The 'Mountain Lion' Cities Rising in the U.S. West

[M II A II R II K]

The Mountain Lions: These Nine Cities Boomed In The Covid Era


26 Aug 2021

By Alan Cole

Read More: https://fullstackeconomics.com/the-r...economies/amp/

.....

The 2017 tax law cut taxes overall while limiting tax breaks for owning expensive housing. Then the COVID-19 pandemic changed peoples’ lifestyles and thereby shifted their housing preferences. These seemingly unrelated events both made housing in the most expensive metropolitan areas less attractive relative to housing elsewhere. That created an opening for a second group of cities that provided attractive amenities at more reasonable prices. Out of America’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, nine have experienced home price growth of more than 50 percent since late 2017 when the tax bill was signed into law. They are Boise, Spokane, Austin, Phoenix, Tucson, Colorado Springs, and a cluster of Utah cities: Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo.

- Over the latter half of the 20th century, economists marveled at the extraordinarily strong growth of four Asian jurisdictions: Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, which were collectively dubbed the Asian Tiger economies. While this subject matter is worthy of detailed treatment, it is fair to say that these economies⁠ while smaller than the world’s largest economic heavyweights like the UK or Germany⁠, were able to capitalize on contemporary trends, accelerate their development, and carve out important economic niches for themselves. — The nine American cities that I will call the Mountain Lion economies⁠ are playing an analogous role in contemporary American economic geography. While they are generally too small to replace America’s largest economic hubs, and they are unlikely to become as expensive, they are nonetheless undergoing radical change and experiencing a rapid upswing in housing demand.

- Over the same period, prices in traditional superstar economies slowed at times, or even reversed. There is no consensus definition of a superstar city. But for this article we’ll focus on six metropolitan areas that are obvious centers for high-powered jobs: San Francisco, San Jose, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Washington DC. — These superstar cities, at least for a time, seemed like they would continue their relentless appreciation. They became too expensive, and demand at last began to waver, especially as the tax law and the pandemic made them relatively less attractive. Some of that demand spilled over to the Mountain Lion economies. Additionally, housing as a whole became more expensive as the pandemic led people to value home space more, and other consumption less. The rapid rise of Mountain Lion real estate markets is obviously connected to housing shortages in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles.

- Why did the Mountain Lion cities become so popular in the last four years? They actually have a variety of long-standing advantages. In fact, home prices there were somewhat high, and rising, even before the recent boom, suggesting that savvy buyers saw a lot to like in them. One feature of almost every Mountain Lion city is a stunning landscape. The Utah cities have the Wasatch mountains and the Great Salt Lake. Boise has an eponymous mountain range and river. Colorado Springs has the glacier-carved Pikes Peak. — A beautiful outdoors has always been a long-run advantage in real estate; natural beauty is just a permanent tailwind that helps a place develop and attract newcomers. A place with mountains in the distance and a pleasant climate will always, all else equal, attract more investment than a flat cityscape. — While these cities⁠at least the smaller ones⁠—would never compete with major hubs, they can become centers of smaller sub-industries or secondary headquarters for firms that also have presences in larger hubs.

.....

[Steely Dan]

"mountain lion cities" is too verbose.

i propose "cougar cities" instead.

[Via Chicago]

A beautiful outdoors has always been a long-run advantage in real estate; natural beauty is just a permanent tailwind that helps a place develop and attract newcomers.

ask Lake Tahoe and Paradise CA how "permanent" that beauty is

mass migration in the climate change era to areas most prone to wildfire risk and water scarcity, definitely a long term plan for success

[MolsonExport]

Does Austin have mountain lions?

[DCReid]

Seems to me that it's mostly middle class people priced out of large cities that is driving the growth of these 'cheaper' western cities. The prices of the previous magnet western cities, like Denver and Portland (and Seattle), were already driven up, and now they are searching for other cities that are cheaper. I surprised the article did not mention Las Vegas and Reno, and even Dallas. It will be interesting if the migration goes further inland to cities like Kansas City and Omaha, or to Billings Montana, if it is not already occurring...

[Crawford]

This is mostly Californians cashing out and moving to cheaper metros. Also doesn't hurt that these metros are perceived as very white and outdoorsy.

I have family in Bozeman, MT and they have the same situation. Home prices doubled, roads overwhelmed, services at breaking point, and tons of newcomers marveling at the "cheap" homes. It's absurd that people are paying nearly a million for a mediocre house in a town that barely has reputable schools or medical services, and is like a ten hour drive to a major metro.

Also, the summers are now nonstop haze and Beijing-quality air, so there's basically snow season and fire season.

