Why Single Family Homes Are Obsolete

[marmar]

from HuffPost:



Stephen C. Rose
Posted March 12, 2009 | 08:28 AM (EST)
Why Single Family Homes Are Obsolete

By Stephen C. Rose


Not in the sense that they are presently the standard -- the home that stands alone, that may be big enough for more than a nuclear family or small enough for two only. The standard, sprawled, often ugly, car-dependent, beloved American Dream acquisition, foreclosed and key to the economy. Single family homes that are the default, the ideal, the cash cow, whatever.

But these standard, pervasive, single family homes are, like private automobiles, obsolete for the future.

They may be cash cows for developers and resurrected real-estate speculators and they may for a time be the only thing that will enable you to escape the city or otherwise get right with the world. But they must eventually become either antiques (like old colonial dwellings in New England and along the Acela Corridor) or be folded in to reasonable human settlements that come about as a result of smart planning, humane design and caring attention to the thought of persons like Christopher Alexander.

I am talking largely about the single family dwellings of suburbia and exurbia, the little and big boxes that all look just the same, the bedroom community houses that have as much potential to be part of a vibrant neighborhood as a snake has to be a common pet.

Here are some salient reasons why the single family home cannot be a model for the future.

1. The future requires economies of scale to create reasonable ecological models.

Consider that a truly solar and wind driven neighborhood would thrive with a matrix for its dwellings that could incorporate 1000, or 5000 or 10,000 persons. Panels, turbines, not to mention recycling apparatus would be eco-effective and cost-effective if the huge expense involved was distributed among a large enough base. This thought becomes vapor if we assume the current proliferation of single family homes is the model for the future.

2. Single family homes represent a medium of conspicuous consumption which is borderline-disgusting.

I have watched some of the TV journeys through dwellings with more rooms than one can count, homes whose taste is not worthy of association with the word taste. These homes are a regurgitation of servile design responding to the big dollar which is no more. They got in under the wire and deep down everyone knew they made no sense, save as reflections of prideful ownership.

I think it was the noxious W who pushed the phrase ownership society. In a pig's eye. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/why-single-family-homes-a_b_174201.html

[madrchsod]

1. visions of the future...i`m still waiting for the flying car

[slackmaster]

63. Walt Disney said we'd have flying cars by 2000

And robotic servants.

And home nuclear power generators.

And a 30-hour work week.

:argh:

[Lost in CT]

77. Well a lot of people have a thirty hour work week many even less. nt

[Liberal In Texas]

187. Here you go:

The Terrafugia Transition.

[Burma Jones]

2. When I was growing up, my Dad was earning degrees and we lived on Campus

At IU Bloomington and UNC Chapel Hill

It was a paradise for kids.........

[serrano2008]

3. Yeah, I don't think so.

response to #1 - Nope, american's want their own piece of land so everyone's 110' x 80' piece of earth isn't going anywhere.

response to #2 - "dwellings with more rooms than one can count" are hardly a current trend for the wealthy. They've been around for thousands of years.

response to the rest of the article - didn't click on it, beginning was too stupid.

[Fovea]

6. Hmmm

#1 People used to want slaves, they settled for tractors and home appliances.

#2 I live next to Johnson county Kansas, while an extreme example, 3K sqft minimansions are the standard there.

#3 Thanks for the analysis of the article. But it was too ... well, you know.

[WhollyHeretic]

9. Wow. Someone disagrees with you and is compared to a slave owner. Nice.

Are you going to compare me to a nazi for pointing this out? Maybe a child molester? I can't wait to find out...

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. !

:applause:

[Terran]

17. No one compared you to a slave owner

Might try re-reading the post above to see what was actually meant.

[WhollyHeretic]

19. I know I wasn't called a slave owner. You would realize that if you had read my post or the ones

before. The poster I responded to did compare the other poster to a slave owner.

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. No - the assertion that "Americans want X, therefore Americans will keep X"

was compared with the attitude that since Americans wanted slaves once upon a time, then slaves would not go away. It's comparing the sloppy thinking in each case.

[WhollyHeretic]

195. Nope. The only reason to pull slavery out as the comparison is to attach the extreme negative

to the person. It is not comparing "sloppy thinking". It's a smear tactic. There are plenty of comparisons a person could make without using something as vile as slavery.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Some of us don't want to depend on mega-agri-corp for our daily needs.

For those people, an apartment ain't gonna cut it.

[InvisibleTouch]

145. Exactly. Thank you. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

176. But there's a difference between..... "I want to grow some crops" and....

"I want a ranch-style house on x number of acres with lots of sprawl, 50 miles from the city."

Plus, every time a suburb starts turning to shit, if you've noticed, everyone moves out of it and it turns to crap, so even if you wanted to stay in the suburbs, I guess you could, but sooner or later if everyone else left, it wouldn't be too much fun.

[ieoeja]

106. Just got back from a quick time traveling experiment.

Brought a tractor, a generator and some home appliances to a plantation in South Carolina. The owner was so thrilled he immediately sold off all his slaves.

Turns out he didn't really want slaves. They were just the most cost efficient method for running his plantation. But nowhere nearly as cost efficient as tractors and home appliances.

Of course, when the tractor and generator ran out of gas, I am sure he went to buy back his slaves given that it was a few decades later before the first gas refinery was built!

[serrano2008]

116. ahh ha ha ha

1 - Slavery actually became illegal so that's probably why everyone stopped wanting slaves.

2 - I live next to Johnson County Kansas also and the KC area has got to be one of the worst examples of "single family homes becoming obsolete" in the country. Rather than the 3K sqft minimansions in JoCo becoming obsolete, the prices will just come back down to reasonable levels and they'll still be there. When you can get practically the same house on the Missouri side of the state line for half the price as on the Kansas side for a house a mile away, obviously the more expensive one is over market value. But people still bought them. Maybe in larger cities like Chicago there will be a decrease in single family homes but in KC I can drive from one side of the metro to the complete opposite side in 35 minutes. They can't even get mass transit to work here cause it's too easy to get around in cars.

3 - actually clicked on article this time but still couldn't get through.

[ddeclue]

162. The American Family home is not going anywhere... this is the kind of stuff that gives us a bad name

The American family home has been around for hundreds of years and is one of the fundamental reasons people have come to this country to live.

The American home will simply be reinvented as it has been over and over again when technology and circumstances have warranted - with running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, air conditioning, central heating and air, refrigeration, washers and dryers, telephone, television, cable and satellite, home computers and most recently wireless networks.

The American home has ACTUALLY gotten smaller and more energy efficient over the years as the American family size has gone down and as homes have gotten better insulated and heating and cooling have become more efficient.

What will happen in the future will be that homes will start using more solar energy from p-v arrays and for water heating. As cars become electric they will be charged by roof mounted p-v arrays and serve as an electrical backup during emergencies.

