Jump to content

Is the modern urban infrastructure unfriendly towards the poor?


Machjo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's quite a lot of money locked up in suburban real estate and infastructure - and none of it will be worth anything in a world of $200 a barrel oil, which is where we're headed pretty soon.

People living in the suburbs wouldn't all of the sudden be unable to commute because their gas costs twice as much. They would likely spend less elsewhere and buy smaller and more efficient cars. A $400,000 commuter home isn't all the sudden going to be worthless because it costs $80 instead of $40 to fill a tank of gas. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/drive-a-car-find-a-job/article1317518/

Despite their recent reputation as environmental scourges, cars are still tremendously useful things. This is particularly so when it comes to getting off welfare and into work. Policies that reduce access to cars among low-income or unemployed people make it tougher to find work.

There is no way to fully turn back the clock on infrastructure that is already in place.

What should change is asking lower income people to give up their cars if they receive social assistance.

As the Globe points out, if you have a car, you are better equipped to get off social assistance.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/drive-a-car-find-a-job/article1317518/

There is no way to fully turn back the clock on infrastructure that is already in place.

What should change is asking lower income people to give up their cars if they receive social assistance.

As the Globe points out, if you have a car, you are better equipped to get off social assistance.

Now doesn't that say something by itself?

Urban planning is something that needs careful rethinking. Transportation systems have not normally been designed to transport people to work at industrial centres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now doesn't that say something by itself?

Urban planning is something that needs careful rethinking. Transportation systems have not normally been designed to transport people to work at industrial centres.

Depends on where they are. Some of the factories out in rural areas perhaps not but the ones in the city most definetly have access to public transportation usually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People living in the suburbs wouldn't all of the sudden be unable to commute because their gas costs twice as much. They would likely spend less elsewhere and buy smaller and more efficient cars. A $400,000 commuter home isn't all the sudden going to be worthless because it costs $80 instead of $40 to fill a tank of gas. LOL

Actually according to CIBC World Markets chief economist Jeff Rubin, it would be $135. And for suburban families tha usually have 2.5 cars (one for each parent and perhaps one for the kids) that's a lot of money (you fill up the tank once a week for 3 cars, that's $21 000 on gas a year). Even if you cut back to one car, that's still $7000 a year on gas - and just think of the s**tstorms that would be a regular occurrence for a family of four if there was only one car - after all, you can't do ANYTHING in a suburb without a car.

But of course it's not just gas that would increase, it's every product that uses oil to get from its raw material state to the store shelf. That includes food, so it makes even less sense to sprawl out from city centres and eat up farmland that could be growing cheap food in the era of +$200/barrel oil. People just won't buy avocados anymore because they'll be too expensive . . . Or California strawberries, or pineapples, or lettuce in the winter, etc.

And it's not as if oil would stop at $200 - since the efficiency gains in new cars still don't make up for how many more people buy suburban homes each year, and the global demand for oil, supply and demand dictates it will continue rise rapidly, meaning that yes, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that not too far in the future middle class folks will not be able to afford to live in the suburbs.

And house prices in the US were already being affected by oil prices when they were at their peak 1-2 years ago - far-flung communities had much higher price declines and foreclosure rates than city centres.

The numbers just don't add up - the status quo is unsustainable.

Source for the facts:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013242

(Originally in Macleans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that citizens continue to request that governments provide solutions and funding for problems. Even as they do these things they demand fiscal responsibility and lower taxes. The case of urban infrastructure is a problem for the residents of that specific location, its that simple. In my view they should look after their own backyards. Citizens as a whole need to review their expectations from governments at all levels and start accepting responsibility for their own situations.

I have come to the conclusion that the entire nanny state concept of cradle to grave benefits and a legacy of entitlement can be directly traced to the growing problems of our modern society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that citizens continue to request that governments provide solutions and funding for problems. Even as they do these things they demand fiscal responsibility and lower taxes. The case of urban infrastructure is a problem for the residents of that specific location, its that simple. In my view they should look after their own backyards. Citizens as a whole need to review their expectations from governments at all levels and start accepting responsibility for their own situations.

I have come to the conclusion that the entire nanny state concept of cradle to grave benefits and a legacy of entitlement can be directly traced to the growing problems of our modern society.

Well we agree then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not as if oil would stop at $200 - since the efficiency gains in new cars still don't make up for how many more people buy suburban homes each year, and the global demand for oil, supply and demand dictates it will continue rise rapidly, meaning that yes, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that not too far in the future middle class folks will not be able to afford to live in the suburbs.

JB there comes a certain point in time where people wake up to the fact that we should not be wasting gas stupidly. $1.40/litre gas last year killed the SUV and casual truck market. It would be the same with $200/barrel oil. People would simply adapt. Smaller cars and more efficient industry would be the eventual result. Hybrids will become a normal thing and eventually we'll stop needing oil altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we agree then.

To a certain extent we do agree. I think that there is a time and a place for government. I am not a big fan of massive social programs that fail to accomplish anything that is a for sure. I my view EI should be like a personal savings account similiar to CPP. You can take out what you put into it. By the same token I am no fan of social assistance either. Yet the two are light years apart one being federal and the other provincial. I would think that there could be work found for people on these programs at either the federal or provincial level, call it workfare if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a certain extent we do agree. I think that there is a time and a place for government. I am not a big fan of massive social programs that fail to accomplish anything that is a for sure. I my view EI should be like a personal savings account similiar to CPP. You can take out what you put into it. By the same token I am no fan of social assistance either. Yet the two are light years apart one being federal and the other provincial. I would think that there could be work found for people on these programs at either the federal or provincial level, call it workfare if you like.

Sure I'll agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB there comes a certain point in time where people wake up to the fact that we should not be wasting gas stupidly. $1.40/litre gas last year killed the SUV and casual truck market. It would be the same with $200/barrel oil. People would simply adapt. Smaller cars and more efficient industry would be the eventual result. Hybrids will become a normal thing and eventually we'll stop needing oil altogether.

To some extent mass transit can support a sort of urban sprawl (we certainly saw the beginnings of that as early as the 19th century in Great Britain). But you're generally right, the end of cheap gas means it becomes much more expensive/inconvenient to live many miles away from the hub of economic activity. The problem is that folks have a hard time telling the difference between a trend and an aberration. All in all, the depopulating of the cities has been a very unhealthy thing in the industrialized world. It has seen the inner cities decay both infrastructure-wise and in crime rates and in economic base (I don't think you can really separate the three, either, this is definitely a negative feedback situation). At the same time, the growth of the suburb has seen, in many places, valuable land (from an ecological and often agricultural point of view) basically paved under to make way for countless numbers of houses, roads and the feeder infrastructure needed to get the folks to the economic hubs.

It really was a crazy way of doing things, though it made sense when infrastructure and gas were cheap, but what it ultimately did was rob Peter to pay Paul. The suburbs and the enormous amount of infrastructure required to build and maintain them was ripped out of the guts of the cities, the cities start to implode, suburbanites declares "city's suck and are full of crime and grime and potholes" without ever thinking that maybe they are actually the cause of it all.

The city, the polis, that center of civilization since our ancestors first invented agriculture and urban living, has become the place of ill-repute, where it was once the center of accomplishment. Law, order, art, and civilization itself flowed from the city. Now everyone treats them with scorn, while never once realizing that when they fail, they take the surrounding economy with them. Think it won't happen, look at Detroit, once one of the great industrial capitals on the planet. It's suburbs are shriveling up and dying and the city itself is depopulating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with much of anything you said there.

The suburbs developed because they are nicer, cleaner and generally safer places to live. They sustain themselves through taxes and there's nothing wrong with people not wanting to live in dirty and unmodern city centres.

The problems with most older and larger downtown cores is that they were not designed to accomodate modern society. Narrow, one way streets and alleyways, no parking and congestion are the results. Few people want to contend with that when they have the means to live outside of it.

