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.
This is true of most legacy cities. Domestic outflow of these places has been around for decades. Most of these places rely on internation migration to keep numbers rising. I'm wondering if the political climate during the election cycle slowed migration. It would better explain the downward trend in Detroit's increases, and also possibly explain the reverse flow in both Milwaukee and St. Louis. Both of which are historically reliable as slow and steady gainers. This trend is present in other metro's like Philly which saw slower gains, and Pittsburgh which saw an uncharacteristic acceleration in it's negative numbers.
I wouldn't call it unusual, but it seems higher than past years. Net domestic migration out of the city from 2010-2016 was -524,013, which would give a yearly average of -87,336, which is well below what the city lost this year.
This article from Bloomberg back in January summed up what's going on in Chicago rather well. Here's a quick excerpt:
Quote:
The news out of Chicago hasn't been great lately! There were 780 homicides in the city in 2016, up from 468 the year before. The city's public-employee pension funds are in deep, deep trouble. The Chicago metropolitan area shrank by an estimated 6,263 people in 2015 -- the biggest population loss of any metro area in the nation.
It all sounds like a city in a downward spiral. But have you been to Chicago lately? I was there last week, working out of the Bloomberg bureau downtown, attending a conference nearby, and visiting people in neighborhoods to the north and northwest. Even in the chill of early January, the city seemed as vibrant as I've ever seen it. When I tried this observation out on Alden Loury, director of research and evaluation at Chicago's Metropolitan Planning Council, he agreed: "In the central business district and the residential areas near it, I don't know that there's been a more prosperous time in decades."
Loury gets around a lot more than an expense-account visitor, though, and added this: "If you hop on the train and go a few stops to the south or west, you see a very different story." What you see are vast expanses of poor, crime-ridden, depopulating neighborhoods. And the trouble doesn't really end at the city line. The northern suburbs along Lake Michigan -- you know, where John Hughes set his movies -- are more affluent than ever, and there are pockets of wealth to the west of the city. But overall, Chicago's suburbs aren't doing great.
[snip]
In short, the central and northern part of Chicago seems to have succeeded in establishing itself as a global city beloved by the creative class, while the rest of the city struggles and the rest of the metro area just plods along. "It's hard to say where the city is going to go," said Paral. "You could get pessimistic, or you could get optimistic." You'd have to think this can't last: Either the central city's success will pull the rest of the area out of its funk, or the rest of the area's problems will drag the central city down. But Paral told me the city has seemed to be on the cusp of either a renaissance or a collapse for decades now.
I wouldn't call it unusual, but it seems higher than past years. Net domestic migration out of the city from 2010-2016 was -524,013, which would give a yearly average of -87,336, which is well below what the city lost this year.
One interesting/depressing thing I noticed is that the 4 million person Inland Empire MSA has grown by more total people than the 14 million person LA/OC MSA.
One interesting/depressing thing I noticed is that the 4 million person Inland Empire MSA has grown by more total people than the 14 million person LA/OC MSA.
Are jobs going over there too or is everyone still commuting to LA? Inland Empire has a pretty low GDP for it's population, which I guess is understandable.
Are jobs going over there too or is everyone still commuting to LA? Inland Empire has a pretty low GDP for it's population, which I guess is understandable.
Jobs must be going there. Otherwise commuting patterns wouldn't have allowed for it to be statistically turned into the fake metro area it is today.
I'm surprised to see Denver slow down so much. There is this impression around here that our migration numbers increase every year. But I guess not...unless it's just a matter of more people moving out than in.
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.
The Villages Florida fastest growing MSA in USA for FOURTH year in a row!
