2040 SC Metro Projections (Columbia, Greenville, Easley: apartment, hotel, new construction)
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.
Then is there an explaination as to why the last census reduced congressional seats in the north while gaining in the south? Perhaps northern cites are gaining rural workers, but on the whole the entire region seems to be shrinking. I'm just pointing out there are only so many rural workers available to make all cities perpetually gain in growth while making up for declining birth rates.
Unlike the 320 million Americans, you cant make new electoral votes. That 270 has to be split. It's based on shares.
South Carolina has never lost population in the census, but has still lost electoral votes over time. SC has had high as 11 and as low as 6. Now SC is at 9, but was stuck at 8 from 1932 to 2012.
Point is, the North as a whole is not dying. It's growing much slower than the South and West yes, but it's not "dying", economically or population wise.
The Northeast is one of the most urbanized clusters in the western hemisphere. Not only 56 million people (not including Maryland and Nova), but 56 million tightly packed people. The South will be hit harder from "shrinking rural" than the North will, considering the South is much more rural by nature, and ruralness isn't growing in either place.
Anecdotally, I know a lot of people who have moved south but nobody who has moved to the Northeast. All these statistics seem to reaffirm the impression I've been getting.
With an overall lower birth rate, lower immigration, a shrinking rural population that will soon be unable to make up the shortfall, plus negligible migration from other parts of the country, I see the north as being a drastically different place in 20 years.
Anecdotally, I know a lot of people who have moved south but nobody who has moved to the Northeast. All these statistics seem to reaffirm the impression I've been getting.
With an overall lower birth rate, lower immigration, a shrinking rural population that will soon be unable to make up the shortfall, plus negligible migration from other parts of the country, I see the north as being a drastically different place in 20 years.
I know lots of folks that have moved from the South to the Northeast, mostly people around my age (mid-30's) and younger. I'm actually one of them.
There are also folks that have moved from the Northeast to the South and returned.
Truthfully, we should be talking about specific states here and not regions as a whole. In the South, MS, LA, AR, KY, WV, etc. aren't really seeing high rates of growth. In the Northeast, there are states that have more or less remained stable in terms of population for a while now, particularly in New England.
I know lots of folks that have moved from the South to the Northeast, mostly people around my age (mid-30's) and younger. I'm actually one of them.
There are also folks that have moved from the Northeast to the South and returned.
Truthfully, we should be talking about specific states here and not regions as a whole. In the South, MS, LA, AR, KY, WV, etc. aren't really seeing high rates of growth. In the Northeast, there are states that have more or less remained stable in terms of population for a while now, particularly in New England.
Anecdotes aside, statistically those states are losing people to places like Florida, Texas, and the Carolinas. Some Northeast states may be stable, others are losing people. The South is either gaining a lot of people or in some cases losing, but those losing states didn't have much population to give up anyway.
In a rebalanced population, some areas are going to get a raw deal. It's looking like regionally it's going to be the Northeast with a couple pockets of growth. I just don't get why the redistribution now. It's not like the weather has just now gotten bad up there.
As a bonus we've now narrowed down where Mutiny lives.
Richland and Lexington are pretty large and substantially larger than all of those. Have to factor in Anderson too. Pickens, Laurens, and especially Anderson are larger than all of those other than the main two. Kershaw's starting to benefit from Columbia's sprawl though.
I don't think Greenville is overbuilding at all. You also have to keep in mind where Greenville is, both on the 85 corridor and as the hub to the Upstate, which is 1.4 million people, and how frighteningly fast the county itself is growing.
Right, but wouldn't that in turn mean that the counties outside of Greenville County do more to boost the collective growth rate of the MSA and Columbia's MSA growth rates are actually hurt more by the counties outside of Lexington and Richland since they are much smaller and have little to no growth (with the exception of Kershaw)?
There is no doubt Greenville County is growing rapidly and sits in the middle of a very fast growing area with a lot of potential, but based off of these figures, the region is not outpacing Columbia in growth and is not projected to do so at anytime between now and 2040. Granted you are right about the Upstate and including in Spartanburg County numbers certainly changes this aspect a bit but at the same time, the building or potential overbuilding I am referring to is residential and all in the Greenville-Anderson MSA that Spartanburg's growth or net population gains don't effect unlike Greenville's commercial development in which Spartanburg's growth plays a big role in driving.
Don't get me wrong, Greenville is growing no doubt but from a building perspective, its outpacing growth and again, the alarming thing to me is how despite growing and projections to grow at the same rate, Greenville is far outpacing Columbia in building.
Anecdotally, I know a lot of people who have moved south but nobody who has moved to the Northeast. All these statistics seem to reaffirm the impression I've been getting.
With an overall lower birth rate, lower immigration, a shrinking rural population that will soon be unable to make up the shortfall, plus negligible migration from other parts of the country, I see the north as being a drastically different place in 20 years.
It is no surprise that most people are moving S and W, it has been that way the last few decades. But that does not mean no one is moving to the NE and MW. They are, just not as fast. Conversely, the NE and MW are losing more than the SE and W. Either way, all 4 regions are still growing.
