Shrinking Cities: Process versus Outcome

Detroit—the mecca for shrinking city theorists—has produced some interesting ideas for how to revision cities in decline.  One popular idea involves the relocation of residents in mostly abandoned neighborhoods to neighborhoods of concentrated development.

The relocation concept jibes with smart growth theory and makes a lot of sense from a public finance theory, but whom does it benefit?  There is no obvious answer to this question because it would likely depend on how the perceived savings—reductions in the city budget from cutting off service to low-density neighborhoods—are spent.

Mallach (2011) raises concerns about the relocation idea and its implications for social justice.   From a planner’s perspective, it makes sense to assume that relocated residents would benefit from gaining access to broader opportunities that exist in pockets of concentrated population.  But Mallach contends that the process of relocation might result in unjust outcomes--thus he argues that planners should focus on producing equitable outcomes as opposed to equitable processes.  While inclusive processes do not guarantee equitable results, this should not diminish the importance of process as an indicator of progressive planning.