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.
Certain rustbelt cities are, but I don't think all are at all.
A certain few maybe, but not even the major ones... Youngstown, Flint, etc...
I would say places like Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, etc.. all have around the same amount of drawbacks as any other city in any other region. It really depends on taste, and whether you want to focus on the positives or negatives.
If you focus on negatives SoCal is a nightmare, same with any other region.
Rust Belt Area has many fortune 500 companies, many colleges, and other economic sectors other than manfacutring. True 50 yrs ago we were a manfacturing oriented area but, most cities (even Detroit) dont have manfacutring as their many economic industry. Besides, outside the cities the rural areas are okay ecnomically and the suburban areas have some of the richest areas in the country.
TL;DR we are not manfacutring oreiennted anymore, we have many companies and other jobs, and weve actually gained population in the past 50 yrs.
I have a problem with wikipedia's definition of rust belt, specifically because it doesn't include STL or Cincinnati, both of which are as rust belt as any of these other cities. STL is filled with old steel mills, abandoned warehouses, and was and still is a heavy railroad port. IMO, all the following cities come to mind when I think "rust belt": Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Toledo, Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis (although you wouldn't know that looking at the city today), Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, St. Louis. All of these cities fit the profile of ones that were once mainly heavy manufacturing that have now made the transition to the financial sector.
It should be noted that many Fortune 500 companies are headquartered in the Rust Belt.
Under GEOGRAPHY the first sentence states:
"Since the term described a set of economic and social conditions rather than denote a region of the United States per se, the Rust Belt has no precise boundaries."
In the second paragraph of the same section it states:
"At or near the periphery are seven of the nation's largest metropolitan areas—Buffalo, Cleveland, St Louis, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee and Chicago"
I hate the term rust belt. It paints whole states in a negative light, even though its small isolated pockets that fit the stereotype. My state of Michigan has Detroit hung around its neck like a constant force pulling the whole state down. Most of Michigan looks absolutely nothing like the rust belt stereotype. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin often face the same problem. Just because Indiana has Gary does not mean the whole state is rust belt. I wish people who live in the midwest, and the parts of the northeast that are called rustbelt would stop using the term. It is normally used by those running down the area.
THe PR for the "rust belt" states isn't too good. Let's start with the name! Versus, the "Sunbelt" states, which should really be the "hotbelt" states. Granted, the housing is newer and cleaner, roads are better, but sorely lacking in "culture," feeling of community, changes in weather (yes you do get sick of sunny skies and 90's months on end.) and lots of jobs in these areas are service, tourism, etc.
A certain few maybe, but not even the major ones... Youngstown, Flint, etc...
I would say places like Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, etc.. all have around the same amount of drawbacks as any other city in any other region. It really depends on taste, and whether you want to focus on the positives or negatives.
If you focus on negatives SoCal is a nightmare, same with any other region.
But, people have to find a place that works for them, too. I don't know if it's "focusing," maybe just feeling like it's "their place". Well, like choosing anything of such a substantial nature, job, mate, whatever, you don't want to focus on the negatives, but if there are too many, it's a deal breaker.
But, true, you can't just look at negs. Look at pos too.
But, people have to find a place that works for them, too. I don't know if it's "focusing," maybe just feeling like it's "their place". Well, like choosing anything of such a substantial nature, job, mate, whatever, you don't want to focus on the negatives, but if there are too many, it's a deal breaker.
But, true, you can't just look at negs. Look at pos too.
I agree that people shouldn't be blind optimists, especially when choosing where to live. That being said, it seems like people like to focus on the positive aspects of living on the East and West Coasts, and somewhat the sunbelt, whilst ignoring the negative. The sunbelt is kind of a mix, it seems to be a fifty-fifty split on opinion, either it is all positive or all negative.
When it comes to the rustbelt, people tend to focus soley on the negative. (Maybe it is the name "rustbelt") Which is funny, because the positives of the rustbelt tend to be the polar opposite of negatives of the coasts and sunbelt.
I guess what I am saying is no region in the United States is hands down "better" than any other. They are actually pretty on par with one another, they just have their own draws.
(Also, I personally like the name "rustbelt", it has a ring to 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.