I've been reading a ton of articles lately about "recovery" in Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and yes, even Toledo. I'm starting to question their journalistic integrity. I notice they rarely (if ever) publish median income statistics and poverty rates in these cities. They also tend to focus on one or two neighborhoods while ignoring the bigger picture. Am I just being crazy or is it possible media in New York doesn't grasp the economic situation and history of the Rust Belt? I don't know, I feel like sticking to the Detroit Free Press and Toledo Blade...

 

The Perils of Rust Belt Memes

RICHEY PIIPARINEN AND ANNE TRUBEK OCT 10, 2012

 

The Rust Belt has been broken, and many have come to document the pieces. For instance, a few years ago Time magazine bought a house in Detroit to house reporters, the better to document the city's demise. Rust Belt decline stories became so prevalent we even got an embarrassingly named meme for them, ruin porn, which, while focused on visual images of abandoned factories and the like, also described some of the voyeurism and schadenfreude at work in national media coverage.

 

But embedded in the definition of decay is the possibility of rebirth, and these days, an increasingly popular angle for national articles on former manufacturing cities is to celebrate a "rust belt revival." These pieces—while exposing the creative resilience and "up from the boots straps" mentality of Rust Belt residents—can be as problematic as the "ruin porn" ones.

 

Why?

 

Many dispatches from the industrial north are written by writers who fly to report what they saw during a day or a weekend, and almost invariably, the memes get in the way, or more likely, were in the writer's head before she arrived. Looking around cities like Cleveland, it's easy to draw hasty conclusions, to either sentimentalize the old, gritty working class blocks now abandoned, or be all gobsmacked to find signs of modernity and life. The resulting picture looks too black and white: "this is where the good stuff is—the rebirth!—and this is where the bad stuff is--the ruin!" Truth is, the Rust Belt is a very gray place: it is both in ruins and reviving. It’s a fascinating time and place for the region, particularly for urbanists. But the ruin and revival memes flatten out complexity.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/10/perils-rust-belt-memes/3537/#.UHnCTPQy2_s.facebook

 

To answer your question - yes. Absolutely. Beautified downtowns or isolated improved neighborhoods do not equal a city's revival, whatever that term even means. Depleting populations and middle income jobs have a far greater effect than restaurant openings or $300,000 condos.

 

Perception will only get you so far.

Coastal media doesn't "get" inland cities at all. This manifests itself alternatively in oversimplification of complex issues and parochial hubris.

I'm friends with Rich Piiparinen and I've really enjoyed his recent writings.  Obviously others have too, as he is getting a lot of national exposure, in Atlantic Cities, Andrew Sullivan's blog, Huffington Post, etc.

 

I think it's a valid question to ask, are these articles blowing things out of proportion.  The only things I would point out is that, in the BIG picture, rust belt cities are NOT seeing a revival based on the growing trend of "rust belt chic".  It is in fact a handful of neighborhoods, like Cleveland's west side areas of Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway....  and these neighborhood repopulations are not enough to stem the tide of Cleveland's serious overall problems stemming from population loss, brain drain, poverty, and crime.

 

But in the "small" picture, there is some movement which is being created in these pockets, young people finding that it can be cool to live in the midst of old industrial settings from an era long before.  It's unique, it's affordable, and in some eyes it's downright beautiful. 

I too find it fascinating the two "rebirth" or "ruin" articles that are often run.  Reality is a summation of many differing complexities.

 

IMO, it seems the urban planning renewal for these cities (Cleveland current boom -- Ohio City, Downtown, University Circle, Detroit Shoreway) are in hopes of spillover rejuvenation of the surrounding areas of “ruin” – planting the seeds in places who already have the bare bones.

 

In terms of the rest belt as a whole, seeds are being planted across these cities.  Currently it seems to be attracting young professionals and empty nesters, which is recreating new life in parts of these cities and rival and/or beat out many other cities across the country. 

 

The true indicator of rival is when middle class families begin to return.  (In Cleveland, best example of this happening is Battery Park)

 

As touched on above, I would say yes in terms of these articles portraying the new developments in the rust  belt as if the entire city or region is being transformed. The beginnings are here and that is good. But it will take a lot more reinvesting to make most rust belt inner cities attractive to the middle class that began leaving 60 years ago in sufficient enough numbers to truly transform whole cities.

As touched on above, I would say yes in terms of these articles portraying the new developments in the rust  belt as if the entire city or region is being transformed. The beginnings are here and that is good. But it will take a lot more reinvesting to make most rust belt inner cities attractive to the middle class that began leaving 60 years ago in sufficient enough numbers to truly transform whole cities.

 

Very True. Even cities considered "healthy" have few middle class families because of poor urban schools. Middle class people just can't afford the desired space along with private schools in our select few good urban districts. This is just part of the sad state that many of our urban areas have become.

 

What you generally have left in urban areas is a relatively small amount of upper class people who can send their kids to privates, with the majority of families being lower income who are stuck with poor quality inner-city schools. It will be a long process to change this in any city.

 

For now I think cities must focus on those trendy areas, which will slowly lead to city-wide improvements via tax revenues, safety, and attracting business. And out of those areas you will get a handful who are willing to raise families in an urban setting and begin the process of improving those urban schools.