The goal isn't for Americans to live a worse standard of living than their forebears to satisfy some neo-puritanical vision of the ultra-environmentalist crowd but rather to find ways to preserve and improve that standard of living while at the same time finding ways to make it sustainable. Where there is a will, there is always a technological way to do it.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Luminous Animal]

181. I actually find the living

in a city affords me a much richer quality of life than living in suburbia. I don't own a car so I am not tied down to repair payments, insurance, and gas. I walk several miles every day... to work, to the store, to restaurants, so I maintain my health without going out of my way or paying to do so. When I visit my sister in the suburbs of Maryland, I am blown away and irritated by the enormous amount of time that it takes to go anywhere to get "provisions". Shopping is an hours long commitment. My pharmacy is 1 block from my apartment, so is my corner market, the hardware store 2 blocks, the produce and meat market 3 blocks and near my trolley stop so I can pop in a grab a few things for dinner on the way home. Pretty much everything I need is within a 10 minute walk from my apartment... gardening stores, book stores, thrift stores, fabric store, auto parts store, pet hospital, music store, flower shops, diners, bars, music, art, churches, clinics, dentists, optometrists, all just a few blocks from my apartment. Out of ice? It's one block away! Out of bandaids? One block away! The manufacturer shorted you one flat head screw? Two blocks away! Having a heart attack? EMTs 3 blocks away! Need a car? City Car Share 2 blocks away! Public transportation is convenient and I can read, or do the crossword puzzle, or simply close my eyes and day dream during my commute.

The convenience of necessities and a few luxuries gives me a lot more time to devote to my family and friends and pursuits that make me happy. The ultimate luxury is time.

It cracks me up when people think that a quarter acre of land and a 2-3 car garage filled with 2-3 cars is the standard by which we measure standard of living.

[NickB79]

163. What Americans want is immaterial to the argument of what the planet needs

If current projections for future global warming, oil depletion and food shortages hold true, the wants of the average American are about to hit the hard brick wall of reality going 90 mph.

The results won't be pretty.

[ddeclue]

166. Oh nooo the sky is falling...

You can jump up and down all you want but you aren't the king here any more than George W. Bush was.

What the American people want is ALL that matters - this is a democracy and if you can't sell your POV you are SOL.

The American people are NOT going to accept a degradation in their standard of living. If you want to sell environmental sustainability it needs to be without asking for this because you simply will not get it.

As a Democrat, I am FOR improving energy efficiency and sustainability but I am NOT stupid enough to ask for what YOU want because the American people will not only say NO but will hand the keys to power over to the Republicans who will take us in entirely the wrong direction on this issue.

You need to learn that political will is a prerequisite for accomplishing a political objective and that you can't engage in this kind of utopian B.S. with the American people at THEIR expense because they won't tolerate it.

Doug D.

[NickB79]

173. Oooh, that's a battle royale to watch (and unfortunately we'll probably will have to)

Mother Nature vs. America.

I wonder if America would just nuke Mother Nature? That would teach that bi-atch a lesson! :sarcasm:

[End Of The Road]

196. Gotta agree with you.

Rumors of suburbia's pending demise are greatly exaggerated.

[MrsBrady]

4. these people don't live in north texas

where they are still building McMansions and building strip centers.

Honest to God. I don't believe it either, but they are.

[Ezlivin]

43. Ah, the NE Tarrant real estate fantasy land

I know it very well. Living here you'd be forgiven for thinking that the economy wasn't hurting, but was actually doing quite well.

I've seen no slowdown in the construction of gated communities. About a mile from my house they just finished a nice family subdivision where the starting prices are 700K.

My wife and I agree that when you can notice it around here, the shit will have really hit the fan.

[MrsBrady]

62. you are just up the road from us

[terisan]

5. Time to build Soleri Mega-Cities on pillars, leaving surrounding land wild with

some agriculture (of course it will be necessary to keep agriculture from expanding their space and pollution.

[TankLV]

50. Yeah - like THAT'LL happen!!!

[cali]

70. yeah, because Arcosanti has been such a booming success

Look, I love Arcosanti (just visited again, last month) but it's a failed experiment. It's fascinating as such, but it certainly has not fulfilled its promise.

[MadHound]

7. People's wishes and desires be damned, we all must reside in mult unit buildings

Sorry, but that is simply not going to fly for a number of reasons. Pets and kids come to mind, I can see those being excluded from many places. Oh, and what about those people who don't want to live in the city? What are you going to tell them, tough shit, suck it up and reside in a pollution laden urban area like us.

Meanwhile the poster of this completely discounts the fact that any single family residential unit can be actually greener than any multi family building out there. After all, all on one acre I can generate all my own energy, grow most, if not all of my own food, and transport myself in a manner that is ecologically responsible. Gee, now with my twenty acres I can provide enough food for many other people, healthy, organic food grown locally that will further cut our dependence on oil. But no, according to this so called expert. Hmm

He assumes much, that people out here in the country are still riding around in gas guzzlers. He needs to get out to the country more often and check out how electric, biodiesel and other alternative forms of transportation are being used. He also needs to get off the coast and realize that while home values are dropping in some areas, in other areas home values are maintaining or actually rising because we didn't fling ourselves off the development cliff like urban idiots did.

As far as community goes, he exhibits the same ignorance that other urbanites show about rural areas. The sense of community out here is stronger than almost anything you'll find in an urban area. I know, and have broken bread with virtually everybody within a mile of my house out here. If they need my help for whatever, they know they can call me, and I can do likewise. I've lived in a city, and while I knew my immediate neighbors, that's about as far as my knowledge extended. Oh, and Mr. Rose, ask any Great Depression survivor and they will tell you, it's easier to survive tough economic times in the country than in the city, in part because of that great sense of community and sharing.

And he wants to talk security? Well, unlike urban areas that build in flood plains and reclaimed land, rural folks are generally smarter than that. Besides, it's not like tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes avoid cities now. As far as other types of security goes, well gee, where is the crime rate the highest? Oh, yeah, urban areas.

Sorry, but this sounds like another clueless urbanite who hasn't gotten out of the city to see what's really going on out here, yet feels that he's qualified to pontificate about something he knows little or nothing about.

[marmar]

8. Pets and kids seem to do fine in the cities of Europe, where the kind of living described....

.... is quite common.

[MadHound]

11. Key words there "in Europe"

This is the US where landlords that accept pets are getting increasingly scarce, and if you do find one you've got to shell out big bucks for a deposit that you'll never get back.

Also, childless apartment complexes are becoming increasingly common, and as with pets, if you do have kids you get to pay a hefty deposit that you generally don't get back.

Oh, and all of my European friend, whether they live in England, France, Germany, Spain, what have you, deplore having to live in apartment complexes packed together like tuna, and dream of having their own house on their own land. Sounds like that European model isn't all it's cracked up to be:shrug:

[marmar]

12. None of my European friends deplore it and think the way we live is quite silly.....

I guess it's just a question of who you know, n'est-ce pas?

[SteelPenguin]

47. Same

I can't think of a single friend of mine over in Europe who doesn't love living that way, and hate the dispersed nature of the U.S. and how it takes a half hour in a car to do anything.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. Not only that, I knew an academic couple who spent a year in a Japanese city

with their two upper elementary school children.

At the end of the year, the children didn't want to go back to America. They liked the freedom of not having to wait to be driven everywhere. They liked it that they could visit their friends without having to arrange "play dates." They liked the fact that there were interesting things to do within walking distance. They liked walking back and forth to school and stopping off at the store to buy a snack or at the park to play on the swings on the way home.

[krabigirl]

174. Lol, there are just as many people "in Europe" who live in homes in suburbs...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

175. It depends on where you go, and it depends on what you consider a suburb to be.

The UK for instance has what would be instantly recognizable to most Americans as a suburb. (Perhaps a 2/3 scale model of our new developments, but I digress...) However the same certainly isn't true of much of southern Europe, where suburbs mostly consist of apartment blocks. So while technically a suburb, the type of construction and the density are closer to what most Americans would think of as being "in the city." France and Germany are somewhere in between, but in most larger cities the density of development is much higher than is typical for American cities, right up to the edge of the urban area.

