Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The key point about Center Township in the post you responded to is "core city declines until recently." Center Township saw an increase in the 2020 census, the first since 1950.
I think the overall point they were making is taken though. Indianapolis was also able to hide it's core city declines through physical boundary growth. Though if my history is correct, instead of Indianapolis annexing areas around it, the Indiana state legislature simply made a law making Indianapolis and Marion County coterminous.
Indianapolis is generally regarded as a bright spot for growth. Like Kansas City most folks don't realize it suffered core declines. Perhaps the argument could be made against my point that KC is more similar to Indy than it would be to Cincy. Though I am not certain Indy's core declines were as dramatic as Kansas City's must have been given the sheer disparity in land growth to city growth.
I think the overall point they were making is taken though. Indianapolis was also able to hide it's core city declines through physical boundary growth. Though if my history is correct, instead of Indianapolis annexing areas around it, the Indiana state legislature simply made a law making Indianapolis and Marion County coterminous.
Indianapolis is generally regarded as a bright spot for growth. Like Kansas City most folks don't realize it suffered core declines. Perhaps the argument could be made against my point that KC is more similar to Indy than it would be to Cincy. Though I am not certain Indy's core declines were as dramatic as Kansas City's must have been given the sheer disparity in land growth to city growth.
From 1960 to 2020, Marion County increased in population 29%. Over the same time period, Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) declined 23%, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) declined 24%, and Wayne County (Detroit) declined 32%. Yes, Unigov shielded some of the core city's losses, but Marion County as a whole collectively outperformed those three counties on this metric.
Oh no, the more distinctions the better. What would you say these distinctions mean?
Some are weather related, with the obvious implication that people don’t necessarily want to live in harsh climates. A place like Duluth, which is both rust belt and snow belt, is a tough sell vs a much more moderate KC or southern Ohio even.
To me the biggest driving factor is jobs base and or taxes.
A place like Sioux Falls has low taxes and a good job base for its size. Madison is propped up by govt jobs and tech. The twin cities are a F1000 Mecca for their size. These types of places become the stars of the Midwest in my opinion.
Clinically the term "Rust Belt" originated from a 1986 book. It defines as economies that have less manufacturing jobs in 1986 than they did in the 1960s. From the actual definition, pretty much all legacy cities went through some kind of rust belt transition. It's neither positive or negative, but rather a definition of an economic transition that had an impact on all cities that had population booms out of the industrial revolution. Many cities including the Twin Cities went through the economic transition into knowledge based/corporate economies that turned them into the modern cosmopolitan metros we know them to be now.
On City-Data the term Rustbelt has defaulted to mean core cities that have been in a perpetual state of population decline since the 1950's, or basically Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and then all the midsize to small satellite cities around them that grew out of one industry and have been unable to replace their outdated economic models, that sustain populations at their pre-1980 levels. It is a pejorative. Hence why a Minneapolis homer is so quick to point out that it's not Rust Belt even though no one claimed otherwise.
To the post you were responding to, I would say Kansas City would be more similar to Cincinnati than it is to Indy. Growth at a metropolitan level, but core city declines until recently. The only difference is Kansas City was able to annex it's fleeing tax base back, and hide it's core city struggles, and Cincinnati was not able to do the same. Whether Cincinatti, or Kansas City are actually considered rust belt would depend on each individual's personal definition of such since there isn't a true definition of what Rust Belt is.
There are also cities like Grand Rapids, which grew out of the industrial revolution, struggled with manufacturing declines, but were able to economically transition and pivot away from the obsolete Rust Belt economic model. Where do "recovered" Rust Belt cities fit in this discussion?
There was a book published in 1981 titled The Nine Nations of North America. The two regions which apply to areas we are speaking of are the Breadbasket, and The Foundry.
The Breadbasket – most of the Great Plains states and part of the Prairie provinces: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, almost all of Oklahoma, parts of Missouri, western Wisconsin, eastern Colorado, the eastern edge of New Mexico, central Illinois, a portion of Indiana, and North Texas. Also included are some of Northern Ontario and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Capital: Kansas City.
The Foundry – the (by-then-declining) industrial areas of the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region stretching from New York City to Milwaukee and down to the suburbs of Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia, and including Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Philadelphia, and Southern Ontario. Capital: Detroit.
