If all rust belt cities and downtowns were filled how much would it stop sprawl? (Boston, population)

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by nybbler

The problems of the city will move out to the suburbs a whole lot faster if you give control of the region to a "regional" government based in the city.

But if the problems of the city will eventually spread into the suburbs anyway, why not do it sooner rather than later?

As a central city continually deteriorates, less people are inclined to even live near it. The inner-ring suburbs start to face the same problems as the central city itself (dwindling tax base, increasing crime, falling property values). This in turn increases sprawl, or worse yet just hurts the entire metro by not having a fresh incoming population.

While I agree, it certainly helps not to have corruption, that doesn't mean the suburbs aren't going to carry some load of the city in order for the region to improve as a whole.

[texdav]

Why would you want it sooner? Makes no sense.One can often see differnce just croossing government controlled lines in mnay areas.

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

But if the problems of the city will eventually spread into the suburbs anyway, why not do it sooner rather than later?

That makes no sense. Delaying problems isn't as good as stopping them, but it's sure better than not delaying them. In the time the problems are delayed, I may move away for other reasons. Or maybe the city will improve (and the horse will learn to sing, as the old story goes).

As a central city continually deteriorates, less people are inclined to even live near it. The inner-ring suburbs start to face the same problems as the central city itself (dwindling tax base, increasing crime, falling property values). This in turn increases sprawl, or worse yet just hurts the entire metro by not having a fresh incoming population.

Didn't happen with Washington, D.C (which is not a rust belt city, I know). The city was an utter disaster in the '80s and early '90s. Cross the city line, though, and things improved quite rapidly; the region was fine though the city was not.

If you want cities to improve, they have to improve on their own resources. Letting them suck an entire region dry to keep alive a failed core is a recipe for disaster, because it's a lot more likely that'll bring down the region than bring up the city.

[btownboss4]

There is a reason these Niegborhoods are depopulated, I will leave it at that.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by nybbler

That makes no sense. Delaying problems isn't as good as stopping them, but it's sure better than not delaying them. In the time the problems are delayed, I may move away for other reasons. Or maybe the city will improve (and the horse will learn to sing, as the old story goes).


Didn't happen with Washington, D.C (which is not a rust belt city, I know). The city was an utter disaster in the '80s and early '90s. Cross the city line, though, and things improved quite rapidly; the region was fine though the city was not.

If you want cities to improve, they have to improve on their own resources. Letting them suck an entire region dry to keep alive a failed core is a recipe for disaster, because it's a lot more likely that'll bring down the region than bring up the city.

So, how did DC pull itself up by its bootstraps? Also, keep in mind that DC never lost its major industry--government--like the rust belt cities.

BTW, I don't believe that regionalization would cause city problems to spread faster. Look at Columbus, Ohio for example. While also not a rust belt city, the "inner-city" of Columbus is similar to rust belt cities. Yet, they have also done quite a bit of annexing over the years. Now, Columbus is often seen as (mistakenly, IMO) Ohio's only successful big city.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by wburg

Currently, the government incentivizes sprawl--through federal highway programs, through zoning regulations, and through oil subsidies that keep our gas cheap. If folks don't have the easy government-subsidized escape valve of the suburbs, suddenly we have to start fixing the problems of cities instead of just running away from them. Few cities have insurmountable problems--people just don't bother because it was just easier to move, and the government encouraged it.

How about, instead of spending lots of money paying people to build outward via highways, we spend the same money paying people to fix up old buildings and rebuild old neighborhoods? It is less resource-intensive and more labor-intensive than new construction, which means it makes more jobs and consumes fewer resources, and we make our cities more beautiful and livable too! As to the employers, they only moved to sprawlsville because the workers moved there first. If they have a reason for those locations (access to resources, etc) they will create their own necessary economies and become their own cities--but otherwise, business will follow the money, which follows the people. All the government has to do is leave the trail of breadcrumbs for capital to follow.

Same old, same old here. Where is the evidence that" If folks don't have the easy government-subsidized escape valve of the suburbs, suddenly we have to start fixing the problems of cities instead of just running away from them." It's funny to me that you, living in CA, where most of the suburbs are also cities in their own right, like to think of the suburbs as some kind of Shangri-La with no poor people, no drug problems, no poverty, etc.

Originally Posted by nei

Some thoughts:

1) It's not just job declines; most rust belt metro areas have experienced overall population stagnation or a slight increase, not decline. Rather than an expanding distant suburbs and declining cities, rust belt cities could have had stagnant metros with little growth in any part except renovation.

