U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2015, 08:33 PM
 
12,205 posts, read 17,623,378 times
Reputation: 3355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
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.
I still think Texas will continue to lead the pack. The "word" has been out about Texas for a minute, so I think it will continue to be the top grower here, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2015, 08:34 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,719,204 times
Reputation: 9782
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
^^^This is all true, but the challenge in the Bay Area (long term) as opposed to Midland is COL and supplying jobs at those higher wages needed.
Definitely not true. The Bay Area shed more jobs, and had higher unemployment, than even Detroit in the early 2000's. The Bay Area had the exact same COL then as now, but the tech boom went bust, so obviously the jobs evaporated. We're talking just 10 years ago.

People don't move to a region for COL, they move for jobs. Houston has had the highest job creation and highest population in the U.S. in recent years, yet is arguably the ugliest major U.S. city, in basically the least pleasant surroundings, with some of the worst air quality.

The Bay Area has always been very boom-bust, and is now at the peak of an incredible boom, so it makes sense that it has very impressive job numbers and population growth. It has nothing to do with COL, which is a constant in both good and bad economic cycles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 08:37 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,719,204 times
Reputation: 9782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy205 View Post
I still think Texas will continue to lead the pack. The "word" has been out about Texas for a minute, so I think it will continue to be the top grower here, IMO.
Not very likely, because Texas growth is primarily fueled by higher-than-average Hispanic birthrates. Once the birthrates trend closer to national levels, the growth will probably moderate somewhat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 08:44 PM
 
12,205 posts, read 17,623,378 times
Reputation: 3355
IDK why people are hating on Texas's and Houston's growth. It's kind of annoying.

People are anticipating a slowdown during this oil dip; however, Houston grew 136,000 and 150,000 in 2008 and 2009 respectively (the last, more brutal, oil dip before the current one). This was more than DFW's 128,000 and 130,000 and Atlanta's 103,000 and 71,000 during those same 2 years.

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Texas and Houston are MORE THAN OIL for God's sake.

Also, Hispanics aren't the only minorities that get pregnant! Ask the Africans that have a plethora of kids in Houston.

Last edited by SouthernBoy205; 03-26-2015 at 09:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
1,397 posts, read 2,001,601 times
Reputation: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Brooklyn is slowly but surely catching up to Chicago. The current estimates put Brooklyn at 2,621,000. The gap is only like ~100k people now. At this rate Brooklyn will be bigger even before 2020 census I think.
Probably not before but definitely by the time the next Census takes place. Not sure about Chicago construction but it seems like it's not slowing down anytime soon in BK. Brooklyn will indeed surpass Chicago, especially if this trend continue until the 2020's.

Fun fact though with the current estimates Brooklyn is now 116K people away from the borough peak of 2.73 Million!

That's more exciting to me than having more than Chicago lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,261 posts, read 3,501,368 times
Reputation: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuddedLeather View Post
Probably not before but definitely by the time the next Census takes place. Not sure about Chicago construction but it seems like it's not slowing down anytime soon in BK. Brooklyn will indeed surpass Chicago, especially if this trend continue until the 2020's.

Fun fact though with the current estimates Brooklyn is now 116K people away from the borough peak of 2.73 Million!

That's more exciting to me than having more than Chicago lol.
Last time Brooklyn had bigger population than Chicago was in 1880, when Brooklyn was the 3rd biggest city in the country...

Speaking of historic maximums, the Bronx is only 33,000 people away from the borough peak population as well.
It's possible that after 2020 census the only NYC borough not at its all time high population will be just Manhattan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 01:52 AM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,142,473 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Definitely not true. The Bay Area shed more jobs, and had higher unemployment, than even Detroit in the early 2000's. The Bay Area had the exact same COL then as now, but the tech boom went bust, so obviously the jobs evaporated. We're talking just 10 years ago.

People don't move to a region for COL, they move for jobs. Houston has had the highest job creation and highest population in the U.S. in recent years, yet is arguably the ugliest major U.S. city, in basically the least pleasant surroundings, with some of the worst air quality.

The Bay Area has always been very boom-bust, and is now at the peak of an incredible boom, so it makes sense that it has very impressive job numbers and population growth. It has nothing to do with COL, which is a constant in both good and bad economic cycles.