If accurate, it sounds like the winners will be those cities which offer better urban amenities than other low-cost cities....

 

Why Industrial [Rust-Belt] Cities Are The Future of Post-Industrial Economy Migration

December 15, 2013

csen

 

$3,000 studio apartments and Google buses in San Francisco. $100 Ubers in New York. It’s tough, but if you want to succeed in post-industrial, 21st century America, what are your other options?

 

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, outside of the urban/suburban religious war and occasional talk about trendy places for Millennials like Austin and Portland, not enough has been said about the cities that will show the biggest relative gains over the next generation or two.

 

It won’t be San Francisco, New York, Boston, or Washington, DC.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://csen.tumblr.com/post/70118880227/why-industrial-rust-belt-cities-are-the-future-of

Did anyone see the commercial about the village project commercial on channel 19? The commercial talked about reviving old holmes for start up housing for young professionals and reusing other forgotten buildings. I think that is an amazing idea to give life to the forgotten parts of the city, I noticed that the entire commercial revolved around E.105th st. Maybe they are trying to finish what was started with heritage lane, but time will tell with how feasible this project will be though.

The next Brooklyns ... and Detroits

 

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/companies/2013/12/19/2014-predictions.fortune/10.html

Basically, "the Rust Belt is the next Brooklyn." I'd tend to agree with that. Coastal cities are to cities what top-40s pop is to music. If hipsters really want to be cutting-edge and authentic, they need to get the hell out of NYC, etc.

Basically, "the Rust Belt is the next Brooklyn." I'd tend to agree with that. Coastal cities are to cities what top-40s pop is to music. If hipsters really want to be cutting-edge and authentic, they need to get the hell out of NYC, etc.

 

I think that sentiment is way off. Comparing a wealthy borough of the financial, media, publishing, fashion etc capital of the US to an entire region is daydreaming. When NYC was losing people in the 1970s and 1980s, the Rust Belt was collapsing. NYC will, for the foreseeable future, remain a draw that Rust Belt cities can only dream of. People move to cities for opportunity, networks, and wealth. Until a city in the Rust Belt becomes the 'capital' of anything again, no part of it will have the draw of NYC.

Except Brooklyn is not especially wealthy (it's mixed), and what that article was about (at least my interpretation of it) is not about Brooklyn as a "financial, media, publishing, fashion etc capital" but as a cutting-edge, underground, alterno-hipster capital.

Except Brooklyn is not especially wealthy (it's mixed), and what that article was about (at least my interpretation of it) is not about Brooklyn as a "financial, media, publishing, fashion etc capital" but as a cutting-edge, underground, alterno-hipster capital.

 

I guess there are few examples of the two existing independently - Portland, Ore, perhaps, though it has its share of established multinationals. It also has beautiful natural surroundings, and a paucity of poor people (of color), which the young palefaces tend to like.

 

That Brooklyn might have some poor people does not diminish its close proximity to Manhattan. College towns across the Rust Belt already experience this phenomenon a bit, but I don't see it happening on a large scale (ie, whole-city renewing) in Cleve, Pitts, Buffalo or Detroit. 

If you include proximity to something Manhattan-like as a key attribute for determining when you have the "next Brooklyn," I'm certain you've rendered the whole concept of the article useless. You might as well ask what will be the next Manhattan, as then creating a "Brooklyn" next to it would be trivially easy by comparison.

 

The authors suggest Detroit, Cleveland, and Louisville as candidates for the next Brooklyn, giving Louisville a 91% chance of achieving that status. I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be interpreted as a 91% chance of Louisville sprouting a Manhattan. More a prediction that an invasion of hipsters is imminent, and their effect on the city will be massive and rent-raising.

 

Hipsters are always seeking what's undiscovered, keeping ahead of the curve. "Discovering" another run-down neighborhood in one of the five boroughs is no longer novel enough to legitimately pass hipster litmus. The rust belt, otoh, is perfectly and uniquely suitable. Which I think is something the article's author was tacitly acknowledging.

If you include proximity to something Manhattan-like as a key attribute for determining when you have the "next Brooklyn," I'm certain you've rendered the whole concept of the article useless. You might as well ask what will be the next Manhattan, as then creating a "Brooklyn" next to it would be trivially easy by comparison.

 

The authors suggest Detroit, Cleveland, and Louisville as candidates for the next Brooklyn, giving Louisville a 91% chance of achieving that status. I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be interpreted as a 91% chance of Louisville sprouting a Manhattan. More a prediction that an invasion of hipsters is imminent, and their effect on the city will be massive and rent-raising.

 

Hipsters are always seeking what's undiscovered, keeping ahead of the curve. "Discovering" another run-down neighborhood in one of the five boroughs is no longer novel enough to legitimately pass hipster litmus. The rust belt, otoh, is perfectly and uniquely suitable. Which I think is something the article's author was tacitly acknowledging.

 

Hipsters like their comforts close by. I think the article is bunk (particularly its statisticky predictions) because I do believe that places like Brooklyn - hipster havens - can only develop in close proximity to a creamy, chewy, wealthy center like Manhattan, or a university. Something that allows for excess capital (in the form of rich people, or college students on loans) to be 'reimagined' and invested at the edges of said center. That is the only way that such a marked transformation, as you described:

 

"More a prediction that an invasion of hipsters is imminent, and their effect on the city will be massive and rent-raising."

