Exurbia, I didn’t repeat the term and that tripped you up. Suburbia, exurbia/rural areas especially. Where you have to run miles of wire or pipe to service three or four people. Completely unsustainable.
Miles of wire is easy and low maintenance. Miles of pipes doesn’t make sense, but water is also not hard to localize. Miles of stroads is what defines suburbia. A rural highway with a driveway every 2-3 miles defines rural living and it’s perfectly sustainable. It would be better if the rural hubs were connected to cities via railroads, like they used to be, but still they aren’t too bad as is.
I live near some of these areas. The seat of the county I am in is largely one of those areas. My uncle lived directly in it. Both were massive issues. And a significant portion of county resources go to trying to maintain it. Conversely our area being much more urban and closer ties to the nearby city gets very little in the way of county funds or assistance. If it wasn’t for the end of the county near the city, the county overall would much more resemble something like West Virginia. You go much farther north, the roads all became two lanesat most. And you have to dodge horse apples and the carts of menonites. Which isn’t a dig at the menonites. They’re actually self-sufficient and don’t get much help from the county either.
The source of your claim it is unsustainable is that it takes more resources than they can get because of politics. Not because the resources aren’t available. If you have roads, everything else can be localized. Solar, wind geothermal, water power, plus batteries can be very local. Internet via satellite. Water is actually not too hard to come by for residental use. Food can be a bit challenging in some places, but the roads can bring it in.
It is all sustainable just fine if we want it to be and stop optimizing for cost.
Exurbia, I didn’t repeat the term and that tripped you up. Suburbia, exurbia/rural areas especially. Where you have to run miles of wire or pipe to service three or four people. Completely unsustainable.
Miles of wire is easy and low maintenance. Miles of pipes doesn’t make sense, but water is also not hard to localize. Miles of stroads is what defines suburbia. A rural highway with a driveway every 2-3 miles defines rural living and it’s perfectly sustainable. It would be better if the rural hubs were connected to cities via railroads, like they used to be, but still they aren’t too bad as is.
I live near some of these areas. The seat of the county I am in is largely one of those areas. My uncle lived directly in it. Both were massive issues. And a significant portion of county resources go to trying to maintain it. Conversely our area being much more urban and closer ties to the nearby city gets very little in the way of county funds or assistance. If it wasn’t for the end of the county near the city, the county overall would much more resemble something like West Virginia. You go much farther north, the roads all became two lanesat most. And you have to dodge horse apples and the carts of menonites. Which isn’t a dig at the menonites. They’re actually self-sufficient and don’t get much help from the county either.
The source of your claim it is unsustainable is that it takes more resources than they can get because of politics. Not because the resources aren’t available. If you have roads, everything else can be localized. Solar, wind geothermal, water power, plus batteries can be very local. Internet via satellite. Water is actually not too hard to come by for residental use. Food can be a bit challenging in some places, but the roads can bring it in.
It is all sustainable just fine if we want it to be and stop optimizing for cost.