Where Is The Rust Belt?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I can't speak for Cleveland, but for Detroit it seems like the key differentiator between it and Chicago is the level of flight (white and corporate) from the inner-city between the 1950s and 1990s. This was different from what the small industrial towns like Youngstown and Gary went through, which was mostly a complete collapse of industry.

Youngstown and Gary aren't and definitely weren't "industrial small towns". Smaller cities than Chicago or Detroit, yes of course, but cities of this size had huge industrial output. These were mid-sized cities of the day, and they experienced massive white, corporate, and overall population flight from the inner city.

Industrial small towns are an entirely different class of place in the US.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Youngstown and Gary aren't and definitely weren't "industrial small towns". Smaller cities than Chicago or Detroit, yes of course, but cities of this size had huge industrial output. These were mid-sized cities of the day, and they experienced massive white, corporate, and overall population flight from the inner city.

Industrial small towns are an entirely different class of place in the US.

I don't know a ton about either city other than that they were huge manufacturing towns. So, maybe what I described is indicative of the Rust Belt's medium-to-large cities. Cities devastated by flight to the suburbs. Detroit was, obviously, a huge manufacturing town, but not thoroughly. If Detroit could've maintained itself as the white collar jobs center in the region, it would certainly not have deteriorated as badly as it did.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Failte

As far as white flight, it gets blamed for everything and my point was that the manufacturing collapse certainly is a factor in why the people left.

of course the mass loss of middle class manufacturing jobs has caused a great upheaval in chicago residential patterns, as it has elsewhere in the rust belt, but to pretend that racial paranoia wasn't also a major factor in the radical demographic changes that occurred in many chicago neighborhoods is to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Failte

But to imply that a neighborhood went from 90% white to 90% black as only a bad thing is misplaced and could be construed as either racist or patronizing white folk think.

who's implying anything about neighborhood racial demographic changes? i'm only talking about the reality of what happened, not making a value judgement about any of it being "good" or "bad".

Originally Posted by Failte

There were middle class black neighborhoods in the city. We've had black flight for some time now yet it appears to many to be a good thing and no one complains about black city abandonment.

who thinks black flight is a good thing? there has been tons of ink spilled over the past decade about black flight from chicago, and i can't recall any of it being positive. it's a gigantic problem facing the city of chicago.

so far, no one seems to have any good solutions to stemming the exodus. mayor lightfoot's funding shift for the neighborhood opportunity fund might be a starting point, but it's way too soon to tell.

[Failte]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

of course the mass loss of middle class manufacturing jobs has caused a great upheaval in chicago residential patterns, as it has elsewhere in the rust belt, but to pretend that racial paranoia wasn't also a major factor in the radical demographic changes that occurred in many chicago neighborhoods is to deny reality.




who's implying anything about neighborhood racial demographic changes? i'm only talking about the reality of what happened, not making a value judgement about any of it being "good" or "bad".




who thinks black flight is a good thing? there has been tons of ink spilled over the past decade about black flight from chicago, and i can't recall any of it being positive. it's a gigantic problem facing the city of chicago.

so far, no one seems to have any good solutions to stemming the exodus. mayor lightfoot's funding shift for the neighborhood opportunity fund might be a starting point, but it's way too soon to tell.

These posts don't always translate actual intent but my response was rooted in the point raised by another poster that the cause of decline and white flight was about ''crime'' coming into neighborhoods. Blacks moving in meant crime so whites moved out; you weren't making a value judgment, the poster that implied was, that's all.

Blacks are fleeing Chicago due to crime and opportunities outside the city, the metro, and now the state. Just like everyone else. Today the narrative is that the white people (many ethnics living in their old neighborhoods) left Chicago because of ''blacks moving in''.

While there's a lot of ink about black flight, no one is complaining or blaming them for fleeing Chicago or other cities for that matter. Certainly no complaints about blacks abandoning their neighborhoods and cities. When the shocking Chicago 2010 census figures were released, the reaction and blame was placed on the those blacks that lived in the old projects. Actually, Chicago was and is suffering from middle class flight, a rust belt legacy that continues to be a drag on the city.

Perhaps Lightfoot's increased funding share in her neighborhood opportunity fund program may help; given Chicago's past with these incentives and public aid, one should be skeptical. However, with Lightfoot's determined efforts to reform Chicago, perhaps there will be real results instead of $ lining developers and their cronies pockets.

