# Planned shrinkage - should it be revived?



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Planned shrinkage is the practice of passively emptying a plagued and condemned neighborhood by means of subtracting its infrastructure, purposely reducing public service in the area and gradually restricting new commercial and private service activity as old tenants and retailers leave the are, up to the point real estate in the are becomes so devalued and the neighborhood so undesirable that its remaining population can be easily bought out.

In the 60's and 70's this practice was extensively used to overcome sensitivities of those days, when, particularly in North America, any redevelopment projects of decaying inner city blocks were seen as a mean of "displacement" of specific ethnic groups. Moreover, some planned shrinkage schemes went far over reasonable limits, including fire services' withdraw so fires could burn adjacent buildings and accelerate induced evictions.

These policies were largely abandoned in the later decades, only to see localism of convenience and radical NIMBYsm take over, making improvement projects and natural gentrification and progress more difficult to achieve, as defending "character" became an acceptable defense not only of letting buildings standing, but also on keeping a neighborhood actively run-down or not modernized so housing prices don't rise - pressure is especially hard on neighborhoods where house ownership is too low (too many tenants instead) for luring resident homeowners in the advantages of having their assets' value grow.

So, I was wondering whether, under certain limits, local authorities should reengage in the practice of actively marking some small pockets of blight or entire neighborhoods to "die" as the crap they might be now. I'm not suggesting that letting fires burn would be a good idea, but some more surgical interventions could go a long way without jeopardizing individual rights (I don't believe communities have any collective rights to "retain character", particularly if character involves any strong ethnic, immigrant presence or religious component):

* shutting down public schools and busing children to other schools in diferent locations

* gradual withdraw of transit services, particularly on weekends, holidays and those not essential for home-workplace commuting

* closing of public parks, including fencing them off and dismantlement of structures

* buyout of derelict buildings, which would be torn down; commercial estates rented out to run-down local retailing should be a prime target of those buyouts

* strong financial incentives for non-location dependent business, like local light industries, to relocate, so people will get used to look for jobs elsewhere

* grants and other incentives, with short application deadlines, for families to move out, creating an impression that "everybody is leaving and I don't want to be the last holding on" and undermining resistance of those hardcore residents who feel that being relocated in other neighborhood is like being exiled from its own country.

* reduction of cultural activity in the area, with concomitant generous offers for cultural activities elsewhere (like relocation of a local theater group that includes a completely new outfit if they move out the condemned neighborhood).

The list goes on. Of course, the ultimate intention would not to put all those measures to work, but to undermine NIMBYsts and reduce their public support, so renovation projects could go on more easily without entrenched radicalized and self-interested "community leaders" who don't want the very own places in which they live to develop, to evolve and to thrive. Strong relocation programs could take place so understanding citizens wouldn't be harmed, but those who stick with their blocked-based loyalties would be in bad shape and would risk losing a lot of money and living in a blighted place if they hold on.

In your country, would such policies be feasible or, at least, legal?


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

This is one of the worst, most immoral forms of urban planning that I have ever heard of!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

In the past, yes, because they were used in some places to displace some people under a ridiculous "race" base. Now, I'm thinking of its tools as a way to uproot vested interests in poverty, blight and decay.


----------



## urbane (Jan 4, 2005)

Isn't it already policy in Flint and some other rust-belt cities of the US ?


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

It is also practised in many rundown east German towns. Because of continuous population decline, communities have to downsize their infrastructure. If there are not enough children anymore you have to close some kindergartens and schools.


----------



## citybus (Oct 22, 2008)

These proposals are nothing short of scandalous. Where would all the residents move to? If done on a large scale it would require an enormous effort to rehouse these people elsewhere. If you're going to pursue such a militant form of social cleansing surely it would be easier to just abandon these ghettoes and build a 10 metre Gaza wall around them


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

They are not just proposals, these were actually active urban policies of the 60's and 70's in many American cities - New York being the best example, when they gave up on "fixing" some concentrated pockets of crime, drug trafficking and decay so people would just slowly move out elsewhere.

AFAIK, Baltimore and Richmond were other cities that activelly pursued such policies in the past.

Some of the neighborhoods marked to be "shrank" are now thriving neighborhoods with a completely altered social and demopraphic landscape (which is questioned by some people).

My theory would be: some places (not entire cities, bur specific neighborhoods, sometimes even a single high-hise) are socially broken beyond repair. Causes might differ (gangs, drug use epidemic, sudden loss of economic vitality, entrenchment of perennial welfare recipients), but when a tipping point is past, the very social fabric of such places become irreparable.

