Flint, Michigan, is thinking of demolishing whole blocks to contain some of the ill effects of urban decline. While I’d be opposed to this if it meant destroying beautiful buildings or coercively relocating residents, strategically demolishing certain parts of a city to increase density in the other parts could be effective in reviving urban life. Flint probably cannot recover its old and exalted position in the American economy. It cannot be a successful big city. Maybe it can be a successful medium-sized town. The particular neighborhoods selected for demolition, however, and the pattern in which they are demolished, will significantly affect the character of the city. Flint ought to target for preservation those neighborhoods that have a good mix of buildings that can serve as single-family homes, apartments, and retail locations. More importantly, the city should preserve whole corridors of neighborhoods and intensify transit service through these corridors. Maybe preserve everything within a half-mile of existing rail lines? If this pattern of demolition were followed, Flint would eventually become a city oriented around a central core with neighborhoods built out radially from the center. This is an ideal geography for a transit-, bike-, and pedestiran-oriented city. The city could buy some second-hand commuter railcars to run over the rail lines and use the green swaths between the radial neighborhoods for bike paths into and out of downtown.