By 2060, the American South Could Be Three Times as Urbanized

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

I'm not sure what violence and political instability in other countries really has to do with the South's, the Southeast and Texas, growth as a whole.

Really?

You realize the growth in Texas is almost entirely due to immigration, right? Most of that consists of Mexicans fleeing violence and instability in Mexico, and specifically Mexicans of means relocating their families and businesses in Texas. Texas has replaced California as the gateway state for Mexicans, and the in-migration is almost entirely from violence-scarred Northern Mexico.

The Texas Medical Center owes its growth to upper class Mexicans, the San Antonio housing and retail housing market owes its growth to upper class Mexicans, the massive number of north-of-border start-ups is directly related to the rich moving families/businesses to Texas. Monterrey, in particular, has lost the bulk of its upper class to Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, all in the last 5-10 years.

And South and Central Florida are similarly intertwined with south-of-the-border strife. The gigantic increase in Argentine and Venezuelan migration (from basically zero a few years ago) is directly related to the domestic political and economic strife, where the wealthy all seek to move families and assets to South and Central Florida. The current South Florida condo boom is almost entirely due to South Americans moving people/assets to the States.

Originally Posted by novawolverine

The South becoming significantly more urban is not even an ambitious prediction. Unless growth were to slow to nothing or into the negative category, which is highly unlikely, the area will become more urban due to Americans' taste changing and macroeconomic issues that most Americans will be facing.

The South will become more urban by the Census definition of urban, that is true. But likely not by the SSP definition of urban. The U.S. has never been as suburban as today, and the South is overwhelmingly the most suburban part of the U.S. Growth in the South is almost entirely suburban, with rural areas declining, and urban cores quite small. New Orleans, easily the most urban Southern city, has a tiny urban core relative to the most urban cities in the U.S.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The South will become more urban by the Census definition of urban, that is true. But likely not by the SSP definition of urban. The U.S. has never been as suburban as today, and the South is overwhelmingly the most suburban part of the U.S. Growth in the South is almost entirely suburban, with rural areas declining, and urban cores quite small. New Orleans, easily the most urban Southern city, has a tiny urban core relative to the most urban cities in the U.S.

True!

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really?

You realize the growth in Texas is almost entirely due to immigration, right? Most of that consists of Mexicans fleeing violence and instability in Mexico, and specifically Mexicans of means relocating their families and businesses in Texas. Texas has replaced California as the gateway state for Mexicans, and the in-migration is almost entirely from violence-scarred Northern Mexico.

The Texas Medical Center owes its growth to upper class Mexicans, the San Antonio housing and retail housing market owes its growth to upper class Mexicans, the massive number of north-of-border start-ups is directly related to the rich moving families/businesses to Texas. Monterrey, in particular, has lost the bulk of its upper class to Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, all in the last 5-10 years.

And South and Central Florida are similarly intertwined with south-of-the-border strife. The gigantic increase in Argentine and Venezuelan migration (from basically zero a few years ago) is directly related to the domestic political and economic strife, where the wealthy all seek to move families and assets to South and Central Florida. The current South Florida condo boom is almost entirely due to South Americans moving people/assets to the States.




The South will become more urban by the Census definition of urban, that is true. But likely not by the SSP definition of urban. The U.S. has never been as suburban as today, and the South is overwhelmingly the most suburban part of the U.S. Growth in the South is almost entirely suburban, with rural areas declining, and urban cores quite small. New Orleans, easily the most urban Southern city, has a tiny urban core relative to the most urban cities in the U.S.

I suspect from your stereotypical comments that you have very little actual experience in and around the South, but still love to make very authoritative statements based on what you've read or heard. It's ridiculous to read some of them.

[Shawn]

^ Crawford also has upper class Mexican family with first-hand experience in this matter, as I understand it. He's married to one.

[chris08876]

Crawford is right with that post. I see nothing wrong with what he said. (in post #61)

Although I would also say that a big part of growth in Texas is also from transplants across the U.S.. International immigration (legal or illegal) of course, but also domestic migration. More so than immigration from other countries.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I suspect from your stereotypical comments that you have very little actual experience in and around the South, but still love to make very authoritative statements based on what you've read or heard. It's ridiculous to read some of them.

I suspect from your stereotypical responses that you have very little actual evidence to refute the claims being made, but still love to make very authoritative statements based on your desire to hide your inability to fully accept some of your insecurities about where you live. It's ridiculous you'd even bother responding.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really?

You realize the growth in Texas is almost entirely due to immigration, right? Most of that consists of Mexicans fleeing violence and instability in Mexico, and specifically Mexicans of means relocating their families and businesses in Texas. Texas has replaced California as the gateway state for Mexicans, and the in-migration is almost entirely from violence-scarred Northern Mexico.

The Texas Medical Center owes its growth to upper class Mexicans, the San Antonio housing and retail housing market owes its growth to upper class Mexicans, the massive number of north-of-border start-ups is directly related to the rich moving families/businesses to Texas. Monterrey, in particular, has lost the bulk of its upper class to Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, all in the last 5-10 years.

And South and Central Florida are similarly intertwined with south-of-the-border strife. The gigantic increase in Argentine and Venezuelan migration (from basically zero a few years ago) is directly related to the domestic political and economic strife, where the wealthy all seek to move families and assets to South and Central Florida. The current South Florida condo boom is almost entirely due to South Americans moving people/assets to the States.

I'm talking about urbanization and future growth. Are you blaming Mexicans for the South being the sprawly mess that it has become? If not, than you shouldn't then say that if things were to change course to such an unrealistic extent and Mexicans leaving or not coming here will be to blame for the South not urbanizing.

With regards to Texas, yes a lot of the migration of Latinos into Texas over the past few decades is due to strife within their home countries. I don't think that'll be ending anytime soon, and I don't think it'll be reversing any time soon, either. The Mexicans in Texas are here having kids and starting families and businesses and whatnot as you say. The affects of their migration to Texas over the past few generations will be felt for future generations, so predicting what will happen in the next generation or two in that respect is not a complete crapshoot at this point. If Mexico improves in the next decade or so, that doesn't mean that Texas is going to slow down dramatically growth-wise. The US actually experiences some benefits with trade if Mexico become more like a first-world country, and Texas will be a big part of this.

With respect to South Florida, it already is urban. That's not going to end anytime soon, even if Venezuela and Colombia become better places in the near term. Meanwhile, South Florida has geographic constraints that have led to it being what it is today, so that's not going to end, and it might even get exasperated with climate change occurring.

Even Central Florida, these areas have sprawled so much, it's hard to imagine it getting significantly worse before it gets better.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The South will become more urban by the Census definition of urban, that is true. But likely not by the SSP definition of urban. The U.S. has never been as suburban as today, and the South is overwhelmingly the most suburban part of the U.S. Growth in the South is almost entirely suburban, with rural areas declining, and urban cores quite small. New Orleans, easily the most urban Southern city, has a tiny urban core relative to the most urban cities in the U.S.

I agree with everything that you say, but here we have an article that should be something people on this site would celebrate and it becomes another opportunity to bash the South.

To reiterate, the US, AS A WHOLE, is shifting to a more urban trajectory with respect to planning and people's lifestyle tastes.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

It's really hilarious to me hearing from people from sprawly areas bash the South as if things are so much better. The only region that has had modern policies that seem truly ahead of the curve to me is the Pacific Northwest. Most other areas have some of the undesirable crap that people complain about.

whether by urban policy or economics, sprawl in most other parts of non-south (particularly the west) is relatively dense, and on top of that, there is a widespread agreement among leaders in non-south cities that sprawl is the wrong direction for growth.

most of the south is decades behind the rest of the nation on mere recognition of this (among other things). It is a values issue (cultural), and generally speaking, it's pretty easy to see that if the electorate is either uneducated and/or in denial of these issues, it follows that its elected will be even more backwards and resistant to change. I find it humorous that the things southern forumers cite as "progress" occurs in relative isolation and at levels not significant enough to amount to anything.

denial has been in the south's DNA since the civil war. it's southern culture.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

To reiterate, the US, AS A WHOLE, is shifting to a more urban trajectory with respect to planning and people's lifestyle tastes.

much more substantial progress in other parts of the country is the only luxury which affords your ability to make such a broad generalization. in other words, you are riding the coattails of the non-south, by making this unsubstantial claim.

how much of your claim "as a whole" can be attributed to actual secular change in the way Southern cities are zoning, building, and expanding transit options for average residents? exactly.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by edluva

whether by urban policy or economics, sprawl in most other parts of non-south (particularly the west) is relatively dense, and on top of that, there is a widespread agreement among leaders in non-south cities that sprawl is the wrong direction for growth.

I agree with you, and you may not believe this but leaders in the southern cities in 2014 also believe that sprawl is the wrong direction for growth.