I'm not saying that people living in such places are lost and should be walled, not at all. What I'm saying is that some social illness can plague a community beyond recovery, so you disband the community and kill its social fabric so its members, most of them innocent victims, can survive and improve their lifes once they are unplugued and uprooted from the place that is slowly destroying them or restricting their progress and advancement.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Vanman said:


> This is one of the worst, most immoral forms of urban planning that I have ever heard of!


So it goes well with Suburbanists agenda here on this forum.
Read his sig for starters...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Guys, please, let's keep things apart. In this thread, I'm not discusing mobility or measures to stop pro-transit radicals. This is a comopletely different question: what to do with neighborhoods that are already socially damaged beyond repair.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

So what your arguing is to intentionally speed a negative cycle of decline by actually inducing harmful actions? That makes no sense. To break a vicious cycle you take out one of its components. Which one is determined by your political stance but that doesn't matter.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Either he's a bit clueless and on the wrong forum, or he's just trolling...


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

What's the difference between this 'planning shrinkage' to starve the poor so they die out?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

zaphod said:


> So what your arguing is to intentionally speed a negative cycle of decline by actually inducing harmful actions? That makes no sense. To break a vicious cycle you take out one of its components. Which one is determined by your political stance but that doesn't matter.


That is the point I'm trying to make: in the past, planned shrinkage included measures like reducing firefighting coverage, which is harmful. Breaking up a community is not necessarily harmful.

Make no mistake: I favor and respect individual rights, like the right to be compensated by the State if it uses eminent domain. However, I have no much sympathy for the cause of preservating a neighborhood "as is" if the "as" includes longlasting poverty, crime and other social illness.

Many places have recovered only because they had undergone, before recovering, dramatic and swift shifts in its population. Most people living in problematic neighborhoods can recover themselves and have a better life, if they only cut their rotten roots with a rooten community and restart life elsewhere.

Busing children out is not necessarily a bad thing, it only deprives, temporarily, parents from being involved in school matters - although parent participation in school life is usually very low and a cause itself of blighted neighborhoods -.



NCT said:


> What's the difference between this 'planning shrinkage' to starve the poor so they die out?


I think planned soft planned shrinkage can achieve both community uprooting and meaningful relocation in other regions inside the same city or metropolitan area. People will not be straved to death, but they will have every incentive to leave the neighborhood ASAP, dispersing themselves, hopefully for better equipped places with better infrastructure.

I do not support physically harmful measures like closing police precints or reducind anti-drug or anti-abuse programs. Law and Order must be administered 'till the last inhabitant leaves.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> They are not just proposals, these were actually active urban policies of the 60's and 70's in many American cities - New York being the best example, when they gave up on "fixing" some concentrated pockets of crime, drug trafficking and decay so people would just slowly move out elsewhere.
> 
> AFAIK, Baltimore and Richmond were other cities that activelly pursued such policies in the past.
> 
> ...


The Bronx was the specific target of the "planned shrinkage" in NYC during the 1970s & early 80s. 

Yea its ironic but wonderful that NYC has risen to its largest population ever. Indeed, many of those neighborhoods that were targetted for shrinkage have also regrown. 

I'm less hopeful though that a Flint or a Youngstown will ever really be able to bounce back.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Now tell us of part two of your plan Suburbanist. In what fashion you want to rebuild these neighbourhoods. Be specific...:|


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> That is the point I'm trying to make: in the past, planned shrinkage included measures like reducing firefighting coverage, which is harmful. Breaking up a community is not necessarily harmful.
> 
> Make no mistake: I favor and respect individual rights, like the right to be compensated by the State if it uses eminent domain. However, I have no much sympathy for the cause of preservating a neighborhood "as is" if the "as" includes longlasting poverty, crime and other social illness.
> 
> ...


Typical right-wing 'people are bad' attitude.



> I think planned soft planned shrinkage can achieve both community uprooting and meaningful relocation in other regions inside the same city or metropolitan area. People will not be straved to death, but they will have every incentive to leave the neighborhood ASAP, dispersing themselves, hopefully for better equipped places with better infrastructure.


Where are they supposed to go? On the streets?



> I do not support physically harmful measures like closing police precints or reducind anti-drug or anti-abuse programs. Law and Order must be administered 'till the last inhabitant leaves.


Where there are facilities people will stay - how do you shrink?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Now tell us of part two of your plan Suburbanist. In what fashion you want to rebuild these neighbourhoods. Be specific...:|


There is no silver bullet, because condemned neighborhoods do not have specific urban design features that make them better or worse on their own. However, there are some policies and actions I'd like to see in those places:

1. Block-wide demolition of plagued places, who would then be resold for redevelopment (instead of working in a building-by-building basis).

