[blr246]

>Instead, what kills cities is a long period in which their leaders fail to reckon honestly with ongoing, everyday problems—how workers are treated, whether infrastructure is repaired. Unsustainable, unresponsive governance in the face of long-term challenges may not look like a world-historical problem, but it’s the real threat that cities face.

The feels correct to me.

I lived in New York City for 15 years. Until last year. I've thought about this theme all year. Decades of policy supporting foreign investment and developer speculation gutted the chance for even affluent upper middle class New Yorkers to afford housing and setup a home base, and so many left. The situation has been incomparably more challenging for low income residents.

I agree the urban collapse meme is much easier to spread than a thoughtful discussion about policy and priorities and how to balance the economic strength of a city's major players with the daily priorities of everyday citizens. I hope the New York remainders shift priorities and initiate a different kind of prosperous era than the one I got to enjoy.

[jariel]

Massive investment and ever increasing market value of abodes is generally the opposite problem of 'urban collapse' - I mean, unless the bridges are falling down, which I doubt.

NYC in the late 1960's and 1970's underwent a kind of urban collapse.

Detroit underwent urban collapse and never came back.

I think this is maybe what the author meant by 'we don't know what this means'.

If companies, middle class and power flee a city, there is a 100% chance of urban collapse due to the lost tax base.

A thriving city like NYC or SF that are a dysfunctional mishmash of 'barely effective' - well that's another kind of problem but it's not quite urban collapse.

[blr246]

We are agreeing that NYC is not at a moment of urban collapse. The processes that drives away the tax base includes policies and social and market forces that erode the city's effectiveness as a sustaining economic and social hub.

The 1960s and 1970s crisis had a lot to do with the end of NYC's industrial epoch. Suburban development and globalization eliminated manufacturing and pulled workers and residents out of the city. The recovery of NYC was bringing high-value services, retail, and tourism back along with arts and culture.

In the time since, NYC has become increasingly a luxury experience, which is indeed part of its strength but also its weakness, since it accelerates decline when people can up and leave without having roots.

[JAlexoid]

NYC isn't going to collapse, but I believe it is going to degrade. But it's going to degrade primarily for the middle and lower income families.

Median household income in NYC is actually below median across US, making the existing tax base small. The flight of the middle class, that was only accelerated by COVID, was already happening.

We left NYC just a few months ago. And we are one of many, who left.

[treeman79]

Regular apartments were subject to rent control. Luxury were not.

So one declined, the other thrived.

[pnutjam]

Explain why they only build luxury apartments in the Midwest too. You're analysis is faulty.

[ruined]

maybe it's not collapse yet, but it certainly isn't making the city an easy place to live, and seems to fit the precursors mentioned in the article. the paper valuation of real estate and landlords don't make a city. referencing their efficiency of extraction as a metric for city health works right up until the moment the burden becomes too great.

[KoenDG]

Or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

[xxpor]

And this comment proves the point about why this stuff is hard: the paragraph about living in NYC for 15 years is entirely wrong.

[nate_meurer]

Why is it wrong?