[llamaorama]

This is going to be controversial:

All these cities were mostly white until recently. That’s NOT say that either nonwhites are themselves to blame for bringing cities down nor does it mean these cities are especially racist or unwelcoming to diversity in 2021.

What it means is, these are non-sunbelt, older prewar cities, but did not have intense phase of industrialization that brought in tons of poor factory workers from Mississippi or for that matter West Virginia or Poland. They were from day one regional bank and rail hubs that were always middle class and always calm and not beset by the struggles of entrenched underclass or a conservative elite. So they didn’t have white flight or riots or the 80s crack wave or the 90s gang violence and whatever. So downtown stayed alive, the older in town neighborhoods stayed nice, riding the bus didn’t pick up a stigma, and urban schools weren’t totally bad.

This is why today these cities have a desirable feel, because they don’t have a scarred central city but rather a lively one and retained an element of civic pride.

[Crawford]

Yeah, race is absolutely, 1000% a factor. The Mountain West has a tiny black population, meaning you don't hear a lot of euphemisms about "a dangerous element", "thugs", etc. Bozeman might not have jobs, healthcare or amenities, but it has the right kind of people.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Does Austin have mountain lions?

Can't go outside without the threat of a mountain lion attack.

If anything we are invested with deer, not enough bobcats and coyotes.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"mountain lion cities" is too verbose.

i propose "cougar cities" instead.

Puma towns

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by DCReid

It will be interesting if the migration goes further inland to cities like Kansas City

Kansas City has really turned around since I lived there briefly in the 90s. Its layout and prevailing architectural styles are a lot more interesting than people might expect. It had the decline narrative but there aren't many big empty buildings remaining - they're all packed with yuppies nowadays.

Gravel bikes have taken over the bicycling world since 2015 and Emporia, KS, about 90 miles southwest of KC, is home to the #1 event. That event is known internationally, with people flying in from Europe to participate pre-Covid. This year one guy somehow made it over from Japan. The landscape in that area is beautiful and it has done a lot to raise the whole region's profile since every bicycling hobbyist around the world has heard of it.

Gravel road racing is also big from South Dakota down to Arkansas and Oklahoma, with events almost every weekend, and many rich hobbyists make the long trek from either coast at least once each year to these obscure places. It's only a matter of time before some digital nomads set up shop.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"mountain lion cities" is too verbose.

i propose "cougar cities" instead.

Certainly beats "Karen towns"

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

This is going to be controversial:

All these cities were mostly white until recently. That’s NOT say that either nonwhites are themselves to blame for bringing cities down nor does it mean these cities are especially racist or unwelcoming to diversity in 2021.

What it means is, these are non-sunbelt, older prewar cities, but did not have intense phase of industrialization that brought in tons of poor factory workers from Mississippi or for that matter West Virginia or Poland. They were from day one regional bank and rail hubs that were always middle class and always calm and not beset by the struggles of entrenched underclass or a conservative elite. So they didn’t have white flight or riots or the 80s crack wave or the 90s gang violence and whatever. So downtown stayed alive, the older in town neighborhoods stayed nice, riding the bus didn’t pick up a stigma, and urban schools weren’t totally bad.

This is why today these cities have a desirable feel, because they don’t have a scarred central city but rather a lively one and retained an element of civic pride.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, race is absolutely, 1000% a factor. The Mountain West has a tiny black population, meaning you don't hear a lot of euphemisms about "a dangerous element", "thugs", etc. Bozeman might not have jobs, healthcare or amenities, but it has the right kind of people.

Phoenix and Tucson being the big exceptions--both sunbelt, with (Phoenix especially) at best recovering downtowns, and a minority white-non-hispanic population.

[edale]

I have never quite understood why fleeing Californians would rather live in these somewhat remote backwater towns rather than established cities in the midwest or east coast. Going from San Francisco to Reno or Boise seems like a much steeper drop-off than moving to Chicago or Philadelphia, for example. Or any number of smaller metros like Cleveland or Kansas City, for that matter.

To go from a diverse, cosmopolitan city with great medical, educational, and cultural amenities to a small city that largely lacks all of those things just seems odd to me. It's definitely not all about weather, as SLC, Boise, Bozeman, etc have quite harsh and long winters. It's definitely not about proximity to the ocean or a large body of water. I guess it's the mountains? That, or the race factor like others have already pointed out.

We have whole established cities with amazing architecture and museums, top-rate universities and health care systems, professional sports, and CHEAP housing (Detroit, the Ohio 3Cs, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...) that would offer an urban experience much more akin to the large CA cities. Yet middle of nowhere Reno and Boise and SLC are the landing spot for Californians seeking more affordable options. Makes no sense to me.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by edale

I have never quite understood why fleeing Californians would rather live in these somewhat remote backwater towns rather than established cities in the midwest or east coast. Going from San Francisco to Reno or Boise seems like a much steeper drop-off than moving to Chicago or Philadelphia, for example. Or any number of smaller metros like Cleveland or Kansas City, for that matter.

