Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should a city say stop to growth after a certain time or should cities just keep growing, not caring how big it gets
I believe a city should say stop to growth or put up alot of restrictions that would slow the growth process down. Growth is a good thing but their is a limited amount of good growth before things start to decline.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
I think it's just like a tree. A young tree can grow to a huge size and be perfectly healthy, however as it ages its inner branches start dying while outward growth continues. Cutting off the older dead branches creates new living branches in the same place - pruning the new outer growths allow the tree to regain its youthful vigor all over
I think it's just like a tree. A young tree can grow to a huge size and be perfectly healthy, however as it ages its inner branches start dying while outward growth continues. Cutting off the older dead branches creates new living branches in the same place - pruning the new outer growths allow the tree to regain its youthful vigor all over
I believe a city is like a marijuana plant. You need to quickly identify the males and kill them because otherwise they will knock-up the glorious babes. Secondly, you must clip the tops or something and clone them. I sorta forget. All my weed plants died...... maybe I should become a city planner instead.
Or maaaaybe a city is like bamboo. All cities are one system with thousands of stalks (cities).
I think growth in cities is fine, but it needs to be managed. Cities shouldn't keep sprawling outwards; most need to concentrate on adding density to the existing area. If done well, growth can be a good thing.
My inclination is towards strictly planned growth where most of the plans are constantly reviewed, discussed, and if necessary, amended to deal with new scenarios both big and small.
However, it's good that different cities try different strategies to see what works best. I'm not a fan of Houston's lack of planning and incredible sprawl, but I'd be fine with it if it were only a few cities doing this as sort of test case for other cities.
I think a city should grow but have a limit & stop growing, They should focus on what they have like older houses, downtown buildings, hospitals, parks etc. They should have a limit. For example, Austin is growing, Austin has had 100,000 more people in the last 10 years, Kyle, Taylor, Round Rock, Marble Falls, Burnet & San Marcos are all suburbs & they are really growing. Kyle has had 20,000 in the last 10 years & it cannot keep up, it's too much. Just my opinion
I think a city should grow but have a limit & stop growing, They should focus on what they have like older houses, downtown buildings, hospitals, parks etc. They should have a limit. For example, Austin is growing, Austin has had 100,000 more people in the last 10 years, Kyle, Taylor, Round Rock, Marble Falls, Burnet & San Marcos are all suburbs & they are really growing. Kyle has had 20,000 in the last 10 years & it cannot keep up, it's too much. Just my opinion
I was going to use Austin as a negative example of limiting growth. The reason Austin has a woefully inadequate freeway system is because some misguided granola mayor thought he could limit the influx of new residents by making the city more exasperating to navigate. It was a sort of If-you-don't-build-it-they-won't-come type of thing. Yeah... It didn't work. They came anyhow. Now the city's bursting at the seams and the infrastructure can't support the growth. Now they're playing catch-up.
And, how could you possibly enforce a population limit? If every time a resident died, would a lottery system be enacted to admit the next prospective citizen? Our growth supported economies wouldn't be capable of surviving a stagnant population level. Look at certain European countries and Japan where the government monetarily bribes families to have more than two kids. If the community doesn't grow, the economy dies. Whether or not this is a good economic model is a different debate, but it is what it is for the time being.
Austin ran into trouble because it also didn't really develop a parellel public transit system to displace what eventually became increased road usage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
