[QatzelOk]

let's say i wanted to build a pool. The plan would be to fill the pool with goats blood, then line the pool up with gargoyles for the sacrifices.

what kind of property tax would you suggest i pay?

The problem with this scenario is that it would be repeated by everyone in suburbia. That would mean the extinction of gargoyles and a spike in the price of blood that might put it out of the reach of people who need transfusions.

This is what suburbia has done to our countries. Impoverished us beyond our wildest dreams because of some misplaced fear of sharing things.

In a normal society, the community would sacrifice gargoyles in a public pool built for that purpose, and then return to their sensible row houses which they would rent.

[Rancid]

I would be completely fine with public sacrifices. The problem arises when the public doesn't support public sacrifices. What would i do then?

[QatzelOk]

Change regimes.

Your government doesn't support community either. It supports private everything because it makes more money flow to government sponsors.

So while government OUGHT to concern itself with community, the ones we have in the suburban West don't do this. There is no separation between governance and private interest, and this is a huge problem. It is part of the cause of all the other major ones.

[Dr House]

There is no separation between governance and private interest, and this is a huge problem.

Qatz, I agree. That's why I think we should have a government small enough that it can't be bought off by private interests.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

I agree that homes need to be built for hundreds of years, not a few decades. But whether a home is 20 years old or 200 years old, it can be bought and sold so that its utility is passed on through the generations.

But what is truly stupid, IMNSHO, is the development of the suburbs and sprawl. Millions of families consume more than one gallon of gas commuting one way to work, and the public transportation in most suburbs is still terrible despite some recent modest improvements. More and more farms and open spaces are turning into subdivisions while parts of established cities remain abandoned or underpopulated.

Our goal should be to increase population density, curb per-capita fuel and energy consumption, reduce commute times, and improve mass transit for long-distance traveling and vacationing.[/b]

[QatzelOk]

suburbs and sprawl

Most suburban housing is built to fall down in less than one century. It is disposable architecture.

The reasons are many. One is that it costs so much to drive and maintain suburbia, that it is necessary to build really cheap houses in order to offset the cost of the commuting.

Another one is that our society has become more short-sighted and crassly commercial since World War Two.

A third reason is that the War profiteers who built suburbia wanted to maximize their profits by building garbage and selling it for as much as they could. And the car companies and oil companies also helped fund these consumption centres - for them, the homes weren't important. They just demanded long commutes between activities so everyone would buy more of their products out of necessity.

Cheap houses lead to expensive commutes.

Why should someone OWN a house that is built to last several generations?

Disposable housing is what we get when we plan for maximum consumption of oil and vehicles by forcing people to commit to a piece of land in the middle of nowhere.

[Ben Overmyer]

Most suburban housing is built to fall down in less than one century. It is disposable architecture.

Not sure on that one, mate. And here's a thought - what if technology changes in the future, and modifying the existing architecture to make use of it would be too expensive? Wouldn't a more "disposable" style of architecture be cheaper to tear down?

The reasons are many. One is that it costs so much to drive and maintain suburbia, that it is necessary to build really cheap houses in order to offset the cost of the commuting.

Um, not really. I've lived in plenty of suburban neighborhoods, and I never noticed a direct correlation between crappy construction and commute costs.

Another one is that our society has become more short-sighted and crassly commercial since World War Two.

This is probably more accurately stated as "more immediate" and "more materialist." Also, you say "our society" as if Canadian and American societies were the same...and, hate to break it to you, but they're not.

A third reason is that the War profiteers who built suburbia wanted to maximize their profits by building garbage and selling it for as much as they could. And the car companies and oil companies also helped fund these consumption centres - for them, the homes weren't important. They just demanded long commutes between activities so everyone would buy more of their products out of necessity.

"War profiteers?" Uh, no. "Suburbia" was a natural extension of people moving away from the moral and environmental decay of city life. It began in the late 18th century, not the mid 20th century. You should seriously consider reading some history books, mate.

