PDA

View Full Version : US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive


alkemical
06-24-2009, 01:44 PM
http://renegadefuturist.com/archives/2009/06/19/us-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive/

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive
Klint Finley

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.

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.

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.

gyldenlove
06-24-2009, 01:56 PM
http://renegadefuturist.com/archives/2009/06/19/us-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive/

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive
Klint Finley

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.

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.

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.

I don't know why you need to justify the bulldozing, many would agree that just bulldozing places like Flint and Detroit would be good enough.

UberBroncoMan
06-24-2009, 01:59 PM
Watching Robocop reminds me why Detroit needs to be bulldozed.

Bronx33
06-24-2009, 02:01 PM
Start with oakland since it's already half done.

C130Herkload
06-24-2009, 03:33 PM
Aurora.

Tombstone RJ
06-24-2009, 04:18 PM
I wonder how many new jobs could be created by tearing down old and unused parts of cities and creating natural areas.

Anyone know if Godzilla needs a job?

Mountain Bronco
06-24-2009, 04:21 PM
Obama will lose the votes of all of these cities if he is serious. Dumb move politically.

Pseudofool
06-24-2009, 04:25 PM
If we're going to start bulldozing cities; we should start with the unsustainable monstrosties in the desert out West. At least Flint has it's own water table--economies are cylical (it can come back), water and energy are largely fixed and can only erode. Just saying.

Tombstone RJ
06-24-2009, 04:28 PM
http://renegadefuturist.com/archives/2009/06/19/us-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive/

US cities may have to be crushed into oblivion in order to survive
Klint Finley

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.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Godzilla, a giant fire breathing monster, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Godzilla 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.

Godzilla 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 be utterly demolished 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.

And Tokyo.

:yayaya:

maher_tyler
06-24-2009, 09:36 PM
No more Flint Tropics??

Dukes
06-24-2009, 09:41 PM
Eminent domain at it's finest

ZONA
06-24-2009, 09:47 PM
If we're going to start bulldozing cities; we should start with the unsustainable monstrosties in the desert out West. At least Flint has it's own water table--economies are cylical (it can come back), water and energy are largely fixed and can only erode. Just saying.

I hope you don't mean Phoenix. This actually is one of the best places you could want to build a city. Totally sustainable. There are almost no natural disasters of any kind that costs this city billions of dollars in damage. No tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods of immense size, freezing rain, avalanches, etc..

If people just were more smart about water use, there would be plenty to go around. We have one of the sunniest states there is so solar power is going to be huge here when that gets going full strength.

Broncojef
06-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Obama will lose the votes of all of these cities if he is serious. Dumb move politically.

Lower taxes, encourage investing in America and allow companies to succeed. Stop taking them over and trying to run them with red tape guidelines to dictate an agenda. They need to worry less about demolishing cities and more about encouraging business both small and large to bring America back to what it was.

watermock
06-24-2009, 09:57 PM
Bulldoze New Orleans.

I'm sure Al Gore is on board. Hell, bulldoze the pipelines and refineries, go green!

If we didn't have the subprime bubble, and jack detroit around while giving favors to mports building new plands elsewhere...

Seriously, some hoods should be razed, but shouldn't it be the private sector? Once again, the gov't decides who wins and who loses.

Dudeskey
06-24-2009, 10:11 PM
Aurora.

North of 6th ave anyway. Don't need no bulldozers near my house ;D

Meck77
06-24-2009, 10:13 PM
Aurora.

Over my dead body. North Aurora baby!:pimp:

enjolras
06-24-2009, 10:48 PM
I hope you don't mean Phoenix. This actually is one of the best places you could want to build a city. Totally sustainable. There are almost no natural disasters of any kind that costs this city billions of dollars in damage. No tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods of immense size, freezing rain, avalanches, etc..

If people just were more smart about water use, there would be plenty to go around. We have one of the sunniest states there is so solar power is going to be huge here when that gets going full strength.

There is not enough water to sustain the growth.

