Cool cities theory rebutted? Cleveland and Detroit

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 12:05 PM

David Rusk groups Detroit and Cleveland together as cities that are unable to annex surrounding communities, and are therefore doomed to what he calls "inelasticity."

http://www.sprawlwatch.org/regionalannex.html

The following material is excerpted with written permission from How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl, a briefing guide for funders by David Bollier. [[Washington, D.C.: Essential Books), 1998.

David Rusk convincingly argues that the "real city" necessarily includes both the central city and suburbs. Unless political jurisdictions reflect this fact, the population and economic growth of most cities will suffer.

Through detailed historical statistics, Rusk shows in Cities Without Suburbs that the most economically robust cities have been "elastic cities" -- that is, they have been able to expand their borders through consolidation or annexation of suburbs and thus "capture" new growth in the metro area.

Cities that are "inelastic" tend to be older, more complacent and more racially segregated, as well as more impoverished. Examples include Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville and Milwaukee. Cities that are elastic tend to be newer and more ambitious, less segregated and more economically robust. Examples include Houston, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, Seattle and Austin. Rusk argues that elastic cities are more successful because they practice some form of regionalism.

Emphasis added ...

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by BShea

I lived there in the 1970s. My family still is there. They were business owners there and politicians. We experienced it first hand. The crime, the nasty city buses, the slummy neighborhoods, being unable to walk to and from ballgames, the rotting hulks of ships along the river, etc. It was an absolute shithole.

Perhaps you should do a live remote from E 93rd and Miles, and tell us how much more terrific Cleveland is than when you lived there in the 1970s. I guarantee you, however, that you will find:

Crime
Nasty city buses
Slummy neighborhoods
Being unable to walk just about anywhere
An absolute shithole

DC48080 · October-25-10, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

David Rusk groups Detroit and Cleveland together as cities that are unable to annex surrounding communities, and are therefore doomed to what he calls "inelasticity."

http://www.sprawlwatch.org/regionalannex.html

The following material is excerpted with written permission from How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl, a briefing guide for funders by David Bollier. [[Washington, D.C.: Essential Books), 1998.

David Rusk convincingly argues that the "real city" necessarily includes both the central city and suburbs. Unless political jurisdictions reflect this fact, the population and economic growth of most cities will suffer.

Through detailed historical statistics, Rusk shows in Cities Without Suburbs that the most economically robust cities have been "elastic cities" -- that is, they have been able to expand their borders through consolidation or annexation of suburbs and thus "capture" new growth in the metro area.

Cities that are "inelastic" tend to be older, more complacent and more racially segregated, as well as more impoverished. Examples include Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville and Milwaukee. Cities that are elastic tend to be newer and more ambitious, less segregated and more economically robust. Examples include Houston, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, Seattle and Austin. Rusk argues that elastic cities are more successful because they practice some form of regionalism.

Emphasis added ...

In order for one city to annex another, consent must be given [[through an election) by the citizens of the municipality that is to be annexed. I seriously doubt that any suburban cities would choose to become part of the mess that is Detroit. This isn't the 1920s anymore. Detroit is not the be all and end all place to be.

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 12:16 PM

Anyway, I was never quite sure about the whole Cool Cities thing. Sounded like a good way for Mr. Florida to earn a living, lecturing people and earning honorariums and such. But what's the idea of Cool Cities? Is it that my neighborhood will be better off if I move out and a gay Bengali software-writer moves into my apartment instead of me?

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

In order for one city to annex another, consent must be given [[through an election) by the citizens of the municipality that is to be annexed. I seriously doubt that any suburban cities would choose to become part of the mess that is Detroit. This isn't the 1920s anymore. Detroit is not the be all and end all place to be.

Yeah ... um ... you totally missed the point. So what else is new ...

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

In order for one city to annex another, consent must be given [[through an election) by the citizens of the municipality that is to be annexed. I seriously doubt that any suburban cities would choose to become part of the mess that is Detroit. This isn't the 1920's anymore. Detroit is not the be all and end all place to be.

Annexation doesn't actually solve the problem of the urban core, either--it only masks it. Anecdotal experience suggests that rotted urban cores in cities that annex tend to remain rotted urban cores. The only difference is that cities who annex their suburbs have boosted population numbers and "shared" revenues. They do, however, have a much more vast expanse of real estate to service. The problems, however, are still there. Proponents of annexation make it seem like the 'hood just starts to roll in cash with every new farm added within the city limits. Columbus is Exhibit "A".

On the other hand, you have places like Boston [[about 50 square miles) that provide a far healthier urban environment than any annexing sprawlopolis like Jacksonville or Indianapolis.

DC48080 · October-25-10, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

But what's the idea of Cool Cities? Is it that my neighborhood will be better off if I move out and a gay Bengali software-writer moves into my apartment instead of me?

LOL at that one.

The whole "Cool Cities" thing is flat out ridiculous. People choose a city in which to live not by some "coolness" factor. They choose based on more important things like a decent environment in which to raise a family, schools, crime, expenses.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

LOL at that one.

