Paging Dr. Christaller

In our rush to solve today’s pressing problems we sometimes forget that tomorrow’s solutions may be staring at us from the past. An intriguing blast from the past is Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory.
.
Origin of an Idea
.
Briefly, Walter Christaller was a German Geographer that postulated in his 1933 doctoral essay that market-based forces inevitably created a hierarchical arrangement of towns and cities. In any given area, a large number of small communities would surround a smaller number of towns and even fewer large cities. The physical layout would roughly be approximated as so:
.
http://www.csiss.org/classics/uploads/pa_centralplace.gif
.
To make the theory work, Christaller had to assume the following factors:
.
* The area was flat without any geological barriers.
* The population was an evenly distributed
* All natural resources were evenly distributed
* All consumers maintained the same purchasing power
* No provider of goods or services could earn excessive profits
* Only one type of transport existed and it would be equally accessible in all directions
.

Central Place Theory explained urban settlement patterns that described existing conditions in a handful of places in the world, notably the US Great Plains or his native Bavaria.

.
It was a good start. But a stronger force loomed.

.
Globalism and the Rise of the MegaCities
.

Most of today’s settlement patterns do not correspond well with Christaller’s concepts. Indeed, as industrialization and urbanization have spread, the number of people residing in rural areas, which include small towns and cities, decreased in many areas. The US Great Plains have been losing population for more than a century in many locations as small farming operations fell by the way side and big city opportunities beckoned. Other industrialized countries have also experienced this phenomenon. Even in much of the third world, globalization, industrialized agriculture and a booming population have lowered the percentage of people residing outside of major urban areas. Some areas even in the developing world (portions of N. Central Mexico) have actually lost population.
.
The result of these trends is a global settlement pattern that now concentrates most people in major metropolitan regions and MegaCities. This growth in mass-urbanization of course was made possible by an abundant and inexpensive supply of energy, which subsidized the increasing costs of constructing and maintaining ever larger settlements. As time progressed, the benefits—and costs—of maintaining this arrangement were spread far and wide until most people’s comfort, livelihood and in many cases, existence were being subsidized by labor, money or resources from somewhere else.
.
The Death of Globalism and the Resurrection of Christaller
.
While Walter Christaller’s theory remained largely academic over the intervening decades (most people probably have never heard of him), the concept of place hierarchy did become important to the marketing and retail sectors, which partially goes to explain how and where business decide to site and expand operations.
.
Globalism is of course, highly dependent on the continuation of cheap energy. Once that supply has been consumed however, the whole economic arrangement of today will be turned on its head. No longer will it make sense to mass produce in select locations for global distribution. A new framework will have to be established.
.
In previous postings here and elsewhere on the Internet, the concept of a (much smaller) community-based existence is often suggested. While this makes for a very strong starting point for coping with peak energy, it too often ignores the community’s place in the greater world. No man is an island and nor should a community be one either. Unless an area is truly isolated or incredibly blessed with resources, trade is inevitable. As we move into an energy-poor future, we need a geographical pattern that minimizes travel and maximizes efficiency.
.
This is where Christaller comes in. The same hierarchical arrangement of settlement patterns first observed of Southern Bavaria or the Midwestern US should become the basis for all human settlement. But rather than simply explaining historical development patterns, Central Place Theory could be modified as to guide future settlement patterns and linkages.
.
Developing a New Concept of Central Place
.
Linkage—or the relationship between places—is key to a revised Central Place Theory. Each place from the smallest community to the largest city within an area is to be linked to one another. These links would be physical (roads or rails), resource driven (availability of food, raw materials), economic (trade) and administrative. What each community would produce and ultimately transport would be determined by the community’s size and its neighbors. Similarly, the question how these communities would be physically linked is also important. The issue of transportation is a direct part of the equation. Ideally, distances would remain shortest for the most frequently transported or bulky items. This way, simple road ways could permit anything from pedestrian and pedal-powered vehicles to busses and trucks. These vehicles could take care of most transportation needs in and around an average community. With small distances between settlements, even bicycle and pedestrian trips between towns would be plausible. The remaining goods could be shipped on trucks. As the distances increase, direct (and frequent) travel between communities would decrease. In effect, the strength of the linkage between any two given places would only be as good the relationship between each place, which is directly related to the distance and ease of travel.
.
