The Functionality of the City

What makes a city grow? What sustains them, or fails to do so. A city is a complex thing that is  probably best viewed as an analogy. America is a country, in it there are fifty states and within those  states, counties, and cities in those counties. One might define a city by size, but that alone isn't  enough. Some cities have lower populations than others, and some smaller cities may have even  larger populations. What is important to clarify something as a city or a town is if it has some sort of  defining “attraction” that might drive people to have some want to come to it, or go through it. That  attraction might be anything from jobs to entertainment, but without something of the sort a city is  only a name.


A city starts as a location (or village) that has something worth developing around such as a resource, entertainment, geographical position, etc. Once people feel the want, or even need, to move to that location then it may start to grow into a village ( if it wasn't one already). Once enough people mass around this area it can then start to develop. This is often seen, at least in our area, as an uprising of new stores, restaurants, etc. in the area. Housing is built almost synonymous with stores and restaurants in such a way that they seem necessary for one another.

Stores give people jobs and the government taxes, people get jobs and give the government taxes, the government gets taxes and upkeeps the city. However, the government has to allocate these funds, and besides the corruption which seems inherent to any large organization, the government only has so much money to allocate.

If you only have so much money to spend and you can choose to spend it on an already broken neighborhood with little income or taxes from both people and any stores that may still stand there versus a neighborhood where people have both money and stores that they spend that money at, which will you allocate your resources to? The answer is obvious, though saddening. It is in the best interest of the city, county, state, and country to invest that money where you get the best return on your investment.


Not only does the city have to worry about it's taxes, but the stores that choose to be there are only there so long as they, themselves, can also make a profit. If a neighborhood starts to take a turn for the worse then it is only rational for stores, that have the ability, to pull out of the area to avoid the loss over the long term. Cities also have a vested interest in keeping those stores, companies, factories, etc. where they are as they give more in taxes than the average person, and so again, one cannot truly fault the stores or businesses from pulling out of an area that is no longer viable for them to be in.

The people themselves effect the neighborhood in the same manner. When that neighborhood starts to take a turn for the worse, whether that is because the jobs have dried up or a certain level of crime has been reached, people of all races, provided they have the income, may choose to flee from the area. What is then left is the crime which gives the city a bad name, is likely perpetrated by people whom don't pay taxes or are very low on the totem pole, and a gap where the people who did pay higher taxes were.

All of these things strike a neighborhood and can lead to it's ruin. What seems to be the leading cause of a neighborhood or city becoming a “problem area” is a sudden devastation, or combination of multiple factors rather than a small increase of crime, this or that race, etc. The city and it's people work in tandem; people pay taxes, the city takes the taxes and relocates the money to keep the city going. If a mass amount of people lose jobs then they cant pay taxes and the city will almost surely die, but if the city starts to hemorrhage money then it cannot support the upkeeping it does and crime, job loss, etc. will occur resulting in the possible “death” of the city.


So what is to be done? I believe that when a neighborhood begins to take a turn for the worse, and it should be rather obvious when this is the case because crime might go up, tax income might decrease, stores or plants might leave, etc., then it is up to the government (State and Federal), as the protector and maintainer of it's citizens, to step in with a more aggressive plan. Whatever that plan is would be dependent upon the situation and the ability of the government of that city, but the city has to act quickly and strongly. If the city does not act the neighborhood will surely fall apart, and a broken neighborhood, or city, compared to one that could be a thriving source of income is not in the best interest in the long term for the government of the city, state, and country.