Planning for the future based on body counts/sq ft and with a mindset 
focused on reducing GHG emissions reveals an assumption about our 
population as consumers, rather than producers, as a liability to be 
"managed" rather than a resource to tap into.  This viewpoint also 
continues to rely on large complex systems external to Tompkins County 
and ignores the realities of energy descent.  It won't get us where we 
need to go to avoid depression era food shortages in the next 10-20 years.

How is Tompkins County planning to avoid widespread hunger when gas and 
food prices are out of reach for average households?  Where will the 
food come from?  And how?

In 1920, before the widespread use of petro-chemical fertilizers and oil 
powered tractors, an average American farm produced a diversity of crops 
and livestock, was self-sustaining and supported about 12 people; today, 
industrial petrol-farms are dependent on a single crop, federal 
subsidies and a massive commodities market; they are not self-sustaining 
(most farmers don't even grow their own vegetables) and collectively 
over 200 people/acre.  Given the fact that we are now living this side 
of the energy descent curve, it is estimated that between 25-40% of our 
population will need to be farming in post-peak oil America; currently, 
1-2% of the national population is farming. 

After doing the math...Tompkins County needs between 12,500 - 40,000 
farmers.  See Richard Heinberg's paper, "Fifty Million Farmers", on the 
subject:  http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/175

Few people today remember the Great Depression, when unemployment rates 
were over 24%.  Many people lost their land and homes and food was 
scarce.  But imagine a world with $10/gallon oil and a return to those 
circumstances doesn't seem out of the reach of reality.  Living in the 
city without a job or trying to run a conventional farm in the country 
(when you don't have the know-how or infrastructure necessary to run a 
farm without machines and/or commercially produced fertilizer) is a very 
likely scenario in the decade ahead, if we don't plan appropriately.

We need our both our rural and urban populations to be building basement 
root cellars, rain catchment systems, kitchens capable of preserving 
food in a variety of forms, alternative energy systems and gardening 
whatever land is available.

It would also be helpful if we supported those who are pursuing an 
agricultural interest wherever they live in Tompkins County.  We need 
guidelines for rural homesteads, not just urban dwellings, that are 
constructive.  For example, models of 5, 10, 25, 50 acre farms could be 
developed with both an eye to energy descent and climate disruption that 
are specific to our soil, water and temperature conditions.  Like the 
alternative energy open house, rural residences putting these ideas into 
practice could be opened to the public once a year.

A more realistic idea about what it's going to take to construct a local 
foodshed and how to encourage land use to support it is essential.

/Indeed, we need perhaps to redefine the term //farmer. We have come to 
think of a farmer as someone with 500 acres and a big tractor and other 
expensive machinery. But this is not what farmers looked like a hundred 
years ago, and it's not an accurate picture of most current farmers in 
less-industrialized countries. Nor does it coincide with what will be 
needed in the coming decades. We should perhaps start thinking of a 
farmer as someone with 3 to 50 acres, who uses mostly hand labor and 
twice a year borrows a small tractor which she or he fuels with ethanol 
or biodiesel produced on-site.
/Source:  http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/175

