User:Knitt.witt/sandbox

Shrinking Cities Definition
See also: Shrinking cities in the United States

Origins
The phenomenon of shrinking cities generally refers to a metropolitan area that experiences significant population loss in a short period of time. The theory is also known as counterurbanization, metropolitan deconcentration, and metropolitan turnaround. It was popularized in reference to Eastern Europe post-socialism, when old industrial regions came under Western privatization and capitalism. Shrinking cities in the United States, on the other hand, has been forming since 2006 in dense urban centers while external suburban areas continue to grow. Suburbanization in tandem with deindustrialization, human migration, and the 2008 Great Recession all contribute to origins of shrinking cities in the U.S. . Scholars estimate that one in six to one in four cities worldwide are shrinking in countries with expanding economies and those with deindustrialization. However, there are some issues with the concept of shrinking cities, as it seeks to group together areas that undergo depopulation for a variety of complex reasons. These may include an aging population, shifting industries, intentional shrinkage to improve quality of life, or a transitional phase, all of which require different responses and plans.

Causes
There are various theoretical explanations for the shrinking city phenomenon. Hollander et al. and Glazer cite railroads in port cities, the depreciation of national infrastructure (i.e., highways), and suburbanization as possible causes of de-urbanization. Pallagst also suggests that shrinkage is a response to deindustrialization, as jobs move from the city core to cheaper land on the periphery. This case has been observed in Detroit, where employment opportunities in the automobile industry were moved to the suburbs because of room for expansion and cheaper acreage. Bontje proposes three factors contributing to urban shrinkage, followed by one suggested by Hollander:


 * 1) Urban development model: Based on the Fordist model of industrialization, it suggests that urbanization is a cyclical process and that urban and regional decline will eventually allow for increased growth
 * 2) One company town/monostructure model: Cities that focus too much on one branch of economic growth make themselves vulnerable to rapid decline, such as the case with the automobile industry in Flint.
 * 3) Shock therapy model: Especially in Eastern Europe post-socialism, state-owned companies did not survive privatization, leading to plant closures and massive unemployment.
 * 4) Smart decline: City planners have utilized this term and inadvertently encouraged decline by “planning for less--fewer people, fewer buildings, fewer land uses.” . It is a development method focused on improving the quality of life for current residents without taking those residents' needs into account, thus pushing more people out of the city core.

Economic
The shrinking of urban populations indicates a changing of economic and planning conditions of a city. Cities begin to 'shrink' from economic decline, usually resulting from war, debt, or lack of production and work force. Population decline affects a large number of communities, both communities that are far removed from and deep within large urban centers. These communities usually consist of native people and long-term residents, so the initial population is not large. The out flow of people is then detrimental to the production potential and quality of life in these regions, and a decline in employment and productivity ensues.

Social and Infrastructural
Shrinking cities experience dramatic social changes due to fertility decline, changes in life expectancy, population aging, and household structure. Another reason for this shift is job-driven migration. This causes different household demands, posing a challenge to the urban housing market and the development of new land or urban planning. A decline in population does not inspire confidence in a city, and often deteriorates municipal morale. Coupled with a weak economy, the city and its infrastructure begin to deteriorate from lack of upkeep from citizens.

Political
Historically, shrinking cities have been a taboo topic in politics. Representatives ignored the problem and refused to deal with it, leading many to believe it was not a real problem.Today, urban shrinkage is a acknowledged issue, with many urban planning firms working together to strategize how to combat the implications that effect all dimensions of daily life.

International Perspectives
Former Socialist regions in Europe and Central Asia have historically suffered the most from population decline and deindustrialization. East German cities, as well as former Yugoslavian and Soviet territories, were significantly affected by the weak economic situation they were left in after the fall of socialism. The reunification of European countries yielded both benefits and drawbacks. German cities like Leipzig and Dresden, for example, experienced a drastic population decline as many people emigrated to western cities like Berlin. Hamburg in particular experienced a population boom with record production yields in 1991, after the unification of Germany. Conversely, Leipzig and Dresden suffered from a failing economy and a neglected infrastructure. These cities were built to support a much larger population, but now emulate ghost towns. Shrinking cities in the United States face different issues, with much of the population migrating out of cities to other states for better economic opportunities and safer conditions. Advanced capitalist countries generally have a larger population, so this shift is not as dangerous as it is to post-socialist countries. The United States also has more firms willing to rehabilitate shrinking cities and invest in revitalization efforts. For example, after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco in 1989, the dynamics between the city and its residents provoked change and plans achieved visible improvements in the city. By contrast, cities in Germany have not gotten the same attention. Urban planning projects take a long time to be approved and established. As of now, Leipzig is taking steps toward making the city more nature-oriented and 'green' so that the population can be first stabilized, and then the country can focus on drawing the population back into the city.

History of Detroit's Changing Demographics
Main Article: Detroit

See Also: Demographic history of Detroit

Economic changes, the Automotive industry in the United States, societal shifts, and political restructuring each affected demographic change and shrinkage in Detroit. The city's demographic history plays a key role in the present situation of depopulation in Detroit, and how it has become an issue of economic inequality and environmental justice. These political, economic, and societal shifts are outlined below.

From Village to City
Though it began as a small village in 1701, Detroit was not a fully incorporated city until 1815. By 1820 the city had around 1,400 inhabitants, which increased to 2,200 by 1830. By 1850 the city's population of predominantly immigrants had reached 21,000, and by 1860 had surpassed 45,600 total inhabitants. This is in part due to Detroit being the final stop on the Underground Railroad, which diversified the city and brought many former African American slaves north, up until the American Civil War. Even though much of Detroit’s African American community was free, racial tensions ran deep among white landowners, and free African Americans often had to deal with slave hunters. In the late 19th Century, roughly half of Detroit’s population was foreign-born. Demographically, the city was home to numerous Austrians, Belgians, Canadians, Germans, English, Scottish, Polish, and Irish groups. Detroit’s residents also lived in clearly defined ethnic and economic neighborhoods from the beginning, segregating English and non-English speakers from Jewish and Catholic, for example. In 1825, the Erie Canal and a network of highways, including the Chicago Road, also brought in additional settlers while the city developed. Throughout this time, Detroit was slowly becoming a commercial center in the Midwest. The market for manufactured goods slowly grew, as the construction of railroads connected industrial leaders to other prosperous counties in the state, allowing the population to grow further. By 1854, the railroad connected Detroit to New York City, permanently opening the city’s commercial capacity. To support these opportunities, the city also modernized quickly, laying 242 miles of water pipe by 1883 to service the growing population, and contributing to suburbanization.

