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.
No, trends are just reverting back to what they used to be like 2000 - 2006.
The same places that were booming then will be doing so now. If you need evidence just take a look at Nevada and Las Vegas' comeback. More evidence, take a lot at how Orlando has accelerated every year since the last census was taken and how Florida, like Nevada is making a comeback to what it regularly was. More evidence? Take a look at the comeback in Arizona and Georgia.
People are once again flocking to places that have very very cheap living and more "benign" climate like they were last decade before the recession. Most of the growth in the Sunbelt FL, NV, AZ, GA are in the suburbs again with city proper decelerating each passing year.
I believe last decade places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles had more extreme net (negative) domestic migration than what we have been seeing 2008 - 2013 when people mostly stayed put (due to economic uncertainty).
The country is just reverting back to it's sprawling, high consuming ways and the places that were booming the most before the recession will boom the most from here on out.
Deceleration will come to IL, NY, TX, MA, PA, VA, MD, good amount of CA, so on. TX, for example, despite being a lower cost state in the Sunbelt exemplified by high growth will no longer be growing as fast or faster than GA, FL, NV, AZ, NC, among the like. Before the recession, TX was just another fast growing state, not top one, top two, top three, top four, or top five (as a percentage growth/rate) as it has been the last several years after the recession. It is not a retirement destination, FL is, NC is, GA is, AZ is, NV is and relocation for retirement will increase substantially again after standing pat during the recession.
For such an very expensive metro, the Bay Area is still experiencing healthy growth across the board.
Same. That's what impresses me. The booming Tech industry is doing wonders there. Just a very high performing metro area period. You have to really ask yourself: Has it overtaken Chicago at this point for the 3rd/4th most important city in the country? Chicago only growing 10k is pathetic IMO considering it has a high base population that should be putting out high birth/death rates. It's almost in the red.
For such an very expensive metro, the Bay Area is still experiencing healthy growth across the board.
American migrants go where the jobs (or cheap living) are.
It would be weird if the Bay Area were not seeing healthy growth since it's going through a tech boom. People will pay these rents if they're guaranteed good jobs. I lived in the Bay Area during the last tech expansion, and it grew at a similar pace then dropped like a rock to rust-belt level population decline after the tech bubble popped in 2001.
80% of Bay Area counties had overall population decline not too long ago
It's certainly a boom and bust city. It's interesting how things can change so dramatically. Will be interested to see how it fares after this bubble cools off (or pops).
Washington, D.C. is already going the same direction. The population growth will probably be nothing next year, if you look at how the numbers have dramatically shrunk each year after government austerity. Houston is also majorly cooling even though the numbers still look big. Houston was growing by much larger numbers in previous years, and it coincides with the dropping oil prices... and these estimates were taken way before the recent plunge in oil prices. Will be interesting to see it next year. But unlike Washington and the Bay Area, Houston is cheap so that will keep it from being a no-growth city.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,518,426 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
That's the thing I worry about with SF Bay Area. The tech industry is predicted to cool down in the next year or two.
And the exorbitant price of the Bay Area, along with the decline in the creative edginess it was once known for, might be a factor in the slowing down/decline in the region's population. In the music world, people are flocking to Los Angeles from the Bay Area and the emergence of it's "tech bro" culture.
Raleigh-Durham CSA (2,075,126) passed Milwaukee CSA (2,043,904) in 2014. It will probably take until at least the end of the decade for it to catch the next on the ladder: Cincinnati (2,208,450).
Something that is apparent by the county maps is that people continue to flow out of the rural counties into metropolitan areas. That phenomenon alone should keep most metros growing for at least the next decade.
That struck me as well--and it's very heavily concentrated in larger metro areas. If you look at the top 50 metro areas, I think it's safe to say they cumulatively surpass the next 350 in terms of growth.
It would be weird if the Bay Area were not seeing healthy growth since it's going through a tech boom. People will pay these rents if they're guaranteed good jobs. I lived in the Bay Area during the last tech expansion, and it grew at a similar pace then dropped like a rock to rust-belt level population decline after in 2001.
80% of Bay Area counties had overall population decline for a long period after the bust.
American migrants go where the jobs (or cheap living) are.
It's certainly a boom and bust city. It's interesting how things can change so dramatically.
Washington, D.C. is already going the same direction. The population growth will probably be nothing next year, if you look at how the numbers have dramatically shrunk each year after government austerity. Houston is also majorly cooling even though the numbers still look big. Houston was growing by much larger numbers in previous years, and it coincides with the dropping oil prices... and these estimates were taken way before the recent plunge in oil prices. Will be interesting to see it next year. But unlike Washington and the Bay Area, Houston is cheap so that will keep it from being a no-growth city.
I'm making a bold prediction here and say Atlanta will have higher metro growth than Houston in 2 years and will match Dallas in 3. Atlanta's job growth is higher than Houston's now and nearly as much as Dallas's.
Atlanta will never get back to it's 180k-200k a year growth rates like it was in the early 2000s, but I do think it will get back to the 150k a year growth.
Houston's numbers that just came out came before the oil industry collapse so the numbers will reflect a drop come next year.
I also think Miami is about to go boom. It's recent job growth numbers were seriously impressive for a metro that you wouldn't think would have high job growth numbers.
I heard the Bay Area will be under water by the next census... and earthquakes!
Only on this subforum can ppl gleam so many negatives from such positive info.
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.
