Roody

Sprawl certainly seems real enough when you ride a bike or walk through it for miles on end. But maybe you have only thought about sprawl, and never actually experienced it on foot or bike.

Dave Cutter

That's a joke right?

Of course taxes are too high! Why live on this side of a sign post.... when on the other side puts two grand (or more) a year in my pocket? Of course.... maybe you've never had two grand (I can also joke).

Sprawl isn't real... it's a British term first used in 1955 to describe a condition that had existed for centuries (and been called something else). If you read on this and expand your understanding you realize what you're calling sprawl is just poorly managed local government. The city paradigm is old and worn out anyway. Fixing sprawl... is like inventing a self-winding watch. You seem to be a half dozen decades behind.

It seems.... every one of these living car free threads belong in the PO (or PO for old people) section anymore. Hating free governments... has NOTHING to do with cycling!

loky1179

There's got to be some kind of name for that process . .

loky1179

Sprawl free cities will happen when we hit the down-slope of the peak oil curve. Unless there is a new geologic discovery that finds that the earth's center is actually made of sweet, light crude oil, $8 a gallon gas will put an end to sprawl; unfortunately, it will put an end to massive amounts of other economic activity as well.

ro-monster

Very ironic, considering that "progress" is itself an outmoded paradigm.

Roody

Dave Cutter

Oh really..... so you have no idea what a paradigm is then do you.

Dave Cutter

Of course.... if you read any history whatsoever you know all about the previous pending total destruction of society because of the massive pollution from animal power. But then this guy named Ford.... changed everything.... and saved the people of planet Earth.

So.... to teach children about fear mongers people started telling children about the fable "the sky is falling". Walt Disney even made two animated versions of the Henny Penny story. Strange you haven't even heard of that.

Roody

Isn't "paradigm" also an outdated paradigm?

jade408

About 30% of my friends want gardens and have been renting homes to that aim. Right now the gardens haven't been planted but they have fruit trees, make Jame Ervin, and some have tomato plants. I am mid 30s. It feels common enough. If you want to read an meter sting urban farming book, it takes place in Oakland, check out Farm City. We read it in my food book club.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/bo...book.html?_r=0

the author lives in the food dessert part of Oakland, but not my part. I live near one of my pics.

ro-monster

You're probably right. It's one of those words that used to be trendy...

MickeyMaguire

Paradigm became overused years ago. Now, I see meme so often I want to gag.

tandempower

Interesting idea. In what way would you say "'modern' cities were on the verge of pandemic abandonment when cars replaced the horse as the primary means of transportation?" I.e. what was the driving cause of 'abandonment?' What decade(s) are you referring to? I'm interested in discussing this objectively but I would need to know what specific factors you're thinking of to limit the viability of 'modern' cities at that time prior to widespread driving.

Again, we should discuss specific factors and causes. Some degree of density is always rational to the extent that resources are shared/distributed and people visit each other. Medieval cities were very efficient in some ways; e.g. housing was built up around churches in a way that conserved heat. Cathedrals were engineered to give people (hard manual) labor during cold months of the year to warm them up, etc. Goods were traded mostly by manual labor, transported by foot/wagon/animal, so shorter distances were more time/labor efficient.

Industrialism emerged with the advantage of everyone being accustomed to relative poverty and the necessity and habit of living without industrial efficiency. Fuel/energy sources were abundant relative to the early uses of industrial production so what would now be considered inefficient processes appeared to be relatively efficient due to the comparison of somewhat efficient mass production with less efficient manual manufacturing. As industrialism progressed, processes of production and distribution grew more efficient but consumers also grew lazier and more greedy in terms of energy/resource consumption per capita. Today, middle-class individuals use probably manifold times the energy and resources per capita of their pre-modern counterparts without really even being aware of it. In this context, the efficiency gains of density have become overshadowed and so sprawl appears less wasteful, relatively, than it is. This is not because it is not wasteful but because middle-class culture in denser urban areas has also allowed itself to grow wasteful and inefficient, simply because a culture of energy/resource waste has become common and taken-for-granted.

To say that the value of density has diminished, then, sort of assumes that per-capita use of energy and resources can infinitely expand without the benefits of density ever resulting in a competitive advantage. In a sense this is true because of the complex financial mechanisms that allow relatively inefficient corporations to persistently consume high per-capita levels of energy/resources simply by taking advantage of classes of investors and consumers whose financial position allows them to invest and spend money with a blind eye to resource/energy efficiency. To cite a specific example, a restaurant manager I once worked with told me that it was worth wasting food because the raw-input cost of ingredients is so low relative to the price customers pay for the final meal-products. In that context, the cost of waste is negligible but in real terms, the cost of waste is always the opportunity cost of what could be done with that waste if it were conserved through more efficient use. In short, the value of rationality hasn't gone away; it's just that we've grown spoiled and feel a sense of entitlement to lifestyles that aren't rationally defensible except by reference to cultural norms that have been established through a widespread culture of waste and inefficiency.

