Where Is The Rust Belt?

[Steely Dan]

yeah, those old hulett unloaders that used to be found at ports all around the great lakes were bad-ass edifices of industrial might.

it's too bad the newer generation of self-unloading freighters that started coming online in force back in the '70s eventually made them obsolete.


source: https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/...tts082619.aspx

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I mean this whole thread was posted as a bit of Buffalo homerism, so to play devil's advocate, if we were looking at which places are more important to the financial world: the credit card capital of the world while also being at the forefront of financial litigation and corporate law, I would say Wilmington is more important than Buffalo.

Oh indeed.
No one really (except for benp and westcoastperspective) toots Buffalo's horn on this site, so me as a Canadian that grew up with it as the closest larger Metro, I'll proudly carry that torch

Did you even know M&T is one of the larger banks now in 2022?
Also did you know the reason HSBC became so large in USA at one time is because they bought another Buffalo based bank, Marine Midland?
The only reason Buffalo has a true skyscraper is because of Marine Midland once being a very important bank 50 years ago.

It's also kind of tongue in cheek since part of Matt's family is originally from Buffalo and one set of grandparents lived here til they passed

Many still think Buffalo is rust belt wasteland when it's actually rebounding again, with the city gaining 17,000 residents and Erie County gaining 35,000 residents between 2010-2020.
Cincinnati gained population too, while the city limits of Detroit, Cleveland, even the city of Pittsburgh continued to decline per 2020 census.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Oh indeed.
No one really (except for benp) toots Buffalo's horn on this site, so me as a Canadian that grew up with it as the closest larger Metro I'll proudly carry that torch

Did you even know M&T is one of the larger banks now in 2022?
Also did you know the reason HSBC became so large in USA at one time is because they bought another Buffalo based bank, Marine Midland?
The only reason Buffalo has a true skyscraper is because of Marine Midland once being a very important bank 50 years ago.

It's also kind of tongue in cheek since part of Matt's family is originally from Buffalo and one set of grandparents lived here til they passed

Many still think Buffalo is rust belt wasteland when it's actually rebounding again, with the city gaining 17,000 residents and Erie county gaining 35,000 residents between 2010-2020.
Cincinnati gained population too, while the city limits of Detroit, Cleveland, even the city of Pittsburgh continued to decline per 2020 census.

At one time, the thought was Rochester would surpass Buffalo as it had more prestigious white-collar industry back then, names Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch & Lomb. That never happened.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Oh indeed.
No one really (except for benp) toots Buffalo's horn on this site, so me as a Canadian that grew up with it as the closest larger Metro, I'll proudly carry that torch

Did you even know M&T is one of the larger banks now in 2022?
Also did you know the reason HSBC became so large in USA at one time is because they bought another Buffalo based bank, Marine Midland?
The only reason Buffalo has a true skyscraper is because of Marine Midland once being a very important bank 50 years ago.

It's also kind of tongue in cheek since part of Matt's family is originally from Buffalo and one set of grandparents lived here til they passed

Many still think Buffalo is rust belt wasteland when it's actually rebounding again, with the city gaining 17,000 residents and Erie County gaining 35,000 residents between 2010-2020.

Cincinnati gained population too, while the city limits of Detroit, Cleveland, even the city of Pittsburgh continued to decline per 2020 census.

I've talked about this on another thread in the past, but Buffalo is way more of an honest Rust Belt than Detroit, which is a credit to Buffalo and a critique of Detroit. Detroit's regional population losses are much more mild than Buffalo's, but Buffalo's inner-city population losses have been less severe than Detroit's. Buffalo's decline is truly a result of economic collapse rather than bad urban planning.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by DCReid

At one time, the thought was Rochester would surpass Buffalo as it had more prestigious white-collar industry back then, names Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch & Lomb. That never happened.

This is true. However Buffalo had a head start, being the terminus of the Erie Canal, and became the 8th largest city in America and one of the wealthiest per capita by 1901.
Buffalo was larger in 1900 than Rochester was at its peak in 1950.
Once Buffalo got major league sports I think most knew Rochester would play second fiddle in Upstate/Western NY despite having more white collar jobs.

Rochester was an early tech capital, whereas Buffalo made literally everything one can think of and was always a regional banking hub.
The proximity to Canada and Great Lakes shipping also worked in Buffalo's favor.

