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.
展开▼
