The Incredible Shrinking America!!!

[applecorped]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.


Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

[tyr_13]

Sounds rather reasonable actually. If the implementation is as reasonable remains to be seen.

[The_Animus]

I don't have much time before I have to leave for work so I skimmed the article and I must say I'm a little confused.

How does using money, time, and resources to destroy perfectly good buildings help anything or anyone?

It states that these are tough times, unemployment is high, and population in many cities is dwindling.

Why not just leave the buildings there? If people are having a hard time with money, give them these houses for cheap so they have somewhere to live. If there aren't enough people in the town to live in and support outlying homes/businesses then leave them there until 5, 10, or 15 years in the future as population grows and they are needed again.

This proposal seems like a massive waste, both in the cost to demolish the buildings and in the cost to eventually rebuild them.

I almost think the government is trying to screw up the country as much as possible.

[tyr_13]

Because natural spaces are often more productive than old, increasingly run down, buildings. The empty buildings attract pets, are fire hazards, etc.

Besides, did you miss the part about pulling in services? Can't do that if the buildings are still there as well as if it were an 'empty' field.

[JihadJane]

I almost think the government is trying to screw up the country as much as possible.

:eek::eye-poppi :eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eek::eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eek::eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eek::eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eek::eek::eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi

Because natural spaces are often more productive than old, increasingly run down, buildings. The empty buildings attract pets, are fire hazards, etc.



Squatters and abandoned pets have to live somewhere.








Guess I better read the article now.


ETA:

Seems like a good idea but I'm not sure. If the climate is suitable for growing food (from the photo, looks like former suburbia) then alternative, localized, decentralized economies may be able to develop.

Perhaps suburbia can be greened and remain home to humans.

Peak oil analysts have suggested that suburbia will be where the future slums are located.

Peak Oil documentary:

'The End of Suburbia'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

[The_Animus]

Because natural spaces are often more productive than old, increasingly run down, buildings. The empty buildings attract pets, are fire hazards, etc.

Besides, did you miss the part about pulling in services? Can't do that if the buildings are still there as well as if it were an 'empty' field.

The article is rather vague about exactly what is being proposed. How are natural spaces such as a meadow more productive than homes and commercial buildings?

If there is not enough population in an oulying area to support a business then there is no reason for it to continue to operate and it will likely go out of business. As for government provided services, if there is a decrease in population then they can decrease the personel needed or assuming they have multiple buildings or extra space, either try renting it out or stop using it.

They talk about demolishing thousands of homes and other buildings as if it will help with financial trouble. As far as I can see doing that would cost money, destroy a large amount of assets, and get absolutely nothing of financial value in exchange. And ultimately those areas will likely be rebuilt on within the next 10 or 20 years.

Digging holes, filling them in, and charging money to do it. I must be missing something. It would be helpful if the article went into a little more detail as to exactly what they are doing and why they think it will be fiscally helpful.

ETA: I'm more than supportive of returning more area back to 'wilderness' and shifting our culture to less consumption and more moderation in housing size, energy use, etc. But that isn't really what this plan is.

ETA2: Also would the demolition of massive amounts of houses create less housing supply and thus drive up the price of the housing market? I thought people were having trouble being able to afford homes as it is.

[casebro]

ETA2: Also would the demolition of massive amounts of houses create less housing supply and thus drive up the price of the housing market? I thought people were having trouble being able to afford homes as it is.

That's what I'm thinking. It's a monopolistic plot by the downtown business and property owners. Probably going to be paid for with federal 'redevelopment' funds. Simple to understand, they want to buy up the competition and shut them down. I works in any field.

Then, it will probably become illegal to 're-redevelop' that land back to housing. Like southern California, where there is no vacant land- we have cities bordered by ocean and National Forest. So ground goes for $5,000,000/acre.

[tyr_13]

Man I wish I could view city planning through the conservative lens. Better planing for transportation, population centers, and commercial stores in walking distance? Taking the chance to get some order out of rotting urban sprawl? Creating a more favorable balance between rural and urban? Adapting to a changing society? Nope, it's all a plot by the government to drive up property values and spend on demolition.

