Some U.S. Cities may have to be bulldozed.

[miraclefan]

Anyone else get a ''ROBOCOP'' vibe from this article? you know, that whole bulldozing of Old Detroit to make way for Delta city? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html except in this case they want the Bulldozed land to go back to nature. Either way this dosen't sound like good news for the American Economy.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Bulldozing most of southeastern Michigan would be an improvement.

 

[Captain Shaw]

It could be a good idea the only thing i worry about is if there one person left on a street because his house is not worth anything so he can't afford to move will the city either swap his house for one thats in a populated area or give him enough money to move or will he be given a few$ when they knock his house down and he will be out on the street.

 

[Goliath]

Makes sense to me.

Tempus edax rerum--"time devours all things."

Cities rise, and cities fall. Flint, Michigan goes the way of Leptis Magna.

Bonaparte before the Sphinx, by Jean-Leon Gerome (1867)

 

[Starbreaker]

I've never seen that before and like it. I've always wanted to see the Sphinx.

 

[Lindley]

Quite reasonable, really.

 

[miraclefan]

It could be a good idea the only thing i worry about is if there one person left on a street because his house is not worth anything so he can't afford to move will the city either swap his house for one thats in a populated area or give him enough money to move or will he be given a few$ when they knock his house down and he will be out on the street.

Maybe give the man a BAIL-OUT?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Smaller cities surrounded by miles of parkland? Isn't that how Gene Roddenberry described the situation on Earth when he first created Star Trek? Sounds good to me.

 

[auntiehill]

There are several areas of Houston that should be bulldozed.

As long as people are given another place--presumably BETTER place-- to live, it might be a very good idea.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It could be a good idea the only thing i worry about is if there one person left on a street because his house is not worth anything so he can't afford to move will the city either swap his house for one thats in a populated area or give him enough money to move or will he be given a few$ when they knock his house down and he will be out on the street.

If Eminent Domain applies, which I think it would, then I believe the government would have to help him move.

 

[miraclefan]

There are several areas of Houston that should be bulldozed.

As long as people are given another place--presumably BETTER place-- to live, it might be a very good idea.

You mean Houston TEXAS right? if so then Ya! There were some places that looked like A-1 health hazards! and that was on my last trip there 5 years ago!

 

[MIB]

This is a good move, I think. Cities need to start facing the fact that they are in desperate need of downsizing and rescaling if they are going to survive. The days where it is 'ok' to have towns and cities spread out to the ends of the earth are coming to an end.

 

[miraclefan]

This is a good move, I think. Cities need to start facing the fact that they are in desperate need of downsizing and rescaling if they are going to survive. The days where it is 'ok' to have towns and cities spread out to the ends of the earth are coming to an end.

So America Could be like JAPAN! Millions of people crowded in to a few MEGA-CITIES! or is that JUDGE DREDD?

 

[nevermore]

Yeah, they'd rip it all down and in 10 years it would be covered with suburban-style sprawl. They should concentrate on creating massive incentives to encourage people to move back into the cities and rehab existing structures and bulldoze the far-flung McMansions that are the real fucking problem.

 

[Goliath]

So America Could be like JAPAN! Millions of people crowded in to a few MEGA-CITIES! or is that JUDGE DREDD?

Five years in the iso-cubes for panic-mongering, citizen.

 

[MIB]

^^Very true. But there's also the ongoing urban trauma that must be dealt with as well. When the industrial revolution got going the city was a miserable place to live and urban living wound up with a bad rap ever since. The 50s didn't help either when contractors got major incentives to build in far flung areas- utilizing cheap, temporary, junk architecture- at the cost of allowing the city to rot and become ghettos. The result is that any mention of returning to traditional "cities" immediately conjures up visions of Judge Dredd as per miraclefan's response. Which is certianly understandable, but not true. There is no reason that, with proper planning, Detroit for example couldn't be as beautiful as Paris or Prague 50 years from now.

 

[Michael Chris]

This is just horrible. Quite terrifying to be honest.

 

[Lindley]

^ I don't see why. The bad parts of town get knocked down, the good parts of town see a slight population increase. They're not going to be steamrolling babies or anything.

There is a concern as to whether or not this would just push the criminal elements who thrive in the low-rent areas into the (currently) better parts of town, but that's the only potential downside I see.

 

[bigdaddy]

This has already started. Some builder in CA had hundreds and hundreds of 90% finished condos or townhouses. They tried selling them to the state (but they had no money) and they couldn't get the money to finish it and that no one wanted them anyways, so they were bulldozed! They destroyed brand new housing!

Also... Springfield MA needs to be added to the list, maybe nuke it first with everyone in it... disaster of a city.

As a nature lover I like the idea of parks and forests. I would even keep some of the streets and use them as a bike path.

 

[miraclefan]

Also... Springfield MA needs to be added to the list, maybe nuke it first with everyone in it... disaster of a city.

You do know not everyone dies right after a NUKE goes off right? I've seen pics of JAPANESE who lived after the bomb droped, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!