New Facebook

[Martin Red]

Living on top of each other is kinda hte point about urban efficiency! There is no need for me to go on top of my roof, so why shouldnt someone else be able to occupy that space? Instead of hassling over a garten, local taxes pay for maintained parks which I can simply enjoy because all of the other people living on top of each other also communaly fund this idea. People get work to maintain the parks and can then afford to support local businesses, further employing more people to enjoy the parks. having to travel miles between anything makes this much less possible.

Indeed it is the point, and each to their own, I personally like a space to be able to sit in the sun, which here in the UK, doesn't appear very often, got to get that vitamin D when you can. Also, the culture differences perhaps, between germany and UK, Germans aren't quite as stagnent when it comes to property, here perhaps, home owning is more popular in most of the country, versus renting. The parks here can be OK, depends where you live, with so many dog owners, alot of parks are covered in dogshit, some are dangerous, would want to go at night. Or in London, are places for cottaging at night.

There are protected areas, there's a place nearby, J. R. R. Tolkien used to live nearby, due to the more recent interest in him, the protected tiny piece of woodland has had walkways put in and is managed by volunteers who have virtually ruined it. It used to be a natural place, now you can see where the chainsaw and pathways have made it another managed piece of the city. A lady in her 80's who's lived near one of the entrances was broken into recently and battered. I went down to the wood area about two months ago and it was ruined by a bloke in a balaclava riding a motorbike. A few years back two youths were stealing bricks from a drainage area. At the moment here it's anything metal that is unsafe from thieves, everything from manhole covers to wires used for railways signalling.

The property driven programs over the last decade and more, have also turned everyone into a designer, people who had never had any inclination to do their garden or extend property have all turned into design experts now. Where the house had a nice space between them and next door are being filled with ugly ill designed extensions, patios, loft conversions, as well as dwellings added onto their back gardens, the look must be to be overlooked and too overlook. In the less urban areas, in the suburbs, where their would be alot more space between land, houses are built, whole estates are built, turning them into simply urban. Then as these places all join up, you end up having travel alot further to see any countryside, as this happens all over the land. We're noticing how tarmac doesn't absorb water. We've had house pipe bans announced whilst the news is telling us about flash flooding.

Hey, alot of the houses built in Birmingham, and most of the urban UK area, were about proximity to a business, usually manufacturing. So people would work at say Cadbury's or Lucas, and live nearby. There was a community through this, but I think it also bred communities who would stand up for each, join unions together, and they don't like that do they. They worked in the factory which paid them the money to buy their house, and to keep the local shops going with their food and clothing purachases. Now, the factories are nearly all gone, they demoliosh the facory and build houses or supermarkets. Then there are more houses and more places to buy stuff, but no businesses to pay for either.
People today end up travelling 30 - 50 miles a day, then they aren't as connected to where they live, perhaps move alot more as theirs no longer a job for life.

I mean, I just look at this way, i'm 43, is the city heading to a better place now, i'de say no from personal experience. If they are looking for ways for people to riot in another 20 years, then they should carry on with the planning. Which from my eye is simply council officials taking back handers. These bad planning decisions will result in community relation breakdowns, perhaps violence, unhappiness, suffering. I don't think the people giving or taking brides will lose any sleep though.

In terms of value living right in the urban centres. Well, If you bought a city centre appartment in this city for £200K amidst the property boom, it may have gone upto £250K if you were lucky, and it probably worth less than £200K today. If you bought a house for £200K in the city areas, or the suburbs at the same time, it probably went up £370K and is probably worth £300K today.

While one could argue that spreading everyone out reduces the potential need for maintained parks, people are social and curious animals. not all, of course. Some are unbearably antisocial, but none of the activities involved for us to communicate on this forum came without higher density living arrangements. House music was born out of an urban setting. The science and engineering and language and whatever other research and education to provide this experience was incubated in institutions of higher learning, which are all densely populated centers.

There's an advert on tv at the moment for Olympics/Jubilee to celebrate Londons past, uses this ditty

"Londons burning Londons burning"

Although they don't mention the riots, the people who made the advert are detatched from reality, as it is surely is the elephant in the room

[ngeso]

The move towards urbanization will be the death of us all. Additionally, the ramifications of urbanization are systemic enforced poverty, higher costs for staples, increased unemployment, and myriad other inefficiencies.