To go from a diverse, cosmopolitan city with great medical, educational, and cultural amenities to a small city that largely lacks all of those things just seems odd to me. It's definitely not all about weather, as SLC, Boise, Bozeman, etc have quite harsh and long winters. It's definitely not about proximity to the ocean or a large body of water. I guess it's the mountains? That, or the race factor like others have already pointed out.

We have whole established cities with amazing architecture and museums, top-rate universities and health care systems, professional sports, and CHEAP housing (Detroit, the Ohio 3Cs, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...) that would offer an urban experience much more akin to the large CA cities. Yet middle of nowhere Reno and Boise and SLC are the landing spot for Californians seeking more affordable options. Makes no sense to me.

As others pointed out, it's hard to think any reason other then the good old white flight. Moving from busy, diverse, "un-American" metropolises to those places in the middle of nowhere with virtually no amenities.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

I have never quite understood why fleeing Californians would rather live in these somewhat remote backwater towns rather than established cities in the midwest or east coast.

I know people from the east who have moved to these same towns. I know a couple from Ohio who retired not to Florida but...Montana. I know several other people from Ohio who have moved to the towns mentioned in this article.

California's a big place. People shouldn't be surprised when a few thousand of them choose to move to odd places.

[Crawford]

Missoula, MT is another one. That town is exploding in population, mostly Californians, and will be another Boise in a decade. Harsh winters, bad summer air quality, very isolated, limited amenities.

I find the whole phenomenon bizarre, but this is apparently what people want right now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I find the whole phenomenon bizarre, but this is apparently what people want right now.

from my three cousins who grew up in suburban chicagoland and moved out west as young adults (seattle, SLC, and portland), the big draw for all of them was apparently the abundance of outdoorsy shit out west.

none of them are huge "city" people, and those three cities all provide enough "city" for their tastes, while also providing great access to mountains and true wilderness, which is something that chicagoland, surrounded on all sides by endless cornfields, decidedly lacks.

a lot of young people just want to snow board, mountain bike, rock climb, whitewater raft, etc. as much as they possibly can. as long as there are also a few craft breweries and coffee shops nearby, they're good.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

a lot of young people just want to snow board, mountain bike, rock climb, whitewater raft, etc. as much as they possibly can. as long as there are also a few craft breweries and coffee shops nearby, they're good.

Yeah, this makes sense for 20-somethings, but it's still weird. Tons of Boomers and Gen-Xers are moving to these places. Do they really want to whitewater raft all day? And when are they doing this, given that you have six months of winter and four months of fire season.

And you really can't do this stuff from, say, Pittsburgh, or Cincy? There's definitely whitewater rafting and rock climbing in close proximity to NYC, and I imagine anywhere close to the Appalachians would serve this need. West Virginia has tons of whitewater rafting and climbing.

And if you have kids, what about schools? If you're old, what about healthcare?

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by edale

I have never quite understood why fleeing Californians would rather live in these somewhat remote backwater towns rather than established cities in the midwest or east coast. Going from San Francisco to Reno or Boise seems like a much steeper drop-off than moving to Chicago or Philadelphia, for example. Or any number of smaller metros like Cleveland or Kansas City, for that matter.

To go from a diverse, cosmopolitan city with great medical, educational, and cultural amenities to a small city that largely lacks all of those things just seems odd to me. It's definitely not all about weather, as SLC, Boise, Bozeman, etc have quite harsh and long winters. It's definitely not about proximity to the ocean or a large body of water. I guess it's the mountains? That, or the race factor like others have already pointed out.

We have whole established cities with amazing architecture and museums, top-rate universities and health care systems, professional sports, and CHEAP housing (Detroit, the Ohio 3Cs, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...) that would offer an urban experience much more akin to the large CA cities. Yet middle of nowhere Reno and Boise and SLC are the landing spot for Californians seeking more affordable options. Makes no sense to me.

Reno certainly has a lot of appeal since it is only a 3 hour drive or a 45 minute flight from the Bay Area and right there in the Tahoe region with all the "outdoorsy" things to do. A lot of these cities mentioned in the article have pretty much all the amenities most Americans need and desire and is why they're more expensive than the cheaper areas mentioned.. Plus there are just people who prefer the American West for its mountains and deserts. Growing up in the West I cannot imagine ever moving to the Midwest or the South. If I lived anywhere else other than the West it would have to be NY and or New England.

I really doubt the popularity of these cities has anything to do with the racial diversity of the areas.