PDA

View Full Version : Shrinking cities reinvent themselves


KB0679
Jan 1, 2007, 12:47 PM
As older cities shrink, some reinvent themselves (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-26-shrinking-cities-cover_x.htm)
Updated 12/27/2006 4:22 AM ET

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY
RICHMOND, Va. — A triangular island at the intersection of 23rd and Q streets is paved with bricks and landscaped with dogwood and liriope. The carefully designed patch of green replaced an abandoned house. As modest as it is, the tiny Q Street Park is a powerful symbol of change in the blighted Church Hill neighborhood.

It's not simply a physical transformation but a dramatic switch in mindset. Richmond's population has lost 56,000 since its peak in 1970, when it had 250,000 residents, and the city is finally coming to terms with it. Green space is replacing boarded-up houses. Small single-family homes are rising where crowded cinderblock apartment buildings once stood. Singles and couples are moving into rehabilitated homes that once housed families of eight.

Slowly, old American cities that have been in a downward population spiral for a half-century or more are reinventing themselves as, well, smaller cities. They're starting to adopt — many, like Richmond, do it unknowingly — tenets of the burgeoning, European-born "Shrinking Cities" movement. The idea: If cities can grow in a smart way, they can also shrink smartly.

"Everybody's talking about smart growth, but nobody is talking about smart decline," says Terry Schwarz, senior planner at Kent State University's Urban Design Center of Northeast Ohio. The center runs the Shrinking Cities Institute in Cleveland, a city that has lost more than half its population since 1950. "There's nothing that says that a city that has fewer people in it has to be a bad place."

It's a startling admission in a nation that has always equated growth with success. Cities are downsizing by returning abandoned neighborhoods to nature and pulling the plug on expensive services to unpopulated areas. Some have stopped pumping water, running sewer lines and repaving roads in depopulated neighborhoods. They're turning decimated areas into parks, wildlife refuges or bike trails. They're tearing down homes no one is living in and concentrating development where people want to move.

Richmond's acclaimed Neighborhoods in Bloom program targets six areas. Public funds are pouring in and private money has started to follow. The city wants to grow, but it's not waiting for a population boom, says Greg Wingfield, president and CEO of Greater Richmond Partnership Inc., an economic development marketing group. "We don't as a region aspire to be the next Atlanta or the next Charlotte," he says. "It's about quality. It's not about growing for the sake of growing."

Boom misses many cities

The USA's population hit 300 million this year and is expected to keep booming, reaching 400 million in about 35 years. Despite this phenomenal growth, many of the nation's older cities have shrunk. More than half of the 100 most populous cities in 1950 have fewer residents today. About 6 million fewer people live in 16 of the 20 cities that were largest in 1950. Eleven of the 100 largest cities 50 years ago have fewer than 100,000 people today.

Suburbia may be the biggest reason for this downturn. The automobile and the lure of affordable homes with yards drew millions from urban centers. School desegregation sparked flight to new, all-white suburbs starting in the 1950s. In the 1970s, old, labor-intensive industries began to decline. Steel mills and auto plants closed, and Rust Belt cities, from Buffalo and Pittsburgh to Detroit and St. Louis, shrank.

Many such cities are starting to capitalize on what they still have rather than what they've lost — whether it's historic neighborhoods, cultural amenities or waterfronts. "Their aspirations should be to build on their strengths and to assume that they're not going to be as big," says Eugenie Birch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has documented the resurgence of downtowns.

"Cities that measure success by population growth have an outdated view of what success is all about," says Carol Coletta, head of CEOs for Cities, a non-profit alliance of mayors, executives and other urban leaders based in Chicago.

That group's research has shown that population growth doesn't always bring cities wealth. Bakersfield, Calif., grew 35% in the 1990s, the second-fastest gainer; per capita income, however, declined 7%. Las Vegas was No. 1 in population growth but 38th in income growth last decade.

When a city's growth is buoyed by a boom in construction and service jobs, many of its new residents are lower-income families including immigrants.

"Urban leaders are getting very clear-eyed about these things," Coletta says. "But they do it in the face of a world that judges them by population growth."

