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.
Look, I'm sorry that you hated San Fran so much and obviously still carry a grudge. Texas overall had population growth of just over 20% last decade (actually 2000 to 2010, all numbers quoted here are for that time frame), California was right around 10%. Among large cities the Metroplex was near the top in population growth at 23.4%, but there are other cities that were higher (Atlanta at 24%, Las Vegas at an amazing 41.8% but I’m guessing that’s largely stopped the last few years). San Fran (with San Jose) only grew at about 5.4% during that time frame.
My favorite city, Portland, Oregon, saw population growth north of 15% in its metro area over the last decade. I humbly submit that Portland and Dallas are very different destinations in many ways, yet Portland also does a good job of attracting people.
Yes, Dallas has had considerable population growth. That does not make it the preferred destination for everyone but some select group of (assumedly liberal) malcontents, nor does it mean “most people see advantages to being here” among “the American and international population”. Nor does it mean I’m “disgruntled”. Although I’m not even sure I was ever “gruntled” in the first place.
Dallas has some nice bits that many people like. It has some bits that some people like and other wish would change. There has been a general population shift to the south and west of the US for a variety of reasons.
Personally, I’d prefer the Pacific Northwest, but even there, if I won the lottery, I’d only stay between March and September and then fly to New Zealand from September to March. Make of that what you will.
Dallas was nowhere near my top destination. I’m receiving enough other benefits to make it worthwhile, at least for now, and can mitigate the issues about being here that I personally dislike. If that equation changes in the future I will change my situation. For family reasons I’d prefer a measure of stability, but again, it’s all about prioritizing different items and making an informed decision armed with the best (albeit imperfect) knowledge I can obtain.
And FWIW, if not for someone else saying “damn right I’m leaving here” and not letting the door hit their backside, I wouldn’t be down here in the first place.
I'll post some more fresh migration numbers later. Given the economic difficulties over the last several years numbers from '00-'10 are stale.
From '10-'11 Dallas was the fastest growing large metro, Houston just behind, Las Vegas and Atlanta far behind.
IMO this is a good and bad situation.
The good is that people moving here with jobs and socioeconomic "buy-in" help the area in many ways. People who move here with little means, low skills and little or no "buy-in" hurt the area in the long run. It may turn out to be sort of a US play on the South American mega-metro urban blight seen over the last couple of decades.
Speaking as someone who was born and raised here...as soon as I have no close family ties left in the area, I will most likely leave.
DFW isn't for everyone, myself included. There are only two reasons I live here: 1.) Aging family, and 2.) decent job market. Those two conditions aren't guaranteed to last forever.
Why leave? This place has changed too much and not for the better in my opinion. That's just my opinion, everyone gets to have one. I don't endlessly gripe about not liking DFW because nobody wants to listen to it, but truth be told I'm not a huge fan.
I'll post some more fresh migration numbers later. Given the economic difficulties over the last several years numbers from '00-'10 are stale.
From '10-'11 Dallas was the fastest growing large metro, Houston just behind, Las Vegas and Atlanta far behind.
IMO this is a good and bad situation.
The good is that people moving here with jobs and socioeconomic "buy-in" help the area in many ways. People who move here with little means, low skills and little or no "buy-in" hurt the area in the long run. It may turn out to be sort of a US play on the South American mega-metro urban blight seen over the last couple of decades.
You can sort the list by rate of change over the past year.
I'd heard about the growth in the tri-cities area of Washington state, interesting to see that it's that high (+4.26%, at the top of the list). A lot of Texas metros near the top of the list. Dallas (+2.43%) is narrowly ahead of Houston (+2.35%) but behind many other Texas cities.
Seattle (+1.75%) and Portland (+1.64%) continue to show strong population growth, albeit not as strong as Dallas. Denver also is seeing a growing population (+2.2%).
These numbers generally are in line with trends over the 2000-2010 time frame.
The Bay Area is actually showing better growth over the past year than during 2000-2010. San Fran metro is up 1.28%, San Jose up 1.55%, for 1.36% combining the two. If that continued over the next decade, that would reflect 14.5% population growth over ten years. Dallas would still be almost double at 27.1% (a slight increase from the prior decade), but it's less of a gap between the two than during 2000-2010, and a considerable increase in growth rate for the Bay Area. That surprises me.
No, I haven't pulled data for "last 5 years" or the like, but some of the prior year numbers aren't what I expect (insert normal caveats about extrapolating limited data sets to draw grand conclusions).
Oh, and addressing Atlanta and Vegas - the former grew at 1.71% last year, a drop as you note from prior ten but not precipitous. Vegas, however, grew only 0.96% (which equates to roughly a 10% increase over a decade). Neither of us are surprised by that.
speaking as someone who was born and raised here, DFW hasn't changed a bit. Same traffic density, but its spread further out. Same heat in the summer. I guess I grew up in a hispanic area, so that's the same to me. Same sprawl, except it has spread out to the surrounding counties. Heck, the urban areas have gotten better, as well as the shopping. Trail and park systems are getting better. The biggest negative changes are, KTVT going from superstation to a CBS affilliate, lack of Westway Ford and Rodney D. Young commercials on TV-39, Wet N' Wild Garland being gone and no more Von Erichs and World Class Championship Wrestling. Otherwise, the place is pretty much the same.
