Where Is The Rust Belt?

[iheartthed]

Opening a satellite campus in Gary is probably the best thing Notre Dame could do to help that city.

[MolsonExport]

Wasaga is colder than say, Sauble Beach or the beaches around Grand Bend, as the former is located on Georgian Bay, which is considerably colder than the rest of Lake Huron.

Balmy in the summertime:


The water at the beaches of North Shore Lake Erie are even warmer (maybe too warm, as the latter lake water doesn't feel as...fresh?).

Osoyoos Lake (BC) is warm as soup in July-August.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Opening a satellite campus in Gary is probably the best thing Notre Dame could do to help that city.

FWIW, Indiana University does have a satellite campus in Gary (IU Northwest), but it's one of those car-centric post-war commuter schools that was built about 3 miles south of downtown. Unfortunately, it's not designed/positioned to be an urban revitalization engine.

Purdue University also has a satellite campus in neighboring Hammond, IN (Purdue Northwest), but it's more of the same.

[pdxtex]

Rust belt fact!

The Lake Erie AVA near Erie is the largest grape growing region east of the Rockies, supporting a robust wine and tourism industry. Now you know. Brrrap.

Just Google viewing around Erie, it looks kind of cool.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Grew up on the other end of the Ohio a long time ago, but I still have a hard time disassociating dead lake-level pollution from Lake Erie.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Rust belt fact!

The Lake Erie AVA near Erie is the largest grape growing region east of the Rockies, supporting a robust wine and tourism industry. Now you know. Brrrap.

Just Google viewing around Erie, it looks kind of cool.

That is an interesting factoid.

The rust belt image is way more "beer and a bump" than wine.

But it's also a region of "anything that gets ya drunk" too, so......

Make that wine!

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Grew up on the other end of the Ohio a long time ago, but I still have a hard time disassociating dead lake-level pollution from Lake Erie.

Well, that kinda sounds like your own unfamiliarity, right? I mean, come on... it's not the 1960s, 70s, or even 80s anymore. Eutrophication in the lake from pollution was brought down to target levels by the mid-1980s -- that was 40 years ago.

Some people still also think that Pittsburgh is some smoky hellhole, that Miami consists of nothing but 80-year old retirees playing shuffleboard, that Texas is nothing but cowboys...

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Well, that kinda sounds like your own unfamiliarity, right? I mean, come on... it's not the 1960s, 70s, or even 80s anymore. Eutrophication in the lake from pollution was brought down to target levels by the mid-1980s -- that was 40 years ago.

Some people still also think that Pittsburgh is some smoky hellhole, that Miami consists of nothing but 80-year old retirees playing shuffleboard, that Texas is nothing but cowboys...

I have a friend that spend a long weekend in Port Cliinton, Ohio this summer and said she was shocked by how much she liked it. This is a bougie creative from Brooklyn.

She also said they went to one of the nicer restaurants in town one night and had the most abyssmal service she's had in any eating establishment ever, but still loved the town overall.

[hipster duck]

I thought Washington would be the #2 state for wine production after CA. If not by volume, then probably by value.

[north 42]

The southern part of Essex County has 20 estate wineries along Lake Erie, and is the third largest wine region in Ontario after Niagara and Prince Edward County.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm pretty sure that Lake Erie grape factoid is incorrect. At least if we're talking grapes for wine.

Neither PA nor OH are major wine states. Minimal production. NY is the #2 wine state, but the Lake Erie shore isn't a major part of that production. Most NY wine is from Finger Lakes or North Fork of LI, with a little around Hudson Valley and Niagara/Lake Ontario. MI has some wine, but around Lake Michigan, not around Erie.

The fact is that the Lake Erie region is the second largest grape growing region in the US.

But certainly not for wine production. Probably less than 20% fo the crop goes to wine, it's mainly Concord and Niagara grapes for sale to regional markets and to agribusiness fodd/beverage giants like Welch's for juice, jellies, etc.



It's quite beautiful country.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I have a friend that spend a long weekend in Port Cliinton, Ohio this summer and said she was shocked by how much she liked it. This is a bougie creative from Brooklyn.

She also said they went to one of the nicer restaurants in town one night and had the most abyssmal service she's had in any eating establishment ever, but still loved the town overall.

I've only been to the Port Clinton/Sandusky/Put-In-Bay area a couple of times as an adult, and yeah, it was defintely pretty fun and overall nice area... and that's the crappy part of Lake Erie!

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Well, that kinda sounds like your own unfamiliarity, right? I mean, come on... it's not the 1960s, 70s, or even 80s anymore. Eutrophication in the lake from pollution was brought down to target levels by the mid-1980s -- that was 40 years ago.

Oh its absolutely ignorance on my part and I should know better. Even visiting Pittsburgh in 2005 and Cleveland in 2007 neither at that time were anything like what they were 20 to 30 years prior to that.

What I failed to elaborate is my realization of where there are booms in vineyards and wine making. Hell, about an hour south of me (Verde Valley) is another major hot spot (at least regionally).

