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.
Much of Michigan is still a mess, some Ohio cities are also in poor shape. People are still leaving states like MI, WI, Oh and IN. Cold weather and a lousy economy both play a part in that. A few towns have recovered, as stated Indianapolis , Madison and Grand Rapids are just a few examples. Overall though its still a tough place to live. One thing to remember though is that the people who have stuck it out in that area don't really like having it called "rust belt" In spite of the economy there are some very pretty areas in northern Mi, and northern Wi. People up there hang on to the good things about being there, and don't like to be reminded of the bad.
I'm surprised to hear that people are still leaving MN and WI. Twin Cities and Madison are two of the best places to live in America. Maybe the cold weather is a huge factor in their decision.
I will keep it in mind not to call the area the Rust Belt because I am moving in Madison, WI soon. I'm very excited.
Yes it still does. Buffalo is still in economic despair leaving its residents to be in hard denial over it.
Wasn't Buffalo, NY voted as one of the best affordable places to live and raise a family one or two years ago? I have a friend who moved to Rochester then Buffalo. She loves it!
I have visited the Rust Belt. I believe it is becoming outdated.
However, Michigan (except for Ann Arbor & Grand Rapids), rural Ohio (especially eastern and southeastern), rural Indiana, & West Virginia are among the most depressing places I've ever seen.
Rust Belt is more the city itself rather than the metro. The cities continue to lose population. To see an end to the rust belt designation you need that to turn around. There are a few but in general the rust belt continues.
I expect a lot of it could be dealt with by consolidating the metro into a single entity. Then you have a viable entity with the tax base to support its infrastructure. Louisville would be the classic example.
I don't like the term, only because it is city-centric, and I focus much more on the expanse of states in their geographic entirety. I tend to think of what exists outside of cities, nature, etc, when discussing a "state." Large cities fill such a tiny percentage of the land mass of a state. If you want to talk about "Rust Cities" and make a list, that's fine. But I spend hours driving around the Midwest and if I took a tally of what I see outside my car window, abandoned factories are within view about 0.01% of the time. It seems small-minded to take that image and slap it on a gigantic expanse of land such as a state.
I don't like the term, only because it is city-centric, and I focus much more on the expanse of states in their geographic entirety. I tend to think of what exists outside of cities, nature, etc, when discussing a "state." Large cities fill such a tiny percentage of the land mass of a state. If you want to talk about "Rust Cities" and make a list, that's fine. But I spend hours driving around the Midwest and if I took a tally of what I see outside my car window, abandoned factories are within view about 0.01% of the time. It seems small-minded to take that image and slap it on a gigantic expanse of land such as a state.
All true - but come at it from a population perspective. Different answer.
Nevada is often at the tail end of various lists for a simple reason...it consists of one large city, one small city and not much else. If you compare Clark County to other large cities it generally is in the middle of the pack...but those same numbers make NV last.
Much of the mid-west is actually in pretty terrible shape in the rurals as well. It just does not show. Rural Ohio for instance continues to bleed population. In the rural areas however homes turning to fields does not become apparent. You can rust out without creating the impression it is happening.
All true - but come at it from a population perspective. Different answer.
Nevada is often at the tail end of various lists for a simple reason...it consists of one large city, one small city and not much else. If you compare Clark County to other large cities it generally is in the middle of the pack...but those same numbers make NV last.
Much of the mid-west is actually in pretty terrible shape in the rurals as well. It just does not show. Rural Ohio for instance continues to bleed population. In the rural areas however homes turning to fields does not become apparent. You can rust out without creating the impression it is happening.
1 out of three counties in the US, mostly rural, are now losing population.
All true - but come at it from a population perspective. Different answer.
Nevada is often at the tail end of various lists for a simple reason...it consists of one large city, one small city and not much else. If you compare Clark County to other large cities it generally is in the middle of the pack...but those same numbers make NV last.
Much of the mid-west is actually in pretty terrible shape in the rurals as well. It just does not show. Rural Ohio for instance continues to bleed population. In the rural areas however homes turning to fields does not become apparent. You can rust out without creating the impression it is happening.
If you want to talk about truly bleeding population, take a look at the Great Plains. The industrial Midwest has relatively healthy rural areas by comparison. It really isn't any worse than the rural South or rural Northeast. There isn't a truly dramatic population loss (or gain) in the rural core Midwestern states (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin).
Also, this map is old. But it's a cool map. So it will be used and you all will like it.
Much of Michigan is still a mess, some Ohio cities are also in poor shape. People are still leaving states like MI, WI, Oh and IN. Cold weather and a lousy economy both play a part in that. A few towns have recovered, as stated Indianapolis , Madison and Grand Rapids are just a few examples. Overall though its still a tough place to live. One thing to remember though is that the people who have stuck it out in that area don't really like having it called "rust belt" In spite of the economy there are some very pretty areas in northern Mi, and northern Wi. People up there hang on to the good things about being there, and don't like to be reminded of the bad.
You forgot to include Illinois; a state, arguably, in the worst economic condition in the country let alone the ''rust belt''.
If you want to talk about truly bleeding population, take a look at the Great Plains. The industrial Midwest has relatively healthy rural areas by comparison. It really isn't any worse than the rural South or rural Northeast. There isn't a truly dramatic population loss (or gain) in the rural core Midwestern states (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin).
Also, this map is old. But it's a cool map. So it will be used and you all will like it.
It is a cool map. I like it but will not use it.
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.