No mayor brags about his city shrinking. No council member wants to hear that her ward no longer exists. "For a lot of communities, it's more about denial than resistance," Schwarz says. "It's like admitting defeat, and who wants to do that?"

Denying it, however, costs money, says Karina Pallagst, program director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective Program at the University of California-Berkeley. "You have to deal with a huge water system that's serving less people. Same with buildings. You still have to supply them with power, water, sewage."

What occurred in U.S. cities over a half-century happened almost overnight in Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Eastern Germany suffered a net loss of almost 1 million people to western Germany from 1991 to 2004, according to Pallagst, who is German. In 2002, more than 1 million housing units were vacant.

The rapid decline inspired Germany's Federal Cultural Foundation to launch the Shrinking Cities project. It analyzed Halle/Leipzig in Germany, Manchester/Liverpool in England, Ivanovo in Russia and Detroit. The goal was to develop strategies for eastern Germany, but it unleashed broad interest throughout Europe and parts of Asia, where fertility rates are dropping and populations aging. The discussion went global.

A Shrinking Cities exhibit shown in Europe now is on display in New York. It will head to Detroit in February. Pallagst's institute is hosting a symposium on the subject in February.

"Every sixth city in the world is shrinking," Pallagst says, from Australian mining towns to Korean industrial centers. "Even a city that's prospering today can be a shrinking city tomorrow."

"European cities are grappling with how you deal with shrinking cities more forthrightly than we are," says John Accordino, urban and regional planning professor at Virginia Commonwealth University here. "(U.S. cities) are still trying to figure out how do we get our piece of the metro growth."

Youngstown, Ohio, is an exception. It has fully embraced its shrinkage. The population, now about 83,000, is less than half what it was when the steel industry collapsed in the 1970s.

"You look at the facts and come up with solutions," chief planner Anthony Kobak says. "The first step the city has come to terms with is being a small city."

Youngstown approved a 2010 plan. The goal: "A safe, clean, enjoyable, sustainable, attractive city," Kobak says.

The city long was better known for gritty steel mills than green space. Now that the mills are gone, there is plenty of space. With the help of a grant, Youngstown preserved 260 acres. It's targeting neighborhoods and redesigning them with the help of residents who stayed.

The city may let homeowners buy abandoned lots next door to create gardens. It's considering relaxing zoning rules to allow small horse farms or apple orchards. It's offering incentives for people to move out of abandoned areas.

"If you had three or four square blocks that at one time had 40 homes per block and now have maybe five homes total, we could relocate those people across the street and convert the vacant area into a large city park," Kobak says.Residents would live be living across from a park rather than being surrounded by decrepit homes and lots overgrown with weeds.

"If we're looking to preserve an area for green space, we may offer that person relocation money rather than rehab money," Kobak says.

Other cities may be less enthusiastic about shrinking but they're adjusting, nevertheless:

• St. Louis is reviewing abandoned commercial areas to determine if they're still needed. "We had a lot more people here," says Rollin Stanley, director of St. Louis' planning and urban design agency. "We had a lot more need for commercial strips. That need isn't here today."

The historic Gaslight Square area once teemed with nightclubs, theaters, bistros and art galleries. It was abandoned for more than 20 years. The city recently converted some parts to row houses and single-family homes.

"We have to rethink where we house people," Stanley says.Converting declining commercial areas to trendy residential housing has helped. Family incomes citywide increased 13.7% from 2004 to 2005, he says."We're rethinking land use allocation to meet the needs of the population we're going to see," he says. We're not shrinking. We're rethinking."

• Detroit spreads across 139 square miles and has almost a million fewer people than it did in 1950. Until now, revitalization efforts have focused on the 3-square-mile downtown.

This month, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick announced an initiative in partnership with philanthropies, business, civic leaders and faith-based organizations that will target six neighborhoods that make up less than 10% of the city. "Some neighborhoods don't need to be addressed right away," says Matt Allen, the mayor's press secretary.

