Myrtle and Flatbush Building Boom, From Above

Ugh...

Just wants needed in this time of diminishing resources: huge buildings that are not high performing and add to housing stock that can barely be reached except by taking an electricity hogging elevator. We're doin' great.

Does anybody know if any of these building developers are working with either "green", "passivhaus" guidelines and/or at least taking solar exposure into consideration or are they all simply LEEDS (i.e. a label...barely useful) conforming cookie-cutter "luxury" apartments?

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 10:44 AM

Global warming is all propaganda. What the earth is facing are typical changes to the atmosphere. What is the excuse for the warmest temperatures ever recorded on Mars? The land rover NASA had exploring the grounds on Mars. Global warming is liberal's form of religion.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:02 AM

In the early 1980's Newsweek and the same scientist today who are claiming global warming where spouting off about the world freezing over.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:06 AM

I know that many thriving areas in Manhattan are located next to the projects, but there are way too many project buildings in that photo alone to create the luxury enclave the developers want.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:13 AM

regardless of the global warming debate - all new construction should try and use less resources and be better at cooling/heating through green roofs, insulation and better design. it saves everyone money - the developers/renters/owners and if it's good for the planet, that's a wonderful bonus.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:16 AM

Those are low rise projects that will be dwarfed by the new towers. I think they'll do fine.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:43 AM

As a lifelong resident all I can say is if you didnt give me the location, I would have never recognized it.As I drive my old Betsy about Brooklyn, I wonder who they are building all these developments for.Is everybody moving to Brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:50 AM

Glut, glut, glut. Can't imagine they'll fill all the new condos and rentals in downtown Brooklyn. Especially near the projects.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 11:56 AM

check out the rendering of the myrtle development:

http://www.dattner.com/

in theory the project sounds decent (housing mix). but in reality the massive form will cast a huge shadow on to the housing across the street.

i know, it doesn't matter since it's only the projects, but then what if the feds do end up selling those projects? the lux-condo buyers wont be happy about living in shade.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:01 PM

SUCH A SHAME THAT ALL OF THESE NEW PROJECTS AREN'T GOING TO BE SUSTAINABLY DESIGNED!!!

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:03 PM

yes, everyone is moving to Brooklyn
and to the numbskull who thinks global warming is liberal propaganda: are you saying that EVERY scientist happens to be a liberal? If global warming is the religion of the liberals, then it's the POLITICS of the right. why the hell are we turning empirical evidence into a debate at all? i can't believe with all we know that this is still a left-right issue. Republicans just hate to admit they were wrong about it 10 years ago just like there are fools in the party still unwilling to admit they were not only wrong about the war in Iraq but lied to the country in the process.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:05 PM

Both comments 2 & 3 are distractions...and #2 is badly written.
First of all, my first comment was not about so-called global warming or climate change. Simply put, energy is getting and will keep getting more and more expensive. A point will be reached where it is not affordable to keep these buildings going. Our house uses very little energy (we're lucky we have pretty good southern exposure which we take advantage. Even buildings that rise to the 6th story are doable...not always fun to walk up to the top floor but doable.

[Sidebar: Ladder companies can usually only rescue people on floors up to the 8th floor at best. Higher than that and you're out of luck.]

So, sure...if you want to talk about climate change, let's: So what if, as #3 claims, anyone was claiming the world would freeze over. So-called global warming was being discussed in the 1970's, possibly before. Since the 1980's there has been a huge push by the powers-who-be to mitigate the ideas, discussion and studies on climage change and global warming. A huge fight against it. No wonder you can refer to an article in "Newsweek" (of all pieces of junk). They and the mass media in the US have run lots of "counter" global warming science propaganda and PR for decades. Hello.

And heck, yes, there will be another "ice age" of course...in fact, we're supposed to be in a period of what was considered global cooling. There was the "mini ice age" from about the 1300's to the late 1700's but it was not on the scale of the glacier forming climate change we associate with ice ages. In fact, we may face another mini ice age in this region and in Europe very soon when the conveyor belt current that brings warm water up from the Gulf of Mexico breaks down or shuts down all together. This is probably what caused the mini ice age ended Norse settlements into North America and led to a “year without a summer”, ice-skating in Holland, deforestation in many parts of Europe and a huge cultural shift. Please note: the shift to a mini ice age can happen very quickly. If energy costs are high and getting higher, when suddenly our heating season expands to include April and September, energy costs will go up even further. Hence, my comment about the cost of running elevators up and down unsustainably designed hi-rises that bleed heat to the outdoors in winter and overheat in the summer.