Certainly the 20th century was the peak of human fetishization of the ability to exceed what is humanly possible with machines and external power. It would be nice if human-power could also gain popularity in that humans have a greater capacity to be healthy and fit due to advances in science and nutrition, fitness, etc. I was recently watching one of those glorification-documentaries of astronauts and thinking how glorious it is that so many people have transcended automobilism and driving. Such people are also pioneers pushing forward on a frontier of technology, human capability, and doing what most are not willing or brave enough to do but without brassy fanfare and idolizing cinematography, the egoistic public will demonize you in order to glorify some other 'heroes.' For me, at least, the first time I took a multi-day cycling tour that covered over a hundred miles, I felt like an Apollo astronaut but from another perspective, someone who could drive the same distance in a couple of hours could look at my achievement as meaningless because they look at distance in absolute terms instead of in terms of self-reliance vs. fuel-dependency.

Well-said, although it is a little more whitewashing than just calling it 'fascism.' Such a small amount of public spending is devoted to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure yet business interests attack it for precisely the reason that it is such an effective and beneficial form of transportation that generates so little in spending/GDP-growth. They are terrified that if large numbers of people realized how much they could save by trading in driving for cycling/walking, they wouldn't be able to maintain such huge insurance/finance industries. So there is a culture of viewing cycling and transit as some kind of communist threat instead of what it is, an opportunity for people to get ahead and conserve resources in a republic. But of course the freedom of a republic has always terrified colonial/collective/corporate capitalists/consumers who fear what their lives would be like without widespread dependencies and subjugation.

tandempower

You are making a political-loaded statement here, which is that 'freedom' exists when government spending is used to maintain and expand sprawling infrastructure instead of reducing sprawl to give people more freedom to choose modes of transportation besides driving.

In the 19th century, the same argument was used about slavery, i.e. that state-level majorities should be 'free' to maintain slavery if that is what was popular among people of that state. Then, as with sprawl-driving, the 'freedom' argument failed to acknowledge that the freedom to maintain one popular practice undermined the freedom to choose other practices besides the popular one.

If free people are free to enslave others, society isn't truly free. Likewise, if the freedom to drive everywhere creates sprawl that renders cycling and transit-use inferior modes of transportation, transportation freedom is undermined.

RPK79

I'm going to assume you're talking about the new fad of "food deserts" and not a tasty after dinner dessert. Here is a nice article on "food deserts".

The Mirages In Your Local Food Desert | Ricochet

timmythology

So than the whole use of the term sprawl is just an extension of the paradigm of "individual wants vs group needs"?

In addition the real shift that will start to really make this conversation interesting is the shift in were civilization is developed. A quick google search can show that people have developed towns and cities next to transportation access for the movement of goods and materials. The shift is the lack of this type of need with consideration to the digital age.

Individuals that are able to obtain their resources digitally can start to look at living away from the traditional hubs, and start looking at building sustainable communities in the interior of the US (your country here). Which than allows for new development models and can be organized with a different quality of life in mind.

While I understand that this may seem like a really big dream. I like to aim for the moon, but have the willingness to settle for a town.

Hope your ride is as pleasant as you are

jon c. 

When i lived there in the late 70s, there was a guy with a mule drawn wagon who would sell produce in the streets of the Garden District and surrounding neighborhoods.

phoebeisis

My 28 yo son is bugging me about getting a bee hive-I'mresisting because-we have bees-I DON'T like honey-and I'll be stuck doing the work
but it might happen anyway.
I just don't have the heart to raise animals for slaughter-don't eat much meat anymore.
I could go the chickens for eggs route-or even goat for milk cheese-but I just am not up for staring into their eyes -nursing them- then chopping their heads off and eating them.
It would be like eating my dog-or the cats-when they died-or raising them until they get a bit old-and killing them.
Even cold reptilian eyed birds-I would get attached to probably.
Yeah the bee hive-probably will happen(give the honey away)-but the livestock-nah.