[Roadless]

184. The key is less people.

That's the only real resolution to any of the growth issues. That would be accomplished by reduced immigration and some sort of universal family planning education.
You can have houses on five acres as long as there aren't 500 million people in the U.S.

[burythehatchet]

24. U-S=A U-S-A U-S-A We are #1

We rock 'n we rule. Stoopid Yurpeens!

[MadHound]

29. Umm, actually if you re-read my post

I was slamming US landlords for not taking pets and increasingly not taking children.

But heaven forbid, I mention that I have European friends who want to live in their own house, on their own land, and you go, well, all American stupid on me.

Rather than going off on a knee jerk diatribe that doesn't address anything, but makes you look foolish, why don't you try actually reading what I wrote, comprehending it, and then having a civil discussion:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Real rural areas are not the same as suburbs

Real rural areas and small towns do have a sense of community. The average exurb does not.

Also, how do you explain the massive apartment complexes in the middle of former cornfields that one sees in the outskirts of the Twin Cities? I suspect that such people are not so much in search of wide open spaces as of an escape from the perceived "crime and drugs" of the city, not that they've ever actually lived in a city.

[MadHound]

20. Sorry, but it sounds to me like this guy is wanting everybody,

'burb, suburban, rural, whatever to live in an apartment complex in some urban area. After all, he is going off on all single family dwellings.

Even if he's going off only on the suburbs, etc., sorry, but many of my objections still apply. Multi-unit dwellings are fine for some people, however they aren't a good fit for many people. For instance I do animal rescues, couldn't do that in a multi-unit building. Same thing with my old car hobby, or a multitude of activities that humans like to pursue.

After all, it's not like we can't make single family units energy self sufficient, we can. It's not like we can't make cars all electric, we are. It's just a matter of implementing these designs and solutions instead of forcing everybody into a crackerjack box, packed together like sardines.

Sorry, but I find the notion of forcing everybody to live in multi-unit buildings absurd and ill-conceived.

[burythehatchet]

38. Animal rescue wil not be a high priority when we are struggling to feed ourselves

and doing "human rescue"

[MadHound]

40. Speak for yourself

I can feed myself, out here in the country, on a single family farm. I can also feed you and rescue animals, again, on a single family farm. Not to mention that generate all my own energy too, and have some left over for you to use.

Can't do the same in an apartment complex.

[burythehatchet]

42. Then you are safe. The only two housing options will be rural and urban

The energy hogging suburbs are finished.

[Lost in CT]

64. Bullshit.... wishful thinking from elitist juveniles. nt

[burythehatchet]

69. I remember you now

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

72. please..please..please remember me in ten years. K?

[Crabby Appleton]

154. I agree

Bullshit.... wishful thinking from elitist juveniles - well put

[MadHound]

67. Only because people continue to think inside the box

Virtually any single family dwelling, no matter how large or how small, in a city, 'burb or country can generate it's own energy with only minor modifications. Thin film photovoltaic, rolled out as shingles can generate an enormous amount of electricity. Low speed wind generators can produce significant quantities of electricity at low cost when the sun isn't shining. The addition of rooftop solar water heaters means that for nine months of the year, one third of your energy bill is gone. Natural solar lighting, combined with LED lights take care of darkness, earth tubes can cool a house for the energy price of a fan, methane digesters can extract usable gas from our shit, all this and more is possible now with this off the shelf technology. What is required is for the people to lead this movement, and drag our government and corporations along, because we certainly can't count on them to lead on this one. Create the demand for these off the shelf solutions and they will come about.

And while multi-unit dwellings can generate some of their own energy, they can't generate all of it, unlike single unit units. The energy demand vs physical space ratio simply makes that an impossible equation. We might be able to get up to seventy five-eighty percent of that number, but that's it.

As far as the transportation problem, hell, that's taken care of by more off the shelf tech, namely electric vehicles like the Tesla. Or mass transit. Or biodiesel. The point is, it can be take care of.

Switching over to the alternative energy paradigm doesn't mean that we have to give up things like single family dwellings, or personal transportation. We simply have to use a different form of generating the energy we need, and we can already do that with current off the shelf technology. All we have to do now is implement it on a large scale.

[InvisibleTouch]

152. Yours is the most sensible voice on this thread.

Not just pointing out the errors of the OP, but giving viable and inspiring alternatives. That's the kind of thinking we need, in order to survive into the future!

[rockymountaindem]

165. Great post

All we need is to make all this possible cheaply. Hopefully the science funding in the stimulus package will help.

[Luminous Animal]

183. Indeed.

Each end every suburban dweller can afford to do any and all of the above. It will take decades for a comprehensive affordable efficient home construction. You are living in as much of a pipe dream as you accuse the OPs linked author. Any kind of mandate for any and/or all of your suggested above will be met with fierce resistance. Holy hell, we've not, as a nation, been able to raise fuel efficiency for decades.

[MadHound]

185. I'm living in a pipe dream?

Actually no, I'm not, I'm dealing pretty much in reality. You can construct a residential house that is energy self sufficient for an extra twenty-thirty thousand dollars. Yes, that sounds expensive, but not really when you look at is as buying your next thirty years of energy up front. It is something that can be built into the mortgage rather easily. And the fact of the matter is that even if energy prices remain the same for the next twenty five years, by buying it up front you would be getting a bargain. If energy prices rise, well, you're making all that much more money. Hmm, a house that generates extra energy and helps pay for itself, who wouldn't want that?

Furthermore this sort of house design would go down real easy if you A: Sell it right, like I said above, as a house that pays for itself and B: Toss some tax breaks in to make it a bit more palatable, a time honored way of getting the public to switch to new tech.

You really don't know what you're talking about, sorry. I've been dealing with a project very similar to this that involves energy self sufficiency and public policy, and your contention that this wouldn't work is so much bullshit. People are already taking the lead in making their houses energy self sufficient. And yes, we are following the fuel efficiency model right now. For decades the CAFE standard were not raised, yet it was the people taking the lead, pushing for models that were more fuel efficient. What do you think was one of leading contributors to Toyota's rise to prominence? Oh, yeah, people looking for very fuel efficient cars. The people are already taking the lead on this, and they will continue to do so. It's just a matter of moving the government, and while that is difficult I agree, it seems as though we have an administration in power that is on the same page that I am.

Continue to argue your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. self delete - wrong place.

[Luminous Animal]

182. I live in San Francisco,

I know three people who do animal rescues. Two of them rescue pit bulls. They all live in apartments. The guy across the street owns three old cars and the van he drives around in regularly.

[Lost in CT]

81. The city is awfully pricey as well 1 million for a three bedroom...nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. But real towns are not

Yes, NYC is overpriced, but it's not really a bipolar choice (condo in Manhattan or tract house in outer Long Island). You can live in the historic center of most of these towns (or within walking distance of such centers) for a lot less than $1 million, especially if you don't succumb to the hype about home ownership. (I have never been so glad that I'm not a homeowner.)

[Lost in CT]

99. If everyone from the suburbs moves in the prices are not going to drop....nt

[ddeclue]

164. What the poster seems to totally fail to grasp is the concept of political will

He/she seems to think themselves the "benevolent" ruler of the entire world who gets to make decisions for the rest of us because he/she knows better than collective wisdom of the entire population of the planet.

Well sorry to disappoint this person but you can't force people to follow your radical environmental viewpoints in a democracy - sticks don't work, you will have to PERSUADE them with "carrots".

