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.
Chicago is one of the few if only great lakes city to remove itself from the rust-belt status. I still consider it rust-belt since it's geographically aligned with the rust-belt being a big great-lakes city and having a strong ethnic blue-collar population.
Yes, I mean Chicago is big enough that it’s going to have a little of everything (tech, blue collar, etc), but it’s still very much rust belt. Certainly geographically speaking, also has a declining population with a very industrial history
Chicago is one of the few if only great lakes city to remove itself from the rust-belt status. I still consider it rust-belt since it's geographically aligned with the rust-belt being a big great-lakes city and having a strong ethnic blue-collar population.
I definitely consider Chicago "rust belt", even though I fundamentally dislike this term, in part, because it is often applied subjectively as you have... Chicago is similar to the other so-named cities in that it sprung to greatness in the Industrial Age with tons of factories and blue-collar jobs. And despite its pristine downtown and north lakeshore, Chicago suffered serious decay and abandonment in many areas on the West and South sides in the post-industrial era starting in the mid-to-late 1960s and suffered significant population loss.
But again, the City is so big and has such a prosperous central and northern area, esp along the lakefront, many people didn't notice and assume the City was untouched. But the more recent murder and crime spree in those struggling neighborhoods brought Chicago's issues to the fore. It has more in common with Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis than many care to admit.
Yes, I mean Chicago is big enough that it’s going to have a little of everything (tech, blue collar, etc), but it’s still very much rust belt. Certainly geographically speaking, also has a declining population with a very industrial history
Chicago’s population isn’t declining…It’s been half a year since the US census numbers have been released and people are still repeating this. And it’s not just growing in the Northside and center. Large amounts of areas on the South Side such as Bronzeville, Hyde Park and South Shore also grew population wise.
I definitely consider Chicago "rust belt", even though I fundamentally dislike this term, in part, because it is often applied subjectively as you have... Chicago is similar to the other so-named cities in that it sprung to greatness in the Industrial Age with tons of factories and blue-collar jobs. And despite its pristine downtown and north lakeshore, Chicago suffered serious decay and abandonment in many areas on the West and South sides in the post-industrial era starting in the mid-to-late 1960s and suffered significant population loss.
But again, the City is so big and has such a prosperous central and northern area, esp along the lakefront, many people didn't notice and assume the City was untouched. But the more recent murder and crime spree in those struggling neighborhoods brought Chicago's issues to the fore. It has more in common with Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis than many care to admit.
I know your perspective is as a guy from Cleveland, but Chicago is definitely not "rust belt" in the Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis sense. Much of Chicago is still very much intact, unlike the 3 cities mentioned, on both Chicago's south and west sides, and its population loss from its peak is far less than those cities in both numbers and % wise. Even some high crime areas on the south side are well kept. Today the city is stable population wise, with some loss of black residents being made up from white residents moving in, as well as hispanic and asian. The difference between those rust belt cities and Chicago is that Chicago was able to replace its blue collar loss with white collar jobs tied to Fortune 500 companies, and replace old factories with warehouses that are the nerve center for commerce in the nation tied to rail distribution. I agree with the post above, no matter what you say or present on these posts, people just repeat the same stuff over and over again, almost like Rainman.
Last edited by Justabystander; 12-27-2021 at 12:56 PM..
I know your perspective is as a guy from Cleveland, but Chicago is definitely not "rust belt" in the Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis sense. Much of Chicago is still very much intact, unlike the 3 cities mentioned, on both Chicago's south and west sides, and its population loss from its peak is far less than those cities in both numbers and % wise. Even some high crime areas on the south side are well kept. Today the city is stable population wise, with some loss of black residents being made up from white residents moving in, as well as hispanic and asian. The difference between those rust belt cities and Chicago is that Chicago was able to replace its blue collar loss with white collar jobs tied to Fortune 500 companies, and replace old factories with warehouses that are the nerve center for commerce in the nation tied to rail distribution. I agree with the post above, no matter what you say or present on these posts, people just repeat the same stuff over and over again, almost like Rainman.
Agree. Chicago has some historic Rust-Belt bones/characteristics, so I get why some consider it a Rust-Belt city (going on historic context and it being in the midwest); but it's hard to really classify it as a Rust Belt city, nowadays.
Chicago benefits from being the 3rd largest city in the country and the largest city in the Midwest, making it a hub city. Almost all global companies have a presence in Chicago, it has a stock and commodities exchange, a big law/finance presence with UChicago and NW as feeders, and just an all-around large white collar presence that's too big for it to be considered a Rust Belt.
For a long time, I would have said Toronto. But Toronto has really narrowed the gap in the past few decades.
StL has neighborhoods that resemble those in Chicago, but they are fundamentally different cities in terms of geography and demographics. I don't think they are very similar.
And no, Chicago doesn't feel like most "Rust Belt" cities. They have planned more proactively and diversified their economy better than any other Midwest city. Better than most cities in America too.
Gary Indiana, founded in 1906. At the southern tip of Lake Michigan, where Chicago would have been if trains had already been invented. Gary is on the verge of a major Renaissance...it is obviously part of Chicagoland, but its own beast/identity. Did I mention it sits in lowtax Indiana, pretty much the highest rated state when it comes to fiscal sanity? Chicagoland, minus Illinois.
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.