Putting this theory into practice would be difficult, but doable in a number of regions. Re-establishing linkages in areas where it was lost and artificially creating them elsewhere will be of top importance. So will the initiation of countless new small communities in the midst of what was once “productive” farmland. In a number of cases, the shells of these communities already exist in the form of dying or abandoned towns. In other locations, new settlements would have to be formed from scratch.
.
The reason for doing this is that as it has been frequently discussed, the small agrarian community ideally should be the basic form of settlement for the majority of the population. The smallest sized communities need to be the most prevalent and be scattered around the country side every few miles at most. Each one would be more than self sufficient in food production, producing a slight surplus that could be exported. Each community would also attempt to produce as many of its essential daily products and ideally generate most of its energy needs for their own consumption. By doing this, the need for a significant amount of trade could be eliminated. Even if each community did not produce everything they needed on a daily basis, the increased amount of local production would still significantly reduce transportation needs. Though a majority of the working aged population will be engaged in production activities of some kind, each community would maintain a few individuals in the other professions such as retail, security, health care, education and other essential service sector professions.
.
Each of these small settlements, which would ideally range in size from several hundred to just over a thousand inhabitants, would surround a larger city. Ideally these settlements would be close by, no more than a mile or two, to facilitate easy travel between the small community and the larger town. If fixed rail service was an option, a single stop could serve an entire small community (due to the small geographic spread) and most of the larger town. Otherwise bus service would suffice along with the bicyclists and horse carts.
.
The larger town itself would ideally be the home of several thousand individuals and house some of the higher level industries and functions that would not make much sense to replicate in each of the smaller communities. This larger town would also produce most of its required food locally but if it were forced to, could close any shortfall in local production by importing from its surrounding communities.
.
These towns would orbit a larger city, which would maintain higher levels of population and job specialization than the surrounding towns and communities. Connections between the smaller towns and the larger city would ideally be made by rail, which would allow the easy transportation of goods and people between places. Frequent bus service could suffice if rail transit was impossibility. With a vast majority of the population residing within walking distance, this would make a lot of sense. Distances between the smaller towns and the city would vary, but would inevitably be situated further away than the small communities were located. These cities themselves would be immediately surrounded by small agricultural communities, with some urban agriculture occurring within the city limits. However, due to the numbers of individuals not engaged in agriculture in each of these cities, food would most likely have to be imported from slightly further a field. Fortunately those import sources would originate from the surrounding towns and communities at distance of no more than 50 miles.
.
Finally these cities would “orbit” an administrative capital of sorts. This capital city would be the administrative hub for this region and carry out top level governance. However, due to the numerous smaller and mostly self-sufficient settlements, governance could be smaller and more nimble than today’s bloated bureaucracies. Additionally this top level city would house the most technologically sophisticated industries as well as perform or produce those products needed in small quantities as well as serve as the region’s educational and cultural center (home to a college and a performing arts contingent.)
.
Ideally the region, taken as a whole should be self-sufficient. Its borders would correspond to natural geographical boundaries; in essence a bio-region. Trade could still occur, but it would not be necessary for survival. The size of the bio-region would be ideally related to the underlying carrying capacity and serve as the ultimate determination of how many people could it support.
.
Restating Central Place for a Low Energy World.
.
Unlike Christaller, the settlements need not be geometrically ordered. In all likelihood, hierarchical clustering may prove to be a better arrangement. Maximizing activities in smaller areas is an effective way to reduce overall impacts.
.
So would creating a hierarchical framework. Unlike Christaller, this plan of action implies actively:
.
* Identifying an area of common geographical and geological features (a bio-region)
* Redistributing population from densely populated cities to lesser populated countryside.
* Producing as much natural resource as needed on a local basis and evenly distributing the rest.
* Ensuring all consumers have equal access to the economy.
* Protecting against excessive production of goods or services for outside export or excessive profiteering.
* Trying to reduce all needs for travel while expanding mass transit options.
.
It does not matter what the actual geographic layout is like, the important part of the new conceptual framework is the relational structure.
.
Such a plan of action would no doubt be controversial.
.
This concept of course is only theoretical. Implementation would be another story and not in the scope discussion at this time. The key point that I was trying to make here is that Central Place Theory as modified could provide a framework of geographical organization of land uses and settlement patterns that could make any post fossil-fuel era existence eminently more survivable, sustainable and perhaps even…pleasant.