2. Massive increase of proportion of living-in home owners, through appropriate financing, at expense of tenements or fragmented ownership buildings where most residents are renters. I think multifamily dwellings with dozens of different owners including banks, estates, absent owners etc. is one of the biggest problems denser ghettos face, because it requires coordination of too many concerned parts and, once the place is already devalued, investments that won't be recovered unless almost every other owner in the building agree to invest too.

3. Rezoning of the area to outlaw business activities that attracts suspicious crowds, like used car parts stores, pawn shops, etc. Rezoning should also enforce "upper" standards for commercial properties in the area. Minimum dwelling area must be increased to reduce overcrowding.

4. Develop a carefully planned relocation planning to scatter old residents as much as possible in the city or in the metropolitan area, so to make difficult for gangsters, local drug dealers and so on to exert control and by any means try to "reclaim" their criminal power.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

one area that fell victim to planned shrinkage was the South Bronx area of New york City. It is uncertain if there are any other areas. Is planned shrinkage reversible? One answer: if somebody makes the affected area safe again. Any other answers?


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Any body who would come to suggest such a thing should have the same thing done to them


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

If I think about places I haven't seen anything so bad like the Bronx ghetto thread which would make someone to think about these measures. Just dispersing the crowd would not improve the situation at all in these cases. Getting people not to move to areas nearby is not an easy task. And what is nearby is the question. Maybe even better areas which are just as cheap or expensive. Either giving people money directly if they prove they have moved elsewhere. Just imagine the outcry of just donating money to people like that. And people live in low income areas quite likely because they have to. So the options for the people are still somewhat limited. You Suburbanist have said yourself you are against socially engineering people into more expensive neighbourhoods. There probably are enough low-income areas for people to disperse to, so maybe this is not really a problem. But most people still have jobs and ties. 
I think this could only work well in places with a central authority with control over social housing. Doing this in an entirely private housing market is one hard thing to do. 



> * gradual withdraw of transit services, particularly on weekends, holidays and those not essential for home-workplace commuting
> 
> * closing of public parks, including fencing them off and dismantlement of structures


This stuff really is against personal rights. People have a right for transportation from public transport which they pay for.And what if the transit company is private? Walk into some office and order them to stop service just because one does not like the area people live in?

This would work only in an authoritarian society. Letting fires burn is somewhat cliche "developing country" stereotype. Fortunately people most often try to socially engineer neighbourhoods into better places with positive methods not by trying to evict people.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

One question: Should Naples fall victim to planned shrinkage just because it is located near an active volcano (Vesuvius)? Any city that is in danger of or has fallen victim to any natural disaster should suffer from planned shrinkage. Is this true?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

In Napoli they have a "red perimeter" where population should be limited to 5.000 so prompt evacuation could be made if necessary. But depopulation is not necessarily hostile. White flight though with a racial component, for instance, was not hostile at all.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Jim856796 said:


> One question: Should Naples fall victim to planned shrinkage just because it is located near an active volcano (Vesuvius)? Any city that is in danger of or has fallen victim to any natural disaster should suffer from planned shrinkage. Is this true?


There is no planned shrinking necessary, Naples is depopulating itself, because the people leave by choice, In this decade, the natural decrease should also start.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Rather than cutting things out to force people to leave...couldn't they see what the problems are and fix them?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> Rather than cutting things out to force people to leave...couldn't they see what the problems are and fix them?


That is usually the solution, but some places become too hermetic (for the bad) that eroding the very (rotten) community foundations is needed _before_ infrastructure improvements can start. Because you cannot democratically reeducate people (nor is it feasible anyway), it is better just to replace the population, while giving old residents a new chance in their lives - elsewhere.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

In many situations it is an excellent idea suchas everyone's favorite punching bg, Detroit. 
Just go to Google Earth and you see street after street of complete decay where just one or two houses are on the whole street and then look at the streetview and you realize many of those homes have no inhabitants and the houses are, quite litterally, falling down. This is a massive drain on the city's already limited tax base because as long as they are there they must be provided all city services. 
Tje streets could be used as BRT lines which would be a god-send to a city with very little transit and no money to improve it. 
Litterally buying thse derlicts which in Detroit is just a few thousand dollars could mean the people could be moved into better neighbourhood with the city paying for upgrades. This would leave land for job making projects like urban farming. wind turbines, city parks, BRT construction, and then potentially new housing due to these areas becoming desireable as opposed to an urban blight with drugs, gangs, prostitution, high crime, and homelessness.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I'm against BRT, they are lesser, lower level solutions and compete with scarce space with cars.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Detroit has more car space than it knows what to do with, half of the entire city could be car space............that is exactly what the city doesn't need and gearing development towards cars is what got Detroit into the trouble its in now. 
Yes, rail would be great but is completly out of the question for such a destitute city. They are getting a small streetcar route down Woodward Ave which was once Detroit's premier street in order to help revitalize the road into it's former glory but it will be privatly built thru buisness and generous donnations of individuals and corporations because the city hasn't got a nickle to build it itself. 
For the city of Detroit BRT would even be considered lavish. Large parts of the city have to deal with 2 or 3 buses a day!