An ice age, anyway, does not mean: "the world freezing over" as #3 writes...not in the least. An "ice age" is a change in the climate in which, generally, there is cooling of the planet at the poles resulting in winters in the upper latitudes being longer. There are changes across the globe some of which are lower sea levels (water tied up in ice), possible desertification in new areas, more rain in formally dry areas creating savannah or forests out of desserts...there is a migration of animals and plant species zones shift over time (one amusing factoid: the common earthworm most of us know did not migrate north with the receding glaciers at the end of the last ice age on this continent. Northeastern plants developed in the absence of earthworms, which were apparently brought to this region by Europeans. Apparently, these plants are not well adapted to earthworms...go figure.)

By the way, I have not even begun a discussion on the questionable status of the infrastructure such as it is to handle the addition of all these units of housing. Is there some huge water main servicing at area that is under utilized right now? There is already sewage issues and overflow in Brooklyn now. Can the system overall handle this addition and if it can, is the infrastructure from these building sites gauged appropriate from source to treatment to handle the additional flow? Has any developer even given a thought to on-site treatment? Gray water reuse? Rainwater run-off mitigation and/or harvesting? Green roofs? Solar domestic hot water? Natural ventilation? Heat recovery ventilation? Super insulation? Triple-glazed non-heat bridging window units? Lower impact materials? Low VOC materials, treatments? The list goes on and on… There will be large quantities of embedded energy in these structures just to get them built. Economies on future energy use can be worked into the design process now and the on-site building process going forward.

All I can say is, when you live on, say, floor 15 or floor 32, you had better be prepared to be able to walk up to your apartment once in a while…and anyone in a building this size should keep in mind.

FG

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:10 PM

...; 4) The notorious "Fort Greene" Projects that aint goin' nowhere.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:16 PM

Sorry...reread my post and it had WAY too many typos so I'm reposting it.
Best,
The Grammar Lady

Both comments 2 & 3 are distractions...and #2 is badly written.
First of all, my first comment was not about so-called global warming or climate change. Simply put, energy is getting and will keep getting more and more expensive. A point will be reached where it is not affordable to keep these buildings going. Our house uses very little energy (we're lucky we have pretty good southern exposure of which we take advantage). Even buildings that rise to the 6th story are doable...not always fun to walk up to the top floor but doable.

[Sidebar: Ladder companies can usually only rescue people on floors up to the 8th floor at best. Higher than that and you're out of luck.]

So, sure...if you want to talk about climate change, let's: So what if, as #3 claims, anyone was claiming the world would freeze over. So-called global warming was being discussed in the 1970's, possibly before. Since the 1980's there has been a huge push by the powers-who-be to mitigate the ideas, discussion and studies on climate change and global warming. A huge fight against it… No wonder you can refer to an article in "Newsweek" (of all pieces of junk). They and the mass media in the US have run lots of "counter" global warming science propaganda and PR for decades. Hello.

And heck, yes, there will be another "ice age" of course...in fact, we're supposed to be in a period of what was considered global cooling. There was the "mini ice age" from about the 1300's to the late 1700's. Of course, it was not on the scale of the glacier forming climate change we normally associate with ice ages. In fact, we may face another mini ice age in this region and in Europe very soon when the conveyor belt current that brings warm water up from the Gulf of Mexico breaks down or shuts down all together. This is probably what caused the mini ice age that ended Norse settlements into North America and led to a “year without a summer”, ice-skating in Holland, deforestation in many parts of Europe (human use for fuel, shipbuilding and construction) and a huge cultural shift. Please note: the switchover to a mini ice age can happen very quickly. If energy costs are high and getting higher, when suddenly our heating season expands to include April and September, energy costs will go up even more so. Hence, my comment about the cost of running elevators up and down unsustainably designed hi-rises, buildings that bleed heat to the outdoors in winter and overheat in the summer.

