Can we shrink a whole state?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Don Torrance on July 13, 2009 at 11:58am

What is interesting about this concept is that this is what the U.S. did during the Great Depression and also trends of this idea during the recession in the '80's. During tough times, we turn in on ourselves to re-evaluate what is sustaining us and how we can climb out of the rubble. Truth be told, if we came back to this idea every so often we wouldn't have to resolve to a long period of economic ruin.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marty Thompson on July 13, 2009 at 4:47pm

We must first come to the realization that the economy may not return to what it was prior to the global recession/depression. Corporations rely upon growth models that ultimately cannot be sustained as the dynamics of the world economy change, and as the world becomes an increasingly crowded place. We need to start rethinking our notions of growth, and instead more effectively link them to things like sustainability.
Do we want the state we live in to become a better place, or just another mega-suburb? We should demand better from our elected officials to bring real vision and planning to bear. For example. We should be focusing our agricultural efforts on sustainable practices that don't rely upon massive petrochemical influxes, and GMO plants and animals. We could set the stage for a quiet revolution in agriculture that is actually gaining ground worldwide. Instead, we continue down the ridiculous path of ethanol from corn, and remain hostages to the likes of Monsanto. We don't need a superhighway going through our state, we need a superhighway of thought plowing through our elected officials. And as for those houses being bulldozed in other states metro areas to scale back infrastructure, why not offer them for $1, to people willing to move them?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by William H Lanteigne on July 13, 2009 at 7:18pm

I think we get more "bang for the buck" if we focus on redevelopment of underutilzed or vacant, but structurally sound buildings. Some manufacturing facilities could be converted to office spaces, retail facilities, or even multifamily housing units; for the most part, this requires rezoning to encourage financing of such projects, and placing a moratorium on new construction- alternatively, granting new construction permits only if the developer also agrees to refurbish and repurpose an existing building.
Certainly Indianapolis can do better providing "green spaces," by replanting building lots where old facilities have been torn down. Another move to "green" the city would be to improve mass transportation (buying more buses, hiring more drivers, increasing the number of routes to connect the places we live with the places we work and play, building more "park and rides" on the outskirts so commuters from outside the city can ride the shiny new buses).
Shall I mention telecommuting? This could be the "greenest" approach of all, encouraging people to work in "virtual offices," at home via home computer, or on-the-go with the new wireless technologies.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rose Scovel on July 13, 2009 at 10:46pm

Smaller communities or "shrinking cities" is about the infrastructure, housing, transportation, public services, and commercial/industrial footprint of communities with declining populations and how to address those issues and the accompanying tax burden/tax base issues. Applying it statewide when there are some rapidly growing communities doesn't make sense. Additionally, land use policy and decision making is a local government function, not a state government function. A statewide policy (or mandate) would require communities across the state to revise their comprehensive plans and zoning and subdivision control ordinances to even make it plausible. This would be viewed as an unfunded mandate in many communities and in some places the growth management policies that would be needed would be considered an infringement of private property rights.

From an ecological standpoint there are many things communities (growing and shrinking) can do to minimize (or at least reduce) their footprint. Reuse, redevelopment, and infill development are strategies for this - but in some rapidly growing communities there is no where to infill or redevelop...hence a "shrinking cities" approach isn't appropriate. Just don't confuse concepts. "Shrinking cities" refers to those older, primarily industrial, cities that need to find ways to right size for their current populations...sustainability is a different approach - some elements may be shared, but they are not the same thing.

Rose Scovel, AICP

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bruce LaDuke on July 14, 2009 at 10:15am

We need a cooperative, data and research driven, integral, long-range vision and plan for our city, state, and region (www.futureindiana.com). It's ok to have a couple hundred different planning organizations, policy centers, and think tanks--but without an integral dialogue and shared vision, these interests can oppose one another and frustrate any movement forward. Shrinkinig is a specific solution to a specific problem. Indiana's current state has not been fully defined across various interests and movement forward needs to be based on where we are at today.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Richard Edmonds on July 14, 2009 at 5:51pm