If we're to stop the sprawl it will have to be as a result of intelligent city and transit planning. Suburbanites might then think about coming back to the city if they don't have to spend hours in traffic to get anywhere and they actually have somewhere to park. It might also help if they don't have to contend with rif raff begging for change everywhere they go.

If anyone wants an example of a disastrous downtown core just look at Kitchener Ontario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with much of anything you said there.

The suburbs developed because they are nicer, cleaner and generally safer places to live. They sustain themselves through taxes and there's nothing wrong with people not wanting to live in dirty and unmodern city centres.

The problems with most older and larger downtown cores is that they were not designed to accomodate modern society. Narrow, one way streets and alleyways, no parking and congestion are the results. Few people want to contend with that when they have the means to live outside of it.

If we're to stop the sprawl it will have to be as a result of intelligent city and transit planning. Suburbanites might then think about coming back to the city if they don't have to spend hours in traffic to get anywhere and they actually have somewhere to park. It might also help if they don't have to contend with rif raff begging for change everywhere they go.

If anyone wants an example of a disastrous downtown core just look at Kitchener Ontario.

Now why is this the problem of the nation instead of the city? Why should federal dollars fund some solution to the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suburbs developed because they are nicer, cleaner and generally safer places to live. They sustain themselves through taxes and there's nothing wrong with people not wanting to live in dirty and unmodern city centres.

I don't know that the suburbs sustain themselves with taxes. I have yet to see a study that says sprawl doesn't have escalating costs.

The problems with most older and larger downtown cores is that they were not designed to accomodate modern society. Narrow, one way streets and alleyways, no parking and congestion are the results. Few people want to contend with that when they have the means to live outside of it.

One of the problems of downtowns is the one way streets. They don't actually speed traffic up and they are poor for businesses who have storefront operations.

The trick is to reclaim areas a bit at a time and make sure that diversity of uses keep them vital. In other words, residential, retail, entertainment and recreational and business.

If we're to stop the sprawl it will have to be as a result of intelligent city and transit planning. Suburbanites might then think about coming back to the city if they don't have to spend hours in traffic to get anywhere and they actually have somewhere to park. It might also help if they don't have to contend with rif raff begging for change everywhere they go.

The riff raff are coming to the suburbs down if you are thinking of begging. I have seen it now in several Canadian cities where begging happens on intersections where suburbanites go shopping or just outside the one or two entryways to the closed communities.

ne wants an example of a disastrous downtown core just look at Kitchener Ontario.

I think there are some good examples too. Parts of Vancouver are very vital in the urban areas. Likewise, Montreal and Toronto. Halifax has done a heck of a job. Heard some good things about St. John's, Newfoundland as well and there are some great streets in Edmonton. Winnipeg's Forks area is often pointed to as a way to reclaim industrial downtown lands.

As people get older, the suburbs become less friendly. Lose your car and you are isolated. We are going to see more people move to where transit, shopping and services are.

The smart cities will cater to seniors in their downtown areas. The real smart cities will pursue diversity for their urban areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that citizens continue to request that governments provide solutions and funding for problems. Even as they do these things they demand fiscal responsibility and lower taxes. The case of urban infrastructure is a problem for the residents of that specific location, its that simple. In my view they should look after their own backyards. Citizens as a whole need to review their expectations from governments at all levels and start accepting responsibility for their own situations.

I have come to the conclusion that the entire nanny state concept of cradle to grave benefits and a legacy of entitlement can be directly traced to the growing problems of our modern society.

I'm all for municipal issues being dealt with by municipal taxes. However, I don't think provincial and federal governments can pull out of municipal affairs if they are either downloading (social) services which have traditionally been their responsibility, and/or not giving municipalities the political tools to properly manage their finances on their own so they have the resources to deal with these issues.

ie - I believe Toronto needs to go to the province to get permission to put a bus/carpool lane on a municipal street. What's that about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB there comes a certain point in time where people wake up to the fact that we should not be wasting gas stupidly. $1.40/litre gas last year killed the SUV and casual truck market. It would be the same with $200/barrel oil. People would simply adapt. Smaller cars and more efficient industry would be the eventual result. Hybrids will become a normal thing and eventually we'll stop needing oil altogether.