An ice age, anyway, does not mean: "the world freezing over" as #3 writes...not in the least. An "ice age" is a change in the climate in which, generally, there is cooling of the planet at the poles resulting in winters in the upper latitudes being longer. There are changes across the globe some of which are lower sea levels (water tied up in glacial ice), possible desertification in new areas, more rain in formally dry areas creating savannah or forests out of desserts...there is a migration of animals and plant species zones shift over time (one amusing factoid: the common earthworm most of us know did not migrate north with the receding glaciers at the end of the last ice age on this continent. Northeastern plants developed in the absence of earthworms, which were apparently brought to this region by Europeans. Apparently, these plants are not well adapted to earthworms...go figure.)

By the way, I have not even begun a discussion on the questionable status of the infrastructure, such as it is, to handle the addition of all these units of housing. Is there some huge water main servicing this area that is under-utilized right now? There are already sewage issues and overflow in Brooklyn now. Can the system overall handle this addition and if it can, is the infrastructure that will handle waste water from these building sites gauged appropriately all the way from source to final treatment? What? Is the City really going to rebuild the sewage infrastructure to that extent? Has any developer even given a thought to on-site waste treatment? Gray water reuse? Rainwater run-off mitigation and/or harvesting? Green roofs? Solar domestic hot water? Natural ventilation? Heat recovery ventilation? Super insulation? Triple-glazed non-heat bridging window units? Lower impact materials? Low VOC materials, treatments? The list goes on and on… There will be large quantities of embedded energy in these structures just getting them built. Economies on future energy use can be worked into the design process now and the on-site building process going forward.

All I can say is, when you live on, say, floor 15 or floor 32, you had better be prepared to be able to walk up to your apartment once in a while…also, dwellers in buildings this size should keep in mind they may lose water pressure from time-to-time…which is a real pain when it happens(!)

FortGreener

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:26 PM

Housing projects in other cities have been demolished for mixed-income or higher end housing. Chicago is an excellent example. Today's NYDN had the following article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/24/2007-10-24_feds_eye_new_york_building_sale_at_housi-1.html

It makes some sense, and stranger things have happened.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:30 PM

"Can't imagine they'll fill all the new condos and rentals in downtown Brooklyn. Especially near the projects."

Oh they will. But at a considerably lower cost to renters and buyers throughout the city. As the population remains unchanged (and even decreasing in the short run), flipping has flopped and inventory has skyrocketed, supply/demand will fill all vacancies at much lower costs. More and more roommates will become solo. More and more trios will become duos.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:30 PM

FortGreener, get your own blog.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:33 PM

Good point, 12:30 (the first). When was the last time that happened in NYC? In Brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:38 PM

Thanks 12:33...maybe I will.

Yes, 12:30. You're correct. Does anyone here realize projects have been torn down in Newark as well?

This is a nationwide push to privatize city-owned land (i.e. public property) and that includes land on which housing developments have been built.

I'll close here because 12:33 gave the ol' "Tell Me Less" nudge...always so gracious.

Ciao,
FG/Grammar Lady

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:39 PM

12:33, get your own life.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:39 PM

OK Mr. construction lender. The men across the table bought the land at inflated prices, and want to start building fast so they don't lose 421-a tax abatements.

If they start now, it will be two years before they finish, and lots of other people will finish first.

If you make the loan, your firm could lose big time, while future buyers/renters get more affordable housing.

But if you don't, if the deals don't make sense anymore, do they really need as many construction lenders like you?

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 12:45 PM

I'm sorry 1PM,
A huge percentage of US energy use is revolves around our buildings. Transportation uses a lot of OIL, yes. The built environment uses a lot of total ENERGY: burning of fuel oil, methane, coal for direct heat and/or electricity generation and nuclear power and hydro for electricity. Okay…in Colorado there is a town making good use of high-heat geothermal (the region sits over a hot zone…they can even heat the sidewalks so the snow melts off in winter); there is a wood-fired power electricity power plant in NH; and St. Paul, MN has a dual heat'n'power plant (steam piped to downtown buildings and electricity generation). Renewables currently accounts for what, 1 percent of total US production? Yee-ikes!

Thank you Polemicist for your anger, but you're simply incorrect on your other points as well. Elevator use IS energy-intensive. Low-scale building projects are more energy efficient by far.

I can't imagine where you're coming from to think "electricity" is so clean as compared to the internal combustion engine...where do you think electricity is coming from right now? It's not clean energy in the least. Granted, yes, internal combustion engines in vehicles produce more noxious pollutants than, say, a methane-burning electric plant in NYC but the country gets most of it's electricity from burning coal which is environmentally-devastating, both in the mining and burning processes.

