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.
Are we pretending that the immigrants in northern cities were wealthy and educated?
From what I gather, what's peculiar to the Midwestern cities, is the influx of migrants from Appalachia and the South, in the early 20th century. These formed the much-vaunted blue-collar labor force and consequent Midwestern urban growth. The ensuing culture never really embraced formal education, and was therefore unprepared for the economy's shift into high-tech, professional services and the like. Thus the Rust Belt cities suffered disproportionately, relative to their counterparts on the Coasts; they also recovered less, in what's becoming an urban renewal in the past ~20 years.
The key point is to recognize that a city and its suburbs/exurbs rise or fall together. If the "urban core" loses cachet and appeal, hemorrhaging residents and businesses to the suburbs, that alone isn't just a problem, as concerns the health of the overall region. The problem is when people move hundreds of miles away, from example from the Midwest to the Rockies or the South. Most (all?) cities nationwide saw a 20th century migration from the urban core to the outer-lying areas. But the travails specific to Midwestern cities is that their entire regions (city, suburbs, exurbs, rural expanses) suffered. And I don't see how this trend can reverse itself, even as Coastal and Southern cities renew, grow and prosper.
Busing in the 1960s - not the 1950s - was the "hinge" that got the cities to empty out (of white middle class people). This, on top of greater prosperity, the Interstate Highway System, and all the other factors mentioned above, was the immediate cause of the depopulation.
Busing in the 1960s - not the 1950s - was the "hinge" that got the cities to empty out (of white middle class people). This, on top of greater prosperity, the Interstate Highway System, and all the other factors mentioned above, was the immediate cause of the depopulation.
Denver's population has increased by about 66% since 1950. Denver has not annexed any land since 1976, except for the land on which the airport is built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver
The key point is to recognize that a city and its suburbs/exurbs rise or fall together.
They do not. During the 1980s, when Washington D.C. was a basket case, the Maryland and Virginia suburbs thrived. When NYC was a war zone, NJ businesses prospered; with NYC thriving, many NJ suburbs have actually suffered loss of businesses. The suburbs of Baltimore are doing quite well; Baltimore city is not -- this pattern is seen more strongly in Detroit.
They do not. During the 1980s, when Washington D.C. was a basket case, the Maryland and Virginia suburbs thrived. When NYC was a war zone, NJ businesses prospered; with NYC thriving, many NJ suburbs have actually suffered loss of businesses. The suburbs of Baltimore are doing quite well; Baltimore city is not -- this pattern is seen more strongly in Detroit.
I agree that in 2016 they don't. Many suburbs and exurbs have decoupled from their urban centers, often times because business centers and large employment areas have done the same.
I believe the previous poster was referring to the earlier part of the 20th century, or least that was my take on it.
Let's take Detroit. In 1950 it was 83.6% white population, and by 2010 it was only 10.6% white. In went from a great city in 1950 very vibrant city, but by 2010 when 61% of the population was gone with only 39% of the city still occupied, and 90,000 vacant lots. In 1984 alone people burned down 800 houses. In 1950 Detroit had the highest home ownership by well paid black people, and then disintegrated.
I was living in Detroit Northern Suburbs in 1961, when block busting was a big thing. There were groups sending in a white person to buy a home in black peoples names. Then very low class people would move into the house, and they scared others on the block to sell cheap and move out. Detroit became he highest crime big city overnight, and murder capital of the nation. And people fled in large numbers.
The huge riots of 1967 there were huge race riots the worst in the country ever, which was a big reason for the whites fleeing. They did not feel safe any longer in the city. Businesses were burned, and never came back.
This is what happened to just one of those large cities, that just died.
For everyone that dies, there is a simple explanation of why they die.
Denver's population has increased by about 66% since 1950. Denver has not annexed any land since 1976, except for the land on which the airport is built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver
Western cities, and cities with a lot of land area such as Jacksonville, have grown since 1950 but most of the densely populated Eastern and Midwestern cities have shrunk.
They do not. During the 1980s, when Washington D.C. was a basket case, the Maryland and Virginia suburbs thrived. When NYC was a war zone, NJ businesses prospered; with NYC thriving, many NJ suburbs have actually suffered loss of businesses. The suburbs of Baltimore are doing quite well; Baltimore city is not -- this pattern is seen more strongly in Detroit.
I lived in the DC suburbs during much of the 1980s, and witnessed first-hand the disparity between prosperity in suburbs (Fairfax and Montgomery counties) and poverty in DC. What's today block after block of trendy shops, 30 years ago was impenetrable gangland. So it's true, that a city and its suburbs can decouple – for a while. But it's also true that if there is powerful underlying economic force, then the overall region will prosper, even if there are pockets of blight. DC would never have recovered, and its surrounding suburbs would never have prospered, were there not to have been a combination of government/defense contracting, and high-tech. Similarly, even though some of Detroit's suburbs are doing well, while Detroit-city is in miserable circumstances, I would expect that in 20-30 years for the entire region to be struggling, with no pockets of prosperity anywhere (except possibly Ann Arbor). The reason is collapse of the underlying economic case.
My present locale, Ohio's "Miami Valley", is doing tolerably OK, by Midwestern standards. The anchoring city, Dayton, is struggling. Much argument is bandied about in the region, regarding city vs. suburbs, local taxes and schools, regionalism and so forth. There is lots of animosity and mistrust between the city and the suburbs, and amongst the various suburban towns, as they vie for the more affluent residents and relocation of the more prosperous businesses. But the overarching problem is a poor economic case for the entire region. The suburbs might continue to do OK, while the city struggles… for a while.
So I still contend that over the long-term, an entire region rises or falls collectively.
Western cities, and cities with a lot of land area such as Jacksonville, have grown since 1950 but most of the densely populated Eastern and Midwestern cities have shrunk.
Yes, those avaricious western cities!
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.
