Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to John Blackman and Michael Waller some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

The incredible shrinking city!

Many of the world's cities are shrinking, and some urban planners say that's a great opportunity to redesign and re-green urban spaces. Forget smart growth. The new trend is "smart decline."
Seattle: getting that shrinking feeling?

Seattle: getting that shrinking feeling? Wikipedia Commons

Here in Pugetopolis it's still a matter of faith that growth is unstoppable and the urbanization is the answer to all our prayers. I've written that growth is often the result of national policies (land grants, homesteading, land reclamation, tax incentives, bank deregulation) and as such, it can be steered and controlled. We could, for example, create policies that could help repopulate fading rural areas, such as the proposed New Homestead Act.

But U.S. rural areas aren't the only places losing population. Many of the world's cities are also shrinking. That trend is most visible in Europe (new and old) and in the United States. Here, we think of dying Rust Belt burgs like Detroit, Cleveland, and Youngstown. But overseas, it's pronounced in other areas. According to City Mayors, a think-tank devoted to boosting urban life and issues, more cities have shrunk in the last 50 years than have grown:

The populations of 46 countries, including Germany, Italy, Japan, most of the former Soviet states, and several small island states, are expected to be smaller in 2050 than they are now. These demographic trends are reflected at the city level, as well. In the last 30 years, more cities in the developed world shrank than grew.

Negative growth trends are largely associated with cities in North America and Europe, where the number of shrinking cities has increased faster in the last 50 years than the number of expanding cities. In the United States alone, 39 cities have endured population loss.

In the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, 49, 48, and 34 cities, respectively, shrank in size between 1990 and 2000. A number of cities in countries of the former Soviet bloc are losing their populations. Nearly 100 Russian cities experienced negative growth in the 1990s; in Ukraine, 40 cities experienced population loss.

In the case of cities in the developed world, the report notes that on average, 2.3 million people migrate into developed countries each year. This means that migration — both legal and illegal — accounts for approximately one-third of the urban growth in the developed world. Without migration, the urban population of the developed world would likely decline or remain the same in the coming decades.

So in spite of global urbanization, there is a significant counter-trend. The Shrinking Cities International Research Network (SCiRN) is a group of academics tracks the shrinking cities trend and looks at urban development implications and solutions. Karina Pallagst, program director at the Center for Global Metropolitan Studies at the University of California Berkeley, defines a shrinking city as "a densely populated urban area with a minimum population of 10,000 residents that has faced population losses in large parts for more than two years and is undergoing economic transformations with some symptoms of a structural crisis." Such crises are due in part to migration, economic dislocation, globalization, political and economic transformations (the fall of the old Soviet Union), and low birth rates (such as in Germany and Italy).

A big question facing urbanists is, what to do with shrunken cities? One possibility would be re-populating them. Could the New Homestead Act be revised to give a boost to places urban zones like Detroit? Isn't it more environmentally sustainable to re-populate existing cities where land has already been cleared, infrastructure is in place, and homes can be re-inhabited? Possibly. But in very distressed urban areas that cannot count on a resurgence of urban settlers, cities could be permanently re-scaled to something smaller. There's a new movement to reclaim urban areas by clearing parts of them and even letting them go back to nature.

The New York Times has a story about the efforts to do that in Flint, Michigan, "An effort to save a city by shrinking it." According to the Times, when Flint did its Master Plan in 1965, "it was a prosperous city of 200,000 looking to grow to 350,000. It now has 110,000 people, about a third of whom live in poverty." As the city copes with an economic collapse and budget crises, some believe there's a need for bold action, and downsizing might be just the thing. According to the Times this is possible because of recent changes in the law:


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Apr 27, 8:28 a.m. Inappropriate

At first skim, your article is flawed.

The biggest: Those "shrinking" US cities generally have not been shrinking, but sprawling. Inner areas have hollowed while the overall metro populations have in most cases grown.

mhays

Posted Mon, Apr 27, 9:15 a.m. Inappropriate

"Karina Pallagst, program director at the Center for Global Metropolitan Studies at the University of California Berkeley, defines a shrinking city as "a densely populated urban area with a minimum population of 10,000 residents"

...so according to this standard, a city such as Anacortes qualifies as a densely populated urban center??

Wimpy

Posted Mon, Apr 27, 9:22 a.m. Inappropriate

Correction: "Urban area." Regardless, their critieria for what constitutes a dense urban area seems a little broad. By this criteria once could observe a population decrease in a suburban/rural fringe area like Covington or Maple Valley and come to the conclusion that cities as a whole are shrinking or on the decline.

Wimpy

Posted Mon, Apr 27, 10:46 a.m. Inappropriate

On the positive side, it's a great idea for a metro to grow by backfilling (and simply remaining in) its central areas. And, once decline has happened, it's a great idea to turn the farthest-gone neighborhoods into parks, farms, or wildlands, turning blight into assets while theoretically saving public dollars at least in the long run.

mhays

Posted Mon, Apr 27, 6:56 p.m. Inappropriate

Here is something I'd copied 5/23/08 from a comment blog on a James Kunstler article in the Washington Post, saved, rediscovered and reread just yesterday. At the time it must have seemed extreme but with an ominous ring of truth worth filing away?

"I also believe that we very well could descend into several decades of "dark ages" since those in power not only have very little comprehension of our energy situation, but have been pursuing policies in other areas that if one felt they actually had a clue, one would conclude they are trying to destroy our society and economy as fast as it possibly can be destroyed. (e.g. pyramid-scheme economics: prop up the economy by digging an ever deeper hole of debt in order to perpetuate overconsumption, and "comprehensive" immigration reform: Flooding the country with the most massive program of population growth in the history of mankind, just as we are entering historically unprecedented economic depression and energy crisis."

afreeman

Posted Tue, Apr 28, 12:14 p.m. Inappropriate

Admit it Knute, this is just another example of putting a warm and fuzzy spin on a plan that really is all about getting rid of all those awful people who don't look, think or act a certain way, or don't belong to the same economic class. Most people can figure out that the world's major cities are becoming less affordable... just look at real estate listings!

orino

Posted Thu, Apr 30, 10:54 a.m. Inappropriate

When a person cannot afford their rent, food or other basic living expenses, I sincerely doubt if they care that a new "green" space or forest has been created in their neighborhood.

Sulaco

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »