US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

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.

""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."
_____________________________________________________________________________

good idea or great idea?

6/24/2009 10:53:46 AM

Slick. I wonder how long it will be before we have to implement some plan like this here in our lovely megaburb.

6/24/2009 11:02:30 AM

it should be pointed out that this is a "bottom up" proposal, not a "top down" proposal.
Several of the towns have made this proposal themselves, and the administration is "considering it." It's not like the Administration had a brain storm and said "hey, lets go raze some towns. I'll start calling mayors"

6/24/2009 11:07:24 AM

Interesting. There are many cities where this could be a good thing...if you get rid of the farther-flung districts you can consolidate, as they say. The preservationist in me despairs a bit at demolishing entire neighborhoods (this was commonly done during the urban renewal heyday of the 60's and 70's and is now generally regarded as a big mistake) but generally the more historic areas are closer to the city center and so likely would be spared. If coupled with a cleanup of blighted inner-city/downtown areas (aggressive policing plus selling older/historic properties with restoration covenants attached often works), I could see this working.

However, I tend to have little faith that plans like this will be implemented correctly by local governments (or the government in general, really).

6/24/2009 11:29:24 AM

Awesome.

6/24/2009 11:51:22 AM

So I'd imagine that houses are dirt cheap in these communities. Wouldn't destroying 40% of the available housing cause an upward trend in house prices? I guess it's fine for people that already have a home, but I'd imagine it's a bad thing for people looking for an affordable home in an area that is already depressed economically.

Just throwing this out there.

6/24/2009 11:53:46 AM

They wouldn't go around knocking down any old house.

There are blocks and blocks in Flint/Detroit, etc. that have dozens of houses that no one will buy for $100.00... There just piece of shit shanties that house crackheads and whomever else. Not places that anyone would want to live.

$1,900 in Flint ($10.00 per month lulz) http://www.homes.com/listing/84238071/3601_Comstock_Ave_FLINT_MI_48504

$3,000 in Flint w/ huge yard http://www.homes.com/listing/90125803/FLINT_MI_48504

And here is a block that could be considered "bulldozable" in Detroit (not sure if this is a real block though, I have seen many photoshops in my time) Actually it's just a shanty collage....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3408925371_daedab3e47_o.jpg



[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 12:26 PM. Reason : j]

6/24/2009 12:17:41 PM

Oh. Wow. Too bad Robocop had free will and decided to peace out.

6/24/2009 12:24:38 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't destroying 40% of the available housing cause an upward trend in house prices"

I should have mentioned that 40% of the "available" housing is 190% unlivable.

6/24/2009 12:29:28 PM

Quote :

"And here is a block that could be considered "bulldozable" in Detroit (not sure if this is a real block though, I have seen many photoshops in my time) Actually it's just a shanty collage.... http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3408925371_daedab3e47_o.jpg"

wow, i believe thats a stiched together picture of one street. the house numbers seem to follow the correct pattern. thats crazy

6/24/2009 12:38:25 PM

the fourth and fifth houses from the left actually look pretty nice. now maybe they're shitholes inside. hard to tell.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 12:40:27 PM

Or they are surrounded by condemned shitholes. Not many will pay $3,000 for a decent house that has been foreclosed/trashed/whatever and be surrounded by shit. It'd cost them 10 times what the house cost to get most of them livable again...

6/24/2009 12:45:28 PM

i heard a story no npr a few months ago about a neighborhood like this that was being taken over by artists. basically one artist moved in and he decided to try to get other artists to move in since it was so cheap. and then if enough moved in, the neighborhood would improve. i believe it was in detroit. i think they even had some community projects like a solar house or something like that. of course the biggest problem with all of this is the crime that happens when you've got one fairly nice block surrounded by a city of blight. so you have a security system + dog + gun just to begin to feel safe in a place like that.

6/24/2009 12:54:13 PM

I live in Denver and there are some pretty shitty spots.

