2014 Atlanta City population estimates -- Shows modest growth (subdivision, living in)

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by ATLJR

I think people get caught up too much in the "millennial" thing, because that's what the media reports and it is a hot buzzword that developers and marketers use alike. The reality is there has been an overall change in preference among a variety of demographic cohorts. The shift in preferences perhaps is most strongly felt among the "millennials", but it is clearly not limited to said demographic. I'll give two examples: my parents moved from a more traditional "exurban" area, to Roswell, because they wanted to live near a WalkUP. The other example is my apartment complex, a newer one that many would say is targeted to millennials, is an eclectic mix of people with millennials perhaps accounting for less than half, if not lower, of the tenants.

I think this is a great point. Millennials are certainly driving the resurgence of the city and cities across the country because it's become such a media mantra. But they are not now and have never been the only generation that desires urban living. There is always a certain percentage of the population that prefers an urban lifestyle and there has long been a deficit of walkable communities in the Atlanta metro relative to the percentage of people that prefer that kind of lifestyle.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

I think this is a great point. Millennials are certainly driving the resurgence of the city and cities across the country because it's become such a media mantra. But they are not now and have never been the only generation that desires urban living. There is always a certain percentage of the population that prefers an urban lifestyle and there has long been a deficit of walkable communities in the Atlanta metro relative to the percentage of people that prefer that kind of lifestyle.

I'm not sure the majority have been moving to Atlanta over the years for that kind of lifestyle. It seems like it's changed somewhat in recent years, but weren't people moving here for the low-density/large lot/subdivision lifestyle in the past few decades? I was thinking that in itself was part of the attraction of Atlanta - living suburban lifestyle but not too far from the city.

True or not, I do think that more Atlantans are looking for walkable communities than ever before.

[ATLJR]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

I'm not sure the majority have been moving to Atlanta over the years for that kind of lifestyle. It seems like it's changed somewhat in recent years, but weren't people moving here for the low-density/large lot/subdivision lifestyle in the past few decades? I was thinking that in itself was part of the attraction of Atlanta - living suburban lifestyle but not too far from the city.

True or not, I do think that more Atlantans are looking for walkable communities than ever before.

This conversation is specifically about the city of Atlanta and user J2rescue was specifically referring to the city of Atlanta, whereas clearly, you're referring to the metro area as a whole. You'll notice later J2rescue specifically refers to the Atlanta metro area when talking about a dearth of WalkUPs in the past.

Regarding your comment, it's hard to know what people wanted in the past. I don't think anyone is making broad generalizations, but there certainly has been a change in preferences. You never know why people move, but I think it's fair to say most people moved here because of company relocations as opposed to say, just picking up and moving somewhere because of "low-density/large lot/subdivision lifestyle" and hoping for the best. With those relocations, which occured for a variety of reasons, people moved into what was being built, which was predominately the "low-density/large lot/subdivision lifestyle" developments you speak of. Does this mean people didn't want to live in WalkUPs before? I'm sure many did, but only relatively recently did developers here begin to offer different options and the way they've been gobbled up, it's clear they're desired.

[afdinatl]

The same article is in the Chicago forum saying only 82 people moved there in a year and we know that's bs

[alco89]

Originally Posted by afdinatl

The same article is in the Chicago forum saying only 82 people moved there in a year and we know that's bs

The population increased by 82 people over last year. Thousands of people have moved to Chicago, but nearly as many people moved out too. 48,000 people moved out of Cook County in a year and I'm sure plenty of it was in the city.

It's exactly what was happening in Atlanta between the late 90s and 2000s where we know a lot of people moved into the popular areas, but nearly as many people were leaving the undesirable areas.

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by alco89

The population increased by 82 people over last year. Thousands of people have moved to Chicago, but nearly as many people moved out too. 48,000 people moved out of Cook County in a year and I'm sure plenty of it was in the city.

It's exactly what was happening in Atlanta between the late 90s and 2000s where we know a lot of people moved into the popular areas, but nearly as many people were leaving the undesirable areas.

Chicago seems to be headed for abject population decline. It has completely stagnated in growth and is hardly growing at all. The entire Chicago CSA has added roughly 90,000 people during the entire 4 year period. Atlanta, by contrast, has added 350,000. Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston have added hundreds of thousands too. The census estimates aren't perfect but they do accurately show the relative growth of an area. They are always within the ballpark of growth rates. You can tell who is growing and who isn't by measuring moving data, births over deaths, and housing permit construction. The sunbelt continues to runaway with growth.

