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

[Reverberation]

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.

Not quite. The natural gas boom has helped. So has the fact that most of the intellectual capital for natural resource exploration is in the Houston area. Toyota is moving its US HW to DFW from LA. The legal climate in Texas has made it very attractive for practicing medicine. I wouldn't credit all of those things to kidnappings, drug cartels, and rich Mexicans.

[llamaorama]

I don't think the Texas cities just happened overnight. The things Crawford talks about may be supercharging our growth here but the foundation was laid a LONG time ago and the growth that is happening today was destined to occur. This state is not Arizona or Nevada where a bunch of baby boomers decided to move en masse to golf courses in the desert.

Texas is a lot like a bizarro California, built on the same stuff but with a reverse culture. I think that has to do with the fact it straddles the south and has that DNA.

Austin; so UT always had a large endowment because of oil wealth. IBM, TI, Motorola built labs and campuses in Austin in the 1960s and you could trace the local electronics industry back even further. Dell happened. The area isn't an offshoot of Silicon Valley, it was born in the same era and made of the same cloth it's just tiny and small in comparison.

San Antonio was always an important city and the historic CBD shows that(a lot of urban fabric was demolished, had it not people would see a different side of the place). The military bases there were a major driver, and while some have closed the remaining presence is big on things like cyber security not to mention a big army hospital.

Fort Worth was a huge aerospace city and still kind of is. That kind of thing builds up a base of engineers and scientists including people like my great Uncle who was a general dynamics guy and had something to do with the F-16.

Houston and Dallas were both not exactly small cities before WW2 and had major banking and industry. The first oil booms were in the 1920s. They were streetcar cities though, which is why they sprawled even back in the day.

This state has had ups and downs. The 1970s and 1980s were both awful, there was the Savings and Loan Crisis and then the oil bust. But those things helped temper us to avoid the 2000s recession/

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

I think the wealthy expats are arriving for what these places had already largely become...

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

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.

Broadly wouldn't define that, especially since you're speaking for Millennials in the South. I'll be the first to tell you that the majority of the people that fall in that range whether they were born in the city, or born in a podunk town and moved to a city like myself don't look at urban living as a long term solution. The "typical" or "ideal" living situation in the South is the "cul-de-sac filled with McMansions" and that's what most people want.

I grew up on a farm in rural West TN, went to a private school in Jackson, TN, went to the University of Memphis, and continue to live in Memphis. At each stop whether I'm associating with someone from my podunk hometown, someone from Orange Mound, or someone who grew up in Central Gardens in Memphis, the general outlook isn't toward urban living as someone on this site might envision it, but it's to that McMansion in the cul-de-sac.

Lifestyle habits and how accommodating urban living is also a problem. To expect urban living to pick up on a large scale would pretty much require a brain washing of a solid majority of the lifestyle habits that someone has formed. Those habits aren't necessarily Republican or Democrat, White or Black, or rich or poor, they're Southern.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by chris08876

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).

Now where is Ronald Reagan the creator of this modern conservatism and hallowed saint to conservatives from? What about Rick Santorum, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Paul Ryan, Jan Brewer, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, etc. - where are they from and the people who elect them?

Now y'all are going there. Some of you presumed progressive, liberal minded folk ain't as progressive and certainly not as open-minded as you would like to think. And by the way, my politics are certainly left-leaning.

[llamaorama]

but to pretend that the widespread backwardness of urban planning and mobility in the south is separate and unrelated to its consistent backwardness on virtually all the issues this country had to contend with from through modern times would be delusional... and, of course, predictable.

the south has never been right on anything. it has never led this country forward on anything. the only legacy that can be ascribed to the region is regression. urbanism just happens to be another symptom of something much more deep and fundamental.

I think it's more complicated than that. Other very conservative regions/subcultures of the US never had and don't have any lack of civic functioning. I wouldn't call Utah liberal but it leads in smart growth.

