I recently wrote an article for the Northside Chronicle about pre-industrial Pittsburgh. In it I imagined that if our existing population lived in the physical pre-industrial Pittsburgh we might fit better. This was perhaps the second or third time I had thought about shrinking cities physically when the population shrinks.
Today I was alerted to a USA Today article from another web site. The article, published last December is titled (link) As older cities shrink, some reinvent themselves. Among the cities mentioned are Cleveland, Detroit and Richmond.
I have mixed feelings about the idea, which may be the subconscious reason why I hadn't more fully explored the idea when it sparked before. In the pre-industrial Pittsburgh article the notion was mostly romantic as I was imagining Neo-classical farm houses fronting green fields where decaying Victorian-era houses now stand.
To some degree these decaying, or at least in less than ideal condition homes, are a burden. To some degree they are an opportunity. Pittsburgh's population is older if not still aging. The youthful energy needed to rehabilitate these homes is just not there. The population to fill these homes might not be there anytime soon either. For sure it would seem there is a trend toward urban living, but the new urbanites populating our cities seem to want condos more than single-family homes.
Still, if one thing is certain it is change. When the condos are full, some of the condo owners will certainly yearn for a bit more space and these hillside homes, some with views, may call out. I've recently watched several neighborhoods be flushed of these ultra-cheap homes as they are repaired and lived in.
Higher gas prices and other factors may also serve to create new demand for these homes in the future. Plus, too many houses helps keep prices low, and opportunities such as these, perhaps coupled with incentives, are just what's needed to attract more youth and immigrant energy to our city. Bulldozing houses and replacing them with green space will raise the prices, lower density, decrease efficiency and create a "suburbanization" of urban America. Do we really want that? Is it good for our cities or their populations?
Of course, this may be a dumb way as opposed to a smart way. I'd like to hear details about a smart way that can preserve density, efficiency and affordability, but my guess is that's not easy if at all possible.
It's nice to think of the romantic side of a pre-industrial, smaller, simpler city, but then that wouldn't be as much of a city, would it?
No comments:
Post a Comment