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.
I see the opposite being the case. Sunbelt will continue to grow and more rural areas will continue to die due to lack of jobs/prosperity.
The Sunbelt will continue to grow I agree, but I do expect to see a resurgence of rural areas. Teleworking will be a lot more popular going forward and that will make rural areas more viable.
The Sunbelt will continue to grow I agree, but I do expect to see a resurgence of rural areas. Teleworking will be a lot more popular going forward and that will make rural areas more viable.
I may be missing the cultural shift/grand millennial wave, less fear of rural areas, lower cost of living etc. Teleworking only works if you have the infrastructure in place such as high speed internet. I can speak first hand to the rural area I work in not having what is necessary to keep people there.
I may be missing the cultural shift/grand millennial wave, less fear of rural areas, lower cost of living etc. Teleworking only works if you have the infrastructure in place such as high speed internet. I can speak first hand to the rural area I work in not having what is necessary to keep people there.
There is high-speed internet in many rural areas. That's how I managed to survive my temporary stint in my hometown in rural SC.
That said, rural areas within reasonable driving distance to a city with more amenities will fare better. There is talk of a big infrastructure package being part of the next round of Congressional stimulus legislation and it would be great if that included broadband for rural areas.
Personally, I’m done with rural areas and the efforts made to keep them artificially relevant in the 21st century. We are a big country now, we will do what big, crowded countries do: pack into urban areas (and move to socialized medicine and mass transit). It’s ok if small towns turn back into forests. Really, it’s ok. People’s kids and grandkids got over the sentimentality of “home”. They can too.
IMO, COVID changes nothing (well after these next 2-3 years). People didn’t stop living in cities after the Spanish Flu (or H1N1, ebola or any other pandemic). Some things may become irrelevant and there is more danger in jobs that can be done from home simply going away than them spurring rural growth. Broadband isn’t the only infrastructure lacking in rural America. The only thing more important than social distancing in a pandemic is medical treatment (and testing). Rural hospitals are shuttering all across America and no amount of funding thrown at them will keep them open. Same goes for first responders. Volunteer EMT and fire fighters are having a very hard time recruiting.
I think folks are ignoring the much more likely reality that "booming" population growth is really becoming a phenomenon of the past. The obscene rise in COL is/income imbalances were already putting a huge damper on large metro growth in the latter part of the 2010s. And while I agree that the current pandemic won't lead to the major realignment of migration that some are predicting, it certainly doesn't help the cause of large/dense cities in the long-term, especially if new waves or whole new viruses continue to emerge.
But more to the point, America and the larger Western world is at an inflection point where we can no longer sustain our economies on the assumption of never-ending population growth and wealth-based on speculation and continuously-appreciating real estate values. And the fact of the matter is rural, suburban and urban areas are all in for major economic and demographic challenges in the years to come--no area of the US is going to be "sitting pretty."
The sooner we realize that our current economic model just no longer works and begin to adopt a more fair/sustainable system, the less pain we'll inflict on ourselves.
The way I see it the only city that boomed in the true sense of the word last decade was Austin. All the other boom cities basically saw healthy growth, but non of them fundamentally changed the way Austin did, their's probably smaller metros with Austin-esque numbers, Boom meaning 25%+ growth as well as the changes Downtown usually associated with booming or around that, metros certainly got close though.
Raleigh and Orlando are close of the major metros going on 2020 though I honestly think Orlando and SLC are the most likely to boom, and Austin might continue to boom. The reason why I mention Orlando is that it's hemmed in by connected metros and it's only a matter of time till many of these 3-5 metros in the Greater Orlando area actually enter the fold, and as they connect and stop being seen as separate areas it will lead to Orlando being seen as a much larger area than it is. Same with Salt Lake, once Salt Lake County isn't seen as the metro area but the core of a much larger area you know the area has boomed, Obviously adding counties doesn't count as real growth but if Orlando is seen more as a city of 6-7 million by next decade due to the adjacent MSA's being seen as exurbs/satellite cities rather than nearby towns/cities, then it will see a boom and seem much bigger because perception often leads to reality.
SLC is already seen as bigger than many of it's peers because it anchors an area of 2.4 million people that growing pretty rapidly, if that area is 3 million by 2030, and they grow connected enough to be considered one MSA, like I said above a similar thing will happen.
Personally, I’m done with rural areas and the efforts made to keep them artificially relevant in the 21st century. We are a big country now, we will do what big, crowded countries do: pack into urban areas (and move to socialized medicine and mass transit). It’s ok if small towns turn back into forests. Really, it’s ok. People’s kids and grandkids got over the sentimentality of “home”. They can too.
IMO, COVID changes nothing (well after these next 2-3 years). People didn’t stop living in cities after the Spanish Flu (or H1N1, ebola or any other pandemic). Some things may become irrelevant and there is more danger in jobs that can be done from home simply going away than them spurring rural growth. Broadband isn’t the only infrastructure lacking in rural America. The only thing more important than social distancing in a pandemic is medical treatment (and testing). Rural hospitals are shuttering all across America and no amount of funding thrown at them will keep them open. Same goes for first responders. Volunteer EMT and fire fighters are having a very hard time recruiting.
Well here's the thing. Obviously we know that advances in technology naturally leads to a slow decline of rural areas with farming being the best example of this. Rural families used to be big back in the day because they needed all that manpower to run the family farms but now that we're in the era of Big Ag, that's not necessary anymore. But America's rural decline over the past 2-3 decades has been spurred significantly, if not mostly, by deliberate policy decisions that not only hollowed out these rural areas, but they even had a disproportionate negative effect on smaller/mid-sized metropolitan areas with the emergence of so-called "superstar cities" hoarding a disproportionate share of the most lucrative jobs and at the same time, they refuse to substantially increase their housing supplies which only exacerbates economic inequality. The issue with rural hospitals in particular is due to bad economic policy which devastated rural areas compounded by healthcare policy which has led to so many of them being shuttered. It's also no coincidence that industry deregulation was occurring at a pretty rapid pace when rural areas began declining; those two things go hand in hand.