In February, the city will focus on parks and recreational facilities, most of them developed from 1920 to 1958, when the city boomed. When people left, many facilities were barely used. "People don't walk five miles to go swim in an 80-year-old pool," Allen says. "It costs a heck of a lot of money to run an 80-year-old boiler."

The city already has closed 14 recreational facilities and built state-of-the-art centers in the northeast, where there is the highest concentration of families with children, and in the southwest, where the Hispanic population exploded.

Reviving old Richmond

Only faint traces remain of the old glamour of Richmond's Jackson Ward district. The marquee is fading on the Hippodrome Theater, where Bill "Bojangles" Robinson danced, Ella Fitzgerald sang and Duke Ellington played. There are few businesses in the 40-square-block neighborhood once called the Wall Street of Black America because of its many banks.

Today, however, there are signs of a rebound. Historic row houses have been refurbished. Restaurants are opening. New homes are going up near a statue of "Bojangles." Shells of Greek and Georgian Revival, Queen Anne and Italianate houses, many adorned with elaborate ironwork and cast-iron porches, could be had for $30,000 to $40,000 10 years ago. They're selling for more than $250,000 today.

Ronald Stallings, a native, is a star player in the revival. His father amassed 140 pieces of real estate before the area declined. His company, Walker Row Partnership Inc., is converting an old insurance company building into lofts, building homes and rehabilitating historic structures. He has renovated 47 properties. Jackson Ward's population jumped 70% in less than five years, he says. One of his most ambitious goals: Bring the Hippodrome back as an entertainment venue.

"Either older people or younger people are choosing a lifestyle other than cutting grass every Friday evening," he says. "There are way more housing units. Your population is going down but units are going up. Dual income, no kids isn't a bad thing."

Similar revitalization efforts are playing out on Richmond's Tobacco Row. Old warehouses and factories now house sound studios and lofts. Warehouses on the banks of the James River have been turned into modern apartments. The River Lofts still have old brick walls, arched windows and wooden beams. Fountainhead Development, formed by a New York lawyer and an architect, is turning the Manchester industrial area into an arts and design district. Sound studios have moved in. About 150 artists now are based in a two-city block area. High rises may be next.

"We were the ugly stepchild, now we're the next Chelsea," says Bill Chapman, Fountainhead president, referring to Manhattan's artsy neighborhood.

Much of the revival has been fueled by tax credits and abatements. Mayor Douglas Wilder, a former Virginia governor, is betting on the region's economic boom to attract private investment. Richmond is well positioned as the state capital and the home of Virginia Commonwealth University, which just opened a biotech research park. Philip Morris is building a research and technology center. MeadWestvaco Corp., a paper company, is moving from Stamford, Conn., to new headquarters here.

Another plus for Richmond: It's about 100 miles from the thriving Washington, D.C. Fear of terrorist attacks on the nation's capital is are encouraging companies to set up some sensitive operations well 100 miles outside the city. Richmond could benefit.

How does Richmond get people to live in the city? "You make things look better. You stop blight," Wilder says. The city is reviewing which of 3,200 vacant properties to tear down or convert. Some vacant land could become open space.

The Better Housing Coalition, a non-profit group, builds affordable housing to revive neighborhoods. It built about 75 houses in Church Hill. Through grants and various incentives, working-class families can afford to own them.

Mary Thompson grew up in a family of eight and moved here as a teenager 54 years ago. She raised five children and thought about moving many times as family homes around her became drug houses and bordellos. "One day you look up and there's a lot of blight," Thompson says. "It can happen overnight."

She hung in there. Now, the dilapidated eyesore at the intersection is gone, the quaint Q Street Park in its place. That prompted the homeowner across the street to repaint his house. Teachers and police officers are moving into the neighborhood. There are more singles and one-child families.

The new look in some Richmond neighborhoods is a sign that the city may be finding its niche. "We just pray that we get good families," says Augustine Carter, 78, a retired hospital worker who lives here.

bryson662001
Jan 1, 2007, 7:42 PM
I have always maintained that when residents of a "city" drift across city limits to the suburban portion of the "city" it doesn't mean the "city" is shrinking. It just means that some relocated to a different part of the "city", like moving to a different neighborhood. Most (not all) of the "ciites" that have allegedly lost population have actually increased their meto population.
Between 1990 and 2000 metro Richmond increased from 865,000 to 1,096,000.

