Remember, though, the actual city of Detroit is only 1/5 of the population of the metro area. While Detroit is failing, the metro area is only hurting. It won't be abandoned.
At any rate, abandoning and ripping down historic architecture and craftsmanship is a terrible waste. Especially if you're just going to replace it with cardboard buildings and fancy facades. I think we'd be better off throwing the money at a group of un-corruptible, "really smart" people. There is a real opportunity to experiment with urban planning, development, and social programs to see if there is any way to turn it around.
If I had my way, I'd just build a wall around the city and turn it into a prison. Imagine how much wealth you could create making reality tv shows "from within the wall."
If 'throwing the money at a group of un-corruptible, "really smart" people' was an actual option, would Detroit be in the state that it's in?
> There is a real opportunity to experiment with urban planning, development, and social programs to see if there is any way to turn it around.
How do you think Detroit got to be the way that it is?
Answering my own question.... http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090301/O...
Are there modern cases of abandonment of a major metropolitan area? (I don't mean losing 50+% of population, or large-scale migration to the suburbs like STL, I mean actual wholesale abandonment of a city).
It seems that with hundreds of thousands of people, Detroit and NOLA are still going to survive for quite a while, but at what point do we just declare a city below critical-mass for survival and start working on transitioning people out?
At some point it has to cost far more to provide fire and other basic service coverage to these heavily-built but sparsely inhabited areas than they could ever hope to return in revenue. Cities regularly clear out large areas for urban rehab or sports stadiums, would it be plausible (if even ethical) to just buy out 50,000 people and ask them to leave?