Top Ten Metros for Growth 2000-2010

[bailey]

Top ten in growth in 1,000,000 plus metros from 2000-2010

1. Las Vegas, NV 41.8%
2. Raleigh, NC 41.8 [[squeaks in a 1.130 mill today from 800k in 2000)
3. Austin, TX 37.3
4 Charlotte-Gastonia, NC/SC 32.1
5. Riverside, Ca 29.8
6 Orlando, FL 29.8
7. Phoenix, Az 28.9
8. Houston Tx 26.1
9. San Antonio Tx. 25.2
10. Atlanta, GA. 24.0
11. Dallas, Tx 23.4% [[if you don't count Raleigh.)

That list has an awful lot of poster children for sprawl, anti urban growth policies, and lack light rail/decent mass transit....or if they got it, its pretty damn recent ...like Austin...they got it last year. Heck, until 2004...Houston was the reigning king of large cities without rail, yet Houston metro grew by the same amount Detroit [[city of) fell. Heck, most on that list saw more people move to that metro than live in Detroit proper today.

What these areas seem to have is a reason to be there. Orlando and Vegas have got to be top ten tourist destinations. Most if not all have major tier 1 [[some have several) universities located there. Most if not all thrive on a diverse knowledge based economy . A few are state capitals . Not one gets snow on a regular basis, but you can't tell me it's all snowbird retirees [[maybe phoenix..lol) And practically half the list is in Texas where they are pathological about keeping taxes down.

Looking at this list, is it a lack of jobs in a one trick pony economy and an onerous burden on doing business in this state or is being a sprawled out metro killing SeM?


longer list is here.. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/inter...aps-and-charts

Interesting to note that Chicago and NY were no where near the top ten in growth during the last decade. Have they peaked? Just mature with slow manageable growth?

40. Chicago 4.0% [[Chicago itself shrunk 6.9% which put it #7 on the shrinking cities list)
44. NYC.NJ 3.1%

50. Detroit-Warren-Livonia -3.5%

[DetroitPlanner]

Its not sprawl driving the growth, jobs are. The jobs are what fuels sprawl.

Austin has one of the most progressive set of transportation land use policies in the United States.

Las Vegas Blvd has Monorails and state of the art articulated buses. Thier key issue from sprawl is lack of water as Lake Mead sure looks empty lately.

[ghettopalmetto]

Its not sprawl driving the growth, jobs are. The jobs are what fuels sprawl.

Austin has one of the most progressive set of transportation land use policies in the United States.

Las Vegas Blvd has Monorails and state of the art articulated buses. Thier key issue from sprawl is lack of water as Lake Mead sure looks empty lately.

Jobs fuel population growth. Bad planning fuels sprawl.

[Mr. Houdini]

Interesting enough, however, many of those areas were hit as hard, if not harder than Detroit as far as home foreclosures, home value loss, and job loss. Las Vegas is worse off than Detroit in such areas for sure.

The unemployment rate here in Charlotte is no picnic, neither are the crime stats. It's as bad here as Detroit in those areas, yet people are moving here in droves, and they are moving to those areas on that list above, but are not moving to Michigan. Why? I don't know the answer as to why. Discuss...

[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]

Interesting enough, however, many of those areas were hit as hard, if not harder than Detroit as far as home foreclosures, home value loss, and job loss. Las Vegas is worse off than Detroit in such areas for sure.

The unemployment rate here in Charlotte is no picnic, neither are the crime stats. It's as bad here as Detroit in those areas, yet people are moving here in droves, and they are moving to those areas on that list above, but are not moving to Michigan. Why? I don't know the answer as to why. Discuss...

Michigan/Detroit get constantly head-slammed by the national press, while the media rehearses a damn sing-along to North Carolina's praises. Maybe someone should tell my friends thinking about moving to NC [[but have never been there) that things aren't all peaches and cream.

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

Frankly, I think this list is meaningless. Most of these cities are growing primarily due to growth in the Hispanic community--not because of fleeing Michiganders. Las Vegas has an economy propped-up by high-school dropouts. Charlotte had false prosperity based on rigged banking schemes. And Atlanta is Man's Largest Triumph of Marketing over Substance, and is about to stall out in 12 lanes of clogged traffic. And Riverside?--knock yourself out.

So-called "growth" doesn't mean jack shit.

[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.

[DetroitPlanner]

Jobs fuel population growth. Bad planning fuels sprawl.

Not neccessarily, planning in a fragmented society is mostly to blame. When Township A competes with City B for the same piece of the pie, they are going to do what they can to attract the jobs or development to thier turf. Now Township A may have a beautiful plan, but it plans in a vaccum.

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

Not neccessarily, planning in a fragmented society is mostly to blame. When Township A competes with City B for the same piece of the pie, they are going to do what they can to attract the jobs or development to thier turf. Now Township A may have a beautiful plan, but it plans in a vaccum.

