What 5 cities would you pick for revitalization? (bankrupt, contractors)
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.
Baltimore: This is a no-brainer. Great location, great historic housing stock, but has languished for generations. There is a core of nice neighborhoods, but we're talking about maybe 150,000 people out of a city of 585,000. The nice section of Baltimore is basically the same size as the nice part of Pittsburgh, even though Pittsburgh is half the size. It needs a lot more activity in the core, which unfortunately means some gentrification to help financially support the rest of the city.
Just because I’m way more familiar than B-more than the other cities.
Add 70k to that 150k figure. As of 2022 about ~220k live in the “White L” which is the cities affluent/nice corridor. The nice section of Baltimore is about 2/3rd the size of Pittsburgh or St. Louis by population in about half the land area and grows by thousands every year. It’s a substantially larger city on the ground but with that comes vastly larger swaths of no-man’s land that offset any and all growth in the growing neighborhoods.
What specific jobs would you be referring to? I don't think people understand the range of how many types of gov't jobs are around, and in all regions of the country already.
DC has high level jobs in finance, medical/healthcare, law, tech, science etc., all in both public and private sector. The majority of the jobs there in the public sector are in DC, or near it, because of the influence of being near the leaders of gov't and politics.
DC is arguably the most talent rich metro area in the nation or at least alongside SF, NYC, and Boston. And it's long been an established epicenter or HQ for governing the country from the capital region. The last administration tried shipping jobs to Missouri or Kansas from DC, and almost no one took the bait.
The last administration didn’t really do much effectively. NASA and the CDC have huge highly paid, highly educated workforces out of DC. But those were generational investments not a political play to “stick it to the beltway elite” they just weren’t serious about relocating.
Like if the DoT or NTSB just moved to Detroit as a concerted effort for better oversight of the auto industry it probably would work. DC is talent rich for the same reason Boston or SF is, the employers drag people there as much if not more than vice versa. Although there is a positive feedback loop, DC especially attracts vs produces talent.
DC isn’t a place nobody would imagine leaving, its like any other “company town” except it’s company at least, it’s going bankrupt but largely at its whims non the less.
Last edited by btownboss4; 09-02-2022 at 08:33 PM..
I would say
1. Baltimore - i know many others have mentioned Charm City, the DC-Baltimore CSA is now the 3rd largest in the nation and this is a city with a great amount of history, perfect location on the Northeast Corridor, beautiful architecture & a vast amount of big city amenities but it needs to fix its glaring issues with crime and drugs to truly rebound. It’s staggering the amount of murder that happens in Baltimore, especially comparing Baltimore’s murder totals to New York, a city that is 15x larger. There have been years where Baltimores murder total surpassed New York’s which is flat out crazy to me.
2. Newark - as a nj resident this is a city that I have a ton of expertise on but nonetheless this is an important city. Newark is a city who’s importance gets understated because it is in the shadow of NYC, but it is the secondary city of America’s largest urban agglomeration with its own identity & culture. Just about 100 years ago Newark, a 24 sq mi city, was the 11th largest in the US. It is historically the cultural & economic hub of North Jersey, a region of about 5 million people. But Newark, despite many positive steps that the city has taken, is still undeniably a blighted, crime ridden city in the majority of its neighborhoods. It stands out in stark contrast to its neighbor of Jersey City, which went from a blighted ghosttown of a waterfront to a bustling downtown and has undergone one of the biggest skyscraper booms of any US city over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Newark’s Downtown redevelopment has been snail-like in comparison. The downtown is still largely boarded up and abandoned, despite having a professional sports arena, the headquarters of several major companies, several universities, a world class performing arts center, a top 10 train station by passenger traffic in the US and a mini city subway. This is a city with beautiful historic architecture, great urban bones, and a ton of culture. It has a lot of potential for redevelopment, and this redevelopment has definitely started but it has a longgg way to go before Newark can realistically be considered an attractive option as a city for people with mid-to-high incomes
3. Detroit - anchor of the largest bi-national metropolitan area in North America and one of the great legacy US cities, I have long desired to see Detroit climb out of its decades long decline. It’s made progress in the past 10 years or so but it still has a long way to go obviously. Hopefully it’s ascent continues in real ways and the city stops hemorrhaging people. I want to see a more comprehensive rail mass transit in the Detroit area, the reopening of Michigan Central, and more of its depressing blight get fixed or redeveloped into urban farms. We need more jobs & industry to move back into Detroit for the city’s health.