Buffalo
1850 42,261 132.0%
1860 81,129 92.0%
1870 117,714 45.1%
1880 155,134 31.8%
1890 255,664 64.8%
1900 352,387 37.8%
1910 423,715 20.2%
1920 506,775 19.6%
1930 573,076 13.1%
1940 575,901 0.5%
1950 580,132 0.7%

Rochester

1850 36,403 80.3%
1860 48,204 32.4%
1870 62,386 29.4%
1880 89,366 43.2%
1890 133,896 49.8%
1900 162,608 21.4%
1910 218,149 34.2%
1920 295,750 35.6%
1930 328,132 10.9%
1940 324,975 −1.0%
1950 332,488 2.3%

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've talked about this on another thread in the past, but Buffalo is way more of an honest Rust Belt than Detroit, which is a credit to Buffalo and a critique of Detroit. Detroit's regional population losses are much more mild than Buffalo's, but Buffalo's inner-city population losses have been less severe than Detroit's. Buffalo's decline is truly a result of economic collapse rather than bad urban planning.

The city of Detroit literally lost more people in population than the entire 2 county Buffalo-Niagara metropolitan area.
City of Detroit declined by 1,217,104 people

It also went bankrupt, and was America's poster child of neglect, disinvestment, and abandonment. If that's not economic collapse of a city, I don't know what is

[edale]

Originally Posted by Wigs

The city of Detroit literally lost more people in population than the entire 2 county Buffalo-Niagara metropolitan area.
City of Detroit declined by 1,217,104 people

It also went bankrupt, and was America's poster child of neglect, disinvestment, and abandonment. If that's not economic collapse of a city, I don't know what is

Yeah, and Detroit metro's population has been stagnant since the 70s. Yes, sprawl has been an issue in SE Michigan, but everywhere has sprawl, including Buffalo. Detroit's woes were not helped by 'bad urban planning', but they are mostly the result of economic collapse.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Wigs

The city of Detroit literally lost more people in population than the entire 2 county Buffalo-Niagara metropolitan area.
City of Detroit declined by 1,217,104 people

It also went bankrupt, and was America's poster child of neglect, disinvestment, and abandonment. If that's not economic collapse of a city, I don't know what is

The city of Detroit did, but the Detroit metropolitan area did not. The severity of the Detroit city's economic collapse was politically driven instead of primarily driven by macroeconomic forces like Buffalo's.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Wigs

... My apologies for inserting that word

Apology accepted

Originally Posted by Wigs

Many still think Buffalo is rust belt wasteland

I think of Buffalo is rust belt motherland.

[Steely Dan]

"collapse" is a heavy and loaded term.

To me, "rustbelt" is best understood these days as cities that are/were very highly impacted by de-industrialzation, with a special emphasis on heavy industry like steel making and it's related manufacturing industries.

To that end, both Detroit and buffalo are textbook examples of larger rustbelt cities IMO, and splitting the hairs between which is more "true" rustbelt seems like a fool's errand to me.

[iheartthed]

Rust Belt, to me, means that the decline of the city is strongly connected to regional economic issues. I don't think it is any coincidence that Buffalo posted a population increase in the same decade that the metro posted its first population increase in half a century. That demonstrates a strong connection. There's a big distinction, to me, between cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh (strong connection), and those like Detroit (weak connection) and especially St. Louis (no connection).

Buffalo and Pittsburgh are both down roughly 14% at the regional level, and both metros have had persistent declines in population over the past 5-6 decades. By comparison, Detroit is down 2% from its peak regional population while St. Louis has mostly continued to grow, and neither of those metros had persistent population declines in the way the Pittsburgh and Buffalo did. Yet, the cities of Pittsburgh and Buffalo had less severe population declines than the cities of Detroit and St. Louis. Labeling places like Detroit and St. Louis the same as Pittsburgh and Buffalo suggests that the root causes for the urban decline are the same, but they are not. Consider that for every 1% decline at the regional level there was a 4% decline in the city of Buffalo. Pittsburgh's ratio is the same. But for every 1% decline at the regional level in Detroit there was a 22% decline in the city. St. Louis doesn't even have a correlation between regional population decline and urban decline, since there is no regional decline.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

. By comparison, Detroit is down 2% from its peak regional population...

All that tells me is Metro Detroit continues to sprawl particularly in the CSA while the city still hasn't stopped the population loss despite many including myself thinking it had considering downtown's resurgence of jobs and residents.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Wigs

.
Steely, if the city of Chicago lost 1.2M people it would look awful too.

From 1950 (peak) - 2010 (post-war low), the city of chicago's population decreased by ~925K, so not that far off Detroit in absolute numbers, though nowhere near as extreme by percentage.

Since we're apparently doing "rustbelt taffy-pull" v8.0, I'll just post this again.



These are what I consider to be the textbook large rustbelt cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Wigs

All that tells me is Metro Detroit continues to sprawl particularly in the CSA while the city still hasn't stopped the population loss despite many including myself thinking it had considering downtown's resurgence of jobs and residents.

That's... my point lol. Detroit's number one issue is sprawl.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Rust Belt, to me, means that the decline of the city is strongly connected to regional economic issues. I don't think it is any coincidence that Buffalo posted a population increase in the same decade that the metro posted its first population increase in half a century. That demonstrates a strong connection. There's a big distinction, to me, between cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh (strong connection), and those like Detroit (weak connection) and especially St. Louis (no connection).

