ABSTRACT
The thesis is that while planning for non-growth can be seen as a local political accomplishment, suggesting this is sufficient to over-ride the structures undergirding the growth paradigm in American cities is misleading. Historically, cities have attempted to grow their way out of population loss by expanding their boundaries. This is especially the case in the USA where suburbanization and jurisdictional fragmentation is so much more acute than other parts of the world. Right-sizing varies in its application but in no place has it meaningfully challenged the growth paradigm. In fact, in some cases it is simply a cynical packaging for an even more ruthless form of growth. At its core, the idea of right-sizing is rooted in a good faith effort by planners, academics and journalists to reorient urban landscapes that have suffered from massive population loss. In practice, right-sizing has materialized as a mix of fairly conventional economic development and accelerated demolition of 'blight'.