You pretty much described the situation in Pittsburgh, except that since 1970, there has been an overall population decline. It's not just people moving to the suburbs, it's people moving (in the case of Pgh) to North Carolina and Florida.

2) Most rust belt cities have large sections of single family homes. There wasn't much of a need to escape the city for space and a lawn as is true for many east coast cities.

Also true of Pittsburgh, although the lots tend to be small and often there is no garage for the car, or any parking for the car(s) except on the street.

3) Even if the center city declines, that doesn't mean the downtown had to be dead. Liverpool, UK has experienced as steep of a decline as any American rust belt city, but its center is still a main destination for the metro area and relatively vibrant.
4) Bring the shops! As someone from the NYC metro area, it's strange to hear people in city centers leave to go to the suburbs for shopping rather than the reverse. I used to travel to the city from the suburb for better selection. Same is usually true in Europe. Having the center city as a shopping destination might have helped prevent the decline, though it's probably a sympton rather than a cause.

Pittsburgh had a fairly vibrant downtown in 1970, but when the steel industry crashed, everything crashed. I don't think people who didn't go through it (and I did just vicariously b/c my family was there) have any idea how bad it really was. I don't think there's much of anything that would have prevented decline once people started leaving in droves.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Note the huge population drops of the 1970s and 1980s. Almost 40,000 people in 1985!

[nei]

Originally Posted by Katiana

It's funny to me that you, living in CA, where most of the suburbs are also cities in their own right, like to think of the suburbs as some kind of Shangri-La with no poor people, no drug problems, no poverty, etc.

I'm not really sure why suburbs incorporating makes a difference. They're still have an government from the center city. And incorporation is sometimes a way from suburbs to keep out the issues of the city or poorer suburbs. In Long Island, suburbs incoroprate (into "villages" rather than "cities" but similar except in name) to gain greater independence from the county and township government and in some ways to help keep the poor out. It creates duplicate service (village police, county police) leading to higher taxes, but the locals prefer higher taxes and inefficient government to enforce NIMBYism. At least in Long Island, I think suburbs incorporating is usually a bad design.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by nei

In Long Island, suburbs incoroprate (into "villages" rather than "cities" but similar except in name) to gain greater independence from the county and township government and in some ways to help keep the poor out. It creates duplicate service (village police, county police) leading to higher taxes, but the locals prefer higher taxes and inefficient government to enforce NIMBYism.

I can't speak for Long Island, but in Ohio the incorporated jurisdictions have the ability to enact much stronger zoning and planned use ordinances than townships; cities also gain the benefit of home rule which villages and townships do not have. More than a few of the suburban villages incorporate as a city just as soon as their populations reach 5,000.

Residents also believe (with some merit) that a local police force will be more responsive than the county sheriff's department.

Also, the townships in Ohio are not permitted to levy an income tax. That sometimes works for, sometimes against, the incorporation argument. Voters in one rather large township in suburban Cincinnati, West Chester, have shot down incorporation for years, and the township keeps putting it on the ballot anyway.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Same old, same old here. Where is the evidence that" If folks don't have the easy government-subsidized escape valve of the suburbs, suddenly we have to start fixing the problems of cities instead of just running away from them." It's funny to me that you, living in CA, where most of the suburbs are also cities in their own right, like to think of the suburbs as some kind of Shangri-La with no poor people, no drug problems, no poverty, etc.

I wish I could remember where I read this, and it might have been only in another discussion like this. But, it wasn't until the completion of I-680 through Youngstown, that Boardman--the suburb directly to the south of the city--really started to expand. Basically, I-680 made access to Boardman (and vice-versa) much easier. So, people could now choose to live in Boardman and have an easy commute to downtown Youngstown. (where a large number of professionals still work--even today) And, as more people left the city, the stores followed them.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

I can't speak for Long Island, but in Ohio the incorporated jurisdictions have the ability to enact much stronger zoning and planned use ordinances than townships; cities also gain the benefit of home rule which villages and townships do not have. More than a few of the suburban villages incorporate as a city just as soon as their populations reach 5,000.

Residents also believe (with some merit) that a local police force will be more responsive than the county sheriff's department.

Also, the townships in Ohio are not permitted to levy an income tax. That sometimes works for, sometimes against, the incorporation argument. Voters in one rather large township in suburban Cincinnati, West Chester, have shot down incorporation for years, and the township keeps putting it on the ballot anyway.

Incorporation also eliminates the possibility that a neighboring city can annex. The water system in Austintown and Boardman belong to Youngstown. And, because they haven't incorporated, and are still just townships, Youngstown could annex them. (at least the portions of the townships that are served by Youngstown water...)