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.
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.
Agreed about Chicago and there should definitely be a donut hole in the middle of Ohio. It looks like Indy may fall just outside of the Rust Belt zone with the way Indiana is slashed diagonally but it's hard to say for sure.
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.
The incredible thing is today how much it depends on everything but manufacturing. For being such an overwhelming powerhouse of industry, there's not much left at the moment. There is a large transportation, utility and distribution sector though, a form of industry and certainly more blue collar.
Jobs in the metro even after the metro lost most of its manufacturing and had right-sided itself. The changes are still quite sharp over the past 18 years:
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.
Well, what do you call any post-industrial city like Chicago, with an alleged diversified economy, that has lost about 900,000 people or 25% of its peak population? Currently teetering on bankruptcy as well.
Well, what do you call any post-industrial city like Chicago, with an alleged diversified economy, that has lost about 900,000 people or 25% of its peak population? Currently teetering on bankruptcy as well.
Far more complicated and complex of a situation than what you're trying to portray with its "alleged" diversified economy. It's literally touted as one of the most diverse economies anywhere around in most rankings, but we should just look at population stats instead, right? Household sizes is the big picture there, as the number of occupied units in the city is actually near an all-time high. The real decline are on the west and south sides, where the economic situations never moved on after the switch from blue collar to white collar like the rest of the city. That's the part of the city that would definitely qualify for rust belt, and probably has nearly 1/3 of the city population. 1/3 of the city is very white collar global, and 1/3 is pretty middle of the road, service sector, trade/transportation, education, healthcare, etc.
The city has pension issues and the state has problems, but as far as operationally the city is pretty funded and handles its budget fine - the pension crisis is the story there that's trying to be dealt with. The city has done a fairly decent job, the state and school district - not at all....
I never heard of Chicago being a Rust Belt City, I always thought it was an international city but to answer the question Pittsburgh even thou I only been to Pittsburgh once it was very nice for a medium type of city.
Chicago was the "hot butcher of the world" for a reason. The difference is that Chicago had the ability to rapidly diversify its economy, which helped to insulate it from the fate that many other Rust Belt cities faced.
The remnants of Chicago's industrial heyday still litter the city though. I'd certainly classify Chicago as a Rust Belt city that transitioned or at least Rust Belt adjacent. It took a beating like other Rust Belt cities, and it also never fully recovered, even if it didn't fall as far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614
Far more complicated and complex of a situation than what you're trying to portray with its "alleged" diversified economy. It's literally touted as one of the most diverse economies anywhere around in most rankings, but we should just look at population stats instead, right? Household sizes is the big picture there, as the number of occupied units in the city is actually near an all-time high. The real decline are on the west and south sides, where the economic situations never moved on after the switch from blue collar to white collar like the rest of the city. That's the part of the city that would definitely qualify for rust belt, and probably has nearly 1/3 of the city population. 1/3 of the city is very white collar global, and 1/3 is pretty middle of the road, service sector, trade/transportation, education, healthcare, etc.
The city has pension issues and the state has problems, but as far as operationally the city is pretty funded and handles its budget fine - the pension crisis is the story there that's trying to be dealt with. The city has done a fairly decent job, the state and school district - not at all....
Only 1/3 of the city's population, but probably closer to 2/3 of the city in overall land area. That's how bad the exodus and urban decline has been in those areas versus the prosperity of the North Side.
Far more complicated and complex of a situation than what you're trying to portray with its "alleged" diversified economy. It's literally touted as one of the most diverse economies anywhere around in most rankings, but we should just look at population stats instead, right? Household sizes is the big picture there, as the number of occupied units in the city is actually near an all-time high. The real decline are on the west and south sides, where the economic situations never moved on after the switch from blue collar to white collar like the rest of the city. That's the part of the city that would definitely qualify for rust belt, and probably has nearly 1/3 of the city population. 1/3 of the city is very white collar global, and 1/3 is pretty middle of the road, service sector, trade/transportation, education, healthcare, etc.
The city has pension issues and the state has problems, but as far as operationally the city is pretty funded and handles its budget fine - the pension crisis is the story there that's trying to be dealt with. The city has done a fairly decent job, the state and school district - not at all....
Well when the topic is rust belt cities that have reinvented themselves and cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh are touted as reinvented boom-towns that have seen massive population losses, and now both cities and metros are declining, it's hard to describe them as being successfully reinvented.
We know Chicago's losses are on the west and south sides. Chicago's losing its middle class.
Well when the topic is rust belt cities that have reinvented themselves and cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh are touted as reinvented boom-towns that have seen massive population losses, and now both cities and metros are declining, it's hard to describe them as being successfully reinvented.
We know Chicago's losses are on the west and south sides. Chicago's losing its middle class.
I guess if population is the only metric you understand.
I guess if population is the only metric you understand.
Well the OP asked which city has reinvented itself and changed its trajectory. Chicago and Pittsburgh cities continue to lose population as now do both of the respective metros. How has Chicago's trajectory changed then if the city continues to lose people? That means more people are leaving than moving-in. Same thing with Pittsburgh.
Pretty much all of the old industrial rust belt cities are adding jobs in diversifying economies. These economies can't be all that reinvented if the middle class is leaving.
Well when the topic is rust belt cities that have reinvented themselves and cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh are touted as reinvented boom-towns that have seen massive population losses, and now both cities and metros are declining, it's hard to describe them as being successfully reinvented.
We know Chicago's losses are on the west and south sides. Chicago's losing its middle class.
I don't know any census that shows metro Chicago losing population. In the most recent census estimates the city population estimate is a slight uptick actually. As for Pittsburgh, I have heard some theory on more young people moving to the city but even more old people are moving out of the city, or something to that effect. A Pittsburgh booster once went on at great length to explain this movement.
As for Pittsburgh, I have heard some theory on more young people moving to the city but even more old people are moving out of the city, or something to that effect. A Pittsburgh booster once went on at great length to explain this movement.
Its not that old people are moving out its that they're dying faster than young people move in.
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.
