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.
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.
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.
And it's good to see that Detroit is (apparently) not losing people anymore as of 2011....
I'm surprised by Chicago and New York as well. Well, more so Chicago than New York. Seems like the big cities just sort of slowed in growth.
For Detroit, Wayne County still lost like 9,000 residents but the other counties, mostly Oakland and Macomb, gained 15,000 collectively. So there was a net growth of around 4,000 residents. This is pretty similar to pre-recession patterns since there's always been a balance of growing suburbs with the shrinking city center. If the city of Detroit were actually growing, the numbers would definitely be higher than 0.1%.
Forbes has really had some odd stuff these past couple of years. Not referring specifically to this or the rankings they have actual data on, but some of the other ones are just baffling.
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.