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

:lol: Suburbanist wants more space for cars in motherfreaking Detroit...(should I laugh or cry?)


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> :lol: Suburbanist wants more space for cars in motherfreaking Detroit...(should I laugh or cry?)


I just think the idea of shutting down parts of a modern city is crazy. It would be better for the government to work some scheme where neighbors could by those fire-sale decrepit houses and double or tripe their own estates annexing them! You could also set up extra green space in bundles of vacant lots, making subdivisions nicer. You can make people, with little help, to have double, triple their previous space, and that would be great!


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ it would be good for people who like to spend all weekend mowing their lawn that's for sure!

On a serious note, I think some of the methods here seem harsh, but planning for a smaller future is something that many cities in the developed world are going to have to do more often as populations decline if they want to avoid chaos and abandonment.

It is only rarely an issue here in the UK, and only with small areas. I think that the usual tactic if an area is to be redeveloped is for the authorities to offer social renters better properties elsewhere, wait for private renters to leave as the neighbourhood declines, offer to buy out owner-occupiers and then use compulsory purchase powers to clear out any that remain.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Why not just expand average house area? In UK, people are cramped in an average area of less than 79 m². Those parameters should be at least 150m2 to allow a comfortable living for 2, more if you have children.

So you can just expand the average house size. Otherwise, populations declines would bring real estate prices down (population is declining = housing will be cheaper tomorrow) and stall almost all new developments or construction.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ I think the average UK home is more like 90sqm but anyway, yes houses could be made a bit bigger, building townhouses with 3 or 4 floors plus basement rather than 2 without basement for example would increase living space without creating sprawl.

I don't thing we need to go as far as you suggest though, why would just two people want 150sqm? Most of the home would lie empty most of the time, its just more space to heat, clean and maintain for little benefit. :dunno:

My house is 110sqm which is more than adequate for 2 adults and 2 small children.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

Basements are prohibitively expensive - thats partly why they are not commonplace in new developments currently in the UK.
Add to the fact the focus on brownfield sites, which bring flood capacity and contamination issues when basements come into the equation, and I don't see things changing soon


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> That is the point I'm trying to make: in the past, planned shrinkage included measures like reducing firefighting coverage, which is harmful. Breaking up a community is not necessarily harmful.
> Many places have recovered only because they had undergone, before recovering, dramatic and swift shifts in its population. Most people living in problematic neighborhoods can recover themselves and have a better life, if they only cut their rotten roots with a rooten community and restart life elsewhere.
> Busing children out is not necessarily a bad thing, it only deprives, temporarily, parents from being involved in school matters - although parent participation in school life is usually very low and a cause itself of blighted neighborhoods -.
> I think planned soft planned shrinkage can achieve both community uprooting and meaningful relocation in other regions inside the same city or metropolitan area. People will not be straved to death, but they will have every incentive to leave the neighborhood ASAP, dispersing themselves, hopefully for better equipped places with better infrastructure.
> .


This is one of the craziest things I've read on this forumhno: And where do you suppose these people will relocate after they've been forcibly removed? You do realize that this method wouldn't actually be solving any problem but merely relocating poverty and misery elsewhere. And I wonder, after these 'plagued' neighborhoods have been sold off for redevelopment, just who and what exactly is going to be taking their place? luxury condos? starbucks on every corner? 
And after these poor people have been 'dispersed' and swamped other neighborhoods, putting a strain on the housing infrastructure, schools, social services, etc. then the cycle continues just as is:nuts:

You have a very simplistic and naive view of the urban poor, by assuming that because certain neighborhoods have high crime that everyone (including the many decent people) should be punished hno:


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

intensivecarebear said:


> And I wonder, after these 'plagued' neighborhoods have been sold off for redevelopment, just who and what exactly is going to be taking their place? luxury condos? starbucks on every corner?


Just look at his screenname and his sig (and his post history) and you'll understand exactely what he'd put back in place...

