Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum
Actually I think that raises a good point. Canadian cities had a tendency to amalgamate (merge) cities with their suburbs during some phases of growth (e.g. Toronto pre-1998 was much smaller until it merged with former suburbs) which might mask the decline of some cities that do lose population in one part but gain in another (not Toronto in particular now, although it too had population drops due to suburbanization in the latter part of the 20th century, but the effect may still apply elsewhere in contemporary times).
I wonder if the difference would be smaller if this was considered (imagine if Chicago or Detroit offset their decline by annexing/amalgamating suburbs, not that politically that would be feasible!).
|
I can speak pretty authoritatively of Detroit, but it absolutely would not have deteriorated as badly as it did if the city government had more control over regional land use policies. I suspect that other places in the Midwest would be similar.