Planned shrinkage

[joeblow]

Planned shrinkage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_shrinkage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planned shrinkage is a public policy, practiced most notably in the 1970s in New York City, of withdrawing essential city services (such as police patrols, garbage removal, street repairs, and fire services) from neighborhoods suffering from urban decay, crime and poverty so that neighborhoods may be claimed by outside interests for new development. After the mid-20th-century boom in highways, suburbs and urban dispersal, civic leaders felt that urban decline was a natural and inevitable process, and they sought to plan the manner in which cities would shrink in such a way that population loss would be greatest in the areas with the poorest non-white[1] residents.[2]

Under Planned Shrinkage, one 100-unit development on one piece of land cleared by a single developer is preferable to 10 neighborhoods-based efforts each producing 100 units. The policy supported monolithic development, and often development at much lower densities than the neighborhoods impacted by it sustained in the past.[2]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History of the term
* 2 Origins of the idea
* 3 Results of planned shrinkage
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 Further reading
* 7 External links

[edit] History of the term

The term "Planned Shrinkage" was first used in New York City in the mid-70s.[2] In 1976 the Housing Commissioner of New York City, Roger Starr responded to the urban decay that plagued many areas in NYC such as The South Bronx and Harlem proposing a policy now known as "planned shrinkage."

On January 14, 1976 Starr gave a speech at the real estate industry lodge of the B'nai B'rith suggesting that the city should "accelerate the drainage" in what he called the worst parts of the South Bronx through a policy of "planned shrinkage." He suggested closing subway stations, firehouses and schools. In these days the city was in a deep financial crisis and Starr felt these actions were the best way to save money.[3] Starr's arguments soon became predominant in urban planning thinking nationwide.[2] The people who lived in the communities where his policies were applied protested, without adequate fire service and police protection they faced waves of crime and fires that left much of the South Bronx and Harlem devastated. [1]
[edit] Origins of the idea

In the early 1970s, RAND conducted a study that showed how city services relate to population in a large city. They concluded that when services such as police and fire protection were withdrawn, the population in that area would decrease.[1] In part in response to the Rand study and in an effort to address the shrinking population in New York City, Starr proposed his policy of planned shrinkage to reduce the impoverished population and better preserve the tax base. The idea was that because most of the fires in poor neighborhoods were "caused by arson," there was no sense in improving fire services to combat the problem. Although, the Rand Institute report suggested that a large proportion of the fires were arson, subsequent analysis of the data would not back this up. Of the fires in buildings, only a very small portion were arson and that portion was not higher than the rate of proven arson found in wealthier neighborhoods. However, influenced by the report, Daniel Patrick Moynihan went on to make recommendations for urban policy based on the assumption that there was "widespread arson" in poverty stricken neighborhoods like the South Bronx and Harlem. To Moynihan arson was one of many social pathologies caused by large cities that would benefit from benign neglect.[1]
[edit] Results of planned shrinkage

"In the South Bronx, the average number of people per [fire] engine is over 44,000. In Staten Island, it's 17,000. There is no standard for manning areas of multiple dwellings as opposed to one- and two- family residences." — Chief X, a battalion chief from the New York City Fire Department interviewed in the BBC-TV special "The Bronx is Burning," in 1976.[1]

By the mid 1970s, The Bronx had 120,000 fires per year (an average of about 3 fires every 2 hours); 40 percent of the housing in the area was destroyed. (The overall rate of fires in the city shows a dramatic rise from about 60,000 reported fires in 1960 to rates of over 120,000 per year throughout most of the 1970s, peaking in 1980.)[citation needed] The response time for fires also increased, as the firefighters simply did not have the resources to keep up. Many residents felt that the city was doing nothing to stop the fires. Planned shrinkage also had impacts on public health. The pattern of the AIDS outbreak itself, has been gravely affected, and even strongly determined, by the outcomes of a program of planned shrinkage directed in African-American and Hispanic communities, and implemented through systematic and continuing denial of municipal services — particularly fire extinguishment resources — essential for maintaining urban levels of population density and ensuring community stability.[4]

The populations in the South Bronx, Lower East Side and Harlem plummeted. Only after two decades did the city begin to invest in these areas again. New developments were built and today each of these neighborhoods has come a long way from the 1970s.
[edit] See also

* Freeway and expressway revolts
* Gentrification
* Mortgage Discrimination
* Redlining
* Benign neglect
* Urban decay
* Urban renewal
* Principles of Intelligent Urbanism

[edit] References

1. ^ a b c d e A Plague on Your Houses: How New York Was Burned Down and National Public Health Crumbled By Deborah Wallace, Rodrick Wallace. ISBN 1859842534
2. ^ a b c d The Living City by Roberta Brandes Gratz. Simon and Schuster 1989. ISBN 0671633376
3. ^ Breathing Space: A Spiritual Journey in the South Bronx By Heidi B. Neumark
4. ^ R. Wallace, "Urban desertification, public health and public order: 'planned shrinkage', violent death, substance abuse and AIDS in the Bronx." Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 7 (1990) pp. 801-813 - abstract retrieved on July 5, 2008 from PubMed

[edit] Further reading

* The City Journal: Roger Starr 1918–2001 by Myron Magnet; Roger Starr had been editor of City Journal
* In the South Bronx of America by Mel Rosenthal, Martha Rosler and Barry Phillips
* South Bronx Rising: The Rise, fall and resurrection of an American city by Jill Jones

[edit] External links

* Disinvestment and Planned Shrinkage: Clearing the Way for Redevelopment of the Lower East Side gregoryheller.com
* New Hope in the Bronx startsandfits.com
* Syndemic Preventions Network article quoting from the Wallaces' work about AIDS and the South Bronx retrieved from Web Archive on July 6, 2008

[---]

alas, gone are the daze of healthy regentrification

[psilocybin]

interesting, I thought you were referring to when one is aware of how cold the water is in a body of water, but still decides to jump in.

[FastTadpole]

(02-09-2010 09:32 PM)psilocybin Wrote:  interesting, I thought you were referring to when one is aware of how cold the water is in a body of water, but still decides to jump in.

:O

Good post Mr. Blow. This is very real and has been going not just in modern urban centres but for centuries, even as far back as medieval times, for various motives such as political or racial agendas.

A good example of more recent transgressions in the fiction arena is the government / corporate collusion at the municipal level in a great show called The Wire. I think this story arc was introduced the second one and recurred a bit throughout the series afterwards. It details a lot of aspects that go into deep-sixing commercial port property in Baltimore to rezone prime real estate for high density posh residential enclaves.

[AlexLibman]

It's always curious to know what's happening inside a communist supporter's head when he posts examples of his ideology's inevitable failure... NYC's planned failure is miniature golf compared to acre-sized forced resettlements in places like Moscow (where I was born, BTW) and Beijing!

[---]

as capitalism evolves further it becomes apparent that in order to continue the illusion of greater scarcity and retain the richest as the richest the amount of poverty needed is in inverse proportion by many magnitudes to the "wealth" generated.

As the IMF said last month - "the good times for rich nations are over"

[AlexLibman]

I think you're getting your definition of "capitalism" from Karl Marx.

Do you also get your definition of "science" from L. Ron Hubbard?

[Melchor]

(05-09-2010 01:31 PM)Sprite0 Wrote:  I think you're getting your definition of "capitalism" from Karl Marx.

Do you also get your definition of "science" from L. Ron Hubbard?

Your dedication to defending a word is quite astonishing. It just illustrates that you are a fanatic though.

[AlexLibman]

Yes, a fanatic for truth and justice. Do you have any points other than insults to contribute to this discussion?

As was implied in my previous post, artificial scarcity has nothing to do with free market capitalism. Most of it comes from environmentalist (i.e. anticivilizationist) wackos, who are invariably socialist, or from government-imposed constructs like the "positive right" to "intellectual property protection", which no modern Anarcho-Capitalist that I've ever met supports.

[h3rm35]

It's only an insult if you take it that way. Some people just interpret the word fanatic is "big fan."
What's with the attitude? You're the one that started with the labels, maybe you should reconsider your approach to this conversation if you want something beneficial out of it.

[AlexLibman]

I'm usually a little bit more polite, but when I see someone (joeblow) glorify militant videos waving Stalinist / Maoist flags, I start sharpening my chainsaws, if you know what I mean...

[---]

(05-09-2010 01:31 PM)Sprite0 Wrote:  I think you're getting your definition of "capitalism" from Karl Marx.

you're allowed to think so even though it is incorrect.

(05-09-2010 01:31 PM)Sprite0 Wrote:  Do you also get your definition of "science" from L. Ron Hubbard?

haha. very funny

---

(05-09-2010 06:04 PM)Sprite0 Wrote:  As was implied in my previous post, artificial scarcity has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

another mirth bomb. good work