SkyscraperPage Forum - Which U.S. Cities Have Changed The Most This Decade?

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)

- - Which U.S. Cities Have Changed The Most This Decade? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=230581)

Which U.S. Cities Have Changed The Most This Decade?

Which U.S. Cities Have Changed The Most This Decade?

October 23, 2017

Read More: http://www.moderncities.com/article/...st-this-decade

Full Report: http://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/fea...most621600948/

Quote:

.....

Change is a curious, inconstant thing; as some communities undergo great transformations, others seem frozen in time. Change isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing. Big growth in commute times and rents can be negative, but they can also be a function of positive developments like job and income growth. Similarly, places without as much change could be more attractive to people working their way up the salary ladder or those retirees on fixed incomes, offering more affordable housing and less congestion.

- Over the past decade, most U.S. cities have experienced at least some degree of change, whether the change has been for the better or worse. These changes may be indicative of emerging economic opportunities, or on the other end of the spectrum, economic decline. MagnