3 ms·
Just to be clear, this isn't exactly right. Population loss in the rust belt is widely misunderstood. Most of those cities didn't lose people; they just moved t
by dionidium 10y ago
Just to be clear, this isn't exactly right. Population loss in the rust belt is widely misunderstood. Most of those cities didn't lose people; they just moved them out of their urban core. St. Louis, as a region, for example, has grown slightly over the last 40 years. But a whole bunch of people have been doing a whole lot of moving around the area over that time.
You don't have to lose people to get blight. You just have to build new houses and abandon the old ones.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago> Most of those cities didn't lose people; they just moved them out of their urban core. St. Louis, as a region, for example, has grown slightly over the last 40 years. You seem to be confused. St. Louis is a city, and has lost people, just like major cities across the country did. This is part of what led to urban blight. It's the St. Louis metro area that has remained stable/growing.
- dionidium 10y agoAs a St. Louisan, I'm not impressed by descriptions of the region that emphasize myopically-drawn political borders from 1876. My point, clearly, was that St. Louis didn't lose people to other cities. It lost people to other parts of its own region. Further, I assure you that people from outside the region make no such distinction when they talk about "St. Louis."