 

will occur, in my opinion.

 

The nascent hipster invasion of Cleveland and Detroit might have raised rents in Ohio City or Midtown, but hipsters alone have not, and will not have a 'massive, rent-raising' effect across the whole city.

There are still very large, very poor parts of Brooklyn. A "massive effect" doesn't have to be all-pervasive. It's largely about image. When people think of Brooklyn, they think about hipster gentrifiers. That doesn't mean all of Brooklyn is hipsters. Brooklyn has over 2.5m residents, probably less than 100k of which are hipsters. Using 100k/2.5m, Cleveland would only need like 15-16k hipsters to have a proportionally large impact.

 

I definitely agree the statistical predictions in the article are bunk. I don't think the article is all that serious overall, but I think there's more to it than you do, I guess.

Yeah, Brooklyn isn't all that wealthy. It is nowhere near San Francisco's Mission District. It's like night and day. San Francisco tech hipsters can easily afford the insane rents ("$4500 for a 2-bd? Ha, I make 150k a year!"). Brooklyn hipsters generally can't handle those rents. You notice this immediately when you go out in hipster burgs like Williamsburg, Bushwick, or Greenpoint. It's pretty cheap and the low-end nightlife is not very impressive. It can't compete with good districts in California or Manhattan.

 

A lot of those kids in Brooklyn can't actually afford to live there. You've got tons of ex-Ohioans/Midwesterners hoping to make it big living on a shoestring since rent is over half their income.

 

I guess what I'm saying is there is a captive audience of ex-Midwesterners in Brooklyn who would be better off moving back to the Rust Belt and helping build the scene in much more affordable neighborhoods. There comes a point when living in an expensive place is no longer cool and investing in more "authentic" places (Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Buffalo, Rochester, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Erie, etc.) makes sense since you can really have a higher quality of life.

 

Coastal Great Lakes cities should be the next hipster burgs. They've got a lot of the things Brooklyn has at a fraction of the cost. Yeah, The Toledo and Buffalo skylines may not be as impressive as the view of Manhattan, but screw it. They've got dirt cheap housing that is extremely high-quality. I know real professional artists in Toledo living like kings. They don't make six-figure incomes, but they don't need them where they live.

 

There are two types of hipsters in America- those who have money and those who don't. It sucks that your income determines where you live, but this is the system we have...

The nascent hipster invasion of Cleveland and Detroit might have raised rents in Ohio City or Midtown, but hipsters alone have not, and will not have a 'massive, rent-raising' effect across the whole city.

 

Rents will never get to the level of the saltwater coasts in the Rust Belt. The target audience is different. The hipsters who can afford New York or San Francisco (six-figure incomes in tech or finance) are never moving to the Midwest. The ex-Midwesterners who are middle class or working in the service industry are the ones to target. I call these "aspirational hipsters." In San Francisco, we sometimes call these "hipster lites." They're not actually hipsters. They tend to dress more conservative and are not at a point in their careers where they can pierce their face and get arm sleeves. There is a huge difference between them and the true blue Mission-level hipsters. Brooklyn and Oakland are loaded with hipster lites- kids who'd have a chance in the Midwest. The Mission District is loaded with blue-blooded hipsters who take things to the extreme. They succeed immensely in that environment, but would struggle anywhere else.

 

Throughout history, kids have emulated the wealthy. In The Bay Area and New York, that's really what is going on with the hipster scene. They see wealthy kids partying their asses off at 2pm on a Wednesday, and envy that lifestyle (I live among retired 25-year-old hipsters like this). Unfortunately, most of the aspirational hipsters don't have those connections or the money. They would probably be happier in the Rust Belt cities- places with tons of potential for rebirth and a lower barrier to entry. Aspirational hipsters tend to be an unhappy bunch- living paycheck to paycheck in the most expensive cities in the world just to get a taste of the scene. San Francisco and New York have gotten too expensive. I think targeting them for relocation makes a ton of sense.

 

Any law-abiding people are needed in Rust Belt cities, period. Population growth is how historic buildings are saved. Some of the hipsters in Brooklyn are needed back in their hometowns.

 

Hipsters like their comforts close by. I think the article is bunk (particularly its statisticky predictions) because I do believe that places like Brooklyn - hipster havens - can only develop in close proximity to a creamy, chewy, wealthy center like Manhattan, or a university. Something that allows for excess capital (in the form of rich people, or college students on loans) to be 'reimagined' and invested at the edges of said center. That is the only way that such a marked transformation, as you described

 

You just described what happened to Oakland, but there is a ceiling to this. Many hipsters do eventually hit a wall and move on...they are transient.

 

*That wall is losing rent control.

Been to Chicago?

^Chicago is the ultimate development model for Ohio...or Detroit. Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and Grand Rapids are also great models. There are great options on the Great Lakes for 1/4 the cost of NY or SF. I think Ohio cities can grab some of this target market.

 

*It seems like most of the blue bloods in SF and NY avoid Chicago for some unknown reason, and no one believes me when I describe the housing you can get for so much less money. It's that whole "flyover country" thing.