The Motor City
See Motor City (disambiguation)

Industries native to Detroit, such as manufacturing cigars and kitchen ranges, were quickly overshadowed by the success of Detroit’s automobile industry, which allowed the city to explode via population growth. Other cars had been built already in other cities, but Ford’s concept of the moving assembly line “put the world on wheels”. The materialization of the automobile industry put Detroit on the map as a global industrial center, allowing dozens of companies to emerge and offer jobs in the automobile industry. This had significant implications for population. In 1900, the US Census reported the city’s population at 286,000, with over 115,000 of them working. By 1910, this number had grown to a total population of 466,000 with 215,000 working. During World War I, Detroit was a recipient of thousands of rural African Americans flowing into the city from the South, many of them taking jobs in burgeoning car factories. By 1920 over half of the population were immigrant generations, as Detroit was the nexus for many migrating populations.

Road engineers and industry workers flocked to Detroit with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 (Phipps Act). The creation of interstate highways and well-maintained roads made it easier to build homes away from the urban city center, increasing urban sprawl and suburbanization that would later characterize the region. Just as the highways allowed for suburban sprawl, they also allowed for segregation between suburbanites (typically white) and working class city-dwellers (immigrants and African Americans) as workers could not afford to move away from the city center. As population boomed, close living quarters instigated racially charged conflicts, through "everyday expressions of white supremacy, and segregation". As thousands of workers moved into the city, many lived near the factories to be close to work and fellow union members, creating concentrated neighborhoods of working class citizens. These neighborhoods were often class and race based, perpetuating social stigmas surrounding race and ethnic group. Much of this racial and class-based segregation continues today. Debates over the trade union of the automobile industry also sparked conflict, turning the working class against many wealthy industry owners and cementing the class system that would come to characterize the population. Ford’s next conception of the automated assembly line changed city demographics, allowing unskilled labor to dominate the automobile industry and pushing skilled craftsmen out, usually further into the suburbs. The city developed at a rapid pace, with General Motors building offices adjacent to poor working class ghettoes, and developing the Detroit River to serve the needs of the auto industry.

The Great Depression
Main Article: Great Depression

With the Great Depression, consumers quickly lost faith in the economic boom in Detroit, which was augmented by the eventual market collapse in October 1929. The huge population of Detroit began to deplete as people lost their homes, savings, and jobs. Few cities were hit as hard by the Depression as Detroit, and by July 1930, a third of the automobile jobs were lost. The decline in job availability increased homelessness, unemployment, foreclosures, and out-migration from the city. As working and living conditions declined, particular groups were often targeted for evictions. One of the many examples of homelessness and shrinkage that plagued Detroit came in 1935, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt championed razing slum housing in Black Bottom, a low income, predominantly African American neighborhood in Detroit. More than 100 families were evicted with the promise of new public housing called the Brewster Homes. However, the housing program did not break ground for months, and was not fully replaced until the 1960s. In 1933, success was won by the working class through the enactment of the United Automobile Workers union in car companies across Detroit. Unionization and the UAW’s push for social welfare programs helped to build a solid middle class in spite of the Depression. Unions could negotiate wages and benefits packages, setting the stage for other working class communities across the nation.

World War II and Postwar Era
Main Article: United States home front during World War II

See Also: Detroit

The attack on Pearl Harbor shifted Detroit out of this first major economic slump. Along with other cities in the U.S., Detroit immediately became part of an all-out total war effort. Out-migration increased as men and women left to serve in WWII, while industry grew again in Detroit by using automobile factories to produce war items. Suddenly the problem was not unemployment, but housing shortages and overcrowding as men and women flooded into Detroit for work. Detroit’s second wind and prolific growth attracted more immigrants and newcomers from everywhere. The city’s physical growth was beginning to cause problems, and in 1927 the city limits were stretched to include 129 square miles. Housing was not built fast enough to accommodate the influx of new residents. Detroit’s director-secretary of the Detroit Housing Commission claimed, “There just isn’t such a thing as a place to rent in Detroit”. Government services were too limited to keep up with the rapid growth. Those who could moved to the more affluent neighborhoods of Indian Village, North Woodward, and Grosse Point on the outskirts of the city. Political restructuring and the introduction of new housing commissioners allowed for more public housing to be built.

After WWII, Detroit experienced another economic boom that was accompanied by increased social pressures. Automakers profited $1.1 billion between 1945 and 1950, a significant sum as the U.S. became a world superpower in the second half of the century. The ubiquity of cars and highways in Detroit encouraged further sprawl, and created segregated suburbs outside of the city limits. Martelle argues, "While Detroit was the region's population base, the majority of the new housing was being built outside the city limits...which were also where the new factories were being built". Detroit's automobile industry had inevitably driven immigration away from the congested city to cheaper land in the suburbs, taking much of the innovation with it. A degree of white flight was occurring, in which the white population moved to surrounding counties, leaving low income individuals (predominantly African American) in Detroit's city center.

Decline
Main Article: Decline of Detroit

See Also: Public housing in Detroit

In the 1950 mayoral elections, the city passed numerous policy decisions against urban infrastructure development, as Albert Cobo threatened to raze a slum to "offer the land for sale to private individuals for redevelopment". Cobo won the election, which had dramatic effects on public housing across the city. Cobo vetoed many of the proposed project plans, shifted the city's focus to "urban renewal projects that would eradicate slums", and replaced the Detroit Housing Commission with private developers. None of these plans included new housing for low income residents. In the 1950s, Mayor Cobo also refused federal funds that would have aided in public housing projects, further discriminating against low income communities. This decade concretized racial segregation and depopulation in Detroit. Housing remained segregated across the city, and more and more whites began to leave for the suburbs. The engineering of Interstate 94 in Michigan required many buildings in the city to be removed, including businesses and homes. The Big Three (automobile manufacturers) and other industries also implemented plans to build factories closer to consumer bases and reduce labor costs, causing a severe loss of employment opportunities within the city. In the 1970s, Detroit's economic base was exported overseas, with some 28% of equipment and plant investment done in foreign countries. Industry's move in away from Detroit "set the course for Detroit's economic collapse". As jobs were lost, economic inequality also increased, such that in 1959 the median income of a white family was $7,050, but for an African-American family was $4,370. In 1960, Detroit's population was around 1.5 million, comprised of 29% African-Americans and 70% whites. In 2012, that number diminished to 701,475, with 82.7% African-American and 10.6% white residents

Causes of Shrinkage
Main Article: Depopulation

See also: Decline of Detroit

Initial Causes
Detroit's depopulation did not occur overnight, but slowly over a series of decades. Shrinkage is also not a new phenomenon, and is often the converse side of growth. However, shrinkage in Detroit today occurs in stark contrast to the accelerated expansion of other large cities in America. Jianping and Yasushi argue that an initial cause of depopulation can be due to out-migration, lower fertility rates, and changes in residential preferences or accessibility that lead to suburbanization. The decline of employment as auto makers moved to cheaper property also caused depopulation, as residents moved away from the city or even state to seek jobs.

Ongoing Causes
While issues such as out-migration and unemployment spurred shrinkage initially, many factors of shrinkage are ongoing and remain prevalent in Detroit. In the suburbs, increased residential development in "undesirable" land-use patterns occurs rapidly, such as land utilization for sprawl and the lack of high-rises. This threatens local ecosystems and land conservation and influencing further suburbanization. These suburbs are also indicative of racial segregation between suburb and city. In 2010 the city of Detroit's white population was only 10.61% of total residents, whereas African Americans made up 82.69% (see Demographic history of Detroit). This racial disparity implies a further cause to Detroit's shrinkage and the lack of opportunities for its remaining residents.

Another ongoing cause of shrinkage specific to Detroit is deindustrialization, primarily from Detroit's automobile industry moving to cheaper locations or overseas to Brazil and China. Other industries that supplied car parts to automakers also retreated, resulting in the loss of employment opportunities and financial crises for the entire city. With the Great Recession of 2008, the Big Three automakers - General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford Motor Company - were forced to apply for loans from the federal government in the Effects of the 2008–10 automotive industry crisis on the United States. The subsequent bankruptcy of the automobile industry in cities across Michigan lent themselves to dramatic unemployment and lack of financial investment in the Detroit, further contributing to depopulation. With white flight, waning industry left in Detroit, and a lack of social mobility for remaining residents, the effects of shrinkage were dire. From 2000 to 2004, Detroit lost 5.1% of its overall population, a dramatic decline in such a short period of time.

Effects of Shrinkage
Both the initial and ongoing causes of shrinkage hold dramatic effects on the city and its remaining residents. Divisions between urban and suburban residences imply continued dramatic segregation that is self-perpetuating, resulting in a cycle where African American residents cannot afford to leave because property in the suburbs is too high. Simultaneously, because real estate in predominantly black neighborhoods often has a lower market value than white neighborhoods, white residents can sell their homes and leave for the suburbs, whereas home owners in black neighborhoods have a harder time selling their homes (see White flight). This depreciates African Americans' sense of socioeconomic status, as inner-city residents struggle to maintain their livelihoods without economic opportunities. Another issue that perpetuates this cycle is that many Detroit policy makers and municipal government workers refuse to see shrinkage as a problem, and avoid using the term altogether. Criticisms of the term run the gamut from shrinkage is a “natural” process to using population decline as a money-making scheme through “smart decline”. This is problematic because cities rely most heavily on their municipal governments, despite the cities’ lack of political might in state legislatures. Changes to institutions, demographics, and the economy have made non-government coalitions less reliable, which is a large problem faced by shrinking cities today. Many politicians also do not see depopulation as an environmental justice issue, such that the EPA has not yet gotten involved in shrinkage issues in Detroit.

In inner city Detroit, problems also arise when fewer residents inhabit buildings that cannot be maintained. Instead, these once-beautiful buildings and centers of commerce are slowly falling into disrepair, a sign of inadequate revitalization efforts. Revitalization has stalled due to municipal politicians' framing of the problem as suburban growth, rather than city shrinkage. Building vacancy, demolition of condemned buildings, and underuse of infrastructure are rampant in Detroit, each the effect of decreased population. Lower population density in cities like Detroit can also lead to brownfield land and land wastage, two phenomena that occur after an industry abandons its facilities and leaves behind potential contaminants or pollutants. Jianping and Yasushi include these as two main effects of city shrinkage in large metropolises:


 * 1) Brownfield land wastage is left in the city core, while expansion of suburbs consumes arable land and endangered ecosystems.
 * 2) Negative effects on residents' quality of life may occur due to lack of infrastructure, resources, community loss, and social segregation.

Increased suburbanization negatively impacts city residents due to lack of infrastructure and money devoted to the city. Other effects include loss of city services, loss of access to public goods due to a shrinking tax base, and loss of money flowing into the city to rebuild infrastructure. Each of these elements further affects the continued inequity between suburban and city residents, as well as the level of opportunity and quality of life available to each Detroit resident.

Social Equity and Environmental Justice Issues
Main Article: Environmental Justice

See also: Environmental Racism

The causes and effects above lend insight into shrinkage as an environmental justice issue resulting from uneven development and investment disparities in urban planning. Economic development has been disproportionately skewed toward the suburbs instead of the city's core, in part because of political agency (philosophy) held by predominantly white suburbs. Many minority residents in the city's urban center lack the resources and political influence to achieve increased economic development. In cities like Detroit, there is no strong response to the deterioration of the city's core, primarily due to city planners' and politician's failure to prioritize the disadvantaged people and spaces. Policy makers are instead trying to limit urban sprawl and gentrify abandoned neighborhoods to make them more appealing to the predominantly white people that have moved away from the city. This has broader ripple effects in driving up rents and pushing original residents out of these neighborhoods. For example, the Detroit International Riverfront district near downtown has been historically used as a site for subsistence fishing, typically by resident African Americans. Redevelopment of this district in response to shrinkage through casinos, shopping, and expensive condos has led the city to restrict fishing on the riverfront, raising questions of environmental justice inequity. Traditional black communities that used this region for subsistence fishing are no longer able to do so, pushing them to seek other forms of subsistence in grocery stores or corner stores.

