Maricopa County Added Over 222 People Per Day in 2016, More Than Any Other County

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Wow Toronto has sunbelt like growth. Very impressive. Wonder why Canadian metros are growing like gangbuster when it's soooo cold.

Because Canadians probably are likely to move within Canada, similar to how Americans are likely to move within the United States. I would imagine the hassle of being an expat outweighs a milder winter climate or the job growth in many Sun Belt states.

[the urban politician]

For Canada, Toronto is the sunbelt.

Let's not kid ourselves--if the US border to Canada opened up completely today, Canadian cities like Toronto would see drastic population drops almost overnight.

The draw of people of mediocre means to bland sprawl in the southern United States is irresistible

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The draw of people of mediocre means to bland sprawl in the southern United States is irresistible

It really is. I sometimes hear some of my coworkers mentioning the South and going to Florida. How they want to get out of this god-forsaken state. Something about Florida just steals fellow NJ comrades from the state. But again, I can't blame them because it is expensive here. While I defend the state, I do get it. Lots of people want to see their money go further. And people like lower taxes. Something the South has. Would make sense to retire there.

[the urban politician]

So many people around me in the Chicago area talk about wanting to move elsewhere. Usually it's the weather and the taxes.

In this day and age, northern American cities need to defy gravity to stay afloat. Sure there are some people who like 4 seasons, but most humans prefer mild temperatures. And low taxes. It's pretty obvious why everybody is leaving.

We're fucked up here. Luckily Chicago and other cities up here are so great. Without that element, our population would be zero.

But even that factor isn't enough. People talk about wanting to move to Texas, etc and take for granted what they have access to (global city with an urban environment that isn't easily rebuilt today, arts and culture, etc) and when I bring this up it really doesn't seem that important to them.

Truth is, global city amenities don't seem to matter much to most Americans.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Truth is, global city amenities don't seem to matter much to most Americans.

It's true. You pay for what you get. See, my theory is that most people in the U.S. quite frankly are sterile, unsophisticated, lack class, and are anti-social. Hence why they don't mind those lame, commie looking sprawl villes. They have generic lives, generic children, and just want to be left alone. They do not have that thinking mind. One that questions everything. They fail to appreciate the beauty of urban areas and what they can offer.

Only an unsophisticated person with no sense of pride would choose to live in one of these developments.


Credit: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/tag/sprawl/

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But Baltimore has had a horrible murder rate and bad schools for the last 40-50 years. The question is why is the city showing bad population loss right now, when most of the older U.S. cities with decent housing stock have recovered.

Philly, just up the road, is every bit as gritty, with high crime and bad schools, but Philly is growing (barely) and genuinely recovering (somewhat). Philly's core is booming (yeah, this is true of most U.S. cities) and there are probably more cranes on the skyline than all but three or four U.S. cities. I think Philly can make a somewhat plausible argument for second best core in the U.S. (at absolute worst top five or so). So you don't need safety or good schools to have a growing, improving city.

And no offense to other declined U.S. cities, but Baltimore, in terms of urban form, is vastly better than a Detroit or Cleveland. Baltimore has some great bones; better urbanistically than almost anywhere outside of the Northeast Corridor. It has a subway, light rail, commuter rail, vast 19th century rowhouse neighborhoods. It's proximate to tons of high paying federal jobs. It also has a very large corridor of wealth running up the central spine of the city.

Regarding Philadelphia, keep in mind that Philadelphia's crime rate is down significantly. It is safer now than Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans, Chicago, Miami, DC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc. etc. Is it still high compared to places like NYC, San Fran and Seattle? Yes, but it's still dropping.

The difference with Baltimore is it still has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.

Bad schools is also not totally correct. The city has quite a few great public schools now, and some of the best in the state are in the city of Philadelphia. The city also has some of the best charter schools and private schools in the country.

[summersm343]

I'm sorry but these population numbers just don't add up. This just goes to prove that the Census estimates are just that... estimates. They're basically guesses at best.

Philadelphia MSA population growth from 2015 to 2016 was only 8,197 yet the Philadelphia MSA added 67,100 jobs in 2016? Yeah, those numbers don't add up. Philadelphia is 100% being underestimated.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t03.htm

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It's true. You pay for what you get. See, my theory is that most people in the U.S. quite frankly are sterile, unsophisticated, lack class, and are anti-social. Hence why they don't mind those lame, commie looking sprawl villes. They have generic lives, generic children, and just want to be left alone. They do not have that thinking mind. One that questions everything. They fail to appreciate the beauty of urban areas and what they can offer.

