The Paris transformation was remarkable in the extent to which many of the projects apparently occurred in fully developed areas of the city, and were possible only through the destruction of nearly 20,000 existing buildings in those areas. I'd be curious as to how many of the projects in both Paris and Chicago were completed in fully developed versus "greenfield" areas. Did the transformation of Chicago's lakefront to public use require the destruction and relocation of industrial and other users, or was it accomplished through filling in former shoreline areas of Lake Michigan?
I agree that this type of transformation would likely be impossible in US cities today. But I'd argue that historic industrial areas surrounding the core of many rust belt cities offer opportunities for large scale transformation of previously fully developed areas that is not fully appreciated. You have noted this opportunity in portions of Detroit. A key ingredient in making the transformation possible is the reduction in land values to near zero, and the opportunity for the cities to acquire property necessary to put in appropriate infrastructure to support renewal (including new or widened streets, as well as sewers, riverwalks, and green infrastructure). That reminds me of a pet peeve about the "strong towns" focus on incremental growth. Sometimes - transformation of fully developed areas requires large scale projects that can tackle fundamental infrastructure challenges, or planning (or lack of planning) flaws in the original development.
The Paris transformation was remarkable in the extent to which many of the projects apparently occurred in fully developed areas of the city, and were possible only through the destruction of nearly 20,000 existing buildings in those areas. I'd be curious as to how many of the projects in both Paris and Chicago were completed in fully developed versus "greenfield" areas. Did the transformation of Chicago's lakefront to public use require the destruction and relocation of industrial and other users, or was it accomplished through filling in former shoreline areas of Lake Michigan?
I agree that this type of transformation would likely be impossible in US cities today. But I'd argue that historic industrial areas surrounding the core of many rust belt cities offer opportunities for large scale transformation of previously fully developed areas that is not fully appreciated. You have noted this opportunity in portions of Detroit. A key ingredient in making the transformation possible is the reduction in land values to near zero, and the opportunity for the cities to acquire property necessary to put in appropriate infrastructure to support renewal (including new or widened streets, as well as sewers, riverwalks, and green infrastructure). That reminds me of a pet peeve about the "strong towns" focus on incremental growth. Sometimes - transformation of fully developed areas requires large scale projects that can tackle fundamental infrastructure challenges, or planning (or lack of planning) flaws in the original development.