holy youngstown batman -- more on shrinking cities from the nytimes:

 

 

An Effort to Save Flint, Mich., by Shrinking It

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/21/business/22flint_600.JPG

 

Dan Kildee, the county treasurer of Flint, Mich., in front of the home where he lived until he was 4. He is proposing the tearing down of entire blocks and even whole neighborhoods.

 

By DAVID STREITFELD

Published: April 21, 2009

 

FLINT, Mich. — Dozens of proposals have been floated over the years to slow this city’s endless decline. Now another idea is gaining support: speed it up.

 

Instead of waiting for houses to become abandoned and then pulling them down, local leaders are talking about demolishing entire blocks and even whole neighborhoods.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22flint.html?_r=1&hp

 

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/21/business/27773538.JPG

 

All I can say is.............

 

Flint has begun to accept what it can't stop, and that's the absence of manufacturing and the people that supported it.  Their new unofficial slogan is "from car town to college town" where U of M has made a huge presence downtown.  I hope that new types of industry will grow off of that providing Flint citizens with new jobs.  But it's a given that swaths of neighborhoods will have to be knocked down.  There isn't anything you can do to save them until something better comes along.  They are almost entirely constructed of wood, and need regular weekly maintenance to at least look presentable.  Most absentee owners and landlords can't do this, and as a result they get scrapped.

I think this is a fantastic idea by Flint. It makes no sense to try and support infrastructure built for 200,000 people when you only have half that population currently.

 

I hope they opt for entire neighborhood removal like it sounds like they're doing. If they just try and tear down piecemeal then nowhere in Flint will be pleasant to live.

 

C-Dawg...just...wow.

The kicker are the hold-outs.

 

There are always some houses that are still occupied, owner-occupied, where the owner doesnt want to leave, even though the block is mostly vacant. 

 

So to make this neighborhood removal thing work youd have to force these people to sell, which could be politically dicey.

 

Maybe there are ways to do this without force, like waiting out the hold out and buying them out when he or she is ready to sell, or clear the neighborhood around them (tearing out streets and utilities) and giving them some sort of tax rebate after the city stops maintaining the street they live on.  It's usually not that simple, though as Ive seen some cases every street in a neighborhood has one or two houses still occupied.

 

Maybe Im getting too hung up on the practicalities to do this.

 

There is also a cost issue.  To truley remove neighborhoods and return the land to forest or prairie would mean you'd have to remove the streets,curbs,sidewalks and maybe the underground utilities (though I guess they could be left buried but valved-off), which would cost some money.

 

 

 

 

^ That is actually happening in Youngstown, Ohio.

^ That is actually happening in Youngstown, Ohio.

Well, the city is trying, anyway.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/15/real_estate/Youngstown_plan_roadblock/index.htm

If you are totally removing neighborhoods, why not consider redoing the roadgrid and move away from the strict grid that dominates Michigan (and Northern Ohio) and put in some rambling country roads instead. They could essentially become farmhouses.

If you are totally removing neighborhoods, why not consider redoing the roadgrid and move away from the strict grid that dominates Michigan (and Northern Ohio) and put in some rambling country roads instead. They could essentially become farmhouses.

 

Sounds dangerously like the suburban planning model of the last 60 years.

 

  I don't know about the law in Michigan, but in some states a city must tax and provide services within city limits equally. That is, a city may not charge twice as much to one resident for garbage service because he happens to be the only one living on his street.

 

    Is it possible to de-annex that one street? That is, change the city boundaries? That way, the city could stop providing services, but not force that owner to move. The city would lose the tax revenue from that one property, however.

 

    On another note, this might be just the beginning.

 

If you are totally removing neighborhoods, why not consider redoing the roadgrid and move away from the strict grid that dominates Michigan (and Northern Ohio) and put in some rambling country roads instead. They could essentially become farmhouses.

 

Sounds dangerously like the suburban planning model of the last 60 years.

 

That planning is predicated on growth. If this is all about shrinking then why not put in some roads that aren't rectilinear. Michigan is flat enough as is, a little meandering never hurt anyone.

Normally, I'm a staunch supporter of a grid. But after looking at Flint's outskirts, I absolutely understand what you're saying, dmerkow.

 

Flint's "suburban" roads were obviously planned back when they thought the city was going to be huge. So they have this absurd quasi-urban grid network extending out into - not even suburban - but downright rural land use. There's absolutely no point, especially since the city is contracting.

I have really mixed feelings about these types of initiatives. Is this a sign of a city giving up when it should actually do more to attract people to it, instead of just tearing things down to accommodate its shrinking population base? It's an interesting problem, one that many industrial cities, like Cleveland and Detroit even, are having to begin to consider.

Flint can't attract anyone at this point.  It's impossible unless you have jobs to bring them to.  Even so, if families are coming to the Genesee Co area they are moving to suburban communities, or if you are attracting the young or "urban oriented" for lack of better words, they'd move downtown.  As I said before, you can't save swaths of vacant housing in Flint.  Even the best block clubs, neighborhood watches, vacant property plans etc, will see the scrappers slip through the cracks and rip these homes apart.  Honestly, there's a lot of housing stock in Flint that wouldn't be missed if demolished.  It's not like you are seeing beautiful brick rows, or Victorian mansions being flattened.  Alot of what could be rebuilt could be done better, or even more densely if Flint chose. 

 

This program isn't following some arbitrary framework of pick and choose what gets demolished just because of alot of vacancies.  They do consider historical importance of neighborhoods, proximity to successful activity areas, type of building stock, etc that would satisfy people on all sorts of levels from planners to preservationists.  For example, the land bank was very successful at getting the old Durant Hotel renovated into student housing despite that the public and city had zero confidence in it getting rehabbed, being on the market for probably 30 years in absolutely horrible condition.  The easy solution would be tear it down, but they actually sought out a solution that was workable.  I think the same strategy would be applied to neighborhoods as well.

Honestly, there's a lot of housing stock in Flint that wouldn't be missed if demolished.  It's not like you are seeing beautiful brick rows, or Victorian mansions being flattened.  Alot of what could be rebuilt could be done better, or even more densely if Flint chose.

 

This is also true for Youngstown, and why I don't understand the negative feelings about shrinking cities' plans.  I hate to see a house worth saving (because of historical or architectural value) get razed, and a few have been.  But I think that's only because neighbors have petitioned the city to put these "nuisance" properties on the demolition list.  The majority of the buildings that are being demolished in the name of Youngstown 2010 weren't special to begin with, and are in neighborhoods where the urban fabric has already been compromised over the last 30 years.

This only makes since: preserve stable neighborhoods and eliminate excess infrastructure.

With many cities in the Old Northwest, they all thought they were going to be the next Chicago or Detroit and were platted out to insane sizes. If they just felt their current size, that would make a big difference. It would also restore the sense of a common purpose to the urban community - though obviously maintaining or improving police quality and effectiveness is key as the cities seek to regain some degree of urban density.

Its sad to see once outstanding cities like Flint and Youngstown come to this. However, from the ashes of demolition a phoenix of hope may arise. If these cities can work on eliminating their most blighted areas which have passed the point of no return...perhaps such a clearing could possibly make way for future infill with higher standards. A fresh start on a clean slate.

 

This could happen..... Again, who would have wanted to live in Seattle or Portland, Oregon in 1950?