Quite disgusting really...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Planned shrinkage is, indeed, a policy that could improve the life of the honest low-abiding citizens subject to relocation. Once they are taken out of their urban inferno, they can restructure their lives in new surroundings. To avoid "recidivism", it is better to gentrify the place completely, with a less dense occupation pattern, which will result in a completely population replacement over a period of time with more expensive housing and a different commercial/retailing/service scene in the area.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ Should planned shrinkage be used in the places where white colar crime is high? You know for example where all these wall street traders and stockholders live who are responsible for the crisis.

I think it would be fair, in NY for example, to cut the metro and electricity in these areas where lots of wall street criminals live. The upper west side for example. This will give a chance for the good people in these areas to be cut of from their criminal environment (responsible for the worst crisis in years, profit predation, tax evasion, corruption and so on) and start a new better life amongst law-abiding citizens.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

^^you're sooooo wrong eklips. Because, you know, poor people are inherently evil and untrustworthy, so they deserve to be forcibly removed from neighborhoods in order to create an influx of better people (i.e the rich)


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

eklips said:


> ^^ Should planned shrinkage be used in the places where white colar crime is high? You know for example where all these wall street traders and stockholders live who are responsible for the crisis.
> 
> I think it would be fair, in NY for example, to cut the metro and electricity in these areas where lots of wall street criminals live. The upper west side for example. This will give a chance for the good people in these areas to be cut of from their criminal environment (responsible for the worst crisis in years, profit predation, tax evasion, corruption and so on) and start a new better life amongst law-abiding citizens.


To the extent of my knowledge and from my recent visit to Manhattan, I don't think the Upper West Side has significant street and/or violent crime rates. Anyhow, most of people involved in Wall Street didn't commit any crime - otherwise, federal prosecutors would be surely going after them. Even Maddof didn't point a gun to no one's head, AFAIK.

So, ranting as you might be, or me, or other forummites, white collar guys can create a worldwide financial disaster, but they don't usually steal your car, they don't point a gun to your head, and they don't use drugs on the streets under bright sunlight. At most, they develop fancy complex investment products seated on hype-cool restaurants and coffee shops (maybe, in this lean times, on the nearest Starbucks).

But I got your irony anyway...


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Why not just expand average house area? In UK, people are cramped in an average area of less than 79 m². Those parameters should be at least 150m2 to allow a comfortable living for 2, more if you have children.
> 
> So you can just expand the average house size. Otherwise, populations declines would bring real estate prices down (population is declining = housing will be cheaper tomorrow) and stall almost all new developments or construction.


In the UK the cost of heating up the house is rising rapidly and with the rising cost of importing energy, it will rise even more in the future. With this in mind, a larger house that will be even more expensive to heat up is not a very good idea.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ to be honest, I don't think that's a major factor. If you are paying from £100k-£600k for a house, a couple of hundred pounds per year more or less on the utilities bills isn't going to be a deciding factor.

The main factor acting against bigger house sizes is public opinion on greenfield development and democratic control of the planning process. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that (although our system could definitely be improved).


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

goschio said:


> It is also practised in many rundown east German towns. Because of continuous population decline, communities have to downsize their infrastructure. If there are not enough children anymore you have to close some kindergartens and schools.


Not just in the East. Here in South-West Germany, you e.g. often have senior homes being built increasingly out in the suburbs (moving them out of the cities), schools (especially of the vocational track) are being centralized into certain areas and districts, shopping infrastructure gets centralized through regional zoning...


----------



## Cherguevara (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ to be honest, I don't think that's a major factor. If you are paying from £100k-£600k for a house, a couple of hundred pounds per year more or less on the utilities bills isn't going to be a deciding factor.
> 
> The main factor acting against bigger house sizes is public opinion on greenfield development and democratic control of the planning process. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that (although our system could definitely be improved).


But what suburbanist is suggesting (I think) is knocking down small houses in declining areas and replacing them with bigger houses. If the same residents who lived in the small houses lived in the large ones then heating costs would be an issue, because these will be poor people.

Now you could move these people away and hope that richer people move in, but then you've still got poorer people who need smaller houses somewhere.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ to be honest, I don't think that's a major factor. If you are paying from £100k-£600k for a house, a couple of hundred pounds per year more or less on the utilities bills isn't going to be a deciding factor.


Seeing as quite a few household are paying through the nose for the mortgage, I guess they would be counting the pennies when it comes to heating bills.



> The main factor acting against bigger house sizes is public opinion on greenfield development and democratic control of the planning process. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that (although our system could definitely be improved).


Agreed.


----------

