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.
Grand Rapids. That city is responsible for nearly all the Growth in Michigan. the city and the metro both grew between 3-4% between 2010-2014 and they have an absurdly low unemployment rate.
The thing about Grand Rapids is that the metro area has had growth on par or above the national average every decade except for the 2000s. Even then it still grew. Though the city definitely declined and had bombed out neighborhoods in the 70s-90s. The transformation over the last 20 years has been pretty significant. I don’t know if there is a similar city with the same conundrums.
That explains why the metro area didn't grow like other metros, but most of the city was already built out. Yeah it might not have dropped as much, but it would have dropped population regardless entirely due to smaller household size. most other cities were annexing more land or still building within their larger city limits during this time, which added to their populations. but would not have happened much in Pgh city limits, regardless of the steel collapse.
Pittsburgh is down 55% since it’s peak if you compare it to similar cities that haven’t annexed since about 1950 Providence, Boston, Minneapolis, Washington DC which didn’t have the regional economic trouble Pittsburgh had they are down like 16%. The majority of the drop of Pittsburgh’s population was due to deindistrialization not national trends. Also notice the city with the largest drop (Providence) and smallest drop (Washington) are the slowest and fastest growing metro areas over that time period.
It’s because city growth rates are connected to metro growth rates.
Pittsburgh is down 55% since it’s peak if you compare it to similar cities that haven’t annexed since about 1950 Providence, Boston, Minneapolis, Washington DC which didn’t have the regional economic trouble Pittsburgh had they are down like 16%. The majority of the drop of Pittsburgh’s population was due to deindistrialization not national trends. Also notice the city with the largest drop (Providence) and smallest drop (Washington) are the slowest and fastest growing metro areas over that time period.
It’s because city growth rates are connected to metro growth rates.
That last statement isn’t necessarily true and Rochester NY is an example of this. While its city limits population declined, its metro area population has never had a population decline in an official census. Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY is another area with similar dynamics. So, this will vary, depending on the area.
The rust belt encompasses a pretty large part of our country. It's composed of most of Upstate NY, all of PA except for the Philly area, all of Ohio, all of michigan except upper peninsula, most of Indiana, most of West Virginia, north and east Illinois, south and east Wisconsin, and northern Kentucky. There are some individual cities in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Missouri that are Rust Belt as well. This is almost 50 million people in total.
The bleak reality is, it seems that none of these cities have genuinely improved. Yea, sure, some of their downtowns are nice, some cities have a deep history, some cities have had a neighborhood or two gentrify, some have good colleges, etc. But does that really mean anything when virtually all of these cities are run-down, have been losing population since 1940 (some of which have lost over 60% of their total population), have poverty rates ranging from 35-55% with mean household incomes below 30k, rampant drug problems, gang issues, failing, underfunded schools, blight/urban decay, slumlords galore, high pollution, terrible infrastructure, high unemployment, high amounts of unhealthy people, and few opportunities/programs for children? These are the real issues of these cities and seems like they haven't actually been solved, and in fact are actually getting worse. Here are the rust belt cities I am referring to, all larger cities:
MA: Lawrence, Pittsfield, Fall River, New Bedford, Holyoke
You get the picture. Are any of these places actually improving, having a better quality of life now than in the 40s or 50s? Do any of these places have more jobs than they did years ago? Are any of these places desirable to live overall, apart form their downtowns and a select few gentrified neighborhoods? Even Detroit has gentrified neighborhoods, hipster cafes, million-dollar apartments too, but we all know it as one of the worst places in the USA.
So, I challenge you. Find me a rust belt city that has genuinely improved. The ones in the list above certainly haven't, at least to my understanding.
Have you ever been to Chicagoland? Hardly rust belt, beautiful clean city with at least 10 of its suburbs in the top 100 wealthiest towns in the country. IMO its downtown looks alot better than your city of Boston.
That last statement isn’t necessarily true and Rochester NY is an example of this. While its city limits population declined, its metro area population has never had a population decline in an official census. Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY is another area with similar dynamics. So, this will vary, depending on the area.