 

Chicago is an urban development model for any city in America IMO. They've managed to keep costs down and attract tons of migrants. It's a great launching pad for young people. SF and NY are great in their own right, but moving there is a gamble if you're not already well-heeled. Increasingly, LA is heading this route too.

Relates. New York can really crush you if you don't have a good job...

 

Brooklyn’s Median Household Income Is Less Than $45,000

 

So how can anyone afford to live there? (insert: cough, cough, rent control)

By Ben Adler

 

There are two overlapping refrains in coverage of the trendiest boroughs of America’s largest city: “Neighborhood reaches new level of twee luxury” and “Real estate prices reach new level of absurdity.” Stories falling into those two categories account for a good chunk of the New York Times, New York magazine, and the New York Observer. And it’s true that parts of Manhattan can feel like a museum preserved for tourists or an upscale outdoor shopping mall, while “Brooklyn” has become a misused byword for moneyed hipster affectation.

 

Yet recently released census data paints a different portrait. Measured by median income, Manhattan and (especially) Brooklyn are much poorer than you think. Manhattan’s median annual household income is $66,739, while Brooklyn’s is a mere $44,850. Its less fashionable neighbor, Queens, outearns Brooklyn at $54,373 per year. New York City’s most suburban borough, Staten Island, is also its richest, with a median household income of $70,295, while the suburban counties surrounding New York are all richer than any of the boroughs.

 

Meanwhile, the cost of living is astronomical in Manhattan, where the median monthly rent is $3,100; it’s $2,800 in the gentrifying northwestern quadrant of Brooklyn. So how can so many relatively low-income people still live in these areas?

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/01/new_york_city_census_data_manhattan_and_brooklyn_are_much_poorer_than_you.html

 

C-Dawg, I just don't agree with your interpretation of what the essence of a hipster is. Maybe your conception is accurate for what hipsters have devolved into, but originally the phenomenon was fundamentally anti-capitalist, expressed via pro-consumerist irony. Living on a shoestring was the ideal, which is exactly why Williamsburg became the place to go: it was dirt-effing-cheap. Hipsters have practically become synonymous with gentrifiers over the past decade-plus for this reason. Discovering a forgotten neighborhood was like discovering an unknown band -- it is the underlying authenticity, the true nature behind the fake (ironic) embrace of trucker hats, redneck beards, pop-culture worship, etc.

 

That said, the movement has long outlived its own authenticity or relevance. By 2006 (perhaps a couple/few years earlier), the idea stopped being at all original, which was essential to its nature. Without originality, it became a parody of itself (which I guess was the point to begin with, but the intent behind the irony was lost). So you might accurately portray the current state of affairs, but when you say Midwestern hipsters aren't real hipsters, I beg to differ. They are closer to the original concept than the Silicon Valley hipsters you describe. The Rust Belt has a lot more potential to hold the new Williamsburg than anywhere in the Bay Area. The Bay Area is terminally top-40s pop; Toledo is an undiscovered garage band.

Every so often when I get pissed off at Ohio, I start shopping for housing on the East Coast. I look for an apartment-style condo in a walkable, 24-hour neighborhood like mine here in Lakewood with all the shopping and amenities I have (except for frequent passenger train services to other cities!). And that's when I realize that all the good stuff I've got here in Lakewood is unaffordable on the East Coast. My best shot at finding something affordable is in satellite towns like Poughkeepsie or Lancaster or Hartford or Worcester that have frequent train services into the big city. But those satellite towns don't have major-league amenities (sports, culture, parks, restaurants, etc) that Cleveland has. So unless the East Coast sees a drop in real estate prices, I don't think I'm going anywhere anytime soon.

Every so often when I get pissed off at Ohio, I start shopping for housing on the East Coast. I look for an apartment-style condo in a walkable, 24-hour neighborhood like mine here in Lakewood with all the shopping and amenities I have (except for frequent passenger train services to other cities!). And that's when I realize that all the good stuff I've got here in Lakewood is unaffordable on the East Coast. My best shot at finding something affordable is in satellite towns like Poughkeepsie or Lancaster or Hartford or Worcester that have frequent train services into the big city. But those satellite towns don't have major-league amenities (sports, culture, parks, restaurants, etc) that Cleveland has. So unless the East Coast sees a drop in real estate prices, I don't think I'm going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Even if the prices dropped you can't leave.  We need you here - don't abandon the fight, dude!

C-Dawg, I just don't agree with your interpretation of what the essence of a hipster is. Maybe your conception is accurate for what hipsters have devolved into, but originally the phenomenon was fundamentally anti-capitalist, expressed via pro-consumerist irony. Living on a shoestring was the ideal, which is exactly why Williamsburg became the place to go: it was dirt-effing-cheap. Hipsters have practically become synonymous with gentrifiers over the past decade-plus for this reason. Discovering a forgotten neighborhood was like discovering an unknown band -- it is the underlying authenticity, the true nature behind the fake (ironic) embrace of trucker hats, redneck beards, pop-culture worship, etc.

