Sprawl is a bad word right? It has to be a dirty word. If every sustainability, downtown association, and environmental group in the world say that its bad, it most certainly is bad. City budgets are at an all time low; schools are being forced to close and consolidate; public services providers forced to downsize; commute times are up which causes increased pollutants; these are all horrible things without a question, but what caused it?
Everyone will agree that the Federal Highway Act had a hand in it. Access is half the equation, but access is only as good as the means of getting there. Enter the car. American's love their cars. I'm sure that some may not be obsessed with them as much as others, but no one will deny the fact that the ability to go has shaped a large portion of the way the land from sea to shining sea has been developed. Fuel was no issue after the great World War, and the government was willing to insure every home loan to veterans after their return. What veteran in their rational mind would not take the deal? A new home in a new suburb away from the dingy dirty city center that was the root of all evil in the modern world was the way to go. The economy was booming; people are working; life was great.
All of this segways into what most cities face today. Disinvestment, deterioration, massive budget cuts, decreased services, poverty, and unemployment are just a few of the things that most people visiting Memphis can see when they come downtown. Granted there has recently been massive amounts of federal grant money spent in the form of Hope VI and new economic tools such as the Central Business District and Payment in Lieu of Taxes programs, but why is the city of Memphis still stretch so thin?
Maybe that question can be answered by another. Why has Memphis' footprint grown larger and larger since the 1930s, but its' population relatively hasn't? Maybe it's because Memphis keeps incorporating its annexation reserves to help cover the funding gap. Makes sense doesn't it? More people paying a larger city tax means more money in the general fund right? Technically yes, but has anyone looked into how much extra money is being spent providing services to the hinter lands of Memphis? Has anyone looking into policies that would deter movement out or create a demand for increased development and density closer to the origin? Policies instituted with these types of goals in mind are bound to keep more money in the pocket book in future.
Did Detroit figure it out first? Detroit announced its plan to "right-size" the city which experts say could save it. Could a plan like this work in Memphis. While Memphis isn't on the same scale as Detroit, why should Memphis wait for a similar tragedy?Sustainability should be at the forefront of every planning offices' mind. Maybe a planned shrinkage could bring back the inner city, and possibly bring back a more vibrant and sustainable Memphis. Maybe Detroit set a new paradigm on how to handle sprawl and a waning downtown. With the creation of I-269, people with the ability are going to move farther out to areas with new developments and flashy new houses. The same story that happened for Cleveland and Detroit's inner ring suburbs will happen to those in Memphis. They will begin to fail and deteriorate just like their urban cores.
Maybe Memphis should begin to look at a "right-sizing" model like Detroit's. When is enough enough for a city that keeps growing and growing but can't take care of the poverty ridden neighborhoods that are so close to the most vital area of any city its downtown.
No comments:
Post a Comment