That’s because in the 1960s 1970s and 1980s you needed a tremendous metro growth rate to sustain population in a compact inner city. Since the 90s that’s evened out a bit.
For example Atlanta lost population in the 1970s but since it’s metro population was growing so fast it lost much fewer people than Cleveland or Detroit.
Also it isn’t a perfect correlation just a general trend.
Like even Rochester lost fewer people than Rust belt metros that lost population. So it was somewhat buoyed by a resilient regional trend
That’s because in the 1960s 1970s and 1980s you needed a tremendous metro growth rate to sustain population in a compact inner city. Since the 90s that’s evened out a bit.
For example Atlanta lost population in the 1970s but since it’s metro population was growing so fast it lost much fewer people than Cleveland or Detroit.
Also it isn’t a perfect correlation just a general trend.
Like even Rochester lost fewer people than Rust belt metros that lost population. So it was somewhat buoyed by a resilient regional trend
I guess, but even Rochester lost about a third or so of the population since its peak. Syracuse is similar, but has had give or take the same population since 1980 or so. So, this may also speak to the suburbanization of metro areas, but the difference is that many of the high growth areas could also annex what would be suburbs in many, if not all, Rust Belt areas.
Have you ever been to Chicagoland? Hardly rust belt, beautiful clean city with at least 10 of its suburbs in the top 100 wealthiest towns in the country. IMO its downtown looks alot better than your city of Boston.
The north side and north side suburbs are prosperous, the rest of the metro is less so. I was in the Carol Stream, Wheaton and Downer's Grove swath of suburban Chicagoland a few years ago. I was shocked by how many dead and dying malls there were. We don't really have that in the Twin Cities. And the south side of Chicago is definitely rust belt, but a lot of northsiders forget it exists.
The north side and north side suburbs are prosperous, the rest of the metro is less so. I was in the Carol Stream, Wheaton and Downer's Grove swath of suburban Chicagoland a few years ago. I was shocked by how many dead and dying malls there were. We don't really have that in the Twin Cities. And the south side of Chicago is definitely rust belt, but a lot of northsiders forget it exists.
Lol what?? What are these "Dying malls" in Wheaton you speak of??? The west suburbs has one of the most prominent and upscale malls in the nation, Oak Brook Center, and the west burbs are also home to multiple wealthy and upper-middle class suburbs. Regardless, malls are dying off nationwide and have almost zero relevance to the question of whether or not a city or metro area is "rust belt".
Chicago is an elite city with tons of high paying jobs, more-so than most cities in the U.S. This "rust belt" portrayal of it is hilarious. It *used* to be an industrial city, that is true. However, Chicago's financial center, downtown, universities, big population, amenities etc. made the transition from blue collar to white collar work pretty easy.
Also, there's plenty of "prosperous" suburbs in Chicagoland outside of the north shore. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Three midwestern cities that I never hear referred to as "Rust Belt" would be Minneapolis, Columbus, and Indianapolis. Minneapolis is simply out of the range for heavy industry and never was similar to other midwest cities in that regard. Minneapolis looks west to the northern plains that it dominates. Minneapolis may share traits with Chicago, but the city I think it might be most like is Seattle.
Columbus and Indianapolis were never Rust Belt for a different reason. They are the truly only "new cities" in the Midwest. Why? Because their coming of age was pretty much post WWII.
You can't locate the Rust Belt by circling a piece of real estate on a map.
And I don't think anyone has the exact same idea of what all the Rust Belt cities are. it is opinion.
Is (was) Chicago Rust Belt? My opinion (only): hell no. Never was. Chicago was always different. It wasn't like other midwestern cities since the 19th century. Chicago may have had heavy industry (at one point, more so than any global city), but it would be hard to say that industry dominated. The white collar segment of the economy was always strong. Chicago was always about culture, business, educational institutions, entertainment, and an urban lifestyle.
While other cities were rusting away, Chicago was building the world's tallest building, was drawing high rise living to the downtown area, built the largest convention center in the world, broke out of its old Loop=Downtown as the Near North Side (Michigan Ave and environs) got sucked into what was becoming a Super Loop.