Look, I'm sorry that you hated San Fran so much and obviously still carry a grudge.
My favorite city, Portland, Oregon, saw population growth north of 15% in its metro area over the last decade.
Yes, Dallas has had considerable population growth. That does not make it the preferred destination for everyone but some select group of (assumedly liberal) malcontents, nor does it mean “most people see advantages to being here” among “the American and international population”. Nor does it mean I’m “disgruntled”. Although I’m not even sure I was ever “gruntled” in the first place.
Dallas has some nice bits that many people like. It has some bits that some people like and other wish would change. There has been a general population shift to the south and west of the US for a variety of reasons.
No, I have no hostility toward San Francisco, their culture is their own business. However, I would not live there under any conceivable circumstances.
You and I have a disagreement on a technical issue. Percentage growth is not the issue, absolute numerical increase is the real indicator. Your 15% growth in Portland is really just a tiny fragment of the total migration flow, and means nothing. If Portland were paradise on earth, a million people would move there every decade. The number of people that move to Portland is a reflection of the apparent desirability of the city in America as a whole...
When I read your post, you came across to me as a griping malcontent. Your next post seemed more nuanced and moderate, so I'll accept that as a clarification, and a better indicator of where you stand.
The national migration figures indicate the relative national and international reputation of one metro area or another. DFW's high migration count means that the entire population sees DFW as very desirable overall, but may move somewhere else, due to individual circumstances. At any rate, cities such as Dallas and Houston enjoy a much better reputation on a national level than lesser places with lower net migration counts.
I'll explain that a little more clearly. Dallas or Houston (or Austin) would be the first choice of a strong plurality of the American population, and would definitely be one of the top 5 choices for the vast majority, assuming they had no ideological hatred of Texas. There are about 350 metro areas in the United States, so being in the top 5 possibilities for a move is a strong indicator of reputation, even if an individual elected to go somewhere else.
As the total net migration gets smaller, the ranking of a metro goes down. A place such as Portland, might have a strong showing only in the top 50, and central California cities such as Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc., might be down to 250 or 300.
I don't think people read this forum, though, because they really care about your or my personal preferences. They read it for hard, objective information.
You and I have a disagreement on a technical issue. Percentage growth is not the issue, absolute numerical increase is the real indicator. Your 15% growth in Portland is really just a tiny fragment of the total migration flow, and means nothing. If Portland were paradise on earth, a million people would move there every decade. The number of people that move to Portland is a reflection of the apparent desirability of the city in America as a whole...
Well, California still has a much higher total population than Texas, so apparently many more people favor California than Texas if we go by the "absolute population" metric.
I personally find absolute numerical growth to be a poorer indicator than percentage growth. I would like to pull the numbers for actual migration to/from areas as opposed to "intrinsic" growth from people being in the area having kids. Obviously, if there is any growth from the latter, it will be much higher in absolute terms in a higher population area. From 2000 to 2010 US overall population increased 9.7%. I'm sure some percentage of that was net immigration to the country, but at least some percentage of that was more kids being born than people dying off.
Percentage growth, IMHO, is tremendously important when comparing areas that are at all comparable. Obviously, comparing Bend, Oregon to Los Angeles is mixing apples and oranges.
I guess we'll just talk past each other. As for Dallas - no, I generally don't like the area, for a variety of reasons. The fact that Portland Oregon may be my favorite city in the country should give one a good indicator of what many of those reasons are, and at least some of those have nothing to do with "pro-business" (unless one thinks that Mount Hood should be leveled for some business purpose ).
Well, California still has a much higher total population than Texas, so apparently many more people favor California than Texas if we go by the "absolute population" metric.
I personally find absolute numerical growth to be a poorer indicator than percentage growth. I would like to pull the numbers for actual migration to/from areas as opposed to "intrinsic" growth from people being in the area having kids. Obviously, if there is any growth from the latter, it will be much higher in absolute terms in a higher population area. From 2000 to 2010 US overall population increased 9.7%. I'm sure some percentage of that was net immigration to the country, but at least some percentage of that was more kids being born than people dying off.
Percentage growth, IMHO, is tremendously important when comparing areas that are at all comparable. Obviously, comparing Bend, Oregon to Los Angeles is mixing apples and oranges.
I guess we'll just talk past each other. As for Dallas - no, I generally don't like the area, for a variety of reasons. The fact that Portland Oregon may be my favorite city in the country should give one a good indicator of what many of those reasons are, and at least some of those have nothing to do with "pro-business" (unless one thinks that Mount Hood should be leveled for some business purpose ).
No, it's not the total population, it's the net population increase. And Texas enjoyed a greater population increase than California.
Well, as to the technical issue, the two indicators mean different things. You are interested in one of them, and me another.