Another component of shrinkage in cities like Detroit is politicians who refuse to recognize and prioritize shrinkage as a problem, instead focusing on growth in other regions away from the city center. Funding is often redirected from the city center to the suburbs, encouraging further sprawl. This is due to a continued political thrust of Manifest Destiny, a concept that regional planners utilize in expanding suburban housing. According to this theory, if a city is not expanding, it is not considered "successful". Without a plan to address shrinkage, it is likely that the surplus of vacant infrastructure and buildings would persist, along with housing problems. Some theorize that if left unchecked, this trend of vacancy would continue outside of city limits, affecting the suburbs as well. However, this perspective turns shrinkage into a sort of disease with its host as low income communities and communities of color, rather than addressing the social and racial segregation that catalyzes it. An attempted response to shrinkage and misallocated funding was made by the city through Detroit's Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP). The NSP was designed to address abandoned and condemned housing structures and received federal grant funding, but has not had much effect, failing to distribute funds evenly to historically poor neighborhoods. The NSP's distribution requirements include income status, but no data on race or gender, which are both important factors of shrinkage. The plan has had little effect on remediating vacancies and depopulation in the city's core.

Other problems include the presence of brownfields near residential areas within the city. Historically, industries placed their facilities near working class neighborhoods to ensure a broad labor base. However, as Detroit's automobile industry outsourced and moved outside the city limits, these decrepit and polluting facilities remained adjacent to low income communities of color. The City of Detroit attempted to ameliorate these brownfields by creating the Detroit Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, "an authority providing incentives for the city to revitalize underdeveloped or under-utilized properties due to abandonment or environmental contamination" (see also Planning and development in Detroit). The city outlined three tenets in facilitating the project: brownfield tables and templates, in-house meetings, and coordination with the community. Some of the clean-up programs include turning abandoned lots and buildings into spaces for performances and art, as well as new business, retail, and apartment buildings. Many of the future building projects are expected to bring thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars to the city, helping revitalize depressed areas and assist original residents. Programs created by the DBRA are intended to create up to 10,000 new housing units in neighborhoods near brownfields, as well as preserve "greenfields" from development. However, much criticism has been raised about the effectiveness of this organization in serving the interests of surrounding neighborhoods. The DBRA could also be using this brownfield program as a means to gentrify areas of the city to attract new residents instead of providing support for long-term residents.

Mitigating Shrinkage
See also: Shrinking cities in the United States

Early efforts to mitigate shrinkage included the Detroit Vacant Land Survey of 1990. This included at attempt at de-densification, in which city residents and development were ushered into and concentrated into some neighborhoods while vacating others. In this model, residents would be moved into more densely populated areas that were already owned by the city. The Survey and resulting city planning were met by retaliation by residents, and failed. Hollander et al. suggest another model of de-densification includes dispersed vacancy, in which property owners are encouraged by the city to take title to surrounding vacant lots.

Today, city planners offer little guidance on "how to shrink a city," even when granted funding to help mitigate shrinkage. City planning policies are usually directed toward growth and new development, using tools such as "comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, and urban growth boundaries". Since the beginning of the 2008 Great Recession, there have been some policies and financial investment in Detroit’s infrastructure. The Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) was proposed by the Planning and Development Department of the City of Detroit, and builds off of Congress' Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The NSP aimed to address the impacts of foreclosure in communities that were detrimentally affected by the economic crisis, and hopes to support market recovery and stabilize neighborhoods. However, this policy has been largely ineffective due to city government delays, poor infrastructural planning, and misallocation of funds.

Other efforts to mitigate shrinkage include using occupied-housing-unit density as a metric “to analyze changes in physical land use associated with population decline in urban neighborhoods”. This is a response to government proposed “smart decline,” a method aimed at gentrification and consolidating abandoned neighborhoods rather than addressing root causes of shrinkage. Smart decline has been met with strong opposition in Detroit, especially when city planners were told by outside observers how to "shrink gracefully". Many smart decline plans are inherently top-down, assume a "blank slate" at project sites, and require an uninvolved and quiet public opinion. This concept's exclusion of community opinion is largely why it has been met by so much opposition. However, Hollander and Németh have proposed a version of smart decline that is founded instead on ethics, equity, and social justice, including town hall meetings, public hearings, and the merits of potential solutions.

Another attempt to remedy the shrinkage problem has been to capitalize on population decline in Detroit's urban core for the benefit of remaining residents. Setting aside abandoned lots and green space for "recreation, agriculture, green infrastructure, and other non-traditional land uses will benefit existing residents and attract future development, and enable shrinking cities to reinvent themselves as more productive, sustainable, and ecologically sound places". While developing these lots into green space would benefit the community, many residents fear that it could result in increased development of high rises and office buildings, rather than community resources.

The future planning decisions for Detroit, as well as the future for environmental justice in relation to city planning and depopulation, are slowly improving. Much more research has been done on shrinking cities in the U.S., as well as in Detroit in particular. In order for more work to be done by the city government and non-government organizations, shrinkage must be seen as more than an issue of income, but an issue of race, gender, and household size. Problems of unemployment and racial discrimination exist as functions of environmental injustice, requiring policy makers to address inequality in funding distribution and housing availability for people of color. Organizations like Detroit Future City have begun work on carbon buffering, a "best practices" demolition program, and tree remediation.

