Thursday, April 30, 2009
There was a really short but gripping article in the New York Times about how to manage declining cities. From the intro:
(For other commentary see here and here.) Although the topic of population decline merits more attention, it seems like there are lots of problems with Flint's proposal. How exactly will local governments figure out what areas are “viable?” Does this do anything to bring back jobs to the Rust Belt? How does block-wide demolition address the larger regional morass? Does this destroy cultural heritage? Is destruction really better than focused rehabilitation? Won't this kind of thing just happen naturally, without government involvement? Would demolition money be better spent on cops and schools?