Evergrey
Jan 1, 2007, 8:06 PM
I have mixed feelings on this "shrinking cities" phenomenon (and bryson makes a good point).

I do think that cities that are losing population need to scale their government and services to meet the new reality. Many older cities are experiencing budget shortfalls and even bankruptcies due to this. It's easier said than done, however, as peak population infrastructure is still in place and can either be maintained or fall into disrepair and abandonment.

Declining cities should not take this defeatist attitude... converting what was once an urban fabric into horse farms and cornfields while suburban development continues unabated on the fringe. Cities need to develop new strategies to make living in the core city more attractive than living in the suburbs (of course, the suburban mindset that has been ingrained in the American psyche for generations is the biggest challenge to overcome). One of the biggest challenges is the tax gap between core cities and suburban competitors. City governments need to spend less so that taxes are not so high. Innovative thinking needs to be applied so that quality of life does not take a hit while downsizing government. New quality housing and rehabilitation of older housing stock can entice people from the suburbs. Undoing many of the "urban renewal" disasters of the 60s and re-establishing urban street grids increases the functionality of urban areas.

What I would like to see (but is a long shot in most of these cases) is city/county consolidation. In many states, such as Pennsylvania, this is pretty much an impossibility since there is no help on the state level. The declining city phenomenon in the U.S. is largely a function of regional governance fragmentation. The core city is left with poorer residents who cannot pay for the city to remain in pristine condition... while the suburbanites working downtown use the city services for free (some cities have enacted certain wage taxes to counteract this).

I could ramble on and on about this... but basically the thought of converting what was once a city into a farm is very distressing to me.

Evergrey
Jan 1, 2007, 8:41 PM
[
"Cities that measure success by population growth have an outdated view of what success is all about," says Carol Coletta, head of CEOs for Cities, a non-profit alliance of mayors, executives and other urban leaders based in Chicago.


This is an excellent quote... and seems to be something that is poorly understood on forums like this one where cities are often measured by how fast the population is exploding and how many 500-foot towers they're erecting. Pittsburgh is a good example of a city that has lost half its peak population but has improved its quality of life drastically in the past 50 years, and today is regarded as one of America's most livable cities. The population loss presents its challenges. Some neighborhoods have really gone down the tubes... services and shops have shuttered and housing is abandoned. Other neighborhoods have experienced a renaissance. While white flight occured, it did not occur to the extent of many of its peer cities, and the city retains wealthy neighborhoods like Shadyside and Squirrel Hill. The antagonistic relationship with the suburbs and the state's indifference result in permenant dysfunction with the city government, which is constantly grappling with its budget. Improvements in housing has been one of the big ways in which Pittsburgh has been able to increase its vibrancy and livability. The neighborhood of East Liberty was destroyed in the 1960s when low-income high-rises were erected, magnets of crime and poverty due to inhuman design. Now, those high-rises are being demolished and replaced by attractive mixed-income rowhome communities. In the Strip District, long-shuttered warehouses and factories are being converted into lofts and apartments. In neighborhoods like Highland Park, architecturally stunning but long-neglected homes have been rehabbed. Brownfield development has transformed long-abandoned industrial sites into vibrant shopping districts (SouthSide Works) and new single-family housing (Summerset at Frick).


One of the things not often mentioned in these types of discussions is the decline in average househole size. Even if you take suburbanization and urban decay out of the equation... you don't have families with 4-9 kids anymore... which automatically reduces population density. Many of these old northern cities are locked into tiny boundaries (Pittsburgh, for example, is a mere 55 sq. miles)... so a decline in population is pretty much an inevitability due to the decline in household size. In addition, many of the new urban housing developments are targeted towares childless young professionals and empty nesters. I believe the only way to make our core cities "real cities" again is to rehabilitate the urban school districts and make them competative with suburban school districts. Most major cities have horrible public schools, and the cities as a result, continue to lose the family demographic. How do you rehabilitate urban school districts? I'm not really sure... but I'm sure states like Pennsylvania and Ohio can find new ways in which to ensure more educational equality between urban and suburban areas.

passdoubt
Jan 1, 2007, 8:47 PM
When I read this article I was thinking exactly what evergrey said. Good post.

