Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Demolishing a city to start over would be useless. Why would you want to erase the history that defines a city? If all of its buildings and infrastructure are gone, and you rebuild it, have you really rebuilt that particular city? Or have you just put a new one in its place?
Also, a meteor hitting Sacramento would drastically affect a far larger area than Sacramento. And wishing meteoric death upon a metro of millions for the greater glory of Los Angeles-which is important enough already-is a little harsh, don't you think?
(PS even if Sacramento was wiped off the map, San Francisco or some Bay Area city would be more likely to become capital due to a closer location to former Sacramento)
It's not on the list, but I'd say Minneapolis. The older architecture is not very energy efficient, which is important if you're living in a place so cold. The highways were also poorly thought out, completely cutting off North Minneapolis from the rest of the city. They are expanding their light rail service, which is great, but of course there are problems and snags given that the city wasn't built with pubic transportation in mind.
I would also tear down the K-Mart on Lake Street (anyone from MPLS knows exactly what I'm talking about).
Of the cities on the list, I went with Los Angeles. It really should be denser with better public transportation.
Demolishing a city to start over would be useless. Why would you want to erase the history that defines a city? If all of its buildings and infrastructure are gone, and you rebuild it, have you really rebuilt that particular city? Or have you just put a new one in its place?
... wishing meteoric death upon a metro of millions for the greater glory of Los Angeles-which is important enough already-is a little harsh, don't you think?
(PS even if Sacramento was wiped off the map, San Francisco or some Bay Area city would be more likely to become capital due to a closer location to former Sacramento)
No one said anything about people dying. You're assuming I'm a sicko.
Demolition is the act of Demolishing (professionally); It's what Construction
workers and Building (implosion) specialists do to tear-down edifices.
Nowhere did I say "destroy" a city, and then rebuild.
By the way, what is your answer. You didn't come on here to criticize and "correct" me, did you.
(much like Punctuation and Spelling-nazis like to do; come onto a forum or comment
section and Correct others, rather than actually commenting with a real ANSWER...)
It's not on the list, but I'd say Minneapolis. The older architecture is not very energy efficient, which is important if you're living in a place so cold. The highways were also poorly thought out, completely cutting off North Minneapolis from the rest of the city. They are expanding their light rail service, which is great, but of course there are problems and snags given that the city wasn't built with pubic transportation in mind.
I would also tear down the K-Mart on Lake Street (anyone from MPLS knows exactly what I'm talking about).
Of the cities on the list, I went with Los Angeles. It really should be denser with better public transportation.
Awesome input.
Dallas has the same problem, in which they are/were debating tearing down the I345
(on the eastern edge of downtown) that divides DT from the neighborhood(s) next to it.
Dallas also created a Gigantic rail system. But now are scrambling to make the city more
walkable again.
I left out Dallas on the Poll, coincidentally, coz I know no one wants Dallas rebuilt from the
ground-up.
Our City Planners are doing a Great Job. !
TEAR-DOWN I345 !!!
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
I wouldn't want to wipe a whole city slate clean for any city in America. I'd rather fill in the blank squares, which that alone gives plenty of work to do for most of our cities.
I wouldn't want to wipe a whole city slate clean for any city in America. I'd rather fill in the blank squares, which that alone gives plenty of work to do for most of our cities.
I'd say that a city like Detroit is a prime opportunity for creative urban planners at this point--if it only had any investment. Likewise looking at some of the surface parking lot-full central cities across the Sunbelt--there's little reason to tear down older buildings before just infill vacant lots.
Razing EVERYTHING, and starting all over again? I think the best candidates for this would be large suburbs (close to or over 100,000 people) with no downtown whatsover, such as the kind that dominate Metro Detroit (Warren and Sterling Heights are the 3rd and 4th most populous cities in Michigan, no downtowns).
Getting ride of a bunch of strip malls, cheap post-war suburban housing and office parks wouldn't be much of a loss.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