The real truth is that people do NOT wish to live in little huts with no modern amenities to satisfy wackos like this. The solution is to find ways to keep and increase our standard of living while reducing its impact on the environment and ultimately making it sustainable. The wackos don't want to admit this is technologically possible, but it definitely is.

Doug D.

[pipi_k]

192. To each his (or her) own

Someone above gave some pretty good reasons for living in the city, and I would agree that it's awfully tempting, but, like you, I'm just a country person at heart.

What we lack in ability to get to a store or restaurant in five minutes, we make up for in knowing that when we do go to a local store or restaurant, the people there know us and treat us like valued customers.

Recently we had a pretty nasty bout with an early Mud Season, which meant that our mail didn't get delivered for three days (living on a dirt road has its drawbacks).

One of our neighbors down the hill who has a business in town and goes out each day actually picked our mail up from the Post Office and delivered it. This same neighbor has also dropped off packages the UPS guy has left at her husband's business when the road has been dangerous due to ice or snow or mud.

During an ice storm in December when we lost power for four days, she came by to check on us and dropped off some groceries.

Likewise, we have helped others in need.

Living out here, all of us are all we have. There's a real sense of belonging to a community.

And I can't even express how our lives have been enriched by watching the wildlife from season to season and year to year.

This spring we will be eagerly awaiting the next generation of catbirds who have built a nest under our small sunporch roof for the past five years and raised a family that we keep an eye on with the help of a small "nest cam" set up next to the nest and watch on a little tv monitor in the house.

We have frogs, fish, wild birds, bear, moose, deer, turkeys, fox, bobcat, and tons of other small animals to watch.

Some people might think it's horrendously boring, but for Mr P and me, it's our own little Paradise

:)

[AngryAmish]

10. The main objection is usually aesthetic ("often ugly")

Some people just like to boss others around. Telling people where they can live is just a part of the totalitarian impulse. The writer does not like the architecture, so therefore he must ban it.

[NeedleCast]

34. Bingo!

You win the internet!

[no_hypocrisy]

Why do I see the scene in "Dr. Zhivago" where the protagonist returns home

from the war to find 20 families living in the expansive townhouse in Moscow owned by his father-in-law and being lectured by the local housing authority about the selfishness of one family in one big house?

I can see changes if they are voluntary, not mandated.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Silliness. Single family homes aren't going anywhere, nor should they.

I've lived in apartments, townhouses, military-family housing, and own my own home now--would never go back to sharing walls with neighbors I can't choose, and not having my own lawn and garden.

[Terran]

21. It's not that silly, really.

I'm not saying this will happen for sure, but if we don't successfully address the issue of peak oil, gasoline will become so expensive that the suburbs will become unworkable, and people will be forced to move into higher density housing in city cores in order to maintain employment. The 'burbs could become the new slums while cities revitalize...but there won't be any room for single family dwellings downtown at that point. Economics may force this to come about, to some extent.

In smaller towns this won't happen as much because of distances involved. Rural areas probably not, as they become more self-sufficient. Again, it's theory, but one I've seen discussed several times in the context of energy and transportation.

[MadHound]

22. What makes you think that we have to stay on the gasoline model?

There are perfectly fine electric cars out there for our transportation needs (reference the Tesla), so we could still live in the 'burbs, or in rural areas and commute, all without using gasoline.

[Terran]

157. It will be a long time before electric cars

replace gasoline-powered cars. Believe me, I hope they do. And so far there are no electric big rig trucks or electric cargo aircraft or electric ships, which move a lot of vital goods around. It's not just about personal transport, it's about distribution of food and goods over very long distances.

[MadHound]

186. You really should check out the Tesla

Lovely electric car, and once models like this start coming down in price electric cars will become the norm for passenger travel.

And while there are no electric trucks, lots of stuff can be moved with biodiesel, which takes very little work to switch over to.

These things can be done, within a matter of years, not decades. All it takes is the will of the people in order to move the government.

[TwilightGardener]

25. I really don't see that happening on a large scale--yes, suburbs are

too far-flung in many areas (I'm talking the 'burbs that are more than 15-20 miles away from a downtown--exurbs), and those may contract some, and some may return to cities, but the same urge to own your own dwelling and your own property (even if it's a postage stamp) is not going to go away any time soon.

[Lost in CT]

84. So your basing this on a dystopian future fantasy...

good luck with that.

[Terran]

156. There's no need to be an ass...

Peak oil is real. If we don't deal with it, it won't be a fantasy, it will be quite real and very unpleasant. Apparently you have no idea how very unpleasant it could be.

[cali]

16. Although I'm a big fan of Paolo Soleri's Arcology and Arcosanti

the single family dwelling is far- and I mean far- from obsolete.

[Fovea]

18. Land use management vs. the ringworm model

of development.

The former requires government, the latter only needs a touch of greed and lack of concern for the future.
I am in total agreement with that aspect of arcologies. Return the minifarm to soy and corn.

I live in a <1000 sqft house built in 1905 at the heart of old Kansas City.
My house may well have been built by Wyandot tribesmen. and Croat immigrants.

Sure it is small, but I don't need more space, I have a nice garden, and the room I need for two.
What I am saying is that single dwelling units will survive, suburbia will not.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Small holdings can be managed much more efficiently than large ones.

The main problem with suburbia is inefficient use of land. The problem is lawns, not houses.

[burythehatchet]

32. It's a very simple equation, cost of energy consumption for suburbs is

currently subsidized by urban dwellers. Regardless of how we get there, that will no longer be the case. Building and maintaining sewer, water, electric, transportation to reach 20 miles outside of the urban core is no longer a proposition that the people who live in the core will subsidize. www.endofsuburbia.com

(this is essentially the same debate as the communal housing flame-fest)

[MadHound]

31. And we thank you for your contribution to the cause

Your broad brush attacks and inability to have a civil discussion, combined with your apparent lack of reading comprehension skills has greatly contributed to this perceived downfall of yours.

Good job:thumbsup: We couldn't have done it without you:eyes:

[burythehatchet]

35. Sorry

I get very wound up with certain issues. I should do better, but you know what, we are running out of time and too many people just don't see the reality of our existence because of our corporate media. European culture has existed for thousands of years prior to ours. We need to learn from their experience. The upheaval that is occurring in that society is coming here and I don't mind being an ass if it will wake one person up.

[MadHound]

48. I get the anxiety that you have, and the anger that you hold

However I find that doing something about it, rather than obsessing about what the media is saying about it is a better use of my time and energy. That's one reason that I moved out to the country. I can generate my own energy out here, with enough left over to pump back into the grid. I can grow my own food out here, with enough left over to sell to others at a reasonable price. I can preserve the environment out here, at least on my own acreage. I can turn kids and adults on to preserving the environment one customer and one student at a time. I find that to be less stressful and more productive than obsessing about what the media is saying.

Also, I wouldn't hold up the European model as the paragon in all matters. Like any other society, including America's, they have some good points, some bad points and a range in between. As always, it seems like in this emerging alternative energy book, America is providing the cutting edge research and the rest of the world is providing the labor to make it a reality. The next great thing coming down the pike, windbelts, check them out.
<http://www.humdingerwind.com/>

Turn off the TV, don't get frustrated, go out and do something instead, even if it's just making your own world energy self sufficient. The government and the corporations aren't going to lead on this one, it is we the people who are going to have to drag them into this new era.

[Lost in CT]

90. So we should send all the undesirables to self contained urban blocks and import cheap labor

to do manual work. I think we have learned quite well....

Plus a lot of Europeans live in single family homes and many more wish they did... that is one reason they come to America and Argentina and Chile.