There's something particular about the south and I can't say what it is for sure... But if I had to guess, something about the old race and class divisions has to do with it. It doesn't matter if a culture is innately conservative or innately liberal, if you live in a community where there is a high level of trust and a high level of economic equality, there is a greater chance that people will do things that are for the greater good. If it's the other way, then it goes in reverse. There are plenty of blue Democrat areas behind the times too for the same reason.

It's also really a scar left over from times gone by...diversity in a modern sense is a good thing.

Now where is Ronald Reagan the creator of this modern conservatism and hallowed saint to conservatives from? What about Rick Santorum, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Paul Ryan, Jan Brewer, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, etc. - where are they from and the people who elect them?

Indeed.

A lot of the old once reliably blue, union Democrat states like Ohio seem to now be the hotbeds of the tea party freak show while old school Republicans elsewhere just sort of bite their lips.

Times can change. It's a shame we put up with things like the electoral college and an undersized congress(the best way to reduce gerrymandering might be to increase the number of reps on a per capita level more in line with global averages), if we weren't constrained by that perhaps we'd see a more nuanced political geography with red and blue and purple areas side by side.

[JManc]

The Texas Medical Center does both research as well as treatment. Crawford is partly correct (rich Mexicans) but the largest and richest portion of the US population (Boomers) has now breached the age 65 threshold which means more hospitals and more spending in healthcare. As for research, the various institutions are throwing in billions in investment. Not just Houston but all over the world. The TMC is just the biggest conglomeration of medical facilities in the world so it's really noticed there.

[atlantaguy]

The amazing display of ignorance and outright hatred (by some) here is breathtaking, but hardly anything new. It has always been this way, and I suspect always will be.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by L41A

Now where is Ronald Reagan the creator of this modern conservatism and hallowed saint to conservatives from? What about Rick Santorum, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Paul Ryan, Jan Brewer, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, etc. - where are they from and the people who elect them?

Now y'all are going there. Some of you presumed progressive, liberal minded folk ain't as progressive and certainly not as open-minded as you would like to think. And by the way, my politics are certainly left-leaning.

The cities are progressive. The rural population is for the most part not. Either way, they are have philosophies which run rampant amongst Southern Voters who are Republican. Unfortunately, they are the majority in this case. States like Virginia, Florida, and even soon to be Texas are becoming more progressive. With the influx of immigrants and transplants from the West Coast and Northeast, this change will occur overtime. The other states in the Southern Bible Belt excluding those that I mentioned are the ones I worry about when it comes to the topic of urban growth, and social reform. They seem to be the most adamantly opposed to smart growth and when it comes to social issues in general. Essentially, backwards when it comes to a change of mindset that the U.S. is slowly adapting, and that is liberalism and progressiveness. The rural population I blame for this as they tend to be the most backwards when it comes to these issues, not necessary the city folk. But when it comes to voting, they hold a large voice, and those extra districts add up when it comes to electing important representatives which can help yield change.

I wan't the South to succeed, don't get me wrong, but if we look at the deep South as an indication of economic success in the 21st century, it is way behind. What they need is political change that can yield the policies of growth, and sustainability when it comes to urban cities and their metros.

[JManc]

A lot of my classmates who moved from NY down south were not particularly liberal or progressive to begin with and it was the conservative nature of those states that probably attracted them. I met a lot of conservatives in TX who were transplants from liberal states. The northeast is not the liberal progressive bastion many think it is. Get outside the big cities and it's the same local "git 'er done" rednecks you'll find anywhere else.

[ChiSoxRox]

What is the large mass that comes out of nowhere due north of Atlanta, where North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee all meet? The eyeball test has it rivaling Jacksonville or Birmingham, but Google Earth has only scattered small towns amidst rugged mountains.

[JManc]

^ Yea, I don't see the south swinging left/ blue any time soon. There will be regions (Atlanta, Charlotte, etc) but it's still the south. Texas, I do in about a generation because it is such a dynamic huge and diverse state that pulls in all directions. I don't think it will become a solid blue state like CA but purple and resting somewhere in the middle at some point.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

What is the large mass that comes out of nowhere due north of Atlanta, where North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee all meet? The eyeball test has it rivaling Jacksonville or Birmingham, but Google Earth has only scattered small towns amidst rugged mountains.

