What is the next hot up & coming U.S. city? (beautiful, NYC)
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.
Traditionally cities propped up because of their location along trade routes, locations near bodies of water and places near fertile land, mostly. Natural ports of entry for immigrants coming from other parts of the world (part of the water connection), also helped cities grow. Modernity or technology allowed some cities to grow notwithstanding lacking some of these natural ingredients and areas began to grow based upon esthetic beauty, climate and technology made it possible to live away from close proximity with natural resources, water and the like.
In light of that, I think we need to look at trends regarding climate and resources to identify the sustainable cities of the future. IF there is climate change and IF natural resources become scarce, including cheap oil and fresh water, we might revert back to cities of necessities as opposed to cities of convenience. The predictions are that climate will change and energy will become scarcer and more expensive. Thus, barring new sources of cheap energy I think we have to go back to the old model of water, resources and trade routes.
I think Texas will grow as long as the immigration policies keeps the borders open because the largest groups of immigrants are coming from South of the US border and Texas is a main point of entry, and it has OIL. California is another major point of entry from the South and from Asia, so California cities will continue to grow, as well as the Pacific Northwest. The Southwest, including California and Texas, are in danger of water shortages though. They do not have the water to sustain their current population for much longer, not to mention adding millions of more people and if climate does get warmer, those areas are going to just get drier.
I think the Southeast will lose favor, as it gained a lot of favor being a right to work area, low cost of living (housing) relative to the North. I think those advantages are diminishing relative to the industrial Midwest, where union membership has radically declined, wages have declined and in many places, the value of housing has as well. Many Northern States have become right to work states as well, making the draw of the Southeast less tantalizing for mfg companies. The Midwest also has a huge fresh water supply, major rivers and such, plus esthetics, like beeches dunes and the like, as well as naturally forested areas. This is why I think that Michigan cities, in 15 or more years, will be like Texas cities are today. I think the state has passed an inflection point and will shock many with the speed it takes off once it breaks its negative momentum. Chicago will continue to grow at a good pace, as well as Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo and the like. I
I think the Northeast will hold steady and benefit from its density, although potentially rising ocean levels can be threatening.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 09-16-2014 at 09:17 AM..
Traditionally cities propped up because of their location along trade routes, locations near bodies of water and places near fertile land, mostly. Natural ports of entry for immigrants coming from other parts of the world (part of the water connection), also helped cities grow. Modernity or technology allowed some cities to grow notwithstanding lacking some of these natural ingredients and areas began to grow based upon esthetic beauty, climate and technology made it possible to live away from close proximity with natural resources, water and the like.
In light of that, I think we need to look at trends regarding climate and resources to identify the sustainable cities of the future. IF there is climate change and IF natural resources become scarce, including cheap oil and fresh water, we might revert back to cities of necessities as opposed to cities of convenience. The predictions are that climate will change and energy will become scarcer and more expensive. Thus, barring new sources of cheap energy I think we have to go back to the old model of water, resources and trade routes.
I think Texas will grow as long as the immigration policies keeps the borders open because the largest groups of immigrants are coming from South of the US border and Texas is a main point of entry, and it has OIL. California is another major point of entry from the South and from Asia, so California cities will continue to grow, as well as the Pacific Northwest. The Southwest, including California and Texas, are in danger of water shortages though. They do not have the water to sustain their current population for much longer, not to mention adding millions of more people and if climate does get warmer, those areas are going to just get drier.
I think the Southeast will lose favor, as it gained a lot of favor being a right to work area, low cost of living (housing) relative to the North. I think those advantages are diminishing relative to the industrial Midwest, where union membership has radically declined, wages have declined and in many places, the value of housing has as well. Many Northern States have become right to work states as well, making the draw of the Southeast less tantalizing for mfg companies. The Midwest also has a huge fresh water supply, major rivers and such, plus esthetics, like beeches dunes and the like, as well as naturally forested areas. This is why I think that Michigan cities, in 15 or more years, will be like Texas cities are today. I think the state has passed an inflection point and will shock many with the speed it takes off once it breaks its negative momentum. Chicago will continue to grow at a good pace, as well as Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo and the like. I
I think the Northeast will hold steady and benefit from its density, although potentially rising ocean levels can be threatening.
