so now we erase cities to save money?

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...-order-to-survive.html

ok I can understand the premise....get rid of what is essentially ghost towns.

BUT the question becomes wtf to do with all the shit that is gonna be generated by razing them?

just leave it in nice neat little piles scattered around the countryside and hope it just disappears?

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.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, 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.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

"The real question is not whether these cities shrink ? we're all shrinking ? but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way," said Mr Kildee. "Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity."

Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective programme at the University of California, Berkeley, said there was "both a cultural and political taboo" about admitting decline in America.

"Places like Flint have hit rock bottom. They're at the point where it's better to start knocking a lot of buildings down," she said.

Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.

Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.

The exodus ? particularly of young people ? coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.

In the city centre, the once grand Durant Hotel ? named after William Durant, GM's founder ? is a symbol of the city's decline, said Mr Kildee. The large building has been empty since 1973, roughly when Flint's decline began.

Regarded as a model city in the motor industry's boom years, Flint may once again be emulated, though for very different reasons.

But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl ? Flint covers 34 square miles.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

But some Flint dustcarts are collecting just one rubbish bag a week, roads are decaying, police are very understaffed and there were simply too few people to pay for services, he said.

If the city didn't downsize it will eventually go bankrupt, he added.

Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas.

Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

Already, some streets peter out into woods or meadows, no trace remaining of the homes that once stood there.

Choosing which areas to knock down will be delicate but many of them were already obvious, he said.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

"Much of the land will be given back to nature. People will enjoy living near a forest or meadow," he said.

Mr Kildee acknowledged that some fellow Americans considered his solution "defeatist" but he insisted it was "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again".
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
This is kind of funny because a couple of months ago I asked if we shouldnt be bulldozing homes. It will shrink the house market supply and provide jobs for the cleanup. I was saying it half jokingly but I wonder if it isnt "that" bad of an idea.
 

Falloutboy

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2003
5,916
0
76
have a coworker who had 4 rental home in flint, they been vacant the past 5 months, and he finally decided to let them just go into forclosure, hey owes about 50G on the 4 total, and they are worth maybe 5-8grand apease (for a HOME!)
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
:music: nah nah nah-nah-nah, nah nah nah-nah-nah, I'm a Flintoid, Yeah... :music:

It's actually pretty sad. The population there is shrinking so badly, that my Alma Mater (Flint Central High School, Class of '86) was given the axe. Class of '09 was its last. :(

Holy Shit, I got some memories about that old building. Well, given its "secrets", I reckon a lot of people do.

What will happen with the new "wilderness" areas in Flint... Considering where they are likely to be, I predict lots of drug deals and more than a few dead bodies.

Feral lands, to support communities that went feral upon them more than 25 years ago.

Great idea. Just about as Whiz-Bang as AutoWorld. :roll:

 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I saw a recent article about a city (Buffalo?) where someone was about to turn an entire city block into an agricultural area for farming (food, not animals.) They felt that such a community garden area would help increase local neighborhood pride, eliminate eyesores (the houses being torn down), etc. Sounded like a great idea to me.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
This year there was an article on the onion about how they'll knock down detroit. I guess reality follows theonion.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Sounds like something the UN and their Agenda 21 push will have a part in.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
This is kind of funny because a couple of months ago I asked if we shouldnt be bulldozing homes. It will shrink the house market supply and provide jobs for the cleanup. I was saying it half jokingly but I wonder if it isnt "that" bad of an idea.

How do the banks deal with the finances behind this?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
sometimes I give serious thought to moving to a place like that where I could actually own something and working from home full-time.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Genx87
This is kind of funny because a couple of months ago I asked if we shouldnt be bulldozing homes. It will shrink the house market supply and provide jobs for the cleanup. I was saying it half jokingly but I wonder if it isnt "that" bad of an idea.

How do the banks deal with the finances behind this?

Well in certain areas I'd imagine they'd be happy to get almost anything they can for what is almost worthless foreclosed property at this point. In the areas that have been really economically depressed for decades, there are probably blocks of houses that aren't even suitable to live in anymore.

But at the same time, if you only bulldoze property that was completely worthless anyway, you aren't going to raise housing prices because you didn't actually reduce the supply of housing.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,794
4,887
136
Topic Title: so now we erase cities to save money?

Nice.

