Wow, look what is happening in the "second tier" cities (Chicago: transplants, real estate)

[chet everett]

Millennials Are Breathing New Life Into America’s Most Downtrodden Cities

The lower costs of these places make it easier for the population to lower income millennials to grow -- I suspect that means Rahm's dreams of riding the wave of incoming hordes may be petering out.

For folks with degrees Chicago is still in good company but changing the value proposition for those already feeling priced out will have profound effects. For those that foolishly believe things like real estate prices in more challenging parts of Chicago will head ever upwards they'll get a rude reality check...

It helps to recognize that other cities even colder than Chicago can make themselves attractive by conducting things in a more fair and honest way -- Local Business People Weigh In On Future Of Jobs For Minnesota Millennials

“Minneapolis-St. Paul is one of the three top places in the country where young talent have both economic opportunity and mobility, and affordability,” Frosch said.
In fact, Minneapolis-St. Paul is just behind Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City.

[rzzzz]

The main reason the millennial population increased in the Twin Cities is because the local kids who used to move away after graduating from the U don't do that anymore. There isn't a big influx of millennials from other cities. Minnesota isn't really any "fairer" than Chicago when it comes to jobs. If anything, it is far more insular and nepotistic when it comes to hiring. Take note that aside from the person from Detroit, everyone else mentioned in the article is a "Native Minnesotan." (and not a millennial)

[Chicago76]

Since I was in Chicago and am now in St. Louis (which shows up as #1 on the list) in one of these urban neighborhoods, maybe I can offer something to this. The influx is definitely perceptible here, but the neighborhoods drawing younger folks and the business environment here have such a long way to go that I'm having a hard time believing that STL retention/migration/etc is exerting any kind of a perceptible influence in Chicago. First things first, I find the 180+% increase pretty implausible. Other than the city (which is only about 12% of the metro), there are only another 3 or 4 inner burbs that are young professional magents. Growth is highest in the city, but even in the southern 2/3rds of the city where it is highest, the growth is just over 100%. The math doesn't work. This, and the fact that they took a photo of stuff that isn't even there anymore (and hasn't been in quite some time), leads me to question the care put into any of this.

Nothing outside of the city and 3-4 suburbs are going to give anyone pause who is thinking, "I thought about moving to Chicago to live in the middle of the city, but I think I'll stay here in Shrewsbury or Richmond Heights", so we're really talking about an extra 12,000 or so college grads. Most of them fall into two camps: those who were from a surrounding 100 mile radius who consider St. Louis to be "the big city" and those from STL, most of whom wouldn't consider Chicago. There is a smaller faction who migrate here because of work from more far flung origins like Chicago or DC, but they're a distinct minority and the area recognizes that it has a problem retaining these people.

The retention issues boil down to a couple of things. St. Louis is very insular, both socially and in business circles. People are nice and you can make friends and acquaintances, but its tougher because it seems like everyone is from here with their long established social groups. This extends into the business community as well. Opportunities are more scarce because commerce isn't exactly booming, so new jobs, clients, and so on are much more closely guarded by "gatekeepers". When you meet other non-natives out for drinks this is a favorite topic of conversation, in particular for those who have lived in larger cities away from their hometowns prior to coming to STL.

The city is rougher around the edges, which is refreshing in some ways. It reminds me of Chicago in the middle of Daley II years rather than how it is today. Housing is less expensive. Nightlife is there. It just lacks the energy. In some ways it is more livable. We have a great house, easy access to concert tickets (no more instantaneous sell outs), access to great parks, cheaper restaurant bills and less anonymity can be nice. It's also a pain when you just want to stay out of neighborhood squabbles or get a beer at a local in peace. There are certain things that STL has on Chicago, a lot of things they stumble on, and obviously some things that just can't match up. I'm pretty neutral on the city, but on any given aspect, it seems like I either love it or hate it.

If anything, I think the emergence of quality neighborhoods here and in similar places will probably help Chicago in the long run. These neighborhoods are kind of like "gateway drugs" for people to catch the urban bug. People who would never consider leaving often appreciate how living in the city can be enjoyable and some appreciate Chicago more when they visit and can see themselves living there now that they've taken the step from burbs to city locally. The prospect of moving there seems more exciting and less intimidating. I know a lot of people who have left in the past 3 years because of this. Others are STL lifers. They're down on Wash Ave drinking beer and chasing girls for a few years before they move out to West County. They probably wouldn't have come to Chicago anyway and if they did, they'd be up in Lakeview with their frat brothers for 3 years before moving back home. No loss there.

I can't say for sure, but I get the feeling that in a lot of the second tier cities, it's kind of the same thing. That wouldn't necessarily be the case for regions like the Twin Cities or Raleigh Durham due to their economic strength and growth, but it probably applies to a lot of the more run of the mill 1-3 million metros.

[Vlajos]

I believe this is the study the article in question is based off.

Young and Restless | City Observatory

St. Louis had 7000+ college educated in that age bracket within 3 miles of downtown (10 yr growth rate of 138.2%)

Chicago had 75,000+ college educated in that age bracket within 3 miles of downtown (10 yr growth rate of 54.9%)

The article Chet posted kind of left out some important information.

[chet everett]

The article raises some interesting issues, don't you think?

The rate of change is important as are the absolute numbers -- since Chicago has such a large number of younger people with degrees it very likely will not be see the kind of rapid positive changes as smaller cities experience. Things may very well have 'peaked' here and other cities will have more upside potential.

[mkarch]

Seattle is considered expensive?

[rzzzz]

Seattle is 20-30% more expensive than Chicago. However, salaries are around 20% higher in Seattle.

[mjtinmemphis]

As a person who grew up and left St. Louis for some of the reasons chicago76 gave, I would have to say the city has changed. Most people who I meet when out and about are transplants. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. As a boomerang St. Louisan, I can see a dramatic difference and can see why a young person would choose this city. Maybe the disagreement comes in because I don't work or hangout with any natives. Like in Chicago and everywhere else, natives tend to be harder to get along with and lack experience that the transplants have to have common ground for basic conversation. I found native Chicago to be just as narrow as natives in other places.

St. Louis doesn't compare to Chicago! At all!!! I don't think it's supposed to. You will hear St. Louis compare itself to Cincinnati or even Columbus. After living in Chicago for a while and traveling on business to other major cities St. Louis seems small but still a real city. With that being said I think the city has a totally different appeal. I don't see myself living in a smaller city.

Chicago got old after the 5th year. The bad started outweighing the good. Cost of living with opportunity that comes with is really a big plus imo with smaller metros. I don't think the numbers lie. Millennial are choosing places that are conducive to their goals. Chicago is good for those who have big city dreams other cities do better with those who may have different values.

[UC18]

Originally Posted by mkarch

Seattle is considered expensive?

Undoubtedly, yes. I knew a guy with a six-figure database manager salary who moved to Denver because he couldn't afford to by a house for his family in Seattle.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

The main reason the millennial population increased in the Twin Cities is because the local kids who used to move away after graduating from the U don't do that anymore. There isn't a big influx of millennials from other cities. Minnesota isn't really any "fairer" than Chicago when it comes to jobs. If anything, it is far more insular and nepotistic when it comes to hiring. Take note that aside from the person from Detroit, everyone else mentioned in the article is a "Native Minnesotan." (and not a millennial)

Minneapolis is like Columbus, Ohio; clean, well-run, relatively thriving, and completely uninteresting to anyone not from in state (or from Somalia).