-- Katie Quinn-Jacobs




Jan Quarles wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> You have some good points about the inefficiency of sprawl, and I think we 
> should take those points seriously for any new developments. But as far as 
> destroying existing homes goes, I have some questions:
>
> You wrote,"Imagine all the homes sprawled up West Hill, East Hill South Hill, 
> and Snyder Hill, all of the Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Lansing 
> and all of the Big-Box development along Meadow street and Elmira Road 
> replaced by farms, forest and meadow."
>
> So I did imagine this. But then some major obtacles appeared when I thought 
> about how to carry out this vision, given our current economic system. People 
> won't simply abandon their mortgaged homes. They're going to sell them to 
> other people. Those neighborhoods would then be inhabited by the new buyers 
> (many of whom would probably be fleeing big flooded coastal cities). 
>
> Even if, at some point in the future, the government mandated evacuation of 
> the suburbs, and somehow paid people to abandon their suburban homes and move 
> into Ithaca townhouses, wouldn't it require lots of energy, and cause lots of 
> waste, to destroy all those existing homes and roads? And how economically 
> feasible is that assumed mandate anyway?
>
> I think it's more realistic to accept what has developed so far, but to try 
> to transform it instead of destroying it. Some solutions (with which I'm sure 
> you're familiar) include creating more bike lanes and Park 'n Rides, 
> extending public transportation (buses, light rail), and promoting more 
> backyard food production and renewable energy systems through education and 
> outreach.
>
> It would have been wonderful if our county had developed the way your 
> describe. But it didn't. Insisting on something unrealistic doesn't move us 
> forward, and can even reduce the impact of your argument. Or can you explain 
> realistically how your vision of surburban destruction would be carried out, 
> in practical terms? 
>
> I do agree with your model of townhouses and density for Ithaca proper, as 
> the population increases. But I am questioning your vision of destroying the 
> surrounding neighborhoods because you don't explain how that could happen. A 
> home is an American's primary financial investment. 
>
> If you are unable to resolve these questions, then the 'destruction aspect' 
> of your vision will remain pure theory and will not be embraced.
>
> Jan Quarles 
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "George Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Sustainable Tompkins County listserv" 
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] Density, continued
>
>
>   
>> Marlo,
>>   
>>  I just read your e-mail about your new carriage house.  
>>   
>>  Congratulations!  By adding a second dwelling in the manner that you are 
>> doing, you are doubling the density of your lot!  In a neighborhood such as 
>> the Northside, with an existing residential density of about 9 dwellings per 
>> acre, it would not take much more to reach that magic 12-15 dwellings per 
>> acre threshold. 
>>   
>>  This is one of the many, many ways in whch we can densify our cities and 
>> avoid the Orwellian/1984/Frantzville (yes, F-R-A-N-T-as-in-Tea, Z) nightmare 
>> scenarios I've apparently triggered in the minds of some of the list serve 
>> members.  (No apologies, by the way, to all I've traumatized.) 
>>   
>>  It's an example of the evolution, not revolution, that I mentioned in my 
>> earlier e-mail.
>>   
>>  Another example here in Ithaca is the new two-family townhouse on Lincoln 
>> St. between Aurora and Lake.  It has two very light and airy 1,750 sq-ft, 3 
>> bedroom, 2.5 bath dwellings each with a one-car garage.  It's a townhouse, 
>> just rotated 90 degress and featuring a roof-top deck off the 3rd floor 
>> master bedroom suite.  It is also the equivalent of 18 dwelling units per 
>> acre.
>>   
>>  Then there is the Fairview Heights Apartments, inconspicuously located at 
>> the corner of Dryden, Ithaca, Cornell and Maple Avenue above Collegetown.  
>> It features 140 units in a garden-like setting that includes a combination 
>> of 2-story townhouse units 7-story mid-rise building that nobody seems to 
>> even notice.  At 28 unites per acre is is probably the densest area of 
>> Ithaca outside Collegetown, and not cheap housing either.  It may not be 
>> everybody's cup of tea, but it is an example of attractive urban living that 
>> would likley better serve the living needs of young professionals and older 
>> empty-nesters than a McMansion in the suburbs or psuedo-homestead in the 
>> country would.
>>   
>>  There are a number of other urban design concepts, such as those used at 
>> Sunnyside, Radburn and the Greenbelt cities.  These include arranging the 
>> homes around a jointly owned interior lawn or greensward and orienting their 
>> interior spaces inward.  Children thus have a safe place to play, off the 
>> street and within sight of many community eyes.
>>   
>>  There can be a variety of tenure arrangements in addition to the 
>> traditional fee-simple/home mortgage or rental options:  housing 
>> cooperative, condominium, co-housing, elder cottage or life-rights, for 
>> example. 
>>   
>>  By all means rest assured that a compact Ithaca covering just 3 square 
>> miles instead of 11 square miles would definitely NOT limit access to rural 
>> areas.  In fact it would do the exact opposite.  
>>   
>>  Density would draw the countryside into the city.  Instead of a 1 to 3 mile 
>> wide belt of suburban wasteland surrounding Ithaca, the countryside could 
>> start at the base of West Hill, just beyond Six Mile Creek to the south, 
>> just beyond College Avenue on East Hill and at the north edge of Fall Creek 
>> gorge.  Imagine all the homes sprawled up West Hill, East Hill South Hill, 
>> and Snyder Hill, all of the Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Lansing 
>> and all of the Big-Box development along Meadow street and Elmira Road 
>> replaced by farms, forest and meadow.
>>   
>>  All the city parkland that exists now would still exist, except that 
>> outlying parks like McDaniels, Bryant, Strawberry Fields and others would be 
>> integrated into a tight system within a five-minute walking distance of all 
>> residents.  Stewart Park and Cass Park are not disappearing either.
>>   
>>  Not only will there be fields to walk alone with the moon in, you won't 
>> have to get in the car to drive to them.  And without the two hundred plus 
>> miles of streets and roads needed to support the suburban wastelands, and 
>> without the need for huge shopping center parking lots lit to prison yard 
>> intensities, thousands of streetlights and parking lot lights can disappear 
>> and with them a major source of light pollution.  We will be able to see the 
>> stars again from our downtown homes.
>>   
>>  Nor will life be nearly as boring as feared.  Actually anybody who lives 
>> knows life is far from boring.  Actually the primary catalyst for the past 
>> 50 to 100 years of White Flight to the suburbs and now the countryside is 
>> that the diversity of race and class within the city is just too damn 
>> unnerving to the average white middle class American.
>>   
>>  As for me, my 140-year old, 1,200 square foot cottage on my 4,500 square 
>> foot lot keeps me well occupied. Of course the lawn only takes 20 minutes to 
>> mow if I take my time, so I lose out of the hours and hours of recreational 
>> mowing my suburban and rural friends enjoy, and I can't pump nearly as much 
>> greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere with a reel mower either.  But I have 
>> lots of trees, flowers and shrubs, and a stone retaining wall to finish.
>>   
>>  There are also things like taking my turn to mow my neighbor's lawn (free) 
>> for her, because we all know that she had to move away temporarily to care 
>> for her mother, and take my turn shoveling a couple of elderly neighhbors' 
>> sidewalks, because we all know they can't do it and can't afford to hire 
>> somebody to do it.  Cass Park is a five minute walk down the public footpath 
>> from Cliff Street.
>>   
>>  There never really is a dull moment, and I don't even have to resort to TV 
>> to fill the time.
>>   
>>  Then there is that $1,400 per month my wife and I save because we don't 
>> have to drive to work.
>>   
>>  There are a thousand different way in which we can let our cities evolve 
>> into more compact, and more environmentally, economically and socially 
>> sustainable communities in the coming decades.  It will just take 
>> imagination and creativity, an open mind, and a critical questioning of the 
>> fears, prejudices and attitudes we carry, toward both the environment and 
>> our fellow human beings.  
>>   
>>  By moving back and densifying our cities, however, we will not only be able 
>> to move toward a more sustainable society, people might start asking 
>> themselves how they could have been so stupid as to not to embrace the 
>> concept earlier.
>>   
>>  George Frantz
>>     
>
>   
> _______________________________________________
> For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please 
> visit:  http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ 
>
> RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
> [email protected]
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
>
>
>   

-- 
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please 
visit:  http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ 

RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

Reply via email to