Depressed Cities that might be "Turning Around" & "Hot" Cities that might be Peaking

[Centropolis]

god damn, come on.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

My watch list for "turnaround cities": Buffalo, Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Liverpool, Belfast, St. Louis.

Cities that (might) be peaking, or growth slowing down: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Portland, Seattle, Hong Kong (living costs).

In the U.S., the Midwest & Great Lakes area (apart from Chicago) looks like a future hot spot. The "hot" cities have just priced themselves out of the market for attracting enough new residents to support their growth. Rents and housing costs are beyond the reach of all but the top wage employees. Expensive cities force many employees to live in far out suburbs where rents & housing costs are cheaper, but two hour commutes (in the absence of rapid transit) are tiresome and expensive. Others double up with others in tiny apartments. "Is living in this city worth it?" is a common refrain. Buffalo NY here I come (maybe).

I used to think the cities you listed as peaking were in fact peaking, I dont believe that anymore. Those cities generally are in the best locations and will continue to draw human capital. Look at the California cities and the exodus of middle class that has and continues to take place yet the population continues to increase. Whats happening in Los Angeles and San Francisco is really second wave urban development, its infill and redevelopment of prime locations.

The cities you mentioned in the midwest and great lakes, should and will bounce back but will never approach the success of the 'peaking' cities. Doesnt mean they arent good places to live.

Then you have cities you didnt mention like Dallas, Houston and Atlanta. Those powerhouse regions, I see continuing to grow. I can easily see each one of those metro areas getting to 10 million in population with ease.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The Bay Area was a regional economic power before Hewlett and Packard got to work in their garage (or wherever). Since the 19th century brought in gold and silver and the Transcontinental Railroad reached the region, it has been a banking center and legal center and it still is with Wells Fargo, Charles Schwab and some smaller banks and regional offices of most major investment banks. In addition, numerous other non-tech companies from Chevron to Safeway are headquartered in the Area. The silver barons knew nothing of tech and niether did Henry Kaiser when he built ships here and started Kaiser Permanente. There are the mansions of plutocrats of years gone (from the railroad and silver barons to sugar kings) by all over town to testify that the new tech wealth is not the first wealth to be seen in San Francisco and in most cases the tech titans are living in homes built by an earlier generation of very wealthy people.

And you didn't mention the powerhouse biotech centers in Emeryville and South San Francisco.

Although I admit it's hard for me to conceive of "tech" as a whole imploding--parts of it may and have such as desktop computing and locally installed software. The world of the future surely is a world of expanding technology and it's hard to think of an area of technology that doesn't have at lest a foothold in the SF Bay Area.

Certainly agree here, and I'm not downplaying that. But there is nothing particularly outstanding about the Bay Area, economically, if you remove the tech component--particularly a certain cluster of companies that came into being in the past 20 years. It was a good and successful place, for sure. SF in particular has always been its own thing way out on the West Coast. But it's really only recent trends that we can thank for the enormous wealth that has been created there. We need to watch how this all plays out before we make silly assumptions--assumptions that this recent uptick in wealth bestows the region instantly with the other qualities that great cities acquired over the course of centuries or decades.

Let me phrase this another way: mentally lazier people than ourselves will assume that if the rents and hotel rates in SF are the same as in NY, then surely everything else falls in place: the museums are just as good, the built environment, the cultural offerings, etc etc. We all know that this isn't true, not only of SF but of any city that compares to NY (although Chicago does quite well here).

Point being: great places are invariably wealthy, but wealthy places are not invariably great (SF is certainly great--just trying to make a point). Others here have mentioned, for example, that Cleveland's art museum probably beats any west of the Mississippi. Cleveland was once very wealthy and built that collection over a century. How does wealth translate into great places? Depends on the civic mindset.

*** I've never been to Cleveland's art museum.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Point being: great places are invariably wealthy, but wealthy places are not invariably great (SF is certainly great--just trying to make a point). Others here have mentioned, for example, that Cleveland's art museum probably beats any west of the Mississippi. Cleveland was once very wealthy and built that collection over a century. How does wealth translate into great places? Depends on the civic mindset.

