Re: Art Planet Chronicles: I'll take a look. Thanks.

Re: Difficulties in starting over VS breaking new land:

Well, I don't think it's that difficult to bulldoze over junk. . . However, I'll assume you're talking about re-using infrastructure. Here in Tucson, a couple of "planned" communities have been (are being) developed using "old" (previously used) land and re-doing everything pretty much. One of those communities is built of entirely solar houses (1 kWh electric and water heating panels), with nice contemporary things like completely wired with cat5 (should have been cat6, but who's complaining?), and built-in vacuum. All the modern. . . Anwyay, planning something that's going to be connected to the contemporary infrastructure but is "separate" from it doesn't seem like it should be that difficult, but it needs careful planning. Planning something that's in the middle of a town but isn't connected to the infrastructure probably needs the same level of planning, but in different areas (like code conformance, etc.).

Renewing an old neighborhood, given the proper freedoms, should not be very difficult, and may be easier than breaking new ground, depending on the needs of the community--it's pretty easy to tap into an electric line that's on the plot, but it's a pain to have 30 km of lines laid. . . The same is true for other utilities. If the plan is not to use the utilities, then they don't need to be used (except water--that's not exactly available in the middle of a city without the proper authority). Basically, my point is that there is nothing that should stop us from rebuilding within cities, even if we want to be off-grid. . . The biggest reason for moving out of cities seems to be the desire to be away from them, not logistics.

In a different tribe, I noted that if we were to spread the US population evenly across the land, we'd have approximately 10 acres per person. If you consider that we also want other creatures to have their own land (well, *I* do), and that a lot of that land isn't exactly usable, we're basically at the point where we need to stop spreading out and start re-using what we have already used. I don't want this to sound like a dooms-day prediction because it's not--we could easily continue our current growth for quite some time (tens of generations, probably) before we really do run out of land, but by then we'll have used up pretty much everything. . .

So, my point has been that moving out onto new land is great for the individual, but I think that for the future, it may be best to begin re-using what we've cast aside. . . This means seriously looking at what it would take to create an above standard living environment from a below standard inner city neighborhood, for not so much money that the current inhabitants couldn't continue to live there. . .

some of the talk about gutting and breaking new ground doesn't jive with a serious issue in our common interest here:
architecture / building creates a huge percentage of our landfill waste.
plus, healthier, walkable, interesting cities are ultimately a major component for global success- through density we achieve communtiy, not by isolating ourselves with people who think exactly like us.

also, pete...

time to check out the ghost towns around marfa, texas.
there's infrastructure, but almost no people.
marfa itself is hot with nyc artsy types, buying modest ranch houses and tacking on modern additions / detached studios.
it's about 2.5 hours southeast of el paso, and there are serious ghost towns around it in the middle of nowhere.

there is also a ghost town for sale near the cherokee reservation in north carolina- accessible by ski-lift.
how far out would that be, residents / visitors riding a bio-diesel ski lift up to a fantastic former 1950's amusement park on top of a mountain in the appalachians!

my girlfriend and i were in chaco last summer and the milky way was insane.