Please explain. Most localities in the United States have adopted the exact same identical model zoning regulations--which is why 90% of our nation looks exactly the same. It would reason that if most places have the same zoning regulations, then the question of a "vacuum" is irrelevant.

Whether or not localities cooperate or not has nothing to do with automobile dependency, segregated land uses, and consumption of land at a rate greater than that of population growth.

[DetroitPlanner]

Please explain. Most localities in the United States have adopted the exact same identical model zoning regulations--which is why 90% of our nation looks exactly the same. It would reason that if most places have the same zoning regulations, then the question of a "vacuum" is irrelevant.

Whether or not localities cooperate or not has nothing to do with automobile dependency, segregated land uses, and consumption of land at a rate greater than that of population growth.

Planning in a vaccum means they are out for thier own self-interest not thier neighbor's. Many planning commissions think that if they can get say the Wendy's in thier jurisdiction instead of across the street its a feather in thier cap. Most planning commissions are made up of businessmen, not people trained as planners. Wendy's may ask them for a favor, say more parking or less landscaping. Therefore you get the giant race to the bottom.

Simularities in regs don't mean a whole lot if your commissioners allow a ton of variances.

[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.

[NorthEndere]

Someone that needs to be made note of is that a helluva lot of growth in many of these areas happened in the first half of the decade. Heck, Nevada demographers estimated that the state actually lost population in 2009. I bet if we did a census every five years we'd see some things that got inadvertantly covered up since we only do one every 10 years. A peek into this is that the Census overestimated the populations of places like Georgia and Arizona, which most likely mean that they adjusted their formula for estimating after the financial crash and subsequent recession.

I think Texas and North Carolina growth may be pretty sustained over the decade. Somewhere had to grow. But, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas will be seeing out-migration beating in-migration over this new decade, if they haven't already. That'll probably be offset by immigration and birthrates, but it'll mean a much slower [[and healthier, if you ask me) growth rate in the coming years.

Housing isn't going to ever be what it once was, and that's going to put a crimp in a lot of these places built on home construction. It means we'll see more even growth across the country for the first time in a very long time.

[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]

Planning in a vaccum means they are out for thier own self-interest not thier neighbor's. Many planning commissions think that if they can get say the Wendy's in thier jurisdiction instead of across the street its a feather in thier cap. Most planning commissions are made up of businessmen, not people trained as planners. Wendy's may ask them for a favor, say more parking or less landscaping. Therefore you get the giant race to the bottom.

Simularities in regs don't mean a whole lot if your commissioners allow a ton of variances.

You particularly get this in states where the state sales tax is shared with the locality generating the sales tax. In other words, on a 6% "take" the locality keeps 1.5% and sends in 4.5% to the state. Localities will kill for a big box store or a a large strip mall. You won't see local resistance to Super Walmarts there.

[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.

[Hermod]

Someone that needs to be made note of is that a helluva lot of growth in many of these areas happened in the first half of the decade. Heck, Nevada demographers estimated that the state actually lost population in 2009. I bet if we did a census every five years we'd see some things that got inadvertantly covered up since we only do one every 10 years. A peek into this is that the Census overestimated the populations of places like Georgia and Arizona, which most likely mean that they adjusted their formula for estimating after the financial crash and subsequent recession.

I think Texas and North Carolina growth may be pretty sustained over the decade. Somewhere had to grow. But, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas will be seeing out-migration beating in-migration over this new decade, if they haven't already. That'll probably be offset by immigration and birthrates, but it'll mean a much slower [[and healthier, if you ask me) growth rate in the coming years.

Housing isn't going to ever be what it once was, and that's going to put a crimp in a lot of these places built on home construction. It means we'll see more even growth across the country for the first time in a very long time.

You do have the retirement of the baby boomers happening right now. They would all like to live in low tax/no tax states. What is keeping them from moving to Phoenix, Tennessee, North Carolina, or Florida right now is the inability to sell their current house. Once houses start selling again, there will be migration.

[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?

[English]

Another factor that's helped the American Southwest is weather. Warm weather, lots of sun, low humidity, and with air conditioning, the summers are bearable.

[oladub]

U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Agriculture data found that the two sprawl factors share equally in the blame:

1) Per Capita Sprawl: About half the sprawl nationwide appears to be related to the land-use and consumption choices that lead to an increase in the average amount of urban land per resident.
2) Population Growth: The other half of sprawl is related to the increase in the number of residents
-numbersusa

Until 1970, immigration rates were about 250,000 a year. Now, immigration rates, legal and otherwise, are about 1,700,000 per year. That is like adding another Philadelphia every year. Even if planners stack people on top of each other, they will still need more roads, rails, parks, food production expansion areas, etc.. There doesn't seem to be much point in complaining about sprawl unless the reason for half the population growth is addressed.

Meanwhile, farms continue to consolidate and small prairie towns, not to mention Detroit, continue to lose population. Yet these bulldozed houses and depopulated areas are not considered when calculating sprawl.