Top Ten Metros for Growth 2000-2010

[iheartthed]

Nah, what they had were fake economies propped up by construction. North Carolina and Texas cities withstanding.

[bailey]

Nah, what they had were fake economies propped up by construction. North Carolina and Texas cities withstanding.

So that means 4 out of the ten shouldn't be there? Ok, drop them and you get Nashville, Jacksonville, Denver, and Sacramento on that list... all with 18 to 20% growth. #16 is D.C metro. Pretty sure DC metro is #1 worst commute in the country, yet in the last 10 years the entire population of Detroit up and moved there.

There have got to be 200 threads on this board decrying sprawl as an anathema to any sort of growth or recovery here. I'm simply asking if it's really the sprawl that is what is driving people away and/or preventing a recovery.

[BrushStart]

There have got to be 200 threads on this board decrying sprawl as an anathema to any sort of growth or recovery here. I'm simply asking if it's really the sprawl that is what is driving people away.

It's not sprawl, it's the lack of functional "urban" and the fact that people think of this place as a depressing, segregated, stifling doughnut.

[iheartthed]

So that means 4 out of the ten shouldn't be there? Ok, drop them and you get Nashville, Jacksonville, Denver, and Sacramento on that list... all with 18 to 20% growth. #16 is D.C metro. Pretty sure DC metro is #1 worst commute in the country, yet in the last 10 years the entire population of Detroit up and moved there.

There have got to be 200 threads on this board decrying sprawl as an anathema to any sort of growth or recovery here. I'm simply asking if it's really the sprawl that is what is driving people away and/or preventing a recovery.

The issue is complex but if you look at the states of the cities that you listed you'll see that the unemployment rates there are rivaling Michigan's, and in the case of Nevada it has surpassed Michigan. California is currently tied with Michigan because of the economic fall out that happened in the interior cities/counties like Riverside and Sacramento [[Riverside is just an exurb of Los Angeles) after the real estate market crashed. Those cities aren't just sprawling cities, their economies were built on sprawl.

I don't expect Vegas to be at the top of anyone's high growth list over the next 10 years, but it was #1 over the 2000-2010 decade. Vegas, like Detroit, lived by the sword and it will probably die by the same sword.

[BrushStart]

I don't expect Vegas to be at the top of anyone's high growth list over the next 10 years, but it was #1 over the 2000-2010 decade. Vegas, like Detroit, lived by the sword and it will probably die by the same sword.

After living in Vegas, I totally agree with this statement. That city has serious problems on the horizon. They are a one industry town, most people there are poorly educated and many don't speak English, they only have one competitive university [[UNLV), their hospitals are not good, they didn't invest in long-term infrastructure, the city sprawled out as far the the water table would let them, they overbuilt and have a massive overabundance of housing, their downtown is almost completely empty, there is wealth segregation, as well as high crime and drug addiction in many areas, and they possess absolutely no natural resources to sustain human life. In fact, massive immigration is the only thing stopping the desert quicksand from swallowing that city whole.

[Augustiner]

I'm not sure growth is necessarily the best measure of success. Growth doesn't equate to quality of life. Population shrinkage is a problem, because we don't know how to plan for it and deal with its consequences, but I don't think we should aspire to be a boomtown either.

[313WX]

After living in Vegas, I totally agree with this statement. That city has serious problems on the horizon. They are a one industry town, most people there are poorly educated and many don't speak English, they only have one competitive university [[UNLV), their hospitals are not good, they didn't invest in long-term infrastructure, the city sprawled out as far the the water table would let them, they overbuilt and have a massive overabundance of housing, their downtown is almost completely empty, there is wealth segregation, as well as high crime and drug addiction in many areas, and they possess absolutely no natural resources to sustain human life. In fact, massive immigration is the only thing stopping the desert quicksand from swallowing that city whole.

Hmm, other than the hospitals and water it sounds like Detroit.

Of course Detroit makes up for those with the crappy weather and blight.

[BrushStart]

Hmm, other than the hospitals and water it sounds like Detroit.

Of course Detroit makes up for those with the crappy weather and blight.

I think LV is much worse off than Detroit down the road. Metro Detroit's population is not as poorly educated, there many solid universities near Detroit, there is actually more economic diversity and wealth in Metro Detroit than in LV, and lastly, Detroit has the ability to branch out into new industries. Vegas' desert environment is simply prohibitive of many industries. The only thing that may help mitigate LV's problems is that Metro Las Vegas is so much smaller than Metro Detroit.

When you think about all of these things, you start to wonder how cities like LV and Phoenix had such a draw to begin with?

[Hermod]

When you think about all of these things, you start to wonder how cities like LV and Phoenix had such a draw to begin with?

Economic refugees from California or real estate speculators that foresee having beachfront property after the "big one" when California slides off under the sea.

[bailey]

I think LV is much worse off than Detroit down the road. Metro Detroit's population is not as poorly educated, there many solid universities near Detroit, there is actually more economic diversity and wealth in Metro Detroit than in LV, and lastly, Detroit has the ability to branch out into new industries. Vegas' desert environment is simply prohibitive of many industries. The only thing that may help mitigate LV's problems is that Metro Las Vegas is so much smaller than Metro Detroit.

If that were true, then how does one explain the last 30 years of decline here?

I mean, when exactly will the supposedly better educated populace and claimed economic diversity and new industries pull us from the current death spiral?

[Red Devil]

When you think about all of these things, you start to wonder how cities like LV and Phoenix had such a draw to begin with?

The draw of Vegas was cheap housing, good weather, and no state income tax. Old people from Cali could sell their bungalow, move to LV, and not have to pay state income tax on their California pension check [[if they were state employees, anyhow)

[Det_ard]

Nah, what they had were fake economies propped up by construction. North Carolina and Texas cities withstanding.

To a degree, yes, but even with the huge house price decline in many of those boomtowns, their houses are still worth more than they were in 2000. As opposed to Detroit where we're 35% under 2000 price levels.

The unemployment rate in some of the boomtowns is higher than it is here [[slightly) but the difference is that their populations grew say 35% while the economy grew 40% and then retrenched to a 30% level of growth. Their unemployment is veneered over a substrate of growth, while our unemployment is the result of economic shrinkage outpacing our population shrinkage.

What happened in the last decade in some of the most prolific growth metros was crazy, but it wasn't all fake home speculation growth. They are at higher population levels, higher economic activity levels and higher home price levels than they were a decade ago. Can't say that about Detroit.