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.
One thing that people who haven't lived there forget is that the city limits of Indianapolis are coterminus with the county - Unigov. There are probably five miles coming toward Indy on I-74 that are technically city limits, but are outside the city beltway. Most of that is nothing but corn. Large swathes that are city limits are suburban to even quasi-rural. You have certain townships in the city (Center, where downtown is, and Washington, on the more affluent north side) that are growing, while other townships that were traditionally residential and not part of the old city limits are likely declining. There is still a lot of blight in the traditional urban core. Neighborhoods are improving and being gentrified, but it's not uniform or quick.
With that said, many of the Midwestern metros around two million are frankly interchangeable. Is there a ton of difference between Cincinnati, St. Louis, Indianapolis, or Kansas City that would really attract a lot of people from outside the general area? Not really. Many Midwestern cities are old, haven't been well-maintained, bad governance (Chicago/Detroit), high taxes, have crime problems, strained race relations, etc.
There are other problems, but there is little the Midwestern metros can do. Much of the Midwest is geologically uninteresting. In Indy, there is very little recreational water nearby, no mountains, no beaches, few outdoor amenities. The climate in the Midwest isn't appealing to a lot of people.
One thing that people who haven't lived there forget is that the city limits of Indianapolis are coterminus with the county - Unigov. There are probably five miles coming toward Indy on I-74 that are technically city limits, but are outside the city beltway. Most of that is nothing but corn. Large swathes that are city limits are suburban to even quasi-rural. You have certain townships in the city (Center, where downtown is, and Washington, on the more affluent north side) that are growing, while other townships that were traditionally residential and not part of the old city limits are likely declining. There is still a lot of blight in the traditional urban core. Neighborhoods are improving and being gentrified, but it's not uniform or quick.
With that said, many of the Midwestern metros around two million are frankly interchangeable. Is there a ton of difference between Cincinnati, St. Louis, Indianapolis, or Kansas City that would really attract a lot of people from outside the general area? Not really. Many Midwestern cities are old, haven't been well-maintained, bad governance (Chicago/Detroit), high taxes, have crime problems, strained race relations, etc.
There are other problems, but there is little the Midwestern metros can do. Much of the Midwest is geologically uninteresting. In Indy, there is very little recreational water nearby, no mountains, no beaches, few outdoor amenities. The climate in the Midwest isn't appealing to a lot of people.
I could say the same about the Southeast, yet it's booming. It's simply not that....simple.
One of my theories that's the most high-level is that places will boom when their income and amenities outstrip the cost of living RELATIVE to other cities. The South was the cheapest and least desirable place to live in the country for decades before it took off, and is now THE place to be in the country (it's also the place with the most new low-skill labor, again, relative to the rest of the country). The West Coast is still expensive but it's booming because high-level Tech jobs are bringing in the best and brightest from around the world. Climate plays a role, but I think it's overplayed. I think it has more to do with 1.) prevalence of jobs people need, 2.) the cost of living off of those wages, 3.) the amenities you get for that cost of living, including parks, entertainment, food, schools, and infrastructure, for example, and 4.) cultural characteristics, including political and socioeconomical. That's not to say people don't move for climate purposes as well, but I think the other factors have to be there before climate plays a major role in the decision. At least for me, I wouldn't move to my version of Hell on Earth, even if it were 75 and sunny every single day.
Sadly, it tends to come down to money, and what you can do with that money, for most people.
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 12-09-2016 at 09:50 AM..
I could say the same about the Southeast, yet it's booming. It's simply not that....simple.
Except the Southeast has mountains, near the coast, lots of greenery, interesting topography especially the Piedmont and mountain regions and relatively mild climate so what are you talking about? A metro like Atlanta is literally an hour away from the Appalachians and 4 hours away from coastal GA(Savannah).
Except the Southeast has mountains, near the coast, lots of greenery, interesting topography especially the Piedmont and mountain regions and relatively mild climate so what are you talking about? A metro like Atlanta is literally an hour away from the Appalachians and 4 hours away from coastal GA(Savannah).
I don't find it as interesting as you do I guess. The Midwest has beaches, forests, large hills, etc. too. The climate is intolerable if you don't enjoy sweating through your clothes 3 times a day, so that's subjective as well. Besides, if the climate is so "ideal" why did it only recently take off in popularity? AC? Cool, the North has heat during the winter. In both places people don't have to deal with the weather during the harshest seasons, yet one place is popular and the other clearly isn't, and it's NOT primarily because of the "interesting topography" or "mild climate". Climate: Texas has as harsh a climate as Missouri, yet it's booming and MO isn't. Topography: The UP of Michigan is "God's country", yet devoid of growth. There has to be money and services and it has to be a deal relative to the rest of the choices in the country, and it changes all of the time. What's hot today won't be hot 20 years from now.
Like any other region there are parts of the Midwest that are doing extremely well, parts that are improving, parts that are stagnating and parts that are in decline and will continue to fall further, it's not a monolithic region.
Cities like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Indianapolis, Columbus, Madison, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City etc. have pretty impressive population growth and healthy economies.
Then you have cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland which are rapidly turning the corner and are actively revitalizing their urban cores. Not booming in population growth but posting modest gains or reducing their population losses.
On the last level you have cities like Youngstown, Gary, Flint, East St. Louis which are in a death spiral and don't have the amenities or population size to reinvent themselves like Cleveland or downtown Detroit.
