“Should we move towards the aesthetic austerity that comes with increased economic responsibility, or can we still encourage the unfettered, platinum-kissed extravagance of boom times?”

My answer: Uh. No.

Let me explain.

The heart of the article asks the question: Should designers design for designs sake or should form really be about function?

 In my opinion, form follows function.

I want everything I own, sit on, drive in, drive on, drive through, play with, touch – use in any way-to be well and thoughtfully designed.  That doesn’t mean I need 18k gold chairs.  It means that I want the things I buy and use to be purposeful and pretty.

This is one of the reasons that the high rise housing projects of the 1960’s were such a failure.  Communities needed to house large numbers of people, inexpensively.  Instead of thinking about form and function, the “project” was born, and many aspects of well-designed communities (eyes on the street, yards for kids to play, increased social networks, beauty i.e. the people) were not even considered.

Form and function matter to community and economic development in other ways. If a project isn’t well-designed and built with the end user in mind, all the glitz, glamour and promotion that your department can throw at it won’t convince residents and visitors to spend their time and money utilizing your mess.

Success depends on thinking about the who, what, when, where, why of design.

• Who: Who is our target customer? Are we targeting more than one group of people? (Hopefully, yes)
• What: What does our target customer want to see and do? What is our niche?
• When: Are we redeveloping in phases? Can residents and visitors enjoy our redevelopment even if it isn’t completely finished? Are we planning on day, evening, and weekend traffic in our project?
• Where: Where do we want people to go? How long do we want them to stay? Are they walking or driving?
• Why: What is our purpose? Building community? Economic development?

Answering these questions causes you to think with the end project in mind. It makes you answer the question: What does success look like for us?

Government and non-profits that undertake economic and community development projects must balance design with economic responsibility.  These entities do not have the flexibility to take risks in the same ways as private companies.   However, they still cannot afford to skimp on design. Without proper design, you will likely find yourself explaining to the “powers that be” why your community and economic development efforts are failures.

What do you tell a town that is facing increased urban blight, skyrocketing crime rates, neighborhood abandonment, high unemployment, brain drain, etc, etc?

My Sustainable Development professor in the Business School posed this question to our class every day. During each case study, after each lecture, at least once a week.  As a consultant, planner, administrator, what do you tell your board to do?

As the resident MPA interloper and loudmouth, I would often say the first thing that would come to my mind.

Merge with another town…..

Find a business niche…..

Get a community college branch nearby, educate and/or retrain workers…..

Redevelop the commercial district…..

Shrink the town…..

Flint, Michigan is one example of, probably, hundreds of cities that are dying; high unemployment, the foreclosure crisis, and young people and families moving out of town have left whole neighborhoods in decline.  Last year I drove through neighborhoods in Detroit and observed that on many streets, for every occupied home there were three or four that were vacant and boarded up.

I was saddened by the sight, especially as I’d always thought of Detriot as the quintessential city.  As I drove out of town, I started to brainstorm ways that depressed communities, like Flint, Detroit, and many others around the country, can regenerate themselves.

One way is to cut off the parts that aren’t working and concentrate on the parts that are working.

Otherwise known as planned shrinkage.

I think Flint has the right idea. This method is not without its problems, as the article suggests, but with a transparent, deliberate, democratic process the community could be left much better than where they started.

What should a city that wants to shrink do?

• Decide which parts of town are viable and worth saving.
• Relocate residents into those viable parts of town.
• Concentrate community and economic redevelopment only in viable areas
• Demolish old (unviable) areas
• Create greenspace rather than brown or grayfields

What would a city have in the end?

• Increased Diversity: Planned shrinkage can be used to create mixed income, mixed use neighborhoods with local serving commercial and entertainment districts.
• Increased Density: If Flint and other cities can redevelop and shrink quickly, and retain current residents, they will be left with more people in a smaller area (duh).  Which, to me, is the definition of a city.
• Lower service delivery costs: Police patrols, garbage truck routes, public schools, social and health services are among those costs that will go down with fewer miles of town.  Governmental capital costs for things like water and sewer expansion will also decrease.
• Recaptured Greenspace: By demolishing old buildings and going back to nature, the community will have more trees, room for parks, healthier air quality, and all those other good things that come along with not living in a sprawling concrete jungle.
• Diversified business portfolio: What do small retail businesses need to survive? People to shop in their stores. More people in a small geographic area signals to potential businesses that there is a viable, nearby market for goods and services. And when those businesses come into town, they can stay in businesses, and attract more businesses, which increases sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
• Vibrance: There is something to be said about full storefronts, people on the street, and a visable community.  Smaller, dense, busy communities are the kind of communities that attract visitors and residents.