Come on land dudes...edumacate me on land! How can 'Merica improve?
A lot of planners are big on growth boundaries. I am probably not as enthusiastic about that, mostly because I don't think it's politically viable. I am enthusiastic about regional governments.
I would start by transferring the real cost of interstates to the localities who want them. Seriously, interstates are the worst for this country. People need to realize four things:
1)
Interstates do not really create a ton of wealth, they are simply moving it. Businessman X owns a mall that is 11 years old, businessman Y wants to build a mall further down the road and promises that "1.2 billion dollars of investment will be generated, along with 350 new jobs for the area!" This is bullshit. Because the other mall will fall apart and create a blackhole of property values, hurting everyone but businessman Y and his crew.
2) Modern commercial construction isn't built to last.
A strip mall and big box stores have a life expectancy of fifteen years, and that's part of the plan from the start. It's the retail equivalent of Brazilian "slash and burn" farming: a) put up a stucco strip mall, b) gross as much as possible in the short lifespan, c) build another one further down the road when its time. It isn't meant to be economically sustainable for the community. A mall will fail in thirty years on average, that's the nature of the beast that we let happen.
3)
It isn't so much the failing economies that cripples cities, it's sprawl. Imagine a city of 1,000,000 people in 1950. Instantly, Eisenhower pays for 90% of expressways and 50,000 move out to just over the city boundary line. The city then has 950,000 people, and must raise taxes by a tiny amount to cover all of the public services it is responsible for (schools, cops, firemen, roads, bridges, etc). This increases the incentive to leave. Now 75,000 people leave. Now the city must increase taxes a bit to cover costs, but there's only 875,000. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Before you know it, the cust to the police department have allowed spike in crime and the public schools are a disaster and your city is now 350,000 of the people who couldn't afford to move in the first place. This is the case of Cleveland, Detroit, etc. There is SO MUCH wealth in the surrounding areas, but none of its in the city and we are led to believe that the economies simply collapsed when that isn't the entire equation. So who is to blame? The rich guy who left and took his wherewithal for investment with him, or the poor person who couldn't keep up the house and let it fall into disrepair? It's probably both.
4)
If you don't fix the dilapidation of the city core, the entire region is pulled down. For reasons mentioned in #3. It is an endless spiral of demise unless you fix the downtown and its first-ring neighborhoods. Detroit never could, and is basically dead. Places like Columbus, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh did, and are doing very well. Cincinnati and Cleveland are on the right path I believe.
