All posts in the topic Death of the outer suburbs (Short link)
Summary
- There are 5 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by brenda dew at Jun 20 21:35 UTC
Hi All, I just read this article on the housing problems in the US, where the outer suburbs are particularly affected by the foreclosures and high fuel prices [1]. It includes some speculation as to how we might live in the future - worth a read. These outer suburbs (sometimes called the "exurbs" or, the one I really like, "the asteroid belt" :-) involve round-trip commutes of 50-80 km, so they're probably the equivalent of what Rangiora or Rolleston are to Christchurch. Ironically, at least Rangiora and Rolleston have the possibility of a decent commuter rail connection to the big smoke. Would anyone from the CCC care to comment on how we might learn from the experiences of others, and how the continually increasing price of fuel might impact on plans to extend the Chch sprawl and keep adding roads to reduce the congestion that will soon not be there ? It's also worth noting the worldwide riots caused by the growing price of fuel [2]. How long do we think it will be before we see that here ? [1] http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/16/suburb.city/index.html [2] http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vc3j8BFQy9E
Hi Andrew,
More depressing optimism....
Oil prices will re-adjust to normal supply-demand over the next couple of
years. Sure, the price will be higher than it is now - but that will just
reflect higher demand and slightly lower supply.
Once inflation kicks in - as a result of high oil prices - then those who
sell oil and invest their massive income in stocks, shares, and other
income-earning assets will find their income has been sucked dry by high
prices, stagnation and inflation....
And oil demand will drop as all this kicks in.... and artificaially high
prices will drop - drop in real terms (because inflation will actually
reduce the value of the oil - if you can understand all that...)
Most overseas protests are associated with the following:
1. A history of stable (ie subsidised) prices
2. Very high taxes on the fuel - that go up with the cost of the oil making
the prices uncompetitive for, say, fishermen who have to compete against
fishermen from other countries that have been subsidising their oil....
3. Countries that have a history of protest - usually countries like
France - countries where the workforce still harbours fond memories of the
perfect life under Stalinism
4. Countries that lack even a rudimentary education system....
The masses of houses deserted in the sub-prime USA mortgage market are spec
houses. There has been a history of building these houses and begging people
to buy them by offering, say, two years payments-free. So, when the payments
have to start they seem very high... and the owner chucks the keys in the
post and say he doesn't want to live there anymore....I mean, if you build a
house worth 400,000 and sell it to some dude who earns 18,000..... No one
would daft enough to do that? Would they?
And, of course, these houses tend to be in the outer suburbs....
So, as you cannot post your keys back to the mortgagees (I think I have that
right) in New Zealand, the CCC does not have the same problem as the local
bodies do in the USA.
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
Tim Kerr wrote:
> [...]
> The masses of houses deserted in the sub-prime USA mortgage market are spec
> houses. There has been a history of building these houses and begging people
> to buy them by offering, say, two years payments-free. So, when the payments
> have to start they seem very high... and the owner chucks the keys in the
> post and say he doesn't want to live there anymore....I mean, if you build a
> house worth 400,000 and sell it to some dude who earns 18,000..... No one
> would daft enough to do that? Would they?
>
Someone has been earning money from the process.
Someone will also be earning a lot money from getting people to shift to
the city.
The next thing will be excessively high food prices and someone will be
getting money getting people back out into the suburbs where they can
produce food in a low energy way.
Food and industry take about as much energy as domestic transport. So it
won't be long after transport has become too expensive that industry and
agriculture also will also be too expensive.
> And, of course, these houses tend to be in the outer suburbs....
>
>
The land was cheap when it was farm land. Somebody made a lot of money
subdividing it and putting in old technology reticulation.
> So, as you cannot post your keys back to the mortgagees (I think I have that
> right) in New Zealand, the CCC does not have the same problem as the local
> bodies do in the USA.
>
>
Froom ECAN today:
"For your information the Regional Council resolved to:
a) defer the hearing of submissions on PC1 until approximately March 2009
b) proceed with a variation to PC1 to provide urban limits for
Rolleston, Woodend and Kaiapoi, the incorporation of the Revised Noise
Contours and, within Christchurch City, the relocation of Greenfields
residential areas affected by the revised Ldn 50 dBA noise contour to
elsewhere within the City."
Great that there will be more time to see what happens to
agriculture/industry before the hearings.
Still there is the intention to cram in people into small areas where
they will get short of food and someone will be making a lot of money.
Farm land will be protected so kept cheap for the dairy then biofuel
industries.
I maintain we should start allowing say 0.2 ha sections on existing
transport routes, so people can grow food and plant some trees to
protect from hot and cold winds and bring up water and nutrients from
the soil store too deep for grasses to get at.
There should be rules stopping the huge profit taking from subdivision
so things can be kept affordable. In return, rules of living we have at
the moment - sound levels, sewage, fires, building regs will need to be
extended to vegetation required.
The Officers Report on the RPS1 process submissions had recommended more
business land than had been planned on transport routes on the south
west of the city. That would be for things like warehouses. That may not
be a very good idea, in the long run. In the medium term it may be to
store dried, frozen and canned food to sell at large profit to dense
city dwellers while they can still pay for it.
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 13:18 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
> I maintain we should start allowing say 0.2 ha sections on existing
> transport routes, so people can grow food and plant some trees to
> protect from hot and cold winds and bring up water and nutrients from
> the soil store too deep for grasses to get at.
Sounds good to me, Brian. I understand your concerns about people being
crammed into small spaces if we only allow tiny sections within the city
boundary and dairy farms outside of it. Equally, I think allowing anyone
to sell 600 m2 sections miles away from a transport arterial or urban
centre (i.e., place with commerce, community facilities and jobs)
should be a criminal offense. We need a continuum of property sizes,
from tiny ones (including the ability to go up a few storeys) right
alongside central city arterials to 0.2 ha sections alongside arterials
further out from the centre to 4 ha blocks away from both arterials and
urban centres.
I think the guiding principle should be: everyone in Chch should live
within walking or biking distance of the source of most of their food,
whether it's a supermarket, a community garden or their own backyard. We
can either start organising things that way now, or reality will force
us down that track anyway, kicking and screaming ...
I agree Tim, read page B5 of the Press today , new subdivisions they seem like
spec houses.
A friend says the Rangiora Express bus is full at peak times,standing room only
at Belfast!
Yes Andrew I agree with your last paragraph we are lucky to have that in our
area.
Transport costs for families plus work travel for bread winner will add to
housing costs.