Also, you could hardly intentionally grow a city in a worse way than has happened in Phoenix. It's a testament to the horrific effects of exurban sprawl.

watermock
06-24-2009, 10:53 PM
Pheonix or Las Vegas. My bet is on Vegas.

Besides being upstream, it has ya know, money?

Hercules Rockefeller
06-24-2009, 10:55 PM
I wonder how many new jobs could be created by tearing down old and unused parts of cities and creating natural areas.


Exactly what would the people do once the cities have been torn down and the natural areas created? Those are short-term jobs, not long-term.

watermock
06-24-2009, 11:00 PM
There are some crumbling sections of the rust belt, but is it the Gov't's job?

Imagine the eminent domain issues.

CoBear23
06-25-2009, 12:18 AM
Obama will lose the votes of all of these cities if he is serious. Dumb move politically.

How so?

Killericon
06-25-2009, 03:30 AM
Coming from a domain name like renegadefuturist.com, you KNOW this article is good.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-25-2009, 06:05 AM
There is not enough water to sustain the growth.

Also, you could hardly intentionally grow a city in a worse way than has happened in Phoenix. It's a testament to the horrific effects of exurban sprawl.

Phoenix is great. I was born there and have family there.

But insisting that they have incredible, immaculate lawns in the middle of a desert is absurd.

broncofan7
06-25-2009, 06:58 AM
About ****ing time. Growing up in the mid-atlantic/North East and living for the past decade in a flourishing southern city--the quality of life and infrastructure is noticeably lacking in those once great cities..a novel idea that just may work.........

alkemical
06-25-2009, 07:10 AM
I hope you don't mean Phoenix. This actually is one of the best places you could want to build a city. Totally sustainable. There are almost no natural disasters of any kind that costs this city billions of dollars in damage. No tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods of immense size, freezing rain, avalanches, etc..

If people just were more smart about water use, there would be plenty to go around. We have one of the sunniest states there is so solar power is going to be huge here when that gets going full strength.

Uhm, where does PHX get the water from? Rain? It's not sustainable.

alkemical
06-25-2009, 07:13 AM
Coming from a domain name like renegadefuturist.com, you KNOW this article is good.

Here's the souce that they linked to in the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-25-2009, 07:19 AM
Uhm, where does PHX get the water from? Rain? It's not sustainable.

It's sustainable... as long as they can keep taking water from Colorado.

You're welcome, 'Zona.

Meck77
06-25-2009, 07:30 AM
It's sustainable... as long as they can keep taking water from Colorado.

.

That is what cracks me up about people who live down stream. They think the Colorado river water is infinite.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 07:31 AM
I actually see some interesting wisdom in this idea. I can think of some large areas here in Dallas, especially in south and west Dallas, where reclaiming the land as pure real estate minus it's damaging artifacts would probably result in businesses deciding to move into places where right now they wouldn't. The key would be developing a comprehensive plan that effectively syncs local developers and governments with larger strategic planning at the state and federal level. They would need to utilize the machinery already in place...things like NEZ's (Neighborhood Empowerment Zones) and access funding programs that have proven effective like CDFI's (Community Development Financial Institutions) which attract $27 in private investment for every $1 of public funding. I could also see opportunities to save a lot of money now earmarked for maintaining older infrastructure and redeploying it in new construction. It should be interesting to see how the initial pilot program works and whether it's something that can be scaled out or not.

Captain 'Dre
06-25-2009, 07:43 AM
"learnt"?!? :rofl:

alkemical
06-25-2009, 08:03 AM
I actually see some interesting wisdom in this idea. I can think of some large areas here in Dallas, especially in south and west Dallas, where reclaiming the land as pure real estate minus it's damaging artifacts would probably result in businesses deciding to move into places where right now they wouldn't. The key would be developing a comprehensive plan that effectively syncs local developers and governments with larger strategic planning at the state and federal level. They would need to utilize the machinery already in place...things like NEZ's (Neighborhood Empowerment Zones) and access funding programs that have proven effective like CDFI's (Community Development Financial Institutions) which attract $27 in private investment for every $1 of public funding. I could also see opportunities to save a lot of money now earmarked for maintaining older infrastructure and redeploying it in new construction. It should be interesting to see how the initial pilot program works and whether it's something that can be scaled out or not.

i agree. It would be a boon to implement new tech. in building materials, water and energy efficiencies, etc.

