Where will transplants in Austin go to next when the bubble pops? (Houston: 2014, homes)

[DeadSoul103]

Austin, hip, weird, extremely-liberal, transplant-land, luxurious, expensive, safe-haven, rude, elite-attitude, artificial, etc. (Terms people use to describe Austin)

After Austin goes through the cycle that many cities with similar vibes to Austin (Such as Portland, San Diego, Denver, etc.) go through, and people get tired of a high cost of living, attitude, hypocrisy, etc. which city will be the next "Hip town"?

For some reason I want to say it'll be in the south (again), but I wouldn't say in Texas. Since most Texas cities are moderate/ moderate-left leaning, I honestly can't see the next trendy city being here. (Dallas and Houston are diverse in terms of ethnicities, belief systems, cultures, backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, etc.)

Austin seems to stick with one notion, and that is "Keep Austin Weird" which some interpret as being more liberal, expensive, luxurious, safe-haven, elite-esq. Due to that along with other various factors, Austin is becoming more like "trendy" cities, and I wonder how long it'll last. Usually the bubble of a city will go *pop*, and this is where your population gets skewed more; in terms of immigration/emigration.

My top picks (Don't ask me why) are the following:

Nashville, Tennessee
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
(I can't think of any others)

Nashville: Since it has a solid music industry, music does attract younger individuals and increases the provided entertainment.

OK City: It's just a hunch, since the last time I've been to Oklahoma, it seems as if the outer ring of the city is abandoned, so therefore there is room for development. Any new development would more than likely be to cater towards younger individuals.

(These are my opinions, don't get angered if the way I describe Austin doesn't fit your description)

[testmo]

Living in Nashville is just as expensive as austin and Austin isnt that expensive for a real city. You can find a moderate home twenty miles from downtown. Try to find that in dallas or houston in a nice family area. People buy inexpensive homes in those two cities and theyre in rough areas or forty miles away. Thats like saying austin people have to live in bastrop. No one in austin says this


I agree Oklahoma city, Fayetteville arkansas, mobile alabama (im serious), resurgence of Orlando, and places like Minneapolis despite the weather (it'll be temperate in fifty years) and current blandness that is slowly changing

[verybadgnome]

Portland, San Diego, and Denver are still great places to live so I have no idea as to what the OP is going on about. As a general rule cities with high quality of life cost more as people with higher incomes and accumulated wealth choose to live in those places and in the process bid up prices.

[DeadSoul103]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Portland, San Diego, and Denver are still great places to live so I have no idea as to what the OP is going on about. As a general rule cities with high quality of life cost more as people with higher incomes and accumulated wealth choose to live in those places and in the process bid up prices.

Not the answer to my question, yes those cities are nice to live in but the local population's migration patterns do get skewed after the whole "trendy" setting gets calmer. Right now Austin is in the process of being the "new trendy city". After the trendy image settles down, cities tend to become more relaxed in terms of the people moving there, but most people who migrate towards the "new", "hip", etc. cities continue with whatever other city pops up as being new.

For instance an Austin transplant from L.A., who's lived in New York City, will probably move city once more if another trendy spot appears.

Secondly: Logical Fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation.

There are a load of examples of cities that are expensive to live in and are horrible, whether it be due to the lacking of transportation, socio-economic gaps, pollution, smaller *living spaces, etc.

*-Depends

[TXEX06]

I hope it's not San Antonio.
Introduction - In Photos: The Metro Areas That Are Magnets For Millennials - Forbes

[DSL_PWR]

hopefully wherever they came from in the first place..

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by DeadSoul103

Not the answer to my question, yes those cities are nice to live in but the local population's migration patterns do get skewed after the whole "trendy" setting gets calmer. Right now Austin is in the process of being the "new trendy city". After the trendy image settles down, cities tend to become more relaxed in terms of the people moving there, but most people who migrate towards the "new", "hip", etc. cities continue with whatever other city pops up as being new.

For instance an Austin transplant from L.A., who's lived in New York City, will probably move city once more if another trendy spot appears.

Secondly: Logical Fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation.

There are a load of examples of cities that are expensive to live in and are horrible, whether it be due to the lacking of transportation, socio-economic gaps, pollution, smaller *living spaces, etc.

*-Depends

You do realize the Texas state data center predicts that Travis County will grow to somewhere between 1.47 and 1.75 million by 2040? Currently it sits at about 1.07 million. These estimates are from professional demographers with reams of data to support their predictions.

TxSDC - 2014 Population Projections by Age Groups (Table 2) by County

If you look at the history of city of Austin going back to the 1850s you will see growth in every decade.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...istory_pub.pdf

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by DeadSoul103

Not the answer to my question, yes those cities are nice to live in but the local population's migration patterns do get skewed after the whole "trendy" setting gets calmer. Right now Austin is in the process of being the "new trendy city". After the trendy image settles down, cities tend to become more relaxed in terms of the people moving there, but most people who migrate towards the "new", "hip", etc. cities continue with whatever other city pops up as being new.

For instance an Austin transplant from L.A., who's lived in New York City, will probably move city once more if another trendy spot appears.

Secondly: Logical Fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation.

There are a load of examples of cities that are expensive to live in and are horrible, whether it be due to the lacking of transportation, socio-economic gaps, pollution, smaller *living spaces, etc.

*-Depends

So San Diego, Portland and Denver have lost population recently when their bubbles burst? From 1990 to 2000 Portland has gained 700k; San Diego has gained 600k; and Denver has gained 800k. Small populatoins may be fleeing from these cities yet their are net population gains and thus no alarmist scenario like you have proposed.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0020.pdf

[eastontracks]

idk about okc because i find it sorta dull and bland. people tend to migrate to areas with more appeal. at least those that perceive the place to be hip/trendy etc. i cant see that with okc. i agree with nashville but that image is already there imo.

never been but maybe the area of the carolinas? i also enjoy the scenery and area of little rock. i wasnt alive in the 70s but little rock is what i imagine austin being like in the 70s. albuquerque also has appeal. Little Rock and ABQ would be my choices.

[Trainwreck20]

Fayetteville, Arkansas

(the somewhat flawed premise notwithstanding).