Last edited by Buckeye614; 12-09-2016 at 10:54 AM..
I don't find it as interesting as you do I guess. The Midwest has beaches, forests, large hills, etc. too. The climate is intolerable if you don't enjoy sweating through your clothes 3 times a day, so that's subjective as well. Besides, if the climate is so "ideal" why did it only recently take off in popularity? AC? Cool, the North has heat during the winter. In both places people don't have to deal with the weather during the harshest seasons, yet one place is popular and the other clearly isn't, and it's NOT primarily because of the "interesting topography" or "mild climate". Climate: Texas has as harsh a climate as Missouri, yet it's booming and MO isn't. Topography: The UP of Michigan is "God's country", yet devoid of growth. There has to be money and services and it has to be a deal relative to the rest of the choices in the country, and it changes all of the time. What's hot today won't be hot 20 years from now.
I'm not saying climate has anything to do with growth or lack of growth in the midwest...I just thought you were saying that the midwest is similar to the SE in topography and climate when it's clearly not...and the midwest doesn't really have beaches. Man-made Great Lake beaches don't count as beaches since I know you'll bring up Chicago.
And IMO, Minneapolis would be growing a lot faster if it were located in a more mild climate. I do think the climate sort of limits growth in certain midwest metros.
Like any other region there are parts of the Midwest that are doing extremely well, parts that are improving, parts that are stagnating and parts that are in decline and will continue to fall further, it's not a monolithic region.
Cities like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Indianapolis, Columbus, Madison, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City etc. have pretty impressive population growth and healthy economies.
Then you have cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland which are rapidly turning the corner and are actively revitalizing their urban cores. Not booming in population growth but posting modest gains or reducing their population losses.
On the last level you have cities like Youngstown, Gary, Flint, East St. Louis which are in a death spiral and don't have the amenities or population size to reinvent themselves like Cleveland or downtown Detroit.
I agree with this.
In regards to the OP title, I think people have gone away from the Midwest for more excitement and better weather or specific career opportunities in most cases.
Except the Southeast has mountains, near the coast, lots of greenery, interesting topography especially the Piedmont and mountain regions and relatively mild climate so what are you talking about? A metro like Atlanta is literally an hour away from the Appalachians and 4 hours away from coastal GA(Savannah).
Honestly, I never liked the fact that there is no water in metro Atlanta that is easily viewable from the city.
In a lot of Great Lakes coastal cities and towns, there are breathtaking views of the Great Lakes.
Also, a large amount of them were originally towns serviced by major rivers/waterways like the Ohio river, the Maumee, very large, impressive bodies of water that are usually a feature in a downtown area. Detroit has the Detroit River and Lake Erie for instance. Chicago has Lake Michigan and the Chicago River.
I never thought that metro Atlanta had anything going for it in regards to beautiful scenery except trees/greenery like you mentioned and I grew to have a love/hate relationship with trees as they cause a lot of mess lol. I also don't think that in the spring and summer the weather is "mild" and felt it extreme but I think that is because I'm from the Midwest. I initially hated cold/snow but after 12 years of being in Atlanta I was ready to leave due to it being so freaking hot there that I felt like I was living in hell during a majority of the summer. One summer my AC in the car went out for a few days and I thought I would die going to and from work before getting it fixed lol.
There are also some Midwestern states that have mountains like SE Ohio has mountains.
The main thing Atlanta has going for it is the economy there and not much snow in the winter that lures us who grew up in cold climates down there to oooh and awww and laugh when people in Atlanta complain about it being "cold" when it is 50 degrees as a high temp in the winter!
I also believe that Atlanta being featured in various media outlets causes it to have a big draw amongst the populace.
No doubt. Most come here illegally, mooch off the system, turn neighborhoods to absolute garbage, drive down home values, graffiti up the town, refuse to assimilate, call us "racist" because we want illegals deported, drive up crime rates, steal our SS numbers, run rampant fake ID rings, have endless kids on our dime, and vote Democrat because, well, Dems seemingly promote this "lifestyle". The worst part is that Dems are too stupid to see their own demise!
And THATS why people are fleeing places like Chicago. They're tired of Dem corruption. Theyre tired of Dem taxes. Theyre tired of crime. Theyre tired of endless debt their cities/states are running up. Theyre tired of watching their neighborhoods turn into 3rd world cesspools. Theyre tired of getting nickled n dimed to death. Theyre... just... tired! Funnier still is how Dems vote this crap, worthless element into office, watch their cities/states get destroyed (IL and CA - IM LOOKING AT YOU!!!), then run away themselves from the nightmare they've created!!! Then they move to red states like AZ or TX or AR or TN and vote blue down there! hahahaha SUCH IGNORANCE!!! I say we round up these cancers and send them back to their home states. You made your bed, you lie in it.
On this, I know a lot of people who have moved away from Chicago and practically all of them moved away due to economic issues (better jobs) or educational opportunities and not for the things you have mentioned. I do feel that Chicagoans feel they have high taxes though.
But contrary to what you are saying, Chicago still attracts a lot of residents and the majority of the people fleeing the city itself are moving to suburbs of Chicago.
I could say the same about the Southeast, yet it's booming. It's simply not that....simple.
The South/Southeast has Mountains, Large Hills, Lake Beaches, White Sand Beaches, Swamps, Great Topography, Hotter/Milder Climates, Palm Trees, etc. And also has some of the highest levels of biodiversity in the Country.
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.