 

That said, the movement has long outlived its own authenticity or relevance. By 2006 (perhaps a couple/few years earlier), the idea stopped being at all original, which was essential to its nature. Without originality, it became a parody of itself (which I guess was the point to begin with, but the intent behind the irony was lost). So you might accurately portray the current state of affairs, but when you say Midwestern hipsters aren't real hipsters, I beg to differ. They are closer to the original concept than the Silicon Valley hipsters you describe

 

I agree with this. What C-Dawg is describing sounds like yuppies who have taken on a hipster persona. Hipster is, or should I say was, a neo-bohemian movement. They were urban pioneers and liked things avant guarde. The real hipsters were the poor kids who originally moved to places like Williamsburg and the Mission when nobody else wanted to.

 

These days hipster has become more mainstream and is basically a worthless term that is way overused.

 

Even if the prices dropped you can't leave.  We need you here - don't abandon the fight, dude!

 

Thanks. House shopping is therapeutic, however. :)

Every so often when I get pissed off at Ohio, I start shopping for housing on the East Coast. I look for an apartment-style condo in a walkable, 24-hour neighborhood like mine here in Lakewood with all the shopping and amenities I have (except for frequent passenger train services to other cities!). And that's when I realize that all the good stuff I've got here in Lakewood is unaffordable on the East Coast. My best shot at finding something affordable is in satellite towns like Poughkeepsie or Lancaster or Hartford or Worcester that have frequent train services into the big city. But those satellite towns don't have major-league amenities (sports, culture, parks, restaurants, etc) that Cleveland has. So unless the East Coast sees a drop in real estate prices, I don't think I'm going anywhere anytime soon.

 

AMEN!  If I picked up my apartment and dropped it in Boston, or Philly I could get between 6 & 8 million.  If I dropped it in prewar Manhattan neighborhood below 96 Street I could 12 million.  If I transported MC to Manhattan I could get 25 million for my apartment alone.

They are closer to the original concept than the Silicon Valley hipsters you describe. The Rust Belt has a lot more potential to hold the new Williamsburg than anywhere in the Bay Area. The Bay Area is terminally top-40s pop; Toledo is an undiscovered garage band.

 

Very true.

I'm from Detroit and lived in the Cass Corridor (now renamed "Midtown"). I know lots of people who were priced out when the rental costs soared.

I think the trend is more part of the move to an urban environment by young hipsters and older baby boomers. People who are dissatisfied with the suburban lifestyle but who want to stay in the same metropolitan area are moving from the suburbs to the downtown and close in neighborhoods.

This is not unique to the "rust belt cities" but has become newsworthy due to international interest in the places like Detroit. 

 

The best book I have read about Detroit is "Detroit - the Place to Be" by Mark Binelli.  Despite the title, this is not an overly optimistic view. The author now lives in New York but grew up in a suburb of Detroit and came back to write the book. There are harrowing tales of things people trying desperately to defend their neighborhoods from frequent robberies and a fire department that has to prioritize which fire to respond to.

 

^Chicago is the ultimate development model for Ohio...or Detroit. Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and Grand Rapids are also great models. There are great options on the Great Lakes for 1/4 the cost of NY or SF. I think Ohio cities can grab some of this target market.

 

*It seems like most of the blue bloods in SF and NY avoid Chicago for some unknown reason, and no one believes me when I describe the housing you can get for so much less money. It's that whole "flyover country" thing.

 

Chicago is an urban development model for any city in America IMO. They've managed to keep costs down and attract tons of migrants. It's a great launching pad for young people. SF and NY are great in their own right, but moving there is a gamble if you're not already well-heeled. Increasingly, LA is heading this route too.

 

I think Philadelphia is a better example.  Chicago has maintained some level of consistency over the years, while Philly has come back tremendously in the last 20 years--helped along by it's quick train access to NYC.  Cleveland could learn lessons here--imagine our draw with quick train access to Chicago AND New York City. 

^Chicago is the ultimate development model for Ohio...or Detroit. Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and Grand Rapids are also great models. There are great options on the Great Lakes for 1/4 the cost of NY or SF. I think Ohio cities can grab some of this target market.

 

*It seems like most of the blue bloods in SF and NY avoid Chicago for some unknown reason, and no one believes me when I describe the housing you can get for so much less money. It's that whole "flyover country" thing.

 

Chicago is an urban development model for any city in America IMO. They've managed to keep costs down and attract tons of migrants. It's a great launching pad for young people. SF and NY are great in their own right, but moving there is a gamble if you're not already well-heeled. Increasingly, LA is heading this route too.

 

It's a little bit different when you're talking a 1.5 hour train hop into Manhattan (and a similar time south to D.C.), vs. about 6.5 hours to Chicago from here -- and that's assuming with a conventional 110 MPH upgraded, semi-express trip... But I catch your drift and agree that the Philly model is one for us to emulate on a number of levels.

 

I think Philadelphia is a better example.  Chicago has maintained some level of consistency over the years, while Philly has come back tremendously in the last 20 years--helped along by it's quick train access to NYC.  Cleveland could learn lessons here--imagine our draw with quick train access to Chicago AND New York City. 

 

 

I think Philadelphia is a better example.  Chicago has maintained some level of consistency over the years, while Philly has come back tremendously in the last 20 years--helped along by it's quick train access to NYC.  Cleveland could learn lessons here--imagine our draw with quick train access to Chicago AND New York City. 

