The Midwest and Northeast brings new cachet to living and working in the Rust Belt

[M II A II R II K]

The Rust Belt Has Arrived


February 2011

By Tod Newcombe

http://media.governing.com/designimages/gov_top_logo2.gif

Read More: http://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/Rust-Belt-Arrived.html

Rustwire Magazine: http://rustwire.com/

Step aside Boston, New York City, San Francisco and Seattle. Sorry, but you’re just not cool anymore. These days, you need to have crumbling roads, triple-decker apartment buildings, old-fashioned neighborhood bars and lots of rust to gain any hipster cred. When Anthony Bourdain, host of the trendy travel and food show No Reservations, passes up Tuscany, Provence and Barcelona to visit Baltimore, Buffalo and Detroit, you know the Rust Belt has arrived. The "rust is chic" movement has been around for a while, but thanks to blogs and online magazines, such as RustWire.com, a certain fascination with places that have fallen on hard times like the Rust Belt -- which stretches from the Midwest through the mid-Atlantic and up into the Northeast -- has taken hold.

Part of it is the scruffy, industrial look. It may also be a rejection of cities with gleaming condo towers, bistros and boutiques that were once so trendy yet now seem so frothy and fake in the wake of the economic meltdown. But the other fascination is the defiance these Rust Belt cities have shown. Many of them, such as the gritty cities Bourdain visits, reflect a rebellious attitude. Youngstown, Ohio, has to be the poster child of this stance. Once part of America’s steel manufacturing hub, Youngstown went into a death spiral as the industry collapsed in the mid-1970s. Today, Youngstown’s population is 75,000, less than half of its original size, and is 43 percent vacant.

Yet nearly 10 years ago, the city made the bold decision to embrace its new shrunken state rather than put time and money into trying to grow back. Public officials created a master plan, called Youngstown 2010, that envisioned a smaller, but thriving city with a more diversified economy. Indeed by 2010, certain elements of what Youngstown could become were falling into place. The downtown area has come back to life, and more importantly, economic development has begun to take hold, delivering an interesting range of jobs to the area. The Youngstown Business Incubator (YBI) has played a key role, providing free or reduced rent and equipment to startup software companies. Ohio provides a large chunk of the YBI’s funding, and the payoff so far is about 300 technology jobs.

.....

[strongbad635]

How nice of this guy to lump Baltimore in with cities that are nowhere near it, and suffered industrial declines far worse than it did. Baltimore is as much as part of the Rust Belt as Nashville is.

[hudkina]

Oh... I wasn't aware that Baltimore's population didn't decline 35% from 949,708 in 1950 to 620,961 in 2010. I wasn't aware that Baltimore didn't have a murder rate in the 40 per 100,000 range. I wasn't aware that Baltimore didn't lose tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the last 50 years. I wasn't aware that Baltimore didn't have vast tracts of vacant and dilapidated housing. Baltimore may benefit from being in the capital region, but it has suffered much of the same hardships as the rust belt. In fact, New York, Philadelphia, Boston and dozens of smaller northeastern coastal cities were originally lumped into the rust belt in the 70's and 80's. While cities like New York and Boston have shed that image, it is still very much alive with Baltimore.

[PhillyRising]

Oh... I wasn't aware that Baltimore's population didn't decline 35% from 949,708 in 1950 to 620,961 in 2010. I wasn't aware that Baltimore didn't have a murder rate in the 40 per 100,000 range. I wasn't aware that Baltimore didn't lose tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the last 50 years. I wasn't aware that Baltimore didn't have vast tracts of vacant and dilapidated housing. Baltimore may benefit from being in the capital region, but it has suffered much of the same hardships as the rust belt. In fact, New York, Philadelphia, Boston and dozens of smaller northeastern coastal cities were originally lumped into the rust belt in the 70's and 80's. While cities like New York and Boston have shed that image, it is still very much alive with Baltimore.

Baltimore did have all of that but it still doesn't have quite the bombed out look other Rust Belt Cities have......

[JivecitySTL]

All I know is St. Louis is back in a BIG way. RUSTBELT LIVES!!

[hudkina]

Baltimore did have all of that but it still doesn't have quite the bombed out look other Rust Belt Cities have......

Neither do the other rust belt cities...

[Expat]

There is a lot of rust belt in my soul. As much as I enjoy sparkling towers with retail & dining to match, it doesn't satisfy. The creativity used in carving a gracious life among the ruins gets my imagination going.

Even in non rust-belt cities, I seek out striver's row and beauty rising from shunned, forgotten places.

[ardecila]

In fact, New York, Philadelphia, Boston and dozens of smaller northeastern coastal cities were originally lumped into the rust belt in the 70's and 80's. While cities like New York and Boston have shed that image, it is still very much alive with Baltimore.

Okay, but that doesn't make Baltimore part of the Rust Belt, which is, in current parlance, equated with the Great Lakes and a few Midwestern outliers like Cincinnati and St. Louis. The Rust Belt is geographical, not qualitative.

Baltimore has problems with crime, and population loss has occurred. But you can say the exact same thing about New York, Boston, Newark, or DC. The fact that Philly and Baltimore don't have the robust economies of some of their seaboard peers don't make them Rust Belt.

[LtBk]

Baltimore was the only major city in the Northeast to lose population in 2010 census.

[hudkina]

Okay, but that doesn't make Baltimore part of the Rust Belt, which is, in current parlance, equated with the Great Lakes and a few Midwestern outliers like Cincinnati and St. Louis. The Rust Belt is geographical, not qualitative.

Historically the "Rust Belt" ran along the northeastern stretch of the nation from Boston to Kansas City and from Louisville to Milwaukee. While many cities in the traditional Rust Belt have since shed that image, there are plenty that still hold to that title. Baltimore may be further along than some of the other cities in shedding that image, thanks largely to Washington, but it is still a member of the Rust Belt, and has all the hallmarks of a Rust Belt city.

Baltimore has problems with crime, and population loss has occurred. But you can say the exact same thing about New York, Boston, Newark, or DC. The fact that Philly and Baltimore don't have the robust economies of some of their seaboard peers don't make them Rust Belt.

New York doesn't have a crime problem and it has been gaining population for decades. The same is true of Boston. Washington and Philadelphia have both turned the corner and are gaining population and seeing reductions in crime. Baltimore on the other hand is still near the top of the nation in crime and continues to lose population in the central city. The fact that Baltimore happens to be tucked in with the Northeast titans doesn't make it not Rust Belt.

[JivecitySTL]

Rustbelt to me means cities with a predominantly industry-based economy. Detroit owns this title, followed closely by Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, etc. Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and to a lesser extent, Cincinnati, share a number of Rustbelt qualities. It's a mega region of mega-cool cities. Saint Louis, of course, being the coolest. :)

[Strange Meat]

I hear the weather and outdoor activities are fantastic there, as well as the scenery!

[Expat]

I hear the weather and outdoor activities are fantastic there, as well as the scenery!

You heard correctly!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

The Rust Belt is geographical, not qualitative.

Eh, they're inextricably linked, no? Geography, in part, determined which cities would come to rely on manufacturing for economic growth, and the extent to which cities relied on manufacturing for economic growth determined which would suffer most heavily during deindustrialization (and thus come to be labeled "Rust Belt"). I'm not sure how diversified the local economies of Boston and New York were when manufacturing jobs started to disappear, but I do know a slew of cities between them (Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Providence) were as dependent on those jobs for economic growth as their more insular counterparts (Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Youngstown, etc.)-- and faced the same kinds of setbacks when they dried up. How could these places be classified as anything other than Rust Belt?

[ardecila]

Well, it's a core debate in geography (environmental determinism).

My view may be skewed, because I have the most experience with two cities that are huge anomalies relative to their regions; Chicago is indisputably head and shoulders over the rest of the Midwest/Great Lakes, and New Orleans has been left out of the Sun Belt's massive growth despite a 150-year head start.

In Chicago's case, the strong business climate and extensive physical infrastructure helped its economy grow even despite the broader Rust Belt trend of declining manufacturing and often inconsistent/corrupt/incompetent governance. In New Orleans' case, the physical location has proved to be an utterly awful base to build a diversified economy, since bulk shipping doesn't employ a vast number of people/doesn't pay them good wages, the below-sea-level location requires constant investment in levees and drainage systems, and poor soil quality makes it expensive to build here. The social factors aren't great, either, but at least they're now improving, unlike the geographic factors which are predetermined.

I see a city like Baltimore as another anomaly in its region, but that doesn't make it Rust Belt, because it's east of the Appalachians. There are undoubtedly some very depressed parts of the Northeast - I've been to places like New Bedford and Trenton.

[PhillyRising]

Neither do the other rust belt cities...

Baltimore doesn't have the level of blight that is seen in Detroit. Baltimore is a major port and still has a decent level of industrialization. It still draws plenty of visitors into the Inner Harbor Area on any given day during the warmer months. The Harbor East area is virtually all brand new and was builton what used to be a crappy area.

So I would say Baltimore is further along in rebounding than many of it's Rust Belt brethern to the west.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I see a city like Baltimore as another anomaly in its region, but that doesn't make it Rust Belt, because it's east of the Appalachians. There are undoubtedly some very depressed parts of the Northeast - I've been to places like New Bedford and Trenton.

