U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 09-10-2014, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,762,451 times
Reputation: 1616

Advertisements

So are you saying NYC had more bakeries and that this was because New Yorkers bought more bread, or because they imported less bread from other cities? Or made less at home? If you have manufacturers that primarily sell their goods to the same city, but it's goods that could be imported, I think that's equally important as manufacturers that are more export oriented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2014, 10:09 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,930 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
So are you saying NYC had more bakeries and that this was because New Yorkers bought more bread, or because they imported less bread from other cities? Or made less at home? If you have manufacturers that primarily sell their goods to the same city, but it's goods that could be imported, I think that's equally important as manufacturers that are more export oriented.
He is saying that manufacturing was less important to NYC than it was to other places. New York has ports and is the financial capital of the U.S. those things could keep it from sliding to the level of some rust belt cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2014, 12:07 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,002,571 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
So are you saying NYC had more bakeries and that this was because New Yorkers bought more bread, or because they imported less bread from other cities? Or made less at home? If you have manufacturers that primarily sell their goods to the same city, but it's goods that could be imported, I think that's equally important as manufacturers that are more export oriented.
New York has a very flexible economy thanks to the diversity of its people, their skills, and its size. It is important to have locally sourced goods and services because this enhances wealth retention (economic multipliers). This is where density and small parcels in a place like NYC especially helps. An outside food manufacturer trying to distribute in NYC has their hands full. Instead of delivering to big supermarkets, they need to hit all these small bodegas and corner stores which eats into their margins. This allows the local producers to exist, which helps wealth retention. That wealth must originate from somewhere though and the source of that wealth is in what the city exports. That is the linchpin of the local economy.

Outside of textiles and publishing and some niche fields like ship building, the majority of export production was long gone in NYC by the end of WWII--at least by traditional manufacturing region standards in terms of percent of workforce. Without those export jobs in fields like finance, transportation/logistics, marketing/advertising, media/entertainment, etc bringing wealth in, there would be no money to support the local baker, jeweler, artist etc relying upon that wealth to sell locally produced goods (that get lumped in with manufacturing). 100 of those export jobs may allow 200 of those local "manufacturing" jobs to exist. That is why I prefer 100 export jobs to 100 bakers: you'll automatically get the bakers with the export jobs, but you won't get the export jobs from the bakers.

This is the exact opposite of how manufacturing works in Cleveland, Detroit, etc. Those production jobs are export, so they're the positions responsible for bringing in the money for the bakers, jewelers, etc. When industrial production declines and as productivity goes up such that a plant needs fewer workers as it did in the 60s-80s, the loss of these positions permeated through the entire local economy of a Cleveland in ways it didn't in NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2014, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,113,739 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Memph has done a rather thorough study on this. Even in many actual sunbelt cities, the old parts of the cities declined heavily*. However, outside the old part the growth rate was very high, the opposite of Northeastern cities where recent population growth is sluggish.

*The biggest exception is Los Angeles, where the core grew at a fast clip:

What U.S. city is most like Los Angeles?
Los Angeles in general contradicts the OP's notion of why cities decline - heavily polluted (all over, even in high-income areas) and with a heavily manufacturing / industrial-based economy, it has always grown, even though its growth rate has slowed down in the last few decades. Today, LA is the largest manufacturing center in the United States and continues with a positive growth rate:

Los Angeles is largest manufacturing center in U.S., government says - LA Times

Just like in South Chicago, much of Los Angeles' east and south sides are criss-crossed with industrial rail ROWs and there are enormous clusters of manufacturing centers in those same areas. Despite this, the population growth has been steady and in fact exploded at the same time as other manufacturing cities mentioned previously were losing population. And the growth was not just at the fringes, the core of the city continued to grow and densify during every 20th century decade, and it still is (though gentrification has causes some neighborhoods to lose a little density).

