The Fastest-Growing U.S. Cities Aren’t What You Think

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Obadno

So yes much of upstate New York I think works as rust belt, Springfield? Anything in Massachusetts or Connecticut? Probably not.

Lawrence and Lowell are two Rust Belt cities in Massachusetts.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by craigs

Lawrence and Lowell are two Rust Belt cities in Massachusetts.

Yeah, no doubt. And those are more eastern than rust belt places like Springfield/Chicopee

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ Chicago was huge and its economy pretty diverse. Even then. It wasn't really a one industry town like other Great Lakes cities. It certainly fell on hard times. As did NYC...total shithole when i was a kid but they had momentum to weather the storm. Very few RB cities were as successful as Pittsburgh which had the Eds and Meds to capitalize on. Plus I'm sure, competent leadership.

It's done better than some, a little worse than others. But it hasn't successfully pulled out of decline like the post-industrial big northeast cities (or almost any other non-Midwest big city). It's only doing better relative to the worst Rust Belt cities (Detroit, StL, Cleveland).

For examples of Midwest cities that are not Rust Belt: Minneapolis, Columbus, Madison, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by craigs

Lawrence and Lowell are two Rust Belt cities in Massachusetts.

I wouldn’t define anything in Massachusetts, really anything east of the Hudson River as rust belt.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t struggling post industrial towns but they aren’t in the rust belt, in my opinion.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Obadno

struggling post industrial towns.

That’s kinda the point though...

Northern struggling post-industrial towns

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's done better than some, a little worse than others. But it hasn't successfully pulled out of decline like the post-industrial big northeast cities (or almost any other non-Midwest big city). It's only doing better relative to the worst Rust Belt cities (Detroit, StL, Cleveland).

For examples of Midwest cities that are not Rust Belt: Minneapolis, Columbus, Madison, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor.

I admittedly have limited exposure to Chicago, only been there 3-4 times but they certainly have the population loss, transitioning economy and the socioeconomic problems but on the other hand, the growth and development is pretty healthy in other parts of town. It's almost as if it split into two cities; one booming and the other struggling.

Columbus, Madison, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor also have big colleges and/ or state bureaucracies to fall back on. I have no idea how MPLS stayed out of the fray. They strike me as a frozen Sun Belt/ West Coast city.

I think much of upstate New York and interior Pennsylvania would not be “northeast” but the areas close to the Atlantic coast are.

The vast majority of New York state is 'northeastern'; Buffalo and Rochester are more Great Lakes-ish than northeastern but from Syracuse eastward, it absolutely is northeastern. There's very little difference between central/ eastern NY to Vermont, western mass and eastern CT and parts of northern NH.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Columbus, Madison, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor also have big colleges and/ or state bureaucracies to fall back on.

Minus Grand Rapids, agreed. Ann Arbor is the one I know best, and it was never industrial.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

The vast majority of New York state is 'northeastern'; Buffalo and Rochester are more Great Lakes-ish than northeastern but from Syracuse eastward, it absolutely is northeastern. There's very little difference between central/ eastern NY to Vermont, western mass and eastern CT and parts of northern NH.

The eastern Great Lakes region west to around Cleveland area is more “northeastern” than “midwestern”... historically, economically, topographically, ethnically, religiously, industrially, etc.

[JManc]

Yeah, Ohio is like Texas. Hard to fit into a certain geographic area. That was my impression about Cleveland as well. Felt northeastern and rather different from Columbus and Cincinnati, even more so.

[SIGSEGV]

Chicago has probably lost more manufacturing jobs than any other city in the country (except maybe Detroit?). Definitely rust belt, even if it wasn't the only part of Chicago's economy.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

That’s kinda the point though...

Northern struggling post-industrial towns

I don’t think so, Pittsburg and Chicago are both rust belt, I think we all agree

They are far from struggling

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I don’t think so, Pittsburg and Chicago are both rust belt, I think we all agree

They are far from struggling

Places turn corners. But the Pittsburgh region (much of it) is still struggling big time.

Google “Mon Valley”

[Shawn]

I’d also say nothing in Mass is Rust Belt.

All of the Mass mill cities like Lawrence and Lowell had gone through a form of deindustrialization decades prior to the Rust Belt-defining loss of manufacturing bases experienced by classic Rust Belt cities in the 60s and 70s. These places had either already transitioned into eds and meds or had already fully embraced their newish roles as Boston bedtowns right when outlooks starting going south for the Clevelands and Detroits.

That doesn’t mean the 70s and 80s were kind to Lowell or Lawrence (far from it), but that also doesn’t necessarily equal a Rust Belt experience.

The closest thing to a Rust Belt town in New England is Pittsfield: GE once employed 13,000 in the city, and that’s down to 700. But Pittsfield is also in the middle of the Berkshires, so plenty of wealthy New Yorkers and Bostonians to overcharge for everything basically every weekend of the year.

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by Obadno

LOL k dud, I'm not arguing about the definition of water We are talking about a colloquial phrase invented in the last 40 years based on another colloquial phrase invented in the last 100 years.

It is loosely defined and I disagree with including the Northeast in that definition. Webster's doesn't control the English language, it isn't the arbiter of any definition let alone the one for "Rust Belt"

Hell it isnt even a complete list of all English words and does not claim to be nor could be because English is an extremely organic language actually. Really interesting stuff if you care to look into it.

I explained exactly why I think Rust Belt should be the midwest in an earlier post and I dont think my opinion was unreasonable.

So yeah, I dont like that definition, and LOL I am allowed to say so.

