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.
Which is what postwar growth overwhelmingly looks like practically everywhere in America. Elsewhere in the Rustbelt, postwar growth doesn't consist of an endless replication of core historic urban neighborhoods.
I’d like to point out Cleveland and the like were never actually super dense. Even at its peak it was only like 11,000 ppsm.
I've seen a lot of theories as to why Rust Belt cities ended up differently than their Sunbelt counterparts (but only if you ignore Detroit which was the template that all of the Sunbelt cities used when they started to explode in the second half of the 20th century) and the answer is pretty straightforward: How you move massive amounts of people in goods will be reflected in the design. The simple answer is boats and trains.
All of those cities boomed when the fastest form of personal transportation was a horse and were already big by the time the automobile became affordable for the masses. Before then, most people got around via boats and trains. In this sort of environment, making large cities and suburbs that stretch for thousands of miles just doesn't make practical sense. It isn't "being smarter" or more "forward thinking", rather it is harder to build out like that when your main means of transportation for goods or people are fixed.
This map of passenger rail lines from 1890 tells the story very well: A dense network radiated out from East Coast and the trains lines that went west massed around the great lakes. This region was were most of our food and good came from, and it happened to come along at the time when the South was still rebuilding from the destruction of the Civil War. By the time the South started grow beyond that, the Rust Belt had already been established. ONe of the great "what ifs" is if that never happened, but that's a thread for a different day.
As you can see, every single city in the Rust Belt was connected by rail to their larger counterparts in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic, and Chicago and Detroit were nexus points. Also, you may have noticed how thin the rail network was in the South and West. These cities that are big now like Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas (among others) played this role in the South and they were booming then too (weird how people on this thread act like all three were sleepy towns during the height of the Rust Belt boom).
This map also tells you how the transfer of people out of the Midwest to points South and West occurred. While deindustrialization did most of the work, highways and jet airplanes made it possible. Since people were no longer beholden to slow trains that took forever to go anywhere fast with the tech of the time, people left looking for greener pastures as soon as they opened up. You can draw a direct line between the Interstate system and passenger jets with this growth and decline in the respective regions.
Lastly, I'll say this for anyone that would use this to say that the future is brighter for the Rust Belt because of this: Think again. With the exception of Chicago, all of this infrastructure was intentionally removed. Their rail based public transit is mostly gone, and the cities that have built newer systems pale in comparison to the ones you now find in all of the major Sunbelt cities.
Simultaneously, most of the housing stock was also removed or has fallen into such disrepair that it is no longer usable. Now some of this still exists, and in the case of the rails it's a better situation since most of those lines were converted to freight only, but if there is ever another boom in that area it's not going to be easy. All of those cities would be faced with the same problem the Sunbelt cities currently have with having enough housing for the new arrivals.
Take a wild guess what that development would look like? Here's a hint: It won't be the same type of development that occurred in the late 19th century.
I keep coming back to this map, and have been since it was posted. It finally hit me why. Has anyone else noticed how many railroads the east-west direction just terminated in the western third of the state, at the same time? I wonder why. It's not like there was a mountain range there.
I mean thats a hair under Boston & Philly today... thats incredibly dense (by US standards).
The places people consider dense in Philly/Boston are over 20k or so and they peaked at like 50k+ then empties out. Boston at its peak was ~16750 or ~50% denser than Cleveland at its peak.
Cleveland had rather even population profiles. Due to streetcars Ohio City looks a lot like most neighborhoods look liked in ~1940.
Cincinnati has a much tighter looking downtown than most Midwestern cities because at some point downtown/OTR had 55k+ppsm.
Cleveland looks like Cleveland cause even at its peak it was 77 sq miles of Lakewood OH. So it would today, if it never depopulated likely look quite a bit like LA.
Not everyone can work remote. It has to be a pretty small amount of the national workforce.
But I'd agree, it's also much easier to move these days, look for work online before you get there, and check out exactly what it looks like from the internet.
I agree but the number that can now, during the Sun belt boom, is much higher than when the Rust Belt had its boom.
And for the record...I think the term "rust belt" is uncalled for and overly disparaging for that region. There is plenty to admire about formerly industrial cities along the Great Lakes/Northeast/Midwest; past, present, and future.
The hyping of one doesn't have to be at the expense of another. That's pretty childish in all reality.
I always hated the term "Rust Belt", always felt that it was negative. Seems like that most of the country has this perception that everybody that lives in the Rust Belt are blue collar, poor, stupid, uneducated, MAGA, drugged up on heroin, Fentayl and opiods (as if it's only a Rust Belt problem and no other regions have this problem). They act as if you don't have the Internet or don't know anything about the world if you live anywhere outside of Chicago or MSP. IMO, a certain group of people feel that they need to look down on one region to feel better about theirs. But, a lot of us now have a punch-down mentality because we're afraid of the people that can punch up.
On the flip side, many look at the Sun Belt as cool, hip, white collar, more happier people, more healthier and fit people, Paradise. I always joke with my family and friends in The Sun Belt that they're spoiled (especially when it comes to weather). The whole "right-to-work" policies of the South are praised while unions in the Rust Belt are dogged. The Sun Belt has a lot of MAGA as well but they don't get the blow back attached to it like the Rust Belt. In fact, I never see them get any criticism like The Rust Belt does.
Last edited by QCongress83216; 01-26-2024 at 08:16 PM..
Only Chicago and Pittsburgh have significantly higher car free rates than poverty rates.
Obviously a city like Rochester with a 30% poverty rate is going to have more car free households than 18% poverty rate Dallas or Miami with 15% poverty.
For example Miami has a larger gap between poverty and car ownership (4.8%) (as in people not in poverty and not having cars) than any city in the Rust Belt not Chicago.
Buffalo really has slightly more car free households than Chicago? That surprises me to learn.
The Sun Belt has a lot of MAGA as well but they don't get the blow back attached to it like the Rust Belt. In fact, I never see them get any criticism like The Rust Belt does.
If anything, the Sunbelt MAGA crowd deserves more scrutiny and criticism than the Rustbelt MAGA crowd.
And the Southern parts of the Sunbelt definitely get their fair share of criticism.
If anything, the Sunbelt MAGA crowd deserves more scrutiny and criticism than the Rustbelt MAGA crowd.
And the Southern parts of the Sunbelt definitely get their fair share of criticism.
In your opinion, what's the difference between the Sunbelt MAGA crowd and the Rust Belt MAGA crowd? Why do you feel that the Sunbelt MAGA crowd deserves more criticism?
I don't here very little, if any, criticism of the Southern parts in the Sunbelt. They get a lot of hype and praise in the real world and on social media (i.e. weather, economy, quality of life, right-to-work). Tell the criticsm that the Southern parts of the Sun Belt receive.
In your opinion, what's the difference between the Sunbelt MAGA crowd and the Rust Belt MAGA crowd? Why do you feel that the Sunbelt MAGA crowd deserves more criticism?
Because the Rustbelt at least has legitimate economic grievances compared to the Sunbelt which attracts a disproportionate number of retirees who won't even be around to experience the drastic consequences of what they voted/are voting for.
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.