You're insanely wrong. On so many fronts. Increased COL and inability for wages to keep up is a huge issue for the Bay Area. Also, sticker shock that companies are going to to remain competitive there. I think most are swallowing that they need to be in the Bay Area long term, but the expense is quite huge.

COL has definitely gone up and while always elevated in SF/Bay Area, it doesn't stay flat. How can one possibly claim that?

Cost of doing business and cost of living have skyrocketed in the Bay Area from already high levels. They've skyrocketed elsewhere, too. These things aren't static. Businesses choose to pay the price because there is a greater benefit of locating in certain cities that see these cycles. Some companies choose not to pay that price and see no benefit from being located in these areas. The fact that both decisions are being made, either to stay or relocate, bodes well for both the coastal cities with these higher costs and the booming sunbelt cities or cheaper metros that have open arms to whatever they can get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 01:56 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,795 posts, read 2,448,887 times
Reputation: 1199
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy205 View Post
IDK why people are hating on Texas's and Houston's growth. It's kind of annoying.

People are anticipating a slowdown during this oil dip; however, Houston grew 136,000 and 150,000 in 2008 and 2009 respectively (the last, more brutal, oil dip before the current one). This was more than DFW's 128,000 and 130,000 and Atlanta's 103,000 and 71,000 during those same 2 years.

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Texas and Houston are MORE THAN OIL for God's sake.

Also, Hispanics aren't the only minorities that get pregnant! Ask the Africans that have a plethora of kids in Houston.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Polish Hill, Pittsburgh, PA
29,636 posts, read 65,783,021 times
Reputation: 15133
I suppose if there's any silver lining to Metro Pittsburgh's continued population loss it would be that the region is continuing to "right-size" itself and is increasing in quality---not quantity. As our disproportionately-high population of elderly die off in the coming years, the percentage of our overall population that is younger and college-educated will increase as well, making the region more attractive for quality employers. The city already has a tech presence of companies like Google, Disney, Intel, Apple, and Uber (which is now developing self-driving cars here), lured largely by the presence of Carnegie Mellon University's engineering graduates. I've only lived in the city since 2010, but it's becoming noticeably wealthier (much more traffic and many 1990s rust-buckets on the roads around me being replaced by BMWs and Teslas). Violent crime is restricted to just a select few small urban decay pockets, and as the rest of the city is becoming more expensive with $1,300/month+ rents for 1-BR units I expect young professionals to start becoming urban pioneers in those areas, driving out crime via gentrification.

So while it's saddening that Greater Pittsburgh is in decline in terms of raw numbers at least one can still be idealistic that many of our demographic rankings in terms of education, income, and crime continue to improve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 08:24 AM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
12,999 posts, read 17,183,878 times
Reputation: 14313
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising View Post
I suppose if there's any silver lining to Metro Pittsburgh's continued population loss it would be that the region is continuing to "right-size" itself and is increasing in quality---not quantity. As our disproportionately-high population of elderly die off in the coming years, the percentage of our overall population that is younger and college-educated will increase as well, making the region more attractive for quality employers. The city already has a tech presence of companies like Google, Disney, Intel, Apple, and Uber (which is now developing self-driving cars here), lured largely by the presence of Carnegie Mellon University's engineering graduates. I've only lived in the city since 2010, but it's becoming noticeably wealthier (much more traffic and many 1990s rust-buckets on the roads around me being replaced by BMWs and Teslas). Violent crime is restricted to just a select few small urban decay pockets, and as the rest of the city is becoming more expensive with $1,300/month+ rents for 1-BR units I expect young professionals to start becoming urban pioneers in those areas, driving out crime via gentrification.

So while it's saddening that Greater Pittsburgh is in decline in terms of raw numbers at least one can still be idealistic that many of our demographic rankings in terms of education, income, and crime continue to improve.
One thing that interested me from the 2010 Census is that the working-age population (ages 20-64) in the Pittsburgh MSA actually increased by more than 20,000. It was washed out by declines in the number of children and elderly, though. This phenomenon helps explain why Pittsburgh is near the top of the list for jobs per capita among major MSAs. There are more jobs now than ever before in the Pittsburgh MSA, despite the population being about 500,000 lower than it was when it peaked in in 1970. The "fleeing in droves" days are long over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top