- This topic has 9 voices and 25 replies.
-
Posts
-
This doesn't really apply to past history, but to “history of the future” – namely, cities which are at risk of being destroyed or deserted in the next century.Ghost Cities Of 2100And yes, Detroit is listed as one of those cities.
I had heard that San Fran also had a shortage of children. Seriously, not all that surprising seeing how it's the rainbow capital of the U.S.
SF has fallen to suburbanization too. Originally an old world style city with enclaves of various ethnic and social groups, it has become a typical CBD oriented city… all the folks that lived in the neighborhoods have migrated to the 'burbs to get away from the city.This is a key concept to the growth (and death) of the American city.
Pardon my ignorance….what exactly is “CBD”? ???I think many major cities (perhaps all) suffered migrations to the suburbs, particularly during the 1960s and 1980s. Some just seem to have experienced it more than others. Take the city of Detroit, for example. Having lived not far from the city over the course of a few years I can say that it wasn't exactly a place you'd want to go just to "hang out". Driving around some areas you just hope that your car does not break down. That was not apparently the case as recently as the 1950s when it was a bustling urban area. Nowadays there are some suburbs which are quite nice, quite ritzy. The wealthy folk who work in downtown have easy access there via the highways. So how do you get people to stay living in downtown? There's probably a laundry list of things.Recent efforts to revitalize downtown, including the construction of the Ford Field (for the Detroit Lions) and Comerica Park (for the Detroit Tigers) have done some good for downtown but not nearly enough. And as if Detroit had enough problems as it were, the mayor has recently had big problems with the law that have been in the news. It's quite sad what has happened to Detroit.
Sorry… central business district. When that becomes too hectic people move to the 'burbs… business suffers and moves to there as well (the mall explosion) and the core of the city falls apart; to be taken over by the gangs and the homeless.
Does it surprise you that the demise of many on the “list” is going to be caused by global warming? I guess we will see. Detroit was a shocker, It said its population had decreased by a third since 1950.
Does it surprise you that the demise of many on the "list" is going to be caused by global warming? I guess we will see. Detroit was a shocker, It said its population had decreased by a third since 1950.
Not really; if one looks at a world map that shows elevation, we see that a huge % of coastal areas are going to suffer if there is even a small rise in sea level. This isn't GW hype, just a fundamental fact of nature.As far as Detroit... given the downturn (not just recently) in the mfg. economy, the riots, etc., the better question is: Why would anyone stay?
Not really; if one looks at a world map that shows elevation, we see that a huge % of coastal areas are going to suffer if there is even a small rise in sea level. This isn't GW hype, just a fundamental fact of nature.As far as Detroit... given the downturn (not just recently) in the mfg. economy, the riots, etc., the better question is: Why would anyone stay?
It is interesting that you mention that. Many of the cities in the Mediterranean basin have moved over the centuries because the coast has moved. Sidon, Tyre, Alexandria, and Acre all come particularly to mind. I remember reading somewhere that the present day location of Alexandria's harbor is something like 2 miles inland from where it was during Roman times.Facts like these are what make me question the GW orthodoxy. I always thought the tree-huggers preached that the Earth was a living system and subject to change. It seems now that they want to determine what are legitimate agents of change. If we buy their rationale that the earth is a system, is not humanity part of that system? and as such are humans not then legitimate agents of change and if not why not?
Well Louisville, the biggest city in my state, has undergone revitalization including zoning several blocks for e-commerce businesses, five star restaurants, and ritzy condominiums on the waterfront of the Ohio River. The Muhammad Ali Center/Museum was built to host diplomats and conventions. Slugger Field was built for the Triple A Louisville Bats (Cincinnati Reds). The University of Louisville has erected a huge Medical Campus right in the heart of downtown. The Louisville Cardinals are getting a brand new downtown arena (to seat 22,000) to replace aging Freedom Hall. UPS is continuously expanding the Louisville International Airport to support its world hub there. Lots of good things going on in Louisville, but Old Louisville is still suffering from violence and poverty. City Metro government has yet to figure out a way to alleviate crime in the older neighborhoods. But Louisville is nowhere near as bad as Detroit or Philly.
.... cities in the Mediterranean basin have moved over the centuries because the coast has moved. Sidon, Tyre, Alexandria, and Acre all come particularly to mind. I remember reading somewhere that the present day location of Alexandria's harbor is something like 2 miles inland from where it was during Roman times.Facts like these are what make me question the GW orthodoxy. ... the Earth was a living system and subject to change. It seems now that they want to determine what are legitimate agents of change. ... is not humanity part of that system? ... are humans not then legitimate agents of change and if not why not?
Alexandria (I'm pretty sure gets moved inland not by humankind moving it but by the accretion of the Nile Delta; as for the others I'm not sure but you're likely correct.Humankind is absolutely an agent of change and (legitimate according to whoever, or not) has been since gaining the ability to control (sort of) fire. BTW... aren't we now hearing that global cooling is on the way?
My grief is that the apostles of GW seem to think that anything and everything humans do is inherently wrong/unnatural. It is like all the talk of the “noble savage” 20-30 years ago. The reason ancient man didnt do greater environmental harm is that he was simply incapable of it. I don't think stampeding buffalo over a cliff to harvest a few hundred of thousands, or burning out forest to grow crops is sound environmental managment but I could be wrong and those are all noble pursuits suitable for emulation.
My grief is that the apostles of GW seem to think that anything and everything humans do is inherently wrong/unnatural.
Not wrong for humankind if it promotes survival... hardly unnatural if we are here by natural means... not an imported species.