As a UK citizen a couple of years from his fiftieth birthday I have personal experience of this very issue, but some fifteen to twenty years ago. Having grown up in towns and cities, in the UK with a central high street, a thriving community and a manufacturing link to the rest of the world, I have seen it all change shape, spread out and fall apart. Manufacturing in the UK has been decimated due to the lack of investment into technology and people and losing sight of the competition. We saw huge mega-stores appear on the outskirts of the towns creating unrealistic competition for the smaller high street stores. The average family now drives twice as far; every day as they did only two decades ago and this has caused the total loss of the community. Having been in the States for four years as a business consultant, I have seen a total abuse of space and energy on a massive scale. I have repeatedly advised small to medium companies to reduce in size, but not in output or quality. Small and smarter is the way forward and yes this should be the template for states too. You are blessed with a wonderful community spirit that makes it a great place to live and bring up children. You still have time to learn the lessons that Europe and in particular the UK have gone through, because a decline in your manufacturing industry is one thing, but a decline in your community is more devastating than you can imagine. Sadly that is why I am here!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by john blue on July 15, 2009 at 11:30am

I believe managed growth means (implies?) planning for planned shrinkage. However,this is like disaster planning: Everyone should have a disaster plan but few really want / have time to execute them.

Maybe a better way to say it is managed growth should have a process to adjust to radical change; since the radical change can not be known in advance, at least having a process will help roll with the change. Community development groups (city councils, planning commissions, etc) ideally should plan for the long cycle.

I recommend reading Christopher Alexander's series of books on building communities.

This set (3) of books cover how to develop a community over time:

• The timeless way of building
• The Oregon experiment
• A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nicholas Noe on July 16, 2009 at 11:11pm

It all depends where you want to shrink. I could stand to lose a little off my middle and with Indiana 49th out of 50 States on the environmental "happy" list, it seems prudent that we should be looking for ways to make our state more verdant and ecologically friendly. I'm not adverse to the state using its power of eminent domain to condemn derelict commercial properties and return them to parkland; just as long as there is an equal opportunity for entrepenuers to develop business plans along with low interest financing that could restore them to vitality and bring needed jobs back into the community. The important thing is---DO SOMETHING, whether its rebuilding or regreening. That corner filling station that has set vacant for ten or more years has had more than enough time for its owner to figure out how it will best serve the community. The question is--How do we formulate "reverse zoning" to allow it to take on a more agreeable and productive role?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian M. Alvey on August 1, 2009 at 2:18am

At the peak of our downtown's [location specific] revitalization that was causing an incredible inversion to take place in the mid 90's well past the year 2000, we had the mayor of Louisville coming up for visits and consulting with our then mayor, Mayor Goldsmith, as to how we were experiencing the level of success with revamping, reinvesting and thus revitalizing downtown Indy. Said mayor from Louisville must have taken copious notes because now Louisville has one of the strongest and sustaining revitalization efforts in the country. Downtown Louisville, to which over a decade ago was a no-man's-land of an urban blight ridden “dump” is now incredibly beautiful and alive with people. With exception to a few key locations in Indy like Mass Ave. / Lockerbie, Broad ripple, and the slightly slower yet steady moving and always relentless Fountain Square, we have lost most of our forward momentum.

We need to reinvent and reinvest!

There needs to be more collective partnerships to foster neighborhood revitalization downtown via mix use areas of properties. If retail and residential grow together, simultaneously, you will see that the area in question will grow in a better way, much faster and create a true sense of ownership not only in one’s own piece of property but in their neighborhood and community as well. We have some strong examples in our city where this is happening yet in so many other places we fail to follow their successful example…

On a similar yet side note, I believe a mass transit rail system would do more harm than good with revitalizing downtown and Indianapolis’s central surrounding areas. If we had a commuter rail system that would reach out past 465 and the city’s boundaries it would only encourage Indianapolis citizens to continue to live in the outer lying areas as opposed to moving closer to downtown.

We need to continue, through residential and local business owners, continue to foster a spirit of pride and growth that will attract more of the like.

I’m proud to say that I have tried to be one of those businessmen in the near Southside community of the Concord District having opened and ran a business in the old “Sacred Heart Neighborhood” for what is just shy of two years now. I reinvested and reinvented and old business and despite the current economic situation I see a strong light at the end of the tunnel.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last