SkyscraperCity Forum banner

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

5044 Views 29 Replies 20 Participants Last post by  TampAGS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html


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 US government is 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


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".
See less See more
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
My opinion, this idea is a failure. It will not and cannot work. More on that later.
But first...this phrase bugs me: "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again"...
Whatever! Comparing a struggling city pocked by dead and dying neighborhoods to an "overgrown tree" is an incorrect analogy. Exactly where is a dying city overgrown? It would be more accurate to call it "pruning a weak and diseased tree"-- which we all know is likely to kill the tree completely.
Here's a better analogy for you: Tearing down entire neighborhoods in hopes of making a city well again is a lot like treating a blood disease by amputation of a limb. You can't fix a city's problems by trying to "erase" them. You have to get inside to the root.
I love this idea, as discussed in other threads.

Analogies don't help much. You can boil it down to this: some cities have too much infrastructure and too many houses for their populations.

Kildee's plan helps in several ways:
1. It strengthens the remaining neighborhoods because residents relocate there.
2. It reduces public expense, again helping the remaining areas.
3. It helps people financially handle relocation.
4. It helps cities by making them become, and appear, more stable and attractive.

If you planned to move, or relocate a business, where would you go...the place with hundreds of crumbling buildings and dirt lots, or the place where 99% of the buildings were viable and most were occupied, which also happened to have lots of parks and developable parcels?
The City of Youngstown, OH has been doing this for several years now.

Many of their worst-off neighborhoods were bought out and cleared by the city and others that were not so bad off had city-owned vacant lots (most acquired from tax liens - failure to pay property taxes on them) sold to owners of adjacent houses that were still fairly solid.

This is a solution that is very valid for places that no longer need all of their development.

The analogy that I would use is of a private business dropping product lines, services and locations that are no longer profitable to make, sell and use. Not dropping them will ultimately bankrupt the company.

Mike
Returning large tracts of distressed cities to "nature" (whatever that is) is the smartest way to deal with the issue. What other viable option is there? Leave the land for scavengers? Leave the land for thieves?

Return the land to it's natural state.
Uh right... They should leave those cities adandoned and we can have a 'life after people" thing going on, it will draw tourists. After all whats more fascinating than nature reclaiming the land itself.
My opinion, this idea is a failure. It will not and cannot work. More on that later.
But first...this phrase bugs me: "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again"...
Whatever! Comparing a struggling city pocked by dead and dying neighborhoods to an "overgrown tree" is an incorrect analogy. Exactly where is a dying city overgrown? It would be more accurate to call it "pruning a weak and diseased tree"-- which we all know is likely to kill the tree completely.
Here's a better analogy for you: Tearing down entire neighborhoods in hopes of making a city well again is a lot like treating a blood disease by amputation of a limb. You can't fix a city's problems by trying to "erase" them. You have to get inside to the root.

Yea, seems we've been through something like this one before. It was that great idea called Urban Renewal & promoted by the Federal goverment.

Sure, there may a few places, Flint & Youngstown that are simply beyond salvation.

But cities like Baltimore & St. Louis, they've got to be kidding.

Detroit may not have much of a future as the HQ of a global auto industry.

But its right on the Great Lakes, with plenty of fresh water, which could be one of the most vital resources in the near future.

Can't say that about Phoenix or Vegas.

So why promote growth in unsustaintable places surrounded by desert, while discouraging it around places with plenty of natural resources?
See less See more
Detroit may not have much of a future as the HQ of a global auto industry.
How so? Chrysler is already out of bankruptcy, Ford is still chugging along, and GM will be back within the next month or two.
I wonder if merging small independent neighboorhoods into the big city would help. Or perhaps splitting up cities into neighboorhoods. I don't know...

But it's a shame to destroy already existing homes. You could have state buy up entire neighboorhoods and promote them as "new emigration" area for europeans, and sell the homes as vacation homes. That way you would generate cash on tax, maintenance work, money left in stores when there are people on vacation there etc! "New France", "New Germany" etc.

US still have a decent population growth, and perhaps in the future you would need the homes?
US still have a decent population growth, and perhaps in the future you would need the homes?
Americans wouldn't buy them. Americans need things to be shiny and new and twice as large as they can afford.
First off I am deeply saddened and hurt that some of the once-greatest cities in the country (Detroit) have to succumb to anything resembling this plan. That being said...

