This radical proposal may have a huge impact on historic landmarks and other sites. The Telegraph reports that dozens of US cities may have entire neighborhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered to tackle economic decline.
The government is looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, Michigan, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature. Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent in Flint and the total population has almost halved to 110,000. 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.
50 other cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, have been identified as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes. Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.
You can read more in the Telegraph.
Frightening! I am in Sydney, Australia, far away from this problem, and I'm currently hosting a couple who sold up everything in Florida to move here. One was originally Australian and she couldn't wait to get out, and she talked her husband into coming too.
Posted by: Carole Riley | June 18, 2009 at 08:05 PM
I hope they read the history and subsequent long-term disgust regarding the razing of Boston's West End in the 1950s. Even if the land is supposed to go back to nature, neighborhoods will inevitably be replaced by some kind of commercial project claiming to be necessary or ecologically friendly that many will consider an even bigger blight in years to come. The "open space" created for Boston's government center and high-rise apartments is far uglier and less usable than the worst parts of Roxbury and Dorchester that were allowed to respond to market forces over time. Displacement issues are not fully resolved 50+ years later.
There are ways to address dense, fire-trap blocks without wiping out whole neighborhoods. There are also ways to create "greenbelts" within old cities, reducing pavement cover and renewing land and water. Funding can be tied to ecology and moderate-income housing requirements within a local framework. Service-oriented businesses that go offshore in response to tax penalties could be enticed to create jobs with a lower-impact footprint than the old foundries and factories. Federal funds should support local solutions that address specific local concerns (including historical preservation) rather than this type of draconian solution.
Posted by: Holly Hendricks | June 19, 2009 at 06:17 AM
Interesting. Will you post again if you find out more?
Posted by: Brenda | June 19, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Several years ago, Lawton, Oklahoma, razed almost the entire downtown district, only a VERY few buildings were left. The then city "fathers" let a shopping mall be built...The old bricks from the buildings were taken to a site and buried. Now, many years later they are again tearing down the old to make for new. We have no town, just many outlaying "shopping areas". How sad that our old historical buildings were taken from future generations. Don't let this happen to your hometown! You will at some time in the future wish for your history.
Posted by: SKay | June 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Ironic that here in the UK the pressure is in the opposite direction.
Locally we have been fighting plans to build over 30,000 new homes, mostly on greenbelt land, for which there is no measured local need nor any central government consideration of the effect on infrastructure, employment, transport and the environment.
Fortunately, the economic downturn and a legal ruling elsewhere in the country are likely to kill off these plans, where common sense and local opposition could not.
Posted by: Caroline Gurney | June 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM
What is a real shame in this country is that we all give millions to actors, producers, singers, ball players, etc. and yet we don't want to spend dime to save our history. We care more about buying things from China instead of paying a little more to have things made here in the USA. I am not saying that going to a movie or seeing a concert is wrong. I think they all charge way to much for the average person and get paid way to much. The balance between Movie Stars, Ball players, and the average american is way off. We are spending to much of our money on entertainment and not enough for history and the future of our children.
Posted by: Vivian Christy | June 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM