Can we shrink a whole state?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Linda Wawrzyniak on July 13, 2009 at 9:41am

I think this is an interesting concept, but a little unrealistic. "Shrinking" a city requires more than protecting green space, it requires halting building construction and therefore allowing less "development", which in turn could mean less business and people moving in and less income for the city. I think about the little villages in Mexico where there is plenty of green space, many animals and lovely foliage. The only problem is, the people are poor and there is little education. Perhaps the better thing to do would be to not think of it in terms of shrinking, but in terms of "growing green" areas in all cities where sustainability is rewarded by governments and while we're talking about it, let's make labels required on all foods that contained genetically altered foods (think wheat, corn, & soybeans)!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Aaron M. Renn on July 13, 2009 at 9:44am

Shrinking Cities is about cities and metro areas that have lost large amounts of population to suburbanization or migration and which have no means to regenerate themselves. Clearly, many of the smaller cities of Indiana have experienced significant population loss and are having trouble adjusting. The best knows domestic cases of attempted managed shrinkage are Youngstown and Flint.

I recently had a piece on this you might be interested in:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00883-shrinking-rust-belt

While Indianapolis has experienced strong, above average population growth regionally, Center Township's population is down 50% off its peak. That creates a big gap since there is currently no demand to fill it back up. Yes, the central city is growing again and we can celebrate the huge milestone that Center Township grew in population for the last three years running - and is doing so at an increasing rate! But there's just too be a hole to fill in the short term.

Indy hasn't done managed shrinkage, but it has implicitly decided to focus its resources where it thinks the can do the most good: downtown, the historic districts, and the GINI areas.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rollie Cole on July 13, 2009 at 9:45am

A "greening" strategy is good for cities of all sizes and all rates of growth. Instead of a "shrinking" strategy for cities getting smaller, I suggest a "renewal" strategy. You still want to eliminate or minimize abandoned property, and focus activities in key places, but the focus is not "dying gracefully" but transitioning into a new community with a new economy, even if it is smaller than the old economy.

Rollie Cole

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Peters on July 13, 2009 at 9:45am

With land as the only true limited resource (Even oil and coal are not truly fixed quantity) why would we want to have the government control and own even more of it? Why would we remove from the farmer their already dwindling supply of raw material? Why would we remove even more from the tax base, thus causing the rest of us to have to pay even higher percentages?

Another perfect example of NPR's complete lack of grasp on anything close to reality.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Josh Woody on July 13, 2009 at 9:58am

I can't speak for the whole state, but I know many of the growing communities surrounding Indianapolis have done a great job in balancing quality of life with growth (600% in Fishers), while preserving green space at the same time. Let's take Fishers, for example, (where I reside)... according to their website (https://www.fishers.in.us/parks/) "the department currently offers twelve developed parks totaling 395 acres, five undeveloped sites totaling 152 acres, and over 61 miles of multi-purpose trail". I can get all the way over to the Monon trail on my bike without ever touching a roadway (except for crossing intersections)! Additionally, I live right around the corner from Ritchey Woods (a 130+ acre nature preserve). That property currently backs up to the expansive airport property, which is basically corn/bean fields. There's also a secluded stocked pond as part of the parks property right next to my neighborhood.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Darrin Snider on July 13, 2009 at 10:07am

Retail sales have been stagnant or declining for years in the face of large discount stores and on-line shopping, but you wouldn't know it from all the new construction around here. I for one would LOVE to see the myriad abandoned strip malls and empty shopping centers turned into community parks or restored to their natural state. Instead, our leaders approve any new construction project that comes across the table in the interest of a "rapid growth plan." The result: fewer trees and greenery, but a plethora of brand new empty strip malls just a couple blocks up the street from old dilapidated empty strip malls.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Erik Deckers on July 13, 2009 at 10:13am

I don't think we should pursue a shrinking strategy as a state. It's too big and too diverse to apply a global strategy to. For example, the issues that face Brown County and Switzerland County (tourism) are not the same that face Hamilton County (rapid growth) or Lake County (unemployment, loss of businesses) or Kosciusko County (agriculture).

Can you imagine trying to apply a farming strategy to Lake County or dealing with rapid population growth in Switzerland County (our smallest county)? A general shrinkage plan might try to do that.

I can see trying to shrink counties and regions, but that should be handled on a case-by-case, or even city-by-city basis, rather than as part of a statewide initiative.

The problem would lie in the fact that a state effort would either try to apply the same strategy to every region, or it would try to plan for every contingency and run itself into the ground trying to manage it all.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris Tomlinson on July 13, 2009 at 10:23am

I think it's an interesting concept, but applying it statewide is too big of a task for any government agency to take on. Now whether or not they may want to ask individual counties, townships and cities/towns to participate and offer suggestions, that might work. But an all out shrinking of the state of Indiana from the government would be virtually impossible.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kerri Bash on July 13, 2009 at 10:29am

I see nothing wrong with slowing the progress of transforming the Earth into something entirely artificial. All cities, no matter how large or small, could benefit from some "greening up"; this benefits not only the environment but also the human population's physical and mental health, as well as improving education and encouraging people of all ages to get more exercise and become more in touch with what being alive means- something which can become lost while we are simply moving through our lives.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by NealTaflinger on July 13, 2009 at 10:30am

I would like to see more voluntary creative re-use of urban space. I've never seen the appeal of poorly-built suburban developments and life among the strip malls. There is a surplus of residential/commercial real estate in Marion Co. and more than enough brown space to create hundreds of Havana-style urban farming operations.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by basil anest berchekas jr on July 13, 2009 at 11:04am

Indiana, and indianapolis, Gary, and other cities in the state have been experiencing "shrinking", as in a shrinking economy and all the concommitent negative effects on social and economic conditions for at least several decades now. The overall effect has not been good, either. So Indiana has experienced this phenomenon already. The state needs to take a positive attitude toward growing the economy, although it needs to be accomplished in a smart way. There's still room for manufacturing and production; someone's got to do it...not everyone can be employed as a "high-tech" guru, and not produce any product for consumption...however, education for the workforce needs to be improved and made affordable across the board if Indiana is to take advantage of emerging "green" industry. But arbitrarily attmepting to "shrink" will not be a sound polciy to get there. We cannot control population and economic growth; we cannot be smug enough to assume "how much" of either the state or city needs. That, believe it or not, has been the philosophy adhered to in PAST leadership, which as held the state's (and Indianapolis') economy, and population growth back, where Indiana is pretty much just spot on the map compared to next door states, and increasingly in contrast to growing Southern states, which, like North Carolina and Georgia, have far surpassed the Hoosier State in population and economic growth, and are now doing so in regards to education as well as in acquiring these "smart" industries. Indiana needs to understand that the key is not arbitrarily limiting growth, but controlling the location and type of growth.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Curt Alexander on July 13, 2009 at 11:14am

I'm in favour of such an approach, but it's a tough sell to governments that want to keep their tax base stable or even expansive. You can also see the appeal to residents who'd rather their government raise X number of dollars among a greater number of people (lower taxes) than among a smaller number of people (higher taxes).
I'd think this would be a bit more marketable in better times, but interestingly, the opportunity to seize on that will probably be greatest in the next year or two after depleted cities have lost residents and are looking for a new direction.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last