I am hardly co-opting "environmental policy"...BTW, we have one?! Wonderful news...I thought "we" don't have "environmental policy" around here...just an un-environmental one.

Anyway, this aside, no, I am not co-opting so-called environmental policy, oh Angry One. How can you assume I am some "rich homeowner" enjoying a "luxury"...trust me...I'm not. Please don't jump to conclusions while not reading things closely.

Now...if you think it'll be a luxury to somehow emerge out of “the masses” (you make it sound like you’re living in a ward or workhouse with Oliver Twist) into an apartment up on an upper story of an ultimately unsustainable building, get ready to realize down the road you may have made a terrible investment...that no one will want to buy your apartment...that the value may drop (due to oversupply, economic distress, high maintenance costs/energy use...name your combo).

Listen, would you want to live in a building with elevators that have a coin slot or (more in line with the times) a swipecard/RF chip reader that charges you each time?

This may sound strange to you...but, guess what:
There are elevators still in use in European cities that you can only take if you drop money into the coin slot (to go up AND down in the elevator...so you can choose to walk down the stairs...or up them for that matter...instead of taking the elevator).

Think about the cost of ownership of a less-sustainable lifestyle before you start yelling. It seems you may be angry since I was hardly writing in "rant" style. You may have read it that way though. Take a breath...you're gunna blow a gasket.

Just remember, our non-transportation energy use in the US is sky-high and a huge percentage of total energy use. I’ll post some links if you’d like.

Thanks for reading,
FG AKA GL

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 1:29 PM

1:12...agreeing with many of your points...but, I'm not sure you're correct in predicting mixed-use becoming so widespread. Take a moment to consider, for example, what FCR has baited-and-switched to for the proposed apartment towers in Fort Greene/Prospect Heights (Misnomered as "Atlantic Yards" since the project will sit heavily on land that has nothing to do with rail areas).

Apparently, FCR proposed mixed housing and got tax status based on this, but then came back to it and decided to segregate the level of housing into separate buildings but still trying to keep the abatements (of course, it is also debatable what they are calling “affordable” but that’s another story).

Good luck integrating housing in the US. It’s going on in Europe but in only isolated ways this side of the Atlantic.

FG/GL

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 1:36 PM

Polemecist:

You claim that public programs exist so politicians can get re-elected by the beneficiaries. Bullshit.

Poor people are less likely to vote than any other group. I fail to see how safety net programs to ensure that nobody is homeless, starving, or dying for lack of medical care have helped anybody stay in office. All we've seen for quite some time now are irresponsible promises to eliminate taxes. Those politicians are repeatedly re-elected. Show me the last politician who was elected on a platform of support for poor and low income people. For goodness sake, the president got away with vetoing expanding S-CHIP. Our political class if entirely responsible to the DONOR class, which DOES NOT include poor people.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 2:00 PM

I have a really hard time understanding how stacking people in high rise, high density structures, no matter what their income, is a positive thing. We are people, not sardines, or containers in a ship. I have no desire to live stacked up like they are in Tokyo, or living like some sanitized version of the Middle Passage.

Studies have shown that people do not respond well in the long term to that kind of living. See oft mentioned high rise housing projects. I can't see how it would matter if you are in a low income unit or a gilded high end cage.

Science fiction is becoming fact more and more everyday. Blade Runner looks like a vision of tomorrow I don't want to see.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 2:05 PM

12:38,

It doesn't matter if demolition of NYC public housing has never happened in NYC. There was a time when it had never happened in Newark, Chicago, etc., as well.

Ever hear of the saying, "There's a first time for everything?"

Obviously not.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 2:11 PM

FG - you are so wrong it is frightening. Density is BY FAR the most economic and environmentally efficient method of development.

You are essentially advocating sprawl. In every area HVAC (both in terms of insulation and economies of scale); transportation costs (mass transit and pedestrian friendly); land useage and habitat preservation; even in terms of resource usage per person high density apartments are more efficient then single family or low density.

The cost of an elevator is miniscule even if you just consider the cost of lighting 1 lobby compared to the entry way of 75 different homes.

