Fixing the Rust Belt by Shrinking It

This blog entry posted in the Atlantic yesterday highlights the most egregious flaw with the Detroit Works project, which is that it doesn't address the actual problem:

Quote:

---

The problem with former industrial cities that have lost population isn’t just the changing economy. It’s also a failure to address suburban sprawl.
A close look at population data reveals that, while the populations within central cities’ jurisdictional boundaries have declined substantially, their suburbs have actually grown. The result is that, if one defines "city" as the contiguous urbanized area within a metro region, regardless of political boundaries – the definition that matters to the economy and the environment – the shrinkage may vanish or be shown as far less than we think.
In short, "shrinking cities" have really been hollowing out more than shrinking. Any policy tools that fail to recognize this have little chance of improving the situation, in my opinion.

---

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...inking-it/874/

Every major city in the industrial Midwest has this problem but the situation seems most acute in Michigan cities.

Quote:

---

So: regardless of what’s happening in the suburbs, holding on to a city’s core population appears important to overall regional success. Unfortunately, finding policy mechanisms to promote that outcome in the U.S., with our highly decentralized and fragmented patterns of municipal governance, remains a formidable challenge well beyond the scope of a brief blog post.

---

If you think that the problem is the "hollowing-out" of the region, then a Detroit Works-style initiative can't fix it. However, I don't think that is actually the problem. In my view, the problem is that in the process of hollowing-out, you lose most of the parts of the region that are actually urban, leaving a region that is missing a key type of living and working arrangement.

There are two fundamental ideas behind a city shrinkage plan. One is to reduce costs and/or improve services by reducing the area being served. The second is to make the urban areas denser and more viable. That is the part that is important to the region.

It doesn't matter to the region if anyone is living near City Airport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

If you think that the problem is the "hollowing-out" of the region, then a Detroit Works-style initiative can't fix it. However, I don't think that is actually the problem. In my view, the problem is that in the process of hollowing-out, you lose most of the parts of the region that are actually urban, leaving a region that is missing a key type of living and working arrangement.

There are two fundamental ideas behind a city shrinkage plan. One is to reduce costs and/or improve services by reducing the area being served. The second is to make the urban areas denser and more viable. That is the part that is important to the region.

It doesn't matter to the region if anyone is living near City Airport.

---

I don't see the difference between the two interpretations, at least in regards to Detroit's situation. It's not like dense inner-city neighborhoods are being abandoned for similarly dense suburban areas. The trend -- as I have interpreted it -- has been to allow increasingly lower density developments on the urban fringe that have had the effect of destabilizing the population in the denser core areas. Detroit Works does not [[and cannot) address that. And really, only the state has the power to address that right now.

I think the Detroit Works program can work. If you look at Europe and England more specifically, they have cities that have dense downtown areas surrounded by "green belts". I think that if we condense Detroit and install a green belt around the city proper, it will not only help with future sprawal but it might force a negotiation of the current city/suburb situation and create an environment for a self-righting of the current situation.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

. The trend -- as I have interpreted it -- has been to allow increasingly lower density developments on the urban fringe that have had the effect of destabilizing the population in the denser core areas.

---

You are making my point. The exodus to lower-density areas has destabilized the only significant high-density area in the region, hence the region no longer can accomodate those uses effectively. A Detroit Works-type initiative is precisely intended to stabilize the denser areas, by encouraging in-migration and improving the city's finances. Now maybe that won't work, but the idea seems correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycloneman

I think the Detroit Works program can work. If you look at Europe and England more specifically, they have cities that have dense downtown areas surrounded by "green belts". I think that if we condense Detroit and install a green belt around the city proper, it will not only help with future sprawal but it might force a negotiation of the current city/suburb situation and create an environment for a self-righting of the current situation.

Just a thought.

---

The difference in Europe, especially in England, is that city governments are contiguous with metropolitan areas. So when they plan a greenbelt around the "city" it's around the metropolitan area. The Detroit area economy acts in a far more connected way than its system of government[[s), hence the dysfunction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

You are making my point. The exodus to lower-density areas has destabilized the only significant high-density area in the region, hence the region no longer can accomodate those uses effectively. A Detroit Works-type initiative is precisely intended to stabilize the denser areas, by encouraging in-migration and improving the city's finances. Now maybe that won't work, but the idea seems correct.

---

Yeah, but how do you stabilize the center without more actively controlling development on the fringe? Even Chicago, which has probably by far the healthiest core of any industrial Midwest city, lost a significant amount of population in the city to development on the fringe over the past decade.

To take it a step further... Contrast Metro Chicago with Metro New York. Chicago Metro grew by 4% over the past decade while New York Metro grew by only 3.1%. Yet, Chicago city decreased in population by nearly 7% [[-200,000 residents), while New York City grew by 2.1% [[+170,000 residents). I don't know the specifics, but the New York area has very strict development policies which probably deter fringe exurban development much more than in the Chicago area.

Half right, Metro Detroit is not exactly in sprawl mode these days. Yes you will be able to cherry pick projects along the periphery, but you will be able to cherry pick a lot more going on in the central City and first ring suburbs.

Our region has lost an incredible number of jobs that has resulted in tens of thousands leaving the region. Its going to take quite a while for a sprawl machine to start back up again. If the pressure ever starts again, the region has policies that favor redevelopment over expansion of sewers and other infastructure [[roads). I'm not saying that the tempation won't be there for the townships to want to try to expand thier tax base, but the costs of doing so are now prohibitive and the money is not there to expand sewers or roads in such a haphazard fashion.

The problem isn't jobs. It's policy.

Whatever good solutions there are for metro Detroit, you can be sure that, thanks to our "home rule" leadership and anti-transit constitution, as well as the horde of outstate yahoos in Lansing, any good solution will be employed in the most harmful, destructive or meaningless way.

The exurbs must be returned to agricultural use or greenbelt. In 20 years, we'll look upon that living arrangement as we now stare in wonder at gas-guzzling cars of the 1950s. The city has "good bones" for rebuilding and repopulating and reinvesting, but that's precisely the area targeted for "downsizing."

What we have is poor policy, no vision and no leadership. Just dozens of bickering self-appointed "cities" that increasingly lack appeal for people who've been past Toledo a few times in their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

The problem isn't jobs. It's policy.

---

Correct. A lack of money for all is changing policy. Its far from perfect, but it is turning policies away from the expansion of sewers and road networks to preservation. Once bit, twice shy. Now that preservation of infastructure is clearly the most prefered option, there is little money out there to put the infastructure in that will keep pulling folks farther out.