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.
Considering that this movement from the Northeast has been going on for much of the post WWII era (New York State LOST population in the 1970s), and that smart growth is an urban planning movement which is nationwide, and has only gained mainstream attraction in the past 15 or so years, I would argue that there is not much of a correlation at all. Rather much of the outward migration (at least from the Northeast) has been from the decline of industrial jobs.
Basically.....NY State has has modest gains in later censuses, but the decline of manufacturing(which peaked in national employment in 1979), has a lot to do with out migration. Interestingly, in 1970, most of the major NY metros had some of the highest percentages of people 25 and older with at least a Bachelor's degree in the country. So, there has always been a degree of balance in the economies of NY metros. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...reas.html?_r=0
Six of the seven continents have been experiencing declining birthrates for several years if not over the past decade or even longer, with Africa being the exception.
California is being devastated by its progressive policies, starting with our Governor and his 'Moonbeam Express' of a so-called high-speed train, which won't come close to being a true HSR system, which explains the plunging birthrate in this state, as well as rock bottom numbers of children under the age of 5 which are at unprecedented levels and continually declining, which will turn out to be devastating for the state's already underwater fiscal predicament.
Then there's those REALLY gruesome pension obligations..........
Six of the seven continents have been experiencing declining birthrates for several years if not over the past decade or even longer, with Africa being the exception.
California is being devastated by its progressive policies, starting with our Governor and his 'Moonbeam Express' of a so-called high-speed train, which won't come close to being a true HSR system, which explains the plunging birthrate in this state, as well as rock bottom numbers of children under the age of 5 which are at unprecedented levels and continually declining, which will turn out to be devastating for the state's already underwater fiscal predicament.
Then there's those REALLY gruesome pension obligations..........
How exactly does a new train line connect to declining birthrates?
I'm not sure I understand the OP's argument. While I'm not well versed on "Smart Growth" it seems to me it couldn't do anything except lower housing prices, or at least slow down their escalation.
Let's say you have a sprawly metro which isn't very walkable. Your housing choices basically boil down to either renting a "garden apartment" or renting/owning a detached single-family house on a somewhat large lot. So even if you desire say a walkup apartment/condo in a mid or highrise building. Or a townhouse which fronts right on the street. Or to live in a loft in a converted old factory. You're just out of luck - just enjoy your raised ranch or split level.
Now add in a decade of smart growth policy. Now there are more housing options available for those who do not want detached single-family housing. Thus the demand for this housing form falls somewhat, and prices should ease up a bit as well.
The only way I can see that "smart growth" could actually lead to higher prices for SFH is if a large number of houses in city cores were bought out and knocked down for "densification," there was still some growth in demand for SFH (due to natural population growth say), and there was literally no new construction taking place on the exurban fringes. But even under this scenario houses should almost always be less expensive than if no conversions took place, unless a single municipality controlled the entire metro and applied urban land-use rules even at the outermost fringes. Practically speaking this is untrue almost everywhere - there's almost always either independent municipalities or unincorporated county land which has laxer development rules, and the exceptions are in places like the South where "Smart Growth" is not taking place now anyway.
People may be leaving parts of the Northeast, but not New York City.
Which underscores the theory that population declines in the Northeast are tied to job losses. NYC has jobs and its population continues to grow. Upstate NY and central and western PA have lost and not replaced their heavy industry jobs and continue to lose population.
Why are people moving to North Dakota? It's not for good schools or low COL or wonderful climate. It's for jobs.
You are pushing the endless greener pastures myth. Just build a little more here, a little more there and land is essentially infinite. Sorry, it's just not workable. Water supplies alone will limit it. Wtness the California drought, which I hope sends a resounding message, finally. People don't respect limits until a wall is hit. Even in apparently lush Portland Metro, some suburbs are planning to draw from the Willamette river to accommodate more growth.
We should heed the same growth limits we expect of other species vs. constant exceptions for our own kind and the blessed "economy" aka debt-based pyramid scheme.
It's no more intelligent to grow the population forever on a big planet than a small island. The scale is the only difference. Growthism is a sick philosophy either way. When you ask growth-apologists when it must finally stop, they change the subject or mumble platitudes. They constantly kick a fatter can down the road.
Thinking people see that perpetual growth of the human population and economy is insane, being as this is a finite planet. But that's too logical and "uneconomical" for money-driven zombies.
Sites like Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy have a workable alternative but few drones will take note. They want in on the Ponzi scheme while it lasts, and don't care that it's based on fossil fuel capital, not renewable energy income.
This is what I've thought for a while. Endless growth=endless problems. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more gas used, etc. all at a cheaper monetary cost.
LA is a good example of the harms of sprawl. Houston, Raleigh, and other cities will all get these problems eventually, if the oil doesn't run out first.
If you look at growth stats its not the NE that is getting the growth. In working population its job growth that controls many as to where they live combined with COL. But the big changes is that 26% of population is retiring with the boomers not tied to jobs. But with wealth they control it even moves jobs. The center of the country is gaining the most because of jobs and otherwise boomers are looking for lifestyle and COL ;plain and simple. Look at representatives added to see reality of demographics shift.
Boston is one of the best-educated cities in the country and has a lower cost of living than San Francisco, so why would anybody want to leave? Is Taxachusetts driving residents elsewhere?
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.
