Relying on growth generally means taking on debt and risking large sums of capital on projects with the hope that it brings a return. Some projects will work o

Relying on growth generally means taking on debt and risking large sums of capital on projects with the hope that it brings a return. Some projects will work out, and some won't. When you're a company this is largely fine -- the worst case is that the company goes under, dissolves, and employees move on to new positions at new companies. When you're a city, failure is not an option. Chicago officials can't simply say "welp, that investment didn't pay off like expected", shut down the water lines, and ride a golden parachute into the sunset while its citizens fend for themselves. What's more, at the local level, the city's revenue is largely unaffected by successful growth-targeting projects. Any revenue that comes from GDP is largely in the form of sales and income taxes, which largely go to the state and the fed. So if a city is tracking GDP as a key metric they're in for a rough time. It means they're getting saddled with 100% of the maintenance liability of projects, and (usually) 0% of the revenue. Unless a project is bringing in more citizens and growing the tax base, it's going to operate in the red no matter what. Most commonly, the project will be a road or highway that ends up displacing people, spreading them out, and diluting the tax base. So at least at the local level, focusing on growth, specifically as measured by GDP, is a recipe for disaster (e.g. Detroit). I'd much rather my city focus on some other metric that's tied to sustainability.