What exactly is planned shrinkage? In Roger Starr’s article, “Making New York Smaller”, planned shrinkage is defined as an inevitable method to cope with declining tax revenues. City services such as street repairs and patrols, garbage removal, public transportation, healthcare, and education would be withheld from diminishing neighborhoods. This of course, makes planned shrinkage a controversial public policy. “Much of the expressed hostility was based on a genuine fear that somehow the poor would be victimized by this policy” (Starr 1). Starr however, counters that “the poor, who need the greatest service from the city government, would be worst hurt by a failure of the city to use its resources economically” (1).
Starr makes his argument by using a lot of sides. He talks about the struggle of New York City as an Economic City and as a Political City. The Economic City encompasses the public and private sectors that create goods and services, whereas the latter provides “services that people want or require (education, criminal justice). This relates to the struggle between boosting the economy by creating new businesses and what the people want.
Towards the end of the article, Starr mentions the ominous example of offshore drilling. This brings the current issue of the Marcellus Shale to mind. Corporations want to drill in Upstate New York. It would bring jobs to the area and create a boost in the economy. However, residents of that region oppose the idea believing that it will destroy their quality of life. That is why this issue is still being debated.
One thing I found particularly interesting was the fact that New York City “grew to its maximum population of 8 million only because it was a very important manufacturing center” (3). I was a little shocked to read that – knowing the city today, it is hard to think of it that way. Today, it resembles nothing like a manufacturing center. Then, I read the next paragraph, which talks about how people typically think of New York as. I completely agree that it is full of “office towers or emporiums of service like hotels and restaurants or magnificent department stores” today (3).
Another interesting thing Starr talked about was how vital consistent density is to building or block survival. For example, one full building is better off than two or more buildings that are not occupied to an efficient level. I also strongly agree with this idea. Inefficiently used buildings are unable to collect the full rent required to maintain and upkeep the building. This leads to the abandonment of these properties. Hence, one fully utilized building will survive.
Nonetheless, I found this New York Times article extremely enjoyable to read. As I was reading, a lot of it made me think about New York City today.