[burythehatchet]

92. Your brightness illuminates my existance.

I hope you haven't reproduced.

[Lost in CT]

101. So you have seen pictures of Europe?

Do you agree with me?

Or are you confused....

[burythehatchet]

109. I have lived in Europe, in Asia, in Australia, in India, in Hong Kong,

in Singapore and a few other places. I do not agree with you on anything. I am not confused, I think you are a fool.

[Lost in CT]

126. So Hong Kong is your model or is India?

[burythehatchet]

129. Do you really think you're as bright as you believe you are?

[Lost in CT]

134. Well I'm not a Mets fan....

[burythehatchet]

135. Whoa...game set match...wasn't expecting that...you are MUCH brighter than you think

[Lost in CT]

138. You may actually want to try countering my arguments with I don;t know

logical thought perhaps...

[burythehatchet]

139. I'm busy preparing compendium of your salient arguments like "you're a Mets fan"

[cali]

44. I don't see that posters are saying that

but sorry, single family homes are not obsolete and it's not likely they will be in the near future. One doesn't have to believe that the economy will rebound or that resources (depends which, doesn't it?) will be plentiful to know that the single family house is not going to be obsolete anytime soon- unless there's a complete and total meltdown of the economy and the culture. And that is more unlikely in the near furture than many know.

I agree that DU is often the mirror image of Freeperville, but that's hardly anything new.

[Lost in CT]

60. As opposed to the stupid in the OP? nt

[treestar]

146. Also the assumption that urban living is overcrowded by definition

There is such a thing as too many people packed together too closely. But being in a city and being able to walk everywhere does not mean you are packed in with people.

And the definite dislike of people on display! Neighbors are so dreadful! We don't want to think of them as actual people! We don't want to know about them or hear about them!

Maybe modern technology can make sound proof apartment walls. We'd need them for single family dwellings, too! Sometimes I open the window and hear a neighbor's lawnmower! The horror!

[burythehatchet]

27. The issue has been well covered in this film

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

[NeedleCast]

30. This article makes little sense

I don't think single family homes represent a disgusting level of consumption at all...and neither does the vast majority of society, apparently.

[TwilightGardener]

37. That jumped out at me too--how does a free-standing dwelling

with a little bit of space around it (what most Americans own) represent "disgusting" levels of consumption? You can live in an apartment and reach obnoxious levels of conspicuous consumption just as easily--he seems to think moving into an apartment or other multi-unit setup will automatically make us all less materialistic, more environmentally conscious, and above all, more tasteful.

[NeedleCast]

41. The answer to your question is, for the most part, Authoritarianism

Some people always gotta try and ice skate uphill. Not happy unless everyone will agree with them and march in lock step. Some of the responses in this thread are a strong indication of that.

As someone pointed out upthrad, a single family home can be just as green if not greener than apartment or condo style dwellings. Some people just aren't going to be happy until they get their SimCity style future-dwellings of massive sky rises holding tens of thousands of people in equally gray boxes.

[burythehatchet]

46. A single dwelling requires a patch of land. Suburbs will die. Those dwellers will

be forced to move to the urban core. There will not be sufficient land. No one is making anyone do anything. It is the reality of the society that we have created.

[NeedleCast]

51. No, it's not

Your apocalypic version of the near future not withstanding, there's pretty much zero evidence to support the article in the OP.

[burythehatchet]

71. When a mind is locked shut, no amount of evidence will open it.

[NeedleCast]

82. Yeah Yeah, I know

Keep trotting out that old horse of an argument. I must be the one with the closed mind despite dozens of posters making good arguments to refute the article in the OP. It's the dozens of us that have close minds, not the two or three people defending this sillyness...

[burythehatchet]

87. The mob is always right.

[NeedleCast]

100. I'll take the mob in this case

over Tin-foil nuttery in the OP and the doom-n-gloom scenarios people like you constantly paint (and are constatly wrong about). Keep shaking your fist at the rest of and gloating about how, five minutes from now we'll all wish we had listended to you. When the OP doesn't come to pass you'll forget all about it and go on to the next doom-n-gloom scenario, because for whatever reason, it seems the only pleasure you get is from dreaming of humanity packed into little boxes, one on top of the other, under a slate gray sky, slogging to the trenches seven days a week.

You should consider moving to Japan. You'll be happy in the Tokyo city core and I can go on drinking my cup of coffee on my deck, watching the Orioles build a nest in my back yard.

Edit: Spelling

[burythehatchet]

104. I wish you all best of luck and good fortune. Truly I do.

[MadHound]

91. Then why are you locking your mind to the solutions for single family units that I posted above? nt

[burythehatchet]

94. The time to implement soutions was about 40 years ago.

You have done well to become self-sufficient in a rural setting.

[MadHound]

105. Really now, what the fuck!

The time to implement solutions is NOW, RIGHT FUCKING NOW! We have the technology and ability to do this, yet you would prefer to continue to piss and moan and not do a damn thing that actually contributes to the solution. Damn dude, are you wanting this country to fail?

Rather than sitting in front of a screen with the Oh woe are we schtick, get up off your ass and actually do something. Take this marvelous anger of yours and direct it at those who make the decisions. Start implementing these changes for your own dwelling, whether you rent or own. Start talking to friends and family about these off the shelf solutions and get them involved in making the change that you envision.

Sitting on your ass complaining about this isn't going to solve the problems we face. If you don't want to face the dystopian future you envision, then get off your ass and do something to change things. Jesus H. Christ man, you can talk all day and it won't change a damn thing, but if you actually went out and started contributing, then together we can change things for the better.

As the old saying goes, either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

[burythehatchet]

107. ok

[MadHound]

118. Here's an appropo solution for you to implement

Make your computer energy independent, you can make your own windbelt easily and cheaply, find the plans here <http://www.humdingerwind.com/#/education/>

Start there, then start looking at what else you can power around your place.

[burythehatchet]

122. Thanks. My average electric bill is $30-40/month

I will look into the link

[MadHound]

136. Your welcome,

But guess what, my electric bill is zip, zero, nada. In fact I sell electricity back to the electric company. All because I live in a single family dwelling where my size to energy consumption ratio allows me to generate more energy than I need, something that simply can't be done with a multi-family dwelling.

[burythehatchet]

149. The link is not opening. fyi

I will google

[burythehatchet]

113. do you really have the gall to believe you know what I do and who I am?

I ride a 70 mpg scooter for transport
I do not use heat or a/c
My carbon footprint if the size of a sparrow

[cali]

119. and you're a dyed in the wool end-timer. that's your sctick.

there's really very little difference between you and the religious end-timers.

And how nice for you that you live in a place where you don't need heat.

[Kellen RN]

170. Come on now...

didn't you know 2012 is around the corner?

We're all doomed. The Mayans said so.

And if that doesn't pan out I'm sure there is some other date that the world is going to end soon.

[MadHound]

133. No, I have the gall to call you out on your whining and moaning

That all is lost, that we have to follow your particular model, that you think that you're the only who is concerned about this or working on a solution.

Your statement that we should have started forty years ago is correct, we should have. But we simply didn't have the solutions then. However we do now, but the key to changing the direction of this ship we're on is to make it palatable to the majority of people. The majority of people aren't going to want to move back into urban areas, and with the off the shelf solutions that we now have, after forty years of development, they don't have to. Like I've said time and again in this post, single family houses can generate all of the energy they need, yet you continue to insist that we all move into inner city towers:shrug:

We can also switch to transportation methods that use renewables, haven't you heard of the Tesla.

