The Outer Suburbs Are Once Again Outgrowing Cities

cawacko

Well-known member
The moving from North to South wasn't a surprise to me but the growth in the outer 'burbs was.




The Outer Suburbs Are Once Again Outgrowing Cities

New Census Bureau estimates show the Sun Belt shift regaining strength



Last year saw the strongest evidence yet that Americans are returning to traditional patterns in where they move—from cities to suburbs and from North to South—after a recession-driven pause of nearly a decade.

Central counties of metropolitan areas grew 0.7% last year while outlying counties grew 1%, according to new Census Bureau population estimates for the year that ended July 1.

After two years of roughly comparable growth, this marked the first time since the recession that outer suburbs clearly outgrew central cities and inner suburbs. As recently as 2012, central counties grew 0.9% and outlying counties, just 0.5%.

A combination of economic and demographic trends contributed to the shift, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. He said much of it can be traced to growing migration losses by central counties as job gains spread to more areas and industries. That has triggered recession-delayed movement by millennials establishing themselves and their families, he said.

The shift spells good news for Sun Belt metros that had seen strong migration from the North cut sharply since the housing-market collapse and recession of 2007-09. Las Vegas lost 5,000 movers more than it gained in 2011, but last year gained a net 28,000. Phoenix saw a gain of 4,000 in 2011 balloon to 51,000 last year. In Florida, many metros saw migration gains dip from 2015 but remain at more than twice the levels of 2011-13, including Tampa, Jacksonville, Deltona-Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Palm Bay and Port St. Lucie.

Within Sun Belt metros, gains are shifting to the edges. Davidson County, Tenn., the center of the 14-county Nashville metro, grew almost 1% last year, but a net 2,000 people moved to the rest of the country, its first net loss in domestic migration since the recession. However, suburban counties like Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson and Sumner continued to draw more movers than they lost, and grew an average of more than 3% last year.

Sun Belt gains are sapping some of the nation’s largest metros, which also face low birth rates, aging populations and scant immigration. Frey said that 16 of the 100 largest metros actually lost population last year, including Chicago, Cleveland, New Haven, Conn., Pittsburgh, Buffalo, N.Y., Milwaukee, Rochester, N.Y., and Akron, Ohio.

Other large metros continued to grow slowly, but saw migration gains as recent as 2011 turn into losses. Among them: Washington, Miami, Boston, San Diego, Louisville, Ky., and New Orleans.

The trend of migration losses even reached into Silicon Valley, where a red-hot tech economy has sent housing prices soaring. Last year the San Francisco metro area lost more residents to the rest of the country than it gained for the first time since the recession. Small annual losses in the San Jose metro area grew sharply. Together, they lost a net 33,000 movers to the rest of the country, up from an average of 17,000 in recent years. The overall population still grew slightly, boosted by immigration and a relatively high birth rate.

Rural counties next to metro areas also resumed growing, said Kenneth Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire. He said this reflects the return of edge-focused growth that prevailed before the recession.


http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2017/03/23/the-outer-suburbs-are-once-again-outgrowing-cities/
 
Is there a point to this?

Most Americans live in cities .. by far.

Growth in communities that surround major cities often grow simply because of a lack of space.

US Census Bureau: U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area

The fact that there is growth around the cities is an indication that Americans aren't rejecting the cities they live around .. just looking for affordable space.
 
Is there a point to this?

Most Americans live in cities .. by far.

Growth in communities that surround major cities often grow simply because of a lack of space.

US Census Bureau: U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area

The fact that there is growth around the cities is an indication that Americans aren't rejecting the cities they live around .. just looking for affordable space.

A (political) point? No.

I work in real estate and I find this kind of thing interesting. So no this wasn't posted to start a partisan argument but I don't believe every post on this board has to be about the President.

But since this is a political board we can argue why people are moving from the North to South. And people follow jobs so where are employers expanding?

And that census bureau number needs to be clarified. The Bay Area is home to over 6 million people. 1 million live in San Jose, almost a million in SF and 400K in Oakland. So more don't live in a City than do. But the 'burbs around them are still more urban than rural.
 
