4 ms·
Crime, corruption and decaying buildings were much more prominent in NYC of the 1970s than NYC of today. Or Chicago in the 1960s than Chicago of today. Or Bos
by nostrademons 6y ago
Crime, corruption and decaying buildings were much more prominent in NYC of the 1970s than NYC of today. Or Chicago in the 1960s than Chicago of today. Or Boston in the 1920s vs. Boston today.
The problem with this explanation - even though it sounds reasonable - is that it lacks predictive power. There's always crime, corruption, and decay, because whenever large groups of people come together there's crime, corruption, and decay, and cities are defined by large groups of people coming together. But for this to be the cause of collapse, you need to explain how cities can have high levels of crime, corruption, and decaying buildings and then recover back to lower levels of crime, corrupion, and decaying buildings.
I'll posit a simpler explanation that sounds a lot less sexy. Cities rise when the industry they specialize in becomes a regional or global powerhouse. (Here, I use "industry" broadly - it can also refer to power & governance, like with Rome or Washington DC, or to culture, like LA.) They fall when that industry becomes relatively less important.
So Detroit fell because the American auto industry is no longer competitive vs. the Japanese & Koreans. New Orleans fell because the Mississippi river trade lost its importance when steamships & containerization happened.
Boston fell when the textile industry moved south, and then renewed when it was replaced by the education, minicomputer, and biotech industries. There is very little cities can do about this other than refocus on another industry, like Boston did.
- ashtonkem 6y agoAlso, American cities on average continue to gain population, not lose them. Even cities that are derided as “decaying”, like NYC.
- JAlexoid 6y agoNYC is set to loose people and/or have a drop in median household income(the second bit is where it really hurts)
- ashtonkem 6y agoChances are they’ll move to another city, and NY will regain that population sooner rather than later. Meanwhile rural areas have been constantly and consistently depopulating for decades. My grandmother is buried in a graveyard in the middle of a soy field; the town that originally made that graveyard is just gone, and it happened within my lifetime.
- JAlexoid 6y agoThe issue isn't that NYC will not regain, but in what state it will be. Lower income families cannot leave an urban center easily. Drop of median income is bad because the loss of a group of people that contribute a lot more tax money and provide demand for services. That means that an "exodus" of 400k (some are) middle class people will only marginally reduce the demands for infrastructure. That will inevitably lead to strain on infrastructure of NYC. NYC infrastructure is the most expensive in the world. Construction of one mile of subway runs at $1bn. That is not even TBM bored deep tunnels.
- ashtonkem 6y agoAll fair points. But I’ll point out that NYC infrastructure costs are largely a matter of political policy. There’s no particular reason why NYC couldn’t construct for the same cost as say, Tokyo or Paris if they wanted to.
- burntoutfire 6y ago> But for this to be the cause of collapse, you need to explain how cities can have high levels of crime, corruption, and decaying buildings and then recover back to lower levels of crime, corrupion, and decaying buildings. This sounds like a perspective of someone who's lived their entire life in the US. Meanwhile, here in Poland, you can have relatively large metro areas (Warsaw + suburbs is probably over 2 million people at this point) with barely any discernible crime - certainly not enough that it's anyone's radar as a social problem. When I was younger I was always puzzled why the american comic books focus so much on fighting crime (Batman, Punisher etc.) - now I understand that it IS actually a real problem in the US. I wonder why crime never took on in Poland, even though we have clearly way fewer economic opportunities and the state-provided social support is worse than in the US (with the exception of free health care). One argument that comes to my mind is the almost complete lack of drugs over here. In Poland, if someone is keen on destroying their life via a substance dependence, they always go for alcohol, which I guess is much cheaper than drugs, so it creates way less criminals. That can't be the whole explanation though.
- nostrademons 6y agoI should probably say "large groups of disparate people". Ethnic homogeneity makes everything easier. American gun laws probably don't help either, but there are non-American cities - Sarajevo, South Africa, much of Europe after the Syrian migration crisis - that struggle with crime too, and there seems to be a correlation there.
- JAlexoid 6y agoThat's severely overblown.
- JAlexoid 6y agoCrime in Europe is generally lower, than many American cities. I can also assure you, that it's not hard to come by drugs in Poland (I have procured marijuana in Warsaw, without issues). Drug laws create more criminals, but then a cohesive society creates invisible "exceptions" to the rules. You're more likely to be sent to a rehab facility in Europe, than to be sent to prison for drug use. Let's also remember that US has a massive problem with mental health.