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.
And y'all thought I was crazy. Prime example of a hater. That's 94,000 during an oil bust. It could have easily grown faster than DFW, if oil was booming. What if DFW wasn't getting company relocations?? Those relocations only last for so long.
Yep, and Houston actually has had slightly more corporate relocations than DFW over the past few years (I believe 196 vs. 192), but DFW has had more high profile companies relocate for sure.
I think a lot of people don't really understand the drivers of why these two areas grow and how they are so different. Had Harvey never happened I actually wouldn't have been surprised to see Houston overtake DFW in YOY growth for 2017 because a lot of jobs were lost during the oil bust. Houston benefits from one of the highest natural increase rates in the country and the oil market has been recovering steadily.
With Harvey, the numbers we see next year for these two metros will be EXTREMELY interesting, both in seeing if Houston actually lost population and if that loss is DFW's residual gain. DFW itself is still going strong, but seems to be beginning to cool off a bit based on business indicators shown by the most recent Texas A&M Economic Outlook reports. Houston's business cycle is on the upswing and the business indicators as of early 2018 are looking very strong. We'll see what the 2019 numbers bring, but my hunch, assuming nothing unexpected happens, would be another year of 100K+ growth in 2018. We shall see.
Yep, and Houston actually has had slightly more corporate relocations than DFW over the past few years (I believe 196 vs. 192), but DFW has had more high profile companies relocate for sure.
I think a lot of people don't really understand the drivers of why these two areas grow and how they are so different. Had Harvey never happened I actually wouldn't have been surprised to see Houston overtake DFW in YOY growth for 2017 because a lot of jobs were lost during the oil bust. Houston benefits from one of the highest natural increase rates in the country and the oil market has been recovering steadily.
With Harvey, the numbers we see next year for these two metros will be EXTREMELY interesting, both in seeing if Houston actually lost population and if that loss is DFW's residual gain. DFW itself is still going strong, but seems to be beginning to cool off a bit based on business indicators shown by the most recent Texas A&M Economic Outlook reports. Houston's business cycle is on the upswing and the business indicators as of early 2018 are looking very strong. We'll see what the 2019 numbers bring, but my hunch, assuming nothing unexpected happens, would be another year of 100K+ growth in 2018. We shall see.
Harvey happened after these estimates. However, I see what you're saying. I don't think DFW, if any, will grow like Houston did after Katrina. If anything, DFW's growth due to Harvey will be small because Houston, itself, is a an economic engine.
What incentives are there to stabilize these poorer populations especially if by doing so you impede the growth of the "gentrification class" in Chicago ?
There really are no incentives, which is why the bad areas keep getting worse. Also except for areas around the United Center the portions of Chicago where gentrification is eating away to the north and west aren't encroaching into the worst off areas of the city. Gentrification won't hit those areas for a long time.
Humbolt Park is probably the one main area that's undergoing widespread gentrification and was previously somewhat rough. Lots of fights against gentrification there and in Pilson - but they keep building the million dollar houses and new high end apartment units by the thousands.
Then there are people who look at the population staying flat or declining and almost cheer it on, because what it really represents is the city turning on its head in many areas, a massive exodus of lower end people and a huge influx of higher end people. At the end of the day though the decline of many south and west side areas and to see the black population abandoning those neighborhood by the hundreds of thousands isn't good for the city. It isn't good as far as race relations, it certainly isn't good for the quality of life in those neighborhoods. They're too far "out of the way" and off the radar to be getting any positive benefit from the economic areas and locations of the city that are booming.
A tale of two completely different cities in almost every way. At this point though the city can't afford to fight gentrification or treat it as a bad thing. Chicago can really only gentrify or it dies.
If you could crack this city in half, break away the 1/3 of the residents on the west and south areas, and then keep an area with 2/3 of the population on the lakeside, north and northwest sides you would probably end up with one city that was worse than Detroit and one of the poorest areas with the fastest population decline in the country, and you'd have another city that was one of the richest cities in the country with low crime, sky high education levels and rapid economic growth.
I think Grand Rapids will overtake Rochester by the 2020 census.
Easily. We're hurting here. Last decade, Rochester was one of the few cities unaffected by the recession and coasted by while its peers struggled. We maintained modest growth and enjoyed a GDP higher than Buffalo's, the 2nd largest in the state behind NYC. I'm not going to say it was prosperous, but those years saw quite a bit of investment and development, the general sentiment was that of optimism. The 2010s have been brutal though. It's almost as if the economic crisis was delayed and now we're facing what the rest of the country dealt with ten years ago. It's a shame, but Grand Rapids and Buffalo are great cities that deserve their newfound success.
Based off what? No way Providence or Worcester get absorbed and I don't think Manchester would
would be interesting to see PVD or Worcester in and a place like Trenton not (half the distance)
These MSAs and CSAs just keep gobbling area when there are no other significant cities to block the commuter sheds of more and more super commuting or extended job centers
There really are no incentives, which is why the bad areas keep getting worse. Also except for areas around the United Center the portions of Chicago where gentrification is eating away to the north and west aren't encroaching into the worst off areas of the city. Gentrification won't hit those areas for a long time.
Humbolt Park is probably the one main area that's undergoing widespread gentrification and was previously somewhat rough. Lots of fights against gentrification there and in Pilson - but they keep building the million dollar houses and new high end apartment units by the thousands.
Then there are people who look at the population staying flat or declining and almost cheer it on, because what it really represents is the city turning on its head in many areas, a massive exodus of lower end people and a huge influx of higher end people. At the end of the day though the decline of many south and west side areas and to see the black population abandoning those neighborhood by the hundreds of thousands isn't good for the city. It isn't good as far as race relations, it certainly isn't good for the quality of life in those neighborhoods. They're too far "out of the way" and off the radar to be getting any positive benefit from the economic areas and locations of the city that are booming.
A tale of two completely different cities in almost every way. At this point though the city can't afford to fight gentrification or treat it as a bad thing. Chicago can really only gentrify or it dies.
If you could crack this city in half, break away the 1/3 of the residents on the west and south areas, and then keep an area with 2/3 of the population on the lakeside, north and northwest sides you would probably end up with one city that was worse than Detroit and one of the poorest areas with the fastest population decline in the country, and you'd have another city that was one of the richest cities in the country with low crime, sky high education levels and rapid economic growth.
Is there any undeveloped land anywhere in the city ? I'm sure with Chicago being surrounded by suburban cities and unable to annex probably adds to the, "gentrify or die" attitude you describe.
I think Grand Rapids will overtake Rochester by the 2020 census.
Yeah seems likely....Rochester is doing really poorly as of late. History was made today: Rochester and Syracuse shrunk and Buffalo grew.
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.
