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.
More people are moving into the Pittsburgh MSA than moving out. This has been true for five years now. The problem is, there's a natural population decline happening as well (more deaths than births). You know all those old people that everybody laughed at Pittsburgh for having after the 1990 and 2000 Censuses? They're all dying now. They were the last generation to come of age in Pittsburgh before the economy collapsed in the 1980's, so they had time to prepare for the upheaval. The Baby Boomers did not, though, which is why they got wiped out. As a result, Pittsburgh's Baby Boomer, Generation X and Millennial populations befit a metropolitan area with ~2,000,000 population, and its elderly population befits a metropolitan area with ~3,000,000 population. This natural decline acts as a giant drag on the population numbers, which is how the Pittsburgh MSA could have positive net migration of ~5,000 between 2011 and 2012, but the total population only grew by ~1,000. It's also worth noting that between 2000 and 2010, the working-age population (20-64) in the Pittsburgh MSA increased, but it was more than negated by the decrease in the elderly population. (A decrease in children under 20 exacerbated it.)
The author mentioned that "hip" cities tend to be places where costs are too high to justify the growth that is being exhibited in Sun Belt cities, which are dirt cheap by comparison (in general). To me, this makes total sense.....a "cool" or "hip" city is going to be a place where people are so excited to live in that they'll pay much more money to live there than any other place. So even though growth in said cities are slower or not phenomenal, I think it speaks to the point that mature cities are generally more trendy than those with room to grow (and hence, growth occurs until price points meet quality of living).
IOW, it makes sense to me that a "cool" city would be more expensive and more exclusive than a fast-growing one. Growth does not and should not equate to "coolness", in this sense.
Agreed. If cool and hip translated to high growth, Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco would be at the top. Cities like Dallas, Phoenix, and Charlotte wouldn't even be mentioned.
Austin is the one situation where you can have "cool" and "hip" and also high growth and a low cost of living.
The Sun Belt apparently learned nothing from the last 5 years, nor did the people attempting to build more booms (aka another housing bubble) there.
And can we please dispell the notion once and for all that the Sun Belt is less expensive to live than much of the North. Outside of some of the most expensive Northeastern states, the Sun Belt tends to actually be more expensive than the rest of the North, including almost all of the Midwest. And the economic situation is actually much more similar between the two regions now, even in Cleveland, which was highlighted for losing people. They failed to mention, as well, that the cities still losing population had some of their lowest losses last year in decades, which contradicts their statement that the losses aren't slowing down. Just the opposite, actually. The question for me is, at what point Northern economics recover to the point where the Sun Belt has to find ways to grow beyond domestic migration through sucking Northerners south?
Another thing to consider is you may get by with cheaper rent in the Sunbelt but you also must own a car. Rent + car + gas in Dallas probably costs more than a loft/condo/apartment in a walkable neighborhood in Portland.
I can understand why families with school-aged kids may want to live in the Sunbelt though as families have different priorities than young single professionals.
The question for me is, at what point Northern economics recover to the point where the Sun Belt has to find ways to grow beyond domestic migration through sucking Northerners south?
The sunbelt does quite well in international immigration as well (at least in the urban areas). Of the top ten international immigration markets, five are in the sunbelt (LA, Miami, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta).
Of course, I dont even need to explain about natural growth.
Agreed. If cool and hip translated to high growth, Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco would be at the top. Cities like Dallas, Phoenix, and Charlotte wouldn't even be mentioned.
Austin is the one situation where you can have "cool" and "hip" and also high growth and a low cost of living.
So, Portland and Seattle are more hip than Miami, DC, NY, Chicago and LA? New to me.
The Sun Belt apparently learned nothing from the last 5 years, nor did the people attempting to build more booms (aka another housing bubble) there.
And can we please dispell the notion once and for all that the Sun Belt is less expensive to live than much of the North. Outside of some of the most expensive Northeastern states, the Sun Belt tends to actually be more expensive than the rest of the North, including almost all of the Midwest. And the economic situation is actually much more similar between the two regions now, even in Cleveland, which was highlighted for losing people. They failed to mention, as well, that the cities still losing population had some of their lowest losses last year in decades, which contradicts their statement that the losses aren't slowing down.
It would be more accurate to compare Southern Sunbelt metros to Northern metros, at least the largest ones. On that front, I'm not sure how the affordability factor would play out. However, for the largest ones, it's quite easy to see that the Sunbelt metros are cheaper (NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston vs. DFW, Houston, Miami, Atlanta).
Quote:
Just the opposite, actually. The question for me is, at what point Northern economics recover to the point where the Sun Belt has to find ways to grow beyond domestic migration through sucking Northerners south?
It's all a cycle. While immigration played its role of course, don't forget about the Great Migrations--which was noted for the role Blacks played, but many Whites moved up North during those years also.
The birth rate for the Portland metro is lower than most metros. It's harder to keep up with the higher birth rate metros.
This makes sense. Most people moving to Portland are single twentysomethings. People moving to the Sunbelt are far more likely to have kids or birth kids.
Oklahoma City has probably seen most of its growth by births as most people are married with kids by age 21. That is precisely why high-growth does not equate to "cool".
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.
