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.
What I was kinda going for with this question initially before the definitions got tangled up was to ask what’s the difference living in a place like Detroit or Cleveland where the city itself has declined substantially as opposed to a place where the city center is more prosperous like Minneapolis? I’d imagine that for example after sports games, people who live in the Detroit suburbs go straight back after seeing a game. What are some other differences in day to day life and the culture of a region that come from the differences between rust belt and non rust belt Midwest?
What I was kinda going for with this question initially before the definitions got tangled up was to ask what’s the difference living in a place like Detroit or Cleveland where the city itself has declined substantially as opposed to a place where the city center is more prosperous like Minneapolis? I’d imagine that for example after sports games, people who live in the Detroit suburbs go straight back after seeing a game. What are some other differences in day to day life and the culture of a region that come from the differences between rust belt and non rust belt Midwest?
I think what's important to note, city cores can often move in a different direction than their respective metro areas.
Having lived in the Twin Cities for 20+ years, what it offers in good jobs and cleanliness, is counter balanced by sterility.
I think affordability to have a true urban experience is actually the biggest difference. Meaning, for those that want to live in a high-rise, walk or take public transportation to work, etc, you might be able to afford that in Milwaukee, Detroit, etc. whereas maybe less so in a more up and coming city.
Speaking of the Twin Cities, the suburbs are overly uniform and sterile vs some of the older metros further east where some of the suburbs can offer a town center and urbanity of its own. So if one wants things like breweries, coffee shops, concerts, etc, it's more than likely going to be going downtown.
What I was kinda going for with this question initially before the definitions got tangled up was to ask what’s the difference living in a place like Detroit or Cleveland where the city itself has declined substantially as opposed to a place where the city center is more prosperous like Minneapolis? I’d imagine that for example after sports games, people who live in the Detroit suburbs go straight back after seeing a game. What are some other differences in day to day life and the culture of a region that come from the differences between rust belt and non rust belt Midwest?
I think Rust Belt cities can feel like smaller cities/towns in the sense that young people are mostly trying to get out unless they have close family ties, and if you do go to college or get a good job, it will likely be somewhere else and you won't be coming back.
Where I grew up in Chicagoland, it was totally normal for smart kids to get jobs at software firms, finance companies, etc. in the Loop or the north suburbs. I left because I wanted to see more of the world, not because I needed to. I have a few friends from metro Detroit, Albany NY, St. Louis --- they don't talk about their hometowns that way. So I guess this is one way Chicago is less "Rust Belt".
Tacoma, WA where I am now is a weird hybrid. There aren't really any well-regarded universities around here, and the white-collar job scene seems "meh". I would guess that most people who grow up here leave, if only to Seattle. At the same time a lot of (young, hip) people are also moving to Tacoma for the lower rents, music/art community, and the punk aesthetic/ethos that Seattle has mostly lost.
While there is one region called the Midwest, I think there really are two types of cities within this region.
One is the post industrial city that has gone through its fair share of ups and downs, usually including industrial decline, a steep decrease of population within city limits, urban decay, and mass suburbanization. Examples of this include Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh.
The second type of midwestern city is the white collar post war boom town. These cities were never major centers of industry, so they didn’t experience significant decline, and experienced a lot of growth during the post war era. Examples of this are Indianapolis, Columbus, the Twin Cities, Kansas City.
I would put Chicago in its own category since it features aspects from each of these.
Do you think this distinction is accurate or meaningful in any way?
If so, what are the biggest cultural and day to day differences between each of these two types of cities?
One difference I can think of is the difference between so called “Ohio Tough” and “Minnesota Nice”, which are two terms I’ve heard said before, but what other differences are there aside from this?
Thanks
"Minnesota Nice" actually refers to the habit of native Minnesotans being very reserved and private ... very willing to help your change a flat tire on the side of the road in 5 degree weather with a smile but not so willing to invite an outsider into their lives and become friends. And to avoid confrontation and openness/directness.
It is a thing here, though it has been co-opted more than once for marketing purposes. But those who move here from other areas of the country see and experience it and those who grew up here and move elsewhere come to understand it.
Speaking of the Twin Cities, the suburbs are overly uniform and sterile vs some of the older metros further east where some of the suburbs can offer a town center and urbanity of its own.
There are plenty of urban Twin Cities suburbs that have their own historic downtowns like Anoka, Robbinsdale, Edina, Hopkins, Wayzata, Excelsior, White Bear Lake, Shakopee, North Saint Paul, Chaska, Rosemount, Osseo, Columbia Heights, Prior Lake, and Lakeville. And that's not including exurban metro communities like Elk River, Rogers, Farmington, Jordan, Hastings, Forest Lake, Saint Michael, Waconia, Northfield, and Stillwater.
Yes, the outer-ring suburbs and exurbs are mostly cookie-cutter suburbia, but much of the first and second ring suburbs are older and more established as individual communities. It's disingenuous to claim Twin Cities suburbia is "sterile".
Think Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Philadelphia, Baltimore, among others. All were heavy industry centers that were greatly affected by the decline in the steel industry and deindustrialization.
Cities as far west as Duluth, MN and as far east as Worcester, MA can be considered "Rust Belt."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
Think Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Philadelphia, Baltimore, among others. All were heavy industry centers that were greatly affected by the decline in the steel industry and deindustrialization.
Even farther east than that. There's rust in parts of New England too.
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.
