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.
They wouldn't have been there in the first place. It's no coincidence they weren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by costellopresley82
I don't know if people randomly say, "Pack up the kids, we can't handle one more Cleveland winter." It all ties back to jobs, and "New South" metros such as Atlanta and the Triangle are doing a better job at attracting white-collar and tech jobs than the Rust Belt metros.
Look at Minneapolis. It's colder than Buffalo or Detroit but it isn't in decline, it's just the fact that Minneapolis has a diversified economy and didn't rely on manufacturing first and foremost akin to many of the Rust Belt cities. Columbus, too.
Something MSP and Columbus both have in common is the dual government largesse of being both the state capital (or half is the state capital in MSP's case) and hosting a massive Big 10 state flagship university. If Cleveland were the state capital and Ohio State were there, Cleveland's fortunes would look a lot different and nobody would notice or care about Columbus.
But is there a *functional* difference, is the question?
Whatever difference exists in the day-to-day lives of people who live in these metros can be attributed to other metros surpassing them, not their decline. On a local level, they're still functioning as though they populations over 9 million (Chicago), 4 million (Detroit), 2 million (Cleveland & Pittsburgh) and 1 million (Buffalo) respectively, which they all do.
Pittsburgh is the only metro with the strongest case for true decline, but even then it's the difference between 2.7 million vs. 2.3 million. Although it should be noted, Pittsburgh's urban population is at 1.7 million just like it was 50 years ago.
These metros aren't in a good spot relative to other metros in the country, but I also think the declarations that they're declining are misleading and alarmist without context.
Functionally, to the people that live there, it doesn't matter where each city stands relative to other cities.
But there is a huge difference in how a city with increasing population functions versus a city with stagnant or declining population.
A city with increasing population also has increasing needs for new construction, new housing, new retail, new service industries, etc to serve the growing population. It requires new infrastructure, new city expenditures, new schools, new hospitals, and an increased tax collection, preferably thru taxes paid by the expanded tax base. All of this means that a growing population in and of it self requires and results in a growing number of jobs and industries.
A stagnant population also means these industries are also stagnant.
A decreasing population means less need, and therefore more vacant and abandoned housing, declining need for services, and a declining tax base without the ability to suspend past commitments to infrastructure maintenance or municipal retiree benefits.
A city not growing is often bypassed by services and industries that wish to "grow" their businesses with population, and also don't get the national retail and service businesses that typically fill areas with expanding populations. No IKEA in Cleveland, Rochester, or Buffalo for example, despite millions of people living in WNY and NE Ohio.
On the flip side, a stable or declining population can also mean more stability for the people that do live there, less disruption from overcrowding and turnover, more opportunities for local businesses without being overrun by larger nationwide firms, and more opportunities for preservation versus replacement. Overall, some increase over time that doesn't overwhelm the existing infrastructure and services could be the best position for a city, and many Rust Belt cities may be able to manage even more growth as they already have much of the infrastructure in place for a larger population.
Last edited by RocketSci; 12-05-2020 at 10:16 AM..
A stagnant population also means these industries are also stagnant.
A city not growing is often bypassed by services and industries that wish to "grow" their businesses with population, and also don't get the national retail and service businesses that typically fill areas with expanding populations. No IKEA in Cleveland, Rochester, or Buffalo for example, despite millions of people living in WNY and NE Ohio.
No disagreement for me on those points.
But when you hear discussion about these metros declining, it's implied they're turning into gigantic Gary, Indianas, when in fact it's just that they stopped growing and other metros have grown so much bigger.
Granted, other metro areas have gotten bigger and more prosperous than Detroit's metro, and if you're saying it has gotten worse relative to these other metros, I would agree.
But that doesn't mean Detroit's metro is worse off in absolute numbers than it was 50 years ago, so I would like to see what's your frame of reference for this conclusion.
1960 data- Detroit Metro’s median family income was 20% better than the median American family’s income.
But when you hear discussion about these metros declining, it's implied they're turning into gigantic Gary, Indianas, when in fact it's just that they stopped growing and other metros have grown so much bigger.
I agree with some caveats:
Rust Belt cities did have a steep decline economically as a result of de-industrialization, and of population as a result of shrinking family size and a lost generation who left for jobs in other cities.
Rust Belt cities are still seeing many of the effects of this decline, such as continued high death vs birth rates as fewer babies are being born since so many people of working age left 30 years ago. It is the low birth vs death rate, more than anything else, that accounts for the loss or very slow population gains of the last 20 years.
But, economically, while no longer all-stars, the metros have still continued economic growth over the last couple of decades. Just with fewer people, and fewer jobs.
So, I agree. Not declining, but still feeling effects of previous years.
Birmingham, with its history of steel production, can be arguably considered part of the Rust Belt, and has seen its population decline by 36% since 1960, and since 2000 has declined faster than Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Rochester, or Buffalo. Jefferson County has had stagnant population for the last 40 years.
So, I think the answer is the Rust Belt cities would still have declined, regardless of climate.
The only big difference between Birmingham and the other Rust Belt cities is its population peaked in 1960 rather than 1950 like the others.
Birmingham isn’t the best comparison because it doesn’t have cultural institutions to draw people back into the city like the others. It doesn’t have any major sports teams or world-class art institutions which would draw people back into the city like Detroit, Cleveland or Buffalo.
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.
