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.
Well I think in order to truly make that determination someone would have to run the numbers. This whole conversation started because of conjecture and impressions not based on numbers. I can't find where to run the numbers or I'd do it myself
Grand Rapids metro has gained more residents than a handful of these cities on this list. It's had billions of dollars in core investments, gentrifying neighborhoods, and surging numbers of residents with at least a bachelors degree. If it's not gaining millennials then who is moving there?
I'm going based on the data provided. Grand Rapids is not on the list. Therefore, Columbus are Cincinnati are doing better attracting millennials. All I did was use the data provided to us to formulate my observation.
I'm going based on the data provided. Grand Rapids is not on the list. Therefore, Columbus are Cincinnati are doing better attracting millennials. All I did was use the data provided to us to formulate my observation.
I disagree, you used this list to make political conjecture that Michigan will likely continue to shift politically to the right, while Ohio with two cities on the list will remain a battle ground. Furthermore you then went on to speculate that Michigan did not have cities that were even positioned to absorb residents of this demographic beyond potentially Detroit itself. There's nothing in this data to suggest anything beyond the literal statements of the study.
As always lists like these are subjective. Not present are several cliche hot spots attracting all kinds of residents as well. What are present are several high growth sunbelt suburbs, and some of the usual suspects. This is a city pop comparison. That metric will always favor cities with higher land areas. There are some exceptions but for the most part using city pop, places like Jacksonville are going to be favored over San Francisco, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Raleigh ect. As seems to be the case in this list with some notable exceptions.
I disagree, you used this list to make political conjecture that Michigan will likely continue to shift politically to the right, while Ohio with two cities on the list will remain a battle ground. Furthermore you then went on to speculate that Michigan did not have cities that were even positioned to absorb residents of this demographic beyond potentially Detroit itself. There's nothing in this data to suggest anything beyond the literal statements of the study.
As always lists like these are subjective. Not present are several cliche hot spots attracting all kinds of residents as well. What are present are several high growth sunbelt suburbs, and some of the usual suspects. This is a city pop comparison. That metric will always favor cities with higher land areas. There are some exceptions but for the most part using city pop, places like Jacksonville are going to be favored over San Francisco, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Raleigh ect. As seems to be the case in this list with some notable exceptions.
Huh? Isn't the list based on net migration of people in a certain age group? There's no subjectivity whatsoever to that, it's completely objective. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
I agree with you that the contention that Ohio will shift politically left of Michigan is questionable at the very best. The cultures of the states are still different.
Huh? Isn't the list based on net migration of people in a certain age group? There's no subjectivity whatsoever to that, it's completely objective. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
I agree with you that the contention that Ohio will shift politically left of Michigan is questionable at the very best. The cultures of the states are still different.
Second part is definitely debatable. First part, yes, it's actual numbers. No MI cities are on the list. Pretty clear data.
Huh? Isn't the list based on net migration of people in a certain age group? There's no subjectivity whatsoever to that, it's completely objective. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
That's a fair statement. Looking at numbers alone you cannot claim subjectivity. If you look at their methodology they say they use the age groups 20-34 comparing those that moved into the city from out of state vs. those that moved out 2015-2016. They are using the American community survey to do so.
Admittedly the fact finder website is very complex I cannot replicate their data set. I cannot even find a set of numbers for any of these cities that isolate 20-34 y/o. The closest I can get is 18-24, and 25-34 y/o and only find in migration from other states, no mention of out migration. They must have access to a part of the site that I don't, or I need to search around more.
What is subjective is what do those numbers mean? What kind of millennial's are moving to these cities, what are their education levels? Or is the metric of a millennial without regard to their socio economic status what is coveted? What about intrastate migration? Is that a significant data set? Is it the same demographic of Millennial moving to Seattle that is moving to Virginia Beach? Are JAX and Louisville the same? Based on logic presented in this thead should we expect to see Jacksonville and Virginia Beach shift politically left, whereas cities not on the list stay the same or shift to the right?
