Quote:
Originally Posted by harls
Same. Places don't need to grow to become 'great'.
*awaits ssp bombardment*
|
Since you're awaiting bombardment I assume you have responses for any potential objections.
I think it's true that that growth isn't strictly necessary to achieve greatness in a technical sense, but exceptions are also pretty rare. Like someone without a wealthy background becoming rich without a successful career or business ventures. Sure they can win the lottery or marry into wealth or something. But those are comparatively rare. It's fairly common for cities to remain great long after growth ceases allowing them to coast on their legacy of greatness established during their growing heydays. But "become great" implies fairly significant change, and change has to be powered by something.
Growth tends to be the most common driver of change for a city. Planners can direct growth in all sorts of different ways but such plans don't do much with no growth happening. Most cities lack the funds to make really significant changes when they're not growing as they usually have a hard enough time maintaining or replacing what they already have. So growth creates huge opportunities for cities even if not all cities handle the opportunity well.
How many cities can you think of that went from not being great to having greatness during periods of population stagnation or decline? Cities that most would not consider great when they first reached whatever size they remained at? I'm having trouble thinking of anything but "still great" cities which is quite different.