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.
All those cities boomed at one time. Every city that's ever boomed eventually had it end. Not always for the same reasons, but they came to an end nonetheless. What exactly makes people believe that the current boom cities will never have theirs come to an end? What exactly is going to keep them going for the next 20-30-40-50 years even while the old North reasserts itself?
Higher level of amenities and quality of life? Not really. What makes cities like Philadelphia, DC, Boston, New York or Baltimore have a higher quality of life than Dallas, Houston or any of the other sunbelt cities? And higher level of amenities? Like what?
First and foremost the ability to live without a car. There is so much freedom to be able to walk, bike, or take public transportation everywhere over the tremendous burden of a car.
Sunbelt cities economies are more diverse then Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, etc 60 years ago. What just happen was a bust in a particular industry it's like living in a house with one clasped wall. Busts have happen though American and world history they aren't new, and they're going to happen again. The cities most involved in a particular industry will be the most effected, this was a housing bust so it effected the sunbelt more, like wise a hole in a wall. What happen in Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo was much deeper. Their economies were too set on manufacturing then it declined and hurt those cities. Because there economy weren't diverse it was like 3 walls clasping. Bad comparison.
But the point rnc2mbfl and I was trying to make. The growth pattern are changing Sunbelt cities cores will grow more urban. The faster growing sunbelt cities would have an advantage of urbanizing over the slow ones. It's call smart or sustainable growth.
Also the south is the second most diverse region after the west so your international migration numbers are off. Also The West's diversity is generally in Cali and the Southwestern states. The Sunbelt in general is the most diverse part of the country.
You're missing the point here. Yes, Sun Belt cities are more economically diverse right now than those other cities were 60 years ago, but how about comparing them to each other today? All indications are that those cities have significantly diversified.
And in any case, overreliance on one type of industry is hardly the only way that a city can lose boom status. Booms themselves tend to cannibalize the growth at some point because all those people cost a lot of money in infrastructure, schools, police and fire, etc. Taxes go up, cost of living goes up, things get crowded. And then the conditions that created the boom no longer exist. Boom over. Anyone who doesn't think this is inevitable for places like Austin or Charlotte are fooling themselves. It doesn't mean they won't grow, but there is no way that they can realistically maintain 30% growth rates per decade indefinitely, especially not with the North recovering the way it is.
Also, if you're right and Sun Belt cities are densifying, that's another way growth will slow. You can't grow population through densification nearly as fast as you can by adding sprawl in farm fields.
I got the international migration numbers directly from the census. Check them yourself.
International immigration in the Midwest is Chicago and to a lesser degree Detroit and Minneapolis. Other than that, there really isnt much of it in the Midwest. Cleveland and Cincinnati get very, very few international immigrants and Columbus is only slightly better because of the African immigration. So, no I dont buy that at all.
Your initial claim was against the entire sunbelt, so I used the entire sunbelt for comparison which does include Miami and Los Angeles. Now youre trying to divide it up further.
To answer what you said about Cleveland and Detroit 60 years ago vs. the Sunbelt now, Sunbelt metro areas (namely Atlanta and Dallas but Houston is working hard on this too) have super diverse economies. Cleveland and Detroit 60 years ago had one sided economies.
There were only 64 metros out of the 350+ that had international migration above 2,000 a year. Cincinnati and Cleveland both did. So did Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, St Louis, MSP, Chicago, etc.
Sorry you're unable to bring yourself to believe facts.
I compared regions but I also compared the Midwest and Northeast (the North) with every other area of the country combined, including the West, Southwest, Southeast and Mountain West.
And you also entirely missed the point about Detroit.
First and foremost the ability to live without a car. There is so much freedom to be able to walk, bike, or take public transportation everywhere over the tremendous burden of a car.
The vast majority of people in every US urban area do not live in a situation that provides the ability to live without a car. With the exception of the cores of 5-10 cities, living with a car will be more convenient than not.
I too prefer older, more mature metro areas but I don't think people are realizing just how ridiculously cheap the Sunbelt can be. My friend rented an entire 2 story home in Virginia for half of my one-bedroom student-ghetto apartment in Boston.
Houston: 31,738
Dallas: 28,010
Atlanta: 21,289
Phoenix: 12,805
Las Vegas: 8,785
Austin; 5,897
San Antonio: 5,712
El Paso: 5,436
Charlotte: 5,400
Nashville: 4,285
Raleigh: 3,746
McAllen: 3,617
Tucson: 2,895
Im sorry, but those numbers speak for themselves. In fact, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta together had more international immigration than the entire midwest region together.
no, look it up. For 2012 MI was the only state to loose in double digits. Metro Detroit's population continues to shrink. It doesn't have the pull to attract people. This whole state is loosing. People moving from Wayne County to the other counties is like saying Detroit gained because people moved from on area to downtown and midtown. Just shift in people
I can't find any 2011 to 2012 numbers, but from 2010 to 2012 Michigan only lost 300 people. That's literally no change. So 2011 to 2012 must have been an increase or an unbelievably small decrease.
As for Metro Detroit, the MSA estimate had 4,285,832 in 2011 and 4,292,060 in 2012. So that's like a 7,000 person increase which had to have come from outside of Metro Detroit.
why not? it's not perfect but its better than the majority of the US. good nightlife, good dining scene, not going to freeze to death during the winter, 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.
