Read on Twitter
The last year these cities were at the population that they have today:
Akron - 1919
Buffalo - 1890
Cincinnati - 1892
Cleveland - 1900
Dayton - 1917
Detroit - 1914
Erie - 1921
Flint - 1921
Gary - 1924
Pittsburgh - 1898
Rochester - 1908
Toledo - 1926
Youngstown - 1906
Akron - 1919
Buffalo - 1890
Cincinnati - 1892
Cleveland - 1900
Dayton - 1917
Detroit - 1914
Erie - 1921
Flint - 1921
Gary - 1924
Pittsburgh - 1898
Rochester - 1908
Toledo - 1926
Youngstown - 1906
Preemptive reply.
Since there have been a lot of replies about this, here are some thoughts on why the central city and the urban core still matter, and why its social and economic health is important: https://thestile1972.tumblr.com/post/184870221335/the-rise-fall-and-rise-again-of-the-rust-belt
tl;dr:
Deindustrialization might have started the fire in the cities of the Rust Belt, but it was mass suburbanization and mass urban disinvestment that kept it burning. To reverse it, they must compete head-to-head with the suburbs as a place to live and invest.
Deindustrialization might have started the fire in the cities of the Rust Belt, but it was mass suburbanization and mass urban disinvestment that kept it burning. To reverse it, they must compete head-to-head with the suburbs as a place to live and invest.
1) A thread on population loss in the industrial cities of the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley: https://thestile1972.tumblr.com/post/184870221335/the-rise-fall-and-rise-again-of-the-rust-belt
2) The pop-narrative/conventional wisdom is that the deindustrialization of these cities happened, and that they fell into widespread decline as a result. This is true, as far as it goes, but it glosses over a lot of details and complex economic/geographic relationships.
3) By and large, the decline of heavy smokestack industry in the urban core of these cities happened two generations ago.
In my city of Akron, for example, the last passenger tire was built in 1982. I was 10. The median-aged Akronite wasnât even born yet.
In my city of Akron, for example, the last passenger tire was built in 1982. I was 10. The median-aged Akronite wasnât even born yet.
4) Heavy industry located in the urban core held on in some cities a bit longer than in others, but manufacturers had been building new plants in the suburbs of these cities since the 1950s, and by the late 1970s, these regions were hemorrhaging jobs to the non-union South.
5) Itâs not that most people worked in manufacturing (they didnât) but it was the linchpin of the entire economy. When it faltered/collapsed, net overall economic and population growth in these regions largely ceased - in some places more/less than others.
6) For the smaller cities, with less diverse economies, dominated by a single industry (e.g. Flint, Gary, Youngstown) it is nearly impossible to exaggerate how socially and economically devastating the loss of that industry was.
7) But the decline of these cities (especially the larger ones with more diverse economies) was about a lot more than the loss of manufacturing jobs. It was also about three other major sociological trends that peaked in the 1970s.
8) These trends were:
a) Residential desegregation and white flight (resegregation)
b) Urban renewal/completion of the interstate highway system and the mass suburbanization it fueled
c) Widespread regional outmigration to the Sunbelt
a) Residential desegregation and white flight (resegregation)
b) Urban renewal/completion of the interstate highway system and the mass suburbanization it fueled
c) Widespread regional outmigration to the Sunbelt
9) An entire library of books could be written on these complicated, interrelated, and very much overlapping trends, and how they all worked together to put the urban core cities of these metropolitan areas at an extreme competitive disadvantage with their suburbs.
10) And then there were other sociological realities of the 1970s, like high rates of violent crime, political corruption, aging housing and infrastructure - which all worked together with everything else to make core cities even more unattractive to people.
11) The collapse of manufacturing led to the lack of regional population growth. Continued demand for suburban development (for all of the reasons mentioned above) left the older cities with nowhere to go but down. They lost the game of musical chairs when the music stopped.
12) Even to this day, in most of these places, the suburbs (overall) are healthy, and the persistent struggle of most of these cities is as much (if not more) the result of mass suburbanization (with little or no regional growth) than it is deindustrialization.
13) Of course, not all cities in the Rust Belt are the same. There is a world of difference between a global alpha city like Chicago, and very small manufacturing cities like Lima or Steubenville (whose lack of scale and size presents some really hellish difficulties).
