Which cities have grown or faded in relevance the most throughout your lifetime? (cons, market)
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.
For me, the cities that have faded the most have been in the rust belt. As a kid, I’d watch the Drew Cary Show (Cleveland) and Home Improvement (Detroit.) Neither are relevant at this point.
Since then, Austin, Nashville, and the Florida cities have risen a lot. I think Silicon Valley has risen further. Perhaps even NYC; it was fully dominant in the 1990s but Manhattan is safe now and more desirable.
For me, the cities that have faded the most have been in the rust belt. As a kid, I’d watch the Drew Cary Show (Cleveland) and Home Improvement (Detroit.) Neither are relevant at this point.
Since then, Austin, Nashville, and the Florida cities have risen a lot. I think Silicon Valley has risen further. Perhaps even NYC; it was fully dominant in the 1990s but Manhattan is safe now and more desirable.
This is a well summarized point.
I think one of the big takeaways is that cities in the rust belt have truly diminished in population, economy and influence.
I can remember being a young kid in the 70s, and my older cousins and aunts and uncles would always talk about "cities where you went to get a "good job" and where the auto jobs and manufacturing were." Those were always cities like St Louis, Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, Flint, etc.
And all of those cities, except Chicago, have faded in influence, growth and power.
The economic growth and population migration has definitely flowed away from large portions of the midwest, (and much of the northeast) into the south and the west, moreso, over the past 30-40 years.
For me, the cities that have faded the most have been in the rust belt. As a kid, I’d watch the Drew Cary Show (Cleveland) and Home Improvement (Detroit.) Neither are relevant at this point.
Detroit, HQ home of 3 major, internationally-marketed automobiles is not relevant?
In terms of the inner city it’s pretty much undeniable Pittsburgh is in better shape than Cleveland. In terms of the metro area? Now that’s a debate. However people draw their conclusions based on like 3-4ish Sq miles so people I think do get a false impression Pittsburgh in head and shoulders above Cleveland
I think a lot of people's reaction is based on the fact that they prefer Pittsburgh's brick, and sometimes, rowhouse, residential development as opposed to Cleveland's mainly wood-frame of largely bland (to some) Cleveland Doubles with some housing areas of town resembling Tobacco Road. (nevermind the fact there are many of these same areas are interspersed with handsome old brick/stone walk-up apts with several beautiful Victorian wood frames and even brick & stone terrace row-apartment houses. I don't begrudge people's preferences. Overall, I probably prefer Pittsburgh's housing stock, too.
But I still don't understand this belief that "... it's pretty much undeniable Pittsburgh is in better shape the Cleveland." Corporate-wise, yes, there are more corporate HQs downtown in Pittsburgh (US Steel, PPG, Westinghouse), esp after Cleveland took major hits in the 80s after Standard Oil of Ohio was merged into BP and left. from that standpoint, yes.
But neighborhood-wise? No. While downtown Pittsburgh's daytime office-worker environment is stronger than its Cleveland counterpart, likely leading to the fact that downtown retail is stronger in Pittsburgh -- admittedly Cleveland downtown retail sucks right now but improvements may be on the way (hopefully Sherwin-Williams' new highrise HQ, currently rising, will help turn things around -- residentially, downtown Cleveland kicks Pittsburgh's butt, and it's not even close. Office building adaptive reuse has been off the chain in downtown Cleveland and ground-up new apartment mid and highrise apartment buildings are going up left & right downtown, as well as in uber-hot, just across the river Ohio City. It's to the point where downtown Cleveland very much feels like a 15-hour residential neighborhood -- joggers, dog walkers, robust grocery shopping, and restaurants all over the place, whereby downtown Pittsburgh is nowhere close to this.
And neighborhoods? Where is this major Pittsburgh advantage? For every Oakland, Cleveland can counter with booming University Circle/Little Italy/lower Glenville (and I prefer the latter). Strip District? I'll take Tremont or Detroit-Shoreway/Gordon Sq... Station Square? Gimme the Flats, no question -- you can even throw in quietly emerging North Coast Harbor around the Rock & Roll HOF. Squirrel Hill? Shaker Sq-Larchmere-west Shaker Heights counters (and there's no Pittsburgh answer to Cleveland's lush Edgewater neighborhood of mansions, beaches, and walkable old areas, too); East Liberty-Shadyside-Bloomfield? Ohio City-Duck Island-Hingetown all day, every day.
And when it comes to diverse, high-quality suburbs, Cleveland puts most cities (certainly comparable-sized metro areas and even larger ones) to shame... including Pittsburgh, whose suburbs collectively, are in Cleveland's rear-view mirror.