How is it an anomaly in the region if cities in northern New Jersey and lower New England have fared just as badly? If their problems and the magnitude and origin of those problems are the same as the cities of the Great Lakes, why would they be classified differently, especially if they were part of the same industrial corridor to begin with?

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe because they're close to NYC, which is also close to the Rust Belt. It's also been suggested that Newark, NJ was as depressed as Detroit in some regard but was able to fare better in making a comeback because of it's location.

[hudkina]

If we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's, then New York would be right alongside Detroit. People often forget just how shitty New York was in the 70's and 80's. And the same goes for just about every major city (and plenty of minor cities) in the Northeast. The Rust Belt moniker was never exclusively applied to the Great Lakes cities. The difference is that many of the Northeastern cities were able to shed that image through the 90's and 00's. Baltimore is still lumped in with the rest of the Rust Belt because it still has ALL of the problems of those cities.

[novawolverine]

Baltimore is not a rust belt city. If Baltimore is rust-belt than so is DC east of the Anacostia River. Maybe Norfolk and Richmond are as well. They have bombed out areas and saw massive decline. Baltimore's issues have more to do with crack, crime, poor management and services, issues that plague predominantly Black cities than with manufacturing jobs going away. Most importantly, people in Baltimore don't see their city as being a part of the rust-belt. It's not b/c of denial, it's b/c it just isn't and outsiders love to apply labels. And Baltimore losing people doesn't mean much, until a few years ago, DC was losing people as well. Baltimore's not hemorrhaging people and has followed a path, in part due to its geography to DC, that separates it from true rust belt cities. You can't just relegate all the military and gov't jobs in close proximity to Baltimore to a mere mention. Driving through Baltimore on I-95 is not enough, neither is watching The Wire. It has been a relatively white-collar city for some time now.

[iheartthed]

I see a city like Baltimore as another anomaly in its region, but that doesn't make it Rust Belt, because it's east of the Appalachians. There are undoubtedly some very depressed parts of the Northeast - I've been to places like New Bedford and Trenton.

I don't think Baltimore is an anomaly at all, even if you want to selectively define its home region as just cities east of the Appalachians. Granted, I'm not an expert on the city, but the few times I've stopped in it did have a similar feel to other Rust Belt cities. However, I am familiar with places like Newark and Camden, which are every bit the post-industrial era Rust Belt city as Buffalo or Cleveland. But everything is relative so degrees and perceptions may alter personal opinion...

[novawolverine]

Rustbelt to me means cities with a predominantly industry-based economy. Detroit owns this title, followed closely by Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, etc. Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and to a lesser extent, Cincinnati, share a number of Rustbelt qualities. It's a mega region of mega-cool cities. Saint Louis, of course, being the coolest. :)

How about DC, Richmond, Norfolk, Memphis and more? Half of the cities in the country, essentially, that lost population within the central city and had manufacturing jobs decline.

Rust-belt qualities are not just found in the central cities of a given metro, either. They spread at some degree or another to most, if not all, of their immediate metro area.

[Expat]

Before moving to Boston a year ago, I only knew the famous neighborhoods like Back Bay & North End. Or where relatives live, like Newton & Brookline. It has been an eye opener for me to find so many rust-belt looking neighborhoods on the fringe, in nearby suburbs, & satellite cities. Must say that it makes me like Boston much better than I thought I would.

[hudkina]

Just about every major city that had upwards of 50,000 by 1900 is essentially in the Rust Belt. 78 cities in the U.S. had a population of at least 50,000 by that time. Seven were in the West (Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles) while seven were in the South (San Antonio, New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Savannah, and Charleston). That means 64 of those cities were in the North (I'm counting cities like Louisville, Washington, Baltimore, and Richmond as being in the North despite traditionally being in southern states.

The traditional heart of the Rust Belt essentially stretched from the Northeast along the Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley west to as far as the Missouri River It arguablly stretched north and south along the Mississippi as well:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5443055062_b528e4668a_b.jpg

Though the broadest definition of Rust Belt is essentially everything "north" of the Sun Belt:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5443070928_1bca0d940e_b.jpg

[iheartthed]

Just about every major city that had upwards of 50,000 by 1900 is essentially in the Rust Belt. 78 cities in the U.S. had a population of at least 50,000 by that time. Seven were in the West (Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles) while seven were in the South (San Antonio, New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Savannah, and Charleston). That means 64 of those cities were in the North (I'm counting cities like Louisville, Washington, Baltimore, and Richmond as being in the North despite traditionally being in southern states.

The traditional heart of the Rust Belt essentially stretched from the Northeast along the Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley west to as far as the Missouri River It arguablly stretched north and south along the Mississippi as well:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5443055062_b528e4668a_b.jpg

Though the broadest definition of Rust Belt is essentially everything "north" of the Sun Belt:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5443070928_1bca0d940e_b.jpg

Definition of the Rust Belt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundry_(United_States_region)

[min-chi-cbus]

I'd argue that Duluth is "rust belt", Omaha and KC probably aren't. Madison is not. Columbus is not. It's not defined 100% by state borders.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Baltimore's issues have more to do with crack, crime, poor management and services, issues that plague predominantly Black cities than with manufacturing jobs going away.

Crime and racial polarization don't emerge in a vacuum; they're symptomatic of larger, structural changes. The question is: If not loss of manufacturing, what is the change that sent Baltimore into such steep decline beginning in the 1950s? I guess another explanation could be that workers moved to the suburbs while continuing to work in the city, or that their jobs went with them to the suburbs (but still remained in the metro area). I imagine one would have to examine a bunch of different metrics (e.g., unemployment rate of the metro, composition of the metro economy over the last 60 years) to get to the root of it. But this

Most importantly, people in Baltimore don't see their city as being a part of the rust-belt.

isn't really a valid way of determining it. A generation of Chicagoans don't see their city as part of the Rust Belt owing to its strong economic performance over the past couple of decades. That doesn't mean it's not (historically, at least) a Rust Belt city.

[Clevelumbus]

Here's a nice map, showing Baltimore (and Philly, Boston) as 'recovered rust belt'. Also notice the omission of Indy & Columbus, as they are probably much too new with little industry.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Rust_belttFULL.jpg
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rust_belttFULL.jpg

[novawolverine]

Crime and racial polarization don't emerge in a vacuum; they're symptomatic of larger, structural changes. The question is: If not loss of manufacturing, what is the change that sent Baltimore into such steep decline beginning in the 1950s? I guess another explanation could be that workers moved to the suburbs while continuing to work in the city, or that their jobs went with them to the suburbs (but still remained in the metro area). I imagine one would have to examine a bunch of different metrics (e.g., unemployment rate of the metro, composition of the metro economy over the last 60 years) to get to the root of it.

We all know about white flight and the popularity and growth of suburbs. That's probably the biggest factor. Washington and Baltimore had some of the worst riots as a result of MLK's death. DC's issues with crime and racial polarization were almost identical to Baltimore and it wasn't simply b/c of a loss of manufacturing jobs. The riots of '68 changed people's mentality and attitudes about the city and left large areas in disrepair for decades. Then you have public housing, crack and drug epidemics and just a general mismanagement of cities that was common.

But this isn't really a valid way of determining it. A generation of Chicagoans don't see their city as part of the Rust Belt owing to its strong economic performance over the past couple of decades. That doesn't mean it's not (historically, at least) a Rust Belt city.

Most rust Belt residents know, whether they want to admit it or not, that their city is a part of the rust belt region. The rust belt is also a region, not just disparate cities here and there. There is an awareness of the economic hardship and issues that cities in their particular region of the country faced to a far greater extent w/ respect to manufacturing than most. Ann Arbor, MI may not be a rust belt city, but it's still in the rust belt and most people would be able to acknowledge that much.

Similar to what Expat alluded to, rust belt cities usually have rust belt suburbs. That's why Pittsburgh and Detroit are a bit different from Baltimore. People look at the architecture and age and think it's rust belt. Outside of South Baltimore and the ports, there's not much that feels like post industrial rust belt in the Baltimore metro area. If you don't work in that area, you may hardly ever think about it.

[iheartthed]

We all know about white flight and the popularity and growth of suburbs. That's probably the biggest factor. Washington and Baltimore had some of the worst riots as a result of MLK's death. DC's issues with crime and racial polarization were almost identical to Baltimore and it wasn't simply b/c of a loss of manufacturing jobs. The riots of '68 changed people's mentality and attitudes about the city and left large areas in disrepair for decades. Then you have public housing, crack and drug epidemics and just a general mismanagement of cities that was common.



Most rust Belt residents know, whether they want to admit it or not, that their city is a part of the rust belt region. The rust belt is also a region, not just disparate cities here and there. There is an awareness of the economic hardship and issues that cities in their particular region of the country faced to a far greater extent w/ respect to manufacturing than most. Ann Arbor, MI may not be a rust belt city, but it's still in the rust belt and most people would be able to acknowledge that much.

Similar to what Expat alluded to, rust belt cities usually have rust belt suburbs. That's why Pittsburgh and Detroit are a bit different from Baltimore. People look at the architecture and age and think it's rust belt. Outside of South Baltimore and the ports, there's not much that feels like post industrial rust belt in the Baltimore metro area. If you don't work in that area, you may hardly ever think about it.

