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.
Philly & Baltimore were never traditional rust belt cities in the way Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus or Pittsburgh were etc.. they didn't live and breath off of manufacturing industries
Philly & Baltimore had the luxury of having more diversified economies during that time and because of their. their massive medical/educational institutions and access to ports, they faired significantly better than their traditional rustbelt counter parts.
The biggest differences in Philadelphia and Baltimore as compared to Cleveland, and a lesser degree, Detroit, is that the former 2 are Colonial, East Coast metroplex cities while the latter 2 are not. And that difference, more than anything, esp with Philly and Baltimore being in close proximity to other major cities, and especially connected to them transportation-wise -- esp via Amtrak's Northeast Corridor-- kept them from the steep population losses of Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh. Philadelphia is 90 miles from NYC, America's megacity, while Baltimore is just 45 miles from DC, which has been the fastest growing metropolitan city over the last 50 years. This really helps as both Philly and Balto have absorbed the their neighbors overflow growth: professionals run out by expense and hassles of living, esp driving.
I disagree with your assessment as far as Cleveland is concerned. While yes, Cleveland's industry may have been a bit 'heavier' than Baltimore's or Philly's, industry/institutional profile is parallel. I don't see Baltimore's economy as that much more, if any, more diversified. When city "massive medical/educational institutions and access to ports" ... that's Cleveland. Cleveland Clinic = Johns Hopkins medically (and then throw in Cleveland's powerful University Hospitals just down the street from CC). Port-wise, Cleveland has been a major force on the Great Lakes since the Industrial Revolution, and became even stronger when the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway gave the City access to large-scale international shipping.
As late as 1980, Cleveland was America's 3rd largest home to Fortune 500 headquarters. This dropped off seriously after an exodus of major corporations -- most typically by merger. But the legacy still remains. Corporations as diverse as Standard Oil, OfficeMax, Republic Steel, Sherwin-Williams, Progressive Insurance, Ernst & Young and American Greetings were all founded in Cleveland, the latter 4 are still there. Some of the nations largest law firms, such as Jones Day, are headquartered in Cleveland. And while the B&O railroad was founded in Baltimore, Cleveland HQ'd such railroads as the Nickel Plate and Chesapeake & Ohio (later known as the Chessie system).
Cleveland's well-recognized arts and cultural power -- punching way above the city's weight class -- is largely because of strong support by old-line industry barons. ie- the famed (and beautiful) Cleveland Museum of Art is the nation's fourth most endowed art museum behind New York's Met, LA's Getty and Houston's Fine Arts museum (see link, below). Obviously those are 3 megacities well above Cleveland in population and name recognition.
Bottom line: I would hardly write off Cleveland as not being diverse on many levels.
It was indeed rust belt. the reason it got the name was because it thrived in industry. you need to read up a bit more. if you don't think Philly, Camden, Trenton, and Baltimore, just to name a few, got hit hard by the loss of industry you have no idea what you're talking about. I could name a lot more all throughout the region but its redundant
No, the term Rust Belt isn't equivalent with just manufacturing. The term was coined in the 1980s (not the 40s as you said) and refers to the area where manufacturing was the major part of the economy, but took a nosedive in the late 70s/80s. It's generally accepted as the roughly triangular area of the country bounded by eastern WI, central IL and western NY. It's major cites are Milwaukee, Chicago, Gary, South Bend, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Pittsburgh and St. Louis.
No, the term Rust Belt isn't equivalent with just manufacturing. The term was coined in the 1980s (not the 40s as you said) and refers to the area where manufacturing was the major part of the economy, but took a nosedive in the late 70s/80s. It's generally accepted as the roughly triangular area of the country bounded by eastern WI, central IL and western NY. It's major cites are Milwaukee, Chicago, Gary, South Bend, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Pittsburgh and St. Louis.
The term does go to the 80s, but it was referred as the factory belt before that (same area) . here is a overview but they left out NJ for some reason, and it was a big part of it. They just kind of included it in NY and PA which is kind of dismissive. NJ had big manufacturing in Trenton, Camden, and all of the areas riight beside Manhattan. Elizabeth the most well known for this. They also didn't mention Baltimore which is odd, it was just as much rust belt as any great lakes city.
No doubt. Just look at all this blight in Boston in 1982!!- 1000% unrecognizable now. Small parts of the city still had remnants this look until about 2001, imo.
The term does go to the 80s, but it was referred as the factory belt before that (same area) . here is a overview but they left out NJ for some reason, and it was a big part of it. They just kind of included it in NY and PA which is kind of dismissive. NJ had big manufacturing in Trenton, Camden, and all of the areas riight beside Manhattan. Elizabeth the most well known for this. They also didn't mention Baltimore which is odd, it was just as much rust belt as any great lakes city.
In 1950, two of the five principal cities of the Northeast Corridor, Baltimore and Philadelphia, were manufacturing hubs in their own right, and two others - Boston and New York - didn't lack for manufacturing activity, although Boston was actually the first big city in the country to experience "deindustrialization," as one of New England's industrial mainstays - textile mills - had decamped for the South in the Depression; the city didn't really climb out of its economic funk until the computer revolution really took hold in the 1960s.
I think the principal difference between the Factory Belt/Rust Belt and the Northeast Corridor is that many of the Factory Belt cities were associated with one industry in particular (autos: Detroit; steel: Pittsburgh and Gary; oil and chemicals: Cleveland), and all of them save Chicago lacked diverse industries and/or significant non-industrial sectors of their economies. (Philadelphia had law and finance; Boston its universities; Baltimore its port (something all five cities had). Philadelphia's and Baltimore's non-industrial sectors didn't serve them as well as Boston's and New York's did in the era of deindustrialization, but Philadelphia at least finally managed to develop new sectors in the 1980s and 1990s the way Boston did with computers in the 1960s. Philadelphia is now about one-third of the way up the curve New York, Boston, and Chicago all climbed as industry left those cities.
Washington is a special case and thus not included in this discussion.
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.
