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.
People have used the term for more bad than good IMO.
Oh, I know for sure they do. People can call my area what they want. It seems so counter-cultural to actually like something other than the typicals (e.g. Sunny coastal California, NYC, Chicago). You have to be pretty hardened to live in these industrial, former manufacturing locations and do well.
Sure, the term should die because many of these areas are adapting, but it still has a historical legacy.
Oh, I know for sure they do. People can call my area what they want. It seems so counter-cultural to actually like something other than the typicals (e.g. Sunny coastal California, NYC, Chicago). You have to be pretty hardened to live in these industrial, former manufacturing locations and do well.
Sure, the term should die because many of these areas are adapting, but it still has a historical legacy.
Meh, it didn’t stop me from relocating from a “typical,” Portland, OR, to a “Rustbelt” city. But then I like cities comprised of individuals who don’t let nicknames bother them. I have found the majority of interesting, intelligent people I meet living here have that attitude. I don’t necessarily find them hardened though, I think they just don’t even give these nicknames a second thought.
Meh, it didn’t stop me from relocating from a “typical,” Portland, OR, to a “Rustbelt” city. But then I like cities comprised of individuals who don’t let nicknames bother them. I have found the majority of interesting, intelligent people I meet living here have that attitude. I don’t necessarily find them hardened though, I think they just don’t even give these nicknames a second thought.
I hear ya...I relocated from Huntington Beach, CA to Duluth, MN. People ask why and I tell them because it is everything I want in a city. That industrial feel is where it is at. Duluth also happens to be gorgeous and has enough rain and snow to keep me interested. Yes, I survive my first winter just fine and no I don't want to move back.
When I think of Rust Belt I think of cities that boomed in the 1800s like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. Cites that were settled after the American Revolution and that was settled by people from the coastal North East.
When I think of Rust Belt I think of cities that boomed in the 1800s like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. Cites that were settled after the American Revolution and that was settled by people from the coastal North East.
That’s it exactly. As time goes by the name is used as a deliniation of a geographical location more than anything else. If someone says “Rust Belt” others know what part of the country to which they are referring. Anyone using it in a negative manner is just showing how behind the times they are. I really think there is very little sting left in the term as a slur and shouldn’t be taken as such.
Every city is figuring it out in some way or another. But there's still an identity that "Rust Belt" describes. It's just no longer cities hemorrhaging population (mostly) and full of rusty old plants.
When I think of a typical Rust Belt city (not that I use that term much), I think of a city with some new investment in/around its downtown, probably including a number of apartment buildings and residential conversions plus a few civic facilities. Some of the old factories are gone or converted to other uses, one of which will be part of an "innovation" district. The city will have attracted some eds and meds growth.
But at the same time it'll still be 300,000 people in the core city where there used to be 800,000. Half of the drop will be smaller households, and the other a net decrease in inhabited units. Dense "bones" will be in place of most of the former actual density. Walkable retail will be limited to short portions of scattered streets. The new infill will be progress but not on a huge scale. Hopefully the next decade or two will continue the progress of the last.
Every city is figuring it out in some way or another. But there's still an identity that "Rust Belt" describes. It's just no longer cities hemorrhaging population (mostly) and full of rusty old plants.
When I think of a typical Rust Belt city (not that I use that term much), I think of a city with some new investment in/around its downtown, probably including a number of apartment buildings and residential conversions plus a few civic facilities. Some of the old factories are gone or converted to other uses, one of which will be part of an "innovation" district. The city will have attracted some eds and meds growth.
But at the same time it'll still be 300,000 people in the core city where there used to be 800,000. Half of the drop will be smaller households, and the other a net decrease in inhabited units. Dense "bones" will be in place of most of the former actual density. Walkable retail will be limited to short portions of scattered streets. The new infill will be progress but not on a huge scale. Hopefully the next decade or two will continue the progress of the last.
Well Chicago had a very low live-in downtown population 35+ years ago. Including its expanded areas north of the river today as its CBD.
I think your 300,000 and 800,00 is unrealistic. Unless a much Greater Core is uses at best. Chicago's. Downtown, CBC, Core may have gone over 200,000. No other rustbelt city come closes..... unless you include Philly as a Rust-Belt city and of course NYC .... which doesn't ever get included.
Core city can mean the city at the core of the city (municipality at the core of the UA or whatever). St. Louis, Cleveland, etc., are pretty close to the numbers I gave.
Core city can mean the city at the core of the city (municipality at the core of the UA or whatever). St. Louis, Cleveland, etc., are pretty close to the numbers I gave.
Heck Cleveland demolished its row-housing neighborhood by its core and St Louis demolished in urban renewal neighborhoods for the Arch and riverfront park. They did not recover their numbers.
I will add how Chicago is lighted in the numbers in the link as these comments beliw prove. "
tko
June 4, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I’ve lived in Philly and Chicago. Both have great downtowns, but the definitions affect the numbers. Chicago has contiguous dense urban residential areas extending from lincoln Park to the South Loop that are not all considered “downtown” in the way that Philly defines its downtown. Chicago defines its CBD as Loop, West Loop, South Loop and Near North to the top of Michigan. This contains about 200K residents, and if you expand to include north to Lincoln Park and West to Logan Square the population swells to about 400K. This contiguous area is as dense as anywhere outside of NYC and is growing as fast as any downtown (58 current highrise cranes.)
Buckeye Planner
June 12, 2017 at 2:22 am
I agree. I think with Philly, the CBD boundary is just incredible murky as the city resembles such a smooth gradient from skyscrapers to row-houses, with a lot in between. Chicago definitely has a broader are of distinct density.
Chicago defines its CBC as the underlined above minus the South Loop yet....
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.
