As a student in New York, the sense of overpopulation is idiosyncratic to the city I so love. There seems to be a never-ending flow of people, noises, cars and Starbucks coffee shops. Quite honestly, I could not imagine New York City any other way. When reading Roger Starr’s “Making New York Smaller,” I was surprised by his planned shrinkage ideas to combat New York City’s impending “doomsday.”
Starr describes New York as having been divided into two cities: an Economic City and a Political City. It is important to note that this 1976 article was written during a time in which New York City was in economic limbo. At least 3.5 million new jobs were needed to help offset the growing 10% unemployment rate, but fewer than 3 million were actually provided. Loans made by foreign entities were defaulting and mortgages foreclosed. Significant numbers of people had moved from the city to the suburbs and the Federal Government was providing much help. This all led to a vicious cycle and many feared for the future of New York. But why was this all happening and what could be done?
Starr states that while the Political City was the cause of such turmoil, difficulties were shouldered by the Economic City, home to the businesses, workers, and residents of New York. Starr refers to “…gross underestimates of future New York costs and over estimates of future revenues…” as one of the key issues behind the crisis. This, coupled with the fundamental fact that the economy was rapidly shifting away from manufacturing, signified that times were changing but New York City could not seem to keep up. In turn, the crisis had caused people to step back and analyze the well being of New York—a city whose future once seemed so bright. The traditional remedy for such a situation was for the Political City to increase taxes, formulate a new economic development program and send appeals to Albany and Washington seeking aid. Less representation in Albany, coupled with a fundamental issue many people not taken into consideration meant that these old ways were useless.
One of Roger Starr’s most controversial suggestions was to welcome a shrinking population. Conversely, New York’s future prosperity was always pictured with a growing population. Many opposed the idea that a New York with 5 million people (as opposed to 8 million at the time) would still be a world city. Starr, however, seemed to stress quality over quantity. He also alluded to the need to attract semi-skilled workers as opposed to the unskilled laborers of the past. There was untapped potential in the tourist business, as well. But according to Starr, New York could not move forward if it did not accept the fact that the population was shrinking and that that could quite possibly be a good thing.
As I read, I realized two things: 1) if I were a New Yorker reading this article in 1976, I would have thought that New York would never find its way out of the slumps and 2) many parallels can be seen in today’s economic environment. Luckily, New York did, in fact, bounce back but we are again going through a very similar situation. Since 2008, unemployment rates have gone up, inflation has been on the rise, the overall quality of life is changing. Over the course of almost five years, the traditional methods of the government do not seem to be working. Although I am not sure how likely a drastic population decrease in New York City will be, I do know that something new and unconventional needs to be done in order to better accommodate our ever-changing society.