A developer bought a whole block a few years ago and razed it completely. He then gave the land to the city for a community garden. The area is surrounded by various shelters and many of the shelters ask the inhabitants to volunteer. The block looks less shitty and the volunteers have a sense of pride in keeping the garden nice.

Since then, there are now 80 community gardens around Denver. They feed the low income and homeless in the immediate area and make the area look much less blighted.

6/24/2009 1:05:58 PM

woohoo bulldoze!

its good for my business

aside from that, i like the idea of returning it to nature (if it actually happens) and can help improve quality of life. i'm all for it. i dont know much about the details but so far it sounds good.

6/24/2009 2:08:59 PM

I think this is actually probably a pretty sound idea. It isn't even like most of these are place are inhabited at this point.

Also, this isn't exactly related but New York City is in a pretty big battle over using eminent domain to get rid of a bunch of chop shops across the street from Citi Field/United States Tennis Center in order to build a huge park/retail area. I'm really hoping it works out because the area will go from:



to



[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 2:12 PM. Reason : z]

6/24/2009 2:11:40 PM

I hope this idea finds its way to Greensboro and the entire city is leveled.

6/24/2009 2:14:48 PM

They should bulldoze Method Rd. and start over.

Oh yeah, and that shithole behind Taco Bell on Western.

6/24/2009 2:21:05 PM

^^^They did it in San Diego when they built PETCO.

The gaslamp was a total shithole and no one would go there at night. They tore everything down and put up lofts, restaurants, decent places to shop, etc.

6/24/2009 2:22:39 PM

As long as the houses are completely unlivable and the projects are appropriated and implemented correctly, this sounds like a good idea.

6/24/2009 2:32:20 PM

NYM that area looks shady as fuck

Here's a pic of PETCO when they first opened, I can't find any pics of the surrounding slums. It was essentially surrounded by dive bars and XXX theaters. The old building that sticks out in left field is one of the original buildings. That area is very popular now, it revitalized the whole area around it.

http://www.transitmiami.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/petco-park.jpg

6/24/2009 2:54:33 PM

Quote :

"i heard a story no npr a few months ago about a neighborhood like this that was being taken over by artists. basically one artist moved in and he decided to try to get other artists to move in since it was so cheap. and then if enough moved in, the neighborhood would improve. i believe it was in detroit."

i read an article (in rolling stone?) about a mayor of a town like this.. it was south of pittsburgh. a place called Braddock, and even tho it is cheap and it was starting to be "turned around" it is still in a highly industrialized area so you have to deal with the fact that there is a steel mill (or other supporting industries) right down the block (pollution, noise, etc). they said there was an ever-present hissing from the factory that produced gas used in the steel mills. plus you are living in the slums where all of the locals see you as the guy trying to raise property values so they cant afford to live there any more.

6/24/2009 3:08:17 PM

haven't yet clicked on the links or read any of this, but is the lower ninth ward of Nawlins a part of this plan?

also, where would the people currently there go and what would they do?

i'm not too sure about all this..

6/24/2009 4:18:24 PM

and while artists in one city may be doing this and seeing success, it doesn't seem like something that can be replicated in other cities across the US

6/24/2009 4:18:28 PM

^^It's not like Robocop where they give people 24 hours notice, put them in buses and then nuke the area. They'd do it one block at a time.

It would take years of planning... and no, they might not attract artists but there's plenty of other uses for land when you raze a city block or two

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM. Reason : d]

6/24/2009 4:25:40 PM

returning urban sprawl to nature would be the most incredible thing to happen in my lifetime, as far as i'm concerned.

6/24/2009 5:42:13 PM

Quote :

"Also, this isn't exactly related but New York City is in a pretty big battle over using eminent domain to get rid of a bunch of chop shops across the street from Citi Field/United States Tennis Center in order to build a huge park/retail area. I'm really hoping it works out because the area will go from:"

Unfortunately the Kelo decision paved the way for this. The state should never be permitted to use eminent domain for the financial benefit of one section over another, no matter how distasteful the losing group is.

