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.
There are plenty of nice, larger Midwest cities. Omaha, Columbus, Indy, Madison, Des Moines, Minneapolis, etc. All have great economies, pretty strong job growth, decent population growth, in some cases double-digits, etc. Detroit and a few other places don't even remotely represent the majority of Midwest cities.
Exactly, and regardless of the horror stories people hear about Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, parts of Chicago etc. These metros still have, very nice and affluent old money suburbs that many newer sunbelt cities don't have.
Exactly, and regardless of the horror stories people hear about Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, parts of Chicago etc. These metros still have, very nice and affluent old money suburbs that many newer sunbelt cities don't have.
I agree about the cities you listed...I've been to Chicago and St. Louis several times and loved both. But I don't see how you can say that "many" sunbelt cities don't have affluent suburbs. Most of them actually do.
1/10th is about 15 million, so more than almost everywhere else in the world, besides the Canadian Prairies and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin#Climate]Harbin. But I still think the article is correct that Russia is an outlier.
Yes, but the article also says that many people were "resettled" into Siberia by the Soviets, and that there isn't a lot of mobility in Russia. So it's not like a lot of people chose to live there.
Yes, but the article also says that many people were "resettled" into Siberia by the Soviets, and that there isn't a lot of mobility in Russia. So it's not like a lot of people chose to live there.
Yes, the articles agrees with your earlier statement "extreme cold places aren't good for human settlement". I wasn't arguing against your posts there.
MOVING SOUTH AND WEST? METROPOLITAN AMERICA IN 2042
he United States could have three more megacities (metropolitan areas over 10 million) by 2042, according to population projections released by the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM). Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston are projected to join megacities New York and Los Angeles as their metropolitan area populations rise above 10 million. At the projected growth rates, Atlanta, Miami, Phoenix, and Riverside-San Bernardino could pass the threshold by 2060. The population projections were prepared for USCM by Global Insight IHS.
USCM anticipates that the number of major metropolitan areas – those over 1,000,000 population –- will rise from 51 in 2012 to 70 in 2042 (Note). The additional 19 major metropolitan areas range from Honolulu, which should exceed the million threshold next year, to Colorado Springs. California would add four new major metropolitan areas, including Fresno, Bakersfield, and Stockton from the San Joaquin Valley and Oxnard, which is adjacent to Los Angeles. Texas would add two, McAllen and El Paso, as would Florida (Cape Coral and Sarasota) and South Carolina (Columbia and Charleston).
The Top 10 in 2042
The top ten rankings would change relatively little. The top five would continue to be (in order), New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston. But the relationships would change materially. Dallas-Fort Worth would trail Chicago by only 30,000, much reduced from the 2012 gap of 2.9 million. If the annual projected growth rate were to continue another year (to 2043), Dallas-Fort Worth would take third position from Chicago, ending more than eight decades in that position. Houston also is forecast to gain substantially on Chicago, from a deficit of 3.3 million in 2012 to only 900,000 in 2042. If the respective annual growth rates were to continue, Houston would bump Chicago to fifth place by 2050.
Atlanta would move up three positions to number 6, and could be the nation's 6th megacity before 2050. Miami would move from 8th to 7th. There would be two new entrants to the top ten: Phoenix and Riverside-San Bernardino, ranked 8th and 9th. These two, along with Miami could become megacities before 2060. The tenth position would be held by fast growing Washington, which would remain the only non megacity in the top ten.
Seven of the top ten metropolitan areas in 2042 are forecast to grow very rapidly. Phoenix and Riverside-San Bernardino are projected to grow at annual rates of 2.1 percent and 2.0 percent respectively, approximately three times the 2012-2042 national growth rate projected by the US Census Bureau (0.7 percent). Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston would grow at 2.5 times the national rate (1.7 percent), Miami nearly double (1.3 percent) and Washington at 1.5 times the national rate (1.0 percent).
Washington is technically in the South, which according to the US Census Bureau begins at the Mason-Dixon line, or the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. This means that all of the fast growing top 10 metropolitan areas are in the South or West, a pervasive trend discussed later in this article.
Meanwhile, the three largest metropolitan areas would have well below average growth. New York would grow the slowest, at 0.3 percent. Chicago would grow at 0.5 percent annually, faster than Los Angeles, a national growth leader for a century, which would grow at only a 0.4 percent annual rate (Figure 1).
Fastest Growth Major Metropolitan Areas
Among the 70 major metropolitan areas, the fastest growing would be Cape Coral, Florida, with an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent. Provo, Utah and McAllen, Texas would grow at 2.3 percent. Six of the ten fastest growing metropolitan areas already have more than 1,000,000 population, including Austin, Phoenix, Raleigh, Riverside-San Bernardino, and Atlanta (10th). Boise would be the 9th fastest growing (Figure 2)
Slowest Growth Major Metropolitan Areas
Four of 2042's major metropolitan areas would lose population from 2012, including Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. Hartford, Rochester, Milwaukee, and Providence would grow at less than one-third the national population growth rate. New Orleans and New York would round out the bottom ten, growing at an annual rate of approximately 0.25 percent (Figure 3).