My lifetime starts in 1980. Looking at cities that anchor metros over 1 million I'd say it like this. (Just going down the Wikipedia list for MSA's)
New York - No change
LA - Grown
Chicago - Decreased a bit
Dallas - Grown
Houston - Grown
DC - Grown
Philly - No change
Atlanta - Grown
Miami - Grown
Phoenix - Grown
Boston - Grown
Riverside is a fraud metro
San Francisco - Grown
Detroit - Dropped quite a bit
Seattle - Grown
MSP - About the same
San Diego - Not sure
Tampa - Grown
Denver - Grown
Baltimore - Dropped quite a bit
St. Louis - Dropped quite a bit
Charlotte - Grown a lot
Orlando - Huge jump
San Antonio - About the same
Portland - Grown
Sacramento - Grown
Pittsburgh - Dropped
Austin - Grown a lot
Las Vegas - Grown a lot
Cincinatti - Dropped
Kansas City - Dropped a bit
Columbus - Grown
Indianapolis - Grown
Cleveland - Dropped quite a bit
Nashville - Grown a lot
San Jose is a suburb of San Francisco
Norfolk - Has grown but has probably peaked in this context
Providence - Dropped
Jacksonville - Grown a lot
Milwaukee - Grown
Raliegh - Grown a lot
OKC - Grown a lot
Memphis - Dropped
Richmond - Dropped a bit
Louisville - Dropped
Salt Lake City - Grown a lot
New Orleans - Dropped
Hartford - Dropped
Buffalo - Dropped
Birmingham - Grown but has probably peaked in this metric
Grand Rapids - Grown
Rochester - Dropped
Tucson - Grown
Tulsa - Not sure
Fresno - Grown
Honolulu - Grown but has probably peaked in this metric
I'm your same age. I agree with almost all of this list. Although it's a little hard for me to evaluate certain mid-sized metros like Richmond, Louisville, Rochester, Norfolk, Hartford, Tulsa, Buffalo, Providence, Grand Rapids, etc. In my mind they haven't really changed either way in terms of "relevance." Others like Raleigh, OKC, SLC, Charlotte, Nashville obviously have changed big time over my lifetime. Pittsburgh is a wildcard, it's definitely revitalized itself in many ways, but in terms of its stature, it hasn't really changed much. It's almost like, had it not revitalized, it would have potentially dropped like many of the rust belt cities, but because it did, it prevented itself from dropping (but at the same time, it didn't really rise up in the ranks).
I'm your same age. I agree with almost all of this list. Although it's a little hard for me to evaluate certain mid-sized metros like Richmond, Louisville, Rochester, Norfolk, Hartford, Tulsa, Buffalo, Providence, Grand Rapids, etc. In my mind they haven't really changed either way in terms of "relevance." Others like Raleigh, OKC, SLC, Charlotte, Nashville obviously have changed big time over my lifetime. Pittsburgh is a wildcard, it's definitely revitalized itself in many ways, but in terms of its stature, it hasn't really changed much. It's almost like, had it not revitalized, it would have potentially dropped like many of the rust belt cities, but because it did, it prevented itself from dropping (but at the same time, it didn't really rise up in the ranks).
Rochester certainly took a big hit. Losing Bausch and Lomb, Kodak and Xerox turned Rochester NY from a center of industry to a place now most known for a regional supermarket chain.
Also Maybe I have a warped perception of how much hockey matters but I think losing the Whalers to Raleigh was a passing of the torch which hit Hartford hard (beyond the insurance industry also kind of decentralizing)
I think Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas and Houston have the most change in prominence in my life.
Austin and Raleigh Charlotte will be the cities to watch over the next 30 years. Nashville is surely growing today but I don't think the area will be functional as a 3 million plus msa for many reasons but mostly due to infrastructure.
I don't see Chicago loosing its prominence over the next 20 to 30 years. It has way too much going for it to go down.
I will have to give St Louis a shout out for stagnation and will be passed by a number of other cities. There are many great things happening in the region in biotechnology Geotechnical and innovation. The city county divide, lack of a regional growth strategy moving forward that i can see. They've been talking about things for the past 30 plus years and still have the same problems.
Memphis is an example of the next Gary Indiana. There is absolutely a head down energy to the people there. I think ai will be what takes that city out in the next ten to 20 years.
Rochester certainly took a big hit. Losing Bausch and Lomb, Kodak and Xerox turned Rochester NY from a center of industry to a place now most known for a regional supermarket chain.
Also Maybe I have a warped perception of how much hockey matters but I think losing the Whalers to Raleigh was a passing of the torch which hit Hartford hard (beyond the insurance industry also kind of decentralizing)
A lot of this is perception, as I mentioned earlier, Rochester as a metro area has never declined in population and while those companies have declined in employment, a lot of the talent from those companies just started their own smaller companies in the area. So, the area shifted from a few major companies dominating the economy to more smaller companies.
I decided to look at the 75 largest MSA’s by GDP in 2021, and then compare them to their rank from 2001. Not overall GDP change, simply their placement on the list.
2021 largest GDPs by MSA:
1. New York City (-; no change, was #1 in 2001)
2. Los Angeles (-)
3. Chicago (-)
4. San Francisco (+2; was #6 in 2001)
5. DC (-1; was #4 in 2001)
6. Dallas (+2)
7. Houston (+2)
8. Boston (-1)
9. Seattle (+4)
10. Philadelphia (-5)
11. Atlanta (-1)
12. Miami (-)
13. San Jose (+3)
14. Phoenix (+1)
15. Minneapolis (-1)
16. Detroit (-5)
17. San Diego (-)
18. Denver (-)
19. Baltimore (-)
20. Riverside (+5)
21. Charlotte (+6)
22. Austin (+16)
23. Tampa (-)
24. St. Louis (-4)
25. Portland (+1)
26. Cincinnati (-2)
27. Pittsburgh (-5)
28. Orlando (+4)
29. Nashville (+10)
30. Indianapolis (-1)
31. Sacramento (-1)
32. Columbus (-1)
33. Kansas City (-5)
34. Cleveland (-13)
35. San Antonio (+5)
36. Vegas (+1)
37. Salt Lake City (+11)
38. Milwaukee (-5)
39. Raleigh (+14)
40. Virginia Beach (-4)
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.
