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.
My first thought was Chicago. It's always been regarded, but then so was Detroit 60 years ago. Crime is driving population out of the South Side. This city better get its' act together, and fast.
Others:
Baltimore
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Memphis
New Orleans
Chicago is not becoming the next Detroit, not even close. The blight in Detroit is widespread, with the exceptions of Wayne State, parts of Downtown and a few areas next to downtown. How can this be compared to the North side of Chicago which runs all the way from Downtown to Northwestern University. Neighborhoods which include the Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Loyola University, Depaul University, Wriggleyville and on and on. IMO the second best urban area in the US next to Manhattan. People that state the Chicago is becoming the next Detroit have probably spent zero time exploring the city.
As well as much of the Woodward Avenue Corridor north of highland Park, the Villages, East English Village area, the Rosedales in western Detroit and much of outer western/SW Detroit(much of Warrendale, Parkland, Castle Rouge, others around/west of Rouge Park). I'm probably forgetting a couple of other areas
It has experienced significant growth primarily thru the dominant oil/gas/refining business, and any decrease in North American production (much of which is designed to funnel thru Houston) will have an effect not unlike Detroit's growth and decline along with the auto industry. Houston has poor infrastructure, a significant entrenched poverty (along with high rich/poor divide), and is regularly subject to multi-billion dollar weather disasters that, aside from the oil-gas connections, may make it undesirable for other businesses. It's wealthy section is primarily limited to areas west and southwest of downtown, and far flung suburbs and exurbs (Exxon moved it's campus recently to the Woodlands, and an "Energy Corridor" has now developed beyond the outer loop). City services are minor compared to other large cities, and state support of cities ranges from poor to antagonistic. Houston is primarily perceived as a "place to work" and has much less desirability as a place to live than cities with better geography, city services, or climate.
It is going thru a growth spurt now, but any long-term diminishment of oil/gas industry, coupled with weather/climate disasters, remove much of the reason for Houston's being. The legacy of poor infrastructure, poorly built housing, hot/humid climate, and industrial waste make Houston a candidate as a future new rust belt city (along with much of the Gulf Coast).
Oh Puh-leeze. The problems in Detroit happened because of two overarching reasons:
A) The morons who ran the Big Three couldn't figure out how to make cars good enough to rival the Japanese automakers. What's worse, The Big Three figured that they didn't even have to try to compete with the Japanese. And by the time they figured it out they did, and how to do it, it was too late for Detroit. That's not the UAW's fault. That's management's fault, plain and simple.
B) The city never addressed its racial issues and was dishonest about them for decades and decades. The riots only accelerated white Detroiters exit from the city (which had already been losing population to the 'burbs, though at a normal type rate). But the police brutality in the city, the housinging and job discrimination, only worked to harden feelings on both sides across the racial divide. Few people in power in Detroit in the 50s and 60s honestly talked about any of this, and the city is still paying the price.
That's all non-sense, the whites left because of the crime and jobs leaving, not because a bunch of people with different skin pigmentation moved there. The auto industry left at a time when people were buying american made trucks and SUVs at a ridiculous clip; we've always made the best large vehicles in the world. The unions and democrats played a MAJOR part in driving out the auto industry. Capital will go where its wanted, it will leave/avoid places which are hostile to it. Democrats and unions are hostile towards capital/business. Same thing is happening in CT, businesses are leaving in droves. **** Detroit had a democrat mayor who was running a drug and prostitution ring out of the mayors mansion! No business is going to stay in that environment. Since conservatives have taken over the state government and driven out the unions there's been a major revitalization of Michigan/Detroit.
I think you're over emphasizing the mere presence of the auto industry as a contributing factor. The oil industry goes through cycles. Banking and financial services industries go through cycles. Aerospace is cyclical ect ect. The automotive centers away from the rust belt (like in South Carolina) are not nearly as likely to suffer the same fate as what happened in the Midwestern cities. Not to mention the fact that for this narrative you've been pushing, someone would have to ignore the political dysfunction that contributed to Detroit's collapse even more so than economics.
I would argue that had the auto manufacturers not bogged themselves down with such heavy union contracts this conversation would be entirely different. The places where the auto industry does not have a union base have fared better with more stable cycles. I feel like it's disingenuous to claim it is the auto industry alone, and ignore the fact that all of the rust belt places that experienced declines (including other heavy industries) were also all places with a strong organized labor history.
A "next Detroit" would very likely arrive to that position on circumstances that are quite different.
I don't disagree with some of what you said.. You mention the auto industry presence in SC, yes it is successful, but more important it is not the only game in town. Also your right that the unionization that occurred in Michigan also contributed to the problem. The reason I said what i did about the auto industry is because when it's allowed to dominate your local economy it does contribute to the instability that brought down Detroit.