*** I've never been to Cleveland's art museum.

Cleveland is a well-rounded encyclopedic museum with more strong curatorial departments than LACMA in LA. It’s not a better museum than the Getty in LA which has multiple department collections beyond Old Masters. All their areas are great. And all of them collected not over a century, but built in just 40 years. (And still buying significantly). Of course, it helps that LA has become one of the world’s art capitals and so an institution can easily hire the expertise that gravitate to the city, but it shows wealth like the Getty can “buy” greatness, and greatness can be achieved in short time.

With Silicon Valley, the tech industry is pretty much established by now. There’s nothing more to see being played out. It’s not a trend. Companies fail and they quickly get replaced by others. But invariably, these turnovers are still self-contained in Silicon Valley. The industry is pretty much rooted. We can’t play the argument of “well if it didn’t have tech.” But it does have tech. And it’s been simmering there for much longer than the moment this seismic cultural shift happened.

S

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

One of them "Hot cities" might just be "Peking". Just sayin'

Good one. Actually capital cities like Beijing often have an advantage. Why Columbus OH has outgrown Cleveland & Cincinnati for example, or Washington has outgrown once much larger Baltimore. Austin may catch San Antonio, if not Houston or Dallas. The greatest cities often combine government & economic center functions, e.g. Tokyo, London, Paris, Mexico City etc. Having govt. offices provides a stabilizing effect during economic slowdowns. During the Great Depression, Washington DC did quite well because of the influx of "New Deal" bureacrats. Defense companies move in to be close to their Pentagon buyers. L.A. lost Lockheed Martin and numerous other defense & aerospace companies to DC area. I wonder if DC metro (including nearby MD & VA) will vacuum up tech & other companies that sell to the govt. in the future?

[IrishIllini]

I think the entirety of the Midwest is poised to make a rebound. Partly due to climate change and partly due to renewed interest in affordable, urban cities. Chicago will always be king, and I do foresee people migrating back into economically stagnate/declining neighborhoods on the south and west sides. I don't think suburban Chicago will expand much further into collar counties. Most of all future growth will be redevelopment of existing central neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs. I think Minneapolis and Detroit will continue to improve. Minneapolis doesn't really have the urban potential of Detroit, but it'll continue to grow into its own. Detroit has quite a bit of land to redevelop. That'll take decades.

I think Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are nearing their peaks. Escalating COL due to rapid growth will slow theses regions in the near future. I think they'll inevitably begin to experience negative domestic migration numbers as people continue to choose smaller metros like Charlotte, Nashville, OKC, etc. Immigration may keep all growing, but it won't be at the numbers they've experienced recently.

[CherryCreek]

If you define "peak" as "already has reached the peak boom of this current upcycle" then Denver is probably there. Some signs of slow down already, after one of the greatest booms in its history.

Of course, the current cycle will end, there will be "busts" that follow, including potentially in Denver, to some extent. Invariably, assuming North Korea doesn't nuke us, a new up cycle will come.

[CastleScott]

^ I agree Cherry Creek, Denver has had an awesome boom that a slow point is almost at hand although I kind of thing it might be short as I see an oil up-swing for Colorado as the price of oil rises (we all know northeastern Colorado, SW Nebraska and NW Kansas is the next oil fracking hot spot like North Dakota currently is).

Out this way Sacramento is getting so many folks from the Bay Area as the housing is still somewhat lower although its rapidly rising so much so my wife and I are thinking of moving to Yuba City/Marysville.

Oh btw as for the midwest I think Kansas City is going to have a nice boom and Des Moines and Omaha will grow nicely too as will Oklahoma City.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ I agree Cherry Creek, Denver has had an awesome boom that a slow point is almost at hand although I kind of thing it might be short as I see an oil up-swing for Colorado as the price of oil rises (we all know northeastern Colorado, SW Nebraska and NW Kansas is the next oil fracking hot spot like North Dakota currently is).

