Rust Belt cities are trying to attract more immigrants

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

^
Or, how about trying to attract "immigrants" from, say, California, where housing prices are equally outrageous.

Apart from cheap housing, could you give me a possible compelling argument to leave where I already live and like it?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Of course it has something to do with it. But there are at least three types of booming areas:
1. Places that are cheap (and maybe a little urban, but often the worst type of suburban)
2. Places that are urban (and sometimes not overly expensive)
3. Places that dominate a booming field, with enough gravity that they keep growing

A ton of companies of all sizes are tied very much to urbanity. The likelihood of a company being in one of these categories (mostly 1 and 2) is often influenced by whether they're locating to appeal more to 30-somethings or 20-somethings.

Most companies don't care what the built environment is like, above all, they seek lower taxes and a young educated workforce.

[mhays]

Not in my city! Maybe companies like that predominate in Houston.

In Seattle, a large percentage of the office inventory is in the core, or at least in Downtown Bellevue or another urban node. And most office construction in the last boom and the current one is in the same places.

Why? Because companies can recruit better in these areas, and they get synergies with other firms, hotels, and so on. Transit and the ability to walk to work are key. The companies say all of this.

The "cheap wages, cheap space, cheap overhead" low-budget model works in some industries. But if you're trying to hire the best and brightest, you go where those people want to live and work.

[Austinlee]

I'm curious as to why northern industrial cities attracted millions are migrants in the first half of the 20th century but then all of a sudden they developed a bad attitude for any new immigrants. Is this solely because of the massive loss of middle class jobs do to the de-industrialization of America in the 70's/80's?

In addition to the insult of shipping away all our regions core jobs (Pittsburgh lost over 200,000 of it's core jobs in a 5 year period, 1978 - 1983), the next insult was it turned these THRIVING, DIVERSE cities into protectionist, ethnically homogeneous regions.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Apart from cheap housing, could you give me a possible compelling argument to leave where I already live and like it?

For many people, cheap housing IS a compelling argument.

Many of the things people want in life can actually be bought with disposable income, so the difference in quality of life between an expensive housing environment and a cheap housing environment will be significant for people, generally speaking.

We're urban enthusiasts on this board, usually, so of course someone like you wouldn't trade your closet-sized SF condo for a detached SFH with a big yard and inground pool, but for average people, it's slightly different. They value urbanity less than we do when it comes to evaluating "quality of life" (obviously a variable concept, which depends on the individual).

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Many of the things people want in life can actually be bought with disposable income, so the difference in quality of life between an expensive housing environment and a cheap housing environment will be significant for people, generally speaking.

That would actually only apply to people whose life is such that where they live is irrelevant. The people I know who think like this are either old retiring baby boomers, or people who grew up in a shitty suburban environment, who have yet to experience the difference between random suburban spaces that have no intrinsic value, and urban places with an identity, that do.

For most people, the things they tend to value most in life are actually things they cannot possibly do alone on their own dime, they can only be accomplished through cooperation with the community. Parks, schools, public safety, etc.

They value urbanity less than we do when it comes to evaluating "quality of life" (obviously a variable concept, which depends on the individual).

And such people are irrelevant to any discussion of urban spaces. They don't spend their time or money in such places, so who cares what they think?

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Immigrants usually flood to areas with a positive outlook on jobs and economic growth and security. There's a reason that these areas have very low population figures of foreign immigrants.

If manufacturing were to take off again, the number would resemble the 1880s again.

Yeah, a development strategy built around attracting immigrants seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Immigrants go where the jobs are, not the other way around.

The key to economic prosperity for regions is about having vibrant private sectors that sells goods and services outside the region. With the decline of manufacturing, this is mostly about "higher skilled" tech/finance/life science/engineering/sales/marketing. Tourism and transportation, and back office call centers are really the only big lower skilled urban "export" industries left.

If the immigration strategy is in support of a "quality of life" push (making the region more welcoming/attractive to outsiders/immigrants) then this is a plus, IMO. It can help at the margin by making it more attractive for foreign corps to open US operations, make it easier to recruit foreign/non-local talent etc.

But, if this is a "silver bullet" immigration will magically turn us in to a cosmopolitan global city like Toronto or London, this seems likely to be another failed "urban revitalization" strategy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

That would actually only apply to people whose life is such that where they live is irrelevant. The people I know who think like this are either old retiring baby boomers, or people who grew up in a shitty suburban environment, who have yet to experience the difference between random suburban spaces that have no intrinsic value, and urban places with an identity, that do.

For most people, the things they tend to value most in life are actually things they cannot possibly do alone on their own dime, they can only be accomplished through cooperation with the community. Parks, schools, public safety, etc.

