BBC Does the Bike Move

August 30, 2006

One of the best parts of Portland is its counterculture – people who dance to a much different beat than the one marketed on television.

Part of that dance is a youthful "bike culture" with a lot of energy and enthusiasm.  A very important part of that culture is the desire to reduce consumption – to be happy with less and live at a slower pace.

Emily's Bike Move by Todd Fahrner

In keeping with such a worldview, many of Portland's bicyclists have been completely eliminating motor vehicles from their lives – even when they have to move an entire household.  These human powered expeditions have been increasingly documented and celebrated.

Then last month, a BBC producer began "poking around the bike scene," according to Jonathan Maus.  A few weeks later, a reporter and a camera crew were in Portland to film a bike move.  The reaction among bicyclists seemed generally enthusiastic about the potential international exposure.

The final product was recently posted here and here.

Puppet Parade Bike Move by Kronda

When I view this BBC piece, it seems clear to me that the bicycle community was snookered.  The reporter and her editors co-opted the bike move for a story that glorifies the "new and improved" capitalist development of New Urbanism (including Portland's own gadgetbahn, the OHSU Tram).  She exclaims, "Portland has taken a decision to grow up, not out."  Yes, but it's still growth.  Call me a pessimist, but according to my latest observations, the Earth is still finite.

Here's a clue for Commissioner Sam Adams with his nauseating refrain about "public-private partnerships" for investment by his capitalist friends.  Investment demands growth because the investors aren't lending money for nothing.  Surplus production creates the profit margin, but it also requires growing consumption to chase what is produced.  That means growth in the amount of energy used – more oil burned in trucks and trains bringing material into the city, and more coal burned for electricity.  It means more raw materials scoured out of the Earth, more fresh water drained, more topsoil depleted, more loss of biodiversity, more global warming, and more toxic buildup.  In short, it means growth in the destruction caused by modern industrialism.

Lower East Side of Manhattan during the Great Depression

Urban density does not solve the problem of ecological footprint.  It accommodates growth by replacing sprawl with congestion.  How dense will Portland become?  Will it be like Calcutta?  Or perhaps Tram Sam wants the Pearl District to eventually emulate the tenement squalor of the Lower East Side of New York, circa 1900, with over 400,000 immigrants per square mile.  All of that shiny pre-fab housing brought to us by the wonders of "public-private partnership" and cheap Mexican labor will be tomorrow's dilapidated eyesore.

We ignore physical limits at our own peril.  The planet will be fine in the long run – with or without us.  The major dilemma for cities like Portland is not how to accommodate growth, but how to STOP it.  But the task of building a steady-state economy may be impossible with so many "progress"-ives who cling to the presumption of endless growth.