Out this way Sacramento is getting so many folks from the Bay Area as the housing is still somewhat lower although its rapidly rising so much so my wife I are thinking of moving to Yuba City/Marysville.

Oh btw as for the midwest I think Kansas City is going to have a nice boom and Des Moines and Omaha will grow nicely too as will Oklahoma City.

The "Heartland" cities have been doing well for the past several years but remain very affordable due to a constrained job market. Oklahoma City and Tulsa have been impacted by the oil downturn but both stand to grow fast once energy prices inevitably rise. I've been bullish on Kansas City for a long time. Unlike the upper midwest Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri don't have the same long cold and dreary winters. You do have a hot and humid summer to deal with but so does the rest of the eastern U.S.

I live in Denver and the past five years have been amazing to watch as the city has completely transformed. In the same time span the cost of housing has also risen dramatically while wages have not. It has created, IMO, a massive bubble that will eventually burst.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I think the entirety of the Midwest is poised to make a rebound. Partly due to climate change

climate change will affect chicago and the midwest just as much as anywhere else. perhaps not from a rising seawater perspective, but to think the city and the region will simply exist in some magical bubble where it will be insulated from larger catastrophic implications of this trend is extremely myopic. if in 50 years Miami and Austin are uninhabitable, chicago may be inhabitable, but it certainly wont be pleasant. and seeing this as a "win" for the city at the expense of the entire planet is absurd
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html

chicago is predicted to have the climate of modern day Austin by the end of the century. i dont know if youve ever lived through an Austin summer, but its not something i recommend, and will certainly decimate our agricultural industry, tree canopy, native vegetation, the health of the lake, the way we spend time outdoors, etc etc. Reality is if this comes to pass, we are screwed in so many ways beyond quaint concerns like real estate....

[CanesFan]

Might be peaking: Jersey City, New Jersey.
Turning around: Newark, New Jersey.
Might be turning around: Camden, New Jersey.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ I agree Cherry Creek, Denver has had an awesome boom that a slow point is almost at hand although I kind of thing it might be short as I see an oil up-swing for Colorado as the price of oil rises (we all know northeastern Colorado, SW Nebraska and NW Kansas is the next oil fracking hot spot like North Dakota currently is).

Out this way Sacramento is getting so many folks from the Bay Area as the housing is still somewhat lower although its rapidly rising so much so my wife I are thinking of moving to Yuba City/Marysville.

Oh btw as for the midwest I think Kansas City is going to have a nice boom and Des Moines and Omaha will grow nicely too as will Oklahoma City.

Sacramento is the Bay Area's #1 destination. By far.
http://press.redfin.com/phoenix.zhtm...cle&ID=2293315

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

chicago is predicted to have the climate of modern day Austin by the end of the century.

And if Chicago has the yearly growth numbers that come with that climate at the moment, then his statement will be fully correct.

However, you're right - the Midwest is one of a handful of places in the U.S. that is forecasted to suffer from global warming as agricultural productivity declines there (while it increases in other areas such as rural New England and Eastern Canada, etc.)

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

climate change will affect chicago and the midwest just as much as anywhere else. perhaps not from a rising seawater perspective, but to think the city and the region will simply exist in some magical bubble where it will be insulated from larger catastrophic implications of this trend is extremely myopic. if in 50 years Miami and Austin are uninhabitable, chicago may be inhabitable, but it certainly wont be pleasant. and seeing this as a "win" for the city at the expense of the entire planet is absurd
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html

chicago is predicted to have the climate of modern day Austin by the end of the century. i dont know if youve ever lived through an Austin summer, but its not something i recommend, and will certainly decimate our agricultural industry, tree canopy, native vegetation, the health of the lake, the way we spend time outdoors, etc etc. Reality is if this comes to pass, we are screwed in so many ways beyond quaint concerns like real estate....