I can find all kind of metrics to compare cities and states based on increasing educational attainment, income ect. I can't tie them exclusively to millennial growth. If a city does not appear on this list are they inferior to the ones that do? Or with the constantly fluxing demographics would this list look completely different with the 2016-2017 numbers using the same methodology. Would a 5 year trend be a more stable data set to understand where this age group is moving to vs. a one year snapshot?
I think one thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of the relocating Millennials are probably upwardly mobile, somewhat affluent, and professionally minded.
When I look at my social circle, probably two-thirds of the other people I grew up in my class of 2004 are not really professionally minded. It's a blue collar community. If you're not making much money and don't have a unique set of skills, you're probably going to stay where you are. That's probably 50% of my graduating class right there. I also know a lot of folks who had kids fairly young, and those people rely on their parents or other relatives for things like child care, and a social support system. If you need that social support network, you really can't move.
There are also a lot of folks in professions like education and nursing where opportunities are available everywhere, and they don't necessarily need to move. I also know a lot of folks who have been close with their friends since grade school, and now they're raising their kids together. If you have deep bonds like that, it's also harder to separate. Most of my close friends have already dispersed, and it wouldn't be that hard for me to move again.
The people who are moving around are mostly white collar, corporate types. People who have some sort of unique or marketable skill. People who are moving up in their careers. Kids fresh out of school or career changers looking for a first opportunity.
With that said, I think there are probably some lurking variables for places like VA Beach and Columbia. I know Hampton Roads has a major military presence - is it possible that the reduction in sequestration and such is accounting for those gains? Annexation? You also have regional hubs like Grand Rapids that are probably attracting a fairly wide range of career-minded Millennials because they are the economic hub of a general area.
There are no cities from New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts on this list either. There are several from Texas. Are you coming to the same conclusion?
Yep. It's kinda a fact that millennials moving to the major cities like Boston, NYC, and LA is a revolving door. Many of us move in, work a bit, can't afford it, and move out. So while the influx into places like NYC might be a larger number, there is also a large number of millennials leaving places like NYC. I fully understand that.
There's a great article in this month's Harper's which points out New York isn't New York anymore, and the same applies to SF, LA, Boston, etc. Basically they've all become a cookie-cutter metropolis of each other due to overinflated COL and the elements which made each city unique are mostly gone. Artists, musicians, aspiring chefs, and just plain regular people can't afford to live there, and start-up restaurants, galleries, dive bars, etc can't afford the rents to stay open, so all you get are the same chains and fusion crap in every city.
Yep, it's a lot of empty storefronts in tony retail districts and condos used as investment vehicles or money lockboxes.
Yep basically. Empty luxury condos, losing character and uniqueness, cost of living, and other cities getting into the game. Food halls used to be an exclusive thing, now you can find food halls in Kentucky. You went to Times Square to see the Lion King, now you can see that, Wicked, Hamilton, all these shows across the country.
There's a video of Dropbox bros who tried to kick native SF teens off a soccer field because they "reserved it through the app." Many of these people don't understand the city like those artists and chefs did. Restaurant scenes are taking off everywhere, and even if you live in NYC, you not gonna be trying those Michelin rated restaurants every day. More like ordering takeout. Yeah NYC has the Highline, but Atlanta has the Beltline. Good enough.
Don't get me wrong these cities still have lots to offer - NY is NY, SF is SF, etc, but I and many others just now understand that you don't need them to have a gateway 20's experience. Whether you're in Boston or Dallas, how urban and dense a city is doesn't determine the fun these days.
Well I think in order to truly make that determination someone would have to run the numbers. This whole conversation started because of conjecture and impressions not based on numbers. I can't find where to run the numbers or I'd do it myself
Grand Rapids metro has gained more residents than a handful of these cities on this list. It's had billions of dollars in core investments, gentrifying neighborhoods, and surging numbers of residents with at least a bachelors degree. If it's not gaining millennials then who is moving there?
No, grand rapids isn’t part of this thread. The list I posted is facts from the US census for 2016. Too many lists look at millennial relocation and not NET migration.
For people who have been to the top 25 cities on this list I posted, can you tell by development patterns these cities are retaining millennials? From what I’ve seen with the multifamily construction in these cities, the answer is yes.
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.