 

Fair point. Yeah, the East Coast cities do have some key location advantages here. That's why I think a place like Baltimore is going to come raging back (the most "Rust Belt" of the major East Coast cities). It has some very key location advantages by attracting residents from much more expensive DC. It's the same reason Oakland grows in population while still struggling with very high crime rates (though the crime is mostly concentrated in the neighborhoods not seeing an influx of tech workers). Oakland's location is perfect. Baltimore's location is perfect. Philly's location is perfect...perfect in the sense of being near other more expensive gentrified cities...they function as lower-cost alternatives.

 

However, there are natural marketing angles for Great Lakes cities. They have extensive waterfronts (though sometimes cut off), are close to world class outdoor recreation in Michigan/Ontario (places like Sleeping Bear and Bruce Peninsula heavily align themselves with big city weekend travelers), and they are near two world class cosmopolitan cities with Toronto and Chicago. New York is the only East Coast city I'd say can even remotely claim being culturally superior to Toronto and Chicago...though at a much higher cost. I think cities like Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, and Rochester have some key selling points that go beyond the low-cost housing (unfortunately Chicago also has most of these selling points). Maybe Chicago needs to get more expensive? Rust Belt cities are low-cost, but Chicago is fairly low-cost too. One thing I noticed in the Rust Belt is that the nice parts of Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. were cheaper than Chicago, but not really a big enough gap to make you go, "yeah, I'll move here instead of Chi-Town." There seems to be a much bigger housing price gap playing out between DC vs. Baltimore, New York vs. Philly, and Boston vs. Providence. My brother lives in Baltimore, and his rent in a massive row house is dirt cheap...basically not much more than a similar property in North Toledo. Five years ago, I looked at renting a restored row house in North Toledo, and while cheaper than similar spots in Baltimore, it also had smaller square footage and fewer amenities. It shockingly evened out, thus Baltimore is probably a better deal than Toledo (and considering the extreme ghetto presence near restored properties in North Toledo, Toledo may have been a much worse deal). That's Baltimore compared to Toledo. Now compare Baltimore to DC...

 

*And yes, I agree the hipsters I'm talking about in Mission and Williamsburg are extremely wealthy yipsters (yuppies biting off hipster style)...people who won't move to "flyover country." A tech millionaire in the Mission District has little desire to move to a place where he or she won't have the same social advantages. They would realistically be giving up a lot of status. Life isn't about money as much as it's about status. Status can get you laid. Wealth alone does not (and wealth carries way more weight in extremely expensive cities where nice housing is scarce). Saying you're a VC or software developer in Toledo or Cleveland just doesn't carry the weight it does in San Francisco. "Cool story, bro, I'm going to talk to that thuggish, masculine male over there now." It sort of works this way for women in the Rust Belt too. "Sorry honey, I don't care about your high-status business development job. I have my own place and don't need to move in with a partner to make rent."

 

Middle class people in places like SF and NY are the ones to target. These two cities are becoming extremely hostile to regular working folks. I think the investment in the Rust Belt will come from salty coastal people who aren't elites. Prices are going up in Seattle and LA too...and Vancouver. We've got a situation in North America where even the most basic housing in our flagship urban places is out of reach for normal people with full-time jobs. People relocate for jobs or they relocate for housing. The Rust Belt cities have the housing angle. As jobs become more mobile, people will have more options on where they live.

 

Maybe what's holding back the Rust Belt is the low-cost competition that already exists on the East Coast and in Chicago...

 

It could be a while before Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, etc. get expensive enough that residents start looking for other options...

Middle class people in places like SF and NY are the ones to target. These two cities are becoming extremely hostile to regular working folks. I think the investment in the Rust Belt will come from salty coastal people who aren't elites. Prices are going up in Seattle and LA too...and Vancouver. We've got a situation in North America where even the most basic housing in our flagship urban places is out of reach for normal people with full-time jobs. People relocate for jobs or they relocate for housing. The Rust Belt cities have the housing angle. As jobs become more mobile, people will have more options on where they live.

 

Maybe what's holding back the Rust Belt is the low-cost competition that already exists on the East Coast and in Chicago...

 

It could be a while before Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, etc. get expensive enough that residents start looking for other options...

 

Good conversation going. I think another angle to sell (at least vs. east coast) is lower cost of higher education.

 

I think Philadelphia is a better example.  Chicago has maintained some level of consistency over the years, while Philly has come back tremendously in the last 20 years--helped along by it's quick train access to NYC.  Cleveland could learn lessons here--imagine our draw with quick train access to Chicago AND New York City. 

 

 

Milwaukee is the Philadelphia of the Midwest.  It's still got all of the issues it did 20 years ago, just like Philly, but it's making bank off of frequent and efficient Amtrak service. 

 

I personally don't like Chicago as a model.  It's horribly segregated, the Southside is bombed out and nearly unlivable, and the breakpoints are growing tense because there are very real barriers that redevelopment does not want to cross.  I took the Orange Line train to Midway yesterday.  OY, that ride was bleak.  Chicago is VERY good at ripping people off and forcing people to spend money there in order to pay corporations to move in.  It's an economic engine, no doubt but not a system I want to see carried out in every city across the country. 