Cheap houses lead to expensive commutes.

Incorrect. Did you have an extra large cup of fail this morning, or what?

Why should someone OWN a house that is built to last several generations?

Why not? My parents will be able to pass their house, that they built WITH THEIR OWN HANDS, to me when the time comes. That has a lot of sentimental value to me.

Disposable housing is what we get when we plan for maximum consumption of oil and vehicles by forcing people to commit to a piece of land in the middle of nowhere.

This sentence makes no sense. Did you hit your head?

[sploop!]

I disagree with the part about making houses 'heavier'. Concrete and Brick carry a heavy ecological/carbon price.

Straw is light, environmentally friendly and provides excellent insulation.

In the West Country a couple of hundred years ago, buildings were made out of mud and straw - 'Cob'. Many of these buildings still stand. There is no reason why we can't learn from the past and build more sustainable cities. OK, so we won't be able to use Cob to build cities, but there is much to be said for pre-fabricated wood and steel structures.

What we need to stop is the modern practice of demolishing perfectly good buildings instead of repairing them. Buildings in cities rarely fall down, but they are often torn down.

[hannu]

I'm undecided on this one.

It makes sense to me to have a certain amount of housing stock made out of substantial heavy/unworked materials such as rock, where the building will last for four or five centuries & then the materials re-used if required.The basic shell remains but the insides can be reworked.

It also makes sense to have low impact housing made of vegetable material where the dwelling could be knocked down every 20-30 years if wanted.

What doesn't make sense to me is the current way we build houses out of cheap high energy input materials such as brick/plastics etc, which will probably be demolished in fifty years or so & the bulk of materials will just go to landfill or just used as core materials for more road building.

I don't think people realise how heavy & wasteful of materials a new build house is.I got a few blokes to build me a house & there were nearly three thousand tonnes of materials delivered. The house will probably last about another 40 or 50 years & have to be demolished. What a waste of materials.

[perpetuum]

Just let free market decide on this one.

In my opinion, if energy prices continue to rise, we will see massive urbanization with a demand for public transportation. Sooner or later 'American Dream' of leaving in a nice cheaply build house will be abandoned.

People will realize that apartments are much cheaper and more sustainable. North America has no clue what it means to grow in height, not in width. It is too bad that we are not ready, while Japanese are pretty accustomed to it.

[QatzelOk]

Just let free market decide on this one.

In my opinion, if energy prices continue to rise, we will see massive urbanization with a demand for public transportation.

First of all, it was the various levels of government that decided to build highways and fund suburban sprawl - not the free market.

Secondly, it was a monopoly capitalist alliance that destroyed mass transit in America, and not the market.

And thirdly, the market will often correct for itself AFTER a disaster has forced it to change, and not before. The next market failure could be your extinction, so do we really want to sit back and let multinational oil companies (the market?) decide this one?

[perpetuum]

First of all, it was the various levels of government that decided to build highways and fund suburban sprawl - not the free market.

So what?

Secondly, it was a monopoly capitalist alliance that destroyed mass transit in America, and not the market.

Sorry, but mass transit is alive and seems well here. And exactly how did they do that btw? Was it "monopoly capitalist alliance" or consumer?

And thirdly, the market will often correct for itself AFTER a disaster has forced it to change, and not before. The next market failure could be your extinction, so do we really want to sit back and let multinational oil companies (the market?) decide this one?

Uh huh, those evil oil companies, it is all their fault. And exactly how? Do I have to go get my tinfoil hat to get this one or you'll be kind enough to explain it to me, while yours is on?

[QatzelOk]

Do I have to go get my tinfoil hat to get this one or you'll be kind enough to explain it to me, while yours is on?

Alright, let me try to explain this to you, even though you seem pretty cynical already.

See, the oil and car companies are "the market." It's not just the consumer. And these companies have been applying lots of monetary pressure on media and government since before any of us here were born.