The Community Solution

Much attention has been paid to the importance and value of pursuing a communal/village/community based-approach to dealing with the coming energy crises. I think this is a good idea and ultimately the path to take if we want to survive the end of the fossil fuels era while maintaining some modicum of civilized existence.
.
Not that there aren’t any other ideas for survival; both the survivalist, self-reliant homestead and the intentional community models do exist. The survivalist approach usually sees the hardy types depart modern civilization to seek out a self reliant existence in the far rural reaches. With meticulous planning and preparation, a number of these individuals have constructed an incredibly self-reliant existence complete with tons of stockpiled food, acres of wilderness and weapons by the case load. While I would expect many of these to survive whatever social and economic upheaval that affects the urban areas, this form of existence would no doubt, be a lonely, isolating one. Humans have throughout history grouped themselves in small communities from tribes up to villages. Additionally, that isolation forces the individual or family to be highly dependent on oneself or family for every aspect of survival. When it comes to certain specializations like medical care, this just is not practical.
.
In other words, you better not get sick or injured.
.
The intentional community approach does offer specialization. The group can now afford to divide the tasks for an enhanced chance of survival. Different members can be responsible for food production, domestic needs, handy work and yes, medical care. The downside of this is that with many intentional communities, isolation from the outside world is a fact of life. Many are organized around a single philosophical or religious ideology and are either led by a dominating leader or suffer from anarchic consensus-driven self governance. Neither extreme is particularly welcome. Over the long haul though, members can become alienated from each other or worse, become increasingly prone to inbreeding. Granted both outcomes may be extreme and many stable, successful intentional communities continue to exist and even thrive. For most individuals today however, they are just not a viable option.
.
The idea of a community approach to peak oil is not half bad though, and as a number of intentional communities have taught us, it is possible to exist indefinitely without artificial or outside inputs. But it is not just certain intentional communities today that exist on locally available resources; it was pretty much pre-industrial civilization’s standard operating procedure. Though many different incarnations of the village approach existed, the result was inevitably the same: most places met their daily needs close to home, especially in respects to food and energy (e.g. wood, dung or the occasional waterfall). More limited resources, such as metal ores traveled longer stretches with only limited numbers of goods ever traded great distances, most of those being luxury goods.
.
In the future, many of those patterns will need to be resurrected. We just cannot keep growing agricultural products for worldwide consumption. For better or worse, food will simply have to be grown locally with labor intensive practices. Equally important, the crops will have to be transported, processed (milled, baked, canned, preserved) and consumed locally as well. The days of the 3000 mile Caesar salad are numbered… Equally important, communities must relearn the essential tasks of manufacturing their daily goods as well. That means collectively we need to relearn the basic manufacturing processes of textiles, soaps, glass and other goods. Nor will that manufacturing necessarily be mechanical either; in many cases labor intensive, cottage industries will have to re-emerge. There is after all, no benefit to economies of scale, when the greater economy scarcely exists.
.
One sure way of maintaining this arrangement over the long haul in is a confederation of loosely organized cities and towns of various (small) sizes that for the most part sustain their immediate needs on a local level and only trade the rarely used, more specific or technical goods. Larger cities could become producers of those harder-to-manufacture goods for the smaller towns and cities as well as become an administrative and cultural center for each particular region. At the same time, the larger cities could also subsist on the surplus, imported food stuffs that hopefully each of the towns would be able to produce. The key is to ensure, the size of the larger cities not exceed what could be provided for them from their immediate hinterlands.
.
The community level should necessarily be the focus of any low-energy civilization. In the rural areas this is best represented by the farming town. But it could be replicated in the urban areas as well. Larger cities (but not too big) could be broken into smaller districts with localized food production and processing along with any form of industry that is viable in a post peak world. Ideally each district should have a balanced mix of jobs and housing while managing to be concentrated enough to permit public transit.
.
This of course is an ideal. Dealing with the vagaries of land ownership, property rights and other impediments will likely make this harder to achieve in practice. The larger the city, the more intractable these forces may be. This is a very important factor that discourages the wholesale reorganization of the urban realm. In contrast, the smaller city or town may only need minimal physical reorganizing.
.
But communities will not only become our physical home, they will have to become our social safety net as well. Most old-age assistance takes the form of national level pension programs (which are unsustainable under perfect economic conditions.) Welfare assistance is a necessary fact of life to prevent abject poverty among individuals and families. It also lessens the crime rate by providing food and shelter. (Individuals lacking in both will inevitably turn to crime to acquire these basic life goods.) Health care is vital to prevent diseases from ravaging communities and education is vital so that our children “grow” into productive adults. Currently the responsibility for the funding for all these services is provided by state and national level governments or corporations. None are sustainable under any scenario that debilitates or destroys the global and national economies. As a consequence, the community will have to step up and become the pension and public assistance program, health care provider and educational establishment for all in the community. And it will have to do this without any support from higher levels.
.
In other words, the unplanning of modern, global civilization better have localized options waiting in the wings.
.
This is not to say that small communities, villages or cities were pleasant places, past or present. The sustainable community of the middle ages may well have been a feudal kingdom. The sustainable communities of the Amazon were (and still are) tribes living a basic hunter-gatherer existence. Today’s small town existence might be peaceful and idyllic for some, but to others (particularly those with different viewpoints) represent a hostile, alienating experience. These are fair arguments. The big city does offer anonymity and freedom from prying eyes. You can specialize in whatever you wish to in a populous environ.
.
The only flaw to big city life is its inherent unsustainability. As previously discussed here and ad nauseum elsewhere, cities are dependent on vast resources of imported goods and easy waste disposal. Prior to industrialization there were few good ways to move vast amounts of goods easily and none were particularly fast. Waste removal was equally lacking. As a consequence of this and other factors such as non existent public health practices, most cities remained small in size.
.
However, all cities are not equally unsustainable. Some are located in regions of great resources and with proper planning, may continue to exist with simple modifications like urban gardening, suburban retrofitting and stronger urban-rural linkages to their immediate hinterlands rather than Asian factories. It is quite conceivable that the urban reaches of the upper Midwest, US Northwest and Northeast as well as portions of Europe, South America, Australia may fare fairly well. Maybe not the largest of those cities, like London or Chicago or Sydney, but the smaller to mid sized cities in temperate arable regions may continue to exist long after the peak.
.
On the other hand, for reasons previously discussed, places like Los Angeles or Las Vegas are hopelessly destined for contraction.
.
So how do we get from Los Angeles to sustainability? That’s the $64,000 dollar question for our civilization. One thing is for sure. The answer lies within community reorientation.