The local city has been doing this type of work and benefiting from it. We had a series of arson cases, and suddenly the city thought it a good idea take down old ownerless buildings. And what happened? The other buildings got better. More businesses moved in. This city, which has been in depression conditions for most of my lifetime is coming back even in these hard times.

Oh, and poor California. Oceans and National Forests all around? How do you survive?

[The_Animus]

Man I wish I could view city planning through the conservative lens. Better planing for transportation, population centers, and commercial stores in walking distance? Taking the chance to get some order out of rotting urban sprawl? Creating a more favorable balance between rural and urban? Adapting to a changing society? Nope, it's all a plot by the government to drive up property values and spend on demolition.


Who's a conservative?

What does better planing for transportation, population centers, and commercial stores in walking distance have to do with demolishing homes? All of that can be done anyways. They aren't taking those areas, destroying them, and then rebuilding them with better planning. They are just destroying them. How about instead of using the money to destroy those homes and commercial buildings they use it for said planing?

[GreNME]

The Incredible Shrinking America!!!

This is a threat to our very lives, and we have the socialist Democrats to thank for it.

One day, we're all going to look back at the mess our country is in and finally admit that the GOP was right all along, aren't we applecorped?

[SezMe]

Like southern California, where there is no vacant land- we have cities bordered by ocean and National Forest. So ground goes for $5,000,000/acre.
Got a link to support that claim? Not just a few selected, highly urbanized areas like the Wilshire corridor or the immediate downtown area but ground in general.

[rjh01]

Seems a good idea to me. Most of the buildings are empty (due to massive population decline), so demolish them, tear up the utilities (gas, electricity, transport, police). That way heaps of money is saved. Then concentrate on the city centre and nearby areas and develop that area into something useful.

Heaps of long term benefits.

[linusrichard]

Without commenting on the merits either way, the thread title is very interesting. It seems to assume that a "natural" space is less "America" than buildings.

[Modified]

Having grown up near Flint, I would say that while the city does have some OK neighborhoods, overall the most productive thing would be just to level all of it.

[applecorped]

Rural Mich. counties turn failing roads to gravel

Comments 10 (http://www.wwmt.com/articles/roads-1363526-mich-counties.html#slComments) | Recommend (javascript:recommendReview('Articlewwmt1363526')) 6
June 12, 2009 - 4:43 PM


LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Some Michigan counties have turned a few once-paved rural roads back to gravel to save money.

More than 20 of the state's 83 counties have reverted deteriorating paved roads to gravel in the last few years, according to the County Road Association of Michigan. The counties are struggling with their budgets because tax revenues have declined in the lingering recession.

[Z]

Maybe they're looking for a return to vital city life. My only experience was in Cincinnati, but here's my perception:

Cincinnati once had a bustling, popular downtown. There were lots of good living spaces, lots of good entertainment and shopping, and so forth.

However, jobs seem to have concentrated on a number of factories and facilities further out from downtown. Before long, large chain-stores moved in to those same areas, as well as schools and such. People found convenience moving to areas closer to such facilities.

Furthering the problem, downtown life upgraded to a ritzier model. Apartments suddenly jumped in price. Entertainment did as well. As store rents went up, some businesses closed while others were replaced by more expensive establishments.

People migrated to the suburbs.

The local government, concerned with the now-dying city core, opted to give hand-outs to bigger, more expensive businesses to entice them to stick around. They lure a few in with multi-million dollar gifts, and keep a few others likewise. Where did the funds come from? Well, we don't REALLY need welfare services or an adequate education system, do we?

Alas, Mr. Average Joe Spending His Paycheck On Friday can't afford to shop downtown, or live downtown... and so forth. Oh, sure, the Elite Few spend a lot more when they shop, but is the total value of their downtown spending enough to compensate for the fact that downtown alienated the Working Class?

Sure, a lot of other cities maintain a vital downtown district; but CinCity was not one of them.

I could see a city like Cincinnati coming up with a scheme like this. Eliminate the competition and force people back into the high-cost-of-living City. Unfortunately, I have a feeling such a plan would backfire. People would just move away to adjoining communities - there are plenty of those in Ohio.

