U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2016, 08:56 AM
 
2,601 posts, read 4,075,878 times
Reputation: 2275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In my experience, the rust belt has two distinct zones: A core geographic region, and a fringe of cities sometimes considered part of the rust belt.

The core cities of the rust belt are basically Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Milwaukee, plus many smaller nearby cities. Chicago is within this region, but generally not considered part of the rust belt - in part because it's a world class city, in part because what industry there was in the city tended to focus more on food processing and smaller-scale industry which did not collapse catastrophically the way that heavy manufacturing did.

There's also "outlier" cities which aren't in the rust belt, but are of the rust belt. In the Midwest, examples would be Saint Louis, Evansville, the Quad Cities region on the IL/IA border, and Duluth. In the Northeast, places like Scranton, Reading, Camden, Binghamton, etc. Cities which were historically manufacturing dominated do get to "graduate" out of this category if they diversify their economies enough (as Boston and Philadelphia did).
If you look at the map, Milwaukee was not nearly as impacted as other cities...Chicago was. I would say that Milwaukee was not a core city, as you state. The cities that are red, orange and pink, were the core cities.

 
Old 04-27-2016, 09:06 AM
 
56,700 posts, read 81,017,273 times
Reputation: 12540
To be honest, Columbus and most of the major college towns are probably the only cities/areas that would fit. Perhaps the Twin Cities, Des Moines and Omaha to a lesser degree.
 
Old 04-27-2016, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,405,651 times
Reputation: 2089
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
It is undergoing a renaissance. The other poster seems to believe that every neighborhood is supposed to gentrify at the same time. The city proper, is doing extremely well, and will continue to improve, but it will always be a Rust Belt city, which contrary to what you seem to believe, does not mean they it's still struggling.
Once again you have failed to provide an alternative definition. You argue that Pittsburgh isn't struggling, yet census estimates show Pittsburgh is currently LOSING population and is half the size of when it peaked it 1950 (how sad ).

Source: Census estimate shows Pittsburgh population decreasing | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"The Rust Belt is a term for the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s"

source: Crandall, Robert W. The Continuing Decline of Manufacturing in the Rust Belt. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993.


I assume you are arguing it will always be a rust belt city because it cannot change its industrial history or its geographic location? I would argue that if Pittsburgh (or any other Rustbelt city) experienced significant population growth, diversified its economy and reversed its urban decay it would no longer be a part of the Rustbelt (at least in the economic sense).
 
Old 04-27-2016, 10:04 AM
 
7,735 posts, read 4,581,276 times
Reputation: 8440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
Once again you have failed to provide an alternative definition. You argue that Pittsburgh isn't struggling, yet census estimates show Pittsburgh is currently LOSING population and is half the size of when it peaked it 1950 (how sad ).

Source: Census estimate shows Pittsburgh population decreasing | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"The Rust Belt is a term for the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s"

source: Crandall, Robert W. The Continuing Decline of Manufacturing in the Rust Belt. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993.


I assume you are arguing it will always be a rust belt city because it cannot change its industrial history or its geographic location? I would argue that if Pittsburgh (or any other Rustbelt city) experienced significant population growth, diversified its economy and reversed its urban decay it would no longer be a part of the Rustbelt (at least in the economic sense).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
Pittsburgh is, in fact a Rust Belt city, meaning it is a formerly industrial city that lost a great deal of its population when that industry died in the 70a and 80s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
Pittsburgh's lack of growth is tied to its gentrification. Singles and DINKs are replacing poor families. Before 2013-2014, there wasn't a lot of new construction to accommodate new residents, so there was more population shuffle than population growth. I expect that the change in the near future, as condos and apartments buildings are going up everywhere.
.l

I seem to have addressed both of these points.
 
Old 04-27-2016, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,405,651 times
Reputation: 2089
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
.l

I seem to have addressed both of these points.
So you agree it's a rustbelt city with a declining population? Thanks for playing
 
Old 04-27-2016, 11:35 AM
 
2,166 posts, read 1,467,706 times
Reputation: 2176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
So you agree it's a rustbelt city with a declining population? Thanks for playing
It's no longer a declining population - it's stabilized. But even if you look over a longer time frame when it was declining - you are mistaking a declining population with being bad for the city. If it was severely declining, as in the 1980s, yes that would be bad. But it is now stable, and the main reason for having a population less than half it's peak in 1950 is that households are much smaller now because families are smaller. It is a change in culture. Household incomes, however, are greater. There is more residential construction in the city now than has been seen in half a century.

So by a lot of people's viewpoint, a wealthier, less crowded city is a pretty good thing.
 
Old 04-27-2016, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,233 posts, read 1,514,463 times
Reputation: 1861
Chicago is as much a mess as it's ever been. They say bankruptcy will befall the city come next recession. It hasn't graduated out of anything.
 
Old 04-27-2016, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,405,651 times
Reputation: 2089
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
It's no longer a declining population - it's stabilized. But even if you look over a longer time frame when it was declining - you are mistaking a declining population with being bad for the city. If it was severely declining, as in the 1980s, yes that would be bad. But it is now stable, and the main reason for having a population less than half it's peak in 1950 is that households are much smaller now because families are smaller. It is a change in culture. Household incomes, however, are greater. There is more residential construction in the city now than has been seen in half a century.

So by a lot of people's viewpoint, a wealthier, less crowded city is a pretty good thing.

The census estimates show that you are incorrect when you say "It's no longer a declining population - it's stabilized." I agree that there is a huge shift in cultural trends since the 1950's that shouldn't be ignored (declining family size, city limits being more popular with singles, college students, young professionals without children, etc).


Source:

Census estimate shows Pittsburgh population decreasing | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
 
Old 04-27-2016, 11:46 AM
 
2,211 posts, read 1,677,855 times
Reputation: 2031
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
It's no longer a declining population - it's stabilized. But even if you look over a longer time frame when it was declining - you are mistaking a declining population with being bad for the city. If it was severely declining, as in the 1980s, yes that would be bad. But it is now stable, and the main reason for having a population less than half it's peak in 1950 is that households are much smaller now because families are smaller. It is a change in culture. Household incomes, however, are greater. There is more residential construction in the city now than has been seen in half a century.

So by a lot of people's viewpoint, a wealthier, less crowded city is a pretty good thing.
I am from Pittsburgh. My maternal grandparents had ten children (6 girls and 4 boys). My parents had four children (2 boys and 2 girls). My wife and I have two children (1 boy, 1 girl).
 
Old 04-27-2016, 12:09 PM
 
2,166 posts, read 1,467,706 times
Reputation: 2176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
The census estimates show that you are incorrect when you say "It's no longer a declining population - it's stabilized." I agree that there is a huge shift in cultural trends since the 1950's that shouldn't be ignored (declining family size, city limits being more popular with singles, college students, young professionals without children, etc).


Source:

Census estimate shows Pittsburgh population decreasing | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
That's an estimate from one year to the next (and they are never accurate) - that's what you are taking to mean declining? Give me a break dude. Stabilized doesn't mean the population or population estimates can't fluctuate from year to year. It means that it will not continue the steep downward trend of the past, and will average within a relatively flat range for the near future.

If you want a great example of a city which has not stabilized, look to Cleveland. Thanks for playing.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top