I think you're reaching. By your definition Detroit didn't become Rust Belt until after 9/11 since the Detroit area had below average unemployment rates from the mid to late 1980s through 2000.

[Expat]

That's why Pittsburgh and Detroit are a bit different from Baltimore. People look at the architecture and age and think it's rust belt. Outside of South Baltimore and the ports, there's not much that feels like post industrial rust belt in the Baltimore metro area. If you don't work in that area, you may hardly ever think about it.

My rust-belt city is St. Louis. Outside of the ports & industrial sections, it doesn't feel post industrial rust belt any more than Baltimore. So, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The big midwestern cities have prosperous, elegant sides as well industrial sides. All that industry created great wealth, culture & beauty. And the typical person that works in the office towers of Downtown, Clayton & universities don't work in factories and never did. They don't think 'rust belt' either. In that sense, it is no different than Boston or Baltimore.

[bnk]

Here's a nice map, showing Baltimore (and Philly, Boston) as 'recovered rust belt'. Also notice the omission of Indy & Columbus, as they are probably much too new with little industry.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Rust_belttFULL.jpg
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rust_belttFULL.jpg

That map is outdated. Madison= Jainsville area too? What year was that published? It says 2010 but the attitude is from the east coast view of the country circa 1980's.

To include areas that are not still rust belt " ing " is insulting.

As far as I am concerned the term rustbelt is akin to the N word in the black language. It is clearly derogatory esp. 20 some odd years past its useful purpose as a word.

I will always from this point on consider the term rust belt as a term that is derogatory and derogatory to the degree of almost being the point of of a hate monger.

A monger that tries to incite those that live in these areas, and tries to incite anger and resentment. The term in my book the word is off board and will not cross my lips in anger or lust.

[novawolverine]

I think you're reaching. By your definition Detroit didn't become Rust Belt until after 9/11 since the Detroit area had below average unemployment rates from the mid to late 1980s through 2000.

I didn't say anything about unemployment or a strict definition. Do you want to ignore the auto industry's decline that was occurring in that period? Fine, Baltimore and DC had crime, poverty, corruption, racial polarization b/c of industry eroding.

My rust-belt city is St. Louis. Outside of the ports & industrial sections, it doesn't feel post industrial rust belt any more than Baltimore. So, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The big midwestern cities have prosperous, elegant sides as well industrial sides. All that industry created great wealth, culture & beauty. And the typical person that works in the office towers of Downtown, Clayton & universities don't work in factories and never did. They don't think 'rust belt' either. In that sense, it is no different than Boston or Baltimore.

What about East St. Louis? If you want to consider Baltimore rust-belt, go ahead. Hardly anyone in Baltimore considers it a part of the rust belt. And from that graphic above, it's a small dot that's "recovered", which basically means it isn't a part of the rust belt as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't acknowledge the rust belt as a connected region, than the term itself is watered down. I don't see how Richmond, Memphis, Birmingham and a number of other places aren't rust-belt by the definition I've read by some.

[Expat]

Novawolverine, East St. Louis lies in a river bottom and is surrounded by heavy industry. It is one of the riverport/industrial sections I was speaking of. I am just saying that typical person in St. Louis that is not connected to that area, which is most, doesn't give it much thought. In fact, I would say the typical St. Louisian has never set foot in East St. Louis and have only seen it from an elevated freeway. In the same way you described Baltimore.

I am not trying convince anyone that Baltimore is or is not a rust belt city. I really don't care. Makes no difference to me. However, I had to point out that the ordinary St. Louisian probably views their city in very much the same way an ordinary Baltimorean does. Or any city.

[Clevelumbus]

That map is outdated. Madison= Jainsville area too? What year was that published? It says 2010 but the attitude is from the east coast view of the country circa 1980's.

I think the idea is the Madison never was a 'rust belt' city, it's primary industry was not steel/automotive/coal/ect. It is a government and educational center and that's what Madison owes it's existence to.

I don't understand what qualifies a place as 'recovered rust belt' and still 'rust belt', that is very subjective. But the map does a good job of pointing out rust belt industrial centers - past or present - regardless of what the local economies are today.

[Chef]

Keep in mind that that map was made by some dude who posts at city-data. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong but it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is more of a back-of-the-envelope musing rather than the product of scholarly research.

[hudkina]

The Rust Belt moniker arose in the 70's when the industrial darlings that had ruled the U.S. for the preceding century started to become overshadowed by the "new economy" cities of the rising Sun Belt. Anyone who thinks that a city like Baltimore or even Boston or Philadelphia was built on anything other than industry is kidding themselves. Even New York was known more for textiles than finances well into the 20th century. While many cities in the Rust Belt have since transitioned to the "new economy", there are still some like Baltimore that are still in transition.

BTW, do people realize that industry included more than just steel mills and auto plants? Wht do you think those multi-million dollar "lofts" in the Northeastern cities were used for before they became multi-million dollar lofts?

[llamaorama]

I guess the real question here, is any post industrial part of the "rust belt" or is the "rust belt" a specific geographic area(the midwest along the great lakes) I always considered it to be the latter, where rust belt almost becomes a derogatory term for the urban midwest. Baltimore is an eastern/northern city, and so is Philly. Boston is in New England. These are post industrial places, yes, but they are not in the same region as Cleveland. Birmingham, Alabama-is it in the rust belt? how about Pueblo, Colorado?

Actually, I always felt that rust belt as the principal identity of a locale really applied best to smaller cities that for a short period of time experienced a great deal of prosperity and growth from manufacturing, but were always back office kind of places and will never, ever, regain their past size or importance. Buffalo, Youngstown, Toledo, etc. Same for the sun belt. Phoenix may be in the sun belt, but its still a major city and one day it could transcend this. But somewhere like Fort Myers, Florida is pure, 100 percent sun belt.

[hudkina]

Phoenix is pure 100 percent sun belt. It just happens to have more subdivisions than Fort Meyers...;)

[ColDayMan]

I don't know how that map has Indianapolis not being "rustbelt" yet Columbus somehow is. Indianapolis is more "industrial" than Columbus, particularly on its southside.

[Thundertubs]

That map is outdated. Madison= Jainsville area too? What year was that published? It says 2010 but the attitude is from the east coast view of the country circa 1980's.

Madison is not included on the map because it is not a rust belt town. It's only major blue collar "industry" is meat packing, which is outside the realm of traditional rust belt manufacturing. Janesville is included because it is a big GM town.

[pip]

If we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's, then New York would be right alongside Detroit. People often forget just how shitty New York was in the 70's and 80's. And the same goes for just about every major city (and plenty of minor cities) in the Northeast. The Rust Belt moniker was never exclusively applied to the Great Lakes cities. The difference is that many of the Northeastern cities were able to shed that image through the 90's and 00's. Baltimore is still lumped in with the rest of the Rust Belt because it still has ALL of the problems of those cities.

Totally disagree. While NYC did have major problems in the 70's and 80's it still had millions, a huge percentage of the city, of people living in vibrant stable neighborhoods, a huge business downtown, wealthy living in the core and viable public transit. Can the same be said for Detroit of today? Btw. Midtown is 8000 people in over 1 square mile. Just saying.. before that gets brought up as an example of the success.

[Chef]

I guess the real question here, is any post industrial part of the "rust belt" or is the "rust belt" a specific geographic area(the midwest along the great lakes) I always considered it to be the latter, where rust belt almost becomes a derogatory term for the urban midwest. Baltimore is an eastern/northern city, and so is Philly. Boston is in New England. These are post industrial places, yes, but they are not in the same region as Cleveland. Birmingham, Alabama-is it in the rust belt? how about Pueblo, Colorado?

When I was growing up in Utica, New York in the '80s I knew I was in the rust belt. There was no doubting it, it was part of the core identity of the city. My personal mental geography of the northeast back then had it divided into two regions - the east coast and the interior northeast. The interior northeast to me was nearly all rustbelt except for Vermont while the coast was mixed.

I am not sure how much the notion of the interior northeast resonates resonates with people in the rest of the country but it was real to me. It is that thing that makes people in NYC or LA think that Buffalo or Pittsburgh are Midwestern when infact they are nothing like the Midwest, they just aren't like Manhattan either.

[DBR96A]

When I was growing up in Utica, New York in the '80s I knew I was in the rust belt. There was no doubting it, it was part of the core identity of the city. My personal mental geography of the northeast back then had it divided into two regions - the east coast and the interior northeast. The interior northeast to me was nearly all rustbelt except for Vermont while the coast was mixed.

I am not sure how much the notion of the interior northeast resonates resonates with people in the rest of the country but it was real to me. It is that thing that makes people in NYC or LA think that Buffalo or Pittsburgh are Midwestern when infact they are nothing like the Midwest, they just aren't like Manhattan either.

I believe in the "interior Northeast" concept too. When I was growing up, I was always taught that Pittsburgh was a Northeastern city in a Northeastern state. And it's not just a geographic definition to me either. For as much as everybody compares Pittsburgh with Cleveland, the vibe I got in each city was different. Pittsburgh and Columbus were different as well. As for Cincinnati, it might look like Pittsburgh, but from my experience, Baltimore felt more like Pittsburgh.