[dudalb]

Got a link to support that claim? Not just a few selected, highly urbanized areas like the Wilshire corridor or the immediate downtown area but ground in general.


Hell, there is lots of empty land in SoCal.
Problem is, it is not very desirable as a living place.

[sackett]

Interesting article, although I'm not sure where Hizzonner the Mayor gets the idea that most Americans regard all development as good. That assumption has largely withered away in the course of the last three decades.

Here in Southeast Michigan, the idea of returning slums to nature is appealing on esthetic grounds if nothing else. But: Although I'm ardently in favor of tearing down genuinely derelict buildings, I'd hesitate to demolish still-sound structures. Services to such places can be cut to save money without digging anything up. If squatters move in and wreck a place, then it's time enough to demolish.

See my location? I'd love to see large parts of this town returned to forest. This part of the world reverts to woodland in a heartingly rapid way, and I can't help thinking that such recovered land would soon be worth more than the wreckage that covers it now.

Bet you could salvage those handsome old bricks, too.

[Fnord]

If you've ever been to Detroit, you'll undertand the reasons why, even if you don't agree with them

I first visited Detroit in the seventies. Even then, signs of decay were evident - abandoned factories, houses, and stores; junkies and hookers on the street; the whole dismal scene. I then visited again about 15 years later. The contrast was startling, in that not only had the decay turned into a cancer, but the Waterfront district looked like something from the Land of Oz had been erected in the middle of a Mumbai slum.

(I'm exagerrating, of course, but only for illustrative purposes.)

I saw it again a few years back, and was reminded of Rome - ruins of a once-great past civilization (without the cachet of nobility) surrounded by urban sprawl of the less genteel sort. Very sad.

For the Detroit government to turn its focus to supporting a smaller tax base, and allow the abandoned real estate to return to its feral state makes sense, especially from a financial standpoint.

Why provide police protection, public utilities, and other services to empty lots and abandoned buildings? The best thing that could happen to Detroit right about now would be a controlled burn

[sackett]

Hey Fnord, lighten it a little. If 'Troit was as bad as that, nobody could live here.

People keep putting money into the viable parts of Detroit, and I hope you'll take a drive down Woodward sometime soon. Might be a few surprises for ya.

I said "the viable parts of Detroit," with emphasis on viable. That's the point, here and in Flint, and in a lot of rust belt places. The derelict sections can be safely levelled and replanted with seedlings -- I'm speaking literally, mind you.

Distinguishing the viable from the derelict would be the easy part; hell, you could leave that up to the voters. (People living in nice old houses abutting on strip blight would dearly love to see the bulldozers move in.)

Deciding what areas are not quite, or not yet, ready to be demolished and reafforested would be the much more difficult part. Which blocks may have a future as developed urban real estate? Which blocks are too far gone? What time scale do we work with? Where'd you put the crystal ball?

I think that a trial should be made, once the up-front costs of this kind of urban erasure are calculated and the money found. Detroit would be a perfect place to try it, because 1) the results would be quickly apparent, and 2) the rest of the country so delights in knocking the old place. If we knock a little of it flat, they'll think it's a great thing. I'm happy to make them smile; they make me smile, after almost thirty years of living here and -- I dunno -- somehow doing okay.

[SezMe]

Hell, there is lots of empty land in SoCal.
Problem is, it is not very desirable as a living place.

Which is my view. Thus, when casebro wrote

Like southern California, where there is no vacant land- we have cities bordered by ocean and National Forest. So ground goes for $5,000,000/acre.

I had reason to doubt the "no vacant land" and the price except in some very limited areas. But maybe my tendency to read too literally is coming into play again. We'll see.

[daenku32]

Why am I reading this from a foreign news service article?

[SezMe]

Because that is where it was printed? ;)

[The_Animus]

Seems a good idea to me. Most of the buildings are empty (due to massive population decline), so demolish them, tear up the utilities (gas, electricity, transport, police). That way heaps of money is saved. Then concentrate on the city centre and nearby areas and develop that area into something useful.

Heaps of long term benefits.

