Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Tiger Beer]

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

[Hater Depot]

When a city goes into decline, one of the problems is that it has large areas where services have to be delivered, but there aren't enough people there to be able to deliver them at anything resembling an acceptable level. So the city winds up spreading resources too thinly everywhere, accelerating the cycle of decline. If it can be done, contraction could at least arrest that cycle.

[bucheon bum]

makes sense. Anything that reduces sprawl is a good thing IMO.

[kcs0001]

Search "Ruins of Detroit" and you will see why.

[Manner of Speaking]

In terms of corporate law, municipal governments are kind of a mix of corporation and public non-profit charity. Financially they operate much like a private company, they have income and expenses, but because they provide public goods and are governed by a democratically-elected council, in some ways they are like a charity.

It's not at all strange for corporations or charities to downsize or sell surplus assets when economic circumstances dictate, but we have this strange bias when it comes to cities and municipalities that bigger is always better, and that a good city should always be expanding. Part of the reason is that land is almost always bought or developed on the assumption that you will get some kind of profit or equity from your purchase.

If you look at most suburbs, they are built on the assumption that the land underneath will never be redeveloped into, say, commercial or industrial use, or even just "recycled". The streets are usually too long or curvilinear to be much use as commercial or industrial space, and even properties which are proposed to be turned into parkland have problems with groundwater contamination. I knew a director of planning for a local city government who once told me that once a piece of urban land is developed, you can pretty much assume the water table under the property will be contaminated and be unusable for potable water.

Most cities are not built with the principles of sustainable development in mind...which would mean development taking place in such a manner as not restricting the abilities of future generations to use the land in different ways, relatively economically. What WOULD be wrong with closing whole swaths of a city like Detroit, if it creates a lot of green space, lowers servicing costs and makes city administration more economical in the future? Why does physical infrastructure development always have to run in one direction?

[Manner of Speaking]

[Stones1962]

Should begin with bulldozing Washington...while Congress is in session

[Julius]

[tfunk]

I don't think that nature will benefit significantly by reclaiming land because:

a. The percentage of concreted land versus non-concreted land is negligible.
b. The population isn't decreasing as a direct result of this initiative (they'll go into higher-rises, more densely populated cities, other suburbs etc.).
c. Forests etc. are being cleared for raw materials, food etc. and not just living space (this is a wild guess on my part).

The only way I can see it having a positive effect on the environment is if the average energy footprint per person changes. This is likely if people live in more densely populated areas (less distance to travel by car).

One concern is that people will start living in more densely populated, impersonal and high rise buildings and that could lead to social problems of a different kind.

[Tiger Beer]

[caniff]

Springfield, Mass. should be one of the first cities in line. While there are some very nice suburbs (like Longmeadow, where some of my family lives), the city itself is an experiment gone way south. And it ain't gettin' no better, neither.

They (whoever 'they' are) should protect a few choice historical edifices while they go ahead and deep-six most of the rest of it. At least 90% of downtown is a blight on the earth.