I disagree. The perfect example that I currently have in mind (and which I've used at least a couple times already on this forum) is one of my good friends who got offered a job after finishing his postdoc at USCD, but even though he would've liked to accept it and stay in California, he ultimately chose to return to Montreal (for a roughly equivalent job), mostly because of the very unfavorable wages/housing ratio in CA.

His overall quality of life is significantly higher in Montreal (cheaper housing = more disposable income) and that is really the big reason he decided to leave California. He's a young urbanite type, so very far from what you think is the only set of people who can possibly be pushed away by astronomical housing costs.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I'm curious as to why northern industrial cities attracted millions are migrants in the first half of the 20th century but then all of a sudden they developed a bad attitude for any new immigrants. Is this solely because of the massive loss of middle class jobs do to the de-industrialization of America in the 70's/80's?

In addition to the insult of shipping away all our regions core jobs (Pittsburgh lost over 200,000 of it's core jobs in a 5 year period, 1978 - 1983), the next insult was it turned these THRIVING, DIVERSE cities into protectionist, ethnically homogeneous regions.

Yes, mostly. And the few jobs that eventually replaced them were low paying service jobs. My hometown, Utica NY, went from a booming city with factories and mills to a few shitty call-centers and distribution centers paying a fraction of the old manufacturing jobs.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I'm curious as to why northern industrial cities attracted millions are migrants in the first half of the 20th century but then all of a sudden they developed a bad attitude for any new immigrants. Is this solely because of the massive loss of middle class jobs do to the de-industrialization of America in the 70's/80's?

Prior to air conditioning, many sunbelt cities were simply not appealing locations to live for the vast majority of people (native born and immigrant alike.)

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Prior to air conditioning, many sunbelt cities were simply not appealing locations to live for the vast majority of people (native born and immigrant alike.)

AC definitely helped. I think the civil war set the stage for the north to industrialize.

Charleston, SC was at one time larger than NY and Boston. It was one of then most important ports of the U.S.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Charleston, SC was at one time larger than NY and Boston.

wait..... what?

i've been an observer of urban american history for a couple decades now and i have never been aware of any point in time when charleston was larger than either boston on NYC.

[chris08876]

You'd have to go back to 1760 for it to be larger than NYC. This being Charleston,SC.

But by 1790-1800, NYC was probably double the size.

[Leo the Dog]

Yeah I should've said on par with those port cities.

As late as 1830 it was still the 6th largest American city.

[Crawford]

If these Wikipedia Census numbers are to be trusted, Charleston was never larger than the major Northeastern cites (NYC, Boston, Philly). It did peak at #4, though, in 1790.

But the numbers only start in 1790, so who knows, maybe Charleston was even higher ranking if there had been a Census in previous decades. I assume there aren't reliable numbers for the pre-Census colonial era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest...tion_by_decade

Charleston remained in the Top 10 through 1840.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

AC definitely helped. I think the civil war set the stage for the north to industrialize.

The Industrial Revolution remade the North long before the Civil War, which is one of the primary reasons the North was victorious in the first place. You have that backward.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by fflint

The Industrial Revolution remade the North long before the Civil War, which is one of the primary reasons the North was victorious in the first place. You have that backward.

you think the war didn't have an effect on the development of the south?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

you think the war didn't have an effect on the development of the south?

Nothing written in this thread leads to any such assertion. You posted "I think the civil war set the stage for the north to industrialize." I pointed out the North had industrialized decades before the Civil War, and that industrialization was indeed a major factor pushing the North to victory. Do you still not understand?

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by fflint

Nothing written in this thread leads to any such assertion. You posted "I think the civil war set the stage for the north to industrialize." I pointed out the North had industrialized decades before the Civil War, and that industrialization was indeed a major factor pushing the North to victory. Do you still not understand?

The north was more industrialized pre-war because the south had a more temperate climate, longer growing season and better soils for agricultural needs. The war resulted in a decimated economy in the south, which further focused and accelerated the industrialization of the north. Most railroads in the south were destroyed and the monetary system collapsed resulting in a barter-like system.

Charleston was a major East Coast port city on par with northern ports. You don't need to constantly target my posts.

Try to keep in classy fflint. I know it's hard not to be condescending, but I have faith you can do it.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

The north was more industrialized pre-war because the south had a more temperate climate, longer growing season and better soils for agricultural needs.

The North was fully industrialized by the time of the Civil War because it had fast-flowing rivers that could power factories before steam or electricity, and an explicitly capitalist and entrepreneurial economy geared toward making mass quantities of things that could then be purchased by the same laborers who worked in the factories. The Southern slave economy was none of that.

The war resulted in a decimated economy in the south, which further focused and accelerated the industrialization of the north. Most railroads in the south were destroyed and the monetary system collapsed resulting in a barter-like system.

I agree for the most part, but remember too the South's rightful defeat also ushered in industrialization there as well, as it joined the capitalist economy.

I know it's hard not to be condescending, but I have faith you can do it.

Oh, the irony.