Comments on: The History Of The United States Since 1950 As Told By Energy http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/ > so much wonderful packaged in such a mess Fri, 18 May 2012 04:54:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Technology in the workplace http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-643158 Technology in the workplace Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:21:49 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/#comment-643158 <strong>Technology in the workplace...</strong> [...]The History Of The United States Since 1950 As Told By Energy | hugeasscity[...]... Technology in the workplace…

[...]The History Of The United States Since 1950 As Told By Energy | hugeasscity[...]…

]]> By: Ellery http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-3404 Ellery Mon, 11 May 2009 05:08:35 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/#comment-3404 JB - Give it a rest already. There is no shortage of people working on the energy-efficiency and advanced technology angles. Those are critical pieces. Essential, even. Land use and transportation patterns are just other essential pieces -- especially in a state that already has clean(er) energy and in which half the GHG emissions stem from the transportation sector. Want evidence? Go read Growing Cooler. Still don't buy it? Then take it up with ULI. JB – Give it a rest already. There is no shortage of people working on the energy-efficiency and advanced technology angles. Those are critical pieces. Essential, even. Land use and transportation patterns are just other essential pieces — especially in a state that already has clean(er) energy and in which half the GHG emissions stem from the transportation sector.
Want evidence? Go read Growing Cooler. Still don’t buy it? Then take it up with ULI.

]]> By: JB http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-3405 JB Sat, 09 May 2009 20:20:43 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/#comment-3405 "A scaled-back lifestyle more like how people lived in 1950" = a massive drop in the standard of living. Telling people they "must" drastically reduce their standard of living probably isn't going to get you very far. Especially if you cannot make a compelling case for it. And I do mean a compelling case, not a statistic here and an anecdote there. How about we drop the "You MUST give up your cars and big homes and air travel and double-wide refrigerators" sermonizing and focus on the energy-efficiency and advanced technology angles? If your answer is that we cannot avoid catastrophic climate change through efficiency and technology improvements alone, and that we "must" also start living much simpler, smaller-scale lifestyles, then my response is....PROVE IT. “A scaled-back lifestyle more like how people lived in 1950″ = a massive drop in the standard of living. Telling people they “must” drastically reduce their standard of living probably isn’t going to get you very far. Especially if you cannot make a compelling case for it. And I do mean a compelling case, not a statistic here and an anecdote there. How about we drop the “You MUST give up your cars and big homes and air travel and double-wide refrigerators” sermonizing and focus on the energy-efficiency and advanced technology angles?

If your answer is that we cannot avoid catastrophic climate change through efficiency and technology improvements alone, and that we “must” also start living much simpler, smaller-scale lifestyles, then my response is….PROVE IT.

]]> By: Bailey http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-3403 Bailey Sat, 09 May 2009 04:21:13 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/#comment-3403 Joshua - But we do still have those neighborhood groceries in Seattle, whereas in Chicago they are pretty much all gone. My Seattle neighborhood has just opened up two new small (less than 2000sqft) grocers in the last couple months, and a third is expanding to about 10,000sqft...much smaller than the big box grocers that have out-competed such grocers in so many other areas. We have a culture here that truly values smaller-scale neighborhood retail...but the only way to really support that scale of walkable retail over the long term (and especially in down markets) is to have moderate residential density to supply the regular foot-traffic. Joshua – But we do still have those neighborhood groceries in Seattle, whereas in Chicago they are pretty much all gone. My Seattle neighborhood has just opened up two new small (less than 2000sqft) grocers in the last couple months, and a third is expanding to about 10,000sqft…much smaller than the big box grocers that have out-competed such grocers in so many other areas. We have a culture here that truly values smaller-scale neighborhood retail…but the only way to really support that scale of walkable retail over the long term (and especially in down markets) is to have moderate residential density to supply the regular foot-traffic.