Couldn't you just turn the gas, electric, water off in those areas and have the same benefit? As for the transport, if the roads aren't be used they won't be damaged so frequently and the police can be moved to a more populated area/station without demolishing the previous building.

[sackett]

Couldn't you just turn the gas, electric, water off in those areas and have the same benefit? As for the transport, if the roads aren't be used they won't be damaged so frequently and the police can be moved to a more populated area/station without demolishing the previous building.

Yes, but.

Let's shut off, shut down, and leave a largely (but not completely) abandoned district. Now we have several city blocks of empty buildings and houses. Will anyone maintain them? Windows will get broken, and that causes further vandalism -- this "broken window effect" has actually been documented in, yeah, Detroit. The roads and streets continue to deteriorate, at least here in Michigan, due to frost damage more than traffic. Who'll pick up the trash? (I don't know why empty areas still get littered, but they do.) Crack houses and gang hideouts multiply. Trash and bodies get dumped. Fires break out.

Conversely, if we demolish and grade an area, it begins to change for the better. You can see this happening a mile from where I live: First come forbs, then grass, nice tall hay mixed with alfalfa, and it can be very beautiful by midsummer. Then come quick-growing shrubs and trees, some of them volunteer decoratives, some maple and oak. Over time -- not all that much time in this fecund part of the earth -- you have second-growth forest; not the handsomest of woods, but a good start. Will mature forest eventually appear? Yes; it's already happened in many parts of this state, and probably others.

All this can happen if you just clear away the eyesores and then do nothing. Imagine how quickly the land could be reclaimed if we deliberately replanted forests and meadows.

Hell, I've seen flocks of pheasants in parts of Detroit that nobody has done a damn thing with.

Here's one ole boy from Wyoming who thinks it could be made to work.

[The_Animus]

Yes, but.

Let's shut off, shut down, and leave a largely (but not completely) abandoned district. Now we have several city blocks of empty buildings and houses. Will anyone maintain them? Windows will get broken, and that causes further vandalism -- this "broken window effect" has actually been documented in, yeah, Detroit. The roads and streets continue to deteriorate, at least here in Michigan, due to frost damage more than traffic. Who'll pick up the trash? (I don't know why empty areas still get littered, but they do.) Crack houses and gang hideouts multiply. Trash and bodies get dumped. Fires break out.

Conversely, if we demolish and grade an area, it begins to change for the better. You can see this happening a mile from where I live: First come forbs, then grass, nice tall hay mixed with alfalfa, and it can be very beautiful by midsummer. Then come quick-growing shrubs and trees, some of them volunteer decoratives, some maple and oak. Over time -- not all that much time in this fecund part of the earth -- you have second-growth forest; not the handsomest of woods, but a good start. Will mature forest eventually appear? Yes; it's already happened in many parts of this state, and probably others.

All this can happen if you just clear away the eyesores and then do nothing. Imagine how quickly the land could be reclaimed if we deliberately replanted forests and meadows.

Hell, I've seen flocks of pheasants in parts of Detroit that nobody has done a damn thing with.

Here's one ole boy from Wyoming who thinks it could be made to work.
Window breaking? What is being proposed is not only to break the window but everything else. :D Gangs and drugs will be there regardless, except instead of being in those outlying houses they will be in the cheap apartment complexes next to you. Trash will be thrown all over the place, whether its in the yard of an abandoned house or a meadow that replaces that area. If a fire happens it sounds like it would do most of the work that demolishing would do except for free. :D The cost to put it out should it approach property that is actually in use would probably be far less than the demolition costs

I see what you are saying though. These problems would affect not just the empty homes but the few people that still live in the area. And as I said I'm actually all for making more nature areas. It just seems like there might be something better that could be done, especially when we are in economic trouble. States, and the Fed government are already spending far over their abilities and having to cut funding to education, care for the disabled, and many other areas, yet we have money to demolish thousands of homes when we have tons of homeless people that could certainly use a place to stay. Or even people who have jobs and are having a difficult time being able to pay rent, or their bills. I bet they would appreciate a very low rent home or being able to buy a home for very low prices. The article said they already demolished 1000 homes and plan to do that for several thousand more. Let's say they have 10,000 homes they plan to destroy. If they instead sold those homes for $20,000 each that would generate $200 million rather than spending money to destroy them.

