America's cities destined to destitude (2000-2100)

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by Manhattan-ite

"I just wanted to see what cities face the threat of social decay in the 21st century (or at least no hope of recovery). Due to job relocation, social instability, weather, or just a declining population, I think these cities are almost invevitabily down for the count"

This is what the original poster asked. Now, do you REALLY think New York City is in danger due to any of the causes mentioned above? Do you REALLY think NYC has "no hope of recovery"?

Gimme a break, people. Somebody says New York is in danger because a bomb could be dropped and the people would escape and the economy would die and you think this in an "excellent assesment"?

It sounds like a worst-case-scenario apocalyptic prediction that could happen to every big city in the world, but not like an "excellent assesment".

Plus we've gone through a lot of crap and we've only grown and learned from it. So please don't kill us yet.

Sorry if I have answered outside of the scope of the original question. I certainly do not think that NYC has no hope of recovery, only that it faces such a threat. Same with New Orleans and Los Angeles. Again, sorry if I offended you, I realize that this is a sensitive subject.

[MoonlightMadness]

Originally Posted by Georgia

Lived in the Philadelphia area for 10 years. Rendell did a good job cleaning up the city after Goode, but after being under the realm of John Street for 6 years I don't know if it can be saved

Amen to that!!!

[ontheroad]

I think we are burying some of our best cities, best in the sense of potential for growth and opportunity.

I haven't seen a funeral director show up at the door of NYC, Pittsburgh or Philly. And even though some on the list, look worse than others, such as Detroit and New Orleans, I'd give them plenty of credit for trying--the best way they can.

They might need more make-up, increased job opportunities and huge infrastructure re-development, but with the right people at the helm of a City it can be turned around.

And although this is a social concept and not much to the liking of Americans, it wouldn't hurt for some of the city planners (and politicos) to think in terms of incentives to draw a better and bigger crowd to their city. It can work. It did work in Providence, RI, undoubtedly a small city, but one on the brink of bankruptcy.

Ingenuity is what we need, not defeatism!

[bigmuny]

Obviously no one has been to Louisiana...New Orleans has always been a Trash Pit, Baton Rouge, Laffayette, Lake Charles, Shreveport, Bossier City, Monroe...I've traveled the States but this State takes it all. Toyota just recently refused to locate a plant in Monroe because of the "Trashiness of the City"..and that's a major corporation. A general feeling of depression exist in that State that is palpable. I've traveled in some exceptionally clean Cities and States, where the interstates and highways are clean of debris with manicured roadsides of plants. trees and wildflowers, with workers out daily and highly visible picking up roadside debris. I've driven through that State coming in from Texas and Mississippi both on I-20 and I-10 then North and South on I-49...that State is last in everything and probably the most corrupt State of all States. Maybe I'm ragging on that State a little too much but it's not just one City in the whole of the State, it's every City in the State that is Destitute..it's really pathetic, it's like a third world country...

[SteelCityRising]

RainRock, I agree that it would be nice to see gentrification come to Camden, but at what cost? Several of you people have seemingly criminalized Camden's residents for being poor and in the way of "progress." Like it or not, everybody in this nation doesn't possess a degree and can afford to live in a loft-style apartment or condo near downtown. Yes, the addition of new luxury apartment high-rises with unparalleled views of the beautiful Philadelphia skyline would be nice for people like you or me, but what about them? If this building boom were to hit Camden, the city's real estate prices would soar to levels unattainable by the city's working poor, forcing them into the projects or into the streets. Tax rates would likely rise in the city to afford more municipal services to cater to the higher standards that the more well-to-do residents of the new luxury projects have imbedded within them. To a single, young African-American mother of two living in Camden and barely making ends meat now, what will happen to her then?

I know I'm a "bleeding-heart liberal" on all accounts, and I apologize for having compassion, but I don't think throwing the poor out of the way to make way for wealthier playgrounds is always beneficial. There needs to be a way to permit higher-class and lower-class people to co-exist peacefully in Camden. The introduction of "trendy, hip young professionals and empty-nesters" to proposed new upscale projects in Camden would create terrible cultural clashes right now. Why does nobody care about the city's poor?

There's an old saying that goes a little something like "Give a man a fish; he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish; he'll eat for a lifetime." Perhaps the state of New Jersey should focus more of its attention on ways to combat urban poverty from the SOURCE instead of investing so much money into law enforcement to help counter its negative effects later? For example, many Camden residents are poor, black high school dropouts. As such, their employment options beyond $10/hr. or so are abysmal, and the city remains poor. Motivational speakers and college recruiters targeting middle school students (before they have a chance to drop out of high school) by heavily-involving themselves in these childrens lives on a day-to-day basis in their schools could be a MAJOR lift for the city. An entire generation of Camden students could start to see that there is life beyond peddling drugs to make a living or loitering around in groups on street corners, and they could expand their minds in college. Even two-year community college graduates are shown over time to earn much more money than their counterparts who opted to either just complete high school or to drop out altogether. Higher incomes generally correspond to higher educations and acccompanying higher skill levels, and the Camden residents of today do not fit those criteria. Through Federal and state assistance, (perhaps offering grants to Rutgers, NJIT, Drexel, U. of Penn, Temple, etc. to maintain a strong recruiting and guidance presence in Camden's public middle and high schools), I can envision more and more of Camden's impoverished youth commuting to college in the Philadelphia/NJ area, snagging careers with great benefits and salaries, and then staying in Camden to help revitalize it. This process would probably take 10-20 years to start showing noticeable effects, but it would certainly be a worthwhile usage of taxpayer funds to help a city like Camden get back onto its feet again without "kicking out the poor for Frou-Frou penthouses." As RENT's cast would sing "La Vie Boehme!"