4. Buffalo - it’s been slightly on the upswing recently, really a great city with the main drawback besides it’s blight being how much snow it gets. Only about 1 hr 30 from the international hub of Toronto, which makes Buffalo a really well placed city, it stinks seeing how much the city declined. But it’s getting better, and Buffalo has several big-city perks for a metro area of just over 1 million people.
5. Pittsburgh - 1 of the most beautiful cities in the US with a top tier skyline and plenty of amenities, I wish Pittsburgh wasn’t losing people the way it has. Honestly one of the great US cities
LOL in that case what city does need the jobs it already has in any sector? Are you the person who made the video?
Honestly this was a very childish way to respond. Everyone in the thread except you for whatever reason can understand the basic logic of the video. You aren't making any good arguments against the point. Why even bother responding if you are just going to say no for no reason.
Cleveland - I think this is a very good location. Has a nice river running through it with a nice park. Best urban kayaking in the country. This could be a real gem.
Baltimore - Fantastic location on the NE corridor but not doing great. I think if we could give this place a push, it would already be integrated into a fantastic system.
Pittsburgh - This place seems underrated. At the edge of Appalachia. Could be a beautiful city in the hills. It would be nice if they got rid of the freeway the isthmus and replaced it with a park.
Richmond - This place has nice bones to the city. Also this would help creating an eastern seaboard rail system going all the way down from Boston.
Hartford - Another city in the northeast that has good bones. Overlooked but has potential.
This is a pretty good list, but I'd swap Hartford for Buffalo. Mostly because I think the state of Connecticut would have an easier time enacting initiatives to revitalize its core than would New York State to Buffalo. The reason being what others have already said about such a proportionally high amount of money surrounding Hartford.
I saw this video back around when it was released, and agree with its basic premise. The DMV real estate market is "artificially" inflated, and these legacy cities have great urban bones with much better housing availability. Heck, even Philadelphia has more housing stock available that could be revitalized in neighborhoods that were once more thriving. I don't think anyone is suggesting to overturn D.C.'s economy here, but why keep inflating a place that does not need it? These legacy cities certainly wouldn't mind a boost.
I don't think this disproves that relocating government agencies is a good thing. First of all, this was an example of sabotage. It wasn't done to make government work for the people. Second they picked a small outpost that probably didn't work. It would have been better to pick a functional city. I think the goal should be spreading the wealth and creating new places for people to live. You can make anything bad if you try to sabotage it.
DC does not need those jobs. What is your real problem with this?
DC "needs" those jobs to not become a city under discussion in this thread.
And federal jobs are already scattered all across the country; as a matter of fact, 85% of all federal jobs are located outside of the National Capital region.
But this article does a good job explaining why this concept is loaded with pitfalls.
This looks at the short term pitfalls of switching costs. I admit there are switching costs, however there are very good long term benefits. For one look at how Space command has made a place like Huntsville Alabama a much nicer place to live. I'm sure people complained when things moved from Colorado springs to Huntsville Alabama. I'm sure a lot of people prefer Colorado to Alabama. However the benefit to the country is quite large in giving Alabama a nice city. It has taken a place that no one cares about and made it a hub. Even in the video the example of Atlanta works quite well. I think focusing on the short term isn't a good way to make a long term decision about where to place the headquarters of our govt. agencies.