Let's just hope Chicago continues to be less ''rusty'' as it was.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Failte

While there's a lot of ink about black flight, no one is complaining or blaming them for fleeing Chicago or other cities for that matter. Certainly no complaints about blacks abandoning their neighborhoods and cities.

i don't know about "blaming", that seems like a counterproductive waste of time to me.

but i've certainly read lots of articles lamenting the exodus of black chicago out of the city.

i suppose that's not really "complaining", but it's certainly a form of care and concern.

https://longreads.com/2019/01/31/bla...ut-of-chicago/

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...t?oid=66920657

https://chicagodefender.com/affordab...ht-in-chicago/

Originally Posted by Failte

Perhaps Lightfoot's increased funding share in her neighborhood opportunity fund program may help; given Chicago's past with these incentives and public aid, one should be skeptical. However, with Lightfoot's determined efforts to reform Chicago, perhaps there will be real results instead of $ lining developers and their cronies pockets.

Let's just hope Chicago continues to be less ''rusty'' as it was.

i would agree that skepticism is warranted given chicago's track record with these sorts of things, but i truly do believe that lightfoot grasps the gravity of the issue more than the city's previous 3 decades worth of mayors (really, just two guys) and is paying more than lip service to it this time.

will she be successful? who the hell knows. some of the deep-seated social dysfunction at the root of a lot of it seems intractably hard-wired into the city after several generations of it now, but i do sincerely hope she can work some miracles to rebuild the south and west side ghettos and find meaningful ways to get chicago's "forgotten youth" plugged into the new city economy, because the factories that once employed hundreds of thousands with solid middle class jobs ain't coming back.

at least she's aiming high: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...lori-lightfoot

[Failte]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know about "blaming", that seems like a counterproductive waste of time to me.

but i've certainly read lots of articles lamenting the exodus of black chicago out of the city.

i suppose that's not really "complaining", but it's certainly a form of care and concern.

https://longreads.com/2019/01/31/bla...ut-of-chicago/

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...t?oid=66920657

https://chicagodefender.com/affordab...ht-in-chicago/





i would agree that skepticism is warranted given chicago's track record with these sorts of things, but i truly do believe that lightfoot grasps the gravity of the issue more than the city's previous 3 decades worth of mayors (really, just two guys) and is paying more than lip service to it this time.

will she be successful? who the hell knows. some of the deep-seated social dysfunction at the root of a lot of it seems intractably hard-wired into the city after several generations of it now, but i do sincerely hope she can work some miracles to rebuild the south and west side ghettos and find meaningful ways to get chicago's "forgotten youth" plugged into the new city economy, because the factories that once employed hundreds of thousands with solid middle class jobs ain't coming back.

at least she's aiming high: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...lori-lightfoot

Yes, ''blaming'' is a counter productive waste of time, so this applies to all the various groups, from the old ethnic communities to today's black community currently leaving the city. Stopping the blame will create solutions for sure.

Thanks for the articles. Gotta wonder though when the Chicago Defender uses language like Lightfoot trying to ''combat gentrification'' in a rust belt city in dire need of not only trying to retain its middle class tax base but increase it as well. I think the gentrification effect is overblown in many old rust belt cities, Chicago included, as a city like Philly tries to trace its exploding gun violence on gentrification as it allegedly is displacing gang-bangers etc out and creating conflict with gangs in the areas they are forced into...please.

Lightfoot certainly has a job ahead of her though; she's tough but Chicago does have its well embedded corruption network to contend with. While Lightfoot may make some inroads on creating the needed opportunity, it takes more than her to get these kids to the table. It all starts in the home and generally before kids are kindergarten age.

All those old factory and manufacturing are certainly not coming back. And people try to state Chicago wasn't or isn't a Rust Belt city.

[Crawford]

Black flight isn't remotely analogous to white flight. There are no Chicago (or anywhere) neighborhoods that go from 100% black to 0% black in a couple of years; it's more a steady drift of middle class outmigration, and it isn't tied to race.

And it's disingenuous to claim that rapid white flight was due to crime. Perhaps perceptions of future crime if one were to not leave, but not actual crime. It was (mostly) race.

[ChiMIchael]

I don't quite agree with Rust Belt assessment of Chicago. I think it seeks to define the city as this dystopia. It defines the city by it problems when it's way more than that.