This plan might work well, if done slowly and carefully over a period of time. I would prefer that instead of destroying 40% of the city all at once, the government tear down ~4% of the city every year and re-grow half of what was torn down into new communities, while leaving the other half as some kind of attractive (and well planned) nature preserve. (For anyone that is familiar with the Arbitrarium in Madison, or the Forest Preserves in Chicago, this is what I'm talking about.) The whole damn plan needs to be well-planned, in a way that spreads the livable components of the city into the more depressed areas, with the end game of finally wiping out the depressed areas. My analogy would be to give a dying patient a series of 10 carefully orchestrated surgeries over a period of time to slowly bring him to recovery.

It is a complete mistake to destroy everything at once, and hope that the city can recover from such a blow. Bad mistake! We all see how destroying half of the buildings in our country’s downtowns in hopes of future progress back in the 60’s has turned out.
See less See more
Nobody is suggesting bull-dozing everything all at once. Also, many of the neighborhoods that are being targeted in Flint are nothing but mid-century tract housing. There really isn't anything special to those neighborhoods. The homes were built by the thousands all over the city.
Never surrender and don't give up! There was a time, when my mother was my age, when people said places like Victorian Village and German Village should be leveled because they were old. They said the same of Olde Town East. Luckly, that never happened and we here in Columbus are all glad that didn't happen. Unfortunately, the area now know as the "discovery" district was not so lucky! Thats my two cents!
Nobody is suggesting bull-dozing everything all at once. Also, many of the neighborhoods that are being targeted in Flint are nothing but mid-century tract housing. There really isn't anything special to those neighborhoods. The homes were built by the thousands all over the city.
My concern is not over the buildings themselves. There are still people living in those buildings (even if they are only 50% occupied) which still supply business to area stores (again, even if they are only 50% occupied.) Destroying all this at once will send a shock wave through the businesses and communities that remain, which I cannot see as being good.

Again, careful surgery over a period of years is the answer if we do not want to destroy the good that remains in these cities.
They're not kicking anyone out. The idea is to entice the residents in the underserved neighborhoods to move into the more stable neighborhoods and then return the underserved neighborhoods to nature. I'm not sure how you expect the densification of neighborhoods would negatively affect the businesses and communities? Wouldn't the businesses like to have a larger potential customer base in the immediate area?

And while I guess there might be a few businesses in the blighted areas, they can just as easily be relocated into another business district. That way, instead of having two half empty districts, you have one thriving district.
This plan might work well, if done slowly and carefully over a period of time. I would prefer that instead of destroying 40% of the city all at once, the government tear down ~4% of the city every year and re-grow half of what was torn down into new communities, while leaving the other half as some kind of attractive (and well planned) nature preserve.
So you propose an overall reduction in city neighborhood size of 2% a year? (4% torn down, one-half of that rebuilt)

With cities seeing major revenue shortfalls along the lines of 30% to 50% below what they need to maintain services & infrastructure, a 2% annual reduction in service area seems impractical. I'm suddenly imagining myself trying to maintain the lawn around my house with only nail clippers.

I'm not calling for 70's-style "urban renewal", but I suspect a more aggressive target than 2% annually will be necessary in many cases for this plan to be effective.
So you propose an overall reduction in city neighborhood size of 2% a year? (4% torn down, one-half of that rebuilt)

With cities seeing major revenue shortfalls along the lines of 30% to 50% below what they need to maintain services & infrastructure, a 2% annual reduction in service area seems impractical. I'm suddenly imagining myself trying to maintain the lawn around my house with only nail clippers.

I'm not calling for 70's-style "urban renewal", but I suspect a more aggressive target than 2% annually will be necessary in many cases for this plan to be effective.
Actually the reduction of the dysfunctional neighborhoods is 4%, with half being replaced by new neighborhoods that will make money. Of course the actual percentage can vary, but I want to avoid making one large change that could send shock waves through the city. To me 4% sounds like a pretty solid, if not aggressive yearly plan, considering that this would only need to happen to 20%-40% of the city as a whole.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top