Finally DC will be fine even if the jobs move elsewhere. DC will still be a nice place to live with decent weather and good infrastructure. DC does not "need" those jobs.
This looks at the short term pitfalls of switching costs. I admit there are switching costs, however there are very good long term benefits.
It would be nice to see some real world examples of successful wholesale relocations of entire agencies out of DC, but at this point, it doesn't seem like they exist. The short-term costs, which could drag on for several years, are much, much greater than you acknowledge. We've just seen two incidents play out that demonstrate as much.
Quote:
For one look at how Space command has made a place like Huntsville Alabama a much nicer place to live. I'm sure people complained when things moved from Colorado springs to Huntsville Alabama. I'm sure a lot of people prefer Colorado to Alabama. However the benefit to the country is quite large in giving Alabama a nice city. It has taken a place that no one cares about and made it a hub.
How so? How does Huntsville being a nice city in Alabama positively impact, say, a beautician living in Worcester, MA or a pharmaceutical sales rep in Tucson? There was nothing about Huntsville that inherently made it a more deserving location for the WWII-era arsenal to produce chemical munitions compared to other potential sites and later Marshall. It was a matter of strong and persistent lobbying by a Congressman from Huntsville and lots of available land which which involved the displacement of over 500 families at the time.
It should also be noted that like any other employer, the federal government selects locations for agencies and installations based on its needs and goals with the entire nation in view and not as part of some jobs lottery for lucky cities. That's just not how it works.
Also I don't know where you got the tidbit about Colorado Springs from. The scientists who were responsible for initially getting the space program off the ground in Huntsville came from Fort Bliss, TX and NASA was originally established a few years after that. All of the relocation of personnel and resources to Redstone occurred in the midst of a massive reorganization effort by the military in the post-war years, and military personnel are already psychologically primed to relocate at any time. There's an entire process the Army undergoes on a regular basis to assess its needs (BRAC) and if or how personnel/resources should be reallocated, so that's par for the course and isn't at all the same as uprooting a federal agency that has always been headquartered in the nation's capital elsewhere--and unbeknownst to its employees. That has a drastic impact on morale which you aren't even considering because the entire proposition is one-sided from your perspective.
Quote:
Even in the video the example of Atlanta works quite well. I think focusing on the short term isn't a good way to make a long term decision about where to place the headquarters of our govt. agencies.
The short-term ramifications are the most important since that determines whether the effort will ultimately succeed or fail. And your reasons for championing the relocation of federal agencies have absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness or efficiency of the agencies themselves, but only about potential benefits to new host cities. To say that that's not at all a prudent way to assess such major potential moves is quite the understatement.
I didn't watch the video but as it stands, Atlanta is already one of the biggest hubs for federal government jobs outside of DC. There are five federal buildings in downtown Atlanta not including courthouses; in addition to the CDC, tons of federal agencies have their Southeastern regional headquarters in the city and nearly 50K federal employees currently live in the metropolitan area.
Quote:
Finally DC will be fine even if the jobs move elsewhere. DC will still be a nice place to live with decent weather and good infrastructure. DC does not "need" those jobs.
This makes no sense. How will DC be fine in the absence of the 'industry' that is the reason for its entire existence? That's like saying one can move all of the Boston-area universities outside of the region and it will be fine or that SV will be fine without tech. The federal workforce is the economic superstructure of the DC region; without it, the I-270 Biotech Corridor will shrivel up, the tons of government contractors will disperse, the tech industry will suffer a big blow (why do you think Amazon chose NoVA for HQ2?), several other headquarters such as Fannie and Freddie have little reason to be there, the think tanks/NGOs have no reason to be there, the headquarters of professional/trade organizations (and their yearly gatherings) have little reason to be there, etc.
How does a place remain a "nice place to live" without the economy to support those living there? If decent weather and "good infrastructure" were all it took to thrive, then Memphis would be an absolute powerhouse today and yet, it's not even close.
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.
