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.
St. Louis and the Quad Cities are definitely part of the Rust Belt. That is a poor map to leave out those cities. Also, Charleston, WV is Southern...it doesn't have the culture of a Rust Belt city not to mention it wasn't a city that gained in population during the Great Migration.
Pittsburgh received a lot less from the Great Migration than the other Midwestern cities, but it's still very Rust Belt. Scranton, Pottsville, the Mon Valley region of western PA, etc. are all industrial areas that didn't gain a lot from the Great Migration either. In fact, most of PA's Rust Belt region has been in decline for decades.
Charleston, WV was a former industrial region with chemical plants lining up and down the Kanawha River. Although not at the level of the big cities of the Midwest, Charleston and southern West Virginia did receive a decent number of African Americans from the Deep South to work at the chemical plants and coal mines from the 1930's-1950's. While I agree it's more southern than the other cities in the Rust Belt, its shared industrial past and decline can not be ignored.
Camden should definitely be included if we're going this far eastward.
Then also Bethlehem/Allentown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
3) Boston didn't lose as much population as any of the Rustbelt cities.
Boston doesn't fit, Baltimore and Philly might, because they had much more heavy industry than Boston.
Boston lost like 30% of it's population from 1950-1980 (even more than Philly). It has gained some back but it's still down like 20% from it's peak. But you are right some Rust Belt cities lost a lot more.
Boston lost like 30% of it's population from 1950-1980 (even more than Philly). It has gained some back but it's still down like 20% from it's peak. But you are right some Rust Belt cities lost a lot more.
Right. Cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Detroit and Cleveland lost more than half of their population. Baltimore lost ⅓, Philly lost less than 30% and DC and Minneapolis lost 30%.
Boston lost like 30% of it's population from 1950-1980 (even more than Philly). It has gained some back but it's still down like 20% from it's peak. But you are right some Rust Belt cities lost a lot more.
However, Philly does not apply the first 2 points, in timing and type of industry it is aligned with the Rustbelt thus is more rust belty than Boston.
But none of the east coast cities fulfill all 3 points
St. Louis and the Quad Cities are definitely part of the Rust Belt. That is a poor map to leave out those cities. Also, Charleston, WV is Southern...it doesn't have the culture of a Rust Belt city not to mention it wasn't a city that gained in population during the Great Migration.
There were southern cities that gained from the great migration.
Since when can't a place in the South be a in the Rust Belt? It applies to parts of West Virginia, IMO.
However, Philly does not apply the first 2 points, in timing and type of industry it is aligned with the Rustbelt thus is more rust belty than Boston.
But none of the east coast cities fulfill all 3 points
Philly's population loss was slowed because it still had a lot of undeveloped farmland in the Great Northeast which continued to be built out in the 1950s and even 1960s.
This to me is the clearest borders of the Rust Belt.
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.