What happened to growth in the Los Angeles-Orange County Metro? (Long Beach: condos, houses)

[BreaOC]

For years and years the Los Angeles MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) has been growing. A lot. Many years the growth was well over 150,000 each year. But over the last few years the growth has slowed considerably. In fact the growth in 2006 was the lowest since 1972, with growth of only 16,290 in our metro. In fact 229,262 left our area, the highest amount of people leaving since 1995. What do you think has/is happened to our metro that is causing this negative migration of people? The Inland Empire is growing impressively now, but even with the high population numbers out there it still doesn't account for the loss of people here. Give me your thoughts and ideas, it will be interesting to see what everyone thinks.

[cn1221]

There arent as many people moving from other states to California anymore. The high cost of living is probably the main reason. The growth that is occuring is from immigrants from other countries that move to California. LA Times did an article on people leaving the state.

More flee state than move in - Los Angeles Times

[goodgirl49]

CA doesn't need to keep growing as fast as it has been in the past. The quality of life suffers. More modest growth is better. Maybe now economic growth will be more evenly distributed over the country instead of CA getting the lion's share.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BreaOC

Give me your thoughts and ideas, it will be interesting to see what everyone thinks.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

[BreaOC]

Originally Posted by Charles

What are your thoughts and ideas?

I think that the metro has built up to it's natural boundaries (mountains, foothills, ocean). I am very interested to see what is going to happen now that Los Angeles and other larger area cities like Anaheim are starting to build upward (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-growth-sg,0,5951143.storygallery - broken link). I believe that is how LA will continue it's growth, much like New York City had to do. Which in itself is ironic because if you research the building height requirements of 1904-1957 you will find that the city wanted height requirements not to protect from earthquakes, "The purpose of the height limit was to limit the density of the city". How about you Charles, you answered a question with a question. Do you have an answer?

[EscapeCalifornia]

SoCal will just continue to get less and less livable. I see these medium rise condos in Irvine and see more people who will still need cars to get around. But now there's a few thousand people crammed into the space that might have only supported a couple dozen single family homes.

[BreaOC]

I'm hoping that now that the metro has nearly grown to it's land capacity that the cities will begin to really revamp to make it more livable. Not that I'm complaining, I still love my LA!!! Look at the Hollywood neighborhood and numerous neighborhoods around downtown(ex: echo park, south park), they are really putting their 110% to bring their areas back to the "glory days" when people really wanted to live there. Development may not be as fast as some would like, but all good things take time.

[Charles]

[quote=BreaOC;2490332]For years and years the Los Angeles MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) has been growing. A lot. Many years the growth was well over 150,000 each year. But over the last few years the growth has slowed considerably. In fact the growth in 2006 was the lowest since 1972, with growth of only 16,290 in our metro. In fact 229,262 left our area, the highest amount of people leaving since 1995. What do you think has/is happened to our metro that is causing this negative migration of people?

Over the past ten years international in-migration, births, and deaths are pretty constant. Domestic Out-Migration accounts for the biggest chunk of the overall reduction in growth. Out migration may include people moving to other parts of California (not the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA) and to other states and (not sure) to other countries.

Biggest change (that probably affects this trend) is ratio of median house price to median income has increased in the past ten years.

More detailed explanations can be found in these City-Data threads:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...ord-worth.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...put-least.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...rd-houses.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...ml#post2355331

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...uch-house.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...ml#post2214285

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...ml#post2010442

https://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...do-afford.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...ife-socal.html

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BreaOC

Look at the Hollywood neighborhood and numerous neighborhoods around downtown(ex: echo park, south park), they are really putting their 110% to bring their areas back to the "glory days" when people really wanted to live there.

Some people may want this. People with families are not looking for this.

[BreaOC]

Originally Posted by Charles

Some people may want this. People with families are not looking for this.

Most of these areas were in very bad shape (ex:gang activity, burglaries, homicide) and the clean up of the neighborhoods greatly improves the quality of life in those areas. Of course, if by saying that not all families want that you are looking at the increase in home costs pushing families out, that would make sense. Unfortunately that happens with nearly every city when neighborhoods are being rejuvenated.