You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive
2009-06-13
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. 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.
Ethnic cleansing?
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.
Wasn't this the plot of "RoboCop 3"?
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 give large amounts of money to local governments 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".
Posted by:Fred

#25  enuf late-day CE geek-talk for me
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-13 23:05  

#24  correct - basically CTB, mstrmech, (Cement Treated Base) which is our std Schedule-J pavement under our Standard Designs (thickness/asphalt cover based on ADT/usage)
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-13 23:04  

#23  My father (Civil Engineer) said the best road was asphalt over concrete, he developed a method of plowing cement into the soil, watering it with water rucks, then laying asphalt over the "Stabilsed" Soil. he used this building Interstate 65 from Montgomery to the Georgia border, the road has no cracks today.

Reusing asphalt is also not new, it has been used about 30 years now, bulldoze the asphalt, truck it to a huge "Mixer"(Think cement mixer, but much bigger) add tar and truck back wher you got it, relay it, roll it smooth, and good for another 20 or so years.
Posted by: Mstrmech   2009-06-13 22:58  

#22  in San Diego (and a LOT of other municipalities), recycling the ground-up asphalt is a given. We, however, don't repave as gravel. I suspect that, given release of asphalt oils, that would not be allowed in our region (i.e.: outside of desperationville), and it sounds like a real measure of "we'll NEVER be able to maintain it, let it go back to a dirt road", which it will, evetually. Hellooooo, Governor Granholm (D-Canada)! All your Jeff Daniels' ads aren't fooling anybody
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-13 21:06  

#21  Bulldozing older homes with yards. Replacing them with high density apartments and single family homes on postage stamp lots with Stalinist HOA's.

The new poverty.
Posted by: Iblis   2009-06-13 20:42  

#20  Rural Mich. counties turn failing roads to gravel
"Montcalm County converted nearly 10 miles of primary road to gravel this spring.

The county estimates it takes about $10,000 to grind up a mile of pavement and put down gravel. It takes more than $100,000 to repave a mile of road."
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-06-13 16:52  

#19  Somebody's played SimCity a bit too much.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-06-13 16:28  

#18  Go ahead and bulldoze. But they should consider a monument with a map of the former city when it was great and a map of the present city and a statement to the effect that "This is what happens when unions get greedy and executives get complacent."
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2009-06-13 15:16  

#17  There's another advantage to clearing out these cities. When/where we rebuild it will be with much newer technologies, more efficient infrastructure and without shoe-horning new industries into old buildings and locations.

And between one hundred, to one thousand times more expensive.
Posted by: Mstrmech   2009-06-13 14:23  

#16   No one mentioned that abandoned housing & buildings deteriorate, that deteriorated housing is extremely expensive to make habitable and that this cost increases month by month. Some abandoned buildings in southeastern Michigan actually has a negative value, in that the property's value = value of raw land MINUS the cost of razing the structures on it. Better to bulldoze the structures than to live with that situation. In Texas during their housing crisis of the 1980's, nearly new housing was bulldozed this way for that reason.
There are massive structures in Detroit with negative value, such as the still-smoldering Packard plant that the Detroit Fire Dept is afraid to enter, and the "Abandoned Symbol Of Detroit's Better Days".
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-06-13 13:42  

#15  And here is the silver lining says Mr Kildee: "People will enjoy living near a forest or meadow,"
Posted by: whitecollar redneck   2009-06-13 13:17  

#14  Then the government can build nice, clean, safe high-rise apartment blocks for all the poor people!

Man, am I ever smart!
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-06-13 13:02  

#13  Wait till the left catches on that it's the poor folks that are getting displaced. How much is it going to cost to move the dregs to the upscale part of town?
Posted by: AlanC   2009-06-13 11:15  

#12  "We had to destroy the village to save it."
Posted by: bman   2009-06-13 10:52  

#11  The problem is that Obama, who's seems to have never done an honest day's work in his life, truly believes that Government creates wealth while in truth Government can only consume wealth.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-06-13 10:15  

#10  I also don't mean to dismiss your comments ed -in the big scheme you're right. However & sadly, we won't see any of those sorts of policies until Obama's out of office and we have a business smart pres back in the W.H. I just hope when that time comes it's not too late to un-f*ck what Wonderboy has brought upon the country.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2009-06-13 09:56  

#9  being from metro Detroit and having family near Flint I have no problem w/this. Detroit already has miles of "urban prarie" within it. In the 1950s we (Detroit proper, not the suburbs) boasted 1.5-1.8 Million people, in 2000's we are maybe at 900,000 - if lucky. Return the land to nature, fine. Right now both cities look like DMZ's - which they pretty much are.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2009-06-13 09:50  

#8  Cities can be thought of as public factories to produce a wide variety of goods and services. Cities, unlike factories, are not easily shut down or reorganized when demands for outputs shift or demography changes. Think of those abandoned strip malls that stand empty for years on end before a Goodwill or, if one is lucky, Gold's Gym moves in. Pretty, ain't it?
Posted by: Perfesser   2009-06-13 09:27  

#7  Shovel-ready work for those 20% might not be a bad idea.
Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091   2009-06-13 09:23  

#6  How about implementing rational economic and trade policies that brings work and wealth back to America so the cities can once again have gainfully employed workers raising families, needing housing, spending money? Beats the drug dealers and whores creating demand for abandoned crack houses. Ya know, the things leaders are really SUPPOSED TO DO.

Old Flint
Posted by: ed   2009-06-13 09:22  

#5  US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Start with everything inside the Beltway. Just leave the mall's immediate surrounding edifices and the Smithsonian standing.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-06-13 09:15  

#4  Got to get those D9's back on the assembly line in Peoria.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2009-06-13 08:29  

#3  There's another advantage to clearing out these cities. When/where we rebuild it will be with much newer technologies, more efficient infrastructure and without shoe-horning new industries into old buildings and locations.

Of course, the left would be horrified to realize they are proposing just exactly the sort of creative destruction that Schumpeter pointed out is at the core of capitalism. ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2009-06-13 08:23  

#2  No need to leave these ghost towns standing simply to remind our children of the greatness that once was industrial America but is now.....thanks to the unions and the politicians, modern China. The entire country belongs to the gummit "eminently" anyway. Let the D9's roll!
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-13 07:11  

#1  I understand, anything but lower home prices.
Make homes harder to find equals artificial shortage.
Posted by: Mstrmech   2009-06-13 05:41  

00:00