History of New Orleans' changing demographics
French colonists founded the city of New Orleans in 1718, traveling from Mobile, Alabama to the Mississippi River. Because the area was a major hub for the slave trade, there was an increase of African slaves from 300 to 1,000 between the years of 1726 to 1732. By 1800, the population of the city included Anglo-Americans, Creoles, and enslaved Africans that were intermixed. However, a large demographic shift took place as a result the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Driven by the 1791 slave insurgency of Saint Domingue and threat of war with England, the French sold 530,000,000 acres west of the Mississippi including New Orleans to the United States Government. After the purchase, over 10,000 refugees from Saint Domingue doubled the size of the city, changing the population to “1/3 white, 1/3 free people of color and 1/3 African slaves” by 1810. The city’s population expanded even more and experienced shifts between 1830 to 1860 when the city’s population grew three times as large, as a result of an influx of European immigrants whose population overtook the slave population. As a result of the end of the Civil War in 1865, the emancipated African American population in the city doubled to 50,000 by 1870. The subsequent Jim Crow laws segregated blacks to more low-lying and marginalized areas of the city, including black Creoles who previously resided in the French Quarter. However, by 1900 migration to New Orleans slowed, lowering it from the 5th to 12th largest among all American cities, placing it below the growth rate of Chicago, Detroit, and Milwaukee. This change took place largely because of New Orleans’ reliance on agricultural exports that did not require urban laborers. This decline was somewhat lessened by the railway that passed through the city and connected to ocean freighters. Before the 20th century, New Orleans’ neighborhoods were of mixed race, but a combination of Jim Crow laws, racially segregated public housing, unequal educational opportunities, white flight, and unequal employment opportunities led to a racially segregated city. During this time, the city shifted from being tripartite to a biracial, meaning individuals were considered to be black or white. PhD Elizabeth Fussell explains how unequal opportunities based on race contributed to economic and geographic disparities in New Orleans over the years: ''explicitly unequal treatment of those racial groups has been reproduced through an interlocking system of unequal educational opportunities, residential segregation, and blacks were consistently far less likely than whites to complete secondary school, even to present. The effect of racial educational inequity during the "human capital century" has been to diminish the labor-market opportunities and life changes of the individuals that lag behind.'' Beginning in 1960, New Orleans began to see population loss, and just before Hurricane Katrina hit, New Orleans had almost twice as many people living below the poverty level than the national average and a 30% lower average income. The storm worsened population loss and changed the demographics of the city, resulting in an increased proportion of whites population and decreased proportion of black individuals in the years following.

Pre Hurricane Katrina
New Orleans’ population began declining in the 1960s. From 1970 to 2000, the population shrank by 18%, and the region's employment rate fell from 66% to 42%. This resulted partially from the decline of key economic enterprises in the area. New Orleans relied on tourism, a part, and oil, while elsewhere in the United States cities experienced technologically driven growth. The oil boom that had once economically supported the city collapsed in 1979 and 1980, leading to job loss and the proliferation of depopulation. Many other changes in the area incentivized suburbanization, or movement from the city area to surrounding suburbs, including the development of interstate 10 in 1955, the draining of backswamps that were formerly uninhabitable, and federal tax incentives. In terms of demographics, this caused movement of whites into exclusive suburban areas eventually resulting in a majority of Black residents in the urban core of New Orleans, but not in the broader metropolitan area that included suburbs. Furthermore, historic school integration and Hurricane Betsy drove many whites from New Orleans neighborhoods. Racially segregated public housing, racial discrimination from lenders and realtors contributed to the racialized emigration of New Orleans residens.

Post Hurricane Katrina
Compounded with years of poor economic growth, the largest contributor to the worsening population decline of New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, which resulted in the flooding of over 80% of the city. The storm displaced 800,000 people, which is the greatest displacement in the United States since the Dust Bowl. In 2010, the population of New Orleans was only at 76% of what it was in 2005.

Pre Hurricane Katrina
Before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans faced racial segregation and poverty levels above the national average. In 1960 it had the fifth highest level of poverty of all US cities, as well as some of the worst substandard housing. Poverty levels were at 24.5% on 2005, which were almost double the national level, and average income levels were at $30,711, which was about $16,000 less than the national average. Over the years, the city dealt with an aging infrastructure and gradual sinking of the city until portions were below sea level It was found that in inner city neighborhoods over 50% of children had levels of lead in their blood above federal guidelines.

From the beginning of the 20th century to 1980, New Orleans faced increasing residential segregation. Unemployment of blacks was as much as 10 times that of whites, and blacks paid a greater proportion of their income for housing than whites. In the 1970s, four times as many blacks had incomes placing them below the poverty level than whites, and by 1980 there was a belt along the undesirable backswamp of majority black residents. In addition to facilitating the growth of suburbs and advancing depopulation, the creation of Interstate 10 displaced many historically black neighborhoods including Tulane/Gravier, Tremé/Lafitte and the 7th Ward. As individuals with financial and social mobility moved to suburbs, the poor, who were disproportionately African American remained in low lying location within the city's core, making them especially susceptible to flood and storm damage. Although there are a variety of ways Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath affected groups differentially based on race and class, as journalist Eugene Robinson said, "Environmental injustice began long before Hurricane Katrina ever hit, in the basic pattern of settlement in the city."

Post Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Katrina and shrinkage of New Orleans had significant effects on various groups in the city. African Americans, renters, the elderly, and people with low income were disproportionately impacted by Hurricane Katrina compared to affluent and white residents. First, African Americans are less likely to have rental and homeowner's insurance and to have insurance with major companies as compared to whites, which is related to practices of racially based insurance redlining. Since people of color were more likely to rely on public transportation, the dependence of the evacuation on personal transportation impacted these individuals more than those with personal means to leave the area. Some academics highlight this disparity as an issue of climate injustice,  which is the differential impact of climate change on certain groups, as scientists have shown that increases in activity of Atlantic hurricanes "are believed to reflect, in large part, contemporaneous increases in tropical Atlantic warmth...[and] have attributed these increases to a natural climate cycle termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), while other studies suggest that climate change may instead be playing the dominant role."

