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.
So I took the Net domestic migration numbers for metros over 1,000,000 in 2017 and divided them by population to get a percentage:
San Jose: -1.26
New York City: -1.03
Chicago: -.89
Los Angeles: -.82
Miami: -.77
Milwaukee: -.61
Hartford: -.56
San Francisco: -.51
Virginia Beach: -.51
Rochester: -.50
San Diego: -.48
Cleveland: -.39
Boston: -.38
Pittsburgh: -.37
Memphis: -.37
Baltimore: -.35
St. Louis: -.35
Washington: -.35
Detroit: -.35
Philadelphia: -.30
Buffalo: -.20
Providence: -.16
Houston: -.15
Birmingham: -.03
There isn't a single northeastern metro with positive net migration and the one that is closest is Buffalo. It really looks like there is starting to be two Midwests - Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Grand Rapids are all healthy. Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, St Louis and Detroit are all still losing people to the rest of the country (or in many cases, the healthier Midwestern cities).
There isn't a single northeastern metro with positive net migration and the one that is closest is Buffalo. It really looks like there is starting to be two Midwests - Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Grand Rapids are all healthy. Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, St Louis and Detroit are all still losing people to the rest of the country (or in many cases, the healthier Midwestern cities).
I said this on here months ago but the fact that places like LA, NYC, Chicago, DC, Boston, etc are losing their middle class residents in large numbers and they're being replaced with higher income folks, it may not seem like a problem now but look towards the future, it's going to be extremely problematic - when you start having areas that only the wealthy can afford and everyone else gets shut out, that's not good for sustaining long-term growth and the local economy later on down the line will start to hurt as a result.
Yeah increasingly fast as well...NYC is over 200,000 people leaving a year. Of course, international migration and births more than offset this.
Those two factors account for all of the population increase in those Northeastern US cities that continue to gain population (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington).
Atlanta is getting full, much like LA 20 years ago. Doesn't have DFW's freeway capacity, and interesting to see the gap growing vs. Charlotte, which didn't even complete its perimeter highway until 2015.
With the Inland Empire filling up, Vegas and Phoenix are basically the next outer outer suburbs of LA. Someone here might have the stats on how many Californians are moving there.
Atlanta is getting full, much like LA 20 years ago. Doesn't have DFW's freeway capacity, and interesting to see the gap growing vs. Charlotte, which didn't even complete its perimeter highway until 2015.
With the Inland Empire filling up, Vegas and Phoenix are basically the next outer outer suburbs of LA. Someone here might have the stats on how many Californians are moving there.
Atlanta Metro still growing at 90k a year so it's not like it's a slow growing metro area....it just means that is growing more in international growth numbers than previous decades.
So I took the Net domestic migration numbers for metros over 1,000,000 in 2017 and divided them by population to get a percentage:
Any Surprises?
Yes, how many of the sun belt cities that are negative, yet are still growing:
San Jose: -1.26
Los Angeles: -.82
Miami: -.77
San Francisco: -.51
San Diego: -.48
Houston: -.15
Birmingham: -.03
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.