Really? You think in 15 years, metro Detroit will go from growing at -3.5% (in the previous decade) to well over 20% like the large Texas metros (almost 40% for Austin)? Maybe Flint (-2.4%) could start growing like Corpus Christi (6.2%) in that time frame, but it would still take a whoooooole lot even for that to happen.
If it was not for the Auto Slump of the 80's and 2000, there would be over 11 million people living in the State of Michigan today, as opposed to ~ 10 million. Its really one of the most attractive states in the Midwest, with more shoreline and beeches of any state except Florida and maybe California. The State grew because of the auto industry but that masked the fact that it has many outstanding natural amenities, but the grit of the industries in the cities kind of focused attention away from its other offerings.
Things go in cycles. Not too long ago people were fleeing the South for the North. Then people fled the North for the South as the south became much cheaper due to the demand for living up North. Business then sought the path of least resistance to profit, so they started relocating to the South and people followed. Now the Decline in demand for the North, particularly in a state like Michigan, has dropped the wage rate, housing rates and cost of doing business. Housing is dirt cheap in many of Michigan cities, with the exception of Ann Arbor. Wages are also low for new manufacturing. These were the ingredients that wooed jobs south.
Maybe Michigan cities will not have the immigration rate of growth component that Texas cities have due to their proximity to Mexico and Latin America, but I think Michigan cities will have the domestic migratory growth rates of Texas cities. Many areas today have maintained and grown primarily due to immigration. Relative to other big states, Michigan has not seen a large influx of immigrants. The Hispanic population percentage in Michigan is way below the national percentage and its true for nearly all groups. Immigrants tend to be attracted to opportunity and over the last decade Michigan has not had much opportunity.
Right now I think a person can make money in Michigan if they are willing to buy low, now, and wait to see the return in the future. Grand Rapids has already started its accent. Travis City will probably boom, the Ann Arbor area will boom, Kalamazoo area....and the Detroit area will follow.
Really? You think in 15 years, metro Detroit will go from growing at -3.5% (in the previous decade) to well over 20% like the large Texas metros (almost 40% for Austin)? Maybe Flint (-2.4%) could start growing like Corpus Christi (6.2%) in that time frame, but it would still take a whoooooole lot even for that to happen.
Someone posted a link to this site the other day and I being a statistics nerd love it. Point of fact, the Detroit area lost population in the 2000's due to the floundering of the auto industry. (Too many obligations, without the ability to turn around without intervention.) It pinnacled around 2008 at the height of the great recession. Most peoples impression is that it still is. However according to estimates that trend has already been turning around with it showing anemic gains in population. The Flint area has not shown the same turn around. The difference being Flint is a manufacturing hub, where as Detroit sits on the countries automotive brain trust. Hence the growth in so-called STEM jobs.
While i'm NOT going to make the arguement that in 15 years Michigan cities are going to show growth rates similar to those of the sun-belt, I will say there are areas in the state namely metro areas in the western side, that have posted consistent growth patterns that are at or above the national average. Stranger things have happened, but for Michigan cities to see the current sunbelt rates of growth, multiple things would have to happen including the anti-change state of mind that got Michigan to where it is in the first place. Perhaps climate change itself could not help that.
Quote:
Many of mid-sized metros in the country has at least one hip neighborhood and new construction in the city center. Thats why you see so many people on here saying places such as Louisville, Columbus, Grand Rapids, ect often based on the fact that they live there and consider the development in their city to be unique. My point is, while the development is positive, I don't think it constitutes its inclusion as the next Austin or Portland. However, If I had to pick three it would probably be, Denver, Santa Rosa, and The Bronx, NY (I know its not a city).
Two things: 1. It blows my mind that one might mention Denver as the New Austin. I feel like people need a history lesson. Denver has been an "it" city for decades, it was Austin before Austin was Austin. Portland too had decades on Austin. Not disputing that Austin has arrived, I disagree however that it is now the benchmark for the mentioned cities as well as others.
