Great Post Lloyd.

Everyone should read Kunster and get themselves a sub to Harpers, which was been cranking out some of the most down to earth, non-spin environmental reality in print. How ironic that Detroit, the birthplace of the auto, is the birthplace of the new sustainability model. The green rubber is hitting the road as it were

mjo

The most depressing thing about Kunstler is that he "writes off" the vast majority of the American people (unlike, for example, Heinberg of The Party's Over fame). Calling them The Moiling Masses or somesuch, it's not very helpful is it? Also he doesn't seem to go out of his way to find (ordinary) people with projects which are helpful.

I have never met the vast majority of American people but I'm sure they can't be as bad as he paints (Really. Bush notwithstanding).

When more people get to know about what they're up against, I'm sure some will come out of their usual lives and rise to the challenge. As did their ancestors.

Somebody once advised /not/ to read more than 3 PeakOil publications: in my case these were The Party's Over, 1/2 Gone (by the Solar Century chap) and something by Dmitri Orlov about how ordinary Russians got by through their economic collapse. After that you have most of the relevant information, and reading about more practical 'how-to'-type stuff will be more useful (and incidentally help prevent you from wanting to end it all :-) )

Meanwhile, the Greater Metropolitan Detroit area is rapidly suburbanizing. New developments in areas connected via I-75, I-96, and I-94 to Detroit have created an almost continuous urban corridor stretching from Saginaw, MI through Flint, down almost to Lansing and west of Ann Arbor.

The people have not somehow mysteriously vanished, they moved out into some of the most fertile farmland in the state. The outer cities are experiencing extreme sprawl rates, expanding in area by an factor of 20 or more quickly than they are in population. If you drive from Saginaw through Ann Arbor, what you see is mile after endless mile of newly-constructed suburban 3000 sq. ft. minimum developments each on 1/2 acre lots.

And of course, given the massive wealth that the auto industry has created in the middle-upper classes surrounding Detroit, those lawns are impeccably manicured. The driveways are filled with huge vehicles, his and hers H3s are not uncommon. People, many people, commute 60+ miles in each direction to downtown Detroit (where there are still many commercial enterprises) and live in the exurbs. And finally, you don't see a soul for miles and miles because everyone is inside "beating the heat" with their air conditioning and giant-screen TVs.

Look, I'm not trying to be negative. What I'm trying to say is that suburbia is alive and well, and maybe it will thrive right up until the bitter end. Detroit itself may be an interesting view of a failed urban area, but it is only so when viewed through a very narrow lens.

If this is a green future, failed urban areas being reclaimed by nature, then we should weep for nature that is being destroyed far more quickly by those fleeing the urban blight.

I live in the north suburbs of Detroit, and I have to say that Treehugger's interpretation of this is overly optimistic. Yes, there are areas where nature is encroaching on the urban landscape, and where people are using that encroachment for creating even more green space, but the emptiness of Detroit goes beyond the environment. It is a matter of economy, race, and yes, the automobile. There are few that will go to Detroit to live because they are afraid of it (and it does look rather spooky in some parts), and if they do go, they get in their cars and drive in, to leave as soon as they can. Not green at all, and a lot of why it won't be green is that people who live in the 'burbs don't want to mix with the city (which is black and poor). This is where going green needs to take into acount the cultural and economic ladnscape as well as the actual landscape, because going green in Detroit is not as simple as planting a graden in an abandoned lot.

I have taken multiple international economics courses and it still bewilders me how some areas sprout and others decline. Maybe I am just not paying too much attention. I wonder why some of the great manufacturing facilities here can not just re-tool somehow and become viable again. I mean, all the infrastructure is already in place. The US has to keep building more and better mousetraps, i.e. innovate and manufacture and not just consume, so that we don't 'go the way of the Maya'.
It's nice to see the 'gentrification' of formerly blighty downtown areas. And I am in favor of efficiently laid out cities. But there still has to be a place for industry, light or heavy, to take place to 'economically' sustain all this.
Maybe I'm just paranoid.

vsk

Calling Detroit a failed urban area is a bit vague. Detroit has fallen victim to an industry that has been hit by immense outsourcing and general cheapening of labor. The auto industry in Detroit shares the same fate as other big industry in cities like Cleveland.

The fact is, while Detroit continues the struggle to reclaim its foothold, the citizens are trying hard to encourage sustainable practices where they can. At least they are trying, so why take that away from them?

Michigan still has lots of fertile farm lands, despite the suburban expansion. Anthonares- your attack on the expanding suburbanites is very generalized. The fact that there are many GM/Ford autos in suburban driveways is symbolic of the support that Michiganders have to the auto industry's survival in Detroit. Buying American has always been big in Detroit and I am not saying that this shouldn't change, but there are other reasons and factors to look at besides 'greedy, city fleeing suburbanites.'

