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.
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.
While it certainly may be harder to get by without a car I don't think you must own a car if you live in the Sunbelt. I get by quite nicely without a car here in Albuquerque.
While it certainly may be harder to get by without a car I don't think you must own a car if you live in the Sunbelt. I get by quite nicely without a car here in Albuquerque.
Albuquerque is also more progressive than most of the Sunbelt.
Last edited by JMT; 03-20-2013 at 11:59 AM..
Reason: Please don't introduce politics into this ("red state" vs. "blue state").
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.
Dallas might not be the best example here since it has the largest LRT network in the country that goes a lot of places. It's easier to leave your car at home there than in some other Sunbelt cities.
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.
Besides Hip and cool cities are subjective, like justme02 said. Sunbelt cities are not the same age some Sunbelt cities are just as old and older than some "mature cities"
Also the first thing I notice when I click the article was, it ignored that sunbelt cities but in general American cities are planning to urban up. The article frame sunbelt cities like the agenda is to keep sprawling. And made it a contradiction that pundits believe the future is more urban when many are moving to the sunbelt, when it's not.
Besides Hip and cool cities are subjective, like justme02 said. Sunbelt cities are not the same age some Sunbelt cities are just as old and older than some "mature cities"
Also the first thing I notice when I click the article was, it ignored that sunbelt cities but in general American cities are planning to urban up. The article frame sunbelt cities like the agenda is to keep sprawling. And made it a contradiction that pundits believe the future is more urban when many are moving to the sunbelt, when it's not.
Many fast growing sunbelt cities are now investing heavily in their cores to respond to changing demographics and emerging generational preferences. While it's popular outside of the Sunbelt to just dismiss the existing and improving cores of Sunbelt cities, the advantage will be with those Sunbelt cities that are rapidly growing now. Sunbelt cities that are not growing as fast now may face serious competitive issues that others may not. The ability of all cities, and perhaps Sunbelt ones in particular, to respond to the demands of a changing demographic will be strong predictor of future success.
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.
Actually, beyond the very largest cities, international migration to the Sun Belt is nothing spectacular.
# of Metro Areas Nationally that had 2,000+ international Migration: 64
# By Region
Southeast: 23
Northeast: 16
Midwest: 10
West: 9
Mountain West: 3
Southwest: 2
Average International Migration by Region
West: 16,359.1
Northeast: 15,256.7
Southeast: 8,819
Southwest: 8,416
Midwest: 7,027.4
Mountain West: 3,287.3
All North (Midwest and Northeast) Average: 11,142.1
All South and West Average: 9,220.4
So there are two regions that attract more international immigrants than the Southeastern Sun Belt. And even if you included all of the high growth West, Southwest, Mountains and Southeast, the average international immigration is still higher in the North. Even the Midwest is not THAT much lower than the South considering all the hate that area gets.
No, most of the growth in the Sun Belt still comes from two sources: natural growth (which is on par with much of the North) and domestic migration, the only area of significant difference between the two regions.
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).
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.
Why would you only compare the largest cities? First, they're not really directly comparable. The Northern counterparts are older, denser with a higher level of amenities and general quality of life. The Southern cities are newer and have far less legacy costs associated with the infrastructure and amenities. That will change eventually, but for now it's not really the best comparison. In any case, not everyone wants to move to only these specific cities, so I would think you would be better served by doing a regional comparison. NY state is more expensive than much of the Sun Belt. Okay, How about Minnesota or Ohio or Nebraska, etc.?
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.
