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.
I guess one advantage we had was our financial industry, which a lot of rust belt cities didn't have. The bankers had to stay close to the city even in the darkest days, whereas some of the manufacturing cities had nothing to lay back on once the manufacturing jobs left
Another advantage we had were immigrants, who arrived in droves to some of the ****tiest areas we had and started fixing them up and starting their own businesses and communities. I can only imagine how horrible Queens would have turned out without all the Latin American and Asian and East European immigration that happened in the 80s and 90s. If I was the mayor of Cleveland or St Louis I would be on my knees begging immigrants to come to my city and buy up property and start their own businesses
Interesting. During the 70s and 80s, many people fled the major cities. People went from London to the likes of Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire (the London equivalents of Long Island, Northern New Jersey and Westchester County) - though there were still loads of rich people in places like Chelsea and Kensington.
Interesting. During the 70s and 80s, many people fled the major cities. People went from London to the likes of Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire (the London equivalents of Long Island, Northern New Jersey and Westchester County) - though there were still loads of rich people in places like Chelsea and Kensington.
Oh that's interesting. Was it just a London phenomenon or was there a countrywide escape to the suburbs?
Oh that's interesting. Was it just a London phenomenon or was there a countrywide escape to the suburbs?
It was nationwide. Cities like Liverpool and Glasgow saw their populations decline significantly. They have not reached their pre-war peak, although London is close to do doing so. London's population began growing again in the 1990s but for other cities it took a little longer, with every British city seeing population growth from 2001 to 2011 (ranging from 5% to 20%).
Leeds is lucky because it had other sectors like finance to fall back on, whereas many others were almost entirely based on manufacturing.
Northern England would be the 'rust belt' since the cities here were heavily reliant on manufacturing and that is long gone. Bradford, Stoke, Middlesbrough etc are some of the poorest in the country. Leeds and Manchester wouldn't fall into that classification anymore because they have successfully regenerated. Liverpool is so-so. It's mostly the smaller cities and towns that have struggled - they lose people to the bigger cities, immigrants with skills go to the bigger cities etc.
It's relative though, because none of them are anywhere near as bad as East St Louis, Detroit or Camden.
It cleaned up A LOT. It had a homicide rate of about 6.5/100k last year, which is high by New York standards, but it's fantastic by nationwide standards. It's about the same rate as the city of Boston, less than half of Chicago's rate, and like 1/9 of St. Lou's rate. Even the worst part of New York City is like Disneyland compared to St. Louis or Detroit lol
Well, the way the presidential race is shaping up, it looks like I'll be hoping Hillary wins. Or at least that's how I feel at the present time. Supported McCain in 08, Romney in 2012, lol. Well, I think Chump's admiration of putin/huylo is a deal-breaker for me, as well as his pro-moskal foreign policy advisors. His isolationism comes at a very inopportune time: i.e., as russian expansionism and chauvinism dominate. Plus, I think he would be truly clueless when it comes to handling presidential duties. A loose cannon if there ever were one and a genuine idiot. He could **** things up in many ways. Sure, he speaks the truth when it comes to Muslims & illegals, but what would he realistically be able to accomplish? Even in terms of trade, he is mostly powerless.
Hillary may be the least-bad option. Totally a stooge to the forces the control her--but a bit more predictable.
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.