To talk about "smart growth" and "New Urbanism" while the existing, sustainable, walkable communities we already have are being abandoned for sprawl-- that's downright illogical and counterproductive.

Also what Bryson says is an excellent point. There's a difference between declining metropolitan areas like Youngstown and declining central cities like Richmond. In Richmond, the issue is the city's declining share of the metro area, while in Youngstown, even the metro as a whole is being abandoned, creating a more serious issue of regional economic development.

J. Will
Jan 1, 2007, 10:52 PM
"Many of these old northern cities are locked into tiny boundaries (Pittsburgh, for example, is a mere 55 sq. miles)... so a decline in population is pretty much an inevitability due to the decline in household size."

But 55 square miles is still plenty enough for an increase in the number of households. Vancouver, in just 43 square miles, had just 409,000 in the 1976 census, and 545,000 in the 2001 census. It's estimated at about 580,000 now I believe. This is in spite of decreasing household sizes as well.

LMich
Jan 1, 2007, 11:28 PM
Canadian cities are an entirely different animal. In your country, the government and society actually support the reuse of established cities over new sprawl growth. Here, the scale is tipped all the way to the other side and beyond with our local land policies actually heavily supporting sprawl over reuse. Nothing's going to change until land use policies/ordinances change, and that won't change until the people hold their respective local, state, and national governments responsible for poor/uneven land use policies. And, that's not going to change until 'the people' realize how backwards sprawling ourselves to hell is. When that will happen, I have no idea, but I'm not seeing it in the near future.

Jeff_in_Dayton
Jan 2, 2007, 2:58 AM
That German exhibit or symposium on Shrinking Cities is or was online, and you can download book-lenght PDFs on the various case study cities.

I also think there was an article in Metropolis about this, too. (or perhaps just about the Youngstown approach to essentially landbank its former industrial sites as green space).

Another example is the Emscher Park industrial landscape park over in the German Ruhr Region.


In any case the concept seems somewhat realistic or common-sense given the realtys of inner city decline in a lot of these old industrial cities.

sharkfood
Jan 2, 2007, 5:39 PM
In the 1990's, it was common to hear this kind of talk in Philadelphia. It was talk along the lines of "We have fewer people, so we don't need all these houses, and we can build new housing at lower densities."

Of course, after 2000, the market turned around 180 degrees and a construction boom was launched. Seven years later, we have this strange phenomenon of semi-suburban housing built or planned during the dark days of the 1990's standing cheek to jowl next to private market-rate urban rowhomes and condominiums.

The worst example is Jefferson Square in South Philadelphia. When the market was weak, the local CDC planned a development of semi-suburban twins and ranch houses for a small blighted pocket. Then, when the market turned around, developers began putting up new $500,000 rowhouses just outside this pocket. The juxtaposition is horrendous.

Moral of the story: Don't be too quick to write off your city as a "shrinking city." You may live to regret it later.

Marcu
Jan 2, 2007, 9:28 PM
Canadian cities are an entirely different animal. In your country, the government and society actually support the reuse of established cities over new sprawl growth. Here, the scale is tipped all the way to the other side and beyond with our local land policies actually heavily supporting sprawl over reuse.

I heard this several times and I'm curious what specific programs or laws are there in the US that encourage sprawl over reuse (or more so than in Canada)? From my understanding there is actually a fairly large pool of federal money that gets handed out to older cities in block grants. Also, road construction is funded mostly through the gasoline tax (so those who use pay).

J. Will
Jan 2, 2007, 11:18 PM
From my understanding in many parts of the United States small suburbs compete ruthlessly with each other for every new proposed development, and the developer will just wait it out until they get the offer which fleeces the taxpayers worse than the others. That may happen to some extent in Canada, but I don't really hear about it (though I don't follow these things too closely).