I think these definitions seem a fairer representation of how the Midwest and Rust Belt can be split. IIRC, it was from this definition of The Foundry that Rust Belt was derived. It wasn't just the Great Lakes and Midwest that were affected by loss of heavy industry, but places like Lehigh Valley, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other areas of the Northeast, and at the time they were also considered Rust Belt.
From 1960 to 2020, Marion County increased in population 29%. Over the same time period, Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) declined 23%, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) declined 24%, and Wayne County (Detroit) declined 32%. Yes, Unigov shielded some of the core city's losses, but Marion County as a whole collectively outperformed those three counties on this metric.
I think we are saying the same thing here. I'm not sure what your comparison to Detroit, CLE, and PGH are about? Did I miss someone making a comparison of Indy to the main set of Rust Belt cities?
Per the discussion about Kansas City
Indy/Marion county grew, but the original 1950 Indy core still continued a small decline "until recently". Kansas City and it's annexed areas also grew, but at a much slower rate than Indy and it's annexed areas. My whole point about any of this is that if someone claims Kansas City isn't Rust Belt, or Rust Belt "adjacent", that it's growth numbers don't really give a full picture on that perception, and that it's likely more nuanced.
Cincinnati, Omaha, Louisville, and Lexington all fall into the midwest category. Toledo is definitely rust belt. Milwaukee I would lean towards midwest over rust belt but it has had a lot of industry historically, and a good deal of flight from the the city, but since it still has the majority of it's peak population I'd call it midwestern, but I'm not sure. I don't know enough about the quad cities area to answer that one.
Do you think this distinction makes sense?
I wouldnt call it Rust Belt vs Midwest. Rust Belt is a huge part of the Midwest. I would call it Rust Belt vs Neo Midwest or Neo Rust Belt.
But the gist is that the Rust Belt is an area within the Midwest. There are cities outside of the Rust Belt that bear some similarity to Rust Belt cities and there are cities on the periphery of the Rust Belt that get lumped in with the Rust Belt but are not actually Rust Belt cities.
The defining characteristic is a prolonged decline in population, not just of the central city, but of the entire metro area. This almost always corresponds to a much lower than average percentage of college educated adults in that metro area in the 1960s and 1970s when deindustrialization took root.
So basically Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. and the smaller cities and towns in between. Buffalo and Pittsburgh are the closest to exiting the category as the bleeding has slowed and Pittsburgh is now the 20th best educated metro in the country.
Columbus, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, etc. are not Rust Belt cities. They never experienced regional decline, they're all at their peak populations right now, and have been on pretty steady growth trajectories.
Places like Philly and Baltimore flirted with Rust Belt status but regional growth has remained strong to moderate because neither city was dependent on a single industry or supply chain. Philly losing manufacturing was a big blow but it wasn't a knock out punch because there were plenty of other industries there for people to turn to. Yes, lots of people left the cities but they moved to the suburbs, not to Tampa or Charlotte.
Also, what's really important is how many people are from there. When your factory shuts down do you look for a new job down the road or do you skip town? This was a huge problem in Detroit. So many people had moved there during WWII that most people in Detroit in the 60s didn't have very deep roots. When things went south there it was easy for a lot of people to literally head south and go back where they came from.
I think the overall point they were making is taken though. Indianapolis was also able to hide it's core city declines through physical boundary growth. Though if my history is correct, instead of Indianapolis annexing areas around it, the Indiana state legislature simply made a law making Indianapolis and Marion County coterminous.
Indianapolis is generally regarded as a bright spot for growth. Like Kansas City most folks don't realize it suffered core declines. Perhaps the argument could be made against my point that KC is more similar to Indy than it would be to Cincy. Though I am not certain Indy's core declines were as dramatic as Kansas City's must have been given the sheer disparity in land growth to city growth.
For Indy - Center Township did grew slightly from its low in the last 10 years or so with areas around Downtown being redeveloped / gentrified. That being said, most of near Eastside (There is always Irvington being "good", but other than that...) and part of near Westside is still quite awful. Near Northside did gentrify quite a bit though - Fall Creek Place being the obvious example.
As other said the strongest growth in Indy metro area remains in the suburbs. And what people also not consider is that some of the growth in Indy metro area are a result of people moving there from the rest of the state.
The part of the Midwest that isn't the Rust Belt could be called.... the Corn Belt?
Yes, to me there is the corn belt, wheat belt, snow belt, and rust belt, portions of which are in the midwest to greater and lesser degrees
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would you say these distinctions mean?
