What lead to declining economy in Stockton, Los Angeles, and Detroit? (metro, Baltimore)

[the city]

I read, in CA, that the city of SF now has more per capita income than Los Angeles. And I feel LA's per capita income has gone down.

Is it possible that being so spread out these cities were losing money trying to maintain a sprawled infrastructure? Down the road, will we see sprawled developed need to be bulldozed and re-done? What if we run out of water for these sprawled out cities?

I know not all sprawled out cities are doing bad as some big cities in AZ and TX are doing well. Stockton and Detroit seem to have a lack of jobs. Stockton i think could shrink down in population and be re-built until it's a far out east bay suburb of Oakland and San Francisco.

It makes me wonder, does population have to shrink enough for cities to start getting back on track? What if these large cities were to go back to county jurisdictions?

I know in a nearby small city to me, there are parts of the city that I wished were bulldozed and left bulldozed or redeveloped.

I think it'd be hard to do in America because we love freedom and the right to our property so much. So developers won't easily go along with the idea of destroying their land and wanting something or nothing to go in place.

If simply our downtown was re-done, then we could start to undo white flight and get people moving back to the heart of the city. It pains me to see more cities not taking care of their downtowns because it's the heart of a city.

[munchitup]

I don't think sprawl has anything to do with it. NYC has massive city limits, it is fine. Houston has larger city limits than LA, it is doing great. In fact at this point in general sprawling cities are doing better than more compact cities.

Stockton's problems go back decades beginning taking on tons of refugees from Cambodia. This drove the murder rate sky-high, and drove all of the middle-class residents into the fringes of the city, creating a vicious cycle. My mom lived in Stockton as a kid and this is basically what she described as the decline of the city. Also building a ton of tacky exurban neighborhoods that no one in the area could afford also hurt, as Stockton became the capital of the foreclosure crisis.

Detroit's decline is due to white flight, a shrinking tax base and fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs that support middle-class lifestyle. Also a case of a vicious cycle.

LA doesn't fit in with either of these. As it declined in the core it still boomed in population, increasing its tax base. LA's economy did take a shot when the Cold War ended and defense firms cut back significantly.

[jade408]

Stockton doesn't have a lot of industry or well paying jobs. It also has a good number of people who commute to the Silicon Valley for work (due to the outrageous housing costs). These commuters do not have time to become involved citizens because they are spending 3 or more hours daily commuting to work. (3 hours would be the no traffic time, 5 hours would be more accurate).

Stockton was also hit very hard by the housing bust: over supply, limited jobs, and horrible commutes do not make for a stable housing market.

[the city]

So sprawled out cities hurt from the housing bubble popping? And Stockton hurt due to lack of jobs in general, Detroit losing manufacturing jobs, and LA due to losing defense firms? So why not simply find another industry to replace them or simply bulldoze over it in general?

[armory]

Originally Posted by the city

I read, in CA, that the city of SF now has more per capita income than Los Angeles. And I feel LA's per capita income has gone down.

Is it possible that being so spread out these cities were losing money trying to maintain a sprawled infrastructure? Down the road, will we see sprawled developed need to be bulldozed and re-done? What if we run out of water for these sprawled out cities?

I know not all sprawled out cities are doing bad as some big cities in AZ and TX are doing well. Stockton and Detroit seem to have a lack of jobs. Stockton i think could shrink down in population and be re-built until it's a far out east bay suburb of Oakland and San Francisco.

It makes me wonder, does population have to shrink enough for cities to start getting back on track? What if these large cities were to go back to county jurisdictions?

I know in a nearby small city to me, there are parts of the city that I wished were bulldozed and left bulldozed or redeveloped.

I think it'd be hard to do in America because we love freedom and the right to our property so much. So developers won't easily go along with the idea of destroying their land and wanting something or nothing to go in place.

If simply our downtown was re-done, then we could start to undo white flight and get people moving back to the heart of the city. It pains me to see more cities not taking care of their downtowns because it's the heart of a city.

It appears you want to raze your neighborhood for some reason. Why not move elsewhere?