I'll start w the price of food and agricultural production. It's a nightmare that has led to more pollution, increased costs of staples, and declining nutritional content of our food.

How would de-urbanisation (i.e a move away from urbanization that you mention) reduce unemployment and poverty, lower food costs or enhance nutritional awareness.......AND be more efficient in terms of today's economic benchmarks? I can see a kind of back-to-basics organic rural utopia, but not on a giant scale. What would people do, and how would they trade?

[House]

How would de-urbanisation (i.e a move away from urbanization that you mention) reduce unemployment and poverty, lower food costs or enhance nutritional awareness.......AND be more efficient in terms of today's economic benchmarks? I can see a kind of back-to-basics organic rural utopia, but not on a giant scale. What would people do, and how would they trade?

ngeso

Thats a great question. My thoughts:

In a post industrial society, it's no longer necessary for people to live in urban hubs. When the cities were the center of industry, that was fine. However, thats no longer the case. A services economy can have its workforce deployed anywhere within the country. Additionally, a de-urbanisation would enable people to go back to what they have done historically; work with and for their neighbors. Those non manufacturing related industries which thrive in the suburbs can easily do well even further out. Cobblers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, carpenters and myriad other industries are not dependent upon urban environments to stay in existence.

As far as food is concerned; it is actually quite expensive to grow food far from where it is consumed and has lead to the growth of an agricultural industry that has gone away from nature and is dependent on science. The ramifications are genetically altered plants and animals, pollution of air and water, and overall poor quality. Many are beginning to realize the importance of local markets and organically produced food. Additionally, the transportation costs of bringing foods to cities add to the cost of goods sold.

As far as enforced poverty is concerned, it's critical to consider the demographics of neighborhoods within cities and compare that to the services provided (or not) within those same neighborhoods. In a highly segregated city, such as NYC, services provided to the minority dominant neighborhoods vary tremendously from those provided in wealthy and white neighborhoods. While this may be a function of lack of participation in the political process by the residents of some neighborhoods vs others it still keeps in place a system that ensures the perpetuation of poverty within certain neighborhoods (William Julius Wilson did some great research on this 25 years ago in his work The Truly Disadvantaged)

[Sal Paradise]

In a highly segregated city, such as NYC,

Are there any cities that are not highly segregated?

[ngeso]

Are there any cities that are not highly segregated?

Cities have always structured themselves along, according to, and with regard to class distinctions. The interplay between separation and communing is a vital primary function and expression of urbanity.

[ngeso]

ngeso

Thats a great question. My thoughts:

In a post industrial society, it's no longer necessary for people to live in urban hubs. When the cities were the center of industry, that was fine. However, thats no longer the case. A services economy can have its workforce deployed anywhere within the country. Additionally, a de-urbanisation would enable people to go back to what they have done historically; work with and for their neighbors. Those non manufacturing related industries which thrive in the suburbs can easily do well even further out. Cobblers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, carpenters and myriad other industries are not dependent upon urban environments to stay in existence.

As far as food is concerned; it is actually quite expensive to grow food far from where it is consumed and has lead to the growth of an agricultural industry that has gone away from nature and is dependent on science. The ramifications are genetically altered plants and animals, pollution of air and water, and overall poor quality. Many are beginning to realize the importance of local markets and organically produced food. Additionally, the transportation costs of bringing foods to cities add to the cost of goods sold.

As far as enforced poverty is concerned, it's critical to consider the demographics of neighborhoods within cities and compare that to the services provided (or not) within those same neighborhoods. In a highly segregated city, such as NYC, services provided to the minority dominant neighborhoods vary tremendously from those provided in wealthy and white neighborhoods. While this may be a function of lack of participation in the political process by the residents of some neighborhoods vs others it still keeps in place a system that ensures the perpetuation of poverty within certain neighborhoods (William Julius Wilson did some great research on this 25 years ago in his work The Truly Disadvantaged)

I am not well-read in economics, but I’ll give it a ramble anyway (cue Colin Powell...)



I think a development as you describe would entail a radical, fundamental paradigm shift in consumerism in western countries. Primarily people would have to invest significantly more disposable income to consume significantly less goods and services. They would also have to accept a drastic cut in options and choices. (Example: the main street mom & pop hardware store became extinct because it could not compete with mainline mass home improvement markets in terms of product variety and labour costs). It is IMO doubtful, whether this can work in a de-urbanised or rural context in large-area countries like The U.S., Canada, China, Australia or others. (In Central Europe it is out of the question, because town and countryside are virtually indistinguishable in the belt stretching from London through Benelux, the Rhine Valley, the Alps to Milano and Marseilles.)

