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.
The infamous Rust Belt is a region of cities that have gone through some bad times in the past few decades. But, what if it never stopped? How do you think things would be different? If the jobs never left, do you think cities like Detroit and Cleveland could have been some of America's premiere cities? In my opinion, I think the westward migration would have still happened. But the shrinkage wouldn't have been as bad, and there wouldn't be much decay left behind. So, go head and discuss.
If the steel industry never left Pittsburgh it would probably still be a hell hole with severe air quality issues. And Cleveland might still be setting rivers on fire.
The rust belt didn't shrink, it just grew at a slower rate than the rest of the country.
Cleveland's blight came more from people fleeing to the suburbs than from people fleeing to the rest of the country. Because of the industrial decline and urban blight, the city now has a chance to rebuild and create a more diverse economy. Things will work out well in the end, I believe.
Detroit would still be a very blighted city, but that's because most manufacturing jobs are in the suburbs. But it's likely the city would have still had over 1 million residents and if the economy hadn't crashed, there probably would have been big gentrification of the downtown area.
So basically if cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati all stayed in the top 10 population wise by city limits and kept growing?
Well, I'd say Cleveland and Detroit would look similar to Chicago.
St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati would look like a Philadelphia.
Side note: population evened out in the suburbs for these cities.
Detroit would still be a very blighted city, but that's because most manufacturing jobs are in the suburbs. But it's likely the city would have still had over 1 million residents and if the economy hadn't crashed, there probably would have been big gentrification of the downtown area.
The thing about Detroit is that its suburbs are declining and losing population as well. People are just leaving the region(and the state) in droves. The census greatly reflects that as Michigan was one of the few states to lose population.
The thing about Detroit is that its suburbs are declining and losing population as well. People are just leaving the region(and the state) in droves. The census greatly reflects that as Michigan was one of the few states to lose population.
Yea but that's because the entire state of Michigan lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs from 2000-2008 (probably due to outsourcing). So even before the recession, the state's economy was already shrinking. The recession pretty much just added fuel to the fire by making most people's homes almost worthless.
Then the economy would be much better than it is now.
You are saying this in response to a 5 year old post. The economy IS much better than it was when this thread was made. Especially in regard to Detroit if that's the city you are referring to.
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.