Another obvious factor is the dense network of freeways found in/around almost every large American city. This, initially at least (until the traffic becames a nightmare anyways) allows development to occur more and more spread out due to higher average travel speeds. Most Canadian cities don't have any freeways in or near the downtown area, and even those that do (Toronto, Montreal) have far less capacity than even smaller American cities.

LMich
Jan 3, 2007, 12:35 AM
J. Will brings up one of my main gripes, and that's with the number of autonomous suburbs, and such. For instance, every last square mile of my homestate of Michigan is carved up into municipalities with varying levels of self-governance, which in turns decidedly deincentivizes any kind of regional cooperation. For instances, charter townships, created by Michigan's most recent constitution pretty much sets up the particular townships surrounding cities as defacto cities with a lot of the same protections as a city but with much less responsibility. For instances, townships don't have to provide sidewalks, form police and fire departments, provide mass transit...yet, they are treated as cities in such that it's almost impossible for actual incorporated cities to annex them. What you get are Metropolitan Areas that perpetually work against each other instead of them working with eachother against the world.

As for particular ordinances and laws, the province of Ontario, as I understand it, has the power, and used in quite recently, to reshape its local administrative units (towns) merging many of them to cut down on administrative duplicity and duplicity of services. Many states (and even the feds) in this country don't have anywhere near that power. Levels of home rule have been devolved to townships, villages, and cities to such an extent, in my state, that every other tiny, backwaters village and township gets, effectively, the same protections from annexation and merging as an incorporated city. Maybe, this is uniquely Michigan, though.

Another particular ordinances I've seen, locally, is that many of my cities suburbs actually have zoning laws against density. For instance, you can't build two story buildings with ground floor retail and upstairs apartments in the Township of Meridian here in suburban Lansing. As you can see, these townships, which are unincorporated lands on paper, have a tremendous amount of power, more than they should have, IMO.

I'm rambling, but I could go on all day about how much we discourage regionalism in my state and even in most parts of the country where cities have been set up since probably the 60's to war against their suburbs and vice-versa.

Evergrey
Jan 3, 2007, 4:00 AM
Maybe, this is uniquely Michigan, though.



No. The same thing is true in Pennsylvania. The township is the bane of PA's existence. It also seems to be true in much of Ohio.. but not the Columbus area for some reason.

passdoubt
Jan 3, 2007, 5:30 AM
I don't think the situation is the same in Michigan as Pennsylvania. PA has no unincorporated land. Townships are considered to be incorporated. They are simply another type of municipality. It sounds like LMich is saying that Michigan townships are semi-unincorporated or something? That's not the case in PA. PA townships have the same responsibilities toward their constituents as boroughs and cities do. The only difference between the three types of municipality is the structure of the government. I don't think there is any state requirement that certain types of municipalities provide sidewalks and public transit. Lower Merion Township probably provides far more services to its residents than the City of Sunbury. If Ardmore and Bryn Mawr were somehow able to incorporate as boroughs, the only thing that would change would be that they'd keep their tax dollars and elect mayors.

The exclusionary zoning laws and disincentives to regional cooperation are trademark features of municipal fragmentation of course.

LMich
Jan 3, 2007, 5:55 AM
Yes, there are differences, but they function generally in the same fashsion in that they deincentivize regionalism to a great degree. The devolution of limited home to anything outside of incorporated cities has more negative consequences for a region and state than they do positive consequences.

SpongeG
Jan 3, 2007, 6:12 AM
sounds like sim city - maybe he mayors can practice with that game on how to deal when the city starts to fail

shovel_ready
Mar 18, 2007, 2:10 AM
One of the things not often mentioned in these types of discussions is the decline in average househole size. Even if you take suburbanization and urban decay out of the equation... you don't have families with 4-9 kids anymore... which automatically reduces population density. Many of these old northern cities are locked into tiny boundaries (Pittsburgh, for example, is a mere 55 sq. miles)... so a decline in population is pretty much an inevitability due to the decline in household size.


