Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Phil Hulet and his wife Nancy moved to the new Bellwood subdivision near Summerville six months ago, after two years in Mount Pleasant. She wanted to be a little closer to her retail job and he wanted out of Mount Pleasant.
“It’s just too yuppie for me,” Hulet said. “Here, we have truck drivers and Boeing people.”
Some do prefer upper income, higher educated areas over truck driver and production line people. To each their own.
I understand it, but not something I'd necessarily seek out. I like MtP but let's see how the traffic situation pans out there before moving 7 years from now.
What's up with the traffic coming into MtP over the Cooper River Bridge? It's backed up daily. Has that been like that for a while?
Given that 2012 is the last year that reliable numbers exist for (actually 2010, since that was the census year), I'm going to go ahead and say no. In fact, the USA Today (really? You're using USA Today as a reliable news source?) article uses the same exact numbers that the Forbes article uses. Except that instead of actually using the migration numbers, it uses a weird indirect measure that I've never heard of (I do statistical analysis on market segments for a living) and then extrapolates a conclusion based on this. So we have one article, published 5 months ago, that uses raw data to draw a conclusion, and another article, from a month ago, that uses the same data, but wrings it through a complicated transformation and then makes a wild guess as to why it turns out the way it is. You'll excuse me if I go with my article instead of relying on the hard-hitting journalism of USAToday.
But let's put aside the mocking that that rag rightly deserves and actually examine the data it presents. The top 13:
First, I may not be as plugged in to the youth community as I was a few years ago, having now hit the ripe old age of 30, but I haven't heard anything about a massive migration of 20-somethings to Fargo, ND. UNLESS...you factor in young, mostly high-school educated males running to the oil boom. So the list already fails the smell test. Especially since the article begins with "post-college".
Second, Charleston isn't in the top 10. It's actually number 14.
Third, there's something that looks familiar about that list. Oh yeah, it's basically a list of cities that either host a large state college/university, or several smaller colleges. Arlington has like 10 colleges within city limits. Cambridge has MIT and Harvard, along with a plethora of smaller schools. Alexandria has sevral small colleges and George Washington University and Liberty University. Gainsville has UFL. Fargo has North Dakota State. Etc. Basically, compare that list to this: Fastest-Growing College Towns - The SpareFoot Blog
and you see that the methodology used in the study was half-assed at best.
Fourth, this methodology doesn't actually say anything about who is moving where. You can just as easily draw the conclusion that parents with teens are moving away from these regions as to say that young people are moving in. You can also say that a sudden breakout of a rare and previously unknown disease has decimated the 15-18yo population of those areas. The data doesn't actually tell you anything. It's poorly filtered, poorly thought out, and is basically an example of what happens when you let people with no knowledge of statistical methods near the Census database. It's the equivalent of writing a front-page news story in ebonics.
Fifth, this is a placed PR story. I should know, since a) I was a journo once a long time ago, b) I work in marketing now, and one of the things our company does is crank out stories like this for PR placement. Charleston is #14 on the list, yet the entire story is focused on it. And the entire bottom 2/3rds of the article are basically Charleston fellatio.
Shame on USA Today for, once again, failing to live up to any kind of journalistic standards. And shame on you for not being able to vette your sources.
Given that 2012 is the last year that reliable numbers exist for (actually 2010, since that was the census year), I'm going to go ahead and say no. In fact, the USA Today (really? You're using USA Today as a reliable news source?) article uses the same exact numbers that the Forbes article uses. Except that instead of actually using the migration numbers, it uses a weird indirect measure that I've never heard of (I do statistical analysis on market segments for a living) and then extrapolates a conclusion based on this. So we have one article, published 5 months ago, that uses raw data to draw a conclusion, and another article, from a month ago, that uses the same data, but wrings it through a complicated transformation and then makes a wild guess as to why it turns out the way it is. You'll excuse me if I go with my article instead of relying on the hard-hitting journalism of USAToday.
But let's put aside the mocking that that rag rightly deserves and actually examine the data it presents. The top 13:
First, I may not be as plugged in to the youth community as I was a few years ago, having now hit the ripe old age of 30, but I haven't heard anything about a massive migration of 20-somethings to Fargo, ND. UNLESS...you factor in young, mostly high-school educated males running to the oil boom. So the list already fails the smell test. Especially since the article begins with "post-college".
Second, Charleston isn't in the top 10. It's actually number 14.