If you are in tune with the Pacific Northwest, and out of tune with Texas, there is an objective, non-ideological reason, one that has nothing to do with Dallas' shortcomings. The different climates will affect people differently. Since you are acclimated to a cool, wet maritime climate, your psychological perspective will make Texas feel very out of place for you, alien, even. Your ideology will be more like to be liberal and humanistic, whereas the climate of Texas supports conservatism and Christian Deism. There are exceptions, of course, but climate has an enormous, albeit subtle and subconscious effect on a culture. It's not the only thing of course, but it's a big thing.
Actually, I don't know of anyone from the Pacific Northwest, from San Francisco to Vancouver, who could ever feel totally comfortable with Texas climate. And that PNW you love, drives me crazy.
Part of the vast migration to Texas, and other similar climates, is the allure of the psychological lift people get. Not including you in the PNW, of course.
I know what you're thinking. How do I explain the concentration of liberals in Austin? Well, another feature that attracts and/or generates an ideology is overtly grandiose and dramatic scenery. Austin's hills may be minor in profile, but they are the best in Eastern Texas, so they have a competitive advantage in attracting people of that ideology.
Well, perhaps Cali is not as impoverished as Yemen or Somalia, but it is more impoverished than Texas.
If you consider a comparable job, say a computer programmer with 10 years experience, employed at a major corporation, the Texan will have a better, more affluent standard of living than his Cali equivalent. That was definitely my experience when this programmer made the move from the Bay Area to Dallas.
Public spending on a local level in Cali is visibly inferior to metro Dallas. The high property taxes are not high enough, since the state government forces counties and cities to fund state programs, thus shrinking the funding available for libraries, roads, firehouses, and especially public schools. The property tax revenue is so anemic, in comparison to costs, that Cali municipalities deliberately block as much new housing as they can, since the property tax revenues do not meet the costs of serving the neighborhoods. So housing is scarce and overpriced. Texas housing production is ample to meet the massive demand caused by rapid population growth.
The Cali public infrastructure is definitely inferior to that of Texas' major cities. A city in Cali could not afford the public investment Dallas has made, such as the DART system, the Caltrava bridge, the Woodall Rogers Deck park, the Arts District buildings, etc. The Cali economy is regulated by shortages, of electricity in the summertime, shortages of housing in the best parts of the metros, shortages of jobs, you name it. In Texas cities, we have an economy that produces surpluses of those things.
When a government such as Cali has to fund welfare state type programs, that is an admission that their private sector is too anemic to supply the people. An ideal situation would be for a citizen to be able to fill his needs in the economy, and have an economy able to supply those needs. Cali, on the other hand, has so mismanaged its economy that the state has to supply handouts to people to keep them functioning. This is no different than a Third World government subsidizing the price of grain so it's people have something to eat.
The Cali economy is deteriorating, and the farther it goes into its dwindling spiral, and forces out its more rational and productive citizens, the worse it will become.
Sadly, this is spot-on. California is now in a feedback loop where rising taxes strangles economic growth, which reduces tax revenues, requiring further tax increases, further reducing economic growth, and so forth. Unless you make a million dollars or nothing at all, California is not for most people, and I'd be willing to bet any population growth California saw in the past decade was in that second group. That said, I'd say it's more likely than not that California either gets bailed out or declares bankruptcy. The Califugees who have fled to Texas just saw the writing on the wall.
If you are in tune with the Pacific Northwest, and out of tune with Texas, there is an objective, non-ideological reason. The different climates will affect people differently. Since you are acclimated to a cool, wet maritime climate, your psychological perspective will make Texas feel very out of place for you, alien, even. Your ideology will be more like to be liberal and humanistic, whereas the climate of Texas supports conservatism and Christian Deism. There are exceptions, of course, but climate has an enormous, albeit subtle and subconscious effect on a culture. It's not the only thing of course, but it's a big thing.
Actually, I don't know of anyone from the Pacific Northwest, from San Francisco to Vancouver, who could ever feel totally comfortable with Texas climate.
Part of the vast migration to Texas, and other similar climates, is the allure of the psychological lift people get. Not including you in the PNW, of course.
Yes. Can I just say that I am amused how, unlike most such threads on the internet, this one has de-escalated from a potential "flame-fest" rather than escalating until one or both of us mentions Hitler.
You're correct that I would not feel comfortable in Texas if I were here all the time. Fortunately, I have considerable flexibility which allows me to take the good that Dallas can offer, which includes cheap housing with open floor plans, mild winters, a respectable amount of "culture" that one finds in a major metro area, etc., and largely avoid the "bad" (IMHO), which would be the relative lack of natural beauty, very hot summers, lack of reasonably priced high quality seafood, and a few other things.
And yes, without that flexibility, I likely would not have come down here. Again, that's me. Other people "vote" differently. I freely admit to being very lucky in my life.
The Califugees who have fled to Texas just saw the writing on the wall.
Got here as quick[ly] as I could!
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.
).
