Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Most upcoming Rust Belt City
Dayton Ohio 4 6.15%
Akron Ohio 4 6.15%
Toledo Ohio 3 4.62%
Youngstown Ohio 3 4.62%
Scranton Pennsylvania 21 32.31%
Allentown/ Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania 11 16.92%
Erie Pennsylvania 3 4.62%
Rochester New York 11 16.92%
Syracuse New York 9 13.85%
Buffalo New York 8 12.31%
Albany/ Troy/ Schnectady New York 6 9.23%
Flint Michigan 3 4.62%
Saginaw Michigan 0 0%
Benton Harbor Michigan 0 0%
Gary Indiana 0 0%
Fort Wayne Indiana 4 6.15%
South Bend Indiana 4 6.15%
Rockport Illinois 2 3.08%
Peoria Illinois 7 10.77%
East St. Louis Illinois 1 1.54%
Quad Cities 3 4.62%
Green Bay Wisconsin 8 12.31%
Duluth Minnesota 5 7.69%
Muskegon Michigan 1 1.54%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2009, 10:22 AM
 
77 posts, read 191,257 times
Reputation: 79

Advertisements

All of these cities are potentially "up and coming" in thier own way. There is a small, but growing, movement of people back into cities. As the suburbs have grown, they have become more expensive than the cities, and that was precisely why they existed in the first place. Cities were crowded and expensve, so the migration of people pushed outward into the suburbs. Now, the 'burbs are more expensive. Housing, taxes, transportation etc... cost more in the suburb than it does it the host city, in most places. Scranton Pa is a perfect example. Not to mention the social isolation and lack of culture and community in the suburbs. Anyway, many former dying cities in the US have seen revitalization and population growth this decade, and many more will follow suit; including most of the cities on this list.

Pittsburg and Columbus are two examples of formerly dying cities that are experiencing growth.
The entire state of Ca is an example of a former hotspot that is seeing a rapid outflux of people. Since 2000, more people have moved out than in
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2009, 11:28 AM
 
1,247 posts, read 3,862,399 times
Reputation: 556
Akron pulled ahead of Dayton?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 06:06 PM
 
Location: BUFFALO, NY
1,576 posts, read 5,347,688 times
Reputation: 327
Buffalo is well off and is already up and coming. Because it is turning around now and will continue to prosper, maybe it shouldn't be on the list anymore.

Good thing you didn't post Detroit on this list!


Go Buffalo though!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 07:25 PM
 
1,325 posts, read 2,365,612 times
Reputation: 1062
I vote Grand Rapids MI, baby!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,279 posts, read 4,671,655 times
Reputation: 719
Quote:
Pittsburg and Columbus are two examples of formerly dying cities that are experiencing growth.
Wrong. Columbus was never a dying city. Pittsburgh was, yes.

Columbus was never an industrial mega city. During the industrial boom Columbus added some manufacturing jobs, the city built more buggies than any other American city.

However, the brains in charge of Columbus actually made some efforts to keep factories out of the city. This meant the city never had mass immigration. The city planners decided to annex under developed townships before suburbs could eat them up with their own development.

During the 30s, 40s, and 50s much of the citizens worked for the state, universities, or for small to medium sized companies. Columbus had their own banks, and still does, and much of the African American population was working in the commercial sector.

Now, this mean much of Columbus was a conservative place. The lack of mass immigration and a lower working class prevented the city from unionzing, to the degree of most cities, and meant theire was less social friction.

During the 40's-1980s the city annexed land. Much of the land did not start to develop until the 1970s. The city was literally looking decades ahead at future development patterns.

By the 1980s the city was a place that had little decay, good infrastructure, and plenty of available land for massive suburban style development.

By the late 1980s the development came and Columbus had one of the lowest economies in the 1990s. With this office, residential, white collar development came many transplants, urban gentrification (after all the neighborhoods were in mint condition, by lack of industrial decay), and lastly a more liberal, very educated population.

Now Columbus has transformed into a city that is one of the largest in size and population. It has seen urban gentrification and further diversification of its economy.

The city is a Democratic haven, socially progressive, yet known for its ability to harbor entrepreneurial and artistic spirit. (As can be seen in the cities Short North Arts District neighborhood just north of downtown.)

Some have described Columbus as a city that had a gigantic bubble covering it through World War II, the industrial 50s and 60s eras, and during the social movements of the 60s and 70s.

When the dawning of the 80s came Columbus was one of the most preserved mid sized cities in the developed NE, midwest, great lakes region.

Columbus was the perfect place for economic growth to occur, as there were little negative barriers standing in its way.

Much of these changes have also caused Columbus to be one of the least understood American cities. Those who came and visited smaller, convservative columbus in the 1980s fail to realize how economic development has changed the city in 2009.

