U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2017, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
712 posts, read 397,012 times
Reputation: 1207

Advertisements

From top to bottom, here is a list of the most affordable large metros in America. I put their estimated net migration from 2015-2016 in parenthesis, from . Funny the top affordable cities have negative migration…
Rochester, NY (-6,949)
Buffalo, NY (-5,789)
Pittsburgh, PA (-7,652)
Kansas City, MO (6,693)
Indianapolis, IN (2,509)
Grand Rapids, MI (1,129)
Houston, TX (28,090)
San Antonio, TX (24,485)
Dallas, TX (60,230)
Oklahoma City, OK (5,432)
Cincinnati, OH (-1,230)
Cleveland, OH (-10,007)
Detroit, MI (-20,241)
Columbus, OH (4,428)
Memphis, TN (-6,502)
St. Louis, MO (-11,583)
Louisville, KY (-67)
Birmingham, AL (-581)
Atlanta, GA (36,645)
Charlotte, NC (31,681)
Jacksonville, FL (19,960)
Minneapolis, MN (405)
Nashville, TN (20,769)
Tampa, FL (46,693)
Hartford, CT (-9,639)
Raleigh, NC (18,510)
Orlando, FL (29,441)
Tuscon, AZ (2,568)
Milwaukee, WI (-11,404)
Chicago, IL (-89,547)
Austin, TX (33,395)
Richmond, VA (3,304)
Philadephia, PA (-26,045)
Salt Lake City, UT (3,712)
New Orleans, LA (-879)
Virginia Beach, VA (-9,500)
Phoenix, AZ (51,434)
Baltimore, MD (-11,262)
Las Vegas, NV (27,735)
Washington DC (-31,010)
Providence, RI (-3,923)
Denver, CO (20,357)
Portland, OR (24,057)
Miami, FL (-16,730)
Seattle, WA (30,772)
Boston, MA (-16,758)
Riverside, CA (15,304)
Sacramento, CA (12,270)
New York, NY (-199,996)
San Diego, CA (-8,300)
San Jose, CA (-20,789)
San Francisco, CA (-11,970)
Los Angeles, CA (-87,577)
Obviously, the lack of housing affordability has not gotten to the extreme where people are flocking to cheaper areas. I wonder if/when it will get to that point…
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/n...s-measure.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2017, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Clemson, SC by way of Tyler,TX
4,840 posts, read 2,973,256 times
Reputation: 3387
Interesting, and thanks. But how accurate is this if LA is more than NYC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
712 posts, read 397,012 times
Reputation: 1207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker View Post
Interesting, and thanks. But how accurate is this if LA is more than NYC?
I was wondering that myself. The article posted articulates the parameters of this list. It is the MSA, not the cities being compared. While NYC is crazy expensive, it has some affordable areas in the burbs. LA's suburbs are very high end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Clemson, SC by way of Tyler,TX
4,840 posts, read 2,973,256 times
Reputation: 3387
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoseph View Post
I was wondering that myself. The article posted articulates the parameters of this list. It is the MSA, not the cities being compared. While NYC is crazy expensive, it has some affordable areas in the burbs. LA's suburbs are very high end.
Ah ok, that makes a little more sense I guess. If you're willing to get about an hour outside of most cities, including NYC, it can be affordable.

LA is so large and yeah, alot of their burbs seem pricey.


Also surprised that OKC is more than the three Texas metros.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:06 PM
 
3,952 posts, read 3,485,687 times
Reputation: 6325
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoseph View Post
From top to bottom, here is a list of the most affordable large metros in America. I put their estimated net migration from 2015-2016 in parenthesis, from . Funny the top affordable cities have negative migration…
Rochester, NY (-6,949)
Buffalo, NY (-5,789)
Pittsburgh, PA (-7,652)
Kansas City, MO (6,693)
Indianapolis, IN (2,509)
Grand Rapids, MI (1,129)
Houston, TX (28,090)
San Antonio, TX (24,485)
Dallas, TX (60,230)
Oklahoma City, OK (5,432)


Top 10 most affordable metros +108,178 net domestic migration (only 3 showing losses)

Miami, FL (-16,730)
Seattle, WA (30,772)
Boston, MA (-16,758)
Riverside, CA (15,304)
Sacramento, CA (12,270)
New York, NY (-199,996)
San Diego, CA (-8,300)
San Jose, CA (-20,789)
San Francisco, CA (-11,970)
Los Angeles, CA (-87,577)


Bottom 10 LEAST affordable metros -303,774 net domestic migration (7 metro areas showing losses)

The most affordable metro areas had a net gain of 411,952 people over the least affordable metros according to your numbers. I think that would be counter intuitive to your premise. What's eye opening is that some C-D darlings like San Fran, San Diego, Boston, and Miami are showing DM outflow. While the cities that often get chided for being deficient from an urban stand point are leading this metric(which has been the case over the last 40 years).