The whole "Cool Cities" thing is flat out ridiculous. People choose a city in which to live not by some "coolness" factor. They choose based on more important things like a decent environment in which to raise a family, schools, crime, expenses.

Makes you wonder why Michigan kids are moving to Chicago en masse, then? Must be the low taxes....

DC48080 · October-25-10, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Yeah ... um ... you totally missed the point. So what else is new ...

A bit arrogant, are we? What else is new

**iheartthed** · October-25-10, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

LOL at that one.

The whole "Cool Cities" thing is flat out ridiculous. People choose a city in which to live not by some "coolness" factor. They choose based on more important things like a decent environment in which to raise a family, schools, crime, expenses.

That's why people choose suburbs. That is not why people choose cities.

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

A bit arrogant, are we? What else is new

Call me names if it makes you feel better.

The point Rusk makes, as former mayor of Albuquerque and as a policy analyst, is well-taken.

Metro regions that historically allow their core city to annex development as it happens have more regionalism and more regional assets.

Metro regions that historically deny their core city the right to annex development as it happens have little regionalism and suffer more from urban disinvenstment.

Of course, there is a death spiral implicity in the second example, where the central city becomes so disinvested that suburban governments guard their "home rule" all the more jealously. I think you're a pretty good example of that. Unfortunately, in Rusk's analysis, it's a region-killer, not just a city-killer. So too bad for us all in metro Detroit in the long run ...

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Call me names if it makes you feel better.

The point Rusk makes, as former mayor of Albuquerque and as a policy analyst, is well-taken.

Metro regions that historically allow their core city to annex development as it happens have more regionalism and more regional assets.

Metro regions that historically deny their core city the right to annex development as it happens have little regionalism and suffer more from urban disinvenstment.

I don't know if I agree with that as a rule. The healthiest urban environments in this country are in cities that have long ago been "landlocked" by political boundaries. Most of the cities that annex are little more than sprawling messes. Changing the name of the place doesn't inherently change policy.

DC48080 · October-25-10, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Metro regions that historically deny their core city the right to annex development as it happens have little regionalism and suffer more from urban disinvenstment.

No "core" city has a right to annex development outside of it's borders.

People moved out of large cities and developed suburbs to escape the problems that were, and still are, inherent to the big cities. If those suburban cities allowed themselves to be annexed to the big city the problems would be visited on them once again.

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I don't know if I agree with that as a rule. The healthiest urban environments in this country are in cities that have long ago been "landlocked" by political boundaries. Most of the cities that annex are little more than sprawling messes. Changing the name of the place doesn't inherently change policy.

This is to say nothing of urban design, ghetto. I guess I'd ask what post-1915 growth in the United States wasn't sprawl. Rusk's point is that central cities that could annex the peripheral growth as it happened were able to capture the taxation and help fund regionalism. Were these same cities complicity in sprawl? I imagine many were. But this tendency against annexation is something that Cleveland and Detroit compare pretty well on -- well enough for the main writer on the subject to group them together himself.

If you want to talk about landlocking, there's something Detroit and Cleveland share too: No boundaries. Without mountains, water, canyons or greenbelts to hold them in, both cities sprawled across the landscape. I think that's also a fair apples-to-apples comparison between the two cities, and perhaps the more decisive factor when it comes to sprawl.

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

No "core" city has a right to annex development outside of it's borders.

Sure they do. Maybe it isn't phrased quite that way, but, yes, some cities are better able to annex surrounding development than others.

Actually, there's this whole book about it: It's called "Cities without Suburbs" by David Rusk. Perhaps you'd like to read it, or some other books, such as "The Origins of the Urban Crisis" by Thomas Sugrue, then get back to us on the topic. It's fascinating to discuss cities -- when you're well-informed, anyway.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

This is to say nothing of urban design, ghetto. I guess I'd ask what post-1915 growth in the United States wasn't sprawl. Rusk's point is that central cities that could annex the peripheral growth as it happened were able to capture the taxation and help fund regionalism. Were these same cities complicity in sprawl? I imagine many were. But this tendency against annexation is something that Cleveland and Detroit compare pretty well on -- well enough for the main writer on the subject to group them together himself.

If you want to talk about landlocking, there's something Detroit and Cleveland share too: No boundaries. Without mountains, water, canyons or greenbelts to hold them in, both cities sprawled across the landscape. I think that's also a fair apples-to-apples comparison between the two cities, and perhaps the more decisive factor when it comes to sprawl.

I suppose my point is:

What good is regionalism or capturing [[geographically) fleeing revenue sources if all you end up doing is spreading your resources too thin, anyway?

The only real difference between a place like say, Columbus and Detroit is that in Southeastern Michigan, the plastic claptrap is called "Troy" while in Central Ohio it's still called "Columbus". That's really the only difference. The money that is "captured" by Columbus for "regionalism" doesn't benefit the existing core city as much as it goes toward funding never-ending outward expansion and servicing those thinly-populated areas on the fringe. The end result is exactly the same, no matter what the name of the political jurisdiction.