And if we're not going to use state lines to delineate different regions of the country, then let's make sure we put the lines where they're supposed to be. The line of demarcation between the Northeast and the Midwest would not be Allegheny Mountain. If anything, try drawing a line from Youngstown, OH to Zanesville, OH. Everything west of that line flattens out and has more agriculture, and everything east of that line becomes hillier and more forested. When I was younger and my family would take trips out to Missouri to visit extended family, I always felt sad when we got back to Zanesville because the terrain and the natural environment began to remind me of home. That's when I knew the trip was almost over.

[Strange Meat]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5443070928_1bca0d940e_b.jpg

Is it sun belt or warm weather belt? Cause Denver, for example, gets more sunshine than cities in Florida and Southern California, so, kinda curious on the criteria for that.

[Steely Dan]

^ "sun-belt" may be a bit of a misnomer. when people in chicago talk about moving to the "sun-belt" when they retire, what they really mean is "i want to move to a place where it doesn't snow" because many chicagoans apparently believe that snow causes cancer or something. it should really be called the "no snow belt".

[iheartthed]

The Rust Belt moniker arose in the 70's when the industrial darlings that had ruled the U.S. for the preceding century started to become overshadowed by the "new economy" cities of the rising Sun Belt. Anyone who thinks that a city like Baltimore or even Boston or Philadelphia was built on anything other than industry is kidding themselves. Even New York was known more for textiles than finances well into the 20th century. While many cities in the Rust Belt have since transitioned to the "new economy", there are still some like Baltimore that are still in transition.

BTW, do people realize that industry included more than just steel mills and auto plants? Wht do you think those multi-million dollar "lofts" in the Northeastern cities were used for before they became multi-million dollar lofts?

Yeah, this 100%. It's taken to be a pejorative around these parts, but "Rust Belt" is really just a reference to what used to be the United States Manufacturing Belt. And frankly, nobody refers to themselves as the Rust Belt, but facts are facts: http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/geogres/maps/nagif/namanuf.gif

http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/geogres/maps/nagif/namanuf.gif

Sure, some areas are doing better economically than others but some areas are ALWAYS doing better than others economically. That's fluid.

[novawolverine]

It's meant to be pejorative term b/c it refers to the places that fell furthest and have had the most difficult time recovering, which happen to be in a certain area of the country, generally speaking. People who reference Rust Belt, like politicians, are usually not talking about New York City. Rust belt and manufacturing belt have different connotations and that's not unintentional.

[DBR96A]

^ "sun-belt" may be a bit of a misnomer. when people in chicago talk about moving to the "sun-belt" when they retire, what they really mean is "i want to move to a place where it doesn't snow" because many chicagoans apparently believe that snow causes cancer or something. it should really be called the "no snow belt".

Never mind that nobody's ever had to live in a FEMA trailer after a blizzard.

[Dr Nevergold]

The term rust belt is a pejorative no matter how you take it. They didn't call it the manufacturing belt, or the industrial belt, or other viable terms... The marketeers of the post WWII era named it the rust belt for a reason.

I just started another discussion about the weather in another thread, which I think is another topic worth exploring.

Anthony Bourdain may be visiting Youngstown and Buffalo, but he still lives in New York. This region also isn't a singular unit, because I don't think any city is as burned out as Detroit. I was in Detroit back in November and every time I visit the place, I feel as if there is no equal in the US as to how bad a large city can get in terms of economic collapse and opportunity for such an important region and city. Personally I don't even think it is fair to lump Detroit and Buffalo into the same group, so within the so-called 'rustbelt' there are variations. Pittsburgh is a bizarre example, because all of the really burned out communities hug the river valleys and are usually outside the city proper. The city of Pittsburgh largely looks as vibrant as it ever has been, with bustling city life in South Side, Oakland, downtown, Mt Washington, and all these neighborhoods that are in tact and nice. But go downstream to Braddock and continue onto McKeesport and you can feel like you're in a mini-Detroit in those small towns.


As far as weather, I'll refrain from that discussion since there are other topics here for that, but this region isn't all the same. There is a hierarchy in the 'rust belt'. Detroit is clearly at the top of it, and you have cities like Buffalo or Milwaukee that have relatively little poverty compared to that.

[Dr Nevergold]

Never mind that nobody's ever had to live in a FEMA trailer after a blizzard.

Here's a weather discussion I recently opened:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=188790

I agree 100%. Despite how harsh the winters can be up here (and yes, it does snow a lot and the temps can get cold) the winters are WAY overrated, and the nice weather in the south is WAY overrated as the temperatures are equally as uncomfortable in July as it is in January up here.

[min-chi-cbus]

I still don't know where Duluth, MN is on these maps. Duluth, MN is where just about ALL of the taconite that creates steel is processed and shipped from. It's 100% industrial and would not exist if it were not for taconite (a key element in producing steel).

[iheartthed]

The term rust belt is a pejorative no matter how you take it. They didn't call it the manufacturing belt, or the industrial belt, or other viable terms... The marketeers of the post WWII era named it the rust belt for a reason.

I just started another discussion about the weather in another thread, which I think is another topic worth exploring.

Anthony Bourdain may be visiting Youngstown and Buffalo, but he still lives in New York. This region also isn't a singular unit, because I don't think any city is as burned out as Detroit. I was in Detroit back in November and every time I visit the place, I feel as if there is no equal in the US as to how bad a large city can get in terms of economic collapse and opportunity for such an important region and city. Personally I don't even think it is fair to lump Detroit and Buffalo into the same group, so within the so-called 'rustbelt' there are variations. Pittsburgh is a bizarre example, because all of the really burned out communities hug the river valleys and are usually outside the city proper. The city of Pittsburgh largely looks as vibrant as it ever has been, with bustling city life in South Side, Oakland, downtown, Mt Washington, and all these neighborhoods that are in tact and nice. But go downstream to Braddock and continue onto McKeesport and you can feel like you're in a mini-Detroit in those small towns.


As far as weather, I'll refrain from that discussion since there are other topics here for that, but this region isn't all the same. There is a hierarchy in the 'rust belt'. Detroit is clearly at the top of it, and you have cities like Buffalo or Milwaukee that have relatively little poverty compared to that.

Actually, both Buffalo and Pittsburgh have historically been in much worse economic shape than Detroit. The Pittsburgh metropolitan area has contracted in population for every decade since 1960, and Buffalo since 1970. Detroit shrank slightly during the 70s and a 2% dip in the 1980s, but those two contractions were likely due to the same recession during the late 1970s (and were far short of the contraction rates in PGH and BUF during the same period).

Presently, I'd say that Pittsburgh is doing better than Detroit, but I'm not so convinced about Buffalo. The 2000s will likely show a population contraction for the Detroit area, but it will only be the second time in history that the area has ever shrank in population. Again, contrast that to Pittsburgh which has consistently shrank since the 1960s and Buffalo since the 1970s.

The core areas of the city of Detroit look the way that it does primarily because of urban disinvestment, and not just because of failing industry. If the state of Michigan had implemented a green belt development zone around the boundaries of Metro Detroit in 1990, the city of Detroit's population would have stabilized a decade ago, and there would be a market for rehabbing old factories and abandoned buildings like what happened in the industrial areas of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Metro Growth rates by decade for top 30: http://www.demographia.com/db-1950metgrrates.htm

Buffalo Metro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo-Niagara_Falls,_NY_MSA

[Dr Nevergold]

The Rust Belt moniker arose in the 70's when the industrial darlings that had ruled the U.S. for the preceding century started to become overshadowed by the "new economy" cities of the rising Sun Belt. Anyone who thinks that a city like Baltimore or even Boston or Philadelphia was built on anything other than industry is kidding themselves. Even New York was known more for textiles than finances well into the 20th century. While many cities in the Rust Belt have since transitioned to the "new economy", there are still some like Baltimore that are still in transition.

BTW, do people realize that industry included more than just steel mills and auto plants? Wht do you think those multi-million dollar "lofts" in the Northeastern cities were used for before they became multi-million dollar lofts?

What we are having is a discussion that is bigger than an individual city or region, it is about the transition of the US economy to one based mostly on finance in general and services and goods purchased abroad. Most jobs today in America for the unskilled are service jobs, usually selling goods manufactured abroad. In the 1950's we simply didn't have mass big box stores, today places like Walmart will employ a hundreds of people in a town and take the place of a small factory. If you have few skills, you're best bet for a job today is working for fast food, big box stores like Walmart or Lowes, or shipping industry to transfer around the products that we purchase abroad. FedEx, UPS, port centers like the one in Orange County or other major container depots, truckers... These are the only viable unskilled labor jobs available today, whereas you had both shipping and selling and manufacturing in the past. Now it is just shipping and selling.

In any location where heavy industry wasn't THE predominant player - including Columbus or Minneapolis - conditions simply aren't the same as they are in place that lost their base economy. And in newer cities down south they didn't have to replace jobs, they just started adding jobs at Home Depot and Walmart and then IT came along and created some higher paying information age jobs. Jobs growth was traditionally easier in the sunbelt and non-manufacturing cities. In Pittsburgh or Detroit, you have to create two new jobs to replace an old industry job that isn't coming back. In new growth centers, you just create one job and it is a net benefit.

This is an economic shift that has happened not just in America, but also in places like the UK. We've outsourced our old economies in general, and cities like Detroit couldn't compete with an international shift in policy and direction. You can't compete with a worldwide phenomenon.

