficient when people are close together. Public transit loses its viability when you get below a certain density.

Third, most people would probably want computers and flushing toilets and so on. Providing infrastructure for low-density rural sprawl is extraordinarily inefficient. (Septic tanks? On that scale? You've got to be kidding.)

The most efficient, sustainable model is for a few people to be in rural areas producing food on the fewest acres possible, ideally without pesticides and so on, and for the rest of us to be in as little land as possible, using as little energy and resources as possible. The best thing most of us can do for the environment is to live in an apartment, not buy much stuff, and walk to work.

The key here is that it has to be REAL rural living. Buying or building a "country house" in some little exurb and gentifying a little village into boutiques, pottery stores, and antique shops is not rural living. That's just the urban/suburban commuter trying to fit his/her vision of what quaint-ass rural living must be like into a place that was once an authentic rural landscape. This is NOT country living and is possibly the must unsustainable way one can live...even much worse than the suburbs, I'd argue.

Now if we have real productive agriculture near our communities (and not using shit loads of pesticides and fertilizers) that's another matter. Or truly living off the land, then that's another story.

[10023]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Is it just me, or are these passages massively contradictory to each other?

Well there's a lot of stuff that contradicts other statements, because there are quotes from a dozen or more "experts" in the article, who don't necessarily agree.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

The key here is that it has to be REAL rural living. Buying or building a "country house" in some little exurb and gentifying a little village into boutiques, pottery stores, and antique shops is not rural living. That's just the urban/suburban commuter trying to fit his/her vision of what quaint-ass rural living must be like into a place that was once an authentic rural landscape. This is NOT country living and is possibly the must unsustainable way one can live...even much worse than the suburbs, I'd argue.

Now if we have real productive agriculture near our communities (and not using shit loads of pesticides and fertilizers) that's another matter. Or truly living off the land, then that's another story.

Exactly. And this will never, ever, ever happen. Ever.

Maybe there will be a new generation of the hippie communes of the '60s, but it won't have any meaningful impact. It'll be a bunch of crazy PETA member types that nobody listens to.

Our best hope is to regulate land use to:

1. Encourage or require accessibility of workplaces and homes via public transportation. Higher densities, land use restrictions, TODs, etc could encourage this.

2. Revise the tax code and real estate law to subsidize urban, rather than suburban living.

3. Invest more in mass transit and rail infrastructure, and less in building superhighways through currently rural areas to encourage subdivisions and office parks to spring up alongside.

4. Ban greenfield development of subdivisions, office parks, shopping centers, etc on rural land. Develop greenbelts around U.S. cities, and make sure they're large enough that development doesn't just skip over a mile or two of forest and continue (see: Chicago's near-continuous belt of forest preserve land, which is nice but doesn't do anything to restrict sprawl)

[totheskies]

Originally Posted by 10023

But that's a 3rd world existence, basically. And there's a reason human societies have been steadily moving away from that sort of lifestyle for millenia.

The fact is that the city is here to stay. Urbanization is here to stay. Rome had a million people before oil, combustion engines, electricity or even steam power. Our cities will be powered by nuclear power or wind and solar or even things we haven't thought of yet, but they will continue to grow larger. That's the only way to sustain humanity's growing population and increasing specialization (which, of course, is much more efficient than having each and every person be self-sufficient).

However, I can see the argument that suburbs, as we know them today, have a bleak future. Suburbs began roughly 100 years ago with commuter towns built along rail networks. These were fine, and they filled a natural desire of people to live in a more peaceful and quiet environment, and the means of transport that allowed people to live in a bucolic village and work downtown were relatively efficient and sustainable. But the post-WWII suburban sprawl may very well end up being a temporary aberation.

I would agree that it's a third world existence, which is why I went to school, got a Masters degree, etc. Just pointing out that simple isn't always as bad as it seems.

[zaphod]

highly efficient mechanized agriculture is important to maintain a developed way of living in a country of 300 million people. People think that small scale farming is pastoral and quaint but countries with large populations that rely on that sort of thing tend to be third world. I think technology can and will overcome the issues related to current enviromental issues surrounding farming.

Anyways, if people want to live in the country then they can buy 40 acres along the river or in the woods, and can make their money raising animals or repairing/building things. Or working on the internet. I think this is already the reality in most rural areas I am familiar with

To me I think denser, better planned suburban areas similiar to new urbanism or streetcar suburbs are going to be the norm. Even if economic reasons like higher energy prices don't do it, I think consumers tastes inevitably change.