Only an unsophisticated person with no sense of pride would choose to live in one of these developments.


Credit: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/tag/sprawl/

I think this statement goes way too far, actually. You obviously are vastly generalizing millions of people you've never met

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's the estimate for 2015-2016 and in line with what people expected. Toronto was growing by around 2% annually until the Alberta/Saskatchewan resource boom drew more migration their way. Now that the resource sector is flat, statisticians are forecasting Toronto population growth to return to historic norms.

Official numbers aren't in but a lot of indicators suggest that Toronto is indeed seeing its growth rate head back to the 2% range. That said, we'll need official numbers for last year and the current year before any concrete conclusions can be drawn.

And 'softee' is correct, those numbers you posted are from the census and haven't been adjusted for the under count. You need to wait for the official Stats Canada numbers to come out later this year.

I'm very skeptical about those über-optimistic forecasts about Toronto's growth. 1.9% is way too high, not in line with Canadian current growth.

About the undercount, if there was in 2016, there was also in 2011, which would not change the growth rate. To jump from a five-year average of 1.2% to 1.9% is very unlikely.

[Ant131531]

Why is it so hard for people on this forum and City-Data to admit that's it's simply hard to raise a family in a dense city these days especially with how expensive the neighborhoods with GOOD schools are? It's not about living a "generic" life. It's about doing what's best for your family.

This is what happens when cities become playgrounds for the rich. The declining middle class family has to choose the cheaper suburbs not only because of financial means, but because of higher quality schools and space as well.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

This is what happens when cities become playgrounds for the rich. The declining middle class family has to choose the cheaper suburbs not only because of financial means, but because of higher quality schools and space as well.

I don't think they are becoming a playground for the rich.

I do apologize though for that generalization. Its just in my experience, its something I've observed. George Carlin said a similar thing, but again, just observations. I do think though... if you really look at it, you might find it somewhat holds some water.

But on the topic of cities becoming playgrounds for the rich, I'd argue that they are not playgrounds for the rich, but playgrounds for responsible people.

Due to the costs of some areas (again, even in places like NY, which are expensive, its not out of reach), there has to be some planning long term. If you can't afford kids, wait. If you want to start a family, wait until finances are in order.

Now, if a couple is irresponsible, and has no long term plan, sure... cities will be expensive and life will be harder and yes, they might consider the suburbs. But you'll find that people in expensive cities will wait to get married or have kids. At least the smart ones. Get that income up, education and career going. I think thats the best approach.

Even in my state, you have to be responsible and think long term. Cities are like Universities in a sense. The good ones, require good students to thrive and stay in. And often, the reward is worth it.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Why is it so hard for people on this forum and City-Data to admit that's it's simply hard to raise a family in a dense city these days especially with how expensive the neighborhoods with GOOD schools are? It's not about living a "generic" life. It's about doing what's best for your family.

This is what happens when cities become playgrounds for the rich. The declining middle class family has to choose the cheaper suburbs not only because of financial means, but because of higher quality schools and space as well.

Cities are far from being playgrounds for the rich, not even London or SF fits that description. If for anything, they are still dumping grounds for the poor in many areas. Let's not pretend middle class families were soaking up urbanity in the 50s-90s before those terrible gentry showed up.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Philly city and metro showed (slight) positive growth. That's as good or better than most cities/metros in the Northeast/Midwest.

Boston and DC beg to differ. I don't count places like Buffalo and Pittsburgh as "NE" since their economic and social makeup is pure rust belt. Philly has plenty of corporate, cultural and educational infrastructure to keep up with it's megalopolis peers but it hasn't.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So many people around me in the Chicago area talk about wanting to move elsewhere. Usually it's the weather and the taxes.

In this day and age, northern American cities need to defy gravity to stay afloat. Sure there are some people who like 4 seasons, but most humans prefer mild temperatures. And low taxes. It's pretty obvious why everybody is leaving.

More cliché emphasis on weather... *yawn* you people are relentless.

Extremely Northern cities like Minneapolis are doing just fine, Canada would be declining as a country if this was oh so important. Milder winters may account for SOME of the growth (obviously those who are retiring, but I've seen plenty of retirement resorts built in the north) but it's not the main factor here. Even if your assertion is remotely true, Northern cities will only have to wait about 50 years before summers in the south become even more unbearable than they already are. The North with be a sanctuary. Let's not forget that south was uninhabitable for a long time because of the muggy heat, that hasn't changed we just have more technology to keep us comfortable.