The thing is, I don't believe cars will ever become energy efficient enough so that we can continue using them at the rate we currently do. Even if they become totally electric, it will take a lot of electricity and that will probably mean many expensive nuclear plants, and we'll see electricity rates shoot up, making our cost of living increase as well.

Personally I think the only way the suburbs can survive into the next few decades is intensifying and becoming more urban, which means redeveloping the power-centres and strip malls so as to make public transit attractive.

Mississauga, Vaughn and Markham are busy doing this - developing downtown areas and re-developing roads like Hurontario to support things like LRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try one more time to make my point. Canadians have become nanny state sponsored trough hogs, living in a perpetual state of on demand entitlement. These things we ask for need to be paid for, and they are paid for with tax dollars. Those tax dollars detract from disposable family income. Reduced disposable income translates into less available investment capital. This simply force foreign investment and debt corporate debt accumulation to fund research and development as well as expansions to production capacity. All in all, we have slid down a slippery slope toward where we have found ourselves today. Heavily taxed and under invested. Meanwhile we have piled up debt and demanded more services from the government.

How long can this continue before an utter collapse takes place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread, but as JB Globe and jdobbin have alluded to - the flight to the suburbs is largely a thing of the past. Cities are revitalizing and have been for 20 years. It's the suburbs that need to reinvent and redevelop themselves.

Unfortunately, the urban redevelopment of the cities and larger centres are killing rural communities. Big box stores market themselves 30-60 miles in some cases and the lack of low priced competition in villages and small towns make if difficult to compete. Supply and demand, no doubt, but I wonder if these villages and towns reinvent themselves, whether big city retailers will cry the blues and ask for more government hand-outs.

In food retail the "buy local" is having an effect on small town economies but I don't believe it will be enough to save them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the urban redevelopment of the cities and larger centres are killing rural communities. Big box stores market themselves 30-60 miles in some cases and the lack of low priced competition in villages and small towns make if difficult to compete. Supply and demand, no doubt, but I wonder if these villages and towns reinvent themselves, whether big city retailers will cry the blues and ask for more government hand-outs.

In food retail the "buy local" is having an effect on small town economies but I don't believe it will be enough to save them.

In my local town all the merchants price match with the stores in the big cities. I buy everything local unless I happen to be in the big city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my local town all the merchants price match with the stores in the big cities. I buy everything local unless I happen to be in the big city.

I'd be surprised if they could keep that up for long, since the big box stores used their quantity purchasing power to their own advantage. If they are able to price match then it is likely they are selling and inferior (or possible illegal) product. Economics 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try one more time to make my point. Canadians have become nanny state sponsored trough hogs, living in a perpetual state of on demand entitlement. These things we ask for need to be paid for, and they are paid for with tax dollars. Those tax dollars detract from disposable family income. Reduced disposable income translates into less available investment capital. This simply force foreign investment and debt corporate debt accumulation to fund research and development as well as expansions to production capacity. All in all, we have slid down a slippery slope toward where we have found ourselves today. Heavily taxed and under invested. Meanwhile we have piled up debt and demanded more services from the government.

How long can this continue before an utter collapse takes place?

Having a shitload of people at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder is hardly a solution to the problem either. They tried that in the 19th century as the full social effects of the Industrial Revolution hit home in Britain. The general consensus was "We've got this rising middle class that we can't burden with the woes of the poor!" This was precisely the kind of logic that lead to the disasters of the Potato Famine, and, in general, to the severe social problems that affected the major British cities in the Victorian Era.

The idea that if we just get rid of a social safety net that everyone will clamor up and immediately become good thrifty citizens just isn't born out by reality. You can see where the Victorian political elite even finally came to that awareness when they started developing the Poor Laws, which were the first steps towards a modern social safety net.

I mean, what do you think is going to happen if we just kick a million people off of various forms of taxpayer-funded social assistance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...