03-17-2010, 12:33 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, Oscar winner, my kind of town,
Posts: 614
|
|
Not Ranked
Chicago seems to be treading down this same path.
We already have laws that let us tear down abandoned buildings quickly if they are deemed hazards to the neighborhoods. The trouble with 'tear down' policies is that it is often the nicest, or at least the most architecturally interesting buildings that get bulldozed. With all of the big contractors and cheap labor in the inner city, I've never understood why these nice old Victorian mansions and rowhouses couldn't be moved? Concentrated into new neighborhoods, maybe replacing other, less 'worthy' structures? What happens is all the good stuff whose only sin is being in the wrong neighborhood gets demolished and the new and banal gets built today by developers who are only looking to cut costs and build the cheapest box they can get away with.
The article doesn't go into how they'd handle existing streets, sewer lines, alleys, sidewalks, easements and the like. Would a farmer want a leaking sewer line under his fields? How about buried gas lines? I've been to Detroit, I don't really think there's a screaming need for a few hundred more acres of farmland near there, especially with all the legal entanglements and environmental issues that would be attached.
In Detroit, the residents drove the manufactureres out with their (employee) costs. In Chicago, we had the mayor change the State Constitution so that businesses paid property taxes at twice the rate as residents...result? Businesses aren't run by stupid people so businesses have been leaving the City and County for the collar suburbs, where taxes are fairer. The jobs are moving away from the City.
In a global economy, costs matter. In Detroit, in Chicago where even the railroads are rerouting around the City, and I'm wondering what will happen to St. Louis now that the local giant brewery has been sold overseas.
|
Hybrid Mode
