US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

[Bob Hubbard]

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

 

[MA-Caver]

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

I vote for Detroit to be the first.

 

[CoryKS]

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.

Interesting proposal, and I'm curious to see how it works. But just once could we try a new strategy on a small scale and, you know, verify that it actually works before "applying it to the rest of the country"?

 

[celtic_crippler]

I routinely suffer from cerebral flatulance so I may have simply missed it while reading the article...

...but...

...why would we do this? What's the advantage? People are already moving out. Wouldn't it cost money to bulldoze and rennovate all that land? Where's the money coming from? Why is it costly to just let them become ghost towns? I don't get it...:idunno:

 

[terryl965]

I say get rid of everything, we do not need all this old stuff anyway and who knows one day the movie mad max will be real.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I say get rid of everything, we do not need all this old stuff anyway and who knows one day the movie mad max will be real.

Probably closer than you think, especially with gas prices going up again.

But again...what's the ROI and WHO is paying for it? Bulldozin' ain't free.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I vote for Detroit to be the first.

Detroit needs to tear down a lot of abandoned and burned-out buildings, and it's going to take a lot. Some of Detroit's blight dates back to the 1968 riots, which some Americans aren't even aware of. Nevertheless, Detroit is a great city and I hope it revives. I'd hate to see it lost, it is a great place.

 

[Ken Morgan]

If I recall, this has been happening in what was once East Germany, and other parts of the old Iron Curtin. Entire towns have been knocked down, and planted over. I guess nothing lasts forever.

 

[Tez3]

Sounds quite a logical solution to the problem, it would be good work for prisoners to do demolishing housing etc. You could get people to pay to do it though, imagine all that smashing and battering - how stress relieving would that be! I would love to use one of those wrecking balls and knock a row of houses down!

 

[Rich Parsons]

I vote for Detroit to be the first.

Most of it and Flint has been leveled already.

Burned down drugs houses and or empty buildings or buildings and factories knocked down and covered with asphalt or concrete.

A friend of mine has been saying that he lives in the city of the future for years. Flint. Just that most people did not get what he was trying to say.

 

[Darksoul]

-If they're going to tear down places, neighborhoods, whole cities then I think planting trees or letting the natural growth return is a good idea. Maybe even community farms if the land is ample. If it could be put to good use for the community instead of being left to rot, then why not?

Andrew

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Most of it and Flint has been leveled already.

Burned down drugs houses and or empty buildings or buildings and factories knocked down and covered with asphalt or concrete.

I can't speak for Flint, but there are a lot of burned out houses still standing in Detroit. Take a ride down to 7 Mile and John R with me.

 

[Big Don]

Sounds quite a logical solution to the problem, it would be good work for prisoners to do demolishing housing etc. You could get people to pay to do it though, imagine all that smashing and battering - how stress relieving would that be! I would love to use one of those wrecking balls and knock a row of houses down!

I'm sure the ball would be fun, but, you ought to go to the local rental yard and get a Bobcat for the weekend... Those things are a blast.

 

[David43515]

I routinely suffer from cerebral flatulance so I may have simply missed it while reading the article...

...but...

...why would we do this? What's the advantage? People are already moving out. Wouldn't it cost money to bulldoze and rennovate all that land? Where's the money coming from? Why is it costly to just let them become ghost towns? I don't get it...:idunno:

If I read it correctly it`s being considered because the city can`t afford to keep providing services to such a spread out area. So they`re trying to encourage people who are staying to live closer together. (Very simplified answer, but you get what you pay for) I assume that things like police, fire, garbage collection, snow plowing etc all would be cheaper if the city was less spread out.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If I read it correctly it`s being considered because the city can`t afford to keep providing services to such a spread out area. So they`re trying to encourage people who are staying to live closer together. (Very simplified answer, but you get what you pay for) I assume that things like police, fire, garbage collection, snow plowing etc all would be cheaper if the city was less spread out.

Here in Detroit, we've lost firefighters putting out fires in abandoned homes set on fire for kicks or insurance money. Abandoned homes are gutted for copper wire, they become squats for drug dealers and users, and they drag down the value of all remaining occupied property in the area. If the abandoned/burned-out homes and businesses are knocked down, those problems are alleviated.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Buffalo has huge areas where there's 1 house occupied, and empty abandoned houses, or empty lots. That street still needs to be plowed, trash picked up, police patrolled, etc. buy the 1 lone house, flatten the rest, you save money on some services over time. Plus parkland and green space improve property values.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I can't speak for Flint, but there are a lot of burned out houses still standing in Detroit. Take a ride down to 7 Mile and John R with me.

Yes they are still standing, until someone comes along and knocks it down for free or finishes the job of burning.

My point was that they are there and some are knocked down and others are not. As some had mentioned those needing to be knocked down I mentioned thoase already knocked down.

People drive through a neighborhood and wonder what changed, and then relaize they can see the other street. The house burned/fell/knocked down and the weeds grew in.

 

[Ken Morgan]

It's amazing how quickly nature can take over. Wait 50 years and they will be looking to build on the "new" green space, and will get a hard time for it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

It's amazing how quickly nature can take over. Wait 50 years and they will be looking to build on the "new" green space, and will get a hard time for it.

The Problem with the "NEW GREEN" space will be that the companies are defunct and the home owners are bankrupt and banks sold off with disclaimers that they are not responsible, and the content of the land will be the responsibility of the new owners until they decide to go to court and find some company that is still in business and take them to court.

But, as most cultures ahve not figured out that the trash comes back with the afternoon tide, it is not the fisherman's fault but the one who put the trash there in the first place. If they are gone, then those that have obtained the new property should understand the discalimers they are signing.

And yes, there will be complaints, but I do not think it would be 50 years. I would only take 3 to 5 years.