So your carbon footprint is the size of sparrow because you don't use heating or a/c. Well gee, guess what, we can fix you up so that you have virtually zero carbon footprint and you can have heating, a/c, and actually drive an enclosed car. Wow, and guess what, a single family dwelling is the perfect means to do this because the space required to energy consumed ratio is actually much more favorable that apartment complexes are. GET THE PICTURE NOW?

[NeedleCast]

115. "Damn dude, are you wanting this country to fail"

Pretty obvious at this point, I think. People who predict these sort of death and destruction scenarios won't be happy until they're right. Doesn't matter what the cost is, as long as they can tell us they told us so.

Edit: Can't spell today...or ever.

[burythehatchet]

120. Newsflash: This country has already failed, you are living in a ponzi scheme

where the victims are future generations. Good luck with that.

[TwilightGardener]

124. How do you get up and function every morning with that mindset? Jesus H.

[cali]

128. it's really a run of the mill apocalyptic mindset.

I find it sort of interesting in all its variations- religious or secular.

[NeedleCast]

131. I liked them more when they would drink the kool-aid

Prophets of the Apocalypse were so much more fun when they would eventually all die in neat little suicide circles while wearing their brightly colored Snuggies. At least they had the stones to be part of the solution.

[cali]

125. Newsflash: This country has both failed and succeeded.

It's both an example of terrible practices and good ones. It's hardly as simple as the simple minded make it out to be- whether they're trumpeting how great this country is or cursing it to deaf heaven.

[NeedleCast]

127. 1936 called

They want their predictions of the end back...

[cali]

57. actually,

the likelihood is that suburbs will change considerably but not "die", and it won't happen overnight either. The future is not set in stone. that should be obvious.

[Lost in CT]

93. So are you going to give me the million plus it costs for an apartment it the city?

[burythehatchet]

96. No, you get to have a 4/3 colonial in the suburbs of CT and an Escalade with

a boat hitch in the driveway.

[Lost in CT]

103. We dry dock... nt

[TwilightGardener]

52. Let's not forget the nightmarish aspect of developers (the same folks

the author villifies for building single-family homes) and landlords (the few wealthy who could afford to purchase land and multi-unit buildings) being able to control large numbers of people--sort of calls to mind feudal Europe, to me--wealthy landowning aristocrats and serfs. Which is why many left Europe and came here, where they could finally own some land...

[NeedleCast]

58. Yup, but then I'm no longer suprised at what authoritarians will give up

in the name of having an orderly little society. It always comes wrapped in the same package...saving us from ourselves. If we would all just listen to the those that "know better" we could save society!

If you go to Google Maps and zoom in real close on Falls Church, Virginia you might catch me out on my deck, giving those poeple the finger...

[mikeytherat]

68. "Tasteful." I stopped reading the article at "regurgitation of servile design"

mikey_the_rat

[Stevenmarc]

75. Exactly

I live in NYC that and there are more than a few apartments here that have a value that could buy a whole neighborhood of houses in suburbia and even if you had the money you still have to pass co-op board approval. Also, in an urban area like mine we have a large number of single family dwellings, a fact the author conveniently chooses to ignore, because at the end of the day it will be those homeowners that will fall victim to eminent domain for a high density plan to succeed.

[Lorien]

76. The ones going up in my neighborhood do

developers knock down charming 1,600 square foot craftsman bungalows from the 1920s and build in their place tacky 6,000 square foot stucco mcMansions...hoping that a family or even single person will purchase it. It sits there, surrounded by real estate signs but having no nibbles. People just aren't that idiotic anymore. They know that the monstrosity is poorly built and will cost them a small fortune to keep up and keep air conditioned in the summer months. A couple surly would have considered buying the well built smaller home that once existed on that plot of land-but not what's there now. The McMansion is built within a foot of the property line on both sides. Huge 200 year old live oaks were taken down to accommodate it's girth. It ruins the look of the neighborhood, which is still populated primarily by 1920s structures...so yes, it does represent a disgusting level of consumption, and Americans are finally saying ENOUGH!

[Marrah_G]

33. I disagree- I do not think single family homes are going away any time soon

I also don't think all single family homes are like those described in the article.

People will always want their own private space.

The article shows a general lack of knowledge about human beings and, in my opinion, borders on the delusional.

[burythehatchet]

36. The delusion is American exceptionalism. That concept, if not completely discarded

will lead to our demise.

[ddeclue]

169. No the delusion of socialist defeatism will lead to our demise if we follow your nonsense...

America IS exceptional and it always finds a way to achieve an objective for which there is a political will. There is NO reason to abandon our standard of living - the solution is to find better technology to make it possible. Your walls and limitations are all self imposed inside your very limited imagination.

Doug D.

[TankLV]

55. Totaly agree. You "get it"...

The OP is "delusional" at best...

[The2ndWheel]

39. The cheaper and more affordable the energy, the less you need other people

[burythehatchet]

45. ..and the opposite also holds true.

[The2ndWheel]

111. Absolutely

It's not like overt slavery ended because everyone got a heart. Machines powered by oil and coal are just cheaper than people. That's why a country of 300 million people can get away with 2% of the population working in agriculture. Most of us just aren't needed, other than to consume, and we could only do that with debt and credit. We're seeing what happens when that stops.

[tomreedtoon]

49. You will all live in State-Assigned Housing.

There will be a conjugal room provided for individuals who are married, for the ugly and sordid business of reproduction. Until then, be satisfied with the state-approved cot and washbowl. And don't forget to pick up your one roll of toilet paper provided every alternate Thursday.

Seriously, does anyone buy this nonsense?

[NeedleCast]

53. A few, apparently

but it's heartening to see that most here don't.

[Marrah_G]

80. Toilet paper kills trees- toilets use water.

You did not think that through.

[treestar]

147. Probably not, but no one asserted that nonsense

You just made it up right here.

[TankLV]

54. I never read a more ridiculous thing in a long time...

Single family homes aren't going away anytime - if ever...

Sorry, not gonna happen.

Just more crap...

[SteelPenguin]

56. Horrible Writeup

First of all they do a piss poor job of describing alternatives. They make it sound like everyone needs to tear down their homes, and live in giant apartment buildings. What about denser living though? In the city there are many neighborhoods of single family homes with little space between them, if any, small backyards, community pools and parks, etc, that are dense enough to do the energy an ecological methods he's suggesting. Or something more on a European model of small village densenes. The american rural village is very disperse, but making those denser cores would help as well.

However as another poster points out he completely misses land use. If everyone with a single family home had a small garden plot in their backyard the amount of energy saved from food transporation would be enormous. If everyone put on a solar panel to their roof, a wind turbine out back, you'd see even more.

If everyone drove electric cards recharged from these sources, and a modern power grid of superconductors fed by green energy of more wind, solar, safe hydro, etc....Would it matter?

We do have a problem today, but the author of this article takes that to mean that there really is only one alternative, but that's small minded, and just flat out wrong.

[woo me with science]

59. LOL.

That's pretty silly.

[pnutbutr]

61. I disagree in part

There are many single family neighborhoods that employ solar technology to provide a majority of the power needed.
http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/27/community-solar-power/
http://www.phillysolarhomes.com/info/councilwoman-sanchez-to-host-ribbon-cutting-ceremony-at-philadelphia%E2%80%99s-first-solar-neighborhood-april-5
http://www.realestateproarticles.com/Art/2772/281/Las-Casas-Verdes-Green-Building-in-Austin.html
http://denver.yourhub.com/Westminster/Stories/Business/Real-Estate-Deals/Story~289629.aspx

Townhomes and condos are great for the city and even some parts of suburbia but the single family home is still the ideal for many people including myself. I like having a yard that my kids can run around in. I like having a garage where I can do projects. I like not being able to see my neighbors unless I want to. I like not having to pay a HOA to harass me.