Economy is responsible more than anything else, that's pretty obvious. Weather is a side preference, it's just lazy to blame Chicago's problems on the weather.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

For Canada, Toronto is the sunbelt.

Let's not kid ourselves--if the US border to Canada opened up completely today, Canadian cities like Toronto would see drastic population drops almost overnight.

The draw of people of mediocre means to bland sprawl in the southern United States is irresistible

You don't know this at all, just more speculation. It's not that hard for Canadians to gain residency in the U.S. as it is.

There is no reason for a Canadian to give up their safe and well functioning, vibrant cities for a smoldering summer in suburban Georgia. Pretty sure most of them are disgusted by our government now anyway, they want nothing to do with us.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It's true. You pay for what you get. See, my theory is that most people in the U.S. quite frankly are sterile, unsophisticated, lack class, and are anti-social. Hence why they don't mind those lame, commie looking sprawl villes. They have generic lives, generic children, and just want to be left alone. They do not have that thinking mind. One that questions everything. They fail to appreciate the beauty of urban areas and what they can offer.

Only an unsophisticated person with no sense of pride would choose to live in one of these developments.


Credit: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/tag/sprawl/

Here's where sophisticates like you live and there are plenty of places like this too in the southwest:


https://www.google.com/search?q=Tucs...WD67CIZcYeFEM:

I just wish I was still young enough to know everything and be so much more "sophisticated" than everyone else.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It really is. I sometimes hear some of my coworkers mentioning the South and going to Florida. How they want to get out of this god-forsaken state. Something about Florida just steals fellow NJ comrades from the state. But again, I can't blame them because it is expensive here. While I defend the state, I do get it. Lots of people want to see their money go further. And people like lower taxes. Something the South has. Would make sense to retire there.

My next door neighbors at my second home in Arizona are from New Jersey. But we also have plenty of Canadians in the 'hood.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Why is it so hard for people on this forum and City-Data to admit that's it's simply hard to raise a family in a dense city these days especially with how expensive the neighborhoods with GOOD schools are? It's not about living a "generic" life. It's about doing what's best for your family.

I don't buy it. There are very few people deciding between Manhattan and exurban North Carolina.

The Northern population loss to the Sunbelt tends to be from cheap, sprawly suburbs to cheap sprawly suburbs, and from mediocre schools to mediocre schools. It has nothing to do with wanting to live in a dense city but unable to afford, and it definitely has nothing to do with good schools (Sunbelt schools, apples-to-apples, are almost always worse).

The people I know who have moved from the NYC area to North Carolina, Texas, Florida, are almost all working class, suburban, and living in cheap areas with unremarkable schools. You don't see people from Scarsdale or Greenwich or Brownstone Brooklyn moving to Cary, NC or Frisco, TX, but you do see tons of people from Central and South Jersey, from inland CT and from outer fringe LI moving to those areas.

My guess is that the appeal is as follows: 1. You get a new McMansion in the Sunbelt for the cost of a 1950's-1960's upgraded bungalow in the Northeast, 2. Taxes are lower (esp. inheritance taxes; older people are trying to preserve wealth for next generation); 3. People hate the cold and snow. That's basically it.

Originally Posted by Ant131531

This is what happens when cities become playgrounds for the rich. The declining middle class family has to choose the cheaper suburbs not only because of financial means, but because of higher quality schools and space as well.

Cities have always been playgrounds for the rich. The move to the Sunbelt is a fairly recent phenomenon, and likely has zero to do with the desirability of urban cores or school quality.

The most expensive areas in the Northeast are generally the fastest growing, BTW. NYC, inner suburbs of NYC, DC and wealthy parts of MD and VA, and Boston and inner suburbs of Boston, are the fastest growing areas. The cheapest areas along the Northeast Corridor have almost all the population loss.

[mhays]

I wonder how much of the NE/MW outflow is a new trend and how much is just the pent-up pressure from people unable to leave until home values recovered. In other words, is it fairly temporary.

[tablemtn]

Economy is responsible more than anything else

In the specific case of Illinois and Chicago, there is also a huge impending pension mess. I have known people who moved away from the state and cited that as one of their motivations - they don't want to be stuck in Illinois in old-age while the state lashes out in the future and tries to grab their savings/resources to cover its pension shortfall. Especially while the state simultaneously cuts public services to pay for it all.

The quality of state-level leadership in Illinois has been extremely low for a long time, and that factor certainly hasn't helped with the present circumstances.