Depletion Happens (a little bit at a time)

For all the discussion that has occurred online on every conceivable ramification of Peak Oil, here is one simple pictorial reminder: Depletion happens. Every day, in fact.
.
The above picture was taken of a recently closed well in the Deer Creek oil field not far from where my in-laws live. The field is Tulare County’s largest oil field. Actually, it is the county’s only remaining oil field. In 2004, the last year of full records, the field produced 39,000 barrels. For the entire year. Make no mistake about it, this hardly a Ghawar or Canterell. Heck, it’s not even a Midway-Sunset or Kern River field for that matter.
.
Nevertheless it is an instructive tale of depletion, economics and a little bit of enhanced recovery techniques to boot.
.
The State of California keeps fastidious records of many things, and oil production is one of them. Production records and can be easily queried. The graph below depicts production on the oil field.
.

Oil Production from Deer Creek, 1977 to 2005
.

Deer Creek is a heavier oil deposit that ramped up fairly quickly before passing its point of peak oil production (third quarter of 1983). From there you will note a steady decline in production until 1994 when it picked up for a period of around three years until the Asian Financial Crisis kicked the slats out from underneath oil prices. At this point, economics drove oil production faster than underlying geology. Production here dropped precipitously as well owners shut off their pumps (this being lower quality, more viscous oil, production is not too cheap) and held off until prices rose again. When the prices turned upwards again, so did production.

At this point, it gets interesting. As prices started their march upward more steeply in 2000 and 2001 well owners began steam injecting on a large scale. That contributed to a rise in overall production. Yet in 2002 production slipped slightly (again coincident with the 2002 Russian Oil over production event) before once again rising. For a time, it appears that advanced recovery techniques (which are very common in Kern County oil production) stemmed the decline. But not for long.
.

Injection volumes 1977-2005

As of the last two years, it does appear that the injection driven increases have begun to play out, with the production in the field once again declining. This decline is in all likelihood, terminal, as sky-high crude prices have not resulted in more production. Geologically this region is largely played out and really is not much of a shock to anyone. Still, the story of Deer Creek is useful to remember. All oil fields deplete sooner or later. 39,000 barrels a year is but a drop in the bucket. But the collective drought in these “drops” do add up. Maybe not to the level of losing Cantarell, but every little bit still pushes us ever closer to peak oil.
.

Are you ready yet?

High Rise Suburbia

When most people contemplate suburbia the images that often come to mind are endless arrays of single family houses, disconnected strip commercial stores and office parks. Most—if not all—structures are two to four stories at most, with only the occasional ten story office building or communication antenna sticking out into the sky. What does not immediately come to mind as “suburbia” are rows of 20 story condo complexes, office towers and multi-level hotel/shopping/entertainment centers. Yet these high-intensity urban structures are scattered about in a suburban pattern around many of our larger (more urban) cities.
. ..
A good example of this would be Landmark, VA. Located on the western boundary of the City of Alexandria and unincorporated Fairfax County, this area contains numerous high rise apartments, condominiums, and office towers spread across the moderately rolling terrain typical of this part of the Mid-Atlantic. Interspersed between the buildings is a range of greenery from grassy fields to overgrown woods. Connecting all of these buildings is a network of curvilinear collectors and arterial streets of varying widths.

.
Developments in this form of suburbia differ from their more conventional low-intensity counterparts in many respects except for two: they retain a marketing-driven “unique” identity and are (almost) totally dependent on automobile-based transportation. They are essentially suburbs on steroids. An examination of one such development yields a lot of valuable information.
.
The largest residential complex in the above aerial is the Watergate at the Landmark (the four bent shaped buildings in the center). This complex houses 1,460 units in 18-story buildings spread over a number of acres. As is the case with most things in this country, marketing is everything. This place bills itself as “Condominium Living in a Resort setting” and along with this list of amenities gives this contradictory-sounding description of itself:

…Watergate is away from it all but in the middle of it all. Located in historic
Alexandria, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C, it is 5
miles from The Pentagon and 7 miles from Reagan National Airport. The Washington Beltway is 10 minutes away and a million miles from megalopolis.

It should be mentioned while the complex itself IS located within the City of Alexandria, it is nowhere near (in geographical or architectural terms) to the “historic” core of the city. Additionally, that 10 minute travel time does not apply to rush hour periods, which in the Metropolitan DC area can run most of the day.
.
It is this continued dependence on automotive transport that is the real problem with this and countless other forms of high-rise suburban buildings. Whether they are located outside of Washington DC, Houston TX, Chicago IL, or Los Angeles CA, these complexes (or communities as many would like to call themselves) are functionally no different than their earthbound counterparts. Despite their intensive use of the land, these multi-story structures still are too spread out from each other to permit easy walking. To walk out to the closest street often requires crossing parking and taking a winding route to whatever the arterial the complex dumps out on.
.
Though many of these complexes have very old and very young inhabitants, the bulk of the residents are usually young and employed. A vast majority of these individuals drive to work. And why shouldn’t they? Their place of employment is more often than not, another office tower in another suburb/edge city, an office park near a major interchange or in the rare case, actually located in the CBD. Transit is inconvenient at best and non-existent at worst. As a consequence, most complexes have several acres dedicated to parking, either in lots or underground in garages.