[slackmaster]

65. I like my single-family suburban home with a modest yard

I like it a lot.

[alarimer]

66. I agree. Suburbs are disgusting and wasteful.

Our model of development uses more resources than we deserve. Americans with their fucking sense of entitlement are ruining the planet. Fuck your suburban McMansions. You are ruining the landscape, destroying habitats, creating the need for more and more highways with ther fucking ugly box stores and strip malls. Americans are so fucking selfish. The sooner we die off, the better the planet will be. There is no defense for ugly suburbs. Why in the hell does anyone need 1000 square feet JUST FOR THEMSELVES? Why do houses have to be so goddamn huge? And the lawns, what a travesty. There will not be enough water to go around, yet they are still building places with lawns and god forbid you decide you want something else, the lawn police in many places will come after you.

[pnutbutr]

73. thanks

for the uninformed rant there.

[Lorien]

88. ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[pnutbutr]

121. Yeah, have fun in space

I'll be here on earth with my garden, hunting deer and rabbit, raising chickens and fishing in the river surrounded by trees and beautiful flowers getting my power from solar and wind.

self sustainability in the country over city folk who rely on someone else for everything.

[Lorien]

153. Whatever dude. I'm sure that your position keeps you comfortable:

[pnutbutr]

155. you should keep your hand poised and ready for this

instead of logically thinking of ways to prepare and reduce the impact it may have on you.

Again, enjoy space.

[TwilightGardener]

74. See, I don't want to have to share a yurt commune with people like you.

So I'll keep my thousand feet, thanks.

[Generator]

160. Oh YEAH? I have two thousand feet

and I ain't apologizing neither. First time I've ever lived in this big a house my whole darn life. I finally have a room of my own besides our "master" bedroom. I love SPACE. Course I'm the one that gets to clean it all too. I am the maid and the owner. Also know as a housewife. Married to my space. We dust once a week whether we need it or not!

[Marrah_G]

78. Why wait to die off- why not just kill yourself now?

It would be one less human destroying the planet.

I find it amazing that you have learned how to connect to the internet with just your mind all while scavenging in the forest around your cave for sustenance.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

123. Man, you are just on a fucking roll, aren't you?

:puke:

[burythehatchet]

132. torch or pitchfork?

[Marrah_G]

144. Just ignore it... I am

[burythehatchet]

79. ...and sucking away money required to maintain the urban core.

[Lorien]

85. Our way of life is not sustainable, no matter how much we tell ourselves

otherwise. I'm sure that you'll be flamed for your statements. While I don't think that Americans should "die off", I do agree that we need to change our selfish ways. We'll have no choice about it soon enough:

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

[burythehatchet]

98. does...not...compute...

[Lost in CT]

117. I thought the earth was supposed to expire in 1988?

did they move the date again....

[NeedleCast]

140. 2012 now

According to the very best in Mayan Indian Analystics

[cali]

86. oh for the love of reason

I need 1000 sq feet just for myself. And you ain't gonna convince me I live a decadent lifestyle. I live in a house that's just about 1100 sq ft. It's a modest, well insulated little house with a lot of passive solar that has gravity fed water and which I heat with wood. I have 2 acres, very little of it lawn and both flower and vegetable gardens. And because YOU don't like it, I should give it up? Fuck that, charlie.

[PM Martin]

158. I posted on this matter

and got flamed.
It is one thing if you can afford it, it is another if you took out a mortgage at 8:1, 10:1 to buy such a massive home.
I do not see single family homes going away, I do see the excess of "McMansions" going away though.

[Lost in CT]

114. I will defend the ugly suburb... I like deer (excpet when they eat my garden)

I like seeing the stars at night, I like the quiet,,,

I like the community with it's own beach and theater. I like the fact that out here neighbors help neighbors.

Tlaloc waters my lawn. I don't live in the desert. I could live in the city again but I am not twenty anymore.

I don't have a sense of entitlement. I have the good sense to enjoy the bounty that my life has provided and to share it with others.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

141. 1000 sq feet is a small house

That's the size of my house with my wife, two insanely active dogs, and two cats. It's too small. I look forward to getting an inheritance someday and building a big addition.

[Rebubula]

150. wow

You must be a blast at parties.

Sorry...not all of us want to live in crowded conditions. Sorry that someone's desire for a more pleasant life interferes with your ideals of how everything should be.

The problem is not that some people are living in suburbs - the problem is that we keep procreating. We need less people. At the very least we need to stop the population explosion.

How is that constant anger at the world working out for you?

[Hannah Bell]

180. who is this "we" that's procreating so wildly? last time i checked, us children per

woman was at replacement level.

[Kellen RN]

171. 1000 sq feet for themselves?

Some people have these things called families you know.

[tonysam]

95. More Latte-Drinking Horse Manure

People aren't going to give up the dream of owning or owing on traditional "stick houses," and they have good reason; having a home is not only beneficial for them but for society as a whole. It's a sign of community stability.

This is similar nonsense to the often-repeated idea all people should take public transportation ("it's good for the environment") when in fact it isn't practical in the vast majority of communities. To these latte-drinking elitists, the poor shouldn't be allowed to have cars, and never mind it is NOT good to have one's mobility limited--and being forced to use public transportation EXTREMELY limits one's mobility. I know, because I have been forced to use it. I can't even apply for work in person because it takes all the goddamned day to apply for a single position. With a car it is far more convenient to do it.

"Car free" communities are total horseshit, and the author of the piece knows it.

[TwilightGardener]

108. I forgot the "car-free" nonsense. Does he really believe that people

will either choose not to own their own transportation, or will own it but not use it except on special occasions? The folks who are happy to walk to work and shopping, etc., and who don't feel the need to own a car, are the folks who already live that lifestyle in cities or other "planned" communities--and have the big amounts of money it takes to do so. Because urban living isn't cheap...unless you want to live in the urban areas that ARE cheap...and, well, some of us don't want to get mugged or live next door to a crack den.

[Matariki]

110. I like my 'single family' home

I don't have to hear a neighbor's tv or stereo or vacuum cleaner. And I can make all the noise *I* want any hour of the night or day. And I have a garden and trees.

[InvisibleTouch]

112. Overcrowding causes many of our social ills.

Just like rats start to kill each other and eat their own young when they're too crowded, humans do the same, literally and figuratively. Not to mention the diseases caused by stress, and the ease of pathogen transmission in high population densities. I have lived in apartments and condos, and I can state with fair certainty that I would rather be dead than ever live so close to so many people again. Never mind that the neighbors were perfectly nice; it was the proximity that I couldn't stand, the constant comings and goings, the hearing of every move they made, and knowing they could hear me. Single-family homes can be built to be very green, solar- and wind-powered, with yard space to grow food plants and trees. It's not necessary to have overcrowded, noisy hives in order to live green. The detriments in stress, disease, and behavioral anomalies would far outweigh any assumed benefits.

[bridgit]

130. Arcosanti, firstly, and secondly: I'll believe it when I see Arianna herself...

in a gauzy dress and floppy sun hat dropping seeds into a community garden with dirt on her knees http://www.arcosanti.org

[FormerDittoHead]

137. Should have said, "McMansions" instead of single family homes.

"I have watched some of the TV journeys through dwellings with more rooms than one can count, homes whose taste is not worthy of association with the word taste. These homes are a regurgitation of servile design responding to the big dollar which is no more."