The number of homeless people in the city was at double the pre-Katrina rate by 2008, and African Americans faced discrimination in housing transactions, finding inferior treatment based on race. FEMA gave some evacuees from Katrina and Rita trailers that were contaminated with formaldehyde, a mistake that took over two years to fix. The National Fair Housing alliance showed in a report that information about units was withheld from or differentially given to African Americans compared to whites, and pointed out examples of racist practices of landlords and online advertisements. Even after federal and state governments spent $4 billion on revitalization efforts to repair levees, black New Orleans is disproportionately endangered by future flooding. In the first four months after the storm, the city's white population rose while the black population declined. As of 2006, evacuees that were African American were 5 times more likely to be unemployed when compared to evacuees that were white. T Of additional concern are the effects on children, who face four times the risk of having serious symptoms of emotional disturbance than comparable children. Moreover, while many parents feel that their children need professional help, the majority of them did not get it or have access to it. As of 2007, only 40% of school children had returned to public school.

These disparities bring up issues with environmental racism as well as environmental justice as a whole, which is defined "defined in terms of the distribution (or maldistribution) of environmental goods and bads."

Pre Hurricane Katrina
There is little evidence that New Orleans was planned and developed with a specific focus on shrinkage as a phenomenon. This is problematic, because even though the metropolitan area as a whole was growing, there was simultaneously an increase in suburbanization. Many long-time residents and their needs were left out of planning decisions due to race and socioeconomic status.

Post Hurricane Katrina
Planning for shrinkage as a result of Hurricane Katrina focuses most of its attention on reconstructing the city after the damage of the storm. There are a variety of methods proposed by academics, communities and governing bodies to develop New Orleans in the aftermath of shrinkage as well as Hurricane Katrina. A large part of the dominant planning narrative seeks to make New Orleans “bigger and better” while still decreasing the overall size of the city. Through the creation of various commissions, many ideas have been proposed and have incited controversy. Many planners agree that part of the effort to revitalize the area must not render the residents vulnerable to the effects of another similar hurricane. In the wake of Katrina, much planning focused on rapid reconstruction of some areas, with proposals for temporary prohibition were rejected by most residents. There are four main planning efforts in response to Hurricane Katrina's damage.

BNOB
The Bring New Orleans Back Commission, created by Mayor Ray Nagin in January 2006, consisted of "professional planners and designers" including the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Some of the BNOB policies included shrinking the city's footprint and conversion of some neighborhoods to parks and wetlands through buyouts from the government. This fueled an outcry from the public, who resisted the idea of being prevented from returning to their homes. This was especially true for African American residents, because "they were much more likely than whites to live in flood prone areas."

NONRP
In November of 2006, the New Orleans Neighborhood Rebuilding Plan was approved by city council. It differed from BNOB as it mainly drew from the community and "was based on the assumption that all areas of the city would be rebuilt," and planned to recover every neighborhood. One of their proposals was a "lot next door" policy, in which property owners were given first priority in purchasing adjacent homes.

UNOP
Funded mainly by philanthropy from the Rockefeller foundation and the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, the Unified New Orleans Plan was developed in 5 months. According to America Speaks, the process had "unprecedented levels of citizen engagement...established credability...built a constituency committed to work...[and] helped restore hope."

ORM
Beginning in January 2007, the Office of Recovery Management was funded by the city as well as foundations, and was created to develop a strategy for recovery. It was headed by Edward Blakely, who promoted strategies such as "trigger projects" in 17 target areas to drive development, and the creation of target areas determined to be renew, redevelop or rebuild zones. As of 2007, the project was encountering problems with allocating funds assured by the Louisiana Recovery Authority and FEMA.

History of the City
Leipzig was on its way to becoming a metropolis that attracted people from all over the Europe due to its centralized location. It was one of the major European centers of learning and culture in music and publishing. After World War II, it became the major urban and trade center within East Germany. Because Leipzig played a large role in the decline of Communism in East Germany, the city itself also suffered economic drawbacks and declines resulting in a change in landscape, infrastructure and geography. Today, Leipzig is considered a ‘shrinking city’ because of its rapid population decline and infrastructure devastation. While Leipzig is one of the most livable cities in East Germany and is a prominent cultural center, it is still suffering the repercussions of the last World War, economically, politically and socially.

Causes of Shrinkage
After World War II, the local economy in Leipzig was deflated and the regional economy desperately needed to be revitalized. The fall of socialist East Germany led to a mass emigration to other areas of the country. The housing vacancy had risen to 20%, and renovations in the older neighborhoods were needed. The post socialist conditions are partly to blame for the state in which many east German cities find themselves in. Because east Germany was a socialist country merging with a west-European Capitalist country, it has a unique situation. Lingering socialist ideals competed with very democratic western philosophy, causing issues for old and new generations. Integrating east Germany into West Germany has been problematic because of regional variations due to differences in economic performance in the recent years. The whole area suffers from problems like joblessness, population loss, and a lack of renovation. In the case of Leipzig specifically, a dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs and mass out-migration has accelerated the shrinking process. Loss of stock in commercial real estate and housing stock produced a problematic picture to the whole of Germany and Europe in general. The transition from 40 years of socialist rule to a democratic-capitalist economy was not as smooth as expected. The loss of economic and socio-cultural importance did not fare well for Leipzig, or Germany as a whole. Becoming apart of the German Democratic Republic lead to the loss of several national functions of the former unitary state.

Effects of Shrinkage
In 1949, when Leipzig was officially a part of the German Democratic Republic, the city underwent many infrastructure changes. National and regional industries like banks and the publishing media, left Leipzig for the capitalist western Germany. The German Democratic Republic prioritized pre-war traditions rather then investing in innovations; the city of Leipzig was to become the industrial center with large scale mining, which caused pollution in the air and the national and cultural landscape of the city was drastically changed. Villages were torn down to make room for the new machinery and coalfields. This caused inhabitants to leave the area, and at the end of GDR era in 1989, the population shrunk down to 530,000. Some neighborhoods were neglected because of their past-socialist nature. These infrastructures then began to disintegrate and there were no initiatives established to upkeep them. Nobody wanted to be reminded of communist times. 75% of the local industry was closed down within the years after the reunification of Germany. Small companies took over parts of the state, but it was not noticeable due to the large out flux of industry years earlier. There was huge environmental damage and social costs. The city had turned into a coal producing state, but the energy value of coal was poor, so continuation of coal mining was not economical. The city was destroyed by landscape devastation and air pollution, and the industry was not thriving and would not be continuing in the area. The physical infrastructure of roads, buildings and public transportation was designed for much larger population then is present, they are too large to represent the current population. Currently, the population is stagnant.