DC48080 · October-25-10, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

then get back to us on the topic. It's fascinating to discuss cities -- when you're well-informed, anyway.

Boy, you sure are full of yourself today.

You do not seem to grasp that no city has the right to annex another without the citizens of BOTH communities approving it. There are these thing called laws that get in the way of that. Just as I do not have the right to annex my neighbor's yard because I want a bigger and nicer yard.

If other cities are able to annex surrounding development it is because the residents of those developments desire to join the "core" city. More than likely the "core" city is not a hellhole.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by DC48080

Boy, you sure are full of yourself today.

You do not seem to grasp that no city has the right to annex another without the citizens of BOTH communities approving it. There are these thing called laws that get in the way of that. Just as I do not have the right to annex my neighbor's yard because I want a bigger and nicer yard.

Talk about "full of it". You do understand that incorporation and annexation laws vary from state to state, yes?

And just so we're all caught up to your level, was Detroit a "hellhole" BEFORE people began fleeing for the suburbs in the 1940s? Or did the "hellhole" thing happen AFTER people began fleeing for the suburbs?

**iheartthed** · October-25-10, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I don't know if I agree with that as a rule. The healthiest urban environments in this country are in cities that have long ago been "landlocked" by political boundaries. Most of the cities that annex are little more than sprawling messes. Changing the name of the place doesn't inherently change policy.

I agree with this comment. I would also add that the regionalism that occurs in healthier core cities that are landlocked by political boundaries is usually implemented by some sort of state policy. For instance, the state of New York long ago regionalized the New York City subway by rolling it into the MTA, a state agency. I believe that Illinois also did this with the CTA. Detroit still owns and operates DDOT, while a separate system services most suburban communities.

**Detroitnerd** · October-25-10, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I suppose my point is:

What good is regionalism or capturing [[geographically) fleeing revenue sources if all you end up doing is spreading your resources too thin, anyway?

The only real difference between a place like say, Columbus and Detroit is that in Southeastern Michigan, the plastic claptrap is called "Troy" while in Central Ohio it's still called "Columbus". That's really the only difference. The money that is "captured" by Columbus for "regionalism" doesn't benefit the existing core city as much as it goes toward funding never-ending outward expansion and servicing those thinly-populated areas on the fringe. The end result is exactly the same, no matter what the name of the political jurisdiction.

It's a fair point. But I do think it matters when it comes to our regional identities. There's a serious chicken-and-egg thing going on here, but cities that annex their suburbs have a few things going for them:

1) The annexation debate is settled: Once a metro is all under one city government, seldom do part of the metro region want to break away. [[Have any ever broken away?)

2) They seem to have less racial stratification and less racism in general.

3) They save money and have economies of scale when it comes to schools, police, fire and other services.

4) They get a boost in numbers, practically ensuring them a place in the Top Ten Most Populous Cities, which helps them gain access to federal funds.

5) They have fewer grandstanding, classic "home rule-type" politicians sowing divisiveness and gloating that "their" region is siphoning off another -- when the region is a net loser of people and jobs.

6) People identify with their core city, not with "Bingham Farms" or "Shaker Heights" -- and transit is an easier sell when people identify with their downtown.

The list goes on, and I think your observations are all worthy, but maybe what I like so much about the idea of annexation is that it drives stakes for later. Have a unified region under mostly one city government? That should make it easier to drive for transit, for greenbelts, for funding the things that make for a vibrant central city, desirable suburban environments and, on the outskirts, productive farm and recreational land. Maybe it's not getting the goods now, but I have more hope for it down the line.

Maybe that's the take-away: You have fewer people like DC, beating their chests and reciting an invented history that comforts them.

**Novine** · October-25-10, 01:34 PM

"There are these thing called laws that get in the way of that. Just as I do not have the right to annex my neighbor's yard because I want a bigger and nicer yard."

You have a fundamental right to the ownership of your yard. Political boundaries are nothing more than lines on a map. The courts have said for decades that cities and townships are "creatures of the state" which means the state government could abolish the boundaries of your little enclave and make you part of a bigger city or no city at all. The state can also enact laws that allow your town to be annexed by the adjacent city with no vote at all. That's how it works in some states. It doesn't work that way in Michigan. But your analogy is flawed and based on a misunderstanding of the difference between property rights and the rights of political entities.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-25-10, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

The list goes on, and I think your observations are all worthy, but maybe what I like so much about the idea of annexation is that it drives stakes for later. Have a unified region under mostly one city government? That should make it easier to drive for transit, for greenbelts, for funding the things that make for a vibrant central city, desirable suburban environments and, on the outskirts, productive farm and recreational land. Maybe it's not getting the goods now, but I have more hope for it down the line.

I guess I'm curious why the Indianapolises, Houstons, Jacksonvilles, and Columbuses of the world don't have these things, then.

If someone lives on a farm threatened by encroaching suburban development 30 miles from downtown, I doubt he cares much about the blighted inner city whether or not his residence is considered within the city limits of Columbus.