6/24/2009 5:44:15 PM

^Now that I agree with. Even if it's a bunch of shady shit, kicking them out via eminent domain and letting developers rebuild on the land, even if the projects are worthwhile, should be illegal b/c it profits the developers at the expense of the previous landowners. If the land is worth building on, the developers should buy it out at market rate, not demand the government go get it for them.

I don't think that enters into the original argument though--most of the houses bulldozed are unoccupied already, the city can buy the land for peanuts, the displaced residents will be given opportunites to buy/rent in other remaining districts, and there is no financial benefit involved, unless you count the general rise in property values due to a declining stock of housing, and the benefit to the city itself from the contraction of services.

6/24/2009 6:05:25 PM

should bulldoze all residential in DC and make it only business and government

6/24/2009 6:34:37 PM

they should start by bulldozing all the ghettos

6/24/2009 7:24:10 PM

i.e. getting rid of all the blacks

6/24/2009 8:01:34 PM

i had to do this on sim city


you know how u try to set the infrastructure for some city the size of Houston, but then u cant handle shit so by the time youre done whittling it down its basically a 4x4 grid of road, pipe, and power lines with a police station attached

6/24/2009 10:20:07 PM

O'BAMA HATES POOR PEOPLE!!!11111

6/24/2009 10:52:37 PM

Quote :

" A developer bought a whole block a few years ago and razed it completely. He then gave the land to the city for a community garden. The area is surrounded by various shelters and many of the shelters ask the inhabitants to volunteer. The block looks less shitty and the volunteers have a sense of pride in keeping the garden nice. Since then, there are now 80 community gardens around Denver. They feed the low income and homeless in the immediate area and make the area look much less blighted."

That's awesome.

6/24/2009 11:17:10 PM

Quote :

"i had to do this on sim city"

haha, my thoughts exactly. Anyone who's played that game understands the logic behind this decision.

6/25/2009 9:01:08 AM

Biggest question is whos paying for it. I honestly can see this done up north (flint, Detroit) but whos paying, those towns are broke.

Also, who owns the land afterwards? If emmient domain gets involved, what are they doing with it after its done?

On a slightly different look, start a real life "what happens when people leave" experiment in one of these areas.

6/25/2009 2:44:21 PM

^Just an example and it probably couldn't happen everywhere... there was a shitty old gas station near my neighborhood that had been boarded up and tagged for several years.

Our town asked a local construction company to donate time and equipment to demolish it, which took two days total. A couple 1-800-GOT-JUNK people donated their time, trucks and laborers to haul the stuff away in one day. A local restaurant catered food for all the workers over two days.

The gas station was an empty two acre lot within 48 hours. A few days later, the major newspaper ran a 1/2 page ad with the company names/volunteers, etc. thanking them for their efforts and listing how to get a hold of them with some pics of the demo.

The lot is just an empty lot now but there is a for sale sign up. It looks 100x more appealing then it did before. I don't know who is selling it though...

6/25/2009 3:00:55 PM

well flint still seems able to make good college bball players

6/28/2009 3:52:04 AM

The logic behind "shrinking to survive" evades me. What's wrong with letting a town die?

6/28/2009 5:08:52 PM

Quote :

"I hope this idea finds its way to Greensboro and the entire city High Point Road and E. Market St. are leveled"

fixed it for you

6/28/2009 5:16:24 PM

this thread makes the free market weep you communist motherfuckers

6/28/2009 6:49:18 PM

this seems like a waste of money.

6/28/2009 7:52:49 PM

^^^ Nah, Greensboro needs to die.

6/28/2009 8:10:54 PM

i never understood the hate for greensboro on here. it's not like it's a threat to raleigh's way of life

6/28/2009 8:23:18 PM