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by the city

I read, in CA, that the city of SF now has more per capita income than Los Angeles. And I feel LA's per capita income has gone down.

Is it possible that being so spread out these cities were losing money trying to maintain a sprawled infrastructure? Down the road, will we see sprawled developed need to be bulldozed and re-done? What if we run out of water for these sprawled out cities?

I know not all sprawled out cities are doing bad as some big cities in AZ and TX are doing well. Stockton and Detroit seem to have a lack of jobs. Stockton i think could shrink down in population and be re-built until it's a far out east bay suburb of Oakland and San Francisco.

It makes me wonder, does population have to shrink enough for cities to start getting back on track? What if these large cities were to go back to county jurisdictions?

I know in a nearby small city to me, there are parts of the city that I wished were bulldozed and left bulldozed or redeveloped.

I think it'd be hard to do in America because we love freedom and the right to our property so much. So developers won't easily go along with the idea of destroying their land and wanting something or nothing to go in place.

If simply our downtown was re-done, then we could start to undo white flight and get people moving back to the heart of the city. It pains me to see more cities not taking care of their downtowns because it's the heart of a city.

Detroit isn't sprawled. It's suburbs are, and they aren't suffering the same fate as the city.

[memph]

I don't think there's a rock bottom that you can rebound from that you would get to faster by reducing the population faster through bulldozing. I mean maybe certain approaches would work but I'm not sure what you have in mind. If you force people to leave, then that means customers (and employees) are leaving too, which means businesses will leave as well. The abandoned houses of Detroit are not the cause for people leaving, they're the effect. Whatever is causing people to leave will continue to cause them to leave until that problem is addressed. If it's not addressed, I could see people leaving for decade after decade after decade after decade...

I think LA is doing ok though, isn't it? Maybe it's not booming like it used to be, but it's still relatively desirable.

As for Stockton, how has the situation changed since bankruptcy? Has it improved at all?

[memph]

Originally Posted by mjlo

Detroit isn't sprawled. It's suburbs are, and they aren't suffering the same fate as the city.

Ecorse, River Rouge and Highland Park are. Many inner ring suburbs are arguably where some of Detroit's outer neighbourhoods were 30 years ago, places like Hazel Park, Redford, Melvindale and Inkster.

Most American cities are either denser than Detroit (ex Baltimore, Chicago, Boston), or they've had greenfield to grow onto for most of their history.

Detroit also has the problem of having been built for a higher density, so it has more infrastructure to maintain than similarly dense cities.

Mapping The Strait

San Antonio and Phoenix are almost half Detroit's density but have as much street infrastructure per capita.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by the city

I read, in CA, that the city of SF now has more per capita income than Los Angeles. And I feel LA's per capita income has gone down.

You feel their per capita income has gone down? Since when and over what period? Please back this up with some evidence. I know that's tough sometimes, so here is some evidence.

Median income history for Los Angeles metro area

Median income history for San Francisco metro area

Note that these are for the metro areas rather than the cities in particular. If the city can provide some information other than his/her feelings, I'll happily examine whatever they end up posting. But it looks like San Francisco has had a higher per capita income than Los Angeles for a long time, and they have both been gradually declining somewhat, at least through 2012, with San Francisco's median income declining a bit less overall as 2012 was the start of the most recent Bay Area real estate bubble.

The city of San Francisco has been undergoing a series of real estate bubbles (on and off since the dot-com bubble of the 1990s) that have driven out a lot of its poorer residents (generally meaning anyone making less than $100,000 a year and thus not able to afford the $3200/month median rent.) So if their per capita income is going up, maybe it is because their poorer residents are moving other places, and not because of differences in urban planning policy. Also, San Francisco didn't sprawl only because it was geographically incapable of doing so. It's tough to build suburbs on water. Los Angeles had plenty of land in all directions for growth, which is why it has five times San Francisco's population in eight times the land area, give or take.

Is it possible that being so spread out these cities were losing money trying to maintain a sprawled infrastructure? Down the road, will we see sprawled developed need to be bulldozed and re-done? What if we run out of water for these sprawled out cities?