Perhaps I am interpreting what your narrative is incorrectly, but I disagree with your statement about cost of living hasn't affected these patterns. I think what you're trying to showcase is that the Rustbelt/Sunbelt divide is alive and well. To which I think IS the case. Affodability exists on both sides of that divide however. The one thing the Rustbelt and Sunbelt share in common being that cities in both categories get looked down upon by the coastal elitists. What is made clear that even the lofty coastal cities can experience declines in that dreaded metric. I do think these numbers reflect a softening of domestic outflow in the Rustbelt which in previous years has shown much more significant losses.

Last edited by mjlo; 06-19-2017 at 05:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:38 PM
 
4,477 posts, read 2,659,202 times
Reputation: 4083
Isn't it obvious that places that are shrinking will typically be the cheapest?

If a place is growing at all, prices will be related to development cost. Only in a shrinking city will prices be based on "screw it, whatever I can get."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
712 posts, read 397,012 times
Reputation: 1207
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Isn't it obvious that places that are shrinking will typically be the cheapest?

If a place is growing at all, prices will be related to development cost. Only in a shrinking city will prices be based on "screw it, whatever I can get."
This is what i was thinking...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
712 posts, read 397,012 times
Reputation: 1207
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
Rochester, NY (-6,949)
Buffalo, NY (-5,789)
Pittsburgh, PA (-7,652)
Kansas City, MO (6,693)
Indianapolis, IN (2,509)
Grand Rapids, MI (1,129)
Houston, TX (28,090)
San Antonio, TX (24,485)
Dallas, TX (60,230)
Oklahoma City, OK (5,432)


Top 10 most affordable metros +108,178 net domestic migration (only 3 showing losses)

Miami, FL (-16,730)
Seattle, WA (30,772)
Boston, MA (-16,758)
Riverside, CA (15,304)
Sacramento, CA (12,270)
New York, NY (-199,996)
San Diego, CA (-8,300)
San Jose, CA (-20,789)
San Francisco, CA (-11,970)
Los Angeles, CA (-87,577)


Bottom 10 LEAST affordable metros -303,774 net domestic migration (7 metro areas showing losses)

The most affordable metro areas had a net gain of 411,952 people over the least affordable metros according to your numbers. I think that would be counter intuitive to your premise. What's eye opening is that some C-D darlings like San Fran, San Diego, Boston, and Miami are showing DM outflow. While the cities that often get chided for being deficient from an urban stand point are leading this metric(which has been the case over the last 40 years).

Perhaps I am interpreting what your narrative is incorrectly, but I disagree with your statement about cost of living hasn't affected these patterns. I think what you're trying to showcase is that the Rustbelt/Sunbelt divide is alive and well. To which I think IS the case. Affodability exists on both sides of that divide however. The one thing the Rustbelt and Sunbelt share in common being that cities in both categories get looked down upon by the coastal elitists. What is made clear that even the lofty coastal cities can experience declines in that dreaded metric. I do think these numbers reflect a softening of domestic outflow in the Rustbelt which in previous years has shown much more significant losses.
I was just trying to show even cities in the bottom 10 have positive DM, and cities in the top ten have negative DM. In the top 26 most affordable, 11 have negative DM. In the bottom 27, 15 have negative DM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 08:14 PM
 
56,510 posts, read 80,803,243 times
Reputation: 12480
I would still be careful with these ESTIMATES, as the last decade gave us different official results. Especially given that some of the affordable areas that showed losses over that year period showed population gains in previous years. So, what occurred in order to have such profound losses within that one years when there gains the previous years since the 2010 census?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
712 posts, read 397,012 times
Reputation: 1207
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
I would still be careful with these ESTIMATES, as the last decade gave us different official results. Especially given that some of the affordable areas that showed losses over that year period showed population gains in previous years. So, what occurred in order to have such profound losses within that one years when there gains the previous years since the 2010 census?
It is a head scratcher. Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Rochester seem to have rather healthy economies. I know Buf's and Pitt's deplorable birth/death ratio really hurts them. If they were at national average, both would be adding thousands each year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top