A (political) point? No.

I work in real estate and I find this kind of thing interesting. So no this wasn't posted to start a partisan argument but I don't believe every post on this board has to be about the President.

But since this is a political board we can argue why people are moving from the North to South. And people follow jobs so where are employers expanding?

And that census bureau number needs to be clarified. The Bay Area is home to over 6 million people. 1 million live in San Jose, almost a million in SF and 400K in Oakland. So more don't live in a City than do. But the 'burbs around them are still more urban than rural.

This isn't about Trump, but your thread follows other threads on this subject from right-wing fools who do want to make a political/partisan/racist point about the issue.

I'm not accusing you of that .. but the point should be made that the vast majority of Americans live in and around major cities .. thus heading off the political/partisan/racist comments that you thread is sure to attract.
 
This isn't about Trump, but your thread follows other threads on this subject from right-wing fools who do want to make a political/partisan/racist point about the issue.

I'm not accusing you of that .. but the point should be made that the vast majority of Americans live in and around major cities .. thus heading off the political/partisan/racist comments that you thread is sure to attract.

I didn't post this when them in mind. Economics matters to everyone and people (tend to) move where jobs are. Why are some of these areas growing and others not?

As for cities many are too expensive for millennials to afford a home so they are less likely to put down roots there. Many still buy into the American Dream of buying a home and our tax code encourages it. That may not have an effect on cities today but it will long term with an aging population.
 
I didn't post this when them in mind. Economics matters to everyone and people (tend to) move where jobs are. Why are some of these areas growing and others not?

As for cities many are too expensive for millennials to afford a home so they are less likely to put down roots there. Many still buy into the American Dream of buying a home and our tax code encourages it. That may not have an effect on cities today but it will long term with an aging population.

Many cities around the Midwest are still suffering from the industrial age, thus not growing as fast as others.

As the population ages, most Americans will still live in and around major cities to have access to the services they need.
 
Many cities around the Midwest are still suffering from the industrial age, thus not growing as fast as others.

As the population ages, most Americans will still live in and around major cities to have access to the services they need.

More the warm weather areas for retirees hence the growth in Florida, Arizona and Nevada. Reasons that will continue as Baby Boomers age.
 
More the warm weather areas for retirees hence the growth in Florida, Arizona and Nevada. Reasons that will continue as Baby Boomers age.

Even there they move to the cities or areas close to them.

There are very few pilgrims left. :0)
 
Even there they move to the cities or areas close to them.

There are very few pilgrims left. :0)

I live in a City but I'm not arguing pro or anti city. The numbers are the numbers. What's interesting to me is why the outer suburbs numbers grew this time.
 
I live in a City but I'm not arguing pro or anti city. The numbers are the numbers. What's interesting to me is why the outer suburbs numbers grew this time.

That doesn't surprise me .. nor the fact that the vast number of Americans live in or around major cities. The numbers prove that.

I live in a city that has a booming metro/outer city. Recently a major bridge collapsed .. which means MAJOR headaches for the people who live outside the city trying to get back into the city where real life happens. :0)

Point being, the cities are and will always remain the center of modern American life.
 
That doesn't surprise me .. nor the fact that the vast number of Americans live in or around major cities. The numbers prove that.

I live in a city that has a booming metro/outer city. Recently a major bridge collapsed .. which means MAJOR headaches for the people who live outside the city trying to get back into the city where real life happens. :0)

Point being, the cities are and will always remain the center of modern American life.

""Last year saw the strongest evidence yet that Americans are returning to traditional patterns in where they move—from cities to suburbs and from North to South—after a recession-driven pause of nearly a decade.""

The first sentence in the article. I live in San Francisco but you can't get a single family home for less than $1 million (more like less than $1.3) and private schools cost $20K - $45K. When my daughter is older I won't be able to afford that. It's crazy.

I'm coming to Atlanta in two weeks. They better have that bridge fixed!!
 