PS-Today's pickings-roughly 80-on average 17 grams each- 3 lbs more or less- I will get maybe 6 weeks roughly like this-with dramatic tapering-pretty soon as it gets hot-started decent production maybe 3 weeks ago-
Now I'm being EXTERMELY picky-any flaws-I leave them-or hold them for seeds(but I do that later).
With the 20 plants I have-if i weeded suckered "poisoned" better-and was less picky-production would be closer to double-maybe 40% were "bug holed" today.

I pick many while still pretty green-then paper bag them-they ripen in 2-4 days-taste texture just like vine ripened.
If I leave them on the vine-and don't "pest spray" them-again-the "bugs" will get them-
Bugs LOVE ripe tomatoes-just like we do.
So I pick a bit early because i don't want to spray again-poison me-and my bees-
It is dryer where you are-so weeding less a problem-and maybe you don't have as many "tomato eating bugs"?

cooker

That's a rather idealized, free-market version of sprawl. But if the people on the low-tax side of the sign are either benefiting from the tax-expenditures of their neighbours, or costing those neighbours something in reduced quality of life, then the market is in fact distorted.

As Roody pointed out, in his state everybody pays for freeways whether or not they use them, or subsidzes infrastructure in low-density areas. And of course everybody pays indirectly for poor air quality, which is regionally distributed, and disproportionately comes from people who drive farther. In a true free market, there would be a cost imposed on the people who generate societal costs. For example, all roads would be tolled based on vehicle weight and to a lesser extent sightlines (ie. you'd pay more for blocking the view ahead, since it reduces road capacity), and uneven taxes like the gasoline tax would be replaced with a much fairer universal carbon tax. Electricity would cost more the farther you are from your neighbour.

So if you believe in the corrective effect of the market you should be working to rationalize those costs/eliminate those subsidies. Then "sprawl" would correct itself, as people would realize it actually makes good economic sense to live closer together, and anyone who still wanted to be way out on their own, would simply pay the full price.

jade408

Yup, you are correct! I know the definition of food desert can be problematic. But we have some very legit ones in Oakland. Notably West Oakland and deep east Oakland. For example, West Oakland, albeit close to downtown, has no grocery stores in the neighborhood. There are roughly 80k people in the neighborhood, and there is a Whole Foods at the north end of downtown, roughly 3 miles away from core West Oakland. Besides the fact it is Whole Foods, there isn't an easy bus ride. It would take at least one transfer and around 30-40 minutes. On the north end of the neighborhood, there is a Pack and Save in a neighboring city. It is also roughly 3 miles, and bus connections from West Oakland suck. From where I live in North Oakland, I've got like 6 groceries in a 2-3 mile radius. Maybe more, the closest is a 1/2 mile away, and 2 Safeways and Whole Foods are within a mile. Extend the range to 2 miles and there rare 2 Trader Joes. Another grocery is planned within about 1/2 mile opening early next year. And I haven't even counted Chinatown, Koreatown of the Grocery Outlet store.

East Oakland got its first new grocery store in 50 years. And now it is the only full service one on that end of town. There are 120k people within 2-3 miles. It is definitely unequal!

RPK79

If there is such a need for a grocery store there why doesn't some savvy business owner build one?

RPK79

If there is such a person they don't exist here on the forum. Maybe deep in the woods of Montana or something...

jade408

Because it is pretty hard for Oakland to attract development for a whole host of reasons that are way off topic for this thread. A community-oriented grocer is in the fundraising phase for West Oakalnd at the moment, but several mainstream grocery projects have fell off in that area over the past couple years.
The new east Oakland store took like 20 years of effort. New mall in neglected East Oakland 'changing the community' - SFGate

phoebeisis

I remember hearing of "him"
Guessing long gone
Unfortunately there are far fewer "trucks parked on side of street sellers"-and many of them aren't selling local produce.
Katrina hurt citrus production-killed the trees-satsumas navel oranges-
Meyer lemons-grow great here-I will plant one of them soon-produce well-low effort

phoebeisis

Yikes-driving 6 miles to get groceries-bank-12 miles roundtrip in an "average older car" city driving-maybe 2/3 gallon-almost $3 -plus wear and tear on vehicle-figure $6 per trip easily.
And forget about riding public transportation with frozen food-6 miles-probably 40 minutes one way+ wait time-
you flat can't buy frozen food-
and poultry-beef- really not improved by 1 hr in the summer heat!
Bacon/ham/preserved meats-do OK but they aren't so great stomach cancer wise.(taste good of course-vit c might mitigate the stomach cancer risk- fresh tomatoes (vit c source)good combo with ham/bacon/lunch meat -tastes great too-BLT-HAM EGG TOMATO OMELET)