Ok, Houston is a comfortable city to live in. Large apartments, wide consumer choice, plenty of cultural events.. you have everything until you have money.

But what would be Houston without cars and air conditioning ? One day, energy will become too expensive to keep this lifestyle. I’m afraid poor areas will suffer first. I don’t think primarily about aesthetics, I’m thinking about civil tranquility. (and I don’t dare to speak about global warming here, it’s just a vague philosophy..)

Looking at your flickr profile, I grew up not too far from your current location. Therefore, I assume we have similar understandings of auto-dependency in the states.

You bring up very interesting and valid points relative to infrastructure. The lack of effective bypasses have plagued cities like Austin and Atlanta for the past decade. Austin, appears to be addressing this, but aren’t quite there yet. Atlanta, meanwhile, is just stuck in gridlock.

From your point of view, what measures are being taken in the trucking industry to address poor infrastructure and rapidly rising gas prices?

Finally, as someone who no longer owns a car, I absolutely lament the fact that we do not have a prevalent, efficient, and cost-effective rail network.

All,

On nuclear energy, because I’m not convinced it is a sustainable alternative, from Triple Pundit:
Is Nuclear Energy Sustainable?

On gas taxes and funding infrastructure from Market Urbanism:
Urbanism Legend: Gas Taxes and Fees Cover All Costs of Road Use

None of the cities I’ve driven through nationwide would survive a major increase in gasoline prices. Not one has a public transportation system that’s capable of handling the full load of commuters.

The only single ‘alternative’ energy source capable of supporting the U.S. economy is nuclear. I don’t know the number of plants it would take to provide power for private and public transportation entirely, but I do know it is several times the number already in use, and many times the number planned (zero? two?).

The single largest reason gasoline prices (and possible diesel by association) are so high, is the arrogant use of energy by people for whom the cost is irrelevant. Gasoline costs what people will pay for it, and for a large number of people in this country, high cost isn’t sufficient incentive to quit trying to impress their neighbors.

Another somewhat related issue with highway infrastructure is the misuse and misguided (politically driven) routing of Interstate highways through cities. Because of this continuing political fiasco, millions are spent on building highways in major metropolitan areas while steadily incresing truck traffic through those areas that does not deliver in those cities continues to increase and add to congestion. With better planning and more spending on coast to coast and border to border highways that bypassed cities, commuters could have the local highways mostly free of truck traffic, and interstate freight could be delivered at a lower energy cost.

Being part of the plumbing, I see more than the average person does about how the whole system works. It bothers me that so much time, energy, manpower, and funding is being wasted to give people what they think they want instead of what they really need.

Personally, I don’t think we should have ever gotten away from rail in the first place…but then Mr. Ford built a cheap car, and the rest is history.

The real impetus behind challenging Kotkin’s speculation is aimed at the patterns and desires of the inhabitants of Houston. I am suggesting that they will actually get in the way of the potential greatness that Kotkin presents. There has to be a cultural shift in Houston that reverses the current patterns of residential development. The economic forces and the willingness of Houstonians to be a car-based city are a powerful force to overcome.

Gizler,
I think you see this point very clearly. In its current trajectory Houston is not sustainable. I may not have been as aggressive in rebutting Kotkin, but you are correct to point out that this is the largest hole in his argument. I do not think we have seen any indicators, technological or otherwise, that suggest sprawling car-based cities are sustainable.

However, I would speculate Kotkin’s response for ignoring urban sprawl relies on future technologies. Most likely, however, he is taking artistic license to craft an argument toward his own agenda in promoting Houston.

Despite the articles’ faults, what if this had been part of Houston’s campaign for the Olympics…

economists have an idea to fall on called the tiebout theory, which more or less says people choose to go where they want to be – ie, they vote with their feet. its an old theory, and one that is open to dispute, but it is useful…whether it is correct or not is less important than the assumption behind it, which is that the inhabitants of cities shape their habitat in an active way, and are not just passively filling places created by planners.

so, if we think like economists and consider the possibility that people are actually shaping the cities in ways they want then the planner’s job is to use those desires to shape future city form. that can mean accepting cars and dispersed living patterns, but does not mean giving up on sustainability or beauty if those are concerns.

it is a challenge few planners, architects or theorists are happy with, cuz it means we have to be really clever and not rely on old assumptions about what a city should be. kotkin is correct to challenge those assumptions. it would be nice if he had some alternatives to offer though.