Policies and Investment Decisions
Urbanization is a cyclical process and urban and regional decline will make way for new growth. The Fordist model of industrialization was employed, which was characterized by mass standardized production and mass employment in large complexes. This mass production technology created increases in output due to specialization of jobs based on individual workers' skills and top-down management. While the output was unprecedented, this put added pressure on wages causing stagnation. There was an unbalanced relationship between consumption and production in that there was not enough payoff for the working class to incentivize working hard. Human capital, creativity and competitiveness are key to successfully industrializing the city. Neglected areas of the city were ignored because of their connection to former socialist memories. Instead of renovating, large city centers were built away from the center of the city. These large buildings fell victim to the effects of neglect like decay. Large construction and renovation projects were meant to strengthen the optimistic view on the future of Germany. Suburban housing projects were constructed around the city so the houses could be offered to those who left the city earlier. The goal was to offer housing opportunities so that the population would come back and the regional population would not decline too drastically.

There was a policy of ‘restitution before financial compensation’ which had an adverse effect on inner city renovation projects. This was an accelerated out-migration to the suburbs and countryside which resulted in many empty houses in the city despite their perfect state of condition after renovation. Stimulating suburbanization increased the already too large housing stock in the region and failed to mitigate the inner city vacancy problems. The city would do best if the development policy was aimed at modest economic growth and employment was created to stabilize the urban population and prevent a new exodus to the west.

Census Trends
After the fall of East Germany, the population of the German Democratic Republic suffered a decline. After the Second World War, there was a out-migration of 3.8 million people from East Germany to West Germany. This was so drastic that East Germany would eventually cease to exist. The rest of Germany felt the only option was to cut off ties completely with Eastern Germany. However, the shift from communist to capitalist gave new employment opportunities in retail, transportation and communication, but this only accounted for a small amount of the economy that was lost. There were not enough people living in the city to make use of these opportunities. Unemployment was not too high at 20%, but still higher than other cities in West Germany and other EU countries. The working class neighborhoods fell victim to the large scale vacancy.

Efforts to Mitigate Shrinkage
The new policies are shifting their focus toward stabilizing the current population and adjusting the housing stock to the population size. The city has developed a strategy to adapt housing stock and infrastructure according to a ‘shrinking city’ model. There will be demolition of housing that were neglected or there is too little demand for living. These neglected areas are then replaced with parks or squares. The goal is to turn the area into a more attractive and greener, nature-oriented environment (See also Gentrification). This in turn encourages a more spacious livelihood and leads to a higher quality of life, which could potentially attract urban dwellers to these remodeled neighborhoods, as well as land developers.

Stimulating owner-occupancy is another important strategy that strengthens the ties between the city and its inhabitants. There is a lack of clients and purchasing power for retailers, which causes problems especially for working class neighborhoods. There is a public hearing that is held to brainstorm strategies for solving this problem, like focusing exclusively on physical solutions like improvements of housing stock and public space. Long-term monitoring of sustainable urban open space development at the city district level will also be helpful in the long run. Concrete socio-economic evidence of the benefits that green spaces bring to shrinking cities would be a valuable contribution to the rehabilitation of a shrinking city like Leipzig.

Future Plans
A coherent urban development strategy is hard to find because there are many policy plans, each dealing with different parts of the problem. The government is not to blame completely for the state Leipzig is in currently, as there are many facets of the shrinking city problem that need to be addressed. The government has not failed to find the right solutions, or been too optimistic in their judgements. Leipzig has a bad reputation in other parts of West Germany, which is where most investors come from. Leipzig can claim that they have branches of large office of West German companies like BMW and Porsche, but this does not result in enough jobs or opportunities to push the unemployment rate back to an acceptable level. The politicians and investors should not see the shrinking of the city as negative or a problem that cannot be solved; but that it offers things that other cities do not have like space for innovation, creative subcultures, cheap start-up rents, and an increase of green space for making the city more attractive. The attempt to get the 2012 Olympics to take place in Leipzig brought renewed recognition for the discussion of more building projects. For now, the city needs to focus on stabilizing the current population and lowering the unemployment rate by increasing opportunities within the city.

History of Cincinnati’s Changing Demographics
Originally a fort-town, Cincinnati’s economy was based on wagon and carriage manufacturing. The building of carriages and wagons, began in 1824 where the population was a modest 50,000. However, this industry made Cincinnati the world's center of the trade by 1890. [1] As the town further developed into a full-on site of production and innovation of wheel carriers followed by the introduction of a retail industry in soap production its population grew to a peak of 914,808 in 1950. Yet, more residents abandoned the city from 2000 to 2010 than they had before in the 1990s [2]. The major economic trends that drove the growth of Cincinnati are easily broken up into three stages. Beginning with the introduction of the wagon/carriage manufacturing sector in the urban area. Followed by the introduction of the soap retail industry and then by the incorporation of increasing industrialization of weaponry making during world war I further establishing Cincinnati further as an industrial city and fort of commerce, however, today it stands as a shrinking metropolis due to vital transitions in its economy specifically the shifting economic trends from once serving as a center of rapid industrial innovation to being transformed into that of a deserted metropolis. Depopulation began to occur after 1950 when Cincinnati achieved its peak population. This change in population decrease and overall downturn is attributed to varying factors some weighing heavier than others. Primarily the decrease in population is associated with deindustrialization [3]. Parts of the city that shrank the most are those where industries were heavily located, typically in the center of the city. [3] This emptying of the heart of the city transformed the landscape into a current one of uneven distribution where the center has fewer resources and the small accumulation of both people and a labor market is located in the outskirts of the city. This is due to people finding it cheaper to move outside and the transformation of the landscape to include highways and railway systems called for the tearing apart and creating divisions throughout the urban landscape. The city’s shifting economy now gives way to new social, political, and cultural reform. Presently the overall trend of Cincinnati is that of shrinking city rather than that of a growing metropolis; however, the extended area outside Cincinnati is becoming increasingly populated in comparison to the center due to changes in population growth and distribution [3].

