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.
Cleveland just landed the RNC, quite an accomplishment for a place that will never be up and coming wouldn't you say? This is just step 1 in what could be a VERY big week for Cleveland.
The RNC is in Cleveland because its in Ohio, which is a major swing state.
The RNC is in Cleveland because its in Ohio, which is a major swing state.
You have to admit, though, it still says a lot that out of Ohio cities, Cleveland was chosen over more conservative Cincinnati and up-and-coming Columbus. Congrats Cleveland!
Lol, I think most Columbus residents would disagree that it's "coming out from the shadows". That makes it sound like a dark and treacherous city, which it isn't, or a city that's just now coming to the limelight, which it isn't. However, it is on the upswing.
As someone who has lived in Columbus for 9 years, I think Columbus is still overshadowed and obscure to most people despite it growth.. Name another metro that has 2 million people and you still have to tell people what state it is located in. Look at any flight and departure board and Columbus OH is always listed. There are many Columbus's but none that remotely compare the Ohio's capital.
Minneapolis/St. Paul has all that. So its actually not accurate to say "not yet ever" to a Midwest equivalent to Seattle, Portland, Austin.
I have heard Mpls MN is a lovely city. But I'm not sure it has quite the same "cachet" as Portland, Seattle and Austin. Mpls MN has been a great city for a long, long time, but Portland/Seattle/Austin really became big on the scene in the last 15-20 yrs. I think Portland/Seattle/Austin also have more of a national draw, where people from all over the U.S. now want to move there. Where I would not say that people all over the U.S. want to move to MPLS. Nothing against MPLS at all, like I said I have heard nothing but good things. Also, the tendency in terms of population shifts the past 40+ years in the U.S. is to move to more mild winter climates (which Austin, Portland, Seattle have), midwest cities do not have a mild winters. So the next hip city is likely to be in a more mild climate area.
No, they're not. There are currently no Midwest states losing population, and only a handful of cities are, mostly located in a small geographical area around the Lakes. Quite a few cities are growing by double digits.
Also, the South and West never got most of their population growth from region to region transplants. It was from natural growth and international migration, particularly from Latin America. Regardless, if you look at the actual growth rates, the majority of these places are slowing down in growth rates, some pretty significantly, while rates are recovering across the North.
You are correct they are not losing population, but they are not growing nearly as fast as the south and west. The fastest growing cities are still BY FAR in the south and west. Austin grew at 9% from 2010-2013, Seattle 7.2%, Boise at 6%, Denver 5.7%, Ft. Collins 5.5%, Phoenix 5%.
The state of OH only grew at 0.3% from 2010-2013. Cleveland lost -1.7%. Columbus grew at 4.3% (so that is a bright spot). The state of MI only grew at 0.1%. Even Grand Rapids which is a bright spot in the state only grew at 2.3%. The state of MN grew at 2.2%. Mpls grew at 4.6% (surprising). Indiana grew at 1.3%. Indianapolis grew at 2.8%. Kansas grew at 1.4%.
The RNC is in Cleveland because its in Ohio, which is a major swing state.
The RNC is in Cleveland because the RNC made a business decision to be there; the other Ohio cities, at least to the RNC Committee, did not measure up to its standards and were eliminated. Cleveland has been trying, on-and-off since 1976, to host either the DNC or RNC conventions. So it's not like the RNC decided to go to Cleveland simply because it is Ohio. The upgraded downtown area, mainly the new hotels, clinched it this time.
Even without the effects of climate change, I think people will come to appreciate the rust belt cities more as time goes on. People will be more selective and realistic about where they live, and stop searching for McMansions in a 70, dry and sunny paradise somewhere in the sun belt. Traffic, sprawl, brutally hot summers, and overcrowding due to a rapid influx of residents will cause sun belt growth to taper off. The region will lose its luster. Growth will level out in the south and west, and shift again towards the Midwestern (and some bypassed southern) cities. As I see it, regional growth in this country is cyclical, so the next part of the cycle is almost certainly going to shift to the regions that have largely been ignored up to now.
But when you throw in climate change, it might actually cause issues, because the combination of rising seas and rising temperatures will have people leaving the south, west, and coasts in droves. Massive metros like Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Atlanta may be evacuated en masse by populations who can't take the intensified hot weather. Furthermore, big coastal metros like Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, etc. may be partially or even fully swamped by rising seas, chasing out more people. Millions will be migrating towards the center of the nation. I don't know if the Midwest would be prepared for such an influx, it could really strain the system.
Your first paragraph part of your post could happen. Maybe there will be a trend where people will go back to more affordable, less crowded, older places with more water that are in the rust belt areas. But your 2nd paragraph....I'm talking next hot up and coming city in the next 10-15 years. I don't see mass evacuations from coastal cities happening in the next 10-15 yrs.
That is a good list. I think I would consider Asheville already discovered and on most peoples radar though. Boise is a good call. And I have heard Chattanooga too. I have heard Pittsburg too, Pittsburg has the universities and Carnegie Mellon to help with tech jobs. Maybe Bellingham WA?
I used to think Albuquerque NM had potential as the next hot city, New Mexico has lots of sun and a mild winter, beautiful mountains and kind of a mystique to it and cool culture, but NM just can't seem to get it's act together to attract decent jobs.
What makes you say Omaha and Columbus? What would drive those to become the next hot cities? I can't see hipsters flooding into Omaha Those are 2 I would never have thought of.
You could also say, "what is going to be the next hot small city"? I think Boulder CO, Ft. Collins CO., Missoula MT, and Ashville are examples of smaller hip cities that are fully discovered. Ft. Collins is an example of a place that was undiscovered 15-20 years ago and has doubled in population and has much higher real estate prices now. Ft. Collins again has the combination of a university, hipness, outdoor recreation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckeyePorcupine
Disclaimer: I've never been to Omaha, Nebraska.
I know several people who have and they've actually enjoyed it. I guess it's relatively easy to find a good job out there if you're educated, and if you're not; well, sounds like there's still jobs. They seem to pull in a lot of tourists, have some very big and well-known businesses headquartered there, have not stopped growing and have a burgeoning indie rock scene. As a young, hopefully upwardly mobile person; Omaha appeals to me. It's not a top choice, but one I could live with. It does have a ways to go before becoming truly trendy or "on the radar" but it could happen sooner than you think.
I'd like to see the city pick up some pro sports teams, actually.
My DH is from Omaha. I've spent a lot of time there, though never lived there. It's an OK place. If Austin could become hip, Omaha could. It certainly has a better climate IMO. It frequently has the lowest unemployment rate of any large city. Great health care facilities and educational program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
No, they're not. There are currently no Midwest states losing population, and only a handful of cities are, mostly located in a small geographical area around the Lakes. Quite a few cities are growing by double digits.
Also, the South and West never got most of their population growth from region to region transplants. It was from natural growth and international migration, particularly from Latin America. Regardless, if you look at the actual growth rates, the majority of these places are slowing down in growth rates, some pretty significantly, while rates are recovering across the North.
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.
Those are 2 I would never have thought of.
