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.
"Shrinking cities" is a term used globally to describe cities, mostly First World, who experience significant population loss despite a growing population on the global level. This most notably includes cities in the former Eastern bloc of Germany and the Rust Belt of the U.S.
In recent years, some of these cities have become proactive in demolishing vacant buildings and housing to create more green space, and turning former vacant lots into community gardens, urban farms, and parks.
Flint made national news with its plan in 2009 to demolish entire neighborhoods where only one or two family homes remained, and vacant buildings and blocks of housing attracted drug users, prostitutes, etc. The city offered to relocate those whose neighborhoods were affected into new homes, free of charge, in better neighborhoods where more residents lived (read more here), with the idea the city's diminished tax base would be used to focus city services in higher density areas.
Anyway, my question is do you think this will entice residents and businesses back to the cities attempting to "go small"? The Flint plan has inspired other cities in similar situations, such as Detroit and Youngstown. Will this work for them in the long term?
I'm going to say it will probably depend upon the execution of the plan. If the cities simply knock down buildings to eradicate eyesores what's left afterwards (weeded, debris filled lots) can look just as bad. If the plans are followed through to include parks, urban farms or community gardens I would venture to say it could be successful and actually lure more people back into those cities.
"Shrinking cities" is a term used globally to describe cities, mostly First World, who experience significant population loss despite a growing population on the global level. This most notably includes cities in the former Eastern bloc of Germany and the Rust Belt of the U.S.
In recent years, some of these cities have become proactive in demolishing vacant buildings and housing to create more green space, and turning former vacant lots into community gardens, urban farms, and parks.
Flint made national news with its plan in 2009 to demolish entire neighborhoods where only one or two family homes remained, and vacant buildings and blocks of housing attracted drug users, prostitutes, etc. The city offered to relocate those whose neighborhoods were affected into new homes, free of charge, in better neighborhoods where more residents lived (read more here), with the idea the city's diminished tax base would be used to focus city services in higher density areas.
Anyway, my question is do you think this will entice residents and businesses back to the cities attempting to "go small"? The Flint plan has inspired other cities in similar situations, such as Detroit and Youngstown. Will this work for them in the long term?
Yeah the Youngstown plan got a considerable amount of news coverage at the time - New York Times, some of the TV networks all dug into the idea. The interviews I remember seeing seemed interesting and creative actually, though how to implement this is the very tricky thing. Done wrong, it would just be like 60s urban renewal all over again, and we see how that turned out - from a historical preservation standpoint, urban renewal was disastrous in most, if not all, places. And some of these cities - Detroit definitely - has a lot of crumbling but valid history, even as the city depopulates. How to deal with that? I can think of a couple Southern cities - Asheville and Charleston SC - that were all but given up on for decades in the early-to-mid 20th century, fell into a considerable degree of disrepair, lost some population, and historical preservation ended up becoming the cornerstone in turning those cities around. Neither of those cities were as far gone as Youngstown, Flint, or Detroit, but I'd still hope that the creative destruction is done very, very carefully.
I think the shrinking cities is a phenomenon mostly observed in the American Rust Belt and East Germany (perhaps also old industrial cities in England). Most other cities are growing, even in developed countries with a stagnant or even shrinking population.
This is not pre-determined though, since there are many cities that can turn around. Look at Milwaukee, it was a very typical rust-frost-belt city, now it is attracting quite a few people and it's population has stabilized. I am not sure how exactly to make those cities more attractive. Overall, there should be more stuff to do. For me as a European it was a shock how little even a city like Milwaukee had going on in its downtown. I think if there are more amenities and less crime, more people would move back into town instead of staying in the suburbs.
It is a good idea to demolish old warehouses and all that because those are usually very sketchy neighborhoods, but that alone will not attract people or businesses.
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.