The city isn't going anywhere and many rural areas will simply have to return to nature over time, but that doesn't let our political leaders off the hook for introducing an entirely new dynamic to rural flight which has hastened the demise to way too many such areas.
The only places I see doing relatively well in the future are those within a 50 mile radius (basically the maximum commuting distance people seem willing to tolerate) of a growing and economically healthy city, especially along interstate highways. These areas have a reasonable chance at developing into suburban or exurban bedroom communities as developers seek cheap land to build affordable new master-planned communities or garden-style apartments.
Now, people already brought up the issues with broadband infrastructure and health care, but there are other issues as well that turn people off from these communities:
1. Our growing cultural and political divide.
It is a free country and people are permitted to do / embrace whatever they want as long as they're not hurting others. That being said, if the news reports over the past decade and discourse on various internet forums have been any sign, it's becoming clear that rural people and urban people (or more specifically, those who are educated professionals versus those who are working class) have differences in values that just can't be reconciled. At a time where our economy is increasingly centered around knowledge-based industries, rural communities that cater to a more working class lifestyle are simply unattractive to the type of individuals companies in these knowledge-based industries want to hire.
2. Retail / restaurant apocalypse.
Another huge drawback to rural areas is that commercial establishments pass over these communities because of their low population density and/or low income. Post-Great Recession, businesses are a lot more picky about where they open new locations. Many people don't want to live in an area where they have to drive 30 minutes - 1 hour to shop at department stores, go to movie theatres, shop at Trader Joe's / Whole Foods / Costco, eat at decent restaurants, etc. And for the rural areas that do have a somewhat decent offering of commercial establishments, those places tend to have limited hours, poor staffing, limited selection, etc. There's also the possibility within the next several years that they'll be hit hard by retail / restaurant closings due to their nebulous profitability.
3. Limited social network.
Residents of rural communities primarily consist of people who were born and raised there. Everyone attended school / church together growing up, settled down with their high school sweetheart at an early age and had kids. They can be extremely hospitable to newcomers on a superficial level, but they are more than comfortable with their existing social circle that's been established. This may not be so bad for active adults who have each other to keep company or even couples who spend much of their time raising children. But for people who are still actively dating and have no family / friends in the community, it can be extremely alienating.
Last edited by citidata18; 05-29-2020 at 12:53 PM..
The only places I see doing relatively well in the future are those within a 50 mile radius (basically the maximum commuting distance people seem willing to tolerate) of a growing and economically healthy city, especially along interstate highways. These areas have a reasonable chance at developing into suburban or exurban bedroom communities as developers seek cheap land to build affordable new master-planned communities or garden-style apartments.
Now, people already brought up the issues with broadband infrastructure and health care, but there are other issues as well that turn people off from these communities:
1. Our growing cultural and political divide.
It is a free country and people are permitted to do / embrace whatever they want as long as they're not hurting others. That being said, if the news reports over the past decade and discourse on various internet forums have been any sign, it's becoming clear that rural people and urban people (or more specifically, those who are educated professionals versus those who are working class) have differences in values that just can't be reconciled. At a time where our economy is increasingly centered around knowledge-based industries, rural communities that cater to a more working class lifestyle are simply unattractive to the type of individuals companies in these knowledge-based industries want to hire.
2. Retail / restaurant apocalypse.
Another huge drawback to rural areas is that commercial establishments pass over these communities because of their low population density and/or low income. Post-Great Recession, businesses are a lot more picky about where they open new locations. Many people don't want to live in an area where they have to drive 30 minutes - 1 hour to shop at department stores, go to movie theatres, shop at Trader Joe's / Whole Foods / Costco, eat at decent restaurants, etc. And for the rural areas that do have a somewhat decent offering of commercial establishments, those places tend to have limited hours, poor staffing, limited selection, etc. There's also the possibility within the next several years that they'll be hit hard by retail / restaurant closings due to their nebulous profitability.
3. Limited social network.
Residents of rural communities primarily consist of people who were born and raised there. Everyone attended school / church together growing up, settled down with their high school sweetheart at an early age and had kids. They can be extremely hospitable to newcomers on a superficial level, but they are more than comfortable with their existing social circle that's been established. This may not be so bad for active adults who have each other to keep company or even couples who spend much of their time raising children. But for people who are still actively dating and have no family / friends in the community, it can be extremely alienating.
Excellent points. I don't think there is much evidence supporting much migration from urban areas to rural areas. Covid has made it much more apparent that without technology and an industry-ready population, rural areas will continue die. Low educational attainment, non-diversity, and lack of amenities was enough for me not to live there. I make the 2 hour commute because I know they need me. Not many would work in this area for the low salary I am paid. As noted, proximity to a larger city is critical for survival. More remote areas don't have that luxury.
Personally, I’m done with rural areas and the efforts made to keep them artificially relevant in the 21st century. We are a big country now, we will do what big, crowded countries do: pack into urban areas (and move to socialized medicine and mass transit). It’s ok if small towns turn back into forests. Really, it’s ok. People’s kids and grandkids got over the sentimentality of “home”. They can too.
Honestly, the only outcome is that they will bleed less over time. They are not going to make a comeback, so why divert billions to resuscitating them. Population growth (births and immigration) are declining and it's going to impact regions/cities of all sizes.
Stop throwing away money at changing inevitable outcomes. We're bankrupt enough as it is.
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.