]]> By: Joshua Daniel Franklin http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-3402 Joshua Daniel Franklin Fri, 08 May 2009 21:02:41 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/#comment-3402 The other day we were on the bus with an elderly gentleman. As we rode by our little neighborhood grocery he said, "There used to be so many of those..." The other day we were on the bus with an elderly gentleman. As we rode by our little neighborhood grocery he said, “There used to be so many of those…”

]]> By: Bailey http://hugeasscity.com/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-3401 Bailey Fri, 08 May 2009 18:34:47 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/05/08/the-history-of-the-united-states-since-1950-as-told-by-energy/#comment-3401 This makes me wonder about the Chicago neighborhood where my grandparents grew up in the 20s and 30s. By 1950 all the large 2.5 story houses were carved up into 2-flats and 3-flats (although some had started out as multi-family). It was a product of the Depression, when sharing space with extended families or other tenants was the community’s necessary response to sudden evictions that found your sister’s family and their belongings out on the sidewalk...at least that’s why my family all ended up sharing a 3-flat in the St. Ben’s parish area on the north side. The house remained multi-family through my dad’s childhood in the 50s and mine a couple decades later, and although we sold it in the early 90s, I’m still pretty sure it remained multi-family through the wealth-boom that hit the neighborhood that decade. In fact, most the residences on the block were multi-family, weaving seamlessly with the sprinkle of large single-family houses and the large brick 6- or 8-flats on the corners. We could walk to school, shops, bus lines, the Ravenswood El. Yes, plenty of my extended family members moved to the new and spacious single family subdivisions sprouting up in the suburbs in the 1950s onward, but quite a few of us stayed in that comparatively dense urban neighborhood. And as the demographic shifted from lower-middle to upper-middle class during that time, the density largely remained there (the 2-flats did not revert to SF), and continued to be quite lovely and livable. Why is this so difficult to replicate in Seattle? I’d guess the overall net density of that Chicago neighborhood was about 20-25 units per acre, but was just as livable (more so, perhaps) as the 8 du/ac single-family zones that we have here. I know this blog has hashed out the single-family-is-not-sacred argument many times already (http://hugeasscity.com/2009/04/01/the-seattle-timidity/; http://hugeasscity.com/2008/11/29/scary-scary-cottages/; http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/30/say-it-with-me-now-single-family-is-not-sacred/) but this post just makes me think of the 1950s, and that St Ben’s neighborhood, and gets me wondering whether we need another full-fledged depression to push that pattern again. The land-use outcome, in urban neighborhoods at least, wasn’t so bad. This makes me wonder about the Chicago neighborhood where my grandparents grew up in the 20s and 30s. By 1950 all the large 2.5 story houses were carved up into 2-flats and 3-flats (although some had started out as multi-family). It was a product of the Depression, when sharing space with extended families or other tenants was the community’s necessary response to sudden evictions that found your sister’s family and their belongings out on the sidewalk…at least that’s why my family all ended up sharing a 3-flat in the St. Ben’s parish area on the north side. The house remained multi-family through my dad’s childhood in the 50s and mine a couple decades later, and although we sold it in the early 90s, I’m still pretty sure it remained multi-family through the wealth-boom that hit the neighborhood that decade. In fact, most the residences on the block were multi-family, weaving seamlessly with the sprinkle of large single-family houses and the large brick 6- or 8-flats on the corners. We could walk to school, shops, bus lines, the Ravenswood El. Yes, plenty of my extended family members moved to the new and spacious single family subdivisions sprouting up in the suburbs in the 1950s onward, but quite a few of us stayed in that comparatively dense urban neighborhood. And as the demographic shifted from lower-middle to upper-middle class during that time, the density largely remained there (the 2-flats did not revert to SF), and continued to be quite lovely and livable.

Why is this so difficult to replicate in Seattle? I’d guess the overall net density of that Chicago neighborhood was about 20-25 units per acre, but was just as livable (more so, perhaps) as the 8 du/ac single-family zones that we have here. I know this blog has hashed out the single-family-is-not-sacred argument many times already (http://hugeasscity.com/2009/04/01/the-seattle-timidity/;
http://hugeasscity.com/2008/11/29/scary-scary-cottages/;
http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/30/say-it-with-me-now-single-family-is-not-sacred/) but this post just makes me think of the 1950s, and that St Ben’s neighborhood, and gets me wondering whether we need another full-fledged depression to push that pattern again. The land-use outcome, in urban neighborhoods at least, wasn’t so bad.

]]>