Second home/summer home sprawl, and some extreme exurban Atlanta sprawl, in the farthest western reaches of North Carolina and farthest northern reaches of Georgia. That area is growing fast as wealthy people from Atlanta, Chattanooga, and Knoxville buy up property out that way. You'll see it explode if they ever get around to building an Interstate link between Asheville and Chattanooga.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by arkitekte

Broadly wouldn't define that, especially since you're speaking for Millennials in the South. I'll be the first to tell you that the majority of the people that fall in that range whether they were born in the city, or born in a podunk town and moved to a city like myself don't look at urban living as a long term solution. The "typical" or "ideal" living situation in the South is the "cul-de-sac filled with McMansions" and that's what most people want.

I grew up on a farm in rural West TN, went to a private school in Jackson, TN, went to the University of Memphis, and continue to live in Memphis. At each stop whether I'm associating with someone from my podunk hometown, someone from Orange Mound, or someone who grew up in Central Gardens in Memphis, the general outlook isn't toward urban living as someone on this site might envision it, but it's to that McMansion in the cul-de-sac.

You're speaking from your experience and I'm speaking from mine. I disagree with you that the "ideal" living situation going generations into the future is the McMansion in a cul-de-sac. Memphis is different from Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas.

Originally Posted by arkitekte

Lifestyle habits and how accommodating urban living is also a problem. To expect urban living to pick up on a large scale would pretty much require a brain washing of a solid majority of the lifestyle habits that someone has formed. Those habits aren't necessarily Republican or Democrat, White or Black, or rich or poor, they're Southern.

Part of the issue in this thread I see is that people are misconstruing "urban" with "urbanizing" or becoming more urban. I don't see anyone saying that the South is going to rival the Northeast anytime soon. But, there is simply more evidence that shows that the nation as a whole is not going to be as quick to embrace the exurban and bland cul-de-sac neighborhoods of the past in the future as they have in the past. Part of the reason why these kinds of neighborhoods become so popular in the first place have to do with socioeconomic conditions that do not exist in the same capacity.

And yes, there's a "Southern" element to it, but then explain to me why Philly, Baltimore, DC, and other suburbs and exurbs have these kinds of developments in such large numbers? So do plenty of metro areas in the southwest. There's a Southern culture element, but let's not pretend that McMansions and cul-de-sacs are a Southern thing.

There's more evidence to show all across the country that people are shifting towards preferring denser suburbs with some modicum of walkability and local amenities, while still having enough housing space, over having to get into a car and drive dozens of minutes to get where you need to. People still love their cars and want plenty of housing space, but it's going to take a different form.

The architecture and planning of 1960 is different to that of 2000, so I don't see why people think the current status quo will exist in 2040 and 2060.

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

You're speaking from your experience and I'm speaking from mine. I disagree with you that the "ideal" living situation going generations into the future is the McMansion in a cul-de-sac. Memphis is different from Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas.

I believe you actually responded to you own claim about your experience and mine. Look below.

Originally Posted by novawolverine

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.

Part of the issue in this thread I see is that people are misconstruing "urban" with "urbanizing" or becoming more urban. I don't see anyone saying that the South is going to rival the Northeast anytime soon. But, there is simply more evidence that shows that the nation as a whole is not going to be as quick to embrace the exurban and bland cul-de-sac neighborhoods of the past in the future as they have in the past. Part of the reason why these kinds of neighborhoods become so popular in the first place have to do with socioeconomic conditions that do not exist in the same capacity.

Like what? I'm curious to see what socioeconomic conditions don't exist that will slow a nation's want to embrace the suburb.

Part of the issue in this thread I see is that people are misconstruing "urban" with "urbanizing" or becoming more urban.