Has Chicago struggled? Yes. All cities have. Look at the basket case New York was in the 1970s. No city is immune from downward trends and times of struggle. But Chicago never, not at any point, went into decline. It simply did not occur. And that fact was well known about it. Too many "facts on the ground", too much of a supportive elites that simply kept things in place.
Has Chicago suffered from the lose of industries, the rust belting of America? Sure. But what major city in the Midwest and Northeast did not? Did Boston, far earlier than other northern cities, go into a decline in the first half of the 20th century when the mills all closed and moved out? Did New York suffer when it lost the garment industry and the world's greatest port and shipping business to become a shadow of itself.
Yes, the South Side side has much gutted industrial property lying in decay, both on the south and west sides. And, of course, the loss of the industries was huge. But I would contend that industry and its decline is not the main reason that the South and West sides are in the condition they are.
If i had to put the blame somewhere, it would be on what ironically was one of (if not the) most segregated cities in the US, and almost unbelievable idea in light of what is basically a fairly liberal, sophisticated, diverse and diverse celebrating city that it is today.
Segregation in Chicago was not only bad, not only struck fear in Martin Luther King's heart as much as or more than any southern city (ugly it was), Chicago was segregated in large chunks. huge chunks. Chicago...first on the South Side and then to a smaller (but still significant) amount on the west was home to "black belts". They were large. They were extensive. And Chicago was (maybe is) very much defined by race.
These huge swaths of land were, are places hard to redevelop or reinvigorate because they created what was basically "dead zones", large ones, across a good portion of the city's south and west sides. Again...we in Chicago pay a helluva price for our segregation and racism. Then again: we're America; it goes with the territory.
Look at the areas of concern today and look what is happening. Certainly an area of no concern is the downtown core which is experiencing an unprecedented explosion of growth and development. If there is a fear (and there is) it is overdevelopment. From the core of the city, if you go throughout the North Side, you basically have San Francisco. Or Boston. A little bigger than both, but socio-economically quite akin.
Going south and west of downtown area, you find gentrification taking place on a major scale as the core is what draws in these areas and transforms them. Thur the near north, west, and south sides already have plenty of overlap in how they function. South, redevelopment at least has gone as far south as McCormick Place, arguably into Chinatown, Bridgeport, Bronzeville as well. On the West Side from the Loop, redevelopment has gone pretty much as far as the United Center/Med Center area....high the distance from downtown to Oak Park city limits. That gap will fill in (as will the southside lakefront gap between McCormick Place and Hyde Park).
As I said, your paradigm might be that Chicago was and is a rust belt city. To me, it never was. I just don't see it that way. Chicago has always been different.
Pittsburgh is down 55% since it’s peak if you compare it to similar cities that haven’t annexed since about 1950 Providence, Boston, Minneapolis, Washington DC which didn’t have the regional economic trouble Pittsburgh had they are down like 16%. The majority of the drop of Pittsburgh’s population was due to deindistrialization not national trends. Also notice the city with the largest drop (Providence) and smallest drop (Washington) are the slowest and fastest growing metro areas over that time period.
It’s because city growth rates are connected to metro growth rates.
You are incorrect here. I like your insight, but I know Pgh much better than you I think. The city pop would have declined dramatically no matter what, just based on cultural changes. People were living in very overcrowded conditions in the 1950s there, and once the families were able to earn more they moved to suburbs, with smaller families or couples replacing them in the city. There also were highway projects that eliminated whole neighborhoods, even more reducing the avaliablitiy of land for housing. about 20% of land in Pgh is not developable because of steep hills. and a whole lot of the rest of the land is taken up by business, industry, parks, universities, cultural institutions, and cemeteries. there was no room to grow housing in city limits, and as people demanded more room to live, that's what happened.
It's evident in the fact that Pgh suburbs were growing up through the 70s while the city pop shrank. After that is when the steel collapse made its mark on the area. Granted if it was booming then it would have had in migration, but most would have been in the suburbs as there was really nowhere big to build in the city.
Last edited by _Buster; 09-07-2019 at 07:51 PM..
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.