Hearing cities like Atlanta or Denver or Dallas mentioned as "up and coming" means either I have to change my understanding of what "up and coming" is, or people have somewhat misinformed and/or condescending opinions. If Dallas, Atlanta, and Denver are considered by some to be "up and coming" what does a city have to do to be considered "Arrived"? Are only Alpha world cities truly cities that have reached a pinacle?
Quote:
Thats why you see so many people on here saying places such as Louisville, Columbus, Grand Rapids, ect often based on the fact that they live there and consider the development in their city to be unique.
2. As a current resident of Louisville, and former resident of Grand Rapids (A native to neither). I take um bridge with the condescending notion that there is more or less a "hip neighborhood" and a couple of construction projects. People who would consider these places as up and coming might be educated enough to know how far they fell, and how far they've recovered from a low point. Billions in investment, with no sign of slowing, populations growing, and transforming economies. I'm not sure what a lofty perch someone might be sitting at, but were one to actually be in these places and see the transformation happening, they might understand why people might consider them "up and coming".
I still predict that many areas of the country that boomed over the last 20 or 30 years are going to peter out. However, its like a big ship that turns slowly from its current direction. There are always people who are behind the curve of trends and they will keep flocking to places that used to be the land of milk and honey.....when the milk or honey is long gone. Right now many places are simply riding on momentum, whether it be positive or negative. Michigan has a negative momentum and hence that hides the fact that its negative rate of acceleration or deceleration, has slowed significantly...and its trend is acceleration. Other places that have been accelerating are now decelerating but still moving forward. Previous momentum is just playing itself out and masking the fact that the there has been a big change in the nation. After the momentum of the last few decades wears off......people will see the change. There has been a change.....you just cannot see it clearly yet.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 09-16-2014 at 12:17 PM..
Midwestern citizens still don't value urban living, by and large. I think Cleveland is a great town but Ohioans are still 40 years behind the time in their attitudes toward cities and diversity. I hope Cleveland gets it together to overcome the state's backwardness. I feel the same way about Toledo.
I really think the city that is flying under the radar nationally but has the potential to really emerge as an urban leader in the next 20 years in Cincinnati. Several reasons
Te historic core is one of the nation's most beautiful and it is thriving. they can't rehab and build enough housing fast enough to meet demand.
a real sense of place and history that has massive potential to become a major domestic and eventually international tourist destination.
Globally important business sector with the likes of P&G, GE Aviation...and forecast to see increased international air connectivity over the coming decade
Interesting topography with hills and Ohio river
low cost of living that could attract millenials
a culture that blends the East, Midwest, and the South...meaning that someone from Boston, Minneapolis, and Atlanta wouldn't feel totally out of their comfort zone.
arguably the best, most central location in the eastern half of the country
Merging with Dayton into a 3,000,000 plus metro, with the increased national attention that brings
close to the emerging Ohio shale gas boom
new light rail line connecting the core to other gentrifying neighborhoods
Maybe Michigan cities will not have the immigration rate of growth component that Texas cities have due to their proximity to Mexico and Latin America, but I think Michigan cities will have the domestic migratory growth rates of Texas cities. Many areas today have maintained and grown primarily due to immigration. Relative to other big states, Michigan has not seen a large influx of immigrants. The Hispanic population percentage in Michigan is way below the national percentage and its true for nearly all groups. Immigrants tend to be attracted to opportunity and over the last decade Michigan has not had much opportunity.
Domestic migration is actually the biggest component of growth for the Texas cities; they do well in immigration too, but NYC, LA, Miami, the Bay Area, and DC top that list rather easily. From 2010-2013, DFW gained 127,315 domestic migrants (a 1.97% gain), Houston 116,956 (1.97%), Austin 87,189 (5.05%), and San Antonio 63,391 (2.94%). That's four Texas metros of the top six (Phoenix and Denver are the other two) for metros with 1 million or more persons. Compare that to Detroit's loss of 58,343 (-1.36%) in the same time period and there's just no way this is happening in 15 years.
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.