[atler8]

I see that the topic of using Chicago as a whipping boy has popped up here again, and by extension other midwestern cities. For some members, it's been a repeated habit for them to mention this here in the Atlanta forum almost as if they are happy for misfortune or economic malaise elsewhere. I don't get that thought pattern at all but am certainly tired of seeing it expressed here.
When I lived in the midwest, NOBODY EVER expressed resentments or wished for bad news in the south so can we just get over whatever the underlying root problem is that causes such behavior & drop it?
As for Chicago's economic & population trends, nothing is etched in stone as a permanent trend. In terms of population growth, metro Chicago had stagnated badly during the decades of the 1970's & 1980's and saw very slow growth only to wake up and grow slightly over 1 million during the 1990's which was a growth of roughly 13%.
It slowed to only a modest growth during the last complete decade & is crawling along now. But as I wrote, no trend is permanent so don't count it out. There are just too many variables, intangible factors and unknowns to mark it down as such. It would also be a mistake to assume that any sun belt growth trend is absolutely permanent either.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

I'm not sure the majority have been moving to Atlanta over the years for that kind of lifestyle. It seems like it's changed somewhat in recent years, but weren't people moving here for the low-density/large lot/subdivision lifestyle in the past few decades? I was thinking that in itself was part of the attraction of Atlanta - living suburban lifestyle but not too far from the city.

True or not, I do think that more Atlantans are looking for walkable communities than ever before.

I am certain that the majority of those moving to Atlanta have NOT done so for an urban lifestyle because for the most part it didn't exist. But I never made any such claim. The majority of people make relocation decisions because of economic opportunity.

My point is that within the population is here, there has always been a percentage of people that, given the practical option, would prefer to live in a walkable environment (myself included). For many, an urban lifestyle has not been a real option because of the sprawl of both people and jobs.

[JoeP]

Another reason not to bash Chicago (a city that matured many decades ago and faces the challenges that come with that) is that Atlanta's unchecked sprawl has already impacted the quality of life here significantly and nothing is being done to address it.

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by atler8

I see that the topic of using Chicago as a whipping boy has popped up here again, and by extension other midwestern cities. For some members, it's been a repeated habit for them to mention this here in the Atlanta forum almost as if they are happy for misfortune or economic malaise elsewhere. I don't get that thought pattern at all but am certainly tired of seeing it expressed here.
When I lived in the midwest, NOBODY EVER expressed resentments or wished for bad news in the south so can we just get over whatever the underlying root problem is that causes such behavior & drop it?
As for Chicago's economic & population trends, nothing is etched in stone as a permanent trend. In terms of population growth, metro Chicago had stagnated badly during the decades of the 1970's & 1980's and saw very slow growth only to wake up and grow slightly over 1 million during the 1990's which was a growth of roughly 13%.
It slowed to only a modest growth during the last complete decade & is crawling along now. But as I wrote, no trend is permanent so don't count it out. There are just too many variables, intangible factors and unknowns to mark it down as such. It would also be a mistake to assume that any sun belt growth trend is absolutely permanent either.

If you are referring to what I said, you couldn't be more wrong... I do not celebrate misfortune or malaise of ANYONE. I merely express wonder at what the problem is that has made them struggle. We know why Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee are struggling. In fact, the Cleveland metro has been depopulating now for about 25 years... Two census counts have shown decline. The city proper has declined since the 1950 census and has plummeted by 75% since. In 1950, Cleveland was far larger than Atlanta. Other Midwest cities are experiencing significant growth (Minneapolis, Columbus, Indianapolis, Des Moines). Still others (Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati) are also growing, though they have been slow growth for the better part of 40 years... Cincinnati was once a lot bigger than Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, but now each one dwarfs it. In fact, the sunbelt cities have surpassed all Midwestern cities, save Chicago. I wonder about the state of Chicago's economy that has changed the growth picture. That is not celebrating it...

In regard to growth trends, it's true no trend is forever. But we are talking about the here and now. It is a FACT that the sunbelt is growing faster and no hand wringing will alter that for a while yet. In fact, it's a foregone conclusion that Dallas-Fort Worth will become the first to overtake Chicago within a decade or two. Even if they started to slow, the higher birth rates will ensure it because of the lag time in the rate effect. It's a lot harder to pick up in growth than it is to slow down, especially if the birth rate is too low. These are merely estimates, but they are by and large accurate. As stated before, they do know for a fact which is growing significantly and which isn't. You can measure that by births over deaths, housing construction, home sales, moving trends, and international migration. They are always within the ballpark even if sometimes it's overstated or understated. Most of the Midwest is struggling to hold people. These are established facts that have gone on and on for decades now. Midwestern states are growing very slowly as a whole. ALL Midwestern states are slow growth (including Illinois, which has a higher domestic outmigration than immigration). Noticing it isn't celebrating it or reveling in it. In fact, I worry about it.