As for the social costs of high density - I dont think that Manhattan has demonstrated this issue - the problem with the 'projects' is not one of denisty as oppossed to segregation of poor people in one area. South Central LA is mostly single family homes but it is besieged by the same social problems as the projects in Chicago.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 2:25 PM

Okay, okay...Rehag and Putznamdenizen...I do agree with you to some extent...but Guest 2:25 I do not agree with.

I think we need to reposition the discussion. Yes, higher density appears to be more efficient when compared to "sprawl". I hadn't mentioned "sprawl" and was calling more for reasonably-scaled URBAN develop...but that aside, keep in mind hi-rise living, because it is a higher use energy housing solution compared to lower-height urban development, will be less sustainable in long run.

I think we're getting carried away thinking that density is a good think. I am certainly not advocating for single family homes or, G-d forbid, sprawl.

Let's consider a cities imaginary footprint. When you calculate in all the energy used, resources, food farmed elsewhere and trucked in, water systems and energy delivery infrastructure—all those things that bring goods and services into the city--you start to see the footprint grows to the point of being massive. It's just a simple formula based on what each person needs to survive based on our averaged (wasteful) lifestyle needs. Putting up huge towers without thought to true "green" possibilities is a bad formula for density. It works out to be cheap for the builder with the cost defrayed and placed on future owners. To most US buyers this is currently usually a non-considered, almost hidden cost factor when shopping for a dwelling. But in Germany, the life-use energy needs of housing are calculated on new construction so buyers have a clear idea upfront.

What I AM for, actually, is low density, small town development. 2:25, you bring up issues that are great and part of the discussion: habitat preservation, pedestrian friendly. This can happen in an urban landscape that is not all hi-rise towers. It's been going on in Brooklyn for two about centuries.

Now, Rehab, you really jump to conclusions and seemingly put words in my mouth. As I mentioned, I didn't frame this as Urban vs. Sprawl. I am not anti-urban. But, I must take issue, not with your disgust with sprawl, but rather with your apparent lack of awareness that our lives here in the city necessitate all those roads, and everything else, outside the physical boundaries of NYC. Big cities, any cities, do not exist in bubbles but impact the immediate region, the wider region and now, the entire planet. See, the problem with sprawl is not the actual “sprawl” but how it is organized. The houses should be clustered and the open space well though-out as green space, garden space and native/natural space. Anyone who has a clerical job that can be performed at home, should do this. Maybe, in the future…once things fall apart…there will be less service/white collar work and people will be doing other things at home, producing things they, their neighbors use. No matter if in towns, cities or in suburbia, houses should take advantage of wind-PV electricity, solar HW and heat, rainwater, gray water uses, homegrown food, etc., etc.

Agreed. Sprawl in the US can be horrible. As fuel prices rise, some of these things may work themselves out…people will drive less. But, I am arguing, not even speaking about sprawl, that the kind of urban development we are seeing rising on Flatbush is also energy intensive, organized so there is little incentive for builders to care about future energy use, and going to prove bad for the environment.

Thus spoke FG AKA GL

Thank you for all coming. See you next year!

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 3:05 PM

Polemicist,

You're operating under today's assumptions. You seem to think that only the current electrical charge for operating an elevator is important. First of all, are you looking at real numbers, say...individually metered elevators? How much does it cost to construct? How much does it cost to maintain, service, repair? What happens as electricity costs skyrocket? What happens when it's not working? Lots of people put into distress.

And...coal plants are virtually emissions free...as are nuclear plants? WAH?! What have you been reading??? Listen, the energy needed to mine the raw materials for both types of plants is enormous and environmentally devastating. Also, they both have inherent problems operating. Coal plants extract about 30% of the energy from the coal burned. Better than some processes, but not great. Nucular...well that's a whole other story.

Basically...it's a mess. Electricity from these sources and fossil fuels is simply not clean. And yes, internal combustion engines are horrible...we agree. BTW...just because we live in a city does not mean we're not surrounded by them...a lot of miles are being put on vehicles right here in hometown Brooklyn. Plus, count the endless miles driven to get goods and food to each of us here and voila, huge footprint and lots of internal combustion engines spewing out muck all over the place.