What sets certain cities like Pittsburgh or New York or Detroit apart is that New York was the center of the financial industry before and after the collapse of heavy industry.

However, with the new financial collapse and with IT being outsourced today at a pace that is almost getting as bad as manufacturing in the past, you see cities like San Francisco bay, Atlanta, Charlotte having to do the same thing. Their growth trajectories have been changed because core industry jobs aren't there anymore. They are beginning to understand this having to create 2 jobs to have a net benefit. There's an entire study to this that I am not even that good at, would have to read a lot more.. But the sunbelt isn't as sunny as it was just 5 years ago.

America hasn't found it's new core industry to latch onto now that finance and IT has been maxed out. Green energy may be the next wave we can ride on. China is investing heavily in it, we haven't gotten serious yet about it.

[Dr Nevergold]

Actually, both Buffalo and Pittsburgh have historically been in much worse economic shape than Detroit. The Pittsburgh metropolitan area has contracted in population for every decade since 1960, and Buffalo since 1970. Detroit shrank slightly during the 70s and a 2% dip in the 1980s, but those two contractions were likely due to the same recession during the late 1970s (and were far short of the contraction rates in PGH and BUF during the same period).

Presently, I'd say that Pittsburgh is doing better than Detroit, but I'm not so convinced about Buffalo. The 2000s will likely show a population contraction for the Detroit area, but it will only be the second time in history that the area has ever shrank in population. Again, contrast that to Pittsburgh which has consistently shrank since the 1960s and Buffalo since the 1970s.

The core areas of the city of Detroit look the way that it does primarily because of urban disinvestment, and not just because of failing industry. If the state of Michigan had implemented a green belt development zone around the boundaries of Metro Detroit in 1990, the city of Detroit's population would have stabilized a decade ago, and there would be a market for rehabbing old factories and abandoned buildings like what happened in the industrial areas of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Metro Growth rates by decade for top 30: http://www.demographia.com/db-1950metgrrates.htm

Buffalo Metro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo-Niagara_Falls,_NY_MSA

On paper you're correct: Buffalo never boomed as much as Detroit or Pittsburgh back in the day. It was always smaller. On paper, yes, Pittsburgh has contracted more than any other metropolitan area in the nation in raw numbers. Hundreds of thousands of people have moved out of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Using today's boundaries, Pittsburgh had almost 3 million people in 1970, today it has barely 2.4 million.

I know this... But Detroit is doing worse in reality. When you visit the streets of Pittsburgh, you don't get the feeling the city is anywhere near Detroit level poverty. The city is in tact, it still has a lot of corporate HQ's, it has a viable public transit system. It has an active urban lifestyle. You go to South Side and it is booming with nightlife, you got to Oakland and it is a genuine bona fide urban college neighborhood that few American cities have, and none in it's size. No other city of 300,000 people or metropolitan area of 2 million will have as urbanized of a feeling as Oakland or the UPitt region, or the world class museums like the Carnegie Natural History museum.

Detroit just doesn't have the same feeling as Pittsburgh despite the fact that on paper Pittsburgh had it worse. You see where those hundreds of thousands of people left though when you visit places like Braddock and McKeesport... They are clearly there, but it isn't the city proper.

[iheartthed]

On paper you're correct: Buffalo never boomed as much as Detroit or Pittsburgh back in the day. It was always smaller. On paper, yes, Pittsburgh has contracted more than any other metropolitan area in the nation in raw numbers. Hundreds of thousands of people have moved out of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Using today's boundaries, Pittsburgh had almost 3 million people in 1970, today it has barely 2.4 million.

I know this... But Detroit is doing worse in reality. When you visit the streets of Pittsburgh, you don't get the feeling the city is anywhere near Detroit level poverty. The city is in tact, it still has a lot of corporate HQ's, it has a viable public transit system. It has an active urban lifestyle. You go to South Side and it is booming with nightlife, you got to Oakland and it is a genuine bona fide urban college neighborhood that few American cities have, and none in it's size. No other city of 300,000 people or metropolitan area of 2 million will have as urbanized of a feeling as Oakland or the UPitt region, or the world class museums like the Carnegie Natural History museum.

Detroit just doesn't have the same feeling as Pittsburgh despite the fact that on paper Pittsburgh had it worse. You see where those hundreds of thousands of people left though when you visit places like Braddock and McKeesport... They are clearly there, but it isn't the city proper.

You're probably right, the core of the city of Detroit probably is more abandoned than the core of Pittsburgh, but my point is that Detroit's result isn't a function of a collapse in industry (unlike Pittsburgh, Buffalo and probably even Gary, IN). It's actually more an artificial phenomenon exacerbated by policies of the Detroit area and state governments. Comparing how Pittsburgh looks to how Detroit looks actually proves my point.

[Dr Nevergold]

I'm not so sure you're correct (you bring good ideas to the table, however), because Detroit can't control international economic factors. You're essentially pitting Detroit against China. If the UK can't compete against it and sent all it's manufacturing there, I doubt Detroit could compete. The real issue here I think you are hinting at is Detroit's race divide? Is that correct?

Also, you may be missing a point I made earlier. Pittsburgh simply had things Detroit did not and does not. Pittsburgh - despite how reliant on steel it was - always was more diversified. It was the corporate headquarters for American oil and was more important than Houston until the 1970's (few Americans know this history of Pittsburgh). Gulf Oil built one of the classical Pittsburgh skyscrapers of the 1920's and was HQ'ed there until the 80's. Pittsburgh is still a big energy player, because all the large coal firms that control the coal fields in PA and WV and KY seem to be based out of Pittsburgh still to this day. Pittsburgh has always had a large financial services industry (relative to Detroit) and while it has changed, PNC is now one of the largest banks in the nation, and Mellon merged with Bank of New York just a few short years ago. Pittsburgh had it's own stock exchange at one point it was so important, and today still has some businesses related to investments (Federated Investors owns a highrise downtown, still HQ'ed downtown (http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/PA/Pittsburgh/200801/FederatedTower-Jul08-006a.jpg)). Again, Pittsburgh had very philanthropic families. Carnegie left his mark on the city. Ford didn't leave his mark on Detroit in the same way. You don't see a Ford library on every corner of Detroit, you do see a Carnegie library and world class museums in Pittsburgh.

That's the difference, Pittsburgh had a core that was more finance and diversified than Detroit. Not that there is some better political advantage in Pittsburgh, it is a union town at it's core just like Detroit was. Unfortuantely for Detroit the core industries keep moving. Comerica is gone. Ford isn't in the city. GM is the only real anchor down there these days, along with some upstarts like Compuware. I feel for the city, but I don't see things really coming around anytime.

What Pittsburgh does not have is a huge race issue. That's the only thing I can think of that may lead to what you're talking about.

I think you're making the mistake of lumping all industrial cities in the same. Pittsburgh truly is more of a diversified east coast-type city, yet isn't on the east coast. It is clearly an interior northeast city, whereas Detroit really stands on it's own. Detroit is the largest region to be reliant on so few industries I think. I may be wrong, but if you look at diversified economies I think Detroit is the region that grew to be the biggest population-wise that was reliant on so few industries.

Lastly, on the Pittsburgh issue (it is a city I know very well having lived there and visited there many numerous times), the city never had steel in the city proper except for the south side (which has been redeveloped). Pittsburgh's true collapse was steel, and the ghost towns outside the city proper were the ones hit. Again, if you look at population stats for McKeesport, the town had like over 100,000 people, today it barely has 25k. There are a number of cities along the industrial valleys of the region's rivers that have the same, identical story. Pittsburgh's decline was it's old suburbs along the rivers. The entire rest of the metropolitan area, and the city's urban core, are largely in tact and fully functional.

[MolsonExport]

Interesting discussion, but one that has ver little to do with the "new cachet to living and working" thrust of the original article.

[iheartthed]

I'm not so sure you're correct, because Detroit can't control international economic factors. You're essentially pitting Detroit against China. If the UK can't compete against it and sent all it's manufacturing there, I doubt Detroit could compete. The real issue here I think you are hinting at is Detroit's race divide? Is that correct?

Also, you may be missing a point I made earlier. Pittsburgh simply had things Detroit did not and does not. Pittsburgh - despite how reliant on steel it was - always was more diversified. It was the corporate headquarters for American oil and was more important than Houston until the 1970's. Gulf Oil built one of the classical Pittsburgh skyscrapers of the 1920's and was HQ'ed there until the 80's. Again, Pittsburgh had very philanthropic families. Carnegie left his mark on the city. Ford didn't leave his mark on Detroit in the same way. You don't see a Ford library on every corner of Detroit, you do see a Carnegie library and world class museums in Pittsburgh.

That's the difference, Pittsburgh had a core that was more finance and diversified than Detroit. Not that there is some better political advantage in Pittsburgh, it is a union town at it's core just like Detroit was.

What Pittsburgh does not have is a huge race issue. That's the only thing I can think of that may lead to what you're talking about.

I'm not saying that Detroit was unaffected by global manufacturing, clearly it was. Detroit went from growing at rates above 25% per decade to growing at less than 10% pretty quickly, so yes Detroit was affected. But Detroit was still growing, and wasn't that far off in growth rates from places like Boston and Philadelphia during the post-1950s era. All that, however, is beside my point.