Originally Posted by edluva

most of the south is decades behind the rest of the nation on mere recognition of this (among other things). It is a values issue (cultural), and generally speaking, it's pretty easy to see if the electorate is either uneducated and/or in denial of these issues, and its elected will be even more backwards. I find it humorous that the things southern forumers cite as "progress" occurs in relative isolation and at levels not significant to amount to anything.

denial has been in the south's blood since the civil war. it's southern culture.

I'm not a Southerner, btw. I live in in Cambridge, MA, and I've spent most of my life in the midwest and the northeast and the farthest south I've lived is Arlington, VA. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Have you seen the sprawl in northeast and midwest, it's nothing worth bragging about even if it's denser. If the South had the architectural and infrastructure that the North had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What I don't understand is why people have to digress as you have into other rants "denial has been in the south's blood since the civil war. it's southern culture." and not discuss the issue at hand. Yes, the South is behind the rest of the nation, but what does that have to do with what's going on in the future, the near-term and the long-term, which is what this article is talking about? We see that the city centers are growing and that there's more embracing of TOD's, that the McMansions of the past and the associated lending practices are not as prevalent as they once were. We see clogged highways, water shortages, energy constraints, etc. so why is there the need to look backwards and bash the South when an article like this comes out saying that the region is going to become denser, and we can see from popular developments that the "progress" that you speak of is not in relative isolation?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

I'm talking about urbanization and future growth. Are you blaming Mexicans for the South being the sprawly mess that it has become? If not, than you shouldn't then say that if things were to change course to such an unrealistic extent and Mexicans leaving or not coming here will be to blame for the South not urbanizing.

Reading comprehension!

Thats not what he said.

I think you are letting your emotions stifle your logic.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by edluva

much more substantial progress in other parts of the country is the only luxury which affords your ability to make such a broad generalization. in other words, you are riding the coattails of the non-south, by making this unsubstantial claim.

You are so jaded on this subject and appear to have a bone to pick with the South, I don't have anything to discuss with you on this topic. Whether there's much more substantial progress occurring in other parts or not is frankly irrelevant if you simply look at what forms the popular developments nowadays are taking.

Originally Posted by edluva

how much of your claim "as a whole" can be attributed to actual secular change in the way Southern cities are zoning, building, and expanding transit options for "average" residents? exactly.

What are you talking about? We are seeing more urban developments and more transit expanding in many areas of the South that didn't have them before. I know you want to drive more of a wedge into this issue, but I'm speaking broadly for Millenials when I say that we don't want to live in cul-de-sac neighborhoods filled with McMansions. When the time comes for us to upgrade or getting more space due to having families and whatnot, it will not be in the same form as the last 30 years, it'll be something better than what we've been seeing even if it's not perfect.

And what do you mean by "average residents"? Why is that qualifier needed. That's like asking what benefits gentrification has had on "average" or "working class" residents of cities like DC, Philly, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, etc. as if that precludes those places from improving from what they were before.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Reading comprehension!

Thats not what he said.

I think you are letting your emotions stifle your logic.

This is hilarious coming from you. Did I say that's what he said? The rhetorical question I asked shows how flawed it is to attribute what is happening in Mexico and South America as major factors with respect to the planning we've seen in the past and will see in the future.

You cherry-pick what you want. You're yet another person in this thread who is avoiding the topic at hand. Whether or not the South grows at the rate it has, which no one knows and hardly anyone is saying, is irrelevant to whether or not the area as a whole will become more urban, which is dependent on factors beyond the GDP growth rates.

I repeat, what large affects do Mexican and South American politics/economics have to do with the South becoming more urban in the future?

[edluva]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

We see that the city centers are growing and that there's more embracing of TOD's, that the McMansions of the past ...and we can see from popular developments that the "progress" that you speak of is not in relative isolation?

actually, "progress" is in relative isolation. Atlanta is the only one with what can be called a "network" of any kind. notice I said secular change.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by edluva

actually, "progress" is in relative isolation. Atlanta is the only one with what can be called a "network" of any kind. notice I said secular change.

So come back in a decade and see what has happened before speaking so authoritatively. No one is saying that the South doesn't have some of the worst sprawl out there. What changing is people's tastes and the trajectory that we've been following.

I see denser developments and less sprawly ones than before in the DC area, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, really all of the big metro's in the South. Feel free to include Miami there as well.