Of course, LA is unique in that it is basically one of the only industrial-based cities located in the Sun Belt. It also has had a fairly diverse economy, with aerospace and engineering providing lots of white-collar jobs (though those are now largely gone).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2014, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,427 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Regarding New York, it's worth mentioning it had long been the home of the bulk of the publishing industry. All workers in publishing, regardless of being white or blue collar, are considered to be "manufacturing workers" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obviously there were a lot more people working the presses back in the day, but I cannot believe that the high local concentration of print workers didn't play a major role in having a relatively strong manufacturing economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2014, 10:36 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,715 times
Reputation: 1953
This topic is already well researched for anyone interested. Suburbia has its origins in 17th Century Paris & London in the country estates of the nobility but the suburbs as we've come to know them didn't really begin to coalesce until the advent of the railroad and particularly where the railroad intersected with the Victorian Era.
Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise And Fall Of Suburbia: Robert Fishman: 9780465007479: Amazon.com: Books

Suburbia was already well established in the American mind before WWII was over - and when you realize how horribly crowded housing was in most US cities in 1949 - selling Americans on the idea of space in the 'burbs wasn't a tough job.

I should also add that the textile industry started to leave New England for the South as early as the 1900s and by the 20s the South was already leading New England in production. Deindustrialization came to Philadelphia in the late 1940s with the shuttering of war manufacturing, ship building, etc and continued right through the 1970s. Plenty of industry was either moving to the South, to the West Coast, was obsolete (streetcar manufacturers, saddles, telegraph equipment, etc), or was changing in nature and started looking for bigger, newer spaces in the suburbs. The decline of the steel industry didn't happen until the 1980s because that's when Reagan killed it. We've seen a steady decline in the US auto industry since the 1980s which only got worse with NAFTA in the 1990s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 08:17 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
This topic is already well researched for anyone interested. Suburbia has its origins in 17th Century Paris & London in the country estates of the nobility but the suburbs as we've come to know them didn't really begin to coalesce until the advent of the railroad and particularly where the railroad intersected with the Victorian Era.
Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise And Fall Of Suburbia: Robert Fishman: 9780465007479: Amazon.com: Books

Suburbia was already well established in the American mind before WWII was over - and when you realize how horribly crowded housing was in most US cities in 1949 - selling Americans on the idea of space in the 'burbs wasn't a tough job.

I should also add that the textile industry started to leave New England for the South as early as the 1900s and by the 20s the South was already leading New England in production. Deindustrialization came to Philadelphia in the late 1940s with the shuttering of war manufacturing, ship building, etc and continued right through the 1970s. Plenty of industry was either moving to the South, to the West Coast, was obsolete (streetcar manufacturers, saddles, telegraph equipment, etc), or was changing in nature and started looking for bigger, newer spaces in the suburbs. The decline of the steel industry didn't happen until the 1980s because that's when Reagan killed it. We've seen a steady decline in the US auto industry since the 1980s which only got worse with NAFTA in the 1990s.
It actually started well before then. Some people think the steel strike of 1959 was "the beginning of the end" for the steel industry. Certainly by the late 60s it wasn't what it was before. You can look at the Pittsburgh population figures and see that the entire MSA started losing population in the 70s.
Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
1974 saw a the biggest loss of that decade. It was more insidious then, by the early 80s it was affecting the "rank and file".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 08:26 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
Btw, the NYC MSA had the same % population loss as Pittsburgh in the 70s. NYC metro Population change switched to a slight increase afterward, but domestic migration didn't really recover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 10:47 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,715 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
It actually started well before then. Some people think the steel strike of 1959 was "the beginning of the end" for the steel industry. Certainly by the late 60s it wasn't what it was before. You can look at the Pittsburgh population figures and see that the entire MSA started losing population in the 70s.
Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
1974 saw a the biggest loss of that decade. It was more insidious then, by the early 80s it was affecting the "rank and file".
You can't have a sharp decline in manufacturing that requires steel and then expect the steel industry to just keep chugging along without a sharp rise in exports.

That and while Pittsburgh was well known as being a center of steel production it wasn't the only thing happening there and it certainly wasn't the only place in the US that steel was being made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 11:06 AM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,494,500 times
Reputation: 6362
Quote:
You can't have a sharp decline in manufacturing that requires steel and then expect the steel industry to just keep chugging along without a sharp rise in exports.
So here's a question, talking about the decline in steel because of decline in other industries. During all of the manufacturing declines the US Automakers were still posting record sales of vehicles. The number of vehicles sold and manufactured went up most years. The economy was still exanding over the long term. They must have still needed steel. So was it less in demand? Or did they just produce it elsewhere, cheaper?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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