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.
Does it create a misleading narrative? I disagree. What it does show is urban cores not only attracting but RETAINING millennials. In my mind it says Atlanta’s urban core has work to do to retain 2016 millennials . The reasons are arguable (maybe millennials priced out).
Or it could be that older millenials in Atlanta leave the urban core and head for the suburbs once they start families but there are still lots of younger millenials living in the urban core, so it tends to be a wash when it comes to the numbers.
Or it could be that older millenials in Atlanta leave the urban core and head for the suburbs once they start families but there are still lots of younger millenials living in the urban core, so it tends to be a wash when it comes to the numbers.
Well a lot of these cities are 200-300 sq mi(or more). They encompass significant suburban areas, if they are not simply suburbs themselves. This gives them an advantage in this metric, but it also leaves the question wide open as to whether these inbound folks are moving into the urban portions of the city or not.
Well a lot of these cities are 200-300 sq mi(or more). They encompass significant suburban areas, if they are not simply suburbs themselves. This gives them an advantage in this metric, but it also leaves the question wide open as to whether these inbound folks are moving into the urban portions of the city or not.
Another great point. Atlanta is actually on the physically small side for a major Sunbelt city. If it included all the land inside the Perimeter, it very well may have made the top 25 list at least
For one, it uses city limits for data which, while still worthwhile in examining, can create issues as demonstrated by Atlanta.
Secondly, it measures a very small sample size (one year) and along with margin of error could skew the results drastically. eg, there isnt a lot of consistency from last year's results (2015) to this year's (2016)
Lastly, this measures change/growth, which again, can be worthwhile but doesn't offer a full picture. Cities like San Francisco which are extremely dense and already saturated with millenials are extremely hard pressed to see any net growth in that demographic. Not to mention Gen Z is starting to grow into the age range that we used to use for millenials when it was the buzziest of buzzwords, so some of the Gen Z growth could be replacing Gen Yers.
Anyway, it is an interesting examination and certainly on the surface looks nice for Jacksonville, but I'll take it with a grain of salt.
Another great point. Atlanta is actually on the physically small side for a major Sunbelt city. If it included all the land inside the Perimeter, it very well may have made the top 25 list at least
Well understand this looks at a snap shot from July 2015 to July 2016. They look at the number of 20-34y/o that move in from out of state, and subtract the number of 20-34 yo that move out. It doesn't account for intrastate migration or aging. It's not a snapshot of overall population of that demographic, and does not have any accounting for trends of surrounding years, the 2017 years would look completely different. I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight behind interpreting it to mean Atlanta is or is not gaining in a demographic. Looking at things like increase in educated population ect is a much better barometer.
A one year timeframe can have some anomalies show up. That's my bet on why Columbia, a relatively small metro and not even the fastest growing in its own state, shows up.
For one, it uses city limits for data which, while still worthwhile in examining, can create issues as demonstrated by Atlanta.
Secondly, it measures a very small sample size (one year) and along with margin of error could skew the results drastically. eg, there isnt a lot of consistency from last year's results (2015) to this year's (2016)
Lastly, this measures change/growth, which again, can be worthwhile but doesn't offer a full picture. Cities like San Francisco which are extremely dense and already saturated with millenials are extremely hard pressed to see any net growth in that demographic. Not to mention Gen Z is starting to grow into the age range that we used to use for millenials when it was the buzziest of buzzwords, so some of the Gen Z growth could be replacing Gen Yers.
Anyway, it is an interesting examination and certainly on the surface looks nice for Jacksonville, but I'll take it with a grain of salt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo
Well understand this looks at a snap shot from July 2015 to July 2016. They look at the number of 20-34y/o that move in from out of state, and subtract the number of 20-34 yo that move out. It doesn't account for intrastate migration or aging. It's not a snapshot of overall population of that demographic, and does not have any accounting for trends of surrounding years, the 2017 years would look completely different. I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight behind interpreting it to mean Atlanta is or is not gaining in a demographic. Looking at things like increase in educated population ect is a much better barometer.
I completely missed the one-year time frame. Good point...over the course of a decade, the data from just one year could be little more statistical noise for some cities.
A one year timeframe can have some anomalies show up. That's my bet on why Columbia, a relatively small metro and not even the fastest growing in its own state, shows up.
I think there may be something to Columbia's appearance on the list. When you look at the Brookings report, Columbia ranks 13th of the metros analyzed for millenials constituting the largest share of the MSA population (Charleston has an identical share at 25.4%). Charleston has historically been the primary go-to city for college grads in SC and while the Holy City may still be the preference of most, its rapid gentrification and increasing cost of living is probably making many grads from Columbia's institutions of higher learning in particular (most notably USC) stick around for maybe at least a year or two after graduation. When you couple that with the significant uptick in downtown development that's occurring, Columbia's placement on the one-year list doesn't appear to be all that far-fetched. In terms of MSA growth rates within SC, the fastest-growing metro in SC is Myrtle Beach and trust me, it's really not attracting millenials in droves. Overall, metro Charleston is probably still first but I wouldn't doubt at all that Columbia proper could be attracting a bit more millenials than Charleston proper. It should also be kept in mind that while college grads do drive a good bit of millenial growth, these studies aren't looking at *just* college-educated millenials. Although Columbia's economy is a bit more white-collar with higher ed, state government, and the FIRE sector constituting a large share of the metro's economic base, it's still more affordable than Charleston and its central location is very ideal for day and weekend trips to the beaches, mountains, Charlotte, and Atlanta, all of which are three hours or less away. Columbia is also a metro where home ownership is very much in reach for many (with Charleston and Greenville not too far behind...at least according to the time frame the linked study is looking at).
Well a lot of these cities are 200-300 sq mi(or more). They encompass significant suburban areas, if they are not simply suburbs themselves. This gives them an advantage in this metric, but it also leaves the question wide open as to whether these inbound folks are moving into the urban portions of the city or not.
Point well taken. But they are STILL moving into the general core city...not surrounding counties, etc. You really cannot discount this data. It's relevant. And go to those individual larger cities by land area and look at their local news....millennials are moving to their urban cores. It's a fact that cannot be downplayed. Also many cities on that list that are widely thought to count as city/county mergers are in fact only a fraction of that in land area when you look at their city (balance) populations which is what the official census uses. Louisville and Nashville are the best examples of that so their land areas are not nearly as big as you think but both are probably 200-300 sq miles yes. Atlanta is no small city geographically at 134 sq miles. The census data I posted it still means alot. Atlanta's urban core attracts alot of millennial but it doesn't retain enough. No one is saying ATL is struggling but if you cannot see the demographic trends you aren't looking.
What we are seeing is a shift to the really cool midsized cities and I have been saying this in my travels for the last 5 years. Just get on yelp and look at "new restaurants" in the top 25 cities on this list. All of them are very "new york." Millennials are getting their city fix in midsized cities, saving, and using the savings to travel the world! A much smarter generation than us older folks (like me) who have traveled and lived all over due to jobs.
Speaking of Columbia I was there again last year and totally shocked! Times are changing quick and once Nashville gets full without transit, who will the next darling city in the southeast be...it's going to be a midsized city, centrally located, easy and affordable living, low traffic, and low unemployment, good restaurants and arts. Right now Charleston is starting to look like that city but there are many candidates (Raleigh is already there) among them Louisville and Richmond.
Last edited by Peter1948; 06-21-2018 at 09:32 PM..
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.