You're not one of those people that confuses the word urban with being black are you? That was a joke. Wouldn't you say the process of urbanizing is to become urban or becoming more urban?

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ Yea, I don't see the south swinging left/ blue any time soon. There will be regions (Atlanta, Charlotte, etc) but it's still the south. Texas, I do in about a generation because it is such a dynamic huge and diverse state that pulls in all directions. I don't think it will become a solid blue state like CA but purple and resting somewhere in the middle at some point.

There are big differences between Democrats on a local level (Ex: Annise Parker) and Democrats on the national level (Joe Biden). Different job descriptions, priorities, etc.

[dave8721]

At least it agrees that South Florida will have essentially 0 geographic expansion and its population growth will continue to be purely densification/infill. Now if we can just do something about the mess that is SW Florida.

[M II A II R II K]

SW Florida will probably get gobbled up when the areas around it get saturated.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

There's more evidence to show all across the country that people are shifting towards preferring denser suburbs with some modicum of walkability and local amenities, while still having enough housing space, over having to get into a car and drive dozens of minutes to get where you need to. People still love their cars and want plenty of housing space, but it's going to take a different form.

The architecture and planning of 1960 is different to that of 2000, so I don't see why people think the current status quo will exist in 2040 and 2060.

We [North Americans] perfected this 100 years ago with the streetcar suburb. There's some of it in the older urban centers of the South like Richmond, New Orleans, Memphis, Charleston, and some in what is considered the more urban parts of Atlanta, but it is a developemnt form that was largely out of fashion when the "Charlanta" area begin to really grow. Plus, there was no functional transit to support it; but having a yard being close driving distance to the mall was a bigger concern in the 1960s forward.

[JManc]

California is like any other state..full of rednecks and yahoos outside the urban areas. Some states, they just have less influence on government than others.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by arkitekte

I believe you actually responded to you own claim about your experience and mine. Look below.

I'm not a Southerner, but I partly grew up in one of sprawliest regions in the country, the DC area, and have family and friends in large metro areas in the South. My perspective on this topic doesn't count less than someone from LA or somewhere outside of the area. As I have said again and again, to ignore the planning aspect of this and making it North/South as if places like Vegas and Phoenix and Sacramento and other places don't have bad sprawl is an oversimplification.

Originally Posted by arkitekte

Like what? I'm curious to see what socioeconomic conditions don't exist that will slow a nation's want to embrace the suburb.

Less-strained infrastructure, super cheap real estate, cheap energy, cheap financing, relatively low household debt levels, less of a gap between rich and poor, and a nice clean slate from which to start with to build brand spanking new communities that aren't all that far from the job centers. These are all conditions that made the egregious form of sprawl possible the past couple decades that are not around in the same capacity today.

Places like Arlington, VA and Pasadena, CA are/were considered suburbs. How a suburb functions in relation to the central city doesn't change too much over time, which is why people will continue to embrace them, but what form they take from a planning and infrastructure standpoint does change.

You can even see what corporations like Walmart are doing to continue growing. They've acknowledged that expanding their big-box supercenter format is not going to be the growth driver that it once was. Rather, it's smaller-format stores and other services that are going to have to pick up some of the slack.

Originally Posted by arkitekte

You're not one of those people that confuses the word urban with being black are you? That was a joke. Wouldn't you say the process of urbanizing is to become urban or becoming more urban?

The baseline is so low as it is. Becoming "more urban" is different from "becoming urban", which is what Crawford said and I agreed with. The South will become "more urban", but may not be "urban" as a whole in a very, very long time. What we're likely to continue seeing is peripheral neighborhoods densifying, more infill, more edge cities, and things like that. Instead of more cul-de-sac neighborhoods with no sidewalk and 1/4-1/2 acre lots, we'll see gridded developments on smaller plots with sidewalks and with more of a community focus of some kind. It's not just consumers speaking with their wallet, planners wield some power and can have a part dictating what's in style and what was hot 10-20 years ago is not going to be hot 10-20 years from now.