For some reason, I believed that all cities were growing. I hadn’t considered the
possibility of population decline in urban areas, which is the case in major
cities across the world. The loss of jobs in one place obviously causes
movement of people to a place with employment, but I naively assumed cities
were exempt from this rule since the city itself would still remain. Sports
complexes, museums, restaurants, and other public buildings would not be
abandoned in a city, but without an industry, the need for these spaces
disappears. The controversy over how to handle the vacated areas seems
complicated, and only a few hopeful ideas are emerging. A sustainable city
would be capable of adapting to fluxes in population, but most cities,
especially older cities, were not designed with sustainability in mind. The
link below describes a straight-forward plan to make the DC area more
sustainable.
This plan moves employees closer
to their work establishment. It also promotes the use of public transportation.
The ecological unconscious is a
term I had not heard before this class. I took a writing course that emphasized
the important bond between man and nature, but I am still surprised that
society can, and will, recognize the relationship. I believe nature is the most
important affecter of human life and also the most ignored. Hopefully more
merit will be given to the idea that the Earth is intertwined with the human
being.
A superfund site in Michigan for liquid disposal >> these are the types of structures that may ultimately wake up your ecological unconscious
Like you, I assumed that most cities were growing. The idea of the shrinking city is one that seems contradictory because we associate the idea of the city with large, densely populated areas. The problem with what to do with abandoned buildings is an important issue to address. As I learned about in architecture and art history classes buildings that are not preserved will quickly become unusable. It is important to create plans that will effectively integrate or create usable spaces from abandoned buildings.
ReplyDelete-Kate Chambers
Good comments. Because the U.S. population is increasing we always assume that all cities must be growing. We have seen significant spatial shifts in growth over time.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the brief plan to move workers in Washington DC closer to their work area, a question came to mind- why would this work? What I mean is, it may take care of a few homes or vacated areas, but bottom line is, that not everyone is going to get handed money to move closer. Unless the cost of living in closer proximity to the city goes down, the people who aren't already there, don't seem likely to go. Plus, even with these few cases of movement, the city is in no way approaching growth again, because it won't be continuous. A shrinking city's best bet is to embrace the fact that they are indeed shrinking, and use it as an urban evolution.
ReplyDelete-Rachel Gordon
I don't know if financial incentives would work for an area like DC, unless it is a BIG financial incentive. I am not from Washington DC or Northern Virginia, but from what I've heard there are two parts to DC: one is very expensive to live in and the other is filled with crime. If living in a safer and less expensive part that is not technically in the city limits of DC is working for someone, why would they bother moving to a part that is either dangerous or too expensive, even if there was a financial incentive involved? $3,000 is not going to cover the costs of living in the more affluent parts of Washington.
ReplyDelete-Laura Oganowski
I would hope that this plan would require those that move near public transit hubs to actually use public transit for most if not all commuting to and from work. The way I interpreted the plan was more along the lines of testing the effectiveness of sustainability incentives. Moving next to a light rail or bus stop is not any more sustainable unless you actually use it.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Barnes
reading the blog and comments and i was also unaware of cities shrinking. many people do not like change, and in DC if they are trying to shrink the city by bringing everything closer many people would not be open to that change mainly because they are in their own homes that they have grown to be their everyday lives and it mostly becomes habit.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Woolwine
I thought cities were growing everywhere so this really surprised me. It does make some sense though. Sometimes city living can be expensive. It's also sometimes dirty and too fast for some people. The suburbs in this country seem to be getting nicer and nicer every year which attracts many people away from the city in my opinion
ReplyDeleteMark Harner
The DC idea sounds good, but will $3000 cover the costs of moving and setting up a new home. I've actually never had to deal with expenses or financing a move,, but living as a military dependent I know moves aren't cheap. This may work for folks moving to the DC area, but those already ensconced in their homes in suburbia may find the incentive less tempting. I also think that the community services, access to green space, and neighborhood development has to precede the use of stimulus to encourage moves into the city. People are not going to move on a whim - they will want a commensurate lifestyle when they move not it the future.
ReplyDelete