""Last year saw the strongest evidence yet that Americans are returning to traditional patterns in where they move—from cities to suburbs and from North to South—after a recession-driven pause of nearly a decade.""

The first sentence in the article. I live in San Francisco but you can't get a single family home for less than $1 million (more like less than $1.3) and private schools cost $20K - $45K. When my daughter is older I won't be able to afford that. It's crazy.

I'm coming to Atlanta in two weeks. They better have that bridge fixed!!

I'm not disagreeing with you good brother. The growth of the metro areas are expected .. for many of the reasons that you cite. My point is that cities will remain the centers.

If you're coming here in two weeks .. my condolences. :0(

It may take up to 9 months to repair the bridge and roads on both sides. It was like putting a cork in the flow of traffic.

Everywhere in Atlanta .. a super busy city .. is affected.
 
The moving from North to South wasn't a surprise to me but the growth in the outer 'burbs was.




The Outer Suburbs Are Once Again Outgrowing Cities

New Census Bureau estimates show the Sun Belt shift regaining strength



Last year saw the strongest evidence yet that Americans are returning to traditional patterns in where they move—from cities to suburbs and from North to South—after a recession-driven pause of nearly a decade.

Central counties of metropolitan areas grew 0.7% last year while outlying counties grew 1%, according to new Census Bureau population estimates for the year that ended July 1.

After two years of roughly comparable growth, this marked the first time since the recession that outer suburbs clearly outgrew central cities and inner suburbs. As recently as 2012, central counties grew 0.9% and outlying counties, just 0.5%.

A combination of economic and demographic trends contributed to the shift, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. He said much of it can be traced to growing migration losses by central counties as job gains spread to more areas and industries. That has triggered recession-delayed movement by millennials establishing themselves and their families, he said.

The shift spells good news for Sun Belt metros that had seen strong migration from the North cut sharply since the housing-market collapse and recession of 2007-09. Las Vegas lost 5,000 movers more than it gained in 2011, but last year gained a net 28,000. Phoenix saw a gain of 4,000 in 2011 balloon to 51,000 last year. In Florida, many metros saw migration gains dip from 2015 but remain at more than twice the levels of 2011-13, including Tampa, Jacksonville, Deltona-Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Palm Bay and Port St. Lucie.

Within Sun Belt metros, gains are shifting to the edges. Davidson County, Tenn., the center of the 14-county Nashville metro, grew almost 1% last year, but a net 2,000 people moved to the rest of the country, its first net loss in domestic migration since the recession. However, suburban counties like Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson and Sumner continued to draw more movers than they lost, and grew an average of more than 3% last year.

Sun Belt gains are sapping some of the nation’s largest metros, which also face low birth rates, aging populations and scant immigration. Frey said that 16 of the 100 largest metros actually lost population last year, including Chicago, Cleveland, New Haven, Conn., Pittsburgh, Buffalo, N.Y., Milwaukee, Rochester, N.Y., and Akron, Ohio.

Other large metros continued to grow slowly, but saw migration gains as recent as 2011 turn into losses. Among them: Washington, Miami, Boston, San Diego, Louisville, Ky., and New Orleans.

The trend of migration losses even reached into Silicon Valley, where a red-hot tech economy has sent housing prices soaring. Last year the San Francisco metro area lost more residents to the rest of the country than it gained for the first time since the recession. Small annual losses in the San Jose metro area grew sharply. Together, they lost a net 33,000 movers to the rest of the country, up from an average of 17,000 in recent years. The overall population still grew slightly, boosted by immigration and a relatively high birth rate.

Rural counties next to metro areas also resumed growing, said Kenneth Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire. He said this reflects the return of edge-focused growth that prevailed before the recession.


http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2017/03/23/the-outer-suburbs-are-once-again-outgrowing-cities/
It would have been nice to know if the change in the increase in outer suburban growth was due to folks emigrating from a rural community to the suburbs or from central city out to the burbs? Is there a delta between them? Birthrates a big factor too. Was the population growth in the suburbs due to fecundity?

