thanks, Pete. this exploration is quite interesting. You might find more data and analysis by comparing cities (being careful to separate cities from metros for consistency). The numbers are pretty dramatic. Some cities peaked much earlier than is usually associated with deindustrialization. The population of East St. Louis peaked in 1910, Buffalo in 1950, to give a couple of examples. What pundits and academics don't ask often enough is why did ALL these cities and states lose their industry base? That undermines the much-repeated thesis that industrial cities were poorly run, crooked, etc. The consistency of the trend not just the longer time horizon points to national trends and not so much to individual state and city trends. That allows useful theorizing which is really important as pundits talk of reindustrialzing.
If you are going to compare Rust Belt cities to Sun Belt cities, I think focusing on core cities vs. metro areas would be problematic. Rust Belt metro areas have a smaller percentage in their core cities than Sun Belt metro areas do. I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but I think you would need to compare metro areas between the two regions in order to draw any meaningful conclusions.
If core cities in the Rust Belt peaked early, surely a lot of that was due to suburbanization, which played out very differently in the Rust Belt vs. the Sun Belt.
I'm not sure that there is any huge mystery around migration to the Sun Belt. First, a lot of people like warmer climates and living in the South got a lot easier after the rise of the automobile and air conditioning. Second, while I have no data to suspect this, I would guess a lot of people were attracted by lower taxes, which were possible in part because newer urban areas probably had much lower maintenance and infrastructure costs, and didn't have expensive legacy public transportation systems to maintain. To me, living somewhere where you have to drive everywhere is anathema, but for probably the majority of Americans it's the ideal.
I grew up in suburban Cook County Illinois, end lived in the city of Chicago for a few years as a young adult. After a 2 year stint in Madison, WI I moved to San Francisco. In the early 2000s, my partner and I decided we wanted to move. I wanted to go back to Chicago but he wouldn't hear of it, mostly because of the weather.
I think Pete is onto something here. I really liked where I grew up. I'm retired and live in Lisbon Portugal now but go back to the Chicago area 3 times a year, because my parents are there and my sister is nearby in Madison. Whenever I arrive, I still feel like I'm home, even though I haven't lived in Illinois since 1995. If I found myself wanting to go back to the US and my partner wasnt in the picture, Chicago would be at the top of my list.
I suspect that as the effects of climate change get worse and hurricanes/droughts/wildfire get worse in the Sun Belt, the Great Lakes Region (as I prefer to call it) may well see a renaissance fueled by people who great up there and left coming back. While every place in the world will be affected by climate change in some way, I would take my chances in Chicago or Detroit over Pnoenix or Las Vegas!
I don't understand why you choose to use the term Rust Belt like this. I hear it as a pejorative and it's like when someone says "the Democrat party". I would never say "I'm from the Rust Belt" and I only use the term when I'm talking about a crummy town I don't like that I quickly want to communicate a negative sentiment about. Beyond that, what exactly is Rust Belt-y about Iowa and Minnesota?
It's just hard to take a piece seriously when it's used as you use it here. Like calling the Southeast the Cockroach Belt. It may be true, but it's clarifying.
I get where you're coming from. However, as you might guess, I use the term intentionally.
First of all, when I use the term "Rust Belt" I mean the Great Lakes region, stretching from central and western New York State all the way to the Wisconsin shores of Lake Michigan. Basically hugging the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes from Syracuse, NY to Green Bay, WI. I don't mean it as a general pseudonym for the entire Midwest. I agree Iowa and Minnesota aren't Rust Belt-y, or any state in the Great Plains. A case could be made for Ohio River Valley cities being in the Rust Belt, though.
I've heard this many times over the years, and it's usually from people from within the region who want to shed any negative image of the Great Lakes region. A few years ago, Chicago public radio station WBEZ ran a story asking Chicagoans if Chicago was a "Midwest" city or not. Surprisingly, quite a few respondents said "not at all", because Midwest evokes images of the rural Heartland with farms, corn, grain and cows. They wanted to remind people that Chicago is just as vibrant and dynamic as any city in the nation, in the world. But denying the city's location in the middle of the country doesn't move us any closer to that realization.
I realize the term "Rust Belt" has pejorative and derogatory roots. But it doesn't have to be. I choose to use the term because it acknowledges our region's roots, as well as our potential. It's a term that recognizes the integral part this region had in the nation's path to become the most successful democracy and richest nation in the world, yet also captures its distinctiveness, authenticity and resilience as it withstood global forces that changed its fortunes.
I use it as a reminder that a region that's been given up for dead is still here.
thanks, Pete. this exploration is quite interesting. You might find more data and analysis by comparing cities (being careful to separate cities from metros for consistency). The numbers are pretty dramatic. Some cities peaked much earlier than is usually associated with deindustrialization. The population of East St. Louis peaked in 1910, Buffalo in 1950, to give a couple of examples. What pundits and academics don't ask often enough is why did ALL these cities and states lose their industry base? That undermines the much-repeated thesis that industrial cities were poorly run, crooked, etc. The consistency of the trend not just the longer time horizon points to national trends and not so much to individual state and city trends. That allows useful theorizing which is really important as pundits talk of reindustrialzing.
If you are going to compare Rust Belt cities to Sun Belt cities, I think focusing on core cities vs. metro areas would be problematic. Rust Belt metro areas have a smaller percentage in their core cities than Sun Belt metro areas do. I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but I think you would need to compare metro areas between the two regions in order to draw any meaningful conclusions.
If core cities in the Rust Belt peaked early, surely a lot of that was due to suburbanization, which played out very differently in the Rust Belt vs. the Sun Belt.
I'm not sure that there is any huge mystery around migration to the Sun Belt. First, a lot of people like warmer climates and living in the South got a lot easier after the rise of the automobile and air conditioning. Second, while I have no data to suspect this, I would guess a lot of people were attracted by lower taxes, which were possible in part because newer urban areas probably had much lower maintenance and infrastructure costs, and didn't have expensive legacy public transportation systems to maintain. To me, living somewhere where you have to drive everywhere is anathema, but for probably the majority of Americans it's the ideal.
I grew up in suburban Cook County Illinois, end lived in the city of Chicago for a few years as a young adult. After a 2 year stint in Madison, WI I moved to San Francisco. In the early 2000s, my partner and I decided we wanted to move. I wanted to go back to Chicago but he wouldn't hear of it, mostly because of the weather.
I think Pete is onto something here. I really liked where I grew up. I'm retired and live in Lisbon Portugal now but go back to the Chicago area 3 times a year, because my parents are there and my sister is nearby in Madison. Whenever I arrive, I still feel like I'm home, even though I haven't lived in Illinois since 1995. If I found myself wanting to go back to the US and my partner wasnt in the picture, Chicago would be at the top of my list.
I suspect that as the effects of climate change get worse and hurricanes/droughts/wildfire get worse in the Sun Belt, the Great Lakes Region (as I prefer to call it) may well see a renaissance fueled by people who great up there and left coming back. While every place in the world will be affected by climate change in some way, I would take my chances in Chicago or Detroit over Pnoenix or Las Vegas!
I don't understand why you choose to use the term Rust Belt like this. I hear it as a pejorative and it's like when someone says "the Democrat party". I would never say "I'm from the Rust Belt" and I only use the term when I'm talking about a crummy town I don't like that I quickly want to communicate a negative sentiment about. Beyond that, what exactly is Rust Belt-y about Iowa and Minnesota?
It's just hard to take a piece seriously when it's used as you use it here. Like calling the Southeast the Cockroach Belt. It may be true, but it's clarifying.
I get where you're coming from. However, as you might guess, I use the term intentionally.
First of all, when I use the term "Rust Belt" I mean the Great Lakes region, stretching from central and western New York State all the way to the Wisconsin shores of Lake Michigan. Basically hugging the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes from Syracuse, NY to Green Bay, WI. I don't mean it as a general pseudonym for the entire Midwest. I agree Iowa and Minnesota aren't Rust Belt-y, or any state in the Great Plains. A case could be made for Ohio River Valley cities being in the Rust Belt, though.
I've heard this many times over the years, and it's usually from people from within the region who want to shed any negative image of the Great Lakes region. A few years ago, Chicago public radio station WBEZ ran a story asking Chicagoans if Chicago was a "Midwest" city or not. Surprisingly, quite a few respondents said "not at all", because Midwest evokes images of the rural Heartland with farms, corn, grain and cows. They wanted to remind people that Chicago is just as vibrant and dynamic as any city in the nation, in the world. But denying the city's location in the middle of the country doesn't move us any closer to that realization.
I realize the term "Rust Belt" has pejorative and derogatory roots. But it doesn't have to be. I choose to use the term because it acknowledges our region's roots, as well as our potential. It's a term that recognizes the integral part this region had in the nation's path to become the most successful democracy and richest nation in the world, yet also captures its distinctiveness, authenticity and resilience as it withstood global forces that changed its fortunes.
I use it as a reminder that a region that's been given up for dead is still here.