Despite the apparent density, the car is still king of this kind of suburbia.
.
This type of urbanization makes economic sense. It packs a large amount of square footage that could be sold or leased into a relatively small area, but yet allows the developer to market the project as a unique entity, a choice destination if you will. Whether residential complex is geared to the D.I.N.K (dual income no kids) crowd or “active seniors”, the effect is the same. Housing is no longer just functional—it is “fun”. On the commercial side, you will see ordinary malls morph into entertainment centers, complete with office towers, hotels and 18 screen-megaplexes plopped onto the property. Below an example of this, the Sherman Oaks Galleria.

More often than not, the lands near major highways (for easy access) will see this form of development, which typically occurs after the lower density suburban uses have already built out. With the Landmark area, the close proximity of I-95 and the Capital Beltway was the key to its success.
...
These high rise agglomerations can take on their own city-like collective identity, which Joel Garreau coined as an “edge city” in his 1991 book of the same title. This form of high rise suburbia, taken to an extreme, is best exemplified by places like Tysons Corner (VA), Rosemont and Schamburg (both in IL), Century City (actually part of Los Angeles), or University Town Center (part of San Diego). These places are bonefide centers of activity, hugely important to the business world and in many cases, home to thousands of people. Yet despite their vying for importance against their urban core counterparts, almost none are walkable. Tysons Corner (pictured below) has the second largest amount of leasable commercial space outside of Manhattan on the east coast, yet has no rail service whatsoever. Rosemont is home to dozens of hotels and an entertainment complex, yet is served by a single, meager ‘L’ station that is surrounded by acres of park and ride lots. Whatever does pass for “planning” typically occurs well after the congestion has reached a crisis point.
.
This brings me to my next point. While high density suburbia makes economic sense, from an energy standpoint it is just plain nonsense.
.
Suburban existence and its absolute dependence on the automobile will be doomed to failure as it becomes increasingly difficult to keep all of those cars gassed up and moving and the trucks delivering goods for eventual sale and consumption. While many of these complexes do have rudimentary bus service out front, it is of no use to a majority of the inhabitants who must travel to locations not serviced by transit. But the issue of transportation is not the only one to challenge the inhabitants. The energetic requirements to sustain the buildings themselves are a huge undertaking.
.
A twenty story building has many energetic requirements, many of which are not an issue with your average single family house. Water must be pumped up, wastes pumped out. People and freight are almost dependant on the use of elevators to speed themselves between the floors. The heating and cooling needs of these buildings are of a scale unto themselves, when compared to single family homes. Then throw in the thousands of common area light bulbs, domestic hot water, cooking and laundry facilities and you have a structure that consumes a lot of energy to simply be inhabitable. Most condo complexes are not content to offer just the basics however. As a result more energy is required to keep up the grounds, maintain the pool (or pools), power the management office and the amenities rooms and keep up the 24-hour security detail.
.
It is difficult to truly compare whether a complex such as the Watergate at the Landmark’s 1,460 units are more or less energy efficient than the same number of units scattered across low-density suburbia. Without hard figures, such as complex electricity or gas bill, a true comparison cannot be easily made. One could surmise the individual heating or cooling needs for each unit might less, due to less exposed surface area. On the other hand, no two story house requires elevator service or pumped water to be inhabitable.
.
One thing is for sure; as the multiple energy crises (oil, gas and electricity) of the twenty-first century materialize, life in high rise suburbia will become every bit as difficult as low rise suburbia. But with developing scarcity of each particular form of energy a likelihood, a different pitfall for these communities awaits.
.
Peak oil robs high rise suburbia of its economic vitality by disrupting the ease of movement of its inhabitants and workers. As gasoline and diesel prices climb out of site, commuting no longer becomes affordable for the masses, which assumes that many still had jobs to commute to in the first place. The inevitable downturn in the economy will waylay thousands of companies, particularly those firms that are not considered essential to everyday existence. In the early months to years, high rise condo inhabitants may fare somewhat better than their lower density counterparts. At least most residents still have public transit options in these (as paltry as it may be) which could be utilized more easily than the suburbanite that must walk a mile and half to the nearest arterial run. However as the crisis persists, these towers will become increasingly full of the unemployed and discontented. As we shall soon discover, they will soon be uncomfortable as well.
.
The declining natural gas situation and for many in this country, the eventual electrical shortages, pose far greater direct impacts to condo and office towers than oil does. Natural gas supplies heat to many complexes, heat that is used to provide domestic hot water, winter time heating and in some cases, electricity (via a cogen unit). Even if the complex uses no gas, it will use electricity. Electricity is an absolute must for these structures as it provides the necessary energy to pump water and propel people to those upper floors while keeping them cool in the summer keep them lit and entertained all year long. With natural gas fired units falling by the wayside and coal and nuclear unable to fill the gap (coal, despite its abundance is facing some capacity increasing limitations of its own) there is some serious question on whether the grid operators can continue to keep the lights on for the expected lifespan of some of these buildings. While a grid collapse is not likely in the next several years, it is very much plausible to expect it during most of our lifetimes.
.
One example of doomed experimentation with high rise living was the experience of North Korea. As many already know, they suffered an artificial peak oil of sorts after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without access to cheap crude, their economy shriveled up. Eventually the shortages cascaded into coal shortages and food shortage resulting in mass famine and frequent black outs. An article in the LA Times detailed life in a northern city of 600,000. A passage referred to an 18 story building like this:

