Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.

From * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing starts:

"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."

With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.

* w w w .wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
over the place)


E.A.

* enough already.tripod . com /terrasrvr.htm

Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos . com > wrote in message
news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>

Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
depopulation for a change?

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos . com > wrote in message
> news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
>> starts each year?

In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

> This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
>> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
>> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
>> designated wilderness.

See above.

> Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
> depopulation for a change?
>
What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

:~)

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
news:Z1yHj.51099$097.21322@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews . com ...
> >
> > "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos . com > wrote in message
> >
news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> >> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> >> starts each year?
>
> In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.
>
> > This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> >> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> >> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> >> designated wilderness.
>
> See above.
>
> > Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
> > depopulation for a change?
> >
> What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
> news:Z1yHj.51099$097.21322@newsfe21.lga...
>>
>>
>> > Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
>> > depopulation for a change?
>> >
>> What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!
>
> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
>
Or you can make them "Ghost Town" tourist traps. :~)

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Matt W. Barrow <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote:

> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
> >
> > "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
> > news:Z1yHj.51099$097.21322@newsfe21.lga...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
> >> > depopulation for a change?
> >> >
> >> What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!
> >
> > You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
> >
> Or you can make them "Ghost Town" tourist traps. :~)

Hey, it'll mean a resurgence of the western movie genre - lots of new
locations to shoot!

--
regards , Peter B. P. * macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
>
The population is growing. Those against towns
expanding, where do you want them to live, under a
bridge?

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr . com > wrote in message
news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
>>
>> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
>>
> The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
> want them to live, under a bridge?

George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually serves
as housing (about 5-6%).

Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is. (At
35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
news:X7BHj.101456$Ft5.14505@newsfe15.lga...
>
> "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr . com > wrote in message
> news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> >
> > "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> > news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
> >>
> >> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
> >>
> > The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
> > want them to live, under a bridge?
>
> George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
> population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually
serves
> as housing (about 5-6%).
>
> Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
> about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is.
(At
> 35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).
>
>
>

The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and so
forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used up"
and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is never
lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these days.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
news:13uv4uls3c5s7d4@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
> news:X7BHj.101456$Ft5.14505@newsfe15.lga...
>>
>> "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr . com > wrote in message
>> news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>> >
>> > "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
>> > news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
>> >>
>> >> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
>> >>
>> > The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
>> > want them to live, under a bridge?
>>
>> George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
>> population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually
> serves
>> as housing (about 5-6%).
>>
>> Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
>> about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is.
> (At
>> 35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).
>>
>>
>>
>
> The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
> If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and
> so
> forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used
> up"
> and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is
> never
> lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
> with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these
> days.

In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
your last sentence).
* w w w .cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf

Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
that).

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
news:%ySHj.51156$097.34182@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> news:13uv4uls3c5s7d4@corp.supernews . com ...
> >
> > "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote in message
> > news:X7BHj.101456$Ft5.14505@newsfe15.lga...
> >>
> >> "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr . com > wrote in message
> >> news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> >> >
> >> > "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> >> > news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
> >> >>
> >> >> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
> >> >>
> >> > The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do
you
> >> > want them to live, under a bridge?
> >>
> >> George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
> >> population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually
> > serves
> >> as housing (about 5-6%).
> >>
> >> Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more
than
> >> about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America
is.
> > (At
> >> 35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is
severe.
> > If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and
> > so
> > forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used
> > up"
> > and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is
> > never
> > lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static
society
> > with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these
> > days.
>
> In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
> your last sentence).
> * w w w .cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf
>
> Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
> DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
> reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
> that).
>
>
>

It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
roads.

2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
to a crawl.

3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost" due
to too much traffic.

4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert to
a "walking city."

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
news:13v01bhalr6s4c0@corp.supernews . com ...

>> In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
>> your last sentence).
>> * w w w .cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf
>>
>> Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
>> DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
>> reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
>> that).
>>
>>
>>
>
> It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
> streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
> roads.
>
> 2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
> to a crawl.
>
> 3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost"
> due
> to too much traffic.

The University of Texas (Houston, I think) did a study 20 years ago and
found we waste 20-25% of our annual gasoline usage to such traffic systems.

Think how much fixing THAT would contribute to "conservation" and "energy
independance".

> 4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert
> to
> a "walking city."

Dig into Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his "noble savage" to see the basis of
the society they want to instill. Essentially, it's primitive tribalism.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr . com > wrote in message
news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews . com ...
> >
> > You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
> >
> The population is growing. Those against towns
> expanding, where do you want them to live, under a
> bridge?
>

No, only Smart Growth pushes that solution.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:56:32 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
<mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote:

>"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
>news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews . com ...
>>
>> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos . com > wrote in message
>> news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>>> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
>>> starts each year?
>
>In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

IMO that is about an order of magnitude high.

-- Roy L

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


<royls@telus . net > wrote in message news:47f036f3.36409055@news.telus . net ...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:56:32 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> <mbarrow@performancehomes . com > wrote:
>
>>"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink . net > wrote in message
>>news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews . com ...
>>>
>>> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos . com > wrote in message
>>> news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>>>> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
>>>> starts each year?
>>
>>In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.
>
> IMO that is about an order of magnitude high.

More than likely, but it's everything from major metro areas, suburbia, to
small rural communities.

Probably "residential" would be a more apt term - homes and the supporting
area (commercial, streets, infrastructure, etc.).

IIRC, 90% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the
Canadian-US border.