I hope this quick run down helps some of those understand the interesting urban planning that was put in place to create the Columbus of the 80s, 90s, and today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 05:04 PM
 
93,290 posts, read 123,898,066 times
Reputation: 18258
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetcreed View Post
Wrong. Columbus was never a dying city. Pittsburgh was, yes.

Columbus was never an industrial mega city. During the industrial boom Columbus added some manufacturing jobs, the city built more buggies than any other American city.

However, the brains in charge of Columbus actually made some efforts to keep factories out of the city. This meant the city never had mass immigration. The city planners decided to annex under developed townships before suburbs could eat them up with their own development.

During the 30s, 40s, and 50s much of the citizens worked for the state, universities, or for small to medium sized companies. Columbus had their own banks, and still does, and much of the African American population was working in the commercial sector.

Now, this mean much of Columbus was a conservative place. The lack of mass immigration and a lower working class prevented the city from unionzing, to the degree of most cities, and meant theire was less social friction.

During the 40's-1980s the city annexed land. Much of the land did not start to develop until the 1970s. The city was literally looking decades ahead at future development patterns.

By the 1980s the city was a place that had little decay, good infrastructure, and plenty of available land for massive suburban style development.

By the late 1980s the development came and Columbus had one of the lowest economies in the 1990s. With this office, residential, white collar development came many transplants, urban gentrification (after all the neighborhoods were in mint condition, by lack of industrial decay), and lastly a more liberal, very educated population.

Now Columbus has transformed into a city that is one of the largest in size and population. It has seen urban gentrification and further diversification of its economy.

The city is a Democratic haven, socially progressive, yet known for its ability to harbor entrepreneurial and artistic spirit. (As can be seen in the cities Short North Arts District neighborhood just north of downtown.)

Some have described Columbus as a city that had a gigantic bubble covering it through World War II, the industrial 50s and 60s eras, and during the social movements of the 60s and 70s.

When the dawning of the 80s came Columbus was one of the most preserved mid sized cities in the developed NE, midwest, great lakes region.

Columbus was the perfect place for economic growth to occur, as there were little negative barriers standing in its way.

Much of these changes have also caused Columbus to be one of the least understood American cities. Those who came and visited smaller, convservative columbus in the 1980s fail to realize how economic development has changed the city in 2009.

I hope this quick run down helps some of those understand the interesting urban planning that was put in place to create the Columbus of the 80s, 90s, and today.
So, are you saying that Columbus was a city of upper middle class to rich people and lower middle class to working poor people before growth took off there?

I do think that the Ohio State University, which is the biggest college in the US, has a lot to do with the way Columbus is now.

Also, isn't Nationwide, Wendy's and a bunch of other companies, I can't remember now, have their headquarters in the Columbus area?

Another thing I notice about Columbus is that the African American community is spread throughout the area, in terms of it's suburbs. So, it doesn't matter if it is Whitehall, Worthington, Gahanna or Bexley, there seems to be a decent amount of diversity throughout it's suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,279 posts, read 4,671,655 times
Reputation: 719
Quote:
So, are you saying that Columbus was a city of upper middle class to rich people and lower middle class to working poor people before growth took off there?

I do think that the Ohio State University, which is the biggest college in the US, has a lot to do with the way Columbus is now.

Also, isn't Nationwide, Wendy's and a bunch of other companies, I can't remember now, have their headquarters in the Columbus area?

Another thing I notice about Columbus is that the African American community is spread throughout the area, in terms of it's suburbs. So, it doesn't matter if it is Whitehall, Worthington, Gahanna or Bexley, there seems to be a decent amount of diversity throughout it's suburbs.
I think that most of these statements are pretty correct. Columbus' African American community is more spread out into suburban neighborhoods and middle class Columbus neighborhoods.

Also, Columbus is headquarters to Nationwide Insurance, was to Wendys, White Castle, Bank One (before the Chase merger, now Columbus has the 2nd most Chase employees of any city after NYC), American Electric Power, Battle Science company, Hexion, Abercrombie and Fitch, Express, and other retailers like Victoria's Secret. Columbus has other headquarters than these but these are some of the most known.

Now before Columbus' growth it was a city of many middle class citizens, had some blue collar populations, but already had a larger white collar middle class population than most cities. That is the main difference.

Columbus did not actually have many high end CEO jobs and managment jobs until the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Hence why the city lacked very high end retail in the late 1990s, introduction of Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom, other designers.

A city like Pittsburgh or Cleveland already had great old money. The great industrial money was lacking from Columbus, but "new money" was to be found in the corporate executives that would form many new companies, starting in the 1970s.

The richest man in Ohio is now Lex Wexner who owns Victorias Secret and Limited Brands and lives in Columbus. In the 50s the richest Ohioans would have lived in Cleveland. That is a demonstration of the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top