[edale]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Grew up on the other end of the Ohio a long time ago, but I still have a hard time disassociating dead lake-level pollution from Lake Erie.

Growing up in Cincinnati in the 90s and 2000s, I never thought much about Lake Erie, but definitely didn't associate it with dead lake levels of pollution. I went to Cedar Point a few times as a kid and the lake looked pretty and blue, and that was really my only exposure to Lake Erie. Now, I definitely did associate Cleveland as being a dirty city growing up. I remember learning about the Cuyahoga River catching on fire in school, and they always played this classic clip of Sam Wyche yelling 'you don't live in Cleveland, you live in Cincinnati' at Bengals games. I didn't visit Cleveland until after college, and I found it to be much nicer than I was expecting.

[Buckeye Native 001]

This was my association, which is admittedly very outdated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-S3G1c31y0&ab_channel=TimeBandito

[Steely Dan]

Other than Milwaukee, the major midwest land-annexers aren't usually lumped in with the "rust-belt", but when controlled for city core population decline.....


"Old City" Columbus (40 sq. miles):

1950: 375,710 / 9,393 ppsm

2020: 256,939 / 6,423 ppsm

Change: -31.6%



"Old City" Milwaukee (50 sq. miles):

1950 : 637,392 / 12,748 ppsm

2020 : 418,206 / 8,364 ppsm

Change: -34.4%



Center Township, Indianapolis (42 sq. miles):

1950: 337,211 / 8,028 ppsm

2020: 153,549 / 3,656 ppsm

Change: -54.5%



"Old City" Kansas City (60 sq. miles):

1950: 430,535 / 7,176 ppsm

2020: 187,902 / 3,132 ppsm

Change: -56.4%



The divergence here between Columbus/Milwaukee and Indy/KC is pretty interesting.

My guesses:

Milwaukee was helped by its siginifantly higher population density and thus starting out more urban.

Columbus had to have been helped by being home to one of the very largest and prestigious public universities in the nation.



And here are the non-land-annexers for reference:

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Columbus had to have been helped by being home to one of the very largest and prestigious public universities in the nation.

I mean, in the same way any large university would help any city but, in reality, it's the endless infill boxes going up everywhere (ironically NOT near Ohio State as the University District commission is heavily NIMBY) is the reason the city is densifying. There are whole areas that were once factories, water treatment plants, old rock quarries, and even highway cloverleafs that are now 5-over-1s. Everywhere. Even in the "undesirable" parts of the city.

For example, this was once an auto factory that is now home to over 2,000 units:

https://photos.prod.cirrussystem.net

Ohio State helps (much like UT in Austin and Vandy in Nashville) but it ain't the reason.

[Steely Dan]

^ And all of these cities have urban infill going on as well.

The difference seems to be that core city Columbus didn't sink nearly as far as Indy and KC during the urban dark ages.

I wonder why?

I think OSU might have played a part in that, even if it is not THE reason.

I mean, sure, all big cities have a big public university, but IU Indy and UMKC are not really quite the same thing as an OSU.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ And all these cities have urban infill going on as well.

The difference seems to be that core city Columbus didn't sink nearly as far as Indy and KC during the urban dark ages.

I wonder why?

I think OSU might have played a part in that, even if it is not THE reason.

I mean, sure, all big cities have a big public university, but IU Indy and UMKC are not really quite the same thing as an OSU.

Ohio State certainly helps, but the key reason is a bit more simple: Infill. Going to Indianapolis and Kansas City, they have not been infilling their core neighborhoods at the pace of Columbus, with it showing in your density numbers. Filling in the gaps with a faster rate will help ease the "urban dark ages" and the city has been pro-urban infill growth since probably 2005. 120,000 new people in a city in 15 years that hasn't annexed any significant land since the 80's will naturally infill what it can.

Indianapolis and Kansas City have far larger square miles than Columbus (both more than 100 sq mi) so I presume they have the space to build more lower-density stuff than Columbus, which is generally built-out aside from watersheds, industrial zones, and spider tentacle-annexation reaching out into whatever it can.

Though if your inference was if Columbus was doing better than Indy/KC in the 70's, 80's, and 90's from old city population decline, you'd be incorrect, even with Ohio State existing. Columbus was falling with the other three you mentioned until around the early 2000's.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Though if your inference was if Columbus was doing better than Indy/KC in the 70's, 80's, and 90's from old city population decline, you'd be incorrect,

With all due respect, I don't think that I am.

Yes, old city Columbus was falling (just like the vast majority of all US urban cores at the time), but it didn't fall as far as the other two during the urban dark ages.

Why?

Let's disregard the past 26 years for a moment:


"Old City" Columbus (40 sq. miles):

1950: 375,710

2000: 246,713

Change: -34.3%



Center Township, Indianapolis (42 sq. miles):

1950: 337,211

2000: 167,055

Change: -50.5%



That's 16 points of difference! All cities at the time experienced precipitous drops in average household size, somewhere in the neighborhood of -25% to -33%, so the numbers above would indicate that center township Indy lost far more actual households than old city Columbus did over those 5 decades. 21st century urban infill can't account for that.