[sackett]

It's not just houses, but old factories, scorched warehouses, dead parking lots, boarded-up minimalls, unused equipment yards -- industry makes a lot of wasteland.

The houses being bulldozed are no longer repairable, let along habitable (burnt-outs, for example, are a particular headache in these old cities). You can't put anybody in them, homeless or otherwise. (How many genuine homeless people are there at the moment, by the way? And who defines homelessness?)

In short, the development it's proposed to dismantle is worn out; it's junk that hasn't been hauled away yet. (Or recycled; see my remark above about salvaging bricks. Wood and metals too, while we're at it.)

Clean green spaces (they don't seem to fill up with junk here in 'Troit, btw) will make remaining areas all the more valuable, and attract people and businesses. Creating them would, in fact, be honest-to-pete development, a new kind that we ought to be trying.

[tyr_13]

If theses properties could have been sold and used as housing, they likely would have been. I don't see the problem.

[shadron]

(How many genuine homeless people are there at the moment, by the way? And who defines homelessness?)

Uhhh, in 2007, 28,300 in Michigan altogether, 9% chronic, 38% family dependents, 59% unsheltered (the rest, presumably, temporarily sheltered). 671,000 nationwide.
http://www.endhomelessness.org/section/data/homelessmap

Population of Flint, 1998: 131,000

[sackett]

Let's remember that we're not talking about whole cities, only parts of them. Let's also remember that we're talking about a relatively small number of towns that have lost population, i.e., have shrunk.

At least I assume that few big towns in the U.S. have lost significant population over the last ten years. I also assume that places like Flint and Detroit are exceptionally hard-hit. Now maybe I'm wrong about that?

[Travis]

The strange thing is that America continues to add a million new people every year and yet we are to believe the solution to all our problems is to demolish perfectly viable communities? I see this is being talked about in relation to rust belt cities mostly and yet when I check out these cities on Google Earth I see all sorts of new houses going up around them.

[sackett]

The strange thing is that America continues to add a million new people every year and yet we are to believe the solution to all our problems is to demolish perfectly viable communities? I see this is being talked about in relation to rust belt cities mostly and yet when I check out these cities on Google Earth I see all sorts of new houses going up around them.

No one is advocating the destruction of living communities -- at least I'm not, and I hope Hizzoner up in Flint doesn't meant that either.

The idea, I hope, is simply to clean up the wreckage -- and that's what it is; I could show you acres of it a few miles from here -- and make the land appealing instead of appalling. At the same time, it's to be hoped that money can be saved on city services that woodland doesn't require.

I think that the suburbs are expanding because that's where people live, and (this is important) prefer to live. You can see why they would; a short drive through many Detroit districts (you can't call them communities, or even neighborhoods) would turn off any property-buyer. But that can change, and I think intelligent urban reafforestation* coiuld be one answer.

* God grant that I'm spelling that right. Amen.

[sackett]

Uhhh, in 2007, 28,300 in Michigan altogether, 9% chronic, 38% family dependents, 59% unsheltered (the rest, presumably, temporarily sheltered). 671,000 nationwide.
http://www.endhomelessness.org/section/data/homelessmap

Population of Flint, 1998: 131,000

Thankee kindly, shadron. You can do my homework anytime.

So that's one source on U.S. homelessness. There are others, probably too many. I say that even though it's been some years since I read up on the topic. The gist of the argument back then was that the "precariously housed" (an awkward but useful term) were hard to count. Honest differences in definition and viewpoint can produce different numbers.

All I can remark is that demolishing the ruins we see here in the rust belt won't unhouse significant numbers of even the most desperate people. If a real market for new urban housing develops later, cleared land will be available for building.

We've seen that happen here in Detroit over the last few years, as a matter of fact. Heck, some new apartments near Wayne State now occupy the site of an experiment in reafforestation. After 15 years, the study was complete, the trees were cut down (I hated that part), and the buildings went up. No, not projects. Apartment buildings near the Cultural Center.