Let's not have any illusions.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 3:26 PM

Guest, your utopian vision of small towns clustered among green space is very appealing but is completely irrelevant in a country of 300M and a world of 6 Billion. Much less in one where we have economic and personal freedoms (how do you expect to force people to stay in their little hamlet in North Dakota when the one on the Puget Sound is so much nicer?)

Sorry to tell you but we live in a world of free trade, and specialization (thank god) and therefore little self-sufficient hamlets are not feasible or desirable (not to mention that our population is so large that the "open space" between the towns wouldnt be large enough to sustain natural habitats).

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 4:04 PM

Hi Polemicist,

All your bandying about of figures is getting me all warm and fuzzy, but all that aside, I do agree with you on many points.

Listen, one point: did you know that apparently maritime shipping, which uses less fuel per mile traversed than air transport of course, is using some huge percentage of transportation fuel these days. It's gotten rather insane. And...a lot of what we get here is trucked, not railed or shipped, to NYC. A trucker friend or ours drives from FL to the wholesale market, drops the produce off, goes to NJ and picks up a major brand of packaged tea, drives it to Indiana...trucks are moving tons of goods. Though, coal and heavy goods are traveling via rail, granted.

I'm glad you have deduced the figures on elevator maintenance/usage. But to take the focus away from them, do you at least agree with me that these hi-rises should be built much more well-insulated, glazed, etc., etc. Somehow they're able to build eco-efficient towers and lower-rise office complexes in Europe that are incredibly low impact. "My whole thing" is that we're witnessing this building boom in NYC with towers going up in such ways that they will turn out to be overall energy hogs (granted, maybe not the elevators...) and also, when we see the level of workmanship, it appears they will need high levels and costly maintenance down the not-so-long road (e.g. cement decking taking right to the outside of the building envelope exposed to look like a decorative stringer course...very common unfortunately).

I don’t quite agree with the “impoverishing billions” banter since most of the world already lives with so much less than us with so many already impoverished it boggles the mind (and often impoverished because they’ve left/been pushed off the land and end up in dense cities). North Americans use much more energy per capita than anyone else in the “developed” world. Counting “down” from the “developed” world we start to see people living okay but who use VASTLY less energy than us. Of course, many of these people live in regions with low heating needs if any.

I still cannot agree with you on the impacts of coal and nuclear...haven’t convinced me there. But yes, agreed, liquid and gaseous fossil fuels are polluting…and running out. How do you see the whole energy thing playing out?

I’m also not entirely sure that what you’re defending (by defending these hi-rises…or are you actually not defending them? I can’t tell anymore…) really supports your good arguments of equity, etc. in the urban environment. In fact, unless these towers have to slash their rents/sale prices, they won’t be affordable to that wide an audience. Yes, it appears people want to move back into cities. It’s not necessarily happening in relationship to energy costs right now. There are many factors leading to the phenomenon in NYC (immigration, boomlet kids and yuppies, the kinds of jobs and businesses in NYC and all the money that circulates through this town which trickling down created a market for certain services, tourism, even wealthy non-citizens wanting pieds-à-terre though this may be over publicized…I’m not sure.).

All in all, my argument that the City’s footprint is enormous is going unheeded here. As I wrote earlier, we simply do not live in a bubble. Someone above wrote he thought the whole country would need to be inhabited with no possibility of natural open spaces if the country’s estimated 300M people lived in smaller settlements…this is not true. Population densities show that if we were more spread out we would still be able to live in what would to be countryside and natural land. Many countries in Europe have much higher population densities than the US and they manage to have a lot of small towns and farming communities that thrive. Granted, they lack some of the massive forests we sort of are hanging onto here but still…

Listen, no matter what we do, each one of us has a huge footprint living our basic daily lifestyle in the US, be it urban, suburban, or rural. If we can reduce our usage of resources and energy and become more efficient, we may discover huge gains over what were doing now.

One little PS, there are examples historically that in times of trouble and resource scarcity (fuel, food, water), many people flee cities. What happens over the next decades will be interesting. Personally, I’m hoping to move to a more countrified setting, have a big home garden, chickens and a beehive. Oh…by the way, if anyone other than Mr. Polemicist is reading this, I hope you all know we actually can keep live chickens in NYC…and there’s that beekeeper who comes to greenmarkets selling his honey who will come put a hive on your roof. I lost his website address.

Baci de Brooklyn
FG/GL

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 6:03 PM

Eyes...glazing...over.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:58 AM