Greensboro city council shifts focus: "Grow Greensboro: The City of Opportunity"

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by WFW&P

Yep, and if they kept their eyes open it wouldn't happen or happen to the extent that it costs the money that it does to bring the areas from the brink. You don't get it, nor do I expect you will.

Actually you're the one that doesn't get it.

In American cities, one of the major reasons for the rise and fall of certain parts of cities over the years is due to sprawl. Sprawl is fueled by policies on the national level which then trickle down to the local level across many different, but interrelated, areas: transportation (e.g., the routing of highways), housing (urban renewal, suburban tract housing), education (busing, location of new schools), etc. These policies are a huge factor in driving market trends, which in turn affect development patterns. With sprawl, you have historically had an emptying out of the urban core in favor of suburban development, which then itself began pushing further out into what are now called exurban areas (former rural areas on the fringes that experience new growth and development). In that process, older, closer-in suburban areas are typically abandoned for newer development further out. For instance, just about every American city has older shopping malls in their post-war suburban areas that have been abandoned or are being abandoned for new shopping centers further out. This is reflective of the market trends affecting development patterns, all ultimately driven by policies enacted on the national level which encourage sprawl.

Cities do their best to combat the blight, crumbling infrastructure, higher crime levels, etc. which inevitably result as older suburban areas experience disinvestment in favor of newer areas, but that in and of itself isn't enough to dramatically affect market trends and the preferences of American consumers for newer, bigger, and better. Tax incentives, TIFs, economic opportunity zone designations, etc. are tools that are often used to lure development to these areas and the results are mixed because cities are essentially fighting the market. In many cases, the most that can be done is for cities to engage in basic, obligatory measures to keep the area afloat and in time, development patterns may shift.

And all of this happens without a city declaring a new/renewed focus or emphasis on strategies related to economic development or anything else it is responsible for. It just happens.

[shunketsu]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Actually you're the one that doesn't get it.

In American cities, one of the major reasons for the rise and fall of certain parts of cities over the years is due to sprawl. Sprawl is fueled by policies on the national level which then trickle down to the local level across many different, but interrelated, areas: transportation (e.g., the routing of highways), housing (urban renewal, suburban tract housing), education (busing, location of new schools), etc. These policies are a huge factor in driving market trends, which in turn affect development patterns. With sprawl, you have historically had an emptying out of the urban core in favor of suburban development, which then itself began pushing further out into what are now called exurban areas (former rural areas on the fringes that experience new growth and development). In that process, older, closer-in suburban areas are typically abandoned for newer development further out. For instance, just about every American city has older shopping malls in their post-war suburban areas that have been abandoned or are being abandoned for new shopping centers further out. This is reflective of the market trends affecting development patterns, all ultimately driven by policies enacted on the national level which encourage sprawl.

Cities do their best to combat the blight, crumbling infrastructure, higher crime levels, etc. which inevitably result as older suburban areas experience disinvestment in favor of newer areas, but that in and of itself isn't enough to dramatically affect market trends and the preferences of American consumers for newer, bigger, and better. Tax incentives, TIFs, economic opportunity zone designations, etc. are tools that are often used to lure development to these areas and the results are mixed because cities are essentially fighting the market. In many cases, the most that can be done is for cities to engage in basic, obligatory measures to keep the area afloat and in time, development patterns may shift.

And all of this happens without a city declaring a new/renewed focus or emphasis on strategies related to economic development or anything else it is responsible for. It just happens.

Were you the guy I met the other day who said they were a prominent City-Data forum user?

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by shunketsu

Were you the guy I met the other day who said they were a prominent City-Data forum user?

LOL, nah.