I'm going out to trim my trees of dead branches; perhaps you'd prefer I call it "Global Deforestation"?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,618
6,173
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Might be easier to just relocate people where there are services available.

Not a terrible idea, but if there are no Jobs you'll end up supporting those people.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Genx87
This is kind of funny because a couple of months ago I asked if we shouldnt be bulldozing homes. It will shrink the house market supply and provide jobs for the cleanup. I was saying it half jokingly but I wonder if it isnt "that" bad of an idea.

How do the banks deal with the finances behind this?

Well in certain areas I'd imagine they'd be happy to get almost anything they can for what is almost worthless foreclosed property at this point. In the areas that have been really economically depressed for decades, there are probably blocks of houses that aren't even suitable to live in anymore.

But at the same time, if you only bulldoze property that was completely worthless anyway, you aren't going to raise housing prices because you didn't actually reduce the supply of housing.

Yes, I think you will raise property values by razing worthless properties. Vacant buildings are about as bad an eyesore as you can have as a neighbor, are dangerous for neighborhood children, provide dens for homeless and drug addict people, and are fire hazards. Much better to have a vacant lot, and even better to have a natural area or even community garden as some have proposed.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
The problem is how do you get the remaining people to move?
I can imagine the shitstorm if they try to use eminent domain.

That said, it is an intriguing idea. The value of cities has always been the concentration of people, services, etc. Yet with suburbanization all but the largest cities have become decentralized, losing their traditional value as "cities".
More centralized cities would restore things like energy efficient transportation, centrally located services, etc.

I can sort of see this happening a bit on its own, as some cities have seen a revitalized downtown as people have moved back into the city centers.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: loki8481
sometimes I give serious thought to moving to a place like that where I could actually own something and working from home full-time.

Lots of people in Flint work from home full time. If you wish to join their ranks, I would 1) install a hefty exhaust fan over your bathtub and 2) buy some guns.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
The problem is how do you get the remaining people to move?
I can imagine the shitstorm if they try to use eminent domain.

That said, it is an intriguing idea. The value of cities has always been the concentration of people, services, etc. Yet with suburbanization all but the largest cities have become decentralized, losing their traditional value as "cities".
More centralized cities would restore things like energy efficient transportation, centrally located services, etc.

I can sort of see this happening a bit on its own, as some cities have seen a revitalized downtown as people have moved back into the city centers.

Why do you need to force the remaining people to move. I for one would like to have my own city block.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: techs
The problem is how do you get the remaining people to move?
I can imagine the shitstorm if they try to use eminent domain.

That said, it is an intriguing idea. The value of cities has always been the concentration of people, services, etc. Yet with suburbanization all but the largest cities have become decentralized, losing their traditional value as "cities".
More centralized cities would restore things like energy efficient transportation, centrally located services, etc.

I can sort of see this happening a bit on its own, as some cities have seen a revitalized downtown as people have moved back into the city centers.

Why do you need to force the remaining people to move. I for one would like to have my own city block.

From what I hear from your neighbors they think you should have your own city block, too.
:D
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,965
140
106
I recall it happened in texas years ago. too much unsold property on the market so they dozed it. shopping centers too.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Genx87
This is kind of funny because a couple of months ago I asked if we shouldnt be bulldozing homes. It will shrink the house market supply and provide jobs for the cleanup. I was saying it half jokingly but I wonder if it isnt "that" bad of an idea.

How do the banks deal with the finances behind this?

Well in certain areas I'd imagine they'd be happy to get almost anything they can for what is almost worthless foreclosed property at this point. In the areas that have been really economically depressed for decades, there are probably blocks of houses that aren't even suitable to live in anymore.

But at the same time, if you only bulldoze property that was completely worthless anyway, you aren't going to raise housing prices because you didn't actually reduce the supply of housing.

Yes, I think you will raise property values by razing worthless properties. Vacant buildings are about as bad an eyesore as you can have as a neighbor, are dangerous for neighborhood children, provide dens for homeless and drug addict people, and are fire hazards. Much better to have a vacant lot, and even better to have a natural area or even community garden as some have proposed.

This. Many communities are beginning to catch on. Both Birmingham and Mobile have started programs the past few years to bulldoze blighted/abandoned/burnt properties. It really does help the neighborhoods surrounding those houses. People tend to take more pride in their communities when every other house isn't a half-burnt potential crackhouse.