Though Los Angeles is not among the bottom ten (it would #13), it is notable that its growth rate is projected to be slightly less than St. Louis, long a laggard, and only slightly better than Philadelphia. Philadelphia has been losing position regularly since it was the nation's largest city, before the first US census (1790).
Regional Distribution of Growth
According to the USCM projections, the overwhelming majority of major metropolitan area population growth (70 areas) will occur in the South and West. Approximately 51 percent of the major metropolitan growth is expected in the South, which would add 33 million residents. The West would capture 36 percent of the growth, while adding 22 million residents. The Midwest would capture only 9 percent of the growth, adding 8 million residents, while the Northeast would take 4 percent of the growth, while adding only 2 million residents (Figure 4).
The South would grow at an annual rate double that of the national 0.7 percent rate (1.4 percent). The West would be close behind (1.2 percent). However, if the major metropolitan areas of coastal California were excluded from the West (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose), the West would grow even faster than the South (1.6 percent). Coastal California's annual growth rate is projected at 0.6 percent, below the national average of 0.7 percent.
The Northeast and the Midwest would both grow at less than the national growth rate (0.2 percent and 0.5 percent respectively). The fastest growing metropolitan area in the Midwest is projected to be Indianapolis, at a respectable 1.2 percent growth rate (ranking 32 out of 70). Midwestern Omaha, Kansas City, and Columbus would also grow faster than the nation.
The fastest growing major metropolitan area in the Northeast would be Philadelphia, which would add only 0.3 percent to its population annually (ranking 59th). Philadelphia would add only slightly more residents than Provo, Utah, despite being more than 10 times as large in 2012.
Projections are Projections
Projecting anything can be risky. Unforeseen circumstances could result in a materially different future than forecasts suggest. No reputable forecaster, for example would have predicted during the 20th century that North Dakota would become the nation's fastest growing state in the early 2010s. Upstate New York, for example, could experience an economic turnaround if state allows them to take advantage of hydraulic fracking. The long-suffering Buffalo and Rochester metropolitan areas could rise well above current expectations. It is probably far too much to expect any major material progress in California, with a business climate so colorfully dismissed by The Economist in its current edition (see The Not So Golden State).
The USCM projections to 2042 indicate a continuation of geographical trends that have been strengthening virtually every decade since the middle of the last century. Barring any sea-changes, they are more likely to be more right than wrong.
MA is Booming right now. I haven't scene this much new construction (commercial, industrial and residential) in 20 years.
It's refreshing to see as 2007 I remember vividly and for years after when nothing was happening. Things will level off in
the South, they always do.
It will be interesting to watch as the Baby Boomers retire in great numbers in the upcoming years and where they go or do. This I believe will have an impact on things.
The rate at which people are moving from the north to the south and west has been tapering down over the past few decades. Massachusetts is experiencing serious growth lately, in the Boston area, with lots of new biotech companies. There are so many jobs in the Boston metro area available now. There are also smaller areas experiencing booms, such as Stamford, CT. Everywhere you look, there's new construction of apartment buildings everywhere.
Housing is still disproportionally expensive on both coasts, California and the northeast being the worst. Much of the south and Midwest is still quite affordable. Your right about the "rust belt" areas of the Midwest. Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin are all very cheap. Housing is so cheap in those areas that anyone with a job can own a decent house there. It has been widely reported that hundreds of thousands have moved away from that area, thus leaving a large amount of housing stock. Remember people left those states because they could not find jobs, and the weather is quite harsh. If you can get a job and tolerate the climate it can be a nice area of the country to live in. Just a caution though, make sure to avoid the big cities in those states, they are not very nice. Detroit by far the worst, but others to stay away from, Milwaukee, Gary, Flint, just to mention a few. Midwest cities are usually not that nice, but Midwestern small towns are great places to live.
Milwaukee is not like Gary and Flint.It has some rough parts like every city but that is not the maority of the city.
Exactly, and regardless of the horror stories people hear about Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, parts of Chicago etc. These metros still have, very nice and affluent old money suburbs that many newer sunbelt cities don't have.
I can't speak for all of those cities, but Detroit does have some extremely beautiful, extremely affluent suburbs. Google the following cities in Michigan: Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, and Grosse Pointe Farms, just for starters, and do some research on education levels, median incomes, and housing prices. Those cities rival any wealthy suburb in the country and contain many multi-million dollar homes.
I realize that most of the Sunbelt cities do have affluent suburbs, but what I think that poster was saying is that the "old money", architecturally unique suburbs found in the northern cities aren't necessarily found in the Sunbelt, due to it being more recently populated and constructed. Take Phoenix, for example. No one would argue that there aren't very wealthy suburbs in the Phoenix Metro, but they don't share the older, more established, feel, nor do they possess the types of unique and historical architecture found in areas such as Chicago, New York, or Detroit. A mansion in Scottsdale is not the same as a mansion in Grosse Pointe Farms, either historically or architecturally. The mansions in the older northern cities could never be duplicated today.
Last edited by canudigit; 02-02-2014 at 10:07 AM..
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.