There are other oddities. The upper floors of an 18-story apartment building
along the main boulevard are unoccupied because there are no elevators.

Unless we can either develop a new, limitless form of energy or figure out how to more equitably ration what’s left, the coming crisis will eviscerate the justification for high rise suburbia, while leaving the inhabitants, particularly in the upper floors, just out of reach of sustainability. In the end, human history has no parallel to high density suburbia. In fact we do not have a parallel to the suburbia period itself as this has been the only time to date where mankind has existed in a period of ever increasing energy availability.
.
Unfortunately for us, those days are numbered.

Will this be the future of our high rises?

________________________________________________________________

Author's addendum:

I added some links above to additional information of merit to this article. Here are a few others of merit:

* Community Association Publishing - This magazine is geared to condo complex owners. The sub-page I linked to deals specifically with energy. Most articles are informative, even if they were written without a full grasp of the energy situation.

* Tysons Corner Planning Page - This page from the County of Fairfax (the jurisdiction for responsible for its planning and administration) discusses planning efforts to turn Tysons Corner from a high rise suburban edge city into a true downtown. While this effort will likely never come to fruition (due to both local opposition and the looming energy crisis). Too bad something like this was not built sooner.

On a related note, here is someone else's rant on high density suburbia.

A Closer look at Vertical Farming

A novel concept called vertical farming, has been developed by the Medical Ecology department of Columbia University which aims to revolutionize farming and food production. Although proposals such as this have existed in the past, this one takes it to new heights (no pun intended).
.
A recent trip to their website indicates this is still a project under conceptualization, with each year’s class filling in new details about the project and enhancing the calculations and research totals. It is a good thing, because this project is not ready for prime time. In fact its time may never come. Energy considerations are of course paramount to its eventual success (or failure) however other aspects such as economics are also important.
.
This piece will not rehash the proposal itself, but rather key issues that stand out.
.
Construction

.

Any way you cut it, this is a significant sized building. It would take a large amount of concrete, glass, plastic, steel, and other metals to construct. Most of those materials require a significant amount of energy, not to mention the raw ore / chemical feedstock to produce. Within the building, significant climate control, water control and electrical devices would need to be purchased and installed. While this is obviously a one-time expense, it far outweighs the conventional approach: find level land with halfway decent soils and adequate water. At the moment this project is economically infeasable, but energetically possible to construct. Economics may change, but if you don't have the fossil fuels (or they are scarce), large scale construction will be difficult or impossible.
.
An argument was made by a member of peakoil.com that an existing car park could be utilized for such a purpose. Perhaps a greatly stripped down version of a vertical farm could be established in unneeded car parks (which looks likely as the gasoline supply begins to decline). In this case the energy investment (the structure) had already been made, and with some relatively inexpensive retrofits (glass, mirrors, solar tubes) interior lighting could be brought in. However the size and scale would have to be greatly reduced in order to eliminate the need for artificial lighting. In all likelihood a car park of 4 stories or less might prove adaptable, with cultivation occurring only on the roof (fourth ) and third floors. The second floor could be used for small livestock, while the ground floor could hold processing and waste recovery operations. Granted, this is not the optimal way to farm, but adaptive reuse and necessity will go a long way in easing any future food crisis.
.
Still, vertical farming remains hugely inefficient to all other forms of cultivation due to use of light.

.

Light
.

Light is vital to all growing plants. It is what drives photosynthesis. The light source for all previous forms of industrialized agriculture of course was the sun. It was free, did not ever fail to turn on when needed and never burnt out. Vertical farming on the other hand is totally dependent on artificial lighting. While in smaller structures, solar tubing may be able to light harder to reach interiors, this building is simply too massive to light this way. An estimate by the design team figured that the building would require approximately 26.5 million KW/yr. This is a significant amount of energy and only a partial estimate. The team did not consider all of the ancillary uses such as pumping, office space and other non-agricultural support services. In all likelihood the final total will be higher, though probably not by more than 10-15 million KW/yr in additional requirements.

.

Water
.

Vertical farming is a winner in this respect. A controlled environment such as this limits evaporation, permits more precise applications and creates no runoff. Many growth methods proposed would be hydroponic in nature, but even that is more efficient than conventional agricultural practices today. Additionally, rainwater could be captured and put to use.

.

Nutrients
.