Exaaactly. Just because they ripped down the blighted buildings just in time for the Superbowl and those empty lots are growing weeds hardly qualifies the former "murder capital" as returning to prairielands. The people live in suburban McMansions, there is no public transport of ANY type in the Detroit area and I-75 on any given weekday is a standstill of solitary drivers in cars that get single digits to the gallon.

And now the sprawl of overbuilt McMansions are sitting empty in many places because the union-ruled dinosaur that is the American auto industry has taken far too long to realize that people outside Detroit are wanting hybrids not hemis and the jobs are dwindling.

My hometown, but hardly a place to aspire to.

Chris,
I don't take anything away from those that have chosen to remain in Detroit and to make a sustainable community out of parts of it. They, like all who invest their efforts into community building, deserve genuine praise.

I also didn't mean my entry as an attack on all suburbanites, most of the people I know and love fall into such a category. Instead, I meant it to say that the picture is not entirely green or sustainable. On the balance, the continued loss of farmland to low density housing probably outweighs the creation of new greenspaces inside of Detroit proper.

Also, I am not denigrating support for GM/Ford. Every single vehicle my family and I have ever owned has been either one or the other. We, like many Michiganders, can claim family discounts on Fords and GMs from multiple relatives. I wish the automakers every success in their attempts to modernize their operations and improve their offerings.

But to blame the malaise of the US-based auto industry on cheap foreign labor is not correct. There is a substantial price pressure on unionized labor, yes. But, GM and Ford will not close down a unionized plant that is making a product that sells. This is why, even though China increasingly ramped up its production during the late 90s, and Mexico's maquiladoras before that, auto jobs were still relatively stable. Only when sales decline, and those plants become non-profitable, are jobs lost.

So sure, cheap foreign labor is a factor, but it wouldn't be if GM and Ford made cars that sell well. This is why Toyota and Honda plants here in the US continue to pay nearly as well as unionized GM and Ford plants, despite the resistance to unionization by laborers in those plants. Toyota and Honda engineer and sell cars that people want to drive, and this means more employment--much of it here in the US.

Anthonares,

Point taken. I misread the tone is your initial post. I agree with you 100%, I just felt the urge to defend my fellow metro Detroit suburbanites who are forced to drive without any public transport to or from the city.

And yes, the inner city garden projects are hardly sustainable, but it is neat to see some people trying new things to make the best of their surroundings.

I can just hope that GM/Ford start pushing more efficient autos, but for some reason I do not see that happening in the near future.

anthonares Your picture of driving a highway from Saginaw to Ann Arbor is completely wrong. Sure there is sprawl, but not the way you describe it and it is not different than any city in the US. Also Toyota and Honda don't sell cars any better than US makers...They just don't have to deal with pensions.

veggiesaurus There is not public transportation? You mean besides the bus, taxis and people mover? Granted the mover is pretty limited. Come on people at least post truth.

JiltedCitizen,
My picture of driving from Saginaw to Ann Arbor is not entirely wrong. South of Flint on 1-75 to Grand Blanc is entirely suburbanized. From there, maybe at most 15 miles of highway is still fields up until Clarkston. From there, through Auburn Hills, Troy, and so on it's all Greater Metropolitan Detroit.

Heading up 1-96, it's solid suburbanization until you get past Brighton, at which point there is a cumulative 30 miles at most of fields/marginal forests before you get to the Lansing area.

Heading out of Detroit in 1-94 there is an uninterrupted stream of suburbs until well west of Ann Arbor.

If you want to confirm this, download Google Earth and follow 1-75. You might be surprised. Sometimes there are trees along the highway that hide suburbs behind. But, except for a few short stretches, it's all cities and suburbs.

And about Honda and Toyota, by most standards for most of the last decade, their cars are higher quality and have higher resale value than Detroit-made vehicles. There are exceptions, and the Detroit companies have made gains in recent years, particularly with Ford and JD Power's Initial Quality surveys in 2007. But, overall, Honda and Toyota vehicles, particularly their Accord/Camry, Civic/Corolla pair are much better vehicles than the same class of vehicles from Detroit.

And, JiltedCitizen, if you've ever ridden public transportation around the Detroit area, you might know what it is about. First off, taxi is not a form of public transporation. It's personal, high-energy transport. Second, the bus system in all major metropolitan areas, excepting the areas around MSU and UofM in Lansing and Ann Arbor, are of low quality and not something you want to be on after dark. They have limited service area and are not realistically general replacements for private transportation (particularly given the distance to major shopping centers, located in the suburbs). And, the people mover is a joke, as you even admit.

I love Michigan, and plan on living here the rest of my life. I already do, and plan to continue, to invest large amounts of energy and time to efforts to improve this State and the communities I live in. But in order to do that, we first have to agree that there is a problem.