What I am saying is that Detroit's hollowing out is more a matter of government policy than economic forces. I won't even say that it's entirely racial, although that certainly did factor into it. There is a map floating around, I believe somewhere on the web servers of Wayne State University, that shows how the geographic area of Metro Detroit spread by about 40% between 1970 and 2000, while the population growth was relatively flat. These were previously unincorporated, minimally inhabited towns that became developed suburbs virtually overnight. If the population growth is flat then where are those people buying those newly built houses coming from? Or better yet, if there is cheap new development on the fringe then what incentive is there to redevelopment properties in the city? That is why Detroit hollowed out.

[Dr Nevergold]

I wholly disagree that Detroit's demise is more related to government policy than economic factors and social factors. There is nothing our capitalist economic system and government can do to magically change Detroit. The only thing that can seriously change that region is if we accept more social democratic principles and start investing in places we don't expect a return on. That won't be happening anytime soon.

[M II A II R II K]

Rochester is also not what it used to be along with it's abandoned subway tunnels.

[Chase Unperson]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5443070928_1bca0d940e_b.jpg

Is it sun belt or warm weather belt? Cause Denver, for example, gets more sunshine than cities in Florida and Southern California, so, kinda curious on the criteria for that.

Of course they mean Denver when they talk about sun belt. It is the third snowiest city in the us and has an average winter low of around fifteen degrees with an extreme low of negative twenty-five in dec Jan and feb. Nothing like waking up to the third snowiest city on a sunny 15 degree day. Beats the shit out of the winter climates in Miami phoenix San Diego and Los Angeles. Denver, the queen city of the sun belt. Yeah the typical winter day might be fifteen degrees when you get up but at least it's sunny.

Denverites are so delusional about their weather. Sure it ain't the worst. But it can be so much better.

[hudkina]

I wholly disagree that Detroit's demise is more related to government policy than economic factors and social factors. There is nothing our capitalist economic system and government can do to magically change Detroit. The only thing that can seriously change that region is if we accept more social democratic principles and start investing in places we don't expect a return on. That won't be happening anytime soon.

The point is that because the Detroit region as a whole never suffered as much as the smaller industrial cities as far as economic decline, the idea that the core "looks" worse has more to do with government/business policies and social changes than with the decline of the industrial base.

The city of Detroit peaked in the 1950's with close to 2 million people. However, the core was already in decline starting in the 30's. The first "migration" was middle-class residents to farflung neighborhoods within the city. In the 1930's, the core of Detroit had well over 1 million people in an area not much larger than the current boundaries of Pittsburgh.

The city had just annexed over 60 sq. mi. of mostly farmland throughout the 1920's, and that area was rapidly developing. The problem was that the Depression took a massive toll on employment slowing migration to the city from other parts of the U.S. Between 1900 and the early 1930's, well over 1 million people moved to the city, however between 1930 and 1940 the city's population grew by less than 55,000. And whille the population grew minimally during that decade, tens of thousands of mostly middle-class single-family homes were built in the newly annexed land over that period. In essence, Detroiters got their first taste of suburban living, albeit within the city limits.

So while the population within the city continued to grow well into the 50's, the core had already begun its descent twenty years earlier as residents moved from the bustling core to the quiet neighborhoods. In fact, one if the biggest reasons the core lost so much of its historic character to urban renewal efforts in the 40's and 50's is because of the decline that began in the 30's. Granted, the economic boost brought on by WWII helped the city recover from the Depression faster than the rest of the nation allowing it to execute the urban renewal projects of the mid-century.

Another factor for the outmigration is the auto industry, particularly the location of the auto plants. During the earliest period of the auto industry from the late 1890's to the early 1900's, most auto "factories" were little more than small warehouses in what is now the central business district. When autos started to evolve from playthings to viable modes of transportation the first factories to "mass-produce" vehicles were built along what was then the periphery of the city. Between 1903 and the early 1920's over a dozen major factories were built in various areas along the contemporaneous edge of the city. For the most part, that would have been anywhere from 3 to 6 miles from the CBD. Many of the plants were built in Hamtramck (Dodge), Highland Park (Ford/Chrysler), and Springwells, later Dearborn (Ford), essentially the first suburbs of Detroit. Those factories produced cars well into the post-war era, however even they became outdated as the auto companies began the move to automation. As early as the 1940's and 50's, the auto companies began building massive plants in what would become the inner-ring suburbs. The construction of these plants helped facilitate the move to the suburbs far more than race riots.

Some of the earliest suburban factories (besides those built in Dearborn, Hamtramck, and Highland Park) were built in Warren. In 1938, Chrysler built a truck plant literally across the street from Detroit. In 1941, GM built a transmission plant just north of that. In 1941, Chrysler built a tank factory north of that. Beginning in 1949, GM built it's massive tech center just north of that (it took six years to construct and employed nearly 20,000 people at its peak). Essentially in that one decade, nearly 100,000 jobs were created in what had been a farm town just north of the city limits about 8 to 12 miles from the CBD.

Unlike other cities where the suburbs gradually grew into bedroom communities as more and more jobs were created in the core, with Detroit many of the suburbs weren't bedroom communities. Warren exploded in population. In 1940, Warren had a population of just over 20,000. Within 30 years, the population ballooned to nearly 180,000. And it wasn't just Warren that benefitted. Nearby East Detroit saw its population jump from about 8,500 in 1940 to nearly 50,000 by the 1960's. Roseville jumped from about 9,000 in 1940 to over 60,000 by the late 60's.

The expansion didn't stop with Warren. Sterling Heights (originally Sterling TWP) just north of Warren saw the opening of a missle factory in 1953 (later converted to automotive production by VW and later sold to Chrysler) while Ford opened an Axle plant in 1956 north of that. Like Warren, Sterling Heights saw a population explosion after these facilities were opened. In 1950, Sterling TWP had a population of 6,500, which ballooned to over 100,000 by the mid 70's.

While racial polarization was partially to blame for driving whites from the city, in the 60's, 70's and 80's, I think a bigger driver was the development of these suburban factories. By the 1950's, the vast majority of the inner-city auto plants were severely outdated and by the 1970's, virtually all of them were closed. The opening of the suburban plants helped to quickly build-up the communities around them while the closure of the inner-city plants had the opposite effect. Those with the means (which usually coincided with a job in a suburban plant) left the inner-city, while those without the means (usually unemployed minorities) were left behind.

So, inner-city Detroit might look like hell compared to Pittsburgh or Buffalo, but that has more to do with the migration of jobs to the suburbs than it does the migration of jobs to China.

[Strange Meat]

Of course they mean Denver when they talk about sun belt. It is the third snowiest city in the us and has an average winter low of around fifteen degrees with an extreme low of negative twenty-five in dec Jan and feb. Nothing like waking up to the third snowiest city on a sunny 15 degree day. Beats the shit out of the winter climates in Miami phoenix San Diego and Los Angeles. Denver, the queen city of the sun belt. Yeah the typical winter day might be fifteen degrees when you get up but at least it's sunny.

Denverites are so delusional about their weather. Sure it ain't the worst. But it can be so much better.

Average high temperatures in January, which takes into account the days (one or two per year) that we don't get above zero (had a high of -2 this year!) is STILL 43 degrees, which is warmer than Philadelphia, and almost 10 degrees warmer than the average high in Columbus. Obviously it ain't tropical but it's a LOT warmer than most places. We hit near 70 almost every January.

Also, unlike places north and especially east of us, we can get two feet of snow and have it all be melted in nearly a day. In fact, the record for longest time the ground in Denver was covered in snow is just over 30 days, and that was set after two huge blizzards back to back. Snow on the ground for more than a week is uncommon.

As for the lows, yeah, when you usually have clear skies and are at a high elevation, you get large daily swings in temperatures. Usually, throughout the year, it's about 30 degrees. So in the summer, a high of 90 will yield a low of 60, while in the winter, a high of 50 yields a low of 20.

It's not nearly as harsh as people assume.

[DBR96A]

The city of Detroit peaked in the 1950's with close to 2 million people. However, the core was already in decline starting in the 30's. The first "migration" was middle-class residents to farflung neighborhoods within the city. In the 1930's, the core of Detroit had well over 1 million people in an area not much larger than the current boundaries of Pittsburgh.

The city had just annexed over 60 sq. mi. of mostly farmland throughout the 1920's, and that area was rapidly developing.

That 60 square miles of annexed land is larger than all 55 square miles of Pittsburgh. Detroit has to be at least twice as large, area-wise.

[hudkina]

The city of Detroit is 139 sq. mi. in area. While people often think of Detroit as a "bombed out" urban wasteland, the reality is that most of the residents living within the city live in relatively stable middle-class neighborhoods in the annexed lands. While there are plenty of decimated areas in those neighborhoods, the glut of the so-called "urban prairies" are located in a small ring surrounding the Greater Downtown area. That ring is essentially where all of the original auto factories were located. Only one plant (built in the 1980's in a massive project that destroyed the Dodge Main plant as well as a massive section of the surrounding neighborhood) exisits in that ring. Ironically Hamtramck which had been losing population since the 1930's saw its first population gain in the 90's not long after that plant opened.

[JBoston]

Step aside Boston, New York City, San Francisco and Seattle. Sorry, but you’re just not cool anymore. These days, you need to have crumbling roads, triple-decker apartment buildings, old-fashioned neighborhood bars and lots of rust to gain any hipster cred.