I notice you use the phrase "simply bulldozed" as though bulldozing neighborhoods was simple. It's not simple, it's actually pretty complex, often causes more problems than it solves, and can result in lots that just sit there bulldozed for decades. But since your evidence put forth so far is basically just your feelings, not any numbers, I'm not seeing how this supports your conclusion.

I know not all sprawled out cities are doing bad as some big cities in AZ and TX are doing well. Stockton and Detroit seem to have a lack of jobs. Stockton i think could shrink down in population and be re-built until it's a far out east bay suburb of Oakland and San Francisco.

Are you suggesting physically moving the city of Stockton closer to the Bay Area?

It makes me wonder, does population have to shrink enough for cities to start getting back on track? What if these large cities were to go back to county jurisdictions?

How exactly do you plan on shrinking those populations? If you are proposing reducing the population of those cities, where do the people thus reduced go? Unless you were planning on having them stay in the buildings that were being bulldozed?

I know in a nearby small city to me, there are parts of the city that I wished were bulldozed and left bulldozed or redeveloped.

Why do you wish they were bulldozed? Any particular reason, or just enjoy a little recreational bulldozing?

I think it'd be hard to do in America because we love freedom and the right to our property so much. So developers won't easily go along with the idea of destroying their land and wanting something or nothing to go in place.

Well, freedom and rights are awfully nice. And folks generally want some kind of coherent reason for demolishing their property, rather than you just kinda wishing it was so.

If simply our downtown was re-done, then we could start to undo white flight and get people moving back to the heart of the city. It pains me to see more cities not taking care of their downtowns because it's the heart of a city.

Problem is, that isn't what happens. I don't think you have much, if any, understanding of why our downtowns look the way they do. Of course, plenty of mid-20th century urban planners used exactly the same ideas you recommend (demolish downtown and build something new, wait for the white middle class to rush back) and saw their ideas fail completely. The lesson they took away was that they didn't demolish things quite thoroughly enough. So good luck with your future field of endeavor in urban planning, you're well on your way to being the next Robert Moses!

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by the city

I read, in CA, that the city of SF now has more per capita income than Los Angeles. And I feel LA's per capita income has gone down.

Is it possible that being so spread out these cities were losing money trying to maintain a sprawled infrastructure? Down the road, will we see sprawled developed need to be bulldozed and re-done?

The "city" ≠ "the people in the city". So what does per capita income have to do with whether the city makes or loses money? Why do the taxpayers want the city to "make" money.

Originally Posted by the city

What if we run out of water for these sprawled out cities?

As opposed to running out of water for endless high density cities?

Originally Posted by the city

I know not all sprawled out cities are doing bad as some big cities in AZ and TX are doing well. Stockton and Detroit seem to have a lack of jobs. Stockton i think could shrink down in population and be re-built until it's a far out east bay suburb of Oakland and San Francisco.

Everything has a life cycle.

Originally Posted by the city

It makes me wonder, does population have to shrink enough for cities to start getting back on track? What if these large cities were to go back to county jurisdictions?

Too many public employees would lose jobs - so they will lobby against it. In addition you can get rid of a city but don't expect to have city services provided by the county.

Originally Posted by the city

I know in a nearby small city to me, there are parts of the city that I wished were bulldozed and left bulldozed or redeveloped.

I think it'd be hard to do in America because we love freedom and the right to our property so much. So developers won't easily go along with the idea of destroying their land and wanting something or nothing to go in place.

??? Destroying their land? Land is considered perpetual. If you are referring to existing infrastructure it probably isn't owned by a "developer" any more. But individuals expect to do what they want with their property rather than what you want. You can purchase the property from them.

Private property rights are a fundamental right. Interesting that you seem to believe it should be otherwise.

Originally Posted by the city

If simply our downtown was re-done, then we could start to undo white flight and get people moving back to the heart of the city. It pains me to see more cities not taking care of their downtowns because it's the heart of a city.

Sounds a little racist to me. Why do you care about the racial makeup of "downtown"? Since when does the population live "downtown" to begin with? Maybe people don't want to live like transit dependent hamsters.