3 ms·

"...all the best urban planners left cleveland as it shrank, which resulted in waste..." ??? But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't that because the places th

"...all the best urban planners left cleveland as it shrank, which resulted in waste..." ??? But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? (Or else they would have done the planning to make their own place that desirable.) Serious question BTW. I'm not trying to be snarky.

mushufasa 8y ago
the article suggests that bad urban planning can cause a city to shrink. reverse causation would be that cities which shrink result in bad urban planning. the mechanism for the reverse causation could be that the best urban planners may choose to work in cities with promising growth. or, that shrinking makes urban planning too unpredictable to be effective. you seem to be assuming that urban planners cause a city to be desirable or not. I'm not so sure planners have as much influence, versus, say, trade/resources/industries. point being, i don't think the causal mechanisms on this are clear.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't isn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? Yes, for instance, jobs for urban planners, which are both more plentiful and better paying in growing (both population and economy) areas. > And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? No, in the same way that an investment planner that experiences a known risk that would have been more likely under alternative courses, or who underperforms other portfolios that benefited from access to investments only made selectively available to people who owned particular investments before that advisor came onboard have not necessarily missed anything. Unavoidable risk and opportunities constrained by initial conditions definitely affect urban planning.

mushufasa 8y ago

the article suggests that bad urban planning can cause a city to shrink. reverse causation would be that cities which shrink result in bad urban planning. the mechanism for the reverse causation could be that the best urban planners may choose to work in cities with promising growth. or, that shrinking makes urban planning too unpredictable to be effective. you seem to be assuming that urban planners cause a city to be desirable or not. I'm not so sure planners have as much influence, versus, say, trade/resources/industries. point being, i don't think the causal mechanisms on this are clear.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't isn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? Yes, for instance, jobs for urban planners, which are both more plentiful and better paying in growing (both population and economy) areas. > And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? No, in the same way that an investment planner that experiences a known risk that would have been more likely under alternative courses, or who underperforms other portfolios that benefited from access to investments only made selectively available to people who owned particular investments before that advisor came onboard have not necessarily missed anything. Unavoidable risk and opportunities constrained by initial conditions definitely affect urban planning.