Seriously. People need to stop banking that NYC or whatever is going to be taken out and their city is going to be declared the new Rome. I keep reading these things on this forum. And it's ridiculous. Global warming is serious.

[xzmattzx]

Upcoming hot cities: Buffalo, Detroit, Salt Lake City

Peaked cities: Washington, Denver, Miami

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ocman

Cleveland is a well-rounded encyclopedic museum with more strong curatorial departments than LACMA in LA. It’s not a better museum than the Getty in LA which has multiple department collections beyond Old Masters. All their areas are great. And all of them collected not over a century, but built in just 40 years. (And still buying significantly). Of course, it helps that LA has become one of the world’s art capitals and so an institution can easily hire the expertise that gravitate to the city, but it shows wealth like the Getty can “buy” greatness, and greatness can be achieved in short time.

With Silicon Valley, the tech industry is pretty much established by now. There’s nothing more to see being played out. It’s not a trend. Companies fail and they quickly get replaced by others. But invariably, these turnovers are still self-contained in Silicon Valley. The industry is pretty much rooted. We can’t play the argument of “well if it didn’t have tech.” But it does have tech. And it’s been simmering there for much longer than the moment this seismic cultural shift happened.

S

Yes, I'm not saying that the form of tech that exists in the Bay Area and the present day VC system of funding new startups will ever stop being rooted there (I probably shouldn't say "ever", but probably not any time soon). I'm just saying that none of us have the foggiest idea how valuable that will be in 30, 40, 50 years or onward. I really think that it's pretty much impossible to predict anything beyond 10 years at the most these days, considering how rapidly the world is changing.

[CastleScott]

Upcoming hot cities: Buffalo, Detroit, Salt Lake City

I agree on these 3, Salt Lake has been a bit slow for awhile and Detroit has so much potential that I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't happened sooner-another to get hot place is St Louis and maybe Indy.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Good one. Actually capital cities like Beijing often have an advantage. Why Columbus OH has outgrown Cleveland & Cincinnati for example, or Washington has outgrown once much larger Baltimore. Austin may catch San Antonio, if not Houston or Dallas. The greatest cities often combine government & economic center functions, e.g. Tokyo, London, Paris, Mexico City etc. Having govt. offices provides a stabilizing effect during economic slowdowns. During the Great Depression, Washington DC did quite well because of the influx of "New Deal" bureacrats. Defense companies move in to be close to their Pentagon buyers. L.A. lost Lockheed Martin and numerous other defense & aerospace companies to DC area. I wonder if DC metro (including nearby MD & VA) will vacuum up tech & other companies that sell to the govt. in the future?

A depression or something unspeakable would have to hit the Big Two for Austin to catch them. Austin has advantages over others such as the state capital and the state flagship university but it's still far behind. We can say it is carving a niche though. Population aside, I think the only thing stopping them from catching San Antonio is the lack of pro sports.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

I agree on these 3, Salt Lake has been a bit slow for awhile and Detroit has so much potential that I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't happened sooner-another to get hot place is St Louis and maybe Indy.

while not on any cool-factor radar and (other than monument circle) with pretty mediocre neighborhood vernacular even for the midwest, indy is kind of like minneapolis or columbus lite in that it has been pulling in people from more rusty cities, even chicago (feels like suburban or far southland chicagoans really sick of bad traffic to get to jobs, etc).

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

while not on any cool-factor radar and (other than monument circle) with pretty mediocre neighborhood vernacular even for the midwest, indy is kind of like minneapolis or columbus lite in that it has been pulling in people from more rusty cities, even chicago (feels like suburban or far southland chicagoans really sick of bad traffic to get to jobs, etc).

I've always thought that Indy and Nashville have a government model that should be implemented in St. Louis. St. Louis probably misses out on a lot of growth, because of the corrupt and fragmented local government structure. It really holds the city back. The argument could be made that a lot of the Lower Midwest/Upper South cities are growing at a relatively impressive clip, because St. Louis has been so dysfunctional in controlling it's traditional hinterlands.