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.
^ But why are Cleveland & Pittsburgh's metro areas still losing population? If most of the people leaving the city were moving to the burbs, then the whole metro wouldn't still be decling.
Meanwhile, over the last decade, St. Louis added 10,000 to the city, and at least 100,000 to the metro area, but still gets labeled as a dying rust belt city.
I think what might hurt the Cleveland and Pittsburgh metros is that there are many smaller cities in the metro that are even more blue collar or manufacturing based, that they are losing people too. So, you probably have to consider those types of smaller cities in those metros in terms of population loss too.
As for St. Louis, I think it's crime rate and relatively recent growth might have something to do with the stigma it still gets from some people.
Although the Rust Belt/northeast is hurting, a few cities have made major strides...
NYC, formerly ridden with crime in the 1980s, is now significantly safer and cleaned up
Chicago, with its declining manufacturing has gone through a housing boom and turning former factories into businesses and residential homes
Not to mention that its nightlife areas are more alive then ever before
Detroit has really improved over the years and the mayor has pledged himself to remove all of the abandoned homes
I've heard that Cleveland and St Louis are in some sort of renaissance
Many other cities, like Columbus never really declined...
If anything, some sunbelt cities are on the same path as some rust belt cities...
Cleveland is on a huge renaissance. Check out UrbanOhio.com and their development section for northeastern Ohio. You can see all sorts of awesome stuff popping up in the metro. The Sun Belt will be ****ed, soon. Once the energy boom (like the manufacturing boom) dies down, Houston will be in dire straits. While they have a slightly more diverse economy, it also has 4x the land area and thus 4x the infrastructure to maintain once the population shifts either outward to the suburbs or there is another regional population shift in America. The big problem with Detroit wouldn't be so big if the problem weren't spread out over 130 square miles. Take away even HALF the fraction Detroit lost and you've got 160+ square miles of uninhabited land, larger than the entire AREA of Detroit (habited and uninhabited) without a taxbase to support it.
Spread out cities are not sustainable. A city like Seattle or NYC will respond far better to population shifts because their infrastructure will always be packed full of a strong tax base to support it, simply more or less dense in said areas.
That's one reason why Cleveland and Cincinnati aren't in such horrid shape as cities like Detroit and Flint. Cruise through Cleveland (off the freeways, people) and you'll see a surprisingly dense city.
Cleveland is on a huge renaissance. Check out UrbanOhio.com and their development section for northeastern Ohio. You can see all sorts of awesome stuff popping up in the metro. The Sun Belt will be ****ed, soon. Once the energy boom (like the manufacturing boom) dies down, Houston will be in dire straits. While they have a slightly more diverse economy, it also has 4x the land area and thus 4x the infrastructure to maintain once the population shifts either outward to the suburbs or there is another regional population shift in America. The big problem with Detroit wouldn't be so big if the problem weren't spread out over 130 square miles. Take away even HALF the fraction Detroit lost and you've got 160+ square miles of uninhabited land, larger than the entire AREA of Detroit (habited and uninhabited) without a taxbase to support it.
Spread out cities are not sustainable. A city like Seattle or NYC will respond far better to population shifts because their infrastructure will always be packed full of a strong tax base to support it, simply more or less dense in said areas.
That's one reason why Cleveland and Cincinnati aren't in such horrid shape as cities like Detroit and Flint. Cruise through Cleveland (off the freeways, people) and you'll see a surprisingly dense city.
^^^ I like your aforementioned post concerning Cleveland. It serves as a strong testimony and a solid reinforcement for my ongoing "praise"
of this cities stark transformation and continual renaissance ...
^ But why are Cleveland & Pittsburgh's metro areas still losing population? If most of the people leaving the city were moving to the burbs, then the whole metro wouldn't still be decling.
Meanwhile, over the last decade, St. Louis added 10,000 to the city, and at least 100,000 to the metro area, but still gets labeled as a dying rust belt city.
Pittsburgh is undergoing a peculiar demographic turnover wherein more people are dying within the city than are being born and/or moving in at present.
Hence, the city is molting, literally discarding the remnants of its past. When the process is complete, which looks very close to occurring, the city left behind will be in some respects, a new, shining city on (many) hill(s). And an incredibly educated one at that, vying with Washington D.C. for the largest proportion of young adults aged 25-34 with post-graduate degrees.
...and I told.
I don't have the time or patience to go into the details (for the eleventieth time), but look at it this way: Pittsburgh has an elderly population befitting a ~3,000,000 metro, a working-age population befitting a ~2,000,000 metro, and a birth rate befitting a ~1,500,000 metro. You figure out the components of the decline.
By the way, in terms of domestic migration, 1,144 more people moved into the Pittsburgh metropolitan area than out between 2008 and 2009, yet the population still dropped by 741 people in that same period of time, so the whole "leaving in droves" mantra not only doesn't explain the phenomenon, but it's not even true anymore.
yea. Its already rebounding. many of the cities are losing less and even gaining population for some cities. I know cities like Cleveland, st.louis, pittsburgh and grand rapids are recovering.
the only thing that would force a rebound as defined by a strongly positive in-migration would be a terrible water crisis that would also cripple the country. nobody wants that.
i think we are worried too much about people leaving the midwest and not focused enough on making the most of what we have. the real enemy isn't atlanta, it is the sprawl that continues to destroy our cities. we need state and federal level land use policies that bring massive investment back to the center cities.
if all the investment that was poured into the suburbs over the last 40 years came pouring back into the cities, the whole country would look new in a couple of decades. well, many of the suburbs would look awful but that happens anyways (go visit a suburb whose hayday was the 50s and 60s, many sport abandoned strip malls everywhere and look like hell).
the only thing that would force a rebound as defined by a strongly positive in-migration would be a terrible water crisis that would also cripple the country. nobody wants that.
i think we are worried too much about people leaving the midwest and not focused enough on making the most of what we have. the real enemy isn't atlanta, it is the sprawl that continues to destroy our cities. we need state and federal level land use policies that bring massive investment back to the center cities.
if all the investment that was poured into the suburbs over the last 40 years came pouring back into the cities, the whole country would look new in a couple of decades. well, many of the suburbs would look awful but that happens anyways (go visit a suburb whose hayday was the 50s and 60s, many sport abandoned strip malls everywhere and look like hell).
Why don't the cities lower taxes to encourage businesses to come to the city? It's a better investment than throwing money at a streetcar to nowhere.
Why don't the cities lower taxes to encourage businesses to come to the city? It's a better investment than throwing money at a streetcar to nowhere.
Because taxes aren't the be-all-end-all for quality of life. Sure, any way that governments can get more out of their tax money is a good thing, but if it was as simple as "high rates = bad" and "low rates = good," then why does Massachusetts have a higher quality of life than Mississippi?
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.
