Rust Belt cities are trying to attract more immigrants

[10023]

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.

None of this is true, or even logical in the context of what we know about the history of industrialization in other parts of the world.

[Matthew]

I would love to know more about the industrialization of the South.

I can't really speak for other cities in the region, but I can say that Winston-Salem was starting to industrialize in the 1820s/1830s. Before the Civil War, Winston-Salem was a center for wagon/carriage manufacturing, as the primary industry, with multiple large wagon/carriage works factories. Winston-Salem also had woolen mills, cotton mills, food related industries, ironworks, and ???

Winston-Salem is known for it's historic preservation, but very little remains of the early factories. I searched to find the oldest industrial building surviving from that time and the oldest I could find are buildings from the 1830s.

This could be the oldest factory in Winston-Salem (Nissen Wagon Works - 1834):

Credit: Urban Mez

If you look closely, you'll see the smokestack is in a star shape. The building will become a police station next year. Construction on the adaptive reuse project should start at any time? The city owns the building and hired the architect. Funding is already in place for the adaptive reuse.

A look inside Nissen Wagon Works:

Credit: Justin Reissman

After the Civil War, Nissen's wagons became the nation's top seller and this factory employed hundreds in the 1870s.

The most well-known historic industrial building in Winston-Salem is likely The Brookstown Inn. Built in 1836, it was once owned by Governor John Morehead. It was sold to a developer in 1977 and converted into a hotel. A graffiti wall, preserved under glass, is a popular feature, where young girls working there in the early 1800s left messages and drawings on a wall.

Brookstown Inn - 1836:

Credit: Google Street View

The factories were possible due to the large number of waterways. Winston-Salem is a water everywhere type of city. According to an historical marker, The Brookstown Inn was the first industrial building in the South with electricity.

[James Bond Agent 007]

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?

I said "attract" people from California, not "force" people from California.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I said "attract" people from California, not "force" people from California.

It's not impossible to attract some Californians to some metros in the Midwest, but it would take a concerted effort to educate potential emigres of the certain benefits of such a move. Part of that education campaign would need to include dispelling outdated stereotypes, and to put things like winter weather in proper context (i.e. winter is but one of four seasons and the summers are warm). And it goes without saying there would need to be plenty of decent-paying jobs.

[Centropolis]

as a st. louisan i could care less about attracting people from another place. we have an expat crowd that none-the-less feels an attraction to home (see john hamm, ellie kemper, etc) that we are trying to get to spend time and money back home.

in general californians would not fit in here re: previous posts, and thats ok and not a slight. urban minded southerners love and are amazed by it as i've observed over the years.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I said "attract" people from California, not "force" people from California.

Clearly that's not impossible, as evidenced by, IIRC, the fact that California is every year losing Californians to the other states; what's keeping it afloat population-wise is immigration.




In fact a 3-second Google search found this, which seems to confirm my previously-stated intuition that the main reason to leave is unreasonable housing prices:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2726513.html

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by lio45

Clearly that's not impossible, as evidenced by, IIRC, the fact that California is every year losing Californians to the other states; what's keeping it afloat population-wise is immigration.

California, like all high-cost states, has net domestic out-migration, but I would be really surprised if these folks were moving to the Midwest.

Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Texas are the likely recipient states.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by 10023

None of this is true, or even logical in the context of what we know about the history of industrialization in other parts of the world.

Hard to compare other parts of the world to American industrialization. Our history, geography and climate are quite different than small European countries.

larrygates | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus
Posted January 2, 2011 at 10:33 AM (Answer #1)

The South, from its early settlement, had tied its economy to large scale production of staple crops; which by the 19th century was primarily cotton. The South had an extended growing season and fertile soil which lent itself to agriculture. The North, by contrast, had a short growing season, rocky soil, but more importantly had a large number of rivers and streams which could be used to operate factories. Industrialization never took off in the South because the people of the South saw no reason to industrialize. Their economy, though built on a thin foundation; appeared solid to them. The only manufacturing concern of any consequence in the South was the famous Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia. It was this over-reliance on agriculture that doomed the South to lose the Civil War.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...ake-off-232957

[fflint]

Originally Posted by lio45

Clearly that's not impossible, as evidenced by, IIRC, the fact that California is every year losing Californians to the other states; what's keeping it afloat population-wise is immigration.

While it is true more Californians move to other US states than vice-versa, it is also true the deficit is a tiny proportion of California's overall population. Additionally, the idea only international immigration is keeping California's population growing is a myth: natural increase is the primary driver of California's continuing population growth.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I said "attract" people from California, not "force" people from California.

I know you did, and I was asking if you or anyone could give me a compelling argument why I should leave where I live in California for a rust belt city, apart from it being cheaper.

It's funny how people just tout urbanism as a quality of life, but I'm also thinking about other qualities of life and the perks I get from living where I live, vs. the Rust Belt.

Left hand, right hand...

South Pasadena/Los Ángeles, Rust Belt...
Plethora of ethnic cuisine, Rust Belt...
Hiking in the local mountains, Rust Belt...
Walks along the beach/a pier, Rust Belt...
Year-round farmers markets, Rust Belt...
Fresh locally-grown produce, Rust Belt...
Day-trip or weekend in Santa Barbara, Rust Belt...
6-hour drive or 1 hour flight to San Francisco for a long weekend, Rust Belt...
Wine Country, Rust Belt...

And the American media mentions people leaving California, and that may be the case, but I see plenty of out-of-state plates were I live, and many of them are residents and not just tourists.

Incidentally, more Asians than Latinos are immigrating to California. Latinos will be the largest ethnic group in California (if they aren't already), but Asians are streaming into California in droves (people from India, the Philippines, and China being the top Asian immigrants in California becoming American citizens), while the number of Latino immigrants have started to level off for the past several years now.

Not a rust-belt place, but some years ago, my cousin and her husband, because of a job offer her husband got, thought of moving to Dallas. They visited and stayed there a week, and hated it; they hated the weather and the overall environment. Her husband was able to find a better-paying job in the LA area and they stayed.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Obviously that depends on your personal preferences. If you could never find yourself living somewhere that gets blizzards during the winter and doesn't have a warm, sunny beach to stroll on, then clearly nothing anyone said to you would make you want to move to a Rust Belt city. For me, there's pretty much nothing anyone could say to me that would ever make me want to move to California (with the possible exception of around Lake Tahoe). But that's just me.

[fflint]

Whether any one individual forumer would move to the Rust Belt from California is beside the point. There are plenty of Californians who move out of state every year, and they move to nearby Nevada, Washington, Arizona and Oregon primarily. But there's no obvious reason why some subset of those persons couldn't be enticed to move to a Rust Belt metro if they could be shown the real benefits to such a move. Many Californians have some history of living in other states already. But again, good jobs would have to be on offer.