Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would think they mostly left for the suburbs like every where else. Agreed there was definite heavy migration to the west. Most declines between the 50s-90s were people getting out of the city as fast as they could for the newest open suburb of the time. They left the city not the regions.
My point was you can say Minneapolis lost 30% of it's population between 1950 and 1990 and it hasn't recovered to it's peak, but that doesn't make it Rust Belt, unless Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore (and many others) that aren't now considered Rust Belt, also lost 30% from their peaks, and still have yet to fully regain it. Based on my experience MSP shares more in common with those Bos-Wash cities in terms of corporate culture and educational attainment, and arts, than it does with what are largely considered standard Rust Belt cities.
I don’t think it’s that big of a stretch to call Philadelphia or Boston Rust Belt cities on a site where Chicago is generally considered Rust Belt. Baltimore is CERTAINLY a Rust Belt city.
I know for certain that there is a lot of coastal bias that determines what cities we consider Rust Belt, but I suspect there may be a little bit of racial bias as well. That’s not to call anyone a racist, but I think we’re more quick to label cities with large black population’s as Rust Belt.
It sort of depends on if we’re talking about the Rust Belt more as a historic phenomenon or a current economic malaise. Certainly, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Baltimore would fit as historically rust belt cities.
Agreed. I would also add Boston and DC to that as well. However even poster children like Seattle and Denver (not that I would ever label them as Rust Belt) struggled with declines during the decades of decentralization, almost no city of even minor scale was spared.
Agreed. I would also add Boston and DC to that as well. However even poster children like Seattle and Denver (not that I would ever label them as Rust Belt) struggled with declines during the decades of decentralization, almost no city of even minor scale was spared.
I wouldn’t count DC, simply because the city was never heavily industrial. DC’spopulation loss is largely a problem of suburbanization, which is not to say that true Rust Belt cities didn’t suburbanize.
Minneapolis lost 30% of its population between 1950-1990. It could easily qualify for Rust Belt status.
The Minneapolis - St. Paul metro area grew much faster than Rust Belt metropolitan areas though (double digit growth compared to single digit or negative growth) so ... I don't think it qualifies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N610DL
Minneapolis has been expanding I believe in the last 20-25 years.
The 1950-1990 comparison is probably because many left and moved to other Western states like L.A., San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle etc.
I'm sure some left, but many more than likely moved to the suburbs. Suburban TC growth during that time period was pretty insane. The Twin Cities metro area grew from under 1 million to over 2.5 million
I wouldn’t count DC, simply because the city was never heavily industrial. DC’spopulation loss is largely a problem of suburbanization, which is not to say that true Rust Belt cities didn’t suburbanize.
Well look at Detroit. It's probably the single biggest icon of the Rust Belt. But while the city itself lost 70% of it's population it's metro area grew by more than 30%. Other cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland have struggled with regional declines for decades. What makes Detroit different from them, if they are all considered Rust Belt? (sorry just read your above post, we kind of said the same thing at the same time)
Well look at Detroit. It's probably the single biggest icon of the Rust Belt. But while the city itself lost 70% of it's population it's metro area grew by more than 30%. Other cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland have struggled with regional declines for decades. What makes Detroit different from them, if they are all considered Rust Belt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
That doesn’t mean it isn’t Rust Belt. Cities like Detroit in St. Louis are unambiguously Rust Belt, and have never seen metro population losses.
I must’ve posted this as you were typing. There are definitely metros that saw suburban growth around Rust Belt cities. DC is different, simply because it wasn’t industrial. DC might be the only city who’s population loss can be attributed MOSTLY to white flight.
I must’ve posted this as you were typing. There are definitely metros that saw suburban growth around Rust Belt cities. DC is different, simply because it wasn’t industrial. DC might be the only city who’s population loss can be attributed MOSTLY to white flight.
From an intellectual standpoint I would assert that Detroit's losses are the same. While manufacturing definitely eroded in Detroit. The massive corporations in the area grew their intellectual and administrative presence almost equally creating some of the most opulent suburbs in the nation. Detroit had a long history of racial divisions, and the 1967 12th st riots were the death blow to the city. After that the suburban region as a whole walled the city off, and put a choke hold on the economy(which only affected 140sq mi in the center). While the rest of the region prospered and grew.
From an intellectual standpoint I would assert that Detroit's losses are the same. While manufacturing definitely eroded in Detroit. The massive corporations in the area grew their intellectual and administrative presence almost equally creating some of the most opulent suburbs in the nation. Detroit had a long history of racial divisions, and the 1967 12th st riots were the death blow to the city. After that the suburban region as a whole walled the city off and put a choke hold on the economy which only affected 140sq mi in the center while the rest of the region prospered and grew.
Interesting. I've always assumed that industrialization led to Detroit's population loss, but I admittedly know little about the area.
I don’t think it’s that big of a stretch to call Philadelphia or Boston Rust Belt cities on a site where Chicago is generally considered Rust Belt. Baltimore is CERTAINLY a Rust Belt city.
I don't know too much about Boston's industrial history, but it seems odd to consider it Rust Belt. Chicago is what I consider a recovered Rust Belt city, and Philly to a lesser extent (although neighboring Camden is definitely Rust Belt).
Quote:
I know for certain that there is a lot of coastal bias that determines what cities we consider Rust Belt, but I suspect there may be a little bit of racial bias as well. That’s not to call anyone a racist, but I think we’re more quick to label cities with large black population’s as Rust Belt.
True, but then there's your own city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