Uh... I'm not sure about SF and Seattle but this guy obviously hasn't stepped outside of Back Bay in Boston or Soho in NYC. If he had then he would know that both cities are FULL of these things. Hell, Boston is known for the triple-decker... *clears throat*... I mean triple-deckAH.

[pip]

to expand on what you said. I grew up in Boston and you are right there is so much more than just the Back Bay.

I have done the declining rust belt city before. While it may look cool it really isn't. It's depressing, boring and there are very few people to meet.

[Buckeye Native 001]

That's highly subjective. Granted its not for everyone, but I reckon your idea of boring and my idea of boring are incredibly different.

[pip]

Oh I agree. For me everything being quiet and empty from bars except weekends when the surbanites flock in to the strip- nothing wrong with that, to no stores except in the 'burbs and the always empty streets got to me after a few months. There were few people to meet and have fun with.

[hudkina]

In other words, there weren't enough douchebags?;)

[iheartthed]

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another media reference to Baltimore as the Rust Belt:

Baltimore was the nation's second largest city in 1830; it left the top 10 in 1980. Buffalo, N.Y., and Cincinnati exited the top 10 list 100 years ago. Pittsburgh left the list in 1940, Boston in 1960 and Cleveland after 1970. Detroit will no longer be in the top 10 in 2010.

These Rust Belt cities were replaced by Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose, Calif. There is a clear pattern here: In the space of 100 years, seven of the country's 10 largest cities were replaced by Sun Belt municipalities.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-26/news/ct-oped-0226-counting-20100226_1_census-numbers-influx-san-diego

[novawolverine]

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another media reference to Baltimore as the Rust Belt:



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-26/news/ct-oped-0226-counting-20100226_1_census-numbers-influx-san-diego

According to the original article, NYC and Boston aren't a part of the Rust Belt. Baltimore's issues w/ respect to loss of population are more in kind with DC, which lost more than 1/4 of its peak population, not Detroit or Cleveland. Baltimore's regional economy didn't tank b/c of a loss of industrial jobs. It's silly to argue about these fringe areas when we all know where the undisputed Rust Belt is.

[iheartthed]

It's silly to argue about these fringe areas when we all know where the undisputed Rust Belt is.

Evidently it depends on who you ask.

[mhays]

People have the idea that there's an "official" version for things like that. There's pretty much never an "official" version unless you're referring to a technical term like CSA. Why would there be? Governments divide things into administrative districts but neighborhood boundaries and regional boundaries are subjective.

[hudkina]

The Rust Belt isn't a region, any more than the Sun Belt is a region. They are just two terms for the cities that peaked in the industrial and post-industrial eras of the U.S.

It's silly to argue about these fringe areas when we all know where the undisputed Rust Belt is.

Obviously we don't. Otherwise we wouldn't have 4 pages of arguments. Besides, I think Washington is within the "Rust Belt" even if it was never really an industrial city. Richmond and Memphis are also "Rust Belt" in my opinion...;)

[novawolverine]

The Rust Belt isn't a region, any more than the Sun Belt is a region. They are just two terms for the cities that peaked in the industrial and post-industrial eras of the U.S.

They're both regions, except the Rust Belt is concentrated in the midwest and interior northeast. The Sun Belt spans the entire country across areas that have far less in common with each other economically.

And Rust Belt doesn't just apply to cities. A lot of the time, entire metropolitan areas sub-regions were adversely affected. There were systemic risks b/c of how interconnected the areas were.

Obviously we don't. Otherwise we wouldn't have 4 pages of arguments. Besides, I think Washington is within the "Rust Belt" even if it was never really an industrial city. Richmond and Memphis are also "Rust Belt" in my opinion...;)

That's b/c there's some cognitive dissonance in this thread.

[ColDayMan]

I don't know about that. I've always thought of Baltimore as "rustbelt." Then again, I never thought of Cincinnati or Columbus as "rustbelt" though people think they are (outside of this region, of course). No Cincinnatian or Columbusite would identify their cities as "rustbelt" though Daytonians would in a heartbeat (thanks Delphi!).

[hudkina]

The rust belt isn't just made up of cities that had auto and steel plants.

[novawolverine]

I think it's understandable that people think a place like Baltimore is a part of the rust belt. They've seen The Wire and driven on I-95 and seen photo threads, but what's actually occurring in the city and metro area may be different from cities that look similar. Cincinnati could be the same way, I have no idea. You could drive through DC on I-295 and think it's Rust Belt, but it's not.

[hudkina]

I think it's understandable that people think a place like Baltimore is a part of the rust belt. They've seen The Wire and driven on I-95 and seen photo threads, but what's actually occurring in the city and metro area may be different from cities that look similar.

They've seen Robocob and driven on I-75 and seen photo threads, but what's actually occurring in the city and metro area may be different from cities that look similar. You can say the same damn thing about every city! LOL.

Just because a city in the Rust Belt may be doing "better" than other cities in the Rust Belt, doesn't mean it isn't in the Rust Belt... Dallas is doing much better than Las Vegas right now, but they are both in the Sun Belt...

BTW, here's a list of 20 major cities in the traditional "Rust Belt" ranked by the percentage of their workforce employed in manufacturing:

Milwaukee - 14.5%
Cleveland - 11.2%
Rochester - 11.1%
Cincinnati - 9.8%
Minneapolis - 9.6%
Louisville - 9.5%
Indianapolis - 9.2%
Detroit - 8.9%
Chicago - 8.4%
Buffalo - 8.2%
St. Louis - 7.7%
Boston - 7.6%
Providence -7.1%
Pittsburgh - 7.1%
Kansas City - 6.9%
Columbus - 6.3%
Philadelphia - 6.2%
Baltimore - 4.3%
New York - 3.9%
Washington - 1.6%

[Buckeye Native 001]

Hell, drive along most of 75 through Cincinnati until you hit 275 and you'd think it was rustbelt (Mill Creek Valley, the Lockland split and Evendale, in particular)

[hudkina]

That's because Cincinnati is Rust Belt.;)

[TarHeelJ]

They've seen Robocob and driven on I-75 and seen photo threads, but what's actually occurring in the city and metro area may be different from cities that look similar. You can say the same damn thing about every city! LOL.

Just because a city in the Rust Belt may be doing "better" than other cities in the Rust Belt, doesn't mean it isn't in the Rust Belt... Dallas is doing much better than Las Vegas right now, but they are both in the Sun Belt...

BTW, here's a list of 20 major cities in the traditional "Rust Belt" ranked by the percentage of their workforce employed in manufacturing:

Milwaukee - 14.5%
Cleveland - 11.2%
Rochester - 11.1%
Cincinnati - 9.8%
Minneapolis - 9.6%
Louisville - 9.5%
Indianapolis - 9.2%
Detroit - 8.9%
Chicago - 8.4%
Buffalo - 8.2%
St. Louis - 7.7%
Boston - 7.6%
Providence -7.1%
Pittsburgh - 7.1%
Kansas City - 6.9%
Columbus - 6.3%
Philadelphia - 6.2%
Baltimore - 4.3%
New York - 3.9%
Washington - 1.6%

There are also many cities outside of the rust belt with a large percentage of their workforce in manufacturing, as well as cities outside of the rust belt that have declined in population.

Some people are a bit too hung up on regional labels...not every city within a region (real or imaginary) is the same or even similar.

[Buckeye Native 001]

That's because Cincinnati is Rust Belt.;)

Geographically, yes, but most of the cityscape and the overall workforce suggests otherwise (as ColDay pointed out numerous times).

[hudkina]

Geographically, yes, but most of the cityscape and the overall workforce suggests otherwise (as ColDay pointed out numerous times).

But what does that even mean? The cityscape? The workforce?

Nearly 10% of the Cincinnati workforce is employed in manufacturing. 10 years ago, that number was 15%. Back in the 70's, that number was probably upwards of 25%.

Here's a comparison between the Detroit MSA (which apparently everyone thinks is the epitome of industrial America) and the Cincinnati MSA (which apparently is SO not a dirty, nasty Rust Belt city... God Forbid...;))

Civilian Workforce
Cincinnati - 1,124,200
Detroit - 2,029,200

Unemployed Workforce
Cincinnati -101,400 - 9.0% (a 1.9% drop from its peak)
Detroit - 225,500 - 11.1% (a 5.6% drop from its peak)

Farm Employment
Cincinnati - 35,100 - 3.1%
Detroit - 106,900 - 5.3%

Mining, Logging, and Construction
Cincinnati - 36,100 - 3.2%
Detroit - 45,200 - 2.2%

Manufacturing
Cincinnati - 110,300 - 9.8%
Detroit - 180,800 - 8.9%

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Cincinnati - 196,400 - 17.5%
Detroit - 319,200 - 15.7%

Information
Cincinnati - 14,000 - 1.2%
Detroit - 24,900 - 1.2%

Financial Activities
Cincinnati - 58,400 - 5.2%
Detroit - 92,400 - 4.6%

Professional and Business Services
Cincinnati - 149,700 - 13.3%
Detroit - 294,400 - 14.5%

Education and Health Services
Cincinnati - 151,900 - 13.5%
Detroit - 287,300 - 14.2%

Leisure and Hospitality
Cincinnati - 97,000 - 8.6%
Detroit - 162,400 - 8.0%

Other Services
Cincinnati - 40,900 - 3.6%
Detroit - 82,400 - 4.1%

Government
Cincinnati - 133,000 - 11.8%
Detroit - 207,800 - 10.2%

So, you are absolutely right. The workforce is utterly different from those nasty, dirty Rust Belt cities.;)

[novawolverine]

They've seen Robocob and driven on I-75 and seen photo threads, but what's actually occurring in the city and metro area may be different from cities that look similar. You can say the same damn thing about every city! LOL.