Additionally, while basic services would perhaps find a sustaining local market (i.e. your rural baker, electrician, or mechanic), advanced services clearly will not. Far from it, advanced services that rely on complex consumer impulses, interaction and sophistication - from fashion boutiques and designer hair & beauty studios, to specialist and themed shops and stores, to high end cuisine and cutting edge arts & entertainment – can arguably only thrive in an urban context, where there is a large enough consumer base, and where people competing at lifestyle provide the main economic catalyst. You can’t sell a $500 pair of shoes in a village because there is no need for $500 shoes in a village. Because there’s no dress to go with it. Because there’s no occasion for it. And the only reason that a 3 Michelin-starred French restaurant works in a country setting is because the well-heeled, –shod and -moneyed will drive out or fly in from the city for an evening of leisure, not because the locals have an interest in sustaining culinary excellence

Which brings me to the deployment of the services workforce anywhere in the country. Discounting a minority providing day-to-day mainstreet activities and services, the reason why large service operators and distributors such as FedEx, UPS, Amazon, Walmart Group, Nestlé, McDonalds etc. locate their hubs somewhere in the middle of nowhere is because of logistical advantages. These, in the form of a taxpayer-subsidised transport infrastructure (i.e. freeways and airports), are what really make excessive consumption possible, whether you’re ordering Amazon items on a daily basis, or whether you think that a $0.39 cup of pineapple yoghurt or $0.99 bag of oven fries, the ingredients and components of which have been assembled in a logistics odyssey spanning half a dozen states and countries, is a sensible buy. But once this makes sense to the consumer, the step to de-valuing labour by paying substandard wages is academic.

IMO De-urbanising cities is NOT going to change that trend, unless – as I stated initially – societies radically reject conventional lifestyles, including current convention regarding gainful(!!!!!) employment. Re-thinking urban systems and economic infrastructure, and making them more efficient in my view ist a more promising approach. Similarly IMO there needs to be a radical rethinking of rewarding/remunerating work in services and the quarternary sector, generating intellectual content being perhaps the only work field left that we in the West will be able to compete at on a global scale, after fully relinquishing primary and secondary (and large chunks of the tertiary) sectors to other parts of the world.

To me it is far more important that I trade and consume sustainingly, directly and fairly in a competitive socioeconomic, urban context, than it is to escape from the conflicts and compromises that urbanity necessarily entails. This means realising $1.39 for an in-season(!) fruit joghurt in a glas from an artisan producer 10 miles out of town is a far better and much more desirable deal, than paying 2 dollars in taxes to provide a food distribution conglomerate a continent away with free transport/just-in-time-storage infrastructure every time I consume a plastic cup of chemicals, agents, enhancers and subsitutes. This means being free to simply NOT buy a car (*), because there are more efficient, less invasive, and ultimately more social alternatives available. It means being able to attend an experimental ballet performance in a popular and well-appointed and -maintained venue, to therafter dine lavishly in a top restaurant on high street, and then take an affordable, quick and safe ride home by public or shared transport at 3 a.m.

Unless we revert to something resembling a subsistence and barter system (meaning trading code, web design and songtext for cabbage and hemp lingerie), de-urbanisation will not be able to offer these alternatives.

That is unless we consider living in the country and driving 100 miles into the city three times a week for delicatessen, arthouse movies and Koto lessons as successful de-urbanisation, of course...


*****


BTW...20 years ago, on the eve of reunification, East Germany had the equivalent GDP and quality of life of perhaps a minor underdeveloped Third World country. While historically industrialised, large parts were also traditionally rather more rural and peripheral than most of Central Europe. 20 years on the so-called German „new states“ have probably the most state-of-the-art public infrastructure to be found anywhere on the continent. They have also never been more rural and emptied of people than today due to a crippling demographic population shrinkage of 15%.

Maybe it’s time for the Greeks to move there.





(*) 30 years with a drivers licence, never owned a car in my life...

...