14) But, generally, itâs not like these regions are âemptying outâ. Some of them are growing. Most are stagnant, or declining slightly.
15) This is why the (and Iâm generalizing because I have limited time and space in which to make my point) whole school of âU-Haul/Declinist/Fatalisticâ urban policy/hospice care for cities is so foolish and out of touch with the reality on the ground. https://thestile1972.tumblr.com/post/181809404165/the-u-haul-school-of-urban-policy
16) There are plenty of people, and there is plenty of economic activity in most of these regions. There is still wealth and there are many highly-educated residents.
Despite what some academics who donât live here think, Dayton wonât be disappearing. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/rust-belt-survival/492155/
Despite what some academics who donât live here think, Dayton wonât be disappearing. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/rust-belt-survival/492155/
17) The issue isnât that there is no wealth or economic activity in these places.
The issue is the extreme geographic disparity between the urban core neighborhoods and those in the outer suburbs. Those disparities are worse in the Rust Belt than anywhere else in the country.
The issue is the extreme geographic disparity between the urban core neighborhoods and those in the outer suburbs. Those disparities are worse in the Rust Belt than anywhere else in the country.
18) The lack of (relative) regional economic competitiveness with other parts of the country has simply made the overall pie smaller than it used to be, and the core city and the suburbs are now competing for an ever-shrinking share of the (still quite large) pie that remains.
19) So, in terms of how the rebirth of these urban places can proceed - in the short-term, itâs not about rebuilding the regionâs entire economy, or about luring people back from the Sunbelt.
20) These are the heavy lifts that people always seem to insist upon in discussions about the future of this part of the country, and which simply ensure that weâll keep wringing our hands and spinning our wheels in perpetuity. It's a really convenient excuse for the status-quo.
21) To be sure, starting now, in light of the pandemic, and with an eye-toward the long-term, the nation needs to figure out how the post-industrial economy, which is disproportionately benefiting the coasts and Sunbelt, and hurting the Rust Belt, can be made more equitable.
22) And, to be sure, maybe people from the Sunbelt will move back here in the long-term, as their water runs out, and as climate change renders places that are currently considered pleasant, perhaps ultimately not-so-pleasant.
23) But these are long-term propositions, and they involve a lot of uncertainties about huge macro-level forces that even if we knew how to harness or steer them (we donât), there is no guarantee that we *could* steer or harness them.
24) So, back to the rebirth of these cities in the short-term. It doesnât involve mass national re-migrations to the region, or coming up with economic growth version 2.0. It involves making these core cities truly competitive with their suburbs, as places to live and invest.
25) One reason that coastal and Sunbelt urban core cities are generally doing so well, is that there is a lot of positive growth pressure and high overall demand to live there, which naturally gives the urban core a head-start and a lot of momentum to build upon.
26) And, conversely, one reason that Rust Belt urban cores are struggling, is because these regions are not experiencing overall demand - commutes are easy, urban housing & parking are cheap, and itâs easier and more profitable to build new in the suburbs than to do urban infill.
27) But, nevertheless, there are ways to make the urban core areas highly-competitive with their suburbs. It involves building marketable new housing (focusing on supply), and leveraging traditional, walkable urban assets that canât be found in the suburbs (focusing on demand).
28) Iâve worked in public policy/urban planning for 25 years now. Itâs amazing to me how much people insist upon tackling the most difficult challenges first. We need to bring manufacturing back! We need to convince people that Florida is not actually warm and sunny all year!
29) I donât know about you, but I donât know how to reinvent the entire economy of the nationâs former industrial heartland. Why donât we start with something a tad bit easier?
30) Something like: âHow do we work hard to ensure that more of the people who already live here and already have jobs, choose to decide to live and/or invest in the urban core, rather than in the suburbs?â
31) That would be a revitalization project worth pursuing. It still wouldnât be an easy one, but it is one that is possible.
It is one that could actually improve the lives of people in cities like mine before I die, and that alone, to me, makes it worth doing. [end]
It is one that could actually improve the lives of people in cities like mine before I die, and that alone, to me, makes it worth doing. [end]
