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 07-06-2009, 04:57 PM
 
157 posts, read 342,223 times
Reputation: 186

Advertisements

Interesting map. People move where the opportunities are - simple. The notion that the uneducated masses are hording to areas full of cheap, low-quality housing rings of urban elitism at its finest.

I find it so amusing that people from job-destroying, over-taxed, over-regulated, union-loving states such as New York, New Jersey, and Michigan never miss an opportunity to bash prosperous areas such as Dallas. There's a reason why not a single county in any of those three states saw "Explosive" growth in the '80-'08 period according to that map, while virtually every county around the DFW Metroplex did. And I'm saying this as a former Michigander.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2009, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Polish Hill, Pittsburgh, PA
30,196 posts, read 67,344,690 times
Reputation: 15841
Since when is "Explosive Growth" a good thing? Here in NoVA we have several counties amongst the fastest-growing in the nation, and what do we have to show for it? Traffic congestion, ugly urban sprawl, and stress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 06:59 PM
 
157 posts, read 342,223 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScranBarre View Post
Since when is "Explosive Growth" a good thing? Here in NoVA we have several counties amongst the fastest-growing in the nation, and what do we have to show for it? Traffic congestion, ugly urban sprawl, and stress.
High growth shows that an area is desirable - often from a cost or climate perspective - and is creating jobs.

I've lived in explosive-growth cities, and cities that are shrinking. I'll take the high-growth model - even with all of its problems - any day over old, declining cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 07:33 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,141,183 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
There are several factors to consider when looking at data like this...
  1. Rapid growing Counties and Metros with lower populations in 1980 will yield much higher growth percentages than metro areas that were already huge in 1980 yet added significant numbers of people in the same time period.
  2. Counties and Metros that were substantially "built out" in 1980 have to grow in a more urban model than those counties and metros with lots of yet to be developed land.
  3. It's not necessarily the people that move first because it's cheaper. Oftentimes, industry and employers moves first and people follow suit.
  4. metros that are hemmed in by water and mountains will never grow as fast in our current suburban development model as will metros awash in land. Think San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, Miami juxtaposed with Nashville, Dallas, Las Vegas, Charlotte.
  5. More people than one might think move for weather not costs.
Someone commented earlier that "Fresno" was experiencing explosive growth. That is not entirely accurate - what they were alluding to was mainly the area north and north west of Fresno. Those areas have become de facto suburbs / exurbs of the San Francisco conurbation's sprawl - it has jumped over the Altamont Pass and spread out along I-205/I-5/Hwy99/Hwy152/ etc. Most of the growth has consisted of people from modest backgrounds fleeing the inner portion of the conurbation - literally priced out by incoming Ivy Leaguers and professional workers from overseas. A somewhat lesser amount of that growth is due to people from "back east" relocating here for work, but who are not Ivy Leaguers / management and cannot stomach paying 700K for a 1500 square foot home with a minuscule yard in a semi tacky area developed in the 1940s or 50s, closer in. It's a stepping stone to leaving California outright, for many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Dallas
1,365 posts, read 2,301,463 times
Reputation: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB Fla View Post
Can you go on a single thread without trashing a place you have probably never been.
She's just mad cause New York isn't No. 1 in the category of explosive growth like it should be. Maybe one day that needle will skip off that durn record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 07:59 PM
 
3,628 posts, read 9,212,811 times
Reputation: 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by loillon892 View Post
High growth shows that an area is desirable - often from a cost or climate perspective - and is creating jobs.

I've lived in explosive-growth cities, and cities that are shrinking. I'll take the high-growth model - even with all of its problems - any day over old, declining cities.
Or it shows that people are moving further away from the city out of unfounded fears and still commuting their from their safer suburban home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 08:06 PM
 
542 posts, read 1,288,678 times
Reputation: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernerdgirl View Post
Or it shows that people are moving further away from the city out of unfounded fears and still commuting their from their safer suburban home.
Or it could just be that some people prefer some space, and peace & quiet. Or it could just be that some people can just go to the city for when they choose without the hassles of city life. "Unfounded fears" notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 08:09 PM
 
3,628 posts, read 9,212,811 times
Reputation: 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyserSoze View Post
Or it could just be that some people prefer some space, and peace & quiet. Or it could just be that some people can just go to the city for when they choose without the hassles of city life. "Unfounded fears" notwithstanding.
Sorry, I just don't understand what's so appealing about living 20+ miles away from your job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 08:16 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,804,722 times
Reputation: 11136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
Someone commented earlier that "Fresno" was experiencing explosive growth. That is not entirely accurate - what they were alluding to was mainly the area north and north west of Fresno. Those areas have become de facto suburbs / exurbs of the San Francisco conurbation's sprawl - it has jumped over the Altamont Pass and spread out along I-205/I-5/Hwy99/Hwy152/ etc. Most of the growth has consisted of people from modest backgrounds fleeing the inner portion of the conurbation - literally priced out by incoming Ivy Leaguers and professional workers from overseas. A somewhat lesser amount of that growth is due to people from "back east" relocating here for work, but who are not Ivy Leaguers / management and cannot stomach paying 700K for a 1500 square foot home with a minuscule yard in a semi tacky area developed in the 1940s or 50s, closer in. It's a stepping stone to leaving California outright, for many.
I am reading and re-reading your post and can't quite understand why you quoted my post with your response. Did you quote me because you agree? Did you quote me to disagree? Was there another reason?
BTW, I understand the dynamics of the greater Bay Area. I grew up there and, I currently work remotely for a company from there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 08:34 PM
 
542 posts, read 1,288,678 times
Reputation: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernerdgirl View Post
Sorry, I just don't understand what's so appealing about living 20+ miles away from your job.
I'm in agreement. But entertaining the thought that people are afraid of living in cities because of "unfounded fears"(stereotypes, like high-crime and living amongst minorities and people of a lower socio-economical background) is a bit silly. I know there are those types that exist, but still. The nationwide trend shows that people are filling out the metro, not the actual city itself. Which is kind of how it's been for a while, now. You can't honestly say that all these people across the country have "unfounded fears" of the city, can you?
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.
Similar Threads
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