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.
No sir. Wise people have been moving away from the Midwest for decades, as it has become a haven for derelicts and hooligans. Sorry to be so harsh, but it's the sad truth. Respectable people are moving out West and down South.
Detroit - bankrupt and crime ridden. population has declined steadily past 50 years (What about Stockton?)
Chicago - crime ridden, education crisis, "great white flight" out of town
Cleveland - crime ridden and dilapidated
Minneapolis - after the recent boom of the 1990s, still lags behind in terms of income and employment. (compared to whom, Houston?) weather remains an issue for many, and the city is not particularly diverse. the gov't deposited scores of Somalian refugees in the city (what!?)
Milwaukee - for several years, has ranked among the ten most dangerous large cities in the United States
St. Louis - consistently has been ranked among the most dangerous cities in the United States (Compton, Oakland, Richmond, etc. have just as bad or worse crime rates as the cities you mention, yet you fail to recognize that they are all Western cities).
Cincinnati - race tensions / riots - between February 1995 and April 2001, 15 black males under the age of 40 were killed by police (unlike LA, right?)
I vehemently disagree. What about Chicago's crime issue, education issue, high tax issue and economic issue? And then there's the Chicago winters which have been driving people out (who are able to move) for decades.
The Midwest is like the south in that there is a "new Midwest" and an "old Midwest". It just isn't marketed as such. Nobody is moving to the south to live in the Mississippi Delta, and by the same token Detroit and Cleveland don't represent the Midwest in its' totality. I would say that the "new Midwest" is places like Madison, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Columbus, Des Moines, Omaha, Fargo, Sioux Falls and the oil patch in North Dakota. Those are all healthy places with dynamic economies.
Agree 100%. This gets on my nerves more then anything. Thus see Detroit and or se part of this state from Flint to the Ohio Border and how most assume that everything that happens in Detroit/se MI happens in the rest of the state and or how Detroit/se MI goes so does the state. Grand Rapids destroys all of those arguments.
The Midwest is like the south in that there is a "new Midwest" and an "old Midwest". It just isn't marketed as such. Nobody is moving to the south to live in the Mississippi Delta, and by the same token Detroit and Cleveland don't represent the Midwest in its' totality. I would say that the "new Midwest" is places like Madison, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Columbus, Des Moines, Omaha, Fargo, Sioux Falls and the oil patch in North Dakota. Those are all healthy places with dynamic economies.
There lies my early point, those cities aren't exactly thrilling, just average. They don't have the transit, walkability, or vibrancy of a chicago or of course other northeast cities.
There lies my early point, those cities aren't exactly thrilling, just average. They don't have the transit, walkability, or vibrancy of a chicago or of course other northeast cities.
Neither do Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Denver, Seattle or Portland. But that doesn't stop them from being nice places that people want to live. I think you are the only one expecting every mid sized city to be New York or Boston. Usually when the Midwest is denigrated the comparison isn't with the northeast but rather the south or the west. The northeast is a slow growth area because its' cities are either really expensive (like New York and Boston) or really dysfunctional (like Philly and Baltimore) or rust belt (like upstate NY or much of PA).
Neither do Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Denver, Seattle or Portland. But that doesn't stop them from being nice places that people want to live. I think you are the only one expecting every mid sized city to be New York or Boston. Usually when the Midwest is denigrated the comparison isn't with the northeast but rather the south or the west. The northeast is a slow growth area because its' cities are either really expensive (like New York and Boston) or really dysfunctional (like Philly and Baltimore) or rust belt (like upstate NY or much of PA).
Those cities are on a higher level than the Midwest cities, I only bring up the northeast because someone said we young midwesterners are the problem because we dont embrace our cities, wellmy point look at our big cities compared to elsewhere.
Those cities are on a higher level than the Midwest cities, I only bring up the northeast because someone said we young midwesterners are the problem because we dont embrace our cities, wellmy point look at our big cities compared to elsewhere.
Minneapolis does well against those cities. Some of the others in the Midwest aren't far behind. I'm not from the Midwest originally, but one of the things I have noticed about it is that much of the region has a grass is greener mentality where they think that there is all this amazing stuff elsewhere and they just can't compete (Chicago and Minneapolis are the major exceptions to this phenomenon). But the grass is greener mentality is based on false assumptions - for example cities like Kansas City or Milwaukee are in the same weight class as Charlotte and Orlando, not New York and Boston, and by that measure they do really well. There is no major net flow of people to the urban cities of the Northeast so I am not sure what the point of using them as them as the measuring stick, other than trying to put down the Midwest.
Those cities are on a higher level than the Midwest cities, I only bring up the northeast because someone said we young midwesterners are the problem because we dont embrace our cities, well my point look at our big cities compared to elsewhere.
I dont know how much traveling you have done, but many Midwestern cities that have notorious reputations (like Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit) are all seeing a resurgence in central city neighborhoods comparable to anywhere in the US. It really is a national phenomenon. Now the ills of the industrial Midwest are unmatched, but to make blanket statements about cities is simply misguided.
Here in St. Louis there are just as many booming historic, urban, walkable neighborhoods as neighborhoods in decline. I'm sure many other cities are the same.
The northeast is the (oldest) most established region in the country, it's like how the "old world" is already established, aka Europe, growth is not the indicator of how that region or part of the world is in that case.
The northeast does have the most mature cities and is the most established region, but cities like Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati have been large cities for nearly 2 centuries. In 1900, 4/10 (nearly half) of the 10 largest cities were in the Midwest.
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.