 

I think Ohio Cities need to look to the Twin Cities as a model.  They are doing incredibly well by utilizing the strengths and weaknesses of three very different cities in close proximity (St Paul, Minneapolis, and Bloomington) and as a result their livability rankings are skyrocketing despite the weather and complex social difference.  This could come in handy for Ohio Cities which are relatively similar to the Twin Cities in their differences. 

WRITTEN BY

Joel Kotkin

Richey Piiparinen

BEYOND BOWLING

12.07.14

The Rustbelt Roars Back From the Dead

 

The butt of jokes for decades, the industrial heartland is booming in surprising ways as new businesses and industries thrive while young professionals seek its affordable charms.

Urban America is often portrayed as a tale of two kinds of places, those that “have it” and those who do not. For the most part, the cities of the Midwest—with the exception of Chicago and Minneapolis—have been consigned to the second, and inferior, class. Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit or a host of smaller cities are rarely assessed, except as objects of pity whose only hope is to find a way, through new urbanist alchemy, to mimic the urban patterns of “superstar cities” like New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Portland.

 

Yet in reality, the rustbelt could well be on the verge of a major resurgence, one that should be welcomed not only locally but by the rest of the country. Two factors drive this change. One is the steady revival of America as a productive manufacturing country, driven in large part by new technology, rising wages abroad (notably in China), and the development of low-cost, abundant domestic energy, much of it now produced in states such as Ohio and in the western reaches of Pennsylvania.

 

MORE:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/07/the-rustbelt-roars-back-from-the-dead.html

^I definitely agree about investing in infrastructure to capitalize on anchor institutions, but I just feel uneasy about this "industrial renaissance" being built around shale gas. While it's great to be able to enjoy it while it runs its 50 year (or less) course, it is still a finite resource. What is going to happen to the foreign manufacturing investment when the gas is no longer cheap and the supply diminishes? Can we depend on the existence of a replacement resource to be discovered before the natural gas runs out? It seems like a boom and bust situation without foresight. Should people want to live in an area whose economic well-being is largely dependent upon this?

50 years is longer than the terms of elected officials, so whatever comes after shale gas/oil "is someone else's problem."

WRITTEN BY

Joel Kotkin

Richey Piiparinen

BEYOND BOWLING

12.07.14

The Rustbelt Roars Back From the Dead

 

The butt of jokes for decades, the industrial heartland is booming in surprising ways as new businesses and industries thrive while young professionals seek its affordable charms.

Urban America is often portrayed as a tale of two kinds of places, those that “have it” and those who do not. For the most part, the cities of the Midwest—with the exception of Chicago and Minneapolis—have been consigned to the second, and inferior, class. Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit or a host of smaller cities are rarely assessed, except as objects of pity whose only hope is to find a way, through new urbanist alchemy, to mimic the urban patterns of “superstar cities” like New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Portland.

 

Yet in reality, the rustbelt could well be on the verge of a major resurgence, one that should be welcomed not only locally but by the rest of the country. Two factors drive this change. One is the steady revival of America as a productive manufacturing country, driven in large part by new technology, rising wages abroad (notably in China), and the development of low-cost, abundant domestic energy, much of it now produced in states such as Ohio and in the western reaches of Pennsylvania.

 

MORE:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/07/the-rustbelt-roars-back-from-the-dead.html

 

They forgot water.  In this case, oil and water do mix.  They are staples of modern life and we have both here now.

 

This also gives us the economic and political clout to protect our water, which will be the real key to our regional renaissance.

 

(Yes, I know careless fracking can cause water problems, the irony is we have enough to get away with that as long as we are careful.)

 

 

One thing I've noted from my Rustbelt Preservationist Blog is there appears to be no shortage of people from both coasts looking to buy Historic homes in the Midwest.  http://rustbeltpreservationist.blogspot.com/

 

These are people from a diverse employment spectrum, but almost all are not necessarily 'location dependent". Some are tech types who want to develop their products in a less tech intensive environment, others are writers or production development people and others have internet businesses.

 

When you consider that if you are willing to live in the Midwest its entirely possibly to buy a mansion for 300K in many cities and live like a king, or if you have kids and want to raise them in a more 'wholesome small town environment" there are tons of towns with great architecture and good school systems. But typically less than an hour or two drive to a bigger city.

 

In my opinion the media and most people have been far too focused on the urban 'hipster' revitalization theories and less in the fact the Midwest has incredible architecture and that is highly appealing to many who are not "location dependent". I see how long the 'grand homes last once they get some national exposure and more often than not they are bought by someone moving to the Midwest not trying to escape it.

The fact is young people are the most mobile. Targeting any other demographic, you just aren't casting as wide a net. I still think the author has some good points that not every city can follow a paint-by-numbers pattern to success. There have to be things unique about a place that can be cultivated, highlighted, and enhanced, or you've just got another "me too" location. The same would be true if the focus is people who want to buy old houses -- there have to be attractive things beyond old houses to convince them to pick one area over another.

Neat article, I usually only frequent New Geography for a good laugh, but every once in a while they have some good content (usually not written by Kotkin or Cox)...