The way people think is changing. People are becoming more community focused. And we know that Millenials are not as attracted to the sprawlburbs that they grew up in. They are more attracted to the cities which have an allure to them unlike their parents who tended to flee these places. Even when more Millenials have families, the big house with the big lawn and three-car garage is not going to be what completes their life.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

It's really hilarious to me hearing from people from sprawly areas bash the South as if things are so much better. The only region that has had modern policies that seem truly ahead of the curve to me is the Pacific Northwest. Most other areas have some of the undesirable crap that people complain about.

Where people commenting are from is irrelevant. And as far as the PNW, are you asserting that because other areas aren't as ahead of the curve (whatever that means) then they're all equivalent?

Originally Posted by novawolverine

...when an article like this comes out saying that the region is going to become denser...

Where does it say that? Here are a couple of quotes:

As modeled here, our projections reflect the most recent trends in the expansion of low-density urban areas.

And because sprawling, fragmented, or “leapfrog” development has been the dominant form of development in the Southeast [9], population growth models may under-predict the future extent of urban areas in this region.

Over 77 million people now live in this region, where the typical new development pattern is suburban, automobile-dependent growth. This sprawling urbanization favors low-density development that requires large areas of land to support single-family housing and extensive road networks

Unless by "denser" you mean a subdivision is denser than a greenfield then no doubt the region will become denser:

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

I repeat, what large affects do Mexican and South American politics/economics have to do with the South becoming more urban in the future?

The children of such immigrants will become the majority in the future, and thus a major factor when it comes to politics (Something the GOP fears). Development wise, with the growing Latino/a population, and a growing majority, the housing market will adapt to accommodate the mindset of city living found in those nations, and the fact that millennials are procity versus the mindset of the baby boomers who prefer a lifestyle in mundane, barracks looking developments. In Florida, which I cover extensively on SSP, a majority of the towers going up are from buyers overseas (Crawford was correct on that point), primarily South America. Also, Mexican/South Americans tend to vote Democratic, who generally favor smart growth and urban growth policies more so than their GOP counterparts. Not to say that some GOP don't, but there aren't many making progressive changes like we see in California, Oregon, Washington, NY State, Massachusetts and New Jersey when it comes to reversing the aspect of sprawl, and focusing on more intertwined communities that are efficient when it comes to resource management.

As I mentioned a couple of posts back, the degree in which cities become denser, and more Northern/West Coast like in terms of their urbanity I strongly feel is more of a political issues. When you have all of these lax environmental regulations, sprawl will ravage the landscape. And this is coming from somebody who is in the oil industry.

The South will become urban, but not to the degree that places like California for example are doing where they are starting to focus on density. Sure they still sprawl, but its not to the degree of the 1950's and onward. The trend in city living is strong in the Northeast, and West Coast, and it is desire that needs to be replicated. A growing minority population will only help fuel this along with the future millennials who will in the future take office. And the anti-urban establishment which is rampant amongst many in congress and in office will hopefully go away through voters being a little more enlightened.

Texas is a hybrid in a sense because they are combining elements of growth seen in California and in the North East. At least when they sprawl, its dense, and not mindless spaghetti roads where the density is low. I know land is plentiful, but there needs to be a control on excessive expansion. The South needs to become denser as a whole, and become less automobile reliant.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Where does it say that? Here are a couple of quotes:


Unless by "denser" you mean a subdivision is denser than a greenfield then no doubt the region will become denser:

And because sprawling, fragmented, or “leapfrog” development has been the dominant form of development in the Southeast [9], population growth models may under-predict the future extent of urban areas in this region.

Over 77 million people now live in this region, where the typical new development pattern is suburban, automobile-dependent growth. This sprawling urbanization favors low-density development that requires large areas of land to support single-family housing and extensive road networks

Lol as I mentioned to him in my post, reading comprehension.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by edluva

most of the south is decades behind the rest of the nation on mere recognition of this (among other things). It is a values issue (cultural), and generally speaking, it's pretty easy to see that if the electorate is either uneducated and/or in denial of these issues, it follows that its elected will be even more backwards and resistant to change. I find it humorous that the things southern forumers cite as "progress" occurs in relative isolation and at levels not significant enough to amount to anything.

denial has been in the south's DNA since the civil war. it's southern culture.

so true. It's like they're still living in the 1860s

Wake up for cryin out loud! It's 2014.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

so true. It's like they're still living in the 1860s

Wake up for cryin out loud! It's 2014.

Especially on the social issues (guns, the right for gays to be seen as people, science, not letting religion get to their political policies, anti-smart growth (which I've seen numerous gop leaders talk about on Fox and how its the demise of America, etc.)..... but anyways thats for another thread (see skybar).