Sorry you don't like it, but it doesn't change facts. There are definitely East Coast cities that meet the criteria of inclusion in the Rust Belt and are thus a part of it. Places can have more than one identity.

It's not all that hard to say "Well I've learned something. Interesting."

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I’d also say nothing in Mass is Rust Belt.

All of the Mass mill cities like Lawrence and Lowell had gone through a form of deindustrialization decades prior to the Rust Belt-defining loss of manufacturing bases experienced by classic Rust Belt cities in the 60s and 70s. These places had either already transitioned into eds and meds or had already fully embraced their newish roles as Boston bedtowns right when outlooks starting going south for the Clevelands and Detroits.

That doesn’t mean the 70s and 80s were kind to Lowell or Lawrence (far from it), but that also doesn’t necessarily equal a Rust Belt experience.

The closest thing to a Rust Belt town in New England is Pittsfield: GE once employed 13,000 in the city, and that’s down to 700. But Pittsfield is also in the middle of the Berkshires, so plenty of wealthy New Yorkers and Bostonians to overcharge for everything basically every weekend of the year.

You would be mistaken in saying that though.

Springfield/Connecticut Valley fit the EXACT same profile as the "classic" rust belt.

-Large-scale loss of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s and 1990s

-Disinvestment/low property values/high commercial property tax rates

-Middle class abandonment

-Drastic increase in public debt/state oversight

From the late 1960s to the mid 70s, Massachusetts lost nearly 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs because of plant closings. From the late 1980s to mid 90s, Massachusetts lost 150k manufacturing jobs. Springfield area lost over 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs from 1980 to 2000 -- much of that in the metals industry and related industry.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by pj3000

You would be mistaken in saying that though.

Springfield/Connecticut Valley fit the EXACT same profile as the "classic" rust belt.

-Large-scale loss of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s and 1990s

-Disinvestment/low property values/high commercial property tax rates

-Middle class abandonment

-Drastic increase in public debt/state oversight

From the late 1960s to the mid 70s, Massachusetts lost nearly 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs because of plant closings. From the late 1980s to mid 90s, Massachusetts lost 150k manufacturing jobs. Springfield area lost over 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs from 1980 to 2000 -- much of that in the metals industry and related industry.

I guess that’s all correct (Eastern Masshole forgetting about Springfield: guilty), but was there an overall net loss in jobs over that time period? The Massachusetts Miracle was statewide, not just Boston and the burbs. I dunno, even bombed-out Holyoke just doesn’t have that Rust Belt-distressed feel to it. I wasn’t alive in the 70s so I have no memories of what would have been Rust Belt Western Mass.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I’d also say nothing in Mass is Rust Belt.

All of the Mass mill cities like Lawrence and Lowell had gone through a form of deindustrialization decades prior to the Rust Belt-defining loss of manufacturing bases experienced by classic Rust Belt cities in the 60s and 70s. These places had either already transitioned into eds and meds or had already fully embraced their newish roles as Boston bedtowns right when outlooks starting going south for the Clevelands and Detroits.

That doesn’t mean the 70s and 80s were kind to Lowell or Lawrence (far from it), but that also doesn’t necessarily equal a Rust Belt experience.

The closest thing to a Rust Belt town in New England is Pittsfield: GE once employed 13,000 in the city, and that’s down to 700. But Pittsfield is also in the middle of the Berkshires, so plenty of wealthy New Yorkers and Bostonians to overcharge for everything basically every weekend of the year.

I think Boston would have qualified as Rust Belt in the 1980s. The population declines in Boston from 1950 - 1990 look very Detroit-ish. By 1980, Boston was 30% off of its peak in 1950, and Detroit was 35% off of it.

Boston has obviously pulled out of it since then and not looked back. But they were in similar buckets until the 1980s, which is when the term was created.

[JManc]

I had an ex-gf who was born and raised around downtown Boston and her folks owned their 3 bedroom house. I could not imagine how much their place would cost today. They moved to Watertown when she was still young.

It was pretty rough area when she was growing up...she's in her early 50's now.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I guess that’s all correct (Eastern Masshole forgetting about Springfield: guilty), but was there an overall net loss in jobs over that time period? The Massachusetts Miracle was statewide, not just Boston and the burbs. I dunno, even bombed-out Holyoke just doesn’t have that Rust Belt-distressed feel to it. I wasn’t alive in the 70s so I have no memories of what would have been Rust Belt Western Mass.

Eastern Masshole

The only reason I really know about the Springfield area/its "rustbelt" characteristics is because a research colleague of mine was from Chicopee and we studied environmental health together related to the de-industrialization of our hometowns -- mine Erie, PA and his Springfield, MA. The loss of manufacturing jobs was quite similar and the resulting poverty and heath effects were startlingly similar between the two places.

I'm not sure if there was an overall net loss of jobs in the area. One thing about overall job numbers though is that they can be quite misleading since service sector jobs are far more often than not low-wage in comparison to the manufacturing jobs they're "replacing". That's been a characteristic of rust belt cities for awhile now -- unemployment numbers that aren't that bad, but median income numbers going way down, as a job at Wal-Mart doesn't pay nearly as much as a union job at GE or Westinghouse or Pratt & Whitney.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

That's been a characteristic of rust belt cities for awhile now -- unemployment numbers that aren't that bad, but median income numbers going way down, as a job at Wal-Mart doesn't pay nearly as much as a union job at GE or Westinghouse or Pratt & Whitney.

Exactly. I mostly know the situation in Utica and the employment rate seems pretty steady...everyone seems to find work but the types of jobs are low paying (mostly service sector) and lack the benefits of the ones they replaced. Which were high paying and had excellent benefits and pensions.