Buffalo and Pittsburgh are both down roughly 14% at the regional level, and both metros have had persistent declines in population over the past 5-6 decades. By comparison, Detroit is down 2% from its peak regional population while St. Louis has mostly continued to grow, and neither of those metros had persistent population declines in the way the Pittsburgh and Buffalo did. Yet, the cities of Pittsburgh and Buffalo had less severe population declines than the cities of Detroit and St. Louis. Labeling places like Detroit and St. Louis the same as Pittsburgh and Buffalo suggests that the root causes for the urban decline are the same, but they are not. Consider that for every 1% decline at the regional level there was a 4% decline in the city of Buffalo. Pittsburgh's ratio is the same. But for every 1% decline at the regional level in Detroit there was a 22% decline in the city. St. Louis doesn't even have a correlation between regional population decline and urban decline, since there is no regional decline.

Are you seriously arguing that Detroit's decline is not tied to regional economic issues?? Had deindustrialization, automation, and offshoring of manual labor never happened, do you seriously think Detroit would still be in the condition its in today? The city/region grew into a powerhouse because of industry, and when that industry began to go away, or require less labor, the growth stopped. People fled to the suburbs just like they did in every other US city, but there was very little growth to backfill those who left. Thus you saw stagnation at the regional level, and dramatic decline at the city level. It's more or less the same situation as Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh's more dramatic regional declines can more or less be attributed to the presence of other, smaller industrial towns lining the river valleys around the city which also declined, while Detroit had the benefit of basically limitless amounts of flat, developable land which was more easily developable. Detroit also received a life-line of Middle Eastern (and to a lesser extent Mexican) immigration that Pittsburgh did not receive.

I will say the City of Detroit's woes go deeper than just economic collapse, though. There's of course the racial element that caused people to flee the city faster and more wholesale than just economic restructuring would have caused. Limitless sprawl has also definitely contributed to the intensity of the emptying out of Detroit. But I think there are plenty of examples of super sprawly regions that have not collapsed to claim that Detroit's issues are just due to sprawl. Plenty of people have mentioned the parallels between Detroit and Los Angeles on this board. I think greater LA is more or less what Detroit would have become had its economy not cratered in the post war era. Sprawl would probably be reaching across the mitten, but the city wouldn't be the emptied out shell of itself that it is.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

From 1950 (peak) - 2010 (post-war low), the city of chicago's population decreased by ~875K, so not that far off Detroit in absolute numbers, though nowhere near as extreme by percentage.

Since we're apparently doing "rustbelt taffy-pull" v8.0, I'll just post this again.



These are what I consider to be the textbook large rustbelt cities.

Rust belt taffy pull
Steely, You kill me.
But yeah we rehash Rust Belt talk every year.
I wish I hadn't been the author/instigator this time

1.2M minus 875k is still more than Buffalo's current population

I get your point, they basically all look bad when you use that chart from ~25-65% population loss

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'm probably in the minority, but count me as a fan of the "Before"...

Honestly having seen it in person when HSBC vacated and they removed the signs leaving the sign imprint, it just looked like a god awful white elephant.

One idiot Buffalo developer was actually quoted in the Buffalo News at the time saying it should be demolished

Doug Jemal from DC showed a huge cash infusion turned it into a better building functioning as mixed use with top end office space for M&T/their tech hub, and tech startups, even if the colors look a bit... garish at first.
In person it looks better and is an obvious visual to any Western NYer that Buffalo is bouncing back.

Jemal's mish mash lobby interior does not mesh well with the sleek, fresh, ultra modern M&T floors though, but he's a Septuagenarian originally from the Bronx, not exactly an icon of style

[Crawford]

Buffalo is much more purely Rust Belt than Detroit.

But Buffalo also has a much healthier and intact core/city proper than Detroit.

Detroit feels more like a northern Houston or LA grafted onto a Rust Belt town. Massive tract sprawl, megafreeways and giant arterials, edge cities, etc. IMO Detroit developed a bit too late, and declined a bit too hard, to have a truly fixable core. Buffalo declined hard, perhaps harder, but didn't sprawl as much and retained more whites and wealth and prewar urbanity.

[Yuri]

Pittsburgh metro area peaked in the 1950's. Buffalo in the 1960's. Detroit only peaked in 2000 and has a decent chance to peak again by 2030.

I guess in this sense Buffalo is more Rust Belt.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Since we're apparently doing "rustbelt taffy-pull" v8.0, I'll just post this again.

Consider my rustbelt taffy pulled... hard.

I mean, damn... when I look at them listed like this, I think, that's a list of some fucking cool cities.