早稲田政経2011 I

I Read this article and answer the questions below.

[1] Since cities first got big enough to require urban planning, its practitioners have focused on growth. From imperial Rome to 19th-century Paris and Chicago and up through modern-day Beijing, the duty of city planners and administrators has been to impose order as people flowed in, buildings rose up, and the city limits extended outward into the hinterlands.

[2] But cities don't always grow. Sometimes they shrink, and sometimes they shrink drastically. Over the last 50 years, the city of Detroit has lost more than half its population. So has Cleveland. They're not alone: Eight of the 10 largest cities in the United States in 1950, including Boston, have since lost at least 20 percent of their population. But while Boston has recouped some of that loss in recent years and made itself into the anchor of a thriving white-collar economy, the far more drastic losses of a city like Detroit―losses of people, jobs, money, and social ties―( A ) The housing crisis has only accelerated the process

[3] Now a few planners and politicians are starting to try something new: embracing shrinking. Frankly admitting that these cities are not going to return to their former population size anytime soon, planners and activists and officials are starting to talk about what it might mean to shrink well. After decades of worrying about smart growth, they're starting to think about smart shrinking, about how to create cities that are healthier because they are smaller. Losing size, in this line of thought, isn't just a byproduct of economic malaise, but a strategy.

[4] The resulting cities may need to look and feel very different ―different, perhaps, from the common understanding of what a modern American city is. Rather than trying to bring back residents or get businesses to build on vacant lots, cities may be better off finding totally new uses for land: large-scale urban farms, or wind turbines or geothermal wells, or letting large patches revert to nature. Instead of merely tolerating the artist communities that often spring up in marginal neighborhoods, cities might actively encourage them to colonize and reshape whole areas of the urban landscape. Or they might consider selling off portions to private companies to manage.

[5] A few of these ideas are actually starting to be tried. In Detroit, a city that now has more than 40 square miles of vacant land, the mayor has committed himself to finding a way to move more of the city's residents into its remaining vibrant neighborhoods and figuring out something else to do with what remains. A growing number of cities and counties are creating "land banks" to enable them to clear the administrative hurdles that previously prevented them from taking control of' blocks of abandoned homes.

[6] The idea remains controversial. The mayor's proposal has been fiercely criticized in Detroit, and some planners ―along with many of the residents of neighborhoods in decline ― argue that planned shrinkage is simply an excuse to stop helping the people in the worst-hit neighborhoods, and will only compound the pain that industrial decline and the housing collapse have had on the lives of poor and working-class residents.

( B )

[7] Leipzig's government in particular realized its diminished size would be ( C ) and responded accordingly. According to Tamar Shapiro of the German Marshall Fund, city officials set out to address the problems created by all of the empty homes abandoned by those who had left. Unmaintained, the homes fell into decline and eventually became a danger. They dragged down the value of the surrounding properties and left hollowed-out neighborhoods that attracted squatters and crime.

[8] City officials came up with a new kind of land-use contract in which private owners signed over control to the city for a period of several years in exchange for not having to pay property taxes The government was free to do what it wanted with the space―which was usually tearing down the buildings to create parks and other green spaces―and if the city's population were to begin to grow again, the owner would be able to develop the land again when the contract ended.

[9] Planners and city and state officials are beginning to look at similar ideas here in the United States Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and several other cities have multiple NPOs dedicated to turning vacant lots and blocks into parks. Many of the plots are tended in some way, some are left to return to nature, perhaps with a trail or two through them The aim is partly aesthetic, but also an attempt to increase the value of neighboring homes and neighborhoods by replacing vacant houses or other signs of decline with greenery.

[10] Shrinking, as a strategy, certainly has its critics, who see it as a continuation of decades of urban renewal strategies imposed on local residents. Rather than trying to revitalize dying neighborhoods, shrinking simply gives up on them. "I've yet to be shown a city or a community that has been revived through shrinkage," says Roberta Brandes Gratz, an urban critic and author.

[11] Supporters of shrinking readily agree that forcing people to move should, whenever possible, be avoided. But the larger issue, they argue, is that talking about shrinking or not shrinking is ( D ); these cities have already shrunk, and they need to make adjustments to ensure that their new population can adapt to an environment built for many more people.

1 Use the six words below to fill in blank space (A) in the best way. Indicate your choices for the second, fourth, and sixth positions.

(a) around (b) no (c) of (d) show (e) signs (f) turning

2 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to complete the following sentence

The writer explains "embracing shrinking" as a strategy in which

(a) experience is usually no guide to effective planning

(b) importance is placed on people's feelings rather than on their ideas

(c) slow growth is considered to be better than no growth at all.

(d) smaller size is something that can be taken advantage of

(e) the good health of citizens leads to economic growth

3 Choose one activity from those below that should NOT be considered an example of planned shrinkage.

(a) Create a "land bank" to take control of urban homes.

(b) Develop land for1 the production of energy.

(c) Encourage artists to live in the center of the city.

(d) Invite a business to build on an empty piece of land.

(e) Let some parts of the city return to nature.

4 Choose the most suitable order of sentences from those below to fill in blank space (B)

(a) After the collapse of the Berlin Wall and reunification of Germany, the former East Germany experienced a massive emptying.

(b) However, there is some precedent abroad.

(c) Part of the difficulty planners face in thinking about the problem is that there are no real case studies of managed urban shrinking in the United States.

(d) Waves of residents from cities such as Leipzig left for the more prosperous west

5 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (C)

(a) a bitter victory

(b) a cost-cutting measure

(c) a model for Detroit

(d) a permanent condition

(e) a source of income

6 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to complete the following sentence

Giatz suggests that shrinking as a strategy

(a) holds real hope for renewing urban life

(b) is essentially the same as abandoning neighborhoods.

(c) may work only when people are forced to move out of their homes

(d) results in damage to the surrounding environment

(e) tends to create strong ties among community members.

7 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (D).

(a) beside the point

(b) in a corner

(c) next to nothing

(d) out of bounds

(e) right on target