[mhd]

ngeso

Thats a great question. My thoughts:

In a post industrial society, it's no longer necessary for people to live in urban hubs. When the cities were the center of industry, that was fine. However, thats no longer the case. A services economy can have its workforce deployed anywhere within the country. Additionally, a de-urbanisation would enable people to go back to what they have done historically; work with and for their neighbors. Those non manufacturing related industries which thrive in the suburbs can easily do well even further out. Cobblers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, carpenters and myriad other industries are not dependent upon urban environments to stay in existence.

As far as food is concerned; it is actually quite expensive to grow food far from where it is consumed and has lead to the growth of an agricultural industry that has gone away from nature and is dependent on science. The ramifications are genetically altered plants and animals, pollution of air and water, and overall poor quality. Many are beginning to realize the importance of local markets and organically produced food. Additionally, the transportation costs of bringing foods to cities add to the cost of goods sold.

As far as enforced poverty is concerned, it's critical to consider the demographics of neighborhoods within cities and compare that to the services provided (or not) within those same neighborhoods. In a highly segregated city, such as NYC, services provided to the minority dominant neighborhoods vary tremendously from those provided in wealthy and white neighborhoods. While this may be a function of lack of participation in the political process by the residents of some neighborhoods vs others it still keeps in place a system that ensures the perpetuation of poverty within certain neighborhoods (William Julius Wilson did some great research on this 25 years ago in his work The Truly Disadvantaged)

flawed, population expansion is the problem, if, for no other reason than cost of transportaion, despite advances in technology that allows for more telecommuting, light rail, etc, concentration in cities is inevitable

[Martin Red]

As far as food is concerned; it is actually quite expensive to grow food far from where it is consumed and has lead to the growth of an agricultural industry that has gone away from nature and is dependent on science. The ramifications are genetically altered plants and animals, pollution of air and water, and overall poor quality. Many are beginning to realize the importance of local markets and organically produced food. Additionally, the transportation costs of bringing foods to cities add to the cost of goods sold.

It's crazy when you think the product.. say it's lettuce, is grown 10 miles from where you live. It's harvested, placed into boxes, loaded onto lorry, sent 70 miles north to be washed and packaged. Or perhaps chopped, and placed into a bag of inert gas. Then it's loaded onto a lorry and brought to the supermarkets central depot 350 miles to the south, then loaded onto another lorry which is sent indirectly back to the supermarket 10 miles away from where it was grown.

[Martin Red]

Maybe it’s time for the Greeks to move there.

Hahahahaaa, can they swap the UK population for Australia whilst we're at it, they ended up imprisoning themselves on this tiny damp Island.

Nice Colin Powell post btw

[ngeso]

It's crazy when you think the product.. say it's lettuce, is grown 10 miles from where you live. It's harvested, placed into boxes, loaded onto lorry, sent 70 miles north to be washed and packaged. Or perhaps chopped, and placed into a bag of inert gas. Then it's loaded onto a lorry and brought to the supermarkets central depot 350 miles to the south, then loaded onto another lorry which is sent indirectly back to the supermarket 10 miles away from where it was grown.

You forgot the box. Scrap cardboard, recycled in Romania, colour printed in Croatia, cut and folded in Portugal. Those metal sealing strips made in Korea, except for those buckle thingies, made again in Romania. Plastic bag? By container from China. Trying to deport some poor cunt from Mali washing the lettuce? €3500 publically funded processing costs. Miles that lettuce and packaging is processed on a public road network? Depending from where you start to count anywhere from 500 to 4000 miles.

Now off to Sainsbury's for a bargain!

[ngeso]

Hahahahaaa, can they swap the UK population for Australia whilst we're at it, they ended up imprisoning themselves on this tiny damp Island.

Nice Colin Powell post btw

Seriously: we wrote the blueprint for transferring funds from the rich bits to the poor bits and jumpstarting and blasting that wreck of an economy into the 21st century in 2 decades using EU subsidies, including Greek taxpayer money. And every fucking time we didn't meet our deficit reduction targets, we rewrote the rules a bit.

I say the Greek are entitled to come here, if they are going to be turned into a German colony.

[dag]

Seriously: we wrote the blueprint for transferring funds from the rich bits to the poor bits and jumpstarting and blasting that wreck of an economy into the 21st century in 2 decades using EU subsidies, including Greek taxpayer money. And every fucking time we didn't meet our deficit reduction targets, we rewrote the rules a bit.

I say the Greek are entitled to come here, if they are going to be turned into a German colony.

Malaka! i have quite a few greek friends here.