Just because a city in the Rust Belt may be doing "better" than other cities in the Rust Belt, doesn't mean it isn't in the Rust Belt... Dallas is doing much better than Las Vegas right now, but they are both in the Sun Belt...

I don't think you can say the same about every area, you know as well as I do that cities like Detroit and Pittsburgh have lots of industry outside of the city proper. Even NYC and Philly have more industry outside of the city proper than Baltimore does.

It doesn't surprise me that Baltimore has a fraction of the manufacturing workforce that the real Rust Belt cities have, despite looking like a real Rust Belt city in areas. Meanwhile, some people don't include Minneapolis in the Rust Belt and it's higher than almost all the others you listed.

There are also many cities outside of the rust belt with a large percentage of their workforce in manufacturing, as well as cities outside of the rust belt that have declined in population.

Some people are a bit too hung up on regional labels...not every city within a region (real or imaginary) is the same or even similar.

I agree, but I think it depends on what the significance of the label it. Some labels describe geography and some describe other attributes.

[hudkina]

The Rust Belt moniker wasn't just associated with the decline of industry and manufacturing, but the decline of city centers in general. It doesn't matter that Baltimore had less manufacturing than some of the other cities.

Also, while under 5% of the Baltimore MSA workforce is currently employed in manufacturing, that has a lot to do with the fact that a significant number of the people in the Baltimore MSA work in the Washington MSA. Also, that number was about 10% as late as 10-15 years ago. If you go back to the 70's, I wouldn't doubt that nearly 20% of the Baltimore MSA was employed in manufacturing, so it's not as if manufacturing never had a history in the Baltimore MSA...

[ColDayMan]

For the record, I never said Cincinnati wasn't "rustbelt." I said I never thought of it as "rustbelt" and most folks here don't think of themselves as "rustbelt," similar to Columbus. That's not to say "we're better than rustbelt cities" but it is what it is. The word never comes up in media, politics, local convo, blah blah. And I knew Cincinnati had a large manufacturing base (as Buckeye said, drive on I-75) but I'm sure Los Angeles and Dallas have large manufacturing bases and neither are rustbelt. "Rustbelt" is one of those terms where nobody knows what the fuck it is until you say "Youngstown" aka perceived manufacturing. For example, Indianapolis has more employed manufacturing per capita than Detroit but Detroit is perceived to have more due to strong auto history versus...uhh...Eli Lilly?

Dayton undeniably is "rustbelt" and the locals know it. Again, thanks (Delco) Delphi, Mead, and NCR! Oh wait, all left town.

[Steely Dan]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread, so this may already be covered, but in my mind "rust belt" was always more than simply just "manufacturing areas". to me it denoted the steel industry and other directly related heavy industries, like automobile and heavy machinery production. basically the greater american great lakes region from duluth over to buffalo, and other cities in that region, like pittsburgh and youngstown, that aren't directly on the lakes.

i've never though of baltimore as "rust belt", but that's just me.

[Buckeye Native 001]

For the record, I never said Cincinnati wasn't "rustbelt." I said I never thought of it as "rustbelt" and most folks here don't think of themselves as "rustbelt," similar to Columbus. That's not to say "we're better than rustbelt cities" but it is what it is. The word never comes up in media, politics, local convo, blah blah.

Which is what I was waiting for you to say since, you know, you still live in the area. But my perception, as a former east-sider, has always probably been off, since we're the majority of people who work for Greater Cincinnati's unusually large collection of F500 companies (and, hence one of the reasons I personally never considered Cincinnati as part of the greater "rust belt" region despite its geographic location).

*Flips off Madeira as I drive my Bentley towards Indian Hill*

[novawolverine]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread, so this may already be covered, but in my mind "rust belt" was always more than simply just "manufacturing areas". to me it denoted the steel industry and other directly related heavy industries, like automobile and heavy machinery production. basically the greater american great lakes region from duluth over to buffalo, and other cities in that region, like pittsburgh and youngstown, that aren't directly on the lakes.

i've never though of baltimore as "rust belt", but that's just me.

I completely agree.

[Centropolis]

i've never though of baltimore as "rust belt", but that's just me.

I am also in agreement.

My theory -

Baltimore looks to me like the eastern bookend and grandfather of a subspecies of an earlier, more unorganized competing system of murky, hot summer cities with an unclear power structure that was/is highly related to, but still distinct from the more organized power structure of the great lakes system (with "godhead" trancendent bookends that are not really included in this discussion) of cities which I think is my definition of true rustbelt.

I think there is a little bit of a difference between a non Chicago Great Lakes industrial powerhouse and an old, subdued command and control /gateway/ transport/ river system city that happened to make lots and lots of stuff (however also including steel, cars with headquarters based in that actual city, and other metals) often for small/medium sized hinterlands under their own control w/ their own railroads, etc. Baltimore feels like one of these old command and control/gateway/transportation places - and rustbelt doesnt feel quite right.

~or~

The central river (and harbor?) city (St. Louis, Cincinnati, Baltimore) is a different (but highly related) genre in my opinion - kind of an earlier subspecies that was in direct competition w/ the great lakes and now shares a lot of problems in common. This subspecies of cities, had their own - semi-self sufficient financial systems and empires that covered physical ground miles and miles from the actual city, often to the west (or in the case of St. Louis to the west and later to the southwest under withering fire from Chicago) that eventually contracted to different extents for various reasons.

Now the midwest is looked at as a homogenous, seperated block, these thousand mile + long east to west linkages and north to south seperations in these old systems have faded or dissapeared.

My urban "subspecies" argument/theory would explain the difficulty in comparing a Baltimore to a Cleveland - slightly different DNA.

[iheartthed]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread, so this may already be covered, but in my mind "rust belt" was always more than simply just "manufacturing areas". to me it denoted the steel industry and other directly related heavy industries, like automobile and heavy machinery production. basically the greater american great lakes region from duluth over to buffalo, and other cities in that region, like pittsburgh and youngstown, that aren't directly on the lakes.

i've never though of baltimore as "rust belt", but that's just me.

I know wikipedia isn't the golden standard of historical accuracy, but someone felt compelled to write this about Baltimore's economy:

Once a major industrial town, with an economic base focused on steel processing, shipping, auto manufacturing, and transportation, the city suffered a deindustrialization which cost residents tens of thousands of low-skill, high-wage jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore#Economy

[Thundertubs]

I know wikipedia isn't the golden standard of historical accuracy, but someone felt compelled to write this about Baltimore's economy:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore#Economy

There is (or was -- not sure of the current status) a huge Bethlehem Steel plant at Sparrows Point just outside Baltimore to the east. It's kind of isolated on a peninsula, so its not something most people would drive by all the time. Baltimore was definitely a steel town.

[Centropolis]

There is (or was -- not sure of the current status) a huge Bethlehem Steel plant at Sparrows Point just outside Baltimore to the east. It's kind of isolated on a peninsula, so its not something most people would drive by all the time. Baltimore was definitely a steel town.

To me, Baltimore doesnt stand out as any more of a steel town than metro St. Louis and a few others, which still have operational plants with the production capacity of Sparrows Point at it's peak (which is idled). I could be wrong, I don't know how many more steel plants Baltimore has or had. Metro St. Louis currently has two (one is USS which is expanding), metro Cincy has at least one. I just think of these cities as kind of dabbling a little in everything, and not being the runaway leader in anything in particular - the jack of (many) trades cities - both a detriment and a strength.

I know metro St. Louis so I'll use as example...

St. Louis makes a lot of airplanes, but isnt Jet City.
St. Louis makes a lot of [bad] beer, but isnt Brew City.
St. Louis makes a lot of steel, but isnt Steel City.
St. Louis refines a lot of oil and gas, but isnt...Oil City.
Lots of rail yards, but not number one. Lots of trucking lines, not number one. Large inland port facilities, not number one. Historical large financial and banking presence, not number one. We do have a number of embarrassingly large and powerful coal mining HQs.

On and on, and I bet Cincy and Baltimore (maybe in a different way) is similar. Tiny empires.

[kool maudit]

i like this subspecies stuff. this is the sort of thing i come to city discussions for.

[hudkina]

If you want to classify it as a different subspecies of the the Rust Belt, that's fine by me, but it's still a Rust Belt city...;)

[Centropolis]

If you want to classify it as a different subspecies of the the Rust Belt, that's fine by me, but it's still a Rust Belt city...;)

Hey, just let me have my geek-out, alright? :haha:

[novawolverine]

There is (or was -- not sure of the current status) a huge Bethlehem Steel plant at Sparrows Point just outside Baltimore to the east. It's kind of isolated on a peninsula, so its not something most people would drive by all the time. Baltimore was definitely a steel town.

Yea....Baltimore is/was a steel town....