I fully agree with with a lot of the issue the city has in regards to the black flight, and the decrease of manufacturing. But unlike some other Rust Belt cities, it was able to prove the that the city can live on without factory presence. Realistically, though, the economy needs to hit another gear or two to get back to where it was. The way to do that is the play its own game and not of the coasts. The question is whether a leader in the city exists to accomplish that.

I think Chicago is probably one of the most enigmatic cities in the world, and that should really be marketed.

Just my 2 cents. If Chicago being a Rust Belt city pays yours bills, that's great.

[chris08876]

The rust belt is located in aisle 7 right near the normal belts that are at full price at Bobs Western Belts Emporium. 1000's of belts, one low price!

Rust belt seems to cater to those youngsters that want that rugged look, but don't want to pay full price for fine Italian leather belts. The types that grandpa use to hit your father with when he skipped school. Those kind of belts, the skinny ones!

[edale]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I don't quite agree with Rust Belt assessment of Chicago. I think it seeks to define the city as this dystopia. It defines the city by it problems when it's way more than that.

Is this unique to Chicago? Do you think the residents of Cleveland and Detroit like to see those cities characterized as dystopias and defined by their problems? Rust Belt is a really condescending term, especially when, as many have pointed out here, cities across the country have gone through periods of decline and economic peril, but only cities in the Rust Belt get painted with this broad, meaningless label.

A more accurate label for what most of us think of as being the Rust Belt would be the "lack of immigration belt". Had St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, etc. received a constant stream of immigrants throughout the latter half of the 20th century, they almost certainly would not have experienced the abandonment and depression that they experienced. I always think, given some of the parallels in their built form, that LA is (maybe was) Detroit with more immigrants and warm weather. The collapse of industry hit LA hard, too, but it was able to weather the storm much better because it had a continuous flow of immigrants and migrants from other parts of the US. Of course this is a bit simplistic, but I think overall, the point stands.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by edale

Is this unique to Chicago? Do you think the residents of Cleveland and Detroit like to see those cities characterized as dystopias and defined by their problems? Rust Belt is a really condescending term, especially when, as many have pointed out here, cities across the country have gone through periods of decline and economic peril, but only cities in the Rust Belt get painted with this broad, meaningless label.

A more accurate label for what most of us think of as being the Rust Belt would be the "lack of immigration belt". Had St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, etc. received a constant stream of immigrants throughout the latter half of the 20th century, they almost certainly would not have experienced the abandonment and depression that they experienced. I always think, given some of the parallels in their built form, that LA is (maybe was) Detroit with more immigrants and warm weather. The collapse of industry hit LA hard, too, but it was able to weather the storm much better because it had a continuous flow of immigrants and migrants from other parts of the US. Of course this is a bit simplistic, but I think overall, the point stands.

Perhaps not, but I don't like how some economist like to call enthusiasts of their cities "delusional" or "boosters" for being resilient and optimistic.

Do you think lack of immigrants have to do with their locations?

I don't know a lot about LA's economic issues. I figured things collapsed in the 90s but the tech age was fledging so the city was able to pick up on that. But it probably way different than that.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

A more accurate label for what most of us think of as being the Rust Belt would be the "lack of immigration belt".

good point.

Originally Posted by edale

Had St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, etc. received a constant stream of immigrants throughout the latter half of the 20th century, they almost certainly would not have experienced the abandonment and depression that they experienced.

i noticed that you left chicago off of that list, and probably for good reason. while chicago has certainly lagged far behind the big coastal immigration centers (NYC, LA, SF, miami, etc.) for some time now, it still has been able to attract significantly more immigrants than the other cities in the "lack of immigration belt".


major midwest/rust belt cities by foreign born %:

chicago - 20.6%
minneapolis - 15.3%
columbus - 10.7%
milwaukee - 9.9%
indianapolis - 7.8%
buffalo - 7.3%
kansas city - 7.1%
detroit - 6.6%
rochester - 6.5%
pittsburgh - 6.4%
st. louis - 5.9%
cleveland - 4.5%
cincinnati - 3.4%

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orn_population




for reference, here's the foreign born percentage for some of america's hyped-up "city darlings":

austin - 20.2%
seattle - 17.6%
denver - 15.7%
portland - 12.6%


so i don't think we can accurately place chicago in this so-called "lack of immigration" belt, or we will have to radically expand the borders of said belt.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for reference, here's the foreign born percentage for some of america's hyped-up "city darlings":

austin - 20.2%
seattle - 17.6%
denver - 15.7%
portland - 12.6%


so i don't think we can accurately place chicago in a so-called "lack of immigration" belt, or we will have to radically expand the borders of said belt.