That "shrinking cities" list doesn't tell the whole picture. For one, most of those counties and metros that these cities are in have not shrunk. That again goes back to white flight/suburban boom and loss of core jobs. Atlanta, hub of the south, went through the same thing. So did Charleston, Birmingham, San Francisco, Saint Louis, Denver and so on.
Plenty of other non-Northern cities would've faced the same issue, but they masked it by city/county consolidations or large annexes. Nashville is one. Jacksonville was able to annex an area of 874 sq miles. Nowhere in the North can you do that. Charlotte has consistently spread as well.
And I still don't see what rural populations have to do anything. Rural is shrinking everywhere. Pretty sure it's shrinking faster in the South, again considering the South is more rural by nature. As I showed, SC has been majority urban since 1980. Most of it is natives moving around.
I don't know why you want to paint such a dire picture for the North. It's not going anywhere. Population +/- does not tell the whole story. Going back to Detroit: on paper it looks horrendous, but if you actually research into it and see, the city is starting to rebound and the metro as a whole is fine. Again, same for Buffalo city. And looking at GDP, the Northeast had a 1.65% average GDP gain in 2014. The SE had 1.7%, 0.5% higher. But the North still has a much higher GDP per capita and nominal GDP than the South and West. That's not going to suddenly vanish along with the snowbirds.
Right, but wouldn't that in turn mean that the counties outside of Greenville County do more to boost the collective growth rate of the MSA and Columbia's MSA growth rates are actually hurt more by the counties outside of Lexington and Richland since they are much smaller and have little to no growth (with the exception of Kershaw)?
There is no doubt Greenville County is growing rapidly and sits in the middle of a very fast growing area with a lot of potential, but based off of these figures, the region is not outpacing Columbia in growth and is not projected to do so at anytime between now and 2040. Granted you are right about the Upstate and including in Spartanburg County numbers certainly changes this aspect a bit but at the same time, the building or potential overbuilding I am referring to is residential and all in the Greenville-Anderson MSA that Spartanburg's growth or net population gains don't effect unlike Greenville's commercial development in which Spartanburg's growth plays a big role in driving.
Don't get me wrong, Greenville is growing no doubt but from a building perspective, its outpacing growth and again, the alarming thing to me is how despite growing and projections to grow at the same rate, Greenville is far outpacing Columbia in building.
Greenville is growing so much faster than the other 3 counties, they're still holding it back, it's just somewhat cushioned since they are larger. Same way a Calhoun holds back Rich and Lex.
And how is Greenville not outpacing? The county alone gained 40,000 people in the last 5 years. Richland and Lexington combined gained 42,000, despite Greenville being 491,000, which Rich and Lex is 688,000, much larger. Greenville metro is 6.16% since 2010, Columbia is 5.53%.
I still don't see where the overbuilding fears have came from. Other than hotels, what has Greenville suddenly surged in? It's not like Miami where they were springing up condos towers left and right just because. The supply seems to be matching the demand.
It is no surprise that most people are moving S and W, it has been that way the last few decades. But that does not mean no one is moving to the NE and MW. They are, just not as fast. Conversely, the NE and MW are losing more than the SE and W. Either way, all 4 regions are still growing.
That "shrinking cities" list doesn't tell the whole picture. For one, most of those counties and metros that these cities are in have not shrunk. That again goes back to white flight/suburban boom and loss of core jobs. Atlanta, hub of the south, went through the same thing. So did Charleston, Birmingham, San Francisco, Saint Louis, Denver and so on.
Plenty of other non-Northern cities would've faced the same issue, but they masked it by city/county consolidations or large annexes. Nashville is one. Jacksonville was able to annex an area of 874 sq miles. Nowhere in the North can you do that. Charlotte has consistently spread as well.
And I still don't see what rural populations have to do anything. Rural is shrinking everywhere. Pretty sure it's shrinking faster in the South, again considering the South is more rural by nature. As I showed, SC has been majority urban since 1980. Most of it is natives moving around.
I don't know why you want to paint such a dire picture for the North. It's not going anywhere. Population +/- does not tell the whole story. Going back to Detroit: on paper it looks horrendous, but if you actually research into it and see, the city is starting to rebound and the metro as a whole is fine. Again, same for Buffalo city. And looking at GDP, the Northeast had a 1.65% average GDP gain in 2014. The SE had 1.7%, 0.5% higher. But the North still has a much higher GDP per capita and nominal GDP than the South and West. That's not going to suddenly vanish along with the snowbirds.
The North will be fine.
You claim that all regions are growing yet admit the south and West are growing faster. Where are those extra people coming from? It's not just city statitics but entire states.
My interest in this is in trying to figure out where the weak link is. Given that our growth seems to be fueled from the Northeast and the Northeast as a whole is shrinking, it seems like a matter of time before the entire growth train stops. Unlike the past when people moved looking for work, now it seems like people are moving just for the sake of moving. There are plenty of high paying jobs in the north yet people seem to be moving anyway. Why now?
I follow none of those other forums. You usually just clarify where you don't live.
Anyway, technically DC is part of the South isn't?
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.