How is this representative of single family homes?

I saw a profile of a $20 million home in Arizona (New Mexico?) that was RIDICULOUS. They had air conditioning ON THE OUTSIDE. The electricity was over $10,000 a month.

I agree that there is an economic unsustainability of all of the half million dollar+ McMansions I've seen go up, but "single family homes" aren't going away anytime soon.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

142. ROFLMAO!!! What Utter Nonsense.

The author should truly go back on his meds...

[treestar]

143. I agree. To me the ideal is to live over your shop

And be able to go to the corner store on foot!

GM might not like it, but they can adjust.

The single family home is isolating and the main reason we have become a nation of strangers.

[NeedleCast]

148. That may be true for some areas

but in my semi-suburban area, I know and talk to my neighbors pretty regularly. Seeing people chatting in their yards is not uncommon. There are several large parks where people get together regularly. We have a home owners association that makes is a point to organize activities (neighborhood wide yard sale where people can drop off stuff they don't want...proceeds go to the city parks fund, wood chipping and mulching, etc.) instead of invasive "you can't have that on your lawn" activities. I'm not saying this is the case for all suburbs, or even the norm, but it's not as black and white as you're making it.

[upi402]

167. Seconded. Asia has shop-houses and the commute rocks

which is balanced by long hours and a disrupted evening or two. My community is dillic, but there is no "it takes a village" vibe here.

[AndyTiedye]

177. You Have the Cart Before the Horse

We seek out that kind of housing because we are "strangers" and loners by nature.
That is why our ancestors came here, and that sort of thing is hereditary!

FWIW, I have been living in successively smaller communities since reaching adulthood,
and found more community, the smaller I went.

[dysfunctional press]

151. what a total fucking idiot.

we've evolved from a co-op apartment, to owning a two-flat in the city, to owning a single-family home on a little over an acre in the exburbs and we ARE NOT going back.

[PM Martin]

159. So long as you can afford to upkeep you home

and the fuel to get into the more populated areas.

[dysfunctional press]

172. not a problem. we're 5 minutes from town, and there's plenty of fuel to last awhile...

at least until more electric cars start to come online, anyway.

i also have a bicycle, and my buddy next door has two electric scooters.

and i 'upkeep' my home just fine, thank-you- there's not really anything i can't do myself in that regard, as i used to work in the trades, and have always done my own work.

in a few months, the garden will be re-planted and on it's way. we make it a little bigger every year.

and the guy who wrote what's in the op is still an idiot.

[alfredo]

161. In the fifties the average home was 1,500 sq ft. I'm now living in a 1,000 sq ft

townhouse. It's very energy efficient, but I guess could be made better. The grocery, a bar, goodwill, cleaners, a couple restaurants, and several stores in walking distance. It's rare thing out here in the suburbs.

Townhouses are pretty good. Glad it came my way instead of some free standing house.

[Waiting For Everyman]

168. "Human settlements"? Stephen C. Rose & his followers can have it.

IMO, we should be thinking about how to use more of our uninhabited land, not less. There's a lot of it.

This talk about the single family home being "over" or home ownership being over, amuses me. Stevie Rose can just let us who own them worry about how we'll get around. We'll manage (with horses, bikes, and feet if necessary, only it won't be necessary). He can go create his little bee hives for all the bees who want them.

Utter juvenile nonsense.

[Ikonoklast]

178. The author in the OP was born, raised, and currently lives in Manhattan.

I'm sure he knows everything there is to know about living in the suburbs.

Someone told him once that everything not within twenty miles of New York City is the sticks.

And he also assumes that everyone that lives in the exurbs or suburbs works in the closest city. I've lived in the suburbs my entire life and haven't commuted to the city for a job in over thirty years.

I would live under a bridge before I was forced to live as he thinks I should, in a warren of humanity.

[Incitatus]

179. Expecting oil to reach $600 a barrel in the near future?

[NaturalHigh]

188. If I have my way, I'm never going back to living in an apartment.

I had my fill of living next to neighbors who blare their music and argue at the top of their lungs over a decade ago.

[happyslug]

189. This thread is to long, but let me add a paper on streetcars and Suburbs

I wrote this in 2005, based on personal research and experience. It needs to be re-written but the best way to foresee the future is the past, thus to understand what will happen to suburbia we have to see how suburbia came about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x203

As I wrote in the paper Suburbs will NOT die out quickly, I foresee them dieing a long slow death. People will trade in their cars for mopeds then to bicycles as the price of Gasoline goes up, but keep their homes as long as possible. The Suburban Malls will fight for light rails transportation to the nearest urban core, and then provide apartments over their parking lots, both for employees AND later Customers. Such Malls with Apartments will approximate the old urban cores and thus will be able to provide the population to support the light Rail (and the suburbs around the light rail will survive as people turn to mopeds and bicycles to get to the light Rail line so they can take it to work). Suburbs to far from these "Suburban Cores" will disappear or worse become the new ghettos (Low income, high crime areas). For more details see my paper on how the suburbs came to be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. "preventive health nodes"? I have those in my armpits

For someone who writes about 'pattern language', he uses some awful language to describe what he wants.

I think he also seems to have confused 'house' and 'home'. Again, I think his use of language sucks.

[KatyMan]

193. I grew up and live in the suburbs...

and I like the suburbs. We currently live in an apt (in the suburbs) while our house (in the suburbs) is being built. I understand the Mcmansion thing, but there's no way in hell I'd live in the city. And I don't think Europe is a good model, as much of the population there does not live in big cities (and yes, I've been there, have lived most of the last 10 years in the UK and Ireland). Our house will be around 1600sq ft for 3 people and is plenty big enough. We were very careful when choosing not to have rooms we wouldn't use (like extra bedrooms, a formal dining room or parlor), and we deliberately chose a community where the houses don't sit on large lots, mainly because 1) I don't like yardwork and 2) we're not outdoors people (we live outside of Houston, so the outdoors is a blast furnace for about 7 months of the year). I take public transportation to work, so I'm not driving the 20+ miles downtown by myself. I don't see why I should be forced to live in an inner city hovel because of, as someone upthread quipped, some juvenile idea.

Suburbs are good areas to raise kids, they usually have excellent schools, and good amenities. Contrary to what some might say, they foster neighborliness, carpooling, and safety. If you don't like them, don't live in them, but don't tell me I can't.

And it kills me how folks that put out this kind of crap fall all over each other to brag about how 'pure' their ideals are and how they 'live' them--posts like "Well, I don't use heat or a/c, and I have the carbon footprint of a minnow" followed by "you capitalist! I live in a box made out of recycled paper, and I never exhale for fear of polluting the atmosphere with my carbon dioxide" and on and on, like the Monty Python sketch. (On a side note, these people obviously have never raised children) Good grief.

[ItNerd4life]

194. How stupid! What about FARMERS? Author is drinking the koolaid.

It's amazing how stupid and isolated some people are.

[librechik]

197. igloos or bunkers

soon to be mandatory.

[CRF450]

198. I dont care what anyone says, I like my 1800sq/ft house, and my 2 acre yard.

Their is nothing better and more relaxing than living out in the country. I'm way more comfortable living with the rednecks and good'ol boys than the gang bangers crawling all over town. My job is 60 miles away, but on my not so regular work days, I have a 30ft camper to stay in comfortably.