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.
Here we are, the Fastest and Slowest Growing Economies for large Metro's in the US. Interesting numbers but not surprised. Booming Nashville taking that number 1 spot!
This is why I am also suspicious of those Rust belt revival storylines, Buffalo, Rochester, Cleveland are 2-4 on the slowest growing list.
Hartford is better off than them and Hartford's narrative is vastly more negative than Buffalo or Clevelands.
With the former, a lot of it is in terms of urban investment. I also think there is still a stigma in terms of those areas as well. So, companies might be less apt to set up shop due to that stigma and policy.
It could a comparative aspect as well. Meaning, that instead of declines, there is actual growth. It may be small, but it may be better than what it once was.
Timing of recovery from the recession may play a part in this as well.
With this said, the article offers some interesting information. The U.S. growth rate decreased 0.3 percentage points in 2017 versus 2016. Just 8 out of 53 large metros experienced an improvement. The large metros showing the most improvement (with the greatest increase in the annual growth rate) are Oklahoma City (+1.4 pts.), Houston (+1.1 pts.) and Pittsburgh (+0.9 pts.). Virginia Beach, Birmingham, and Tucson also experienced an improvement.
More than 3 out of 4 metros have slowed since 2016. The large metros with the largest declines in growth rate are Grand Rapids (2.7 pts. decrease), Tampa (-1.5 pts.) and Louisville (-1.4 pts.). Other metros with a large declining growth rate include Memphis, Salt Lake City, and Miami.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-20-2018 at 09:24 AM..
With the former, a lot of it is in terms of urban investment. I also think there is still a stigma in terms of those areas as well. So, companies might be less apt to set up shop due to that stigma and policy.
It could a comparative aspect as well. Meaning, that instead of declines, there is actual growth. It may be small, but it may be better than what it once was.
Timing of recovery from the recession may play a part in this as well.
With this said, the article offers some interesting information. The U.S. growth rate decreased 0.3 percentage points in 2017 versus 2016. Just 8 out of 53 large metros experienced an improvement. The large metros showing the most improvement (with the greatest increase in the annual growth rate) are Oklahoma City (+1.4 pts.), Houston (+1.1 pts.) and Pittsburgh (+0.9 pts.). Virginia Beach, Birmingham, and Tucson also experienced an improvement.
More than 3 out of 4 metros have slowed since 2016. The large metros with the largest declines in growth rate are Grand Rapids (2.7 pts. decrease), Tampa (-1.5 pts.) and Louisville (-1.4 pts.). Other metros with a large declining growth rate include Memphis, Salt Lake City, and Miami.
That's a key point in that stat which is otherwise decieving. Grand Rapids and Tampa had a decrease in growth, but they are still growing above average. Just quickly glossing the stats quoted in this article would make people think several cities aren't doing well, when they are still out performing their peers.
So among the top 10 metros by population in the country Atlanta is the only metro area that is among the top 10 economic growth wise. I don't see DC, Miami, Dallas, LA, SFO or NY.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,090 posts, read 7,490,210 times
Reputation: 5755
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthAtlanta
So among the top 10 metros by population in the country Atlanta is the only metro area that is among the top 10 economic growth wise. I don't see DC, Miami, Dallas, LA, SFO or NY.
Makes sense since Atlanta is easily the cheapest metro out of all of those.
No. Nobody outside of New England has ever thought about Hartford.
I am not comparing the popularity but the tone of the narrative.
Hartford's narrative is it's doomed and it's dying, and Cleveland and Buffalo have a narrative of resurgence despite almost two decades of underperforming Hartford in most economic indicators.
Most Rust Belt revivals seem like propaganda with some redistribution of wealth around a metro area vs actual growth of the region.
I am not comparing the popularity but the tone of the narrative.
Hartford's narrative is it's doomed and it's dying, and Cleveland and Buffalo have a narrative of resurgence despite almost two decades of underperforming Hartford in most economic indicators.
Most Rust Belt revivals seem like propaganda with some redistribution of wealth around a metro area vs actual growth of the region.
A lot of it is a reduction/stopping of decline in terms of some population aspects as well.
This is why I am also suspicious of those Rust belt revival storylines, Buffalo, Rochester, Cleveland are 2-4 on the slowest growing list.
Hartford is better off than them and Hartford's narrative is vastly more negative than Buffalo or Clevelands.
Pittsburgh, too, #9. The Pittsburghers on this forum, who are always saying that recovery is "just around the corner" are not going to be happy.
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.