So when you say, "Let the market decide" (what to do about suburban sprawl), it's like saying "Let the market decide" what to do about New Orleans flooding, or about the world running low on oil and an environment to grow food with.

The market will not help us. It has brought us to the edge of extinction already, and you look like the one with a tinfoil hat (perhaps covering your eyes) when you say that we should trust this horrible market - after all its done with our trust - now.

It's like trusting Jeffrey Dahmer to look after your kids.

[perpetuum]

So when you say, "Let the market decide" (what to do about suburban sprawl), it's like saying "Let the market decide" what to do about New Orleans flooding, or about the world running low on oil and an environment to grow food with.

The market will not help us. It has brought us to the edge of extinction already, and you look like the one with a tinfoil hat (perhaps covering your eyes) when you say that we should trust this horrible market - after all its done with our trust - now.

Apples and oranges. Yes economic conditions of that time made people move to suburban houses. And it didn't happen over night like Katrina did, it took years if not decades.

If the demand for cheaper housing rises you will see apartment building being raised all over the place, without little to none government intervention. And if you dislike the word 'market' so much, lets redo it to lets people decide. The consumers are important part of the market, the things you learn!

[QatzelOk]

economic conditions of that time made people move to suburban houses.

What economic conditions "made" people move out of the urban neighborhoods that hey had lived on for generations? Do you mean insurance "red lining?" This is illegal in Canada (which is why our inner cities aren't trashed like US ones) and is a perfect example of "letting the market decide."

[dilpill]

Several things contributed to the decline of the inner city, but IMO crime was the main cause. Crime levels rose dramatically because many low skill jobs moved away from the core of the city, leaving many poorly educated people without jobs. As crime increased, the wealthy population started to leave the city. This can be shown by the population decline many cities show during the 80's, and early 90's. When the crime rate declined, people started moving back into the cities, as can be shown by the recent acceleration in growth.

[QatzelOk]

Several things contributed to the decline of the inner city, but IMO crime was the main cause.

Well I can do even better than "my opinion." I actually studied urbanism and the main thing that destroyed American cities was the practice of insurance red-lining.

What "red-lining" means is that US insurance companies used to REFUSE to insure people living in certain mixed-race areas of US cities. In Canada, this practice is illegal.

In the US it meant that middle class people could no longer live in mixed neighborhoods because they couldn't get insurance. This lead to "white flight," which was really "middle class flight" as many wealthy blacks fled to the insurable burbs as well.

This "let the market decide" helped to ruin America. Its cities are generally hideous, boring and unsafe. All because insurance companies were allowed to do whatever they pleased.

[perpetuum]

What economic conditions "made" people move out of the urban neighborhoods that hey had lived on for generations? Do you mean insurance "red lining?" This is illegal in Canada (which is why our inner cities aren't trashed like US ones) and is a perfect example of "letting the market decide."

Increase in quality of living did. Population density in cities and towns made it desirable to own a house in suburbs. That's what market did.

And no, I didn't mean 'red lining'.You, with your hatred towards free market tried to tie urbanization to racism, discrimination or whatever your goal was.

[QatzelOk]

Increase in quality of living did.

This makes no sense.

"Increase in quality of living" doesn't make people move en-masse to suburban tract housing and strip malls. Advertising and insurance regulation do, however. And oil companies and car companies obviously wanted everyone to waste as much oil and car consumption as they could.

The US let the car companies and oil companies and insurance companies destroy its cities. They are empty husks of their former selves, and have been replaced by dysfunctional, socially retarded, and resource vacuuming LOW QUALITY suburbs.

[Paradigm]

"Increase in quality of living" doesn't make people move en-masse to suburban tract housing and strip malls. Advertising and insurance regulation do, however.

You forgot to mention speculative advance of land rents, federal subsidizing of highways, and cheap oil.

Suburbia sucks. I totally agree. But that doesn't mean that owning a house sucks. There are, in fact, houses within cities, and they can be easily accomodated with the right land policies.