Let's look at what happened in the big picture. Detroit was once called the "Paris of the Midwest", and Michigan was no different than Wisconsin or Indiana, a simple rural farm state. When the auto industry became established it grew fast, thanks to Henry ford. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions moved north for jobs. Detroit went from a sleepy small Midwest town to the 3rd biggest city in America. World war 2 made it more important, and it grew further in the post war boom. Greed took hold, unions negotiated huge wage contracts. With the boom bust nature of the auto industry and rising foreign competitors who were building better products the decline was inevitable. Auto companies could not continue to pay the massive union scale wages. The auto industry tripled the population of Michigan, made those folks dependent on auto jobs and then when it began to collapse it left millions holding the bag. The worst off citizens in places like Detroit turned to crime, others asked for more socialist programs from the state making the economy worse yet. The cities crumbled, corruption flourished and now the mass migration that grew those cities has reversed. Now the moving vans are going back south, in many cases retracing the path grandparents took to get up there. Detroit is the greatest boomtown to bust story this nation has ever had. It is an American tragedy. In this case it is the domination of the auto industry that ruined Detroit. Does that mean one car plant in Greenville will ruin SC. No of course not, but when this unstable cyclical industry is your dominant employer in a large region it is a recipe for disaster. Those rust belt cities, especially Detroit may not recover for another lifetime, the economic and social damage is severe. You cannot triple the population, make everyone dependent on one industry, pull that industry away and expect everything will just be ok in a few years. It will take decades to fix it. A diverse economy is a safer more stable economy.
By the way I grew up in Michigan, I watched it decline, watched cities die. I knew people who lost everything. Michigan had a tough economy and it's a tough place to make a living. The easy days of UAW jobs has been over there for a long time. Not everyone who lives in Michigan will agree with what I have said, in fact some get quite defensive about it. No doubt someone will point out the fact that I no longer live there, and yes I decided to leave. However I stand by what I posted, the auto industry is the common denominator in Michigans economic misery, especially Detroit. Many say it's politicall issues, racial issues etc that ruined Detroit, but it is the auto industry that stressed thier lives and economic livelihood. If the economy of Detroit remained stable there would be little political problems, corruption or racial issues. Those things were stirred up by the economic troubles. IMO the auto industry is responsible for detroits suffering.
Could probably make the best case for Chicago. The majority of the south and west side are EXTREMElY high crimes areas. Downtown and the majority of the north side aren't dangerous, but areas of the north side are slowly deteriorating too. City workers are required to live within city limits, which is keeping much of the north side safe. Thoughts?
Could probably make the best case for Chicago. The majority of the south and west side are EXTREMElY high crimes areas. Downtown and the majority of the north side aren't dangerous, but areas of the north side are slowly deteriorating too. City workers are required to live within city limits, which is keeping much of the north side safe. Thoughts?
Really, how dangerous is it in Winnetka, Northbrook, Highland Park, Naperville, Wheaton, Western Springs, Lake Forest...I could go on and on. THESE cities are also a part of the Chicago MSA. People love to focus on what's bad, and try to make bad, what's really not. I lived in Chicago, and trust me, there is a lot more good than there is bad.
It has experienced significant growth primarily thru the dominant oil/gas/refining business, and any decrease in North American production (much of which is designed to funnel thru Houston) will have an effect not unlike Detroit's growth and decline along with the auto industry. Houston has poor infrastructure, a significant entrenched poverty (along with high rich/poor divide), and is regularly subject to multi-billion dollar weather disasters that, aside from the oil-gas connections, may make it undesirable for other businesses. It's wealthy section is primarily limited to areas west and southwest of downtown, and far flung suburbs and exurbs (Exxon moved it's campus recently to the Woodlands, and an "Energy Corridor" has now developed beyond the outer loop). City services are minor compared to other large cities, and state support of cities ranges from poor to antagonistic. Houston is primarily perceived as a "place to work" and has much less desirability as a place to live than cities with better geography, city services, or climate.
It is going thru a growth spurt now, but any long-term diminishment of oil/gas industry, coupled with weather/climate disasters, remove much of the reason for Houston's being. The legacy of poor infrastructure, poorly built housing, hot/humid climate, and industrial waste make Houston a candidate as a future new rust belt city (along with much of the Gulf Coast).
No San Francisco is more likely to be the next Detroit, because of California's stupidity and not building enough housing to house the engineers to create the next Apples and Googles. Houston on the other hand is run much more competently and Big Oil ain't going anywhere. Battery Electric Vehicles are not going to displace Gasoline but Methanol Fuel Cells will (and methanol can be made from Natural Gas).
The inability to build sufficient new housing for SF techies is more likely to prevent SF from becoming the next Detroit than it is to cause SF to become the next Detroit. If you cannot create enough of Product X to meet demand, the price goes up. High housing costs are the antithesis of Detroit, not its embodiment.
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.
