3 ms·
If the pull of the cities is good enough wouldn't people just naturally leave the burbs anyway? And if the suburb doesn't have many people living in it, why wou
by naravara 10y ago
If the pull of the cities is good enough wouldn't people just naturally leave the burbs anyway? And if the suburb doesn't have many people living in it, why would we need to mitigate those problems? Why not just let the houses crumble and stand as decaying ruins?
Detroit's been doing that, the biggest expense seems to be having to tear up the roads since gravel/dirt is safer than an unmaintained paved road. For the places that do have growth potential, the cheapness of real estate should just encourage people to redevelop as infill.
Are we worried about crumbling building materials leaching toxins into the surrounding environment or is it more of a concern about blight/eye-sores?
- kasey_junk 10y ago> If the pull of the cities is good enough wouldn't people just naturally leave the burbs anyway? And if the suburb doesn't have many people living in it, why would we need to mitigate those problems? Why not just let the houses crumble and stand as decaying ruins? That is assuming the people there have the resources to move. We'd mitigate them to provide opportunity for that choice. Those crumbling houses and decaying ruins will be the home to the members of our society least able to help themselves.
- naravara 10y ago>That is assuming the people there have the resources to move. We'd mitigate them to provide opportunity for that choice. Those crumbling houses and decaying ruins will be the home to the members of our society least able to help themselves. That solution isn't in building up the burbs though. It would be in making it easier to move to and live in places that aren't dying. In any developing country there is a constant pull of rural to urban migration. The big stumbling block is having a place to live and a job for when you get to the city, not how fancy your village was.