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.
A.) it's not "warm" there by almost any measure, and their average annual temperatures are similar to most Northern states.
B.) I wouldn't consider them part of the "Sun Belt" because they're among the least sunniest places in America
C.) growth patterns there aren't all that different from some Midwest/Northeast states or cities
what Northeastern metros grew as fast as Northwestern ones?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
From 1950-1996, Seattle grew by 197%, Portland grew by 195%. The only Northeastern metros that are comparable is Hartford, which sounds off, I suspect the borders of the MSA got changed to include a number of towns and cities that were separate (Hartford County itself grew by 60%), and DC/Baltimore, which is unusual because of federal government growth. The only Midwestern metros that approached Northwest levels of growth were Minneapolis, Columbus and Indianapolis, which again are all a bit of an outlier in the Midwest. Portland and Seattle growth rates were similar to the Bay Area and Los Angeles, however. But somewhat less than Denver (272%).
The term Sun Belt was developed by Kevin Phillips in his 1969 book the Emerging Republican Majority. It was invented as a political/demographic term to describe states which were rising in population and swinging towards the Republicans for a host of reasons. It was not originally meant as a climactic descriptor.
That said, my understanding is he did not include Oregon and Washington in his original definition. But as I said upthread, the growth patterns, and in places the strong reliance on defense and aerospace, meant there were some sun-belt like dynamics to the region.
what Northeastern metros grew as fast as Northwestern ones?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
From 1950-1996, Seattle grew by 197%, Portland grew by 195%. The only Northeastern metros that are comparable is Hartford, which sounds off, I suspect the borders of the MSA got changed to include a number of towns and cities that were separate (Hartford County itself grew by 60%), and DC/Baltimore, which is unusual because of federal government growth. The only Midwestern metros that approached Northwest levels of growth were Minneapolis, Columbus and Indianapolis, which again are all a bit of an outlier in the Midwest. Portland and Seattle growth rates were similar to the Bay Area and Los Angeles, however. But somewhat less than Denver (272%).
Why 1950-1996? If you're going to nitpick I can do the same. Why not 1900-2010? What about Maryland? Why are we providing excuses for D.C. or Harvard, or even the Midwestern cities?
My point is that their "explosive growth" isn't that unique in this country, and isn't necessarily limited to the Sun Belt. Along those same lines, I don't consider D.C., Minneapolis, Columbus, Indy or Maryland part of the Sun Belt either.
Why 1950-1996? If you're going to nitpick I can do the same. Why not 1900-2010? What about Maryland? Why are we providing excuses for D.C. or Harvard, or even the Midwestern cities?
The link had 1996, and I'm too lazy to calculate to 2010. I'd assume the pattern would be about the same.
Quote:
My point is that their "explosive growth" isn't that unique in this country, and isn't necessarily limited to the Sun Belt. Along those same lines, I don't consider D.C., Minneapolis, Columbus, Indy or Maryland part of the Sun Belt either.
Do you disagree?
No, however "explosive growth" isn't common in the Midwest/Northeast. DC is a bit of an outlier and almost part of the south. The other three aren't sunbelt, sure, but they're at the high end of the Midwest. Seattle and Portland would both be higher than them.
The term Sun Belt was developed by Kevin Phillips in his 1969 book the Emerging Republican Majority. It was invented as a political/demographic term to describe states which were rising in population and swinging towards the Republicans for a host of reasons. It was not originally meant as a climactic descriptor.
That said, my understanding is he did not include Oregon and Washington in his original definition. But as I said upthread, the growth patterns, and in places the strong reliance on defense and aerospace, meant there were some sun-belt like dynamics to the region.
The defense and aerospace industries had something to do with growth around Seattle/Tacoma/Everett(and Bremerton), but definitely not really anywhere in Oregon. Oregon always lacked any major military bases in the post-World War II era. The big transition in the state was from forestry/wood products to high tech for the most part.
No, I think the "Sunbelt" applies to places with both not as cold temperatures and high amounts of clear days, Oregon and Washington have the former but not the latter.
Its cold and expensive and cloudy! No way! San Fran isn't even in the the Sun Belt.
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.