I think of those cities as benefactors of mass internal migration more than net new immigration. It may be fair to call Denver a relatively low-immigration city but that hasn't stifled it's growth compared to a rust belt city that isn't attracting young people looking for jobs and outdoor activities.

[Steely Dan]

^ so the real name should be "The Lack of Both International Immigration & Domestic Migration Belt".

that sure does roll off the tongue a lot easier than "Rust Belt".

[Crawford]

I think immigration is a factor, but one of many. Detroit attracts far more immigrants than say, Cincy, and is visibly much more cosmopolitan, but has generally had a rougher path over the last 50 or so years.

Of course both metros are laggards. And Cincy received a lot of regional Appalachian in-migration as a replacement for intl migration.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by edale

Is this unique to Chicago? Do you think the residents of Cleveland and Detroit like to see those cities characterized as dystopias and defined by their problems? Rust Belt is a really condescending term, especially when, as many have pointed out here, cities across the country have gone through periods of decline and economic peril, but only cities in the Rust Belt get painted with this broad, meaningless label.

A more accurate label for what most of us think of as being the Rust Belt would be the "lack of immigration belt". Had St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, etc. received a constant stream of immigrants throughout the latter half of the 20th century, they almost certainly would not have experienced the abandonment and depression that they experienced. I always think, given some of the parallels in their built form, that LA is (maybe was) Detroit with more immigrants and warm weather. The collapse of industry hit LA hard, too, but it was able to weather the storm much better because it had a continuous flow of immigrants and migrants from other parts of the US. Of course this is a bit simplistic, but I think overall, the point stands.

now this is right on point. and i will throw in the absolutely disgusting distain the move-in ny'ers in the media and the rich have for anything to do with the middle class. they and the wealthy love, love love to have the poors around to pity and absolve their wealth guilt with alms, but god forbid anyone who does anything with their hands is ever around them. eww. that's the help. and middle class is the midlands/midwest in a nutshell in their minds. so unfortunately, these are the elitsts who drive the major media machine industry and this where you get 'cities characterized as dystopias' and condescending terms thrown around or maintained, like the continued use of the rust belt moniker. i am generalizing of course, but there is a big streak of that reality around manhattan in this little rant.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think immigration is a factor, but one of many. Detroit attracts far more immigrants than say, Cincy, and is visibly much more cosmopolitan, but has generally had a rougher path over the last 50 or so years.

another good point. as i pointed out with chicago above, there's definitely more to this story than just immigration, or the lack thereof.

the loss of solid middle class industrial jobs through both plant closings and automation has to figure in heavily in this discussion as well.

in the case of detroit and cincy, someone correct me if i'm wrong, but my hunch is that detroit has been hit harder by industrial job loss than cincy over the past 50 years.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

another good point. as i pointed out with chicago above, there's definitely more to this story than just immigration, or the lack thereof.

the loss of solid middle class industrial jobs through both plant closings and automation has to figure in heavily in this discussion as well.

in the case of detroit and cincy, someone correct me if i'm wrong, but my hunch is that detroit has been hit harder by industrial job loss than cincy over the past 50 years.

although smaller, the cinci business world is much more diversified and notoriously parochial than detroit's was. that has definitely has helped them weather economic storms much better. just another example of immigration being less of an issue for that area i think.

[Buckeye Native 001]

The only major manufacturing losses that I can think of in Cincinnati were GM closing it's Norwood plant and Ford closing a plant (strictly for transmissions?) in Batavia and Sharonville Assembly reducing its workforce. It stopped being a draw for German immigrants in the early 20th century.

"Notoriously parochial" is an apt description in more ways than one.

[suburbanite]

I do wonder if geographic constraints have a small effect as well. Cincinatti and Pittsburgh, while also being some of the hardest hit from the loss of manufacturing, seemed to maintain a much more centralized corporate/economic base. Their respective geographies make suburban office park-style development more difficult than flat sprawling Detroit where the jobs were able to quickly flee to cheap and easy to develop land. The wealthy still left for the winding suburbs that lace the surrounding hills, but the majority of offices seemed to have remained downtown.

Never truly losing a grip on their downtown is definitely benefiting them now that we're starting to see a resurgence in people wanting to be close to a functioning, healthy city centre.