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.
Anyways, my answer for this thread is: Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, & Cincinnati (In no particular order)
Sidenote:
Look a lot of people here are obviously taking a population loss as a big deal, there are large metros out there right now with 12.5% + unemployment rates like Las Vegas, Detroit, & Los Angeles to name a few. They would do anything to lose some of the unemployed people in their metro to stabilize faster, its not really a good thing to lose people, but in some cases it can be a beneficial thing too. Pittsburgh is doing fine, Milwaukee is doing fine, Cincinnati is doing fine. They're all improving on themselves, many of the larger metros right now wish they could say the same thing.
Very good post. In Pittsburgh's case, the population loss isn't as bad as dealing with developing a more diverse economy. Pittsburgh has done a good job in developing a more diverse economy. The population loss is still in effects from the 80s still collapse, older people dying off, etc. However, the city re-invented itself more towards education, white collar jobs. This will benefit it in the long run. Something simple statistics of wikipedia isn't going to show.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,055,953 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_HillBilly
Very good post. In Pittsburgh's case, the population loss isn't as bad as dealing with developing a more diverse economy. Pittsburgh has done a good job in developing a more diverse economy. The population loss is still in effects from the 80s still collapse, older people dying off, etc. However, the city re-invented itself more towards education, white collar jobs. This will benefit it in the long run. Something simple statistics of wikipedia isn't going to show.
Mine wasn't from Wikipedia though, it was from the US Government Statistics on American Fact Finder.
But yeah, Pittsburgh is solid. More emphasis on educational jobs, more on Bio Medical/Medical jobs, & more on transportation and things like that will be beneficial. Those are permanent jobs, recession or not, those jobs are there to stay. A great investment in them leads to a healthy city. Jobs like manufacturing, tech, and cargo related can always be at a risk of being outsourced.
Boston has weathered the recession phenomenally, because of its diverse economy, sector in education, medical enhancements, & governmental workforce. Those things wont ever change, there will always be a demand for education, for medical services, for research, for government, for transportation. Those are permanent industries that will last. And its good to see Pittsburgh investing in those same industries, and diversifying its economy.
Another city people on this thread are sleeping on is Cincinnati. I would say Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, & Cincinnati are the three top candidates (with the exception of Chicago).
I certainly wouldn't put Chicago in this argument. It's the only (true) major city in the region and even though it has had some very hard times like other Midwest cities, it's a cut above the rest. Choosing Chicago on this thread would be like picking teams in basketball and choosing the 7' black dude over the 5'5" Irish guy with no arms.
I disagree about Chicago being the only major city in the region. If you exclude Baltimore and Providence, then the metropolitan areas of DC, Boston, and Detroit are all roughly the same.
Very good post. In Pittsburgh's case, the population loss isn't as bad as dealing with developing a more diverse economy. Pittsburgh has done a good job in developing a more diverse economy. The population loss is still in effects from the 80s still collapse, older people dying off, etc. However, the city re-invented itself more towards education, white collar jobs. This will benefit it in the long run. Something simple statistics of wikipedia isn't going to show.
It kind of seems like Pittsburgh is putting all of its eggs in one basket again. The major focus seems to be healthcare, which makes sense considering the median age of Pittsburgh, but what's going to happen when all the baby-boomers die-off and there isn't as great of a need for so many health professionals?
IMHO Chicago definitely qualifies. Historically it fits the criteria of rust belt, ie a formerly industrial city with legacy problems due to loss of manufacturing jobs. Just because large parts of the city have successfully moved on should not obscure the fact that much of the south and west sides still are in long-term decline.
I agree it could probably be considered a Rust Belt city...but I'm just saying it's so far above the others that there's no point in putting it in the argument.
It would be like asking: "Whats' the Most Important City in the Northeast?", and then listing the options as Boston, Hartford, Stamford, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or New York City. There's probably a pretty solid debate between Philly & Boston (like Pitt & Milwaukee here)...but New York is so far ahead of the competition that there's really no point in taking it into consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSideMKE
I disagree about Chicago being the only major city in the region. If you exclude Baltimore and Providence, then the metropolitan areas of DC, Boston, and Detroit are all roughly the same.
In terms of population perhaps, but not power, influence or health/future.
The defensiveness of Pittsburghers is unreal sometimes.
I hope you don't mean me. I defend Pittsburgh against people who say stupid ignorant things to it, like that one fashiondude or something guy. However, I am not in this thread defending it in any unreal terms. I just simply said that a wikipedia page showing questionable numbers of population drain doesn't fully state what is going on in the burgh.
Now in terms of some other Pittsburghers. Then yes; They can defend it wayyyy to much, or cause 40 pages on a thread going on with insane claims.
I understand what Pittsburgh is: A once much larger rust belt town that is changing to into a affordable, smaller, livable city that is a lot cleaner. However we have many problems such as population drain, run down steel towns outside the city's core, etc. We will never be a hipster paradise like Portland, but the city itself is one of the more unique cities in America, and I like that.
It kind of seems like Pittsburgh is putting all of its eggs in one basket again. The major focus seems to be healthcare, which makes sense considering the median age of Pittsburgh, but what's going to happen when all the baby-boomers die-off and there isn't as great of a need for so many health professionals?
Health care doesn't dominate the economy the way steel did. Ever heard of PNC? Fifth-largest bank in the U.S. How about Westinghouse Electric? They've received contracts to build dozens of power plants all over the world. Dick's Sporting Goods, American Eagle Outfitters and rue21 are all successful apparel chains based in Pittsburgh. Bayer has their North American headquarters in Pittsburgh, plus a major research facility. And I haven't even touched on any of the energy companies in the area, or any of the businesses that are not headquartered in Pittsburgh but maintain significant operations nonetheless (Intel, Google, etc.). UPMC and the universities ain't the only game in town.
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.