Causes of Shrinkage
Cincinnati’s depopulation is centered primarily on the downturn of the US steel and iron industry, which resulted in the loss of a large labor market that substantially maintained the economy of the city running. The big companies providing the majority of the labor decided to outsource due to easier attainability and allocation of cheaper resources, more cost effective modes of production, lower wages assigned to workers, and more lenient regulations in underdeveloped countries. The turning point is encompassed by the time between the 1950s to early 2000s. The US Steel and iron industry’s downturn consisted of transitioning manufacturing to the southeastern states in an attempt to diminish labor costs. Other elements playing a role include the layoffs declined by 32.9% between 1969 and 1996.[29] that came as a result of an increase in automation processes through the industrial mechanisms of factory work as well as a decline in demand for a labor force when it came to creating products made out of steel. More directly related factors of shrinkage to deindustrialization and globalization include the internationalization of American business as well as the liberalization of foreign trade policies since outsourcing jobs to underdeveloped countries makes policy regulation much more lenient.[7] Struggling with all these conditions, Cincinnati encountered challenges of population loss, exhaustion of local tax revenues, increasing unemployment alongside crime, drugs, swelling welfare rolls, poor municipal credit ratings and deficit spending.[22] Those who chiefly experienced and felt the suffering of the decline were the working class, migrants who had arrived to Cincinnati during the Great migration and established themselves along the center of the city where industrial jobs were located [5]. The city itself began to peak downwards as a result of the decline of the US steel and iron industry which not only affected Cincinnati but spread across other cities in Ohio [25]. This lent the city as a whole to a dramatic employment plummet and lack of financial investment across its grounds, further contributing to depopulation [5].

Impacts of Depopulation and Environmental Justice Issues
Depopulation in Cincinnati—driven by rapid outsourcing of manufacturing operations to foreign countries and the resulting lack of employment opportunities—has significantly changed the quality of life for Cincinnati’s communities. Disparities such as those of lack of equal health care and pollutants across the area are experienced unevenly between ethnic groups living in the center of city and those in surrounding areas. Disparities that arise from living in the city center are those that people are moving into the outside and taking the little resources and resettling economic centers outside of the center of the city. Cincinnati today also faces issues of air quality, hazardous and toxic facilities that occupy the area, employment inequalities and are closely related to shrinkage. These environmental issues are directly tied with the concept of shrinkage having occurred and continuing in Cincinnati as there is a lack of effective urban planning and mitigation to resolve these issues. They result from residue of years of industrial labor in the area as well as the construction of Interstate Route 71, which runs north from Kentucky towards Columbus, Ohio and divides the east and west side of Cincinnati into battle turfs and a disunity between inhabitants of the city. There are new burdens faced by particular groups primarily the African-American minority groups such as destruction and vandalism of homes, lack of basic services and resources resulting from the lack of investing and establishment of economic- thriving entities in the area.

Efforts to Alleviate Shrinkage
Efforts to alleviate shrinkage in Cincinnati start by viewing the present state of Cincinnati not as a challenge faced by an individual urban center but rather as an issue targeting most of Ohio’s urban centers. There exists a surplus of housing, a lack of demand, and a placement of funds on other measures of usage of vacant properties that are currently being crafted. Funding is placed in maintaining the current existing population there and re­evaluating present resources for those who currently live in Cincinnati. Funds are also being placed on designing comprehensive plans that prioritize the reality of population loss and efforts to be taken to revitalize the city [7]. Mitigation strategies and policy planning responses for Cincinnati include the repairing of the city by using what is currently there as a basis for attracting economic sectors to invest in the city. Recent strategies to alleviate shrinkage in Cincinnati have taken the form of introducing creative ways to place to use vacant homes rather than investing in their repair to allow for funds to be placed elsewhere. Despite rapid depopulation, new opportunities appear to be emerging. Urban agricultural activities may provide an opportunity to improve environmental injustice related to food deserts and social equity issues involving the need for community participatory action to intervene in these measures. New economic opportunities and job training in sectors previously not inherent to the region are also emerging. For example, as of 2004, 3CDC has invested $84 million in 152 seriously deteriorated buildings and 165 vacant parcels in an attempt to re-develop the Over-the –Rhine district and corridor of Cincinnati. There has also been a push for the integration of artistic and creative forms of revitalization such as introducing the development of a new building for the School for Creative and Performing Arts which opened in 2010 and the 3 million dollar renovation of the Emery Theatre [12]. There is also the redesign of Cincinnati’s transportation system by introducing the Cincinnati Streetcar to generate $1.9 billion in benefits for the city as well as a $14 million expansion and renovation of Washington Park which was finished in 2012 [12]. These efforts are not inherent to the region but are attempts at revitalizing Cincinnati and allocating a new growth in migration and economic steadiness. These new economic opportunities are critical because they set the stage for a reclaiming of the city and closely tie in with issues of community participation, direct engagement, and voicing of what community members directly desire for their cities alongside what the city government envisions. The revitalization of Cincinnati is an opportunity to bring forth a collaborative approach between what the local government envisions and what locals want, directly influencing the process of city planning and policy making matters.

Mitigation Strategies and Cincinnati’s Future
Mitigation strategies surrounding the issue of depopulation are presented in current proposals by the city government. Past proposals conclude the need to strategize for the lack of employment opportunities and the disparities between those who can obtain jobs are present issues that closely relate to environmental injustice. These proposals address the effects by beginning to design new evolving plans that to include strategies that target shrinkage within the city as a holistic approach [8]. The future for environmental justice in relation to city planning and depopulation lies in finding creative, collaborative, and using what currently exists in the city to serve its current occupants and in the near future further attract new ones. In order for revitalization efforts to be put into place by local government, non­government organizations, and other groups and organizations, depopulation cannot solely be understood and tackled  through the lens of being an economic issue but rather must further  address sociopolitical challenges such as those that involve race, marital  status,  availability of public spaces,  gender etc [11].