bad neighborhoods and urban development
 

Had a chat with an old friend the other day regarding parts of town, and how they look like something out of a second or third world country. Neighborhoods that have been neglected and left in disrepair. Bad ones. The kind you hear about on the 11 0'clock news regarding the latest shooting or other violence. Although we're not here to talk about the unlawful acts that may go on in such places, we are hear to talk about why they remain being that way.

Is it the government's responsibility to renovate and rebuild them up to a higher set of standards, private individuals who have left their original homes after becoming successful, or should they be left as they are? Do bad neighborhoods have a place in sociaity, to inspire it's inhabitants to grow to be more that what they are, or should they be bulldozed to the ground to make way for a modern utopia like something out of Robocop 3? Can we find a middle ground?

Is there something else going? Can it be true that banks are redlining these areas to keep poor cities poor? Are companies profiting from this area in this state, or are they avoided like the a plague that causes a loss of status and growth? Are we missing something more sinister, or is there a simple answer here?

Any thoughts?

It's a complicated issue. If you're interested in reading about it, i would recommend "the death and life of great american cities" by jane jacobs.

As for the question of whether something should be done, and if so whose responsibility it is to do it, i believe that something should be done, and that if private individuals can't provide the initiative, the public sector should step in. I think that it is in most everybody's best interest if the number of bad neighborhoods is minimized and i don't have a problem with my tax dollars (or yours, for that matter) going towards that cause.

Ideally those looking to improve things should understand what they're doing so that they don't actually make things worse - from what i have gathered, it is fairly common for well meaning city planners to actually make things worse.

This is an excellent topic for discussion. You raise many interesting questions for a very complex problem. My understanding of this is very superficial at best, but I think some elements must be close to the facts.

Historically, say 50's and 60's, inner city high rises were built as low income housing for what where then predominately black families. This contributed to the "white flight" out of the cities and into the suburbs. Economic neglect, both in terms of property and people, led to slum like conditions and criminal activity within the inner city neighborhoods. These problems have been ignored for the most part over the years, until recently.

I wish I could check my cynicism at the door, but I can't. There is a great "hoopla" now that the tenements are being torn down and residents will be moved to "better" locations for raising a family. It is also true that these downtown properties are worth a great deal to city developers. There are many reasons that neighborhoods may go "bad" but one of them must be that the criminal faction of the inner cities is being driven outward, along with the families that are being displaced.

Before some get all riled up about tax dollars being spent, it should be noted that tax dollars can also be used as seed money to bring about change.

Changing zoning laws, providing tax incentives to developers and retail who would move into an area that is in decline are just a couple of ways governments can bring about change without actually spending money on building thing things...

Charlatan, I'm all riled up that tax dollars were not spent to develop healthy communities within the inner cities. Low income seems to equate to low investment. I understand the economic problem, but I doubt there was much interest at the time in providing a long term solution to low income housing and it's effects upon the community. I see no interest today, either.

I thought the whole point of that solution was that it wasn't supposed to be long term?

well for the highrise "solution" to have been short-term in any coherent sense, there would have had to been something coherent done to--o i dunno--plan economic development on the part of at the very least city governments. but there wasn't. the history of american urban policies with regard to the poor has largely been to herd them around, dump them places, provide neither infrastructure nor development of anything like a coherent economic sector and then blame the folk who live in these areas for developing--o what to call them?--informal economies that reproduce the logic of capitalism without the legal constraints part. the questions/problems/attitudes/politics that underlying this are complicated, like others have pointed out. but this basic pattern happens over and over and over.

maybe look at the work of michael katz (in addition to jacobs book, which is kinda of required reading). cant remember titles exactly--something like punishing the poor. it's quite good. also manuel castells "the city and the grassroots"--but there's a ton of stuff to read.

i have a ton of references on this laying around but i never feel quite comfortable about posting syllabus-like lists.

If we cut to the chase...to me at least the underlying issue is one of fear, on multiple levels. On the macro level, few with the means are willing to invest the large sums of capital required to enact major change in areas holding an unacceptable risk of failure. On a micro level, most people above the poverty line are not enthusiastic about entering these areas for fear of the violence and uncomfortable issues likely to be seen and experienced. It becomes a catch 22.
Until there is a reason for corporate entities to believe a market is within reach, they wont usually step in. Until the investment is made in improvement of facilities and security, the market will not be there. This leaves a population stuck in a limbo of poverty which is perpetuated by the simple fact they are there. Given a choice, I myself avoid these areas if at all possible, regardless of the possible economic benefit that might be found there, primarily because I dislike the feeling of insecurity I get every time I visit.
In my view, until the people living in these areas step up and improve the community they are forced to be in, there is no reason to expect growth and prosperity. Its not a happy reality, but its the one I see.

I disagree that bad neighborhoods stay bad. In my life time I have seen many neighborhoods go through cycles. The cycles often correspond to economic conditions and demographics. I grew up in a neighborhood in the Midwest, a blue collar neighborhood. While the jobs were plentiful the neighborhood was good. When good jobs left things got worse. Young educated people who grew up in the neighborhood left. The criminal element took over. However, in the past 10 years, conditions have started improving with new business investment and attractions to the downtown area. The last time I was there I was amazed with how much had changed.

I think it is local and in some cases state government's responsibility. Not the Federal government. The Federal would have no clue on how to effectively managing local issues that would lead to renewal. It seem to be inefficient to send a tax dollar to Washington only to have a portion of that dollar come back for local issues. there is no State in this country that is so poor that they can not manage these issues.



Banks don't call it "redlining", but they are not going to take a risk unless they thin it is going to be profitable. Good banks have no agenda other than longterm profitable growth.


People make the difference. People have to fight for what is best for their community. When people get involved in the fight, everything improves, from police protection, business investment in the area, and government being more responsive to community needs.

no, it's not. other than fire, police, road maintenance, and trash pickup, the upkeep of a community is the responsibility of the people in that community. just because you are poor does not mean you have to live in a dirty, broken neighborhood. someone has to own that empty house. that owner has the responsibility for upkeep, whether he lives in the area or on the other side of the world. i live in colorado, i own a house in north carolina, and if it's not rented, i still have to pay a property manager to maintain it.

if a bank owns a row of empty houses, then it's the bank's responsibility for upkeep.

the point i'm trying to make is, we as a nation should not look to the government to do everything and be in our every little business. we as people need to start taking care of ourselves a bit more.

Being Canadian i haven't thought a lot about the American System on this but werent these neglected neighbourhoods (aka project) put together by the government. So by that understanding it would be the government responsibility to build these neighbourhoods to an acceptable level

In Canada we have a similar system,but seems to work much better. The way it works here is you would apply with a government organization to live under their help(not welfare). If you are approved you would live in an appartment for reletively cheap rent.