Kaylore
06-25-2009, 08:19 AM
This article is a bunch of sensationalism. It's basically a handful of dying towns that they're clearing out and are going to experiment with some different things before the completely clear them out. The headline is designed to make you think America is collapsing, probably to shock the UK market into reading the story because they don't know any better.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 08:36 AM
This article is a bunch of sensationalism. It's basically a handful of dying towns that they're clearing out and are going to experiment with some different things before the completely clear them out. The headline is designed to make you think America is collapsing, probably to shock the UK market into reading the story because they don't know any better.
Much of America is collapsing.

In any case, the story identifies 40% of Flint MI, about 13 1/2 square miles...as possible for reclamation. It says they're looking at the idea, not that it's happening yet, or at all. I've worked on some economic development projects here that exist in areas where this idea would surely appeal to local governments.

mizzoutigers
06-25-2009, 08:40 AM
This country would be much better off if they bulldozed SF, NY, LA, and all the other worthless liberal cities

Garcia Bronco
06-25-2009, 09:04 AM
Uhm, where does PHX get the water from? Rain? It's not sustainable.

Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-25-2009, 09:08 AM
This country would be much better off if they bulldozed SF, NY, LA, and all the other worthless liberal cities

Yawn.

I'm sure the country would be much better off without business centers like SF, NY and LA. Moron.

You almost have to be from Missouri to say something so remarkably stupid.

Hercules Rockefeller
06-25-2009, 10:45 AM
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah

It's called the Colorado River, not the Colorado-New Mexico-Nevada-Utah River.

snowspot66
06-25-2009, 12:14 PM
There's not really any eminent domain issue in places like Detroit and Flint. Whole swaths of land are just abandoned. They're a ****ing wasteland and wiping them off the map as much as possible is only a good thing. Nobody who lives there will turn down the money to sell and move. Any excuse to leave those hell holes is a good one.

Tear it down. Recycle what you can.

Nobody can argue Detroit and Flint will come back. They won't. They've been in decline for 70 years and they aren't going to come back. To come back people have to actually want to live there.

Unless you enjoy the scenery in Fallout 3 then there is no way in hell anybody will move to those cities voluntarily.

Garcia Bronco
06-25-2009, 12:15 PM
It's called the Colorado River, not the Colorado-New Mexico-Nevada-Utah River.

However the Colorado River Pact is between these states and others. Which is the point, jackbutt.

snowspot66
06-25-2009, 12:16 PM
That is what cracks me up about people who live down stream. They think the Colorado river water is infinite.

It's bad everywhere. People in Montana and the Dakotas are told how much water they can use or can't use for irrigation because the barges down in Mississippi need enough to stay off the mud.

snowspot66
06-25-2009, 12:19 PM
However the Colorado River Pact is between these states and others. Which is the point, jackbutt.

That pact is going to be re-examined sometime in the near future if things keep going the way they are. Evidence suggests that when it was created we were experiencing the one of the wettest periods in decades if not centuries for the area (which appears to be coming to a close). Combine that with significantly smaller populations at the time and you get a recipe for disaster if things don't change.

Hercules Rockefeller
06-25-2009, 01:28 PM
However the Colorado River Pact is between these states and others. Which is the point, jackbutt.

There's a Compact? No way!

And Colorado is still the headwater state

Tombstone RJ
06-25-2009, 01:51 PM
There's not really any eminent domain issue in places like Detroit and Flint. Whole swaths of land are just abandoned. They're a ****ing wasteland and wiping them off the map as much as possible is only a good thing. Nobody who lives there will turn down the money to sell and move. Any excuse to leave those hell holes is a good one.

Tear it down. Recycle what you can.