It could be that us suburban folk got that groove goin on and is makin more babies.

This also could be evidence of why we need major immigration reform. States should have more of a say on immigration. Why shouldn't a State have more liberal immigration laws than another? Why shouldn't they be able to compensate for emigration out of the State with immigration into the State. Let me put it like this. The service industry in most major U.S. cities swims or drowns on immigrant labor. Mostly Mexican. A pinch is definitely being felt in the major rust belt cities for Immigrant labor but not enough to see any significant increases in wages...that's a wait and see but there is a pinch. I hear a lot of the people in Restaurant and Hotel business complaining when there is turnover. Hard to find replacements.
 
Many cities around the Midwest are still suffering from the industrial age, thus not growing as fast as others.

As the population ages, most Americans will still live in and around major cities to have access to the services they need.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's been a pattern for a long, long time that the "best and the brightest" of the surplus of small town young adults chase bigger income possibilities in the City. That dynamic has been going on for long time. Those folks also tend to return to those same small towns when they achieve a certain level of financial security.
 
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's been a pattern for a long, long time that the "best and the brightest" of the surplus of small town young adults chase bigger income possibilities in the City. That dynamic has been going on for long time. Those folks also tend to return to those same small towns when they achieve a certain level of financial security.

1481199788250.png


Clearly the vast majority of Americans live in urban areas .. and given that there is no comparison to services delivered in urban areas vs rural, I would think that seniors would want to live where they have access to hospitals, clinics, and a variety of services they need.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
 
1481199788250.png


Clearly the vast majority of Americans live in urban areas .. and given that there is no comparison to services delivered in urban areas vs rural, I would think that seniors would want to live where they have access to hospitals, clinics, and a variety of services they need.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Florida and Arizona are obviously popular places for retirees. There are many communities in Florida that are not in Miami, Tampa or Orlando. Naples is one that comes to mind. I don't know if that is either urban or rural but it's a popular place.
 
Florida and Arizona are obviously popular places for retirees. There are many communities in Florida that are not in Miami, Tampa or Orlando. Naples is one that comes to mind. I don't know if that is either urban or rural but it's a popular place.

Agreed.

It all comes down to choice.
 
That doesn't surprise me .. nor the fact that the vast number of Americans live in or around major cities. The numbers prove that.

I live in a city that has a booming metro/outer city. Recently a major bridge collapsed .. which means MAJOR headaches for the people who live outside the city trying to get back into the city where real life happens. :0)

Point being, the cities are and will always remain the center of modern American life.

Most of the critical urban infrastructure is appearing in the suburbs. I have a hospital next door to me, and a plethora of clinics. Lots of fine restaurants and shopping surrounds me. The only real reasons for me to head up to Seattle are sports, conventions, the symphony, and some sightseeing.
 
Most of the critical urban infrastructure is appearing in the suburbs. I have a hospital next door to me, and a plethora of clinics. Lots of fine restaurants and shopping surrounds me. The only real reasons for me to head up to Seattle are sports, conventions, the symphony, and some sightseeing.

Good for you brother. I have no problem with your choice of where to live.

Personally, I love Seattle life. 3 major lakes within the city limits, a spectacular view any and everywhere you live in the city, Puget Sound, Pike's Market, Canadians everywhere, the nation's capital of interracial relationships, Native Americans, salmon in the streams .. on and on.

I loved it .. before large checks and opportunity dragged me to an even larger city.
 
A (political) point? No.

I work in real estate and I find this kind of thing interesting. So no this wasn't posted to start a partisan argument but I don't believe every post on this board has to be about the President.

But since this is a political board we can argue why people are moving from the North to South. And people follow jobs so where are employers expanding?

And that census bureau number needs to be clarified. The Bay Area is home to over 6 million people. 1 million live in San Jose, almost a million in SF and 400K in Oakland. So more don't live in a City than do. But the 'burbs around them are still more urban than rural.

Does it ever do otherwise ?
It goes faster or slower as the economy goes but the money creeps outward.
 
Back
Top