Exactly! In my city, Buffalo, an often unacknowledged factor in the "shrinkage" of our city has been decrease in household size. Most of the neighborhoods here consist of small, detached structures, usually only 1-2 units dense. So logically these old neighborhoods lost tons of people and became low density, as household size sharply shrank and children/grandchildren of working class immigrants dispersed their own families out into the suburban periphery. Couple this with blockbusting/redlining/white flight, it's no wonder half the city is a decaying mess.


In addition, many of the new urban housing developments are targeted towares childless young professionals and empty nesters. I believe the only way to make our core cities "real cities" again is to rehabilitate the urban school districts and make them competative with suburban school districts. Most major cities have horrible public schools, and the cities as a result, continue to lose the family demographic.

Great point! Until cities can find ways to "fix" their schools, most new middle class/affluent in-migration will be restricted to childless singles/couples, along with empty nesters. Basically the city grows as a post-grad dorm and retirement community. You're right cities can't be fully "real" without having all types residents and life cycles involved in the rhythm of the city. Households with children really bring the community element to urban neighborhoods.


How do you rehabilitate urban school districts?

Sorry to say, but the solution to this problem will rattle the cages of those who embrace being PC.

Stop bussing kids all over the city and bring back neighborhood-specific schools.

holladay
Mar 18, 2007, 5:09 AM
I missed this article the first time. Glad it came back around. It makes a great compliment to the article on the greening of Detroit. Shrinkage and vacant lots make for some excellent opportunities in these cities. I really see this as the next wave of American urbanism, wherein our cities are "canvases" that we come back into and "paint" upon in new ways. I think urban redevelopment has to be a very creative and 'activated' process of reclamation, reinvention, reinsertion and remediation. We have to get used to working 'in the margins' - with conditions that are far from ideal and are often fragmented and contradictory in nature. The boundaries, shifts of scale, and juxtapositions of the American city have to be stimulated by any new interventions we add to it. The new and the old have to start talking to one another in a way that is vibrant and progressive, and that can create and encourage more social interaction, new ideas, and local identification.

BTinSF
Mar 18, 2007, 6:46 AM
policies/ordinances change, and that won't change until the people hold their respective local, state, and national governments responsible for poor/uneven land use policies. And, that's not going to change until 'the people' realize how backwards sprawling ourselves to hell is. When that will happen, I have no idea, but I'm not seeing it in the near future.

Precisely. "People" like sprawl, or at least think they do. As keep telling my friends in San Francisco, who are truly mystified about how a Republican keeps getting elected President, not everybody outside our bubble thinks like us. In this case, the bubble is SSP and places like it. Just because we love and admire dense cities doesn't mean that most of our fellow citizens do--and the fact is most of them don't.

Before I retired, I used to do a reverse commute--out of the city to a military base in the exurbs. Everyone else there I worked with lived near the base or even further out. Not only were they all befuddled by my choice to live in the city but they seemed to believe all sort of myths about what it was like. And some of them were openly fearful of going there.

For a while I also worked on Treasure Island in the middle of SF Bay (halfway point on the Bay Bridge). It was a Navy base then and there were several thousand family members of Navy personnel living there. They were about 3 miles across the water (on the bridge) from downtown San Francisco. Lots and lots of them just found it too scary to cross those miles. Mostly they were wives who had grown up in rural areas or the suburbs and the deep, dark downtown of a major city was just foreign territory to them.

My point in all this is that what we call sprawl is the natural environment of a majority of Americans now and there is little constituency to stop more of it from happening.

BTinSF
Mar 18, 2007, 6:51 AM
Stop bussing kids all over the city and bring back neighborhood-specific schools.

That'd help a lot. But I'm afraid you'd also have to fire bad teachers and expel problem kids as well. Catholic schools work in most inner cities areas in spite of drawing kids from all over the city (many of whom ge there by municiple bus) because, no matter what part of town the kids are from, they don't have to be afraid in school and their work will not be disrupted by misbehavior.