This facility would almost certainly have to have chemical inputs. It may require less and have zero leakage but in the end, feedstock will still be required. It is likely hydroponics will play a large role here, necessitating precise measurements. Vertical farming will score better than conventional farming in this respect (less nutrients per yield) but there are organic and biointensive methods that require no chemically synthesized fertilizers at all. Unfortunately their application is limited in a closed environment such as the one proposed. Even with waste recovery methods on the remaining waste products, chemical fertilizers would still be a regular input to the vertical farm.

.

Pesticides
.

This application will almost certainly require fewer pesticides. Since the atmosphere is highly controlled, the chance of infestation is much lower. Any infestation can be quickly put under control and pesticides, if needed would be in far fewer quantities. On the other hand, growing methods do exist that require no pesticides and don't require a multimillion dollar skyscraper to implement. Never the less, a controlled atmosphere is not a guaranteed way to keep pests and diseases out. An infection, if introduced, could quickly spread out of control.

.

Waste
.

This one is significant, especially if there is livestock involved. This facility would produce a large amount of waste product, be it non edible portions of plants, contaminated water, urine, feces and odors. Some of this could be easily composted and reused but when it comes to livestock, this facility would essentially be a factory farm. Animal rights implications aside, that is a lot of excrement in a real small space. Methane production would reduce the totals (capturing energy) while additional amounts could be theoretically composted. But a significant amount of biosolids would remain. What would have to be done with those? Plus there is the inherent risk of disease when maintaining that number of animals in such a confined space. Finally, that place will stink to high heaven. Today's CAFOs stink and even if you could manage to keep the waste portion de-oderized, the stench from the pens, cages and stalls would be overpowering. Fresh air would have to be drawn in, but the exhaust would have to go somewhere. How will that be cleaned up?

.
Energy Consumption

.
This one is partially covered in the above categories but the vertical farm would still require significant amounts of energy to operate. As noted the design team calculated energy requirements just this past year and came up with the following (incomplete) assessment: The vertical farm will consume 26.5 million KW per year while generating 51.6 million KW of energy equivalent from biomass recovery. This assessment is incomplete overall calculations and flawed in reasoning.
.
As noted by the researchers, energy consumption estimates only extended to the lighting and other processes directly needed for agriculture. Significant other expenditures for non-agricultural purposes will also be required. More importantly, the team estimated total energy production in Kilowatt hours, for which they arrived at their calculations by directly converting the energy equivalent of the Biogas from BTU to kilowatt-hours.
.
This is a flawed argument. Natural gas is not converted into electricity by the utilities by calculating the energy equivalents. It is burned in a generator to produce heat that turns a turbine, creating electricity. In the process, there is an inevitable loss of efficiency (Second law of thermodynamics). The Columbia team neglected to consider any possible efficiency losses from biogas generation of electricity.
.
Electricity would have to be used to run lights (discussed) as well as climate control (building would heat up in most climates during the summer), elevators, pumps (vertical transportation still has to fight gravity remember) and sophisticated monitoring equipment. Gas (biogas) would need to be used for heat for the building and various processes. Many modern CAFOs require natural gas to operate. In this county, dairies can use a significant amount of gas. In all cases where methane recovery is utilized, it still does not create more than is drawn in from the utility. None come close to needing to resell it back to the utility.
.
Overall Conclusion

.

Conventional modern farming is already a caloric loser. Vertical farming would in all likelihood be far worse, even though it solves the land and transportation arguments. (less embodied energy than those 3000 mile Caesar Salads) The stated necessity to feed an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050 and conserve land, is an argument of dubious worth. If these facilities increase yields and make food more wide spread, population will continue to grow, necessitating yet more vertical farms. As with most people, the Medical Ecology team believes in the argument that population drives the food supply. In actuality, it is the available food supply drives population growth (or decline).In the end there are two predictions for the future of vertical farms:

.

Peak Energy Paradigm
Peaking energy supplies will make this proposal a stillborn dream. We won't have the energy to build, maintain or operate the facility. We will hit peak food and if we haven't reduced our populations by that point, many will starve.

.

Limitless Energy Paradigm

If by some miracle we master fusion or zero point energy, vertical farms WILL BE THE FUTURE. We will have no choice. Continued growth (because we are genetic fools driven to grow) will force us to develop these structures to in order to feed our growing population. In the end, that will only encourage more growth (starvation is a great population limiting tool) and ever more food production. With limitless energy, we could still swing this though. Growth continues and all is right with the world until we hit another limiting factor.Though in the end, when you think about it, if we are that "smart" and "advanced" we will at some point figure out how to nano-convert inedible raw materials into food, bypassing the need for farming altogether.