 

 

The “Inner Cleveland” of Trendy Cities

by John Sanphillippo 01/10/2015

 

Check out these photos and try to guess where they were taken. If you thought Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, or a dozen other Rustbelt towns you’d be mistaken, although your confusion is completely understandable. It’s actually Portland, Oregon – that bastion of liberal, crunchy, hippie, yuppie, hipster, eco-friendliness. Go figure. I’m not putting down Portland. Portland is great. I love Portland. I’m making a point about the reputation of some cities and how we perceive places differently based on a lot of vague stereotypes. If the only images we ever saw of Portland all looked like this it would be hard to persuade people to migrate there – even if the photos don’t portray the complete reality on the ground.

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004822-the-inner-cleveland-trendy-cities

Neat article, I usually only frequent New Geography for a good laugh, but every once in a while they have some good content (usually not written by Kotkin or Cox)...

 

 

The “Inner Cleveland” of Trendy Cities

by John Sanphillippo 01/10/2015

 

Check out these photos and try to guess where they were taken. If you thought Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, or a dozen other Rustbelt towns you’d be mistaken, although your confusion is completely understandable. It’s actually Portland, Oregon – that bastion of liberal, crunchy, hippie, yuppie, hipster, eco-friendliness. Go figure. I’m not putting down Portland. Portland is great. I love Portland. I’m making a point about the reputation of some cities and how we perceive places differently based on a lot of vague stereotypes. If the only images we ever saw of Portland all looked like this it would be hard to persuade people to migrate there – even if the photos don’t portray the complete reality on the ground.

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004822-the-inner-cleveland-trendy-cities

 

It says more about the writer than the city that he thought those Portland pictures were so horrible, and if he wanted people to be fooled about Cincy he maybe shouldn't have featured a guy in a Reds cap.

Neat article, I usually only frequent New Geography for a good laugh, but every once in a while they have some good content (usually not written by Kotkin or Cox)...

 

 

The “Inner Cleveland” of Trendy Cities

by John Sanphillippo 01/10/2015

 

Check out these photos and try to guess where they were taken. If you thought Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, or a dozen other Rustbelt towns you’d be mistaken, although your confusion is completely understandable. It’s actually Portland, Oregon – that bastion of liberal, crunchy, hippie, yuppie, hipster, eco-friendliness. Go figure. I’m not putting down Portland. Portland is great. I love Portland. I’m making a point about the reputation of some cities and how we perceive places differently based on a lot of vague stereotypes. If the only images we ever saw of Portland all looked like this it would be hard to persuade people to migrate there – even if the photos don’t portray the complete reality on the ground.

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004822-the-inner-cleveland-trendy-cities

 

An article with Cleveland in the title, but no shots of Cleveland's spectacular neighborhoods?  Why was Cincinnati not in the title?  Pittsburgh?  Buffalo?  Because that's all I saw.

Agree with the last 2 posts.  I never understood the revulsion to industrial infrastructure - why does it seem to upset people so badly?  Apparently, for some people, there is nothing more disgusting than the sight of a steel mill.

 

Also, Cleveland is evoked for the "bad" aesthetic and left out of the discussion of the "good" aesthetic rust belt cities unexpectedly possess.

Yeah, I was confused about that too

That Inner Cleveland seems deceiving...showing a small 'counterintuitive' slice of all those cities. Isn't it Ok to like Rust Belt cities precisely because they haven't  been fully gentrified by retired twentysomethings?

I particularly liked this comment:

 

At one side of the country in the Midwest, we have a conservative haven, along with all the regressive policies that go with the GOP. The result? College students leaving in droves for the coasts, and select liberal areas in the south. The other? Extensively funded transit systems, rich art scenes, and expansive economies that offer an array of opportunities for college graduates.... This is something that will never change, and no matter how you paint a 50,000 house in Cleveland, there is still the underlying reason why that house is only 50K.

 

I particularly liked this comment:

 

At one side of the country in the Midwest, we have a conservative haven, along with all the regressive policies that go with the GOP. The result? College students leaving in droves for the coasts, and select liberal areas in the south. The other? Extensively funded transit systems, rich art scenes, and expansive economies that offer an array of opportunities for college graduates.... This is something that will never change, and no matter how you paint a 50,000 house in Cleveland, there is still the underlying reason why that house is only 50K.

 

This is really oversimplified.

 

For example, the city making the greatest percent change in the number of college graduates aged 25 to 34, from 2000 to 2012 is.....

 

Houston, Texas.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/upshot/where-young-college-graduates-are-choosing-to-live.html?abt=0002&abg=1

For example, the city making the greatest percent change in the number of college graduates aged 25 to 34, from 2000 to 2012 is.....

 

Houston, Texas.

 

So are you suggesting the city to emulate is Houston?  If so, why isn't Ohio booming?  It's got the same GOP-type governance, same sprawl-friendly policies, same pro-car, pro-highway transportation policies, a population with a similarly conservative mentality, and the same devotion to football above all else...... 

 

In any event, Texas cities are frequently held up as the counter-argument to those who advocate for the types of policies used to shape coastal cities.  However, if Texas didn't have a well-developed oil industry sucking in engineers all the time, do you think it would be a magnet for the college-educated?  I certainly don't.  I think it would be a gigantic, hot and dusty version of Arkansas.

 

Perhaps if Ohio had lots of low-cost oil to pump out of the ground it would be a destination, not a place people leave.  (And, no, fracking doesn't yield low-cost oil at current world crude prices.)  But since it doesn't, it shouldn't try to emulate Houston.