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.
What Chicago had heavy industry, it was never as dependent on manufacturing as the true Rust Belt. The Chicago Board of trade and Mercantile Exchange made Chicago as important of a financial center as it was industrial. The economy has always been too well diversified for to be a true Rust Belt city.
It was still historically considered a Rust Belt city, even if not among the rustiest of them.
What Chicago had heavy industry, it was never as dependent on manufacturing as the true Rust Belt. The Chicago Board of trade and Mercantile Exchange made Chicago as important of a financial center as it was industrial. The economy has always been too well diversified for to be a true Rust Belt city.
"Rust Belt" refers to a specific region where industrial activity formed a significant portion of its economy. As another poster just remarked, there are degrees within the region: Not all cities and towns within the belt had the same intensity of industrialization, nor did they all suffer the same degree of decline.
Think of some of the nation's other "belts". The Cotton Belt referred to the area mostly within the Deep South where cotton production formed an important part of the economy. But not all crops within this belt were cotton, and not all towns had cotton gins or were shipping points. How about the Corn Belt, where corn production accounted for a solid part of the economy. Yet corn was not the only crop grown within the belt, and not all towns there processed it.
Think of it another way: Where was most of the US's industrial activity during the first 3 quarters of the 20th century, and where did that activity decline so rapidly? That's how economists and geographers defined the Rust Belt when the term was coined ~1980s.
"Rust Belt" refers to a specific region where industrial activity formed a significant portion of its economy. As another poster just remarked, there are degrees within the region: Not all cities and towns within the belt had the same intensity of industrialization, nor did they all suffer the same degree of decline.
Think of some of the nation's other "belts". The Cotton Belt referred to the area mostly within the Deep South where cotton production formed an important part of the economy. But not all crops within this belt were cotton, and not all towns had cotton gins or were shipping points. How about the Corn Belt, where corn production accounted for a solid part of the economy. Yet corn was not the only crop grown within the belt, and not all towns there processed it.
Think of it another way: Where was most of the US's industrial activity during the first 3 quarters of the 20th century, and where did that activity decline so rapidly? That's how economists and geographers defined the Rust Belt when the term was coined ~1980s.
I accept Chicago as Rust Belt in a context that also includes Boston and Philly. This map is odd in that it (rightfully) includes East Coast cities in the Rust Belt, but lists them as recovered, whereas no Great Lakes city has recovered. So, no, I don’t agree with this map. I live in an undeniable Rust Belt city, Pittsburgh. While the city is recovering, (and arguably recovered), it is far more rusty, today, than Chicago has ever been.
It's my screen...I see it now. I suppose when you consider the overall metro it should be green but the city itself should be yellow.
I think the map does a pretty good job of summarizing regions, but it fails to account for cities like Indianapolis and Columbus, which never experienced population loss through deindustrializatiom. Chicago should also clearly be green.
I think the map does a pretty good job of summarizing regions, but it fails to account for cities like Indianapolis and Columbus, which never experienced population loss through deindustrializatiom. Chicago should also clearly be green.
It should be remembered Columbus and Indy didn't have population decline because they continued to expand through the annexation of new suburban growth. AFAIK the pre-1950 core of each of the cities had typical levels of population decline for the region.
That said, neither city is really "rust belt" in any way, given the manufacturing base of the economy was far lower than even Chicago. They were always more white collar/service sector cities.
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.
