Must shrinking cities be distressed cities? A historical and conceptual critique

ABSTRACT

Regardless of the fast-growing popularity of shrinking cities in the literature, certain misconceptions persist. Urban shrinkage is often assumed to be near-synonymous with urban distress, and shrinking cities are assumed to be in need of growth. In this paper, we seek to achieve a greater conceptual clarity for both shrinkage and distress, thereby informing present debates on the topic and inviting more nuanced ones in the future. The paper is organized in three main parts. We first use a historical lens to challenge the conflation of shrinkage and distress. Western history is rife with examples of when growth—shrinkage’s opposite—was associated with distress. Second, we comment on some contradictions in the conceptual currents that underlie the idea of shrinking as distress, particularly in the United States. Third, we highlight how shrinkage may benefit cities and the people who live in them.

KEYWORDS:

• Shrinking cities
• growing cities
• urban growth
• urban distress
• planning
• USA

Acknowledgements

The authors express their deepest gratitude to the editor and the reviewers of International Planning Studies for their insightful comments. They also acknowledge the important contributions of Dr. Anne Khademian, Dr. Anja Bieri, Dr. Scott Campbell, Dr. Julie Steiff, and Mr. David Evans to the development of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.