Nobody can argue Detroit and Flint will come back. They won't. They've been in decline for 70 years and they aren't going to come back. To come back people have to actually want to live there.

Unless you enjoy the scenery in Fallout 3 then there is no way in hell anybody will move to those cities voluntarily.

Perhaps your correct. Nobody will ever be interested in moving back to the rust belt. Instead, everyone will want to live in places like Phoenix and Atlanta and Denver and San Diego and Jacksonville and Savannah and well, anywhere but the NE and the Upper Midwest.

GREAT!

So this means massive population explosions in cities that aren't set up to sustain the growth--SUPER! So, this means more construction in these cities while at the same time tearing down in-place infrastructure because NO ONE WANTS TO EVER LIVE THERE AGAIN!

GREAT!

(then, 50 years down the line, when people don't want to live in overcrowded cess pools like Atlanta, they will start moving back North to get away from things like crime and poor quality of life, but becuase in 2009 the great federal government declared that these places were never going to be poplulation centers again, they destroyed or "raized" infastructure instead of encouraging businesses to move in and take advantage of cheap real estate and tax breaks).

Yep, great idea.


Hey, lets NOT encourage growth where there is at least some infastructure already in place. Instead, lets tear everything down and pretend to start over, yah!

snowspot66
06-25-2009, 03:15 PM
You don't get it. They want to shrink the cities by wiping out vast areas and concentrating the population.

This is about getting people to move back to these cities. Not move them to other cities. They won't be displacing anybody in places like Flint and Detroit. There's no population to move. There are VAST areas where even homeless people don't go because it's too dangerous to live in the buildings because they might fall down on them. There is literally nothing there but rotting empty buildings.

But you're right. Leaving them there is such a great idea. Those cities can recover on their own. Oh wait. That infrastructure you talk about? It hasn't seen maintenance in decades. It's nonexistent. Stripped for scrap and any other useful remnant. Detroit and Flint could be the site of a past nuclear explosion except the buildings are still standing. In twenty years it will fit the image perfectly.

alkemical
06-26-2009, 06:36 AM
I'd love for non-utilized areas of a city to be razed, and rebuilt with an idea towards new tech (building materials, mass transit, etc) and use these as ways to work on finding really new ways to live.

rastaman
06-26-2009, 07:20 AM
If we're going to start bulldozing cities; we should start with the unsustainable monstrosties in the desert out West. At least Flint has it's own water table--economies are cylical (it can come back), water and energy are largely fixed and can only erode. Just saying.

Agreed. Start with Las Vegas the amount of water they use just maintain the city is astronomical. Also, include the large cities in Arizona as well. The dessert was not ment to be turned into an oasis. Hell, the Colorado river can no longer sustain these areas anyway; especially with dwinding snow melt due to global warming/severe climate change.

alkemical
06-26-2009, 07:27 AM
that's my position as well.

rastaman
06-26-2009, 07:27 AM
There's not really any eminent domain issue in places like Detroit and Flint. Whole swaths of land are just abandoned. They're a ****ing wasteland and wiping them off the map as much as possible is only a good thing. Nobody who lives there will turn down the money to sell and move. Any excuse to leave those hell holes is a good one.

Tear it down. Recycle what you can.

Nobody can argue Detroit and Flint will come back. They won't. They've been in decline for 70 years and they aren't going to come back. To come back people have to actually want to live there.

Unless you enjoy the scenery in Fallout 3 then there is no way in hell anybody will move to those cities voluntarily.

Actually, Detroit/Flint which represent the "rust belt" could be revitalized by turning these area's into Alternative Fuels and Energy centers. A great start would developing wind turbine manufacturing.

rastaman
06-26-2009, 07:30 AM
This country would be much better off if they bulldozed SF, NY, LA, and all the other worthless liberal cities

Why not bulldoze every conservative town and city in Missouri! Wouldn't that be a great start!

Captain 'Dre
06-26-2009, 08:16 AM
This country would be much better off if they bulldozed SF, NY, LA, and all the other worthless liberal cities

Sure thing, Adolph. ugh!~