Bulldoze cities to save them

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
The feds are taking the Flint model to fifty other cities. Now those cities will be groups of enclaves instead of neighborhoods.

SOURCE

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive
Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

By Tom Leonard in Flint, Michigan
Published: 6:30PM BST 12 Jun 2009

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

"The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we're all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way," said Mr Kildee. "Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity."

Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective programme at the University of California, Berkeley, said there was "both a cultural and political taboo" about admitting decline in America.

"Places like Flint have hit rock bottom. They're at the point where it's better to start knocking a lot of buildings down," she said.

Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.

Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.

The exodus – particularly of young people – coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.

In the city centre, the once grand Durant Hotel – named after William Durant, GM's founder – is a symbol of the city's decline, said Mr Kildee. The large building has been empty since 1973, roughly when Flint's decline began.

Regarded as a model city in the motor industry's boom years, Flint may once again be emulated, though for very different reasons.

But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

But some Flint dustcarts are collecting just one rubbish bag a week, roads are decaying, police are very understaffed and there were simply too few people to pay for services, he said.

If the city didn't downsize it will eventually go bankrupt, he added.

Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas.

Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

Already, some streets peter out into woods or meadows, no trace remaining of the homes that once stood there.

Choosing which areas to knock down will be delicate but many of them were already obvious, he said.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

"Much of the land will be given back to nature. People will enjoy living near a forest or meadow," he said.

Mr Kildee acknowledged that some fellow Americans considered his solution "defeatist" but he insisted it was "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again".
 
If the houses aren't attached to the ones next to them, it's a suburb, not a city. If the houses have driveways and lawns, it's a suburb, not a city.
 
If the places are already rotting from the outside and surrounded by abandoned homes and empty streets, I see no issue with some urban renewal. Keep what you can, bulldoze the rest..until it gets to the point where you have to evict people from solid homes/buildings...then I've got a problem.
 
If the houses aren't attached to the ones next to them, it's a suburb, not a city. If the houses have driveways and lawns, it's a suburb, not a city.

my house is not attached. i have a lawn, a garage, and something like a driveway (alley behind the house). i'm pretty sure i live in a city. or at least that's what my address tells me.
 
If the houses aren't attached to the ones next to them, it's a suburb, not a city. If the houses have driveways and lawns, it's a suburb, not a city.

That may be the case in Jersey but west coasters like our space! New Jersey is the most densely populated state. In Washington we still have forests and mountains and well, nature still exists here.....
 
I think that's a good idea.

Abandoned urban areas can be used by criminals/gangs to hide. If the city becomes smaller, there's less money spent on keeping the roads and there's less bureaucrats involved.
 
If the houses aren't attached to the ones next to them, it's a suburb, not a city. If the houses have driveways and lawns, it's a suburb, not a city.

My dads house was less than 3 blocks from the Arizoan State Capitol. Less than 2 miles from the center of Phoenix. A long driveway, a front, back & side yard. It defined city living.

As afr as bulldozing tracts...great. Then barney rubble can take his committee & make some more regulations telling banks to lend to the poor.
 
If the places are already rotting from the outside and surrounded by abandoned homes and empty streets, I see no issue with some urban renewal. Keep what you can, bulldoze the rest..until it gets to the point where you have to evict people from solid homes/buildings...then I've got a problem.

Isn't that what they did in Kelo v. New London?
 
The proper use of eminent domain requires compensation for the owners of the property/building...if any can be found. In many cases, it's the banks that own the foreclosed properties. In other cases, word gets out and the properties are bought up on the cheap by individuals, who then sell it to the GVT for a profit - flipping a property, but far slicker.

We're seeing something similar in Montreal, where they're planning on bringing a major exchange to ground level and have to take out some roach-infested low-rent housing in order to do so. The renters don't want to move, but they don't have a leg to stand on if the landlords decide to sell BEFORE eminent domain kicks in.
 
I think we should make the butt-holes that made the loans, or people that told them to,
start disassembling the houses with care to save what can be saved.
 
If you have a driveway, it's suburban. I don't care if your town is technically considered a "city" - that just means it's a big town. Anything less than 30,000 residents per square mile isn't a city.
 
So Los Angeles (8,205 per square mile), New York (27,264 per square mile), Detroit (6,856 per square mile), San Francisco (17,323 per square mile), Seattle (6,717 per square mile), New Orleans (2,518 per square mile), Baltimore (7,889 per square mile), Tokyo (14,097 per square mile), Berlin (9,921 per square mile) and Mexico City (15,410 per square mile) aren't cities then. Glad that's cleared up.
 
So Los Angeles (8,205 per square mile), New York (27,264 per square mile), Detroit (6,856 per square mile), San Francisco (17,323 per square mile), Seattle (6,717 per square mile), New Orleans (2,518 per square mile), Baltimore (7,889 per square mile), Tokyo (14,097 per square mile), Berlin (9,921 per square mile) and Mexico City (15,410 per square mile) aren't cities then. Glad that's cleared up.

You have to subdivide NYC by boroughs. Manhattan is a city (71k per square mile). The Bronx is a city (33k per square mile). Brooklyn is a city (36k per square mile). Queens is a suburb (21k per square mile) and Staten Island is a garbage dump (8k per square mile)

You want city, come to North Jersey, specifically along the Hudson river. Hoboken, Guttenberg, West New York, and Union City are the most densely populated areas in the country.

It's simple - if you have a lawn, or a driveway, then you're in a suburban environment. If your building isn't attached to any others, then you're in a suburban environment. If you're the only person living in your building, you're either filthy rich, or in the suburbs.
 
no, the boroughs are part of NYC. part of the city. manhattan is not "a city."

oh, wait is "environment" the magic qualifier? so not actually a suburb but a "suburban environment?"

where are you pulling these distinctions from? are you a demographer? urban planner?

whatever, show me something authoritative on your distinctions.
 
Back
Top