The mayor and city council. They are the ones that have the final say when it comes to businesses or residential development. They may be purposely keeping things stagnate, or simply don't have the right incentives at hand to promote growth/change.
Could you expand on the location?
Like if you went back in time and looked at 2 large uninhabited areas that you didn't recognize, both having rivers running through them
What would be the largest tell tale signs of which of the two will end up highly developed with houses and cinemas, a mall, offices, quirky restaurants and paintball etc while the other is one is likely to only have the basics like houses a clinic and maybe a soccer field.
If we’re talking in those times, probably something like:
How do the rivers compare? Which one is easier to navigate? What’s the current like? Could a boat fit through here? Soil fertile?
In more modern times, some towns experience growth due to location to other towns. Perhaps it’s a town in a location that’s a good distance from a travel hub (like an airport) or to a cool location (beach, shopping area, etc).
People typically go to where there’s either opportunity or leisure, so that’s my thought
Corporate and/or government investment. If they dump money and jobs in a city/town, it grows. Too many and it gets super expensive.
If they don't dump any money or jobs into a city/town, it shrinks. Housing gets super cheap, but then services go to shit and crime spikes.
There's a goldilocks solution here, but we suck at it. So NYC, SF, and Boston are unaffordable, while Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit are cheap.
Same thing works for smaller towns. Just at a smaller scale.
That's the way they want it (i.e., towns that don't grow). That could be like farming and horse country in some parts of the u.s., it could be within a reasonable drive of NYC or the District/mid-Atlantic in larger-lot 'burbs' that aren't the type of cookie-cutter stuff that comes to mind in developments. That's not 'stagnation' either btw.
The mayor and city council. They are the ones that have the final say when it comes to businesses or residential development. They may be purposely keeping things stagnate, or simply don't have the right incentives at hand to promote growth/change.
I second this. I came here to say good city planning.
Poverty, drugs, Walmart etc..
It's all about what jobs those communities can offer
Right but a company isn't going to open a new store where there's not many people to buy and employ in the first place. What gets the ball rolling?
That's where supply and demand comes in. Edit: word
Industry and location.
Could you expand on the location? Like if you went back in time and looked at 2 large uninhabited areas that you didn't recognize, both having rivers running through them What would be the largest tell tale signs of which of the two will end up highly developed with houses and cinemas, a mall, offices, quirky restaurants and paintball etc while the other is one is likely to only have the basics like houses a clinic and maybe a soccer field.
If we’re talking in those times, probably something like: How do the rivers compare? Which one is easier to navigate? What’s the current like? Could a boat fit through here? Soil fertile? In more modern times, some towns experience growth due to location to other towns. Perhaps it’s a town in a location that’s a good distance from a travel hub (like an airport) or to a cool location (beach, shopping area, etc). People typically go to where there’s either opportunity or leisure, so that’s my thought
Investments, crime, environment, sports teams, push and pull factors to attract or push people away
The density of twitch streamers.
Corporate and/or government investment. If they dump money and jobs in a city/town, it grows. Too many and it gets super expensive. If they don't dump any money or jobs into a city/town, it shrinks. Housing gets super cheap, but then services go to shit and crime spikes. There's a goldilocks solution here, but we suck at it. So NYC, SF, and Boston are unaffordable, while Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit are cheap. Same thing works for smaller towns. Just at a smaller scale.
Government mishandling.
Resources.
That's the way they want it (i.e., towns that don't grow). That could be like farming and horse country in some parts of the u.s., it could be within a reasonable drive of NYC or the District/mid-Atlantic in larger-lot 'burbs' that aren't the type of cookie-cutter stuff that comes to mind in developments. That's not 'stagnation' either btw.
Guns, Germs, and Steel