Which U.S. States on the decline? on the rise? (to buy, calculated)

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by ajf131

I was saying Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan were doing well Steve-O I guess due to the fact that Iowa and Wisconsin have likely the richest farmland in the Midwest, and I guess since the Twin Cities seem to have escaped their rustbelt reputation...I probably don't know what I'm talking about...forget I brought that up

I was confused because you said "with the exception of Michigan", then you listed Michigan as doing well. LOL And Michigan is really struggling right now, sadly. Its a beautiful state, with a bad economy. I can only hope that the Big 3 pick up and start booming again, MI needs it.

[bls5555]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Not really. Chicagoland is booming, southern IL is holding on for dear life if anything. Places like B-N and C-U are steady, experiencing some growth, but the far southern portions of the state are the definition of rust-belt.

Southern Illinois holding on for dear life? Not quite. Down here by St. Louis (which is considered Southern Illinois) we are BOOMING. Alot due to the fact that the suburbs on the Missouri side are pretty much as far out as you can go while still having a reasonable drive.

If you are refering to the very very southern Tip, then yes, but it's the middle of nowhere. There are places like that in every state.

Also, someone said they don't see Missouri as a potential state on the rise. You must not pay attention. Springfield, MO is currently in the midst of a great deal of growth. The Ozarks are a very popular place to retire to, and Columbia, MO from 2000-2006 had a job growth rate of almost 10%.

That's also not to mention that it is home to 2 major metropolitan areas. Missouri is going to be a great place to be in the coming years. Check out some of the Missouri suburbs of KC, like Liberty and Lee's Summit and see how job growth is. Missouri truly is a state on the rise.

Also from what I have heard, quite a bit of people are cashing out their houses in Cali and heading to the midwest where prices are reasonable and really even in winter the weather isn't to bad.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by bls5555

Southern Illinois holding on for dear life? Not quite. Down here by St. Louis (which is considered Southern Illinois) we are BOOMING. Alot due to the fact that the suburbs on the Missouri side are pretty much as far out as you can go while still having a reasonable drive.

If you are refering to the very very southern Tip, then yes, but it's the middle of nowhere. There are places like that in every state.

Also, someone said they don't see Missouri as a potential state on the rise. You must not pay attention. Springfield, MO is currently in the midst of a great deal of growth. The Ozarks are a very popular place to retire to, and Columbia, MO from 2000-2006 had a job growth rate of almost 10%.

That's also not to mention that it is home to 2 major metropolitan areas. Missouri is going to be a great place to be in the coming years. Check out some of the Missouri suburbs of KC, like Liberty and Lee's Summit and see how job growth is. Missouri truly is a state on the rise.

Also from what I have heard, quite a bit of people are cashing out their houses in Cali and heading to the midwest where prices are reasonable and really even in winter the weather isn't to bad.

I'm a lifelong Chicagoan, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize Illinois as "booming". The Chicago area has a good pace of growth, yet it's more in a "mature growth" phase (similar to, say, the New York metro area) as opposed to a rapid growth phase. The Illinois side of the St. Louis area is growing, but that's more at the expense of the city of St. Louis itself (that metro area is a case study where the population growth is pretty stagnant yet the physical sprawl of the metro area is growing rapidly). The rest of downstate Illinois has little to negative growth when compared to the country overall. The Kansas City metro, much like the St. Louis metro, might be growing outward physically but its population growth still lags behind the norms in the country right now. The only real metro areas in the Midwest that are experiencing true growth at all compared to the rest of the nation are Chicago and Minneapolis.

The big boomtowns, as mentioned before, are heavily tilted toward the major Southern and Southwestern cities that have relatively inexpensive real estate: Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Phoenix, and Las Vegas just to name a few. There might be Midwestern and Northeastern cities that are still gaining in population, but it is nothing on the scale of what those Sunbelt cities are experiencing right now.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm a lifelong Chicagoan, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize Illinois as "booming". The Chicago area has a good pace of growth, yet it's more in a "mature growth" phase (similar to, say, the New York metro area) as opposed to a rapid growth phase. The Illinois side of the St. Louis area is growing, but that's more at the expense of the city of St. Louis itself (that metro area is a case study where the population growth is pretty stagnant yet the physical sprawl of the metro area is growing rapidly). The rest of downstate Illinois has little to negative growth when compared to the country overall. The Kansas City metro, much like the St. Louis metro, might be growing outward physically but its population growth still lags behind the norms in the country right now. The only real metro areas in the Midwest that are experiencing true growth at all compared to the rest of the nation are Chicago and Minneapolis.

The big boomtowns, as mentioned before, are heavily tilted toward the major Southern and Southwestern cities that have relatively inexpensive real estate: Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Phoenix, and Las Vegas just to name a few. There might be Midwestern and Northeastern cities that are still gaining in population, but it is nothing on the scale of what those Sunbelt cities are experiencing right now.

Kendall County is "booming", as is Kane.