Third, there's something that looks familiar about that list. Oh yeah, it's basically a list of cities that either host a large state college/university, or several smaller colleges. Arlington has like 10 colleges within city limits. Cambridge has MIT and Harvard, along with a plethora of smaller schools. Alexandria has sevral small colleges and George Washington University and Liberty University. Gainsville has UFL. Fargo has North Dakota State. Etc. Basically, compare that list to this: Fastest-Growing College Towns - The SpareFoot Blog
and you see that the methodology used in the study was half-assed at best.
Fourth, this methodology doesn't actually say anything about who is moving where. You can just as easily draw the conclusion that parents with teens are moving away from these regions as to say that young people are moving in. You can also say that a sudden breakout of a rare and previously unknown disease has decimated the 15-18yo population of those areas. The data doesn't actually tell you anything. It's poorly filtered, poorly thought out, and is basically an example of what happens when you let people with no knowledge of statistical methods near the Census database. It's the equivalent of writing a front-page news story in ebonics.
Fifth, this is a placed PR story. I should know, since a) I was a journo once a long time ago, b) I work in marketing now, and one of the things our company does is crank out stories like this for PR placement. Charleston is #14 on the list, yet the entire story is focused on it. And the entire bottom 2/3rds of the article are basically Charleston fellatio.
Shame on USA Today for, once again, failing to live up to any kind of journalistic standards. And shame on you for not being able to vette your sources.
You're missing the point, the fact is this area is having massive growth (Not just retirees), big job creation, and a big population of middle aged transplants. It's only going to get bigger and better (Strap in and enjoy the show)
You can't just make things up. Link something that mentions the growth is attributed to retirees. Just because it's not on a list doesn't mean it's #11 or #21 on that list, btw.
2010-2012 Growth by Age Cohort in Charleston County
20-24 32042 30587 -4.54%
25-29 30803 32931 6.91%
30-34 24898 27996 12.44%
60-64 20742 21789 5.05%
65-69 14997 17612 17.44%
70-74 10256 11563 12.74%
Hmmm....where is the bulk of that growth coming from, I wonder. It's funny how primary sources are so easy to find, and actually tell you the truth instead of regurgitating tired half-truths and vague attaboys.
You're missing the point, the fact is this area is having massive growth (Not just retirees), big job creation, and a big population of middle aged transplants. It's only going to get bigger and better (Strap in and enjoy the show)
The point is those are unsupported "pulled out of my ass" statements. The actual numbers don't support most of those assertions. At this point, your argument has come down to "If I repeat something over and over again, it'll come true!".
I've posted several cited sources that say that you're full of it, but you refuse to listen and respond with fluff pieces talking about how wonderful Charleston is. Meanwhile, the truth is really somewhere closer to the middle. A large amount of the growth Charleston is experiencing is retirees and people about to retire, combined with the fact that Charleston was almost completely underdeveloped only a few years ago.
I don't understand why you have this pathological need to lie to yourself and everyone else in order to make yourself feel better. You think Charleston is swell. We get that. Good for you, you're totally entitled to your own opinion. Why do you feel this ridiculous urge to shout about how awesome Chaz is (despite evidence to the contrary)? It's not like you personally had anything to do with it. You're obviously getting so much pride out of something that has nothing to do with you or anything you did, and I'm really confused about it. Unless you happen to be the mayor. Are you the mayor?
IMHO, Mt.P's longrange plan to "Main Street" Coleman to Chuck
Dawley and include a well disguised parking garage by the creek is progressive by SC standards.
Mayor Page and the majority of Council are right to push for central
Mount Pleasant to build up and not out and good for them for
standing firm. In the face of a small but loud group that thinks Mt P.just
ends and begins in the Old Village.
...What "other 50% of growth"? Those percentages aren't meant to be added together. They're the percent change from 2010 to 2012 of each individual cohort to show where the most drastic changes in population are happening. And since we were focusing on determining whether retirees or younger professionals were driving the growth, I pulled out two groups of ages. One for younger adults, one for retirees. Do you want me to post a full chart? OK, here you go:
IMHO, Mt.P's longrange plan to "Main Street" Coleman to Chuck
Dawley and include a well disguised parking garage by the creek is progressive by SC standards.
I have to give Mt. P some credit. Not that long ago their growth "plan" was to annex land deep INSIDE the national forest and build subdivisions there. Adding more density within the current city limits doesn't make me want to give up on the Lowcountry and move away.
I was glad to see they want to build a new high school on the old Wando campus, not out in Awendaw or Huger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Enjoy your reading...Not just retirees
