Roger Starr’s article about New York City’s financial crisis in the 70’s was fascinating because of the unusual idea the author posits as a solution to the situation.Mr. Starr suggests that allowing the city to shrink in size would provide economic relief. This is a curious because, it is usually accepted that a shrinking population equals a weaker economy due to smaller labor force, less tax revenue etc. The author here believes that New York City’s budget deficit would be insurmountable because the city simply could not spend any less if it had to continue to support the existing population. The solution to this, according to Mr. Starr, is to tailor policy towards creating a city that has fewer people dependent on its resources.
Naturally, this unconventional, and therefore controversial, idea seems to have had strong opposition. One criticism that is addressed by the author in the article is the argument that the poor would be the worst affected if shrinkage were allowed to happen to a city. Mr. Starr responds by saying that the poor would in fact benefit from the city’s increased ability to use its resources to serve a smaller population. I found this contention to be debatable because of what we learned from the Pruitt-Igoe documentary. There, St. Louis’ decreasing population directly contributed to its terrible downfall.
Residents that are economically better off will naturally be the ones with more options open to them. If a city in fiscal crisis were to admit that it was incapable of handling the situation unless the city housed fewer people, then it will be the more economically advantaged residents who will choose to leave, simply because they can afford that choice. If any city experiencing such an exodus does not take actions to reverse or at least stop that flow, then it seems logical that it will meet a fate similar to that of St. Louis.
However, Mr. Starr’s theory does not limit itself to saying that the population of New York City should be allowed to shrink. Instead, the author actually suggests making New York City physically smaller. I was thoroughly surprised by this. It is almost an universal trend that cities expand outwards. For someone to suggest that urban planners should think about encouraging people to limit the city’s borders and concentrate towards the center seems totally surprising. Mr. Starr writes, “It is better to have one building full than two half-full,” explaining his logic for why New York City should literally make itself smaller. However, I think that the only way this idea would make logical sense is if we implicitly made the assumption that it was time for New York City to step down from its position as a leading urban center.
In fact, Roger Starr admits as much in the last few lines of his article. He seems to have arrived at the conclusion that New York City’s financial woes had reached such a level as to cause the city to grow beyond its prime. He believes that the best solution is to give up on the great city and just accept that this city is just not the place of dreams it was made out to be. In hindsight, that conclusion seems to be one that was reached hastily. As we can see, it has been several decade since those dark times, and New York City appears only to have grown in reputation as a thriving urban place of economic opportunity and success