[Minnehahapolitan]

/\ I thought Mass. would grow because, while it is expensive, it maintains a good quality of life, a plethora of colleges and universities, a progressive spirit, and sound infrastructure and cultural amenities. Boston, and Mass., invests in the things that make places desirable to live. People will pay if they get something for it. I have the feeling alot of million dollar homes will be for sale in Miami. (Again, could be wrong) I thought Missouri will do well because it is quite inexpensive, naturally scenic, has two urban areas with a wealth of amnenities that can only be envied by places like Phoenix and Charlotte, a relatively mild climate and ample resources (ya know, like water) that alot of other states, some of which are in better shape right now, will want in the future. Wisconsin isn't doing bad right now, farmland is abundant for corn (and hopefully switchgrass, think green wiht me here) Milwaukee is a good city with which to anchor that state, Madison is one of the premier college towns in the nation. Illinois is more Chicago-centric. Chicago has the ability to pull the remainder of the state with it, but I don't think that 95% of Illinois has a bad effect (bar, of course, East St. Louis and Cairo) North Carolina produces mixed feelings in me, on one hand it has a good climate, good schools, decent cultural attractions, et. cetera which will do it well. On the other, there are many largish cities, but not a single large one that anchors the state for me. That is a liability along with the fact that it is growing so quickly in so little time. I feel we have already seen how not to grow (Los Angeles, Florida, Atlanta) and that N. Carolina may wantonly follow along those lines. I'm no seer and that list was subjunctive, but that is my opinion.

[bls5555]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm a lifelong Chicagoan, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize Illinois as "booming". .

I didn't say Illinois was booming. I said, Illinois down by St. Louis is booming.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by bls5555

I didn't say Illinois was booming. I said, Illinois down by St. Louis is booming.

I know that, which is why I said the following with respect to your comment: "The Illinois side of the St. Louis area is growing, but that's more at the expense of the city of St. Louis itself (that metro area is a case study where the population growth is pretty stagnant yet the physical sprawl of the metro area is growing rapidly)."

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm a lifelong Chicagoan, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize Illinois as "booming". The Chicago area has a good pace of growth, yet it's more in a "mature growth" phase (similar to, say, the New York metro area) as opposed to a rapid growth phase. The Illinois side of the St. Louis area is growing, but that's more at the expense of the city of St. Louis itself (that metro area is a case study where the population growth is pretty stagnant yet the physical sprawl of the metro area is growing rapidly). The rest of downstate Illinois has little to negative growth when compared to the country overall. The Kansas City metro, much like the St. Louis metro, might be growing outward physically but its population growth still lags behind the norms in the country right now. The only real metro areas in the Midwest that are experiencing true growth at all compared to the rest of the nation are Chicago and Minneapolis.

The big boomtowns, as mentioned before, are heavily tilted toward the major Southern and Southwestern cities that have relatively inexpensive real estate: Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Phoenix, and Las Vegas just to name a few. There might be Midwestern and Northeastern cities that are still gaining in population, but it is nothing on the scale of what those Sunbelt cities are experiencing right now.

Since when are St. Louis and Kansas City not real metros? LMAO St. Louis is like the 18th largest metro in the United States and KC is is in the lower 20s. Not real....that's a good one

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by bls5555

Southern Illinois holding on for dear life? Not quite. Down here by St. Louis (which is considered Southern Illinois) we are BOOMING. Alot due to the fact that the suburbs on the Missouri side are pretty much as far out as you can go while still having a reasonable drive.

If you are refering to the very very southern Tip, then yes, but it's the middle of nowhere. There are places like that in every state.

Also, someone said they don't see Missouri as a potential state on the rise. You must not pay attention. Springfield, MO is currently in the midst of a great deal of growth. The Ozarks are a very popular place to retire to, and Columbia, MO from 2000-2006 had a job growth rate of almost 10%.

That's also not to mention that it is home to 2 major metropolitan areas. Missouri is going to be a great place to be in the coming years. Check out some of the Missouri suburbs of KC, like Liberty and Lee's Summit and see how job growth is. Missouri truly is a state on the rise.

Also from what I have heard, quite a bit of people are cashing out their houses in Cali and heading to the midwest where prices are reasonable and really even in winter the weather isn't to bad.

Missouri in the Ozarks region is growing, I actually did mention that, however YOU obviously must not pay attention either. What I don't see is the entire state being on the rise. In any case, even if Missouri is growing right now, I wouldn't exactly classify the whole state as booming. St. Louis at least has remained relatively stagnant in its population in the metro area for some time now. But I guess compared to states like Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, yes Missouri has slightly more going for it. As for Illinois, as long as Chicago is there, I'd say it has a MUCH brighter outlook than Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. Chicago and St. Louis (the Metro East) are keeping Illinois I'd say in better shape overall than it's neighbors to the east.

[tablemtn]

I thought Mass. would grow because, while it is expensive, it maintains a good quality of life, a plethora of colleges and universities, a progressive spirit, and sound infrastructure and cultural amenities. Boston, and Mass., invests in the things that make places desirable to live. People will pay if they get something for it.

MA is one of the only states in the nation that is currently losing population... in fact, aside from Louisiana, I think the ONLY other state doing this is Michigan.

MA looks good on paper, but the economy just isn't very dynamic. High prices squeeze out young a lot of middle-class people. Boston itself is really showing the effects of this trend - its costs millions to get a property in Back Bay/Beacon Hill/downtown, and then there is an extremely sharp dropoff into the 'bad' neighborhoods to the south. It's very polarized. It's hard to be middle class (neither poor nor rich) in Boston.