[GreyICE]

Contracted living in a smaller area is more sustainable, especially when paired with telecommuting. I like.

[Z]

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of tearing down buildings and letting nature take over.



And not just the dilapidated ones... :D

[Brainster]

That's what I'm thinking. It's a monopolistic plot by the downtown business and property owners. Probably going to be paid for with federal 'redevelopment' funds. Simple to understand, they want to buy up the competition and shut them down. I works in any field.

Then, it will probably become illegal to 're-redevelop' that land back to housing. Like southern California, where there is no vacant land- we have cities bordered by ocean and National Forest. So ground goes for $5,000,000/acre.

The only land that goes for $5,000,000 an acre are sites suitable for high-rise development (office, condo, or hotel). Nothing else could be developed on it that would support that value.

[sackett]

My sister-in-law has lived in London for decades and is a UK citizen. She mentioned hearing an NPR show (she currently lives in LA) about Flint and its plans. She opines that the whole thing must sound strange to the Brits because "they would think in terms of council allotment gardens."

Fair enough; but we Americans here in Michigan think in terms of towering mature hardwood forests punctuated by 200-foot white pine cathedrals! Bears! Catamounts! Whispering pines and the hemlock! Shores of Gitchigumi and the shining big sea water!

Well hell, you've got to admit that it's a beautiful idea. My eagerness to try it out is aesthetic in origin, hang the municipal dollars it might save.

[shadron]

...or perhaps being able to see more than 24 stars on a clear night.

Looking out my bedroom window on the south, I can see Pike's Peak, 85 miles away. I did a study on my lonesome fifteen years ago; I looked every morning (as much as I was able) and spotted it 287 days out of 345.

Now there is a $320,000 house in the way (you Cali's might want to add another zero to get the intended effect).

[ZirconBlue]

I spent some time in Flint about 15 years ago, and it was in really bad shape then. There was no longer enough industry operating in the area to support the population. Like an otherwise healthy tree with some dead branches, it could use some pruning.

[Fnord]

Hey Fnord, lighten it a little. If 'Troit was as bad as that, nobody could live here.
.
If your assertion were valid, then people would not live in abject squalor in the slums of Mumbai, which by any measure is far worse than Detroit.

When I say Detroit needs a "Controlled Burn," I mean something like what is done to clear out old, diseased trees to make room for new planting or to provide a firebreak. The ultimate in Urban Renewal - just burn everything that isn't owned so that the rest can live better.

[tyr_13]

Actually this might be one of the only ways the property owners could make money as well. Sure, they believe that the lot should sell for at least $20,000 to some poor slob, but it won't. It hasn't, it isn't going to. Take the few thousand in salvage (most houses have that much in copper piping) and be happy to be rid of the lot.

Just be sure to put in some good planning rules for when the area does eventually get redeveloped. You know, with jobs and shops withing walking distance.

[rjh01]

I think the cost of demolishing a house is more than the price paid for the salvage. At least that was what I got told for house insurance purposes. The benefits of demolishing the houses has been said in this thread.

[tyr_13]

I think the cost of demolishing a house is more than the price paid for the salvage. At least that was what I got told for house insurance purposes. The benefits of demolishing the houses has been said in this thread.

That depends on the age, and what state, the house is in. I've done demolition work before, and it can be done rather cheaply. This is especially true when there are a lot of unemployed people around who will take fairly low pay.

Some companies tear down or gut specific structures for free, making money on the salvage.

[aruvqan]

I think it is a great idea, having driven through the Detroit area a few times myself.

Actually what would be interesting would be to have the green belts created by razing have a portion allotted to families for community gardens, sort of like the ww1 and 2 victory gardens. Getting people to actually have some place they can possibly garden might foster more of a community feeling as well as making them feel more in control of their finances [pointing out that you can grow and can stuff like tomatoes, herbs, onions and other stuff for spaghetti sauce, salsa, or whatever, and have good food fairly cheaply]

Green belts would also help air quality, and emotional quality [less 'trapped rat' syndrome.]

I find looking at acre after acre of closed building, crumbling asphalt and trash very depressing. Green belts would be great.