Scenes from a Planning Forum

One thing that I have consistently blogged about my employer is the generally misplaced nature of concern for the future. The Central Valley, if you are not familiar with the area, is dry, dirty (air quality) place dependent on agriculture. We pride ourselves on the fact that we grow the nation’s fruits, vegetables and nuts while supplying California with one quarter of its milk supply. At the same time, we are burdened by the fact our water supply is limited and our air quality is poor. We must also deal with runaway growth as both demographic pressures and real estate speculation have combined to fuel a stunning housing boom that nets us thousands of new units a year. Although this area has a number of issues to deal with, our four chief areas of concern are: air quality, water, agriculture and growth.
.
Some would add a fifth, socioeconomic characteristics (such as crushing poverty and ultra-low educational attainments) as a significant problem for the county. Planners are loath to discuss human issues however and usually refer this intractable problem to the Health and Human Service Department. Never mind the small fact that agricultural and growth policies drove those population increases in the first place. In any case, our focus remains fixated on those first four subject areas, which I will discuss in reverse order.
.
Case in point: the most recent General Plan Public workshop held earlier this week.
.
At this meeting, various individuals representing other governmental agencies, industry groups, activist groups, utilities, large employers and agricultural interests met to discuss the differing General Plan options, while understanding some of the constraints that could be overlaid on those options. As usual in these meetings, the contracted consulting planner started out with a presentation on the computer simulations of the various growth models and the resulting population and residential consumption figures. Though the results were outrageously optimistic and projections through the roof, apparently we still have enough land left to develop under most scenarios. And develop it we must, if we are going to continue to grow by that 2% per year figure for the next 25 years.
.
That does bring up the next issue that concerned many county officials at the meeting: agricultural protection. With each acre of suburbia that gets constructed, another acre of farming has been lost forever. The protection of this industry is paramount to the leadership here in the county. Towards that end, the county (and state) utilize different strategies to try and keep farming alive in the valley. This includes land restrictions on the development of farmland, which in this state is principally called Williamson Act protection. The interesting thing is that there are tougher protection measures which would preclude development altogether. Many farmers are not keen to accept these ultra-strict restrictions however. So why don’t they? As it turns out, many view their farm as their retirement plan. Farm for 30-40 years and then sell the property and use the profits as they see fit in retirement. By restricting development on their property, the property owner forfeits a luxurious or comfortable retirement. Still, even with feverish growth, no scenario would result in all of the one million plus acres of farm land being converted to urban use.
.
Air quality is a perennial favorite topic of discussion at almost any planning meeting and this one was no exception. This is not surprising, given the fact this valley consistently has the second worst air quality in the nation. Like global warming, there is considerable debate on what to do about it. Environmental activists often go after the largest contributors, namely Big Ag and Big Biz. As a result, many large projects now see environmental challenges on this front. Big Biz is keen to point the finger at Big Ag, while big Ag would like to hold the business/developer contingent responsible. Transportation planners blame traffic congestion and offer up the fixes of bigger, better roads (with a side helping of transit). Everyone blames the Bay Area for dumping their pollution on us.
.
The truth of the matter is that it was population growth that created our miserable air quality. It has to be when you consider that virtually every process or piece of machinery has been upgraded over the past 40 years to run much cleaner. Yet we still choke on the air. It is yet another clear reminder how growth, no matter what type it is, will consume any efficiencies wrought from the system. We may have cars that are vastly more efficient than our 1970’s models, but any gains in emissions have been swamped by the fact there are more than 3 times as many cars out there now than back then. The same goes for farming. Most acreage in the county has been farmed consistently for a half century or more. Farmers however, have been wringing ever more efficiencies out of their land. Instead of a single season’s worth of crops, we may have two or even three. Instead of grazing operations we have confined animal farming operations (i.e. factory farming). This of course has impacts.
.....
Although it is clear that growth is the cause of these impacts, the planning establishment is still keen on treating the symptoms instead.
.
As important as air quality is to the quality of life, water is far more important in the eyes of this county’s leadership. Most individuals present at the forum had the capability to understand that simple but vital fact. One person even commented that, “water availability could potentially call into question the assumption that the county could even grow 30% over the next quarter century.”
.
Hallelujah. At least someone can question growth itself.
.
Unfortunately most discussion focused on technological and policy choices to reduce water usage. Farming interests were keen to tout technological advances that reduced water wastage, planners focused on the need to grow smarter (higher density developments without lawns) and civil engineers described some projects to capture ever more flood run-off (as rare as that is) and redirect that to the aquifer. In the end, the consensus arrived at from that meeting is that a county water model should be developed and a collaborative group formed to make those difficult decisions on how to deal with an ever more precious resource.
.
In the midst of the discussion of water concerns, a representative for the local utility company asked about energy planning. Now, having previously talked to that individual, I know his focus was on the distribution of energy, not its production. The response to his question was surprising, but not unexpected.
.
The consulting planner matter-of-factly announced that, “we planners do not consider natural gas and electricity as the same kind of restraint [on development] as water. If electricity or water is needed for a development, it will be provided for by the utility and/or the developer.”
.
Another planner added that, “water is the constraint. We are not getting any more of it.”
.
Gosh, these planners are giving my profession a bad rap. Not only are they not considering all possibilities or scenarios, now they believe that developers and utilities create energy and water is the only limiting factor.
.
No wonder I have decided to move.
.
With this motley crew of numb-skulls in control of things the coming energy crisis will hit them like a ton of bricks. Only then will they consider this a true emergency.