I like your work on the rust belt, which does not get enough attention. I am a journalist doing work on cities and since the Great Recession I see a widening gap between cities with them falling into three categories. I chose "Legacy Industrial" to focus on cities that were really hit hard by deindustrialization beginning in the 1970s (earlier for some), and have struggled to thrive. I count cities in the Northeast corridor, like Providence, Philadelphia and Baltimore. the industrial cities of Mass., PA, NJ, CT and upstate NY with the usual Midwestern suspects. Birmingham is the South's outlier. Most "sunbelt" cities I categorize as Boomburgs, because their growth-at-any-cost ethos is more important than sun (which is increasingly cooking them). Knowledge Hubs are the think-tank ideal, mostly on the coasts, where tech and finance dominate, are entrepeneurial, husband their amenities but are way too expensive. (I'm in NYC.) It may be worth having more of a conversation in Substack about the usefulness of such categories. (You can find me at james560@substack.com) And I'm interested in deeper dives into how Rust Belt cities seem to be forging a better future.
Don't even these classifications ignore the "Rust Belt" and the center of the country?
What about growing, and in many ways thriving, cities like Madison (MI), Grand Rapids (MI), or even [smaller] Traverse City (MI)? All have strong economies, intense housing pressure, and a rising AMI. "Upstart" cities?
And then there are cities like Lansing (MI) or Kalamazoo (MI) which can't seem to find the gas pedal, but also are relatively stable [fiscally & population] in their current state. "Frozen" cities? [some of them, like Lansing (MI), do not seem all that interested in finding the pedal]
It seems like most cities [above 100,000 or 50,000 souls?] do not fit easily into the Legacy, Boomburg, or Hub categories.
The "Fresh Coasts" and "Third Coasts" all felt extremely marketing, like trying too hard. Those got local (Grand Rapids, MI) eye rolls from more people than just myself.
"few people who live near oceans are able to accept that cities on the Great Lakes sit on coast"
This is true. As a life-long Michigan resident I've observed shock-and-awe when an ocean coastal sees the Lake Michigan shoreline. Even overheard an "oh, I think I *could* live here". This is, in my reckoning, one of the aspects which helps "Rust Belt" stick: it is passively derogatory. There is some kind of cultural pride [or perhaps arrogance] with living on the coast, people identify with being near the ocean even when it has no direct interaction with their day-to-day life. Pride [and arrogance] require a lesser, which "Rust Belt" provides that in an appropriately quasi-sympathetic way.
Dear Pete Saunders,
I like your work on the rust belt, which does not get enough attention. I am a journalist doing work on cities and since the Great Recession I see a widening gap between cities with them falling into three categories. I chose "Legacy Industrial" to focus on cities that were really hit hard by deindustrialization beginning in the 1970s (earlier for some), and have struggled to thrive. I count cities in the Northeast corridor, like Providence, Philadelphia and Baltimore. the industrial cities of Mass., PA, NJ, CT and upstate NY with the usual Midwestern suspects. Birmingham is the South's outlier. Most "sunbelt" cities I categorize as Boomburgs, because their growth-at-any-cost ethos is more important than sun (which is increasingly cooking them). Knowledge Hubs are the think-tank ideal, mostly on the coasts, where tech and finance dominate, are entrepeneurial, husband their amenities but are way too expensive. (I'm in NYC.) It may be worth having more of a conversation in Substack about the usefulness of such categories. (You can find me at james560@substack.com) And I'm interested in deeper dives into how Rust Belt cities seem to be forging a better future.
Don't even these classifications ignore the "Rust Belt" and the center of the country?
What about growing, and in many ways thriving, cities like Madison (MI), Grand Rapids (MI), or even [smaller] Traverse City (MI)? All have strong economies, intense housing pressure, and a rising AMI. "Upstart" cities?
And then there are cities like Lansing (MI) or Kalamazoo (MI) which can't seem to find the gas pedal, but also are relatively stable [fiscally & population] in their current state. "Frozen" cities? [some of them, like Lansing (MI), do not seem all that interested in finding the pedal]
It seems like most cities [above 100,000 or 50,000 souls?] do not fit easily into the Legacy, Boomburg, or Hub categories.
The "Fresh Coasts" and "Third Coasts" all felt extremely marketing, like trying too hard. Those got local (Grand Rapids, MI) eye rolls from more people than just myself.
"few people who live near oceans are able to accept that cities on the Great Lakes sit on coast"
This is true. As a life-long Michigan resident I've observed shock-and-awe when an ocean coastal sees the Lake Michigan shoreline. Even overheard an "oh, I think I *could* live here". This is, in my reckoning, one of the aspects which helps "Rust Belt" stick: it is passively derogatory. There is some kind of cultural pride [or perhaps arrogance] with living on the coast, people identify with being near the ocean even when it has no direct interaction with their day-to-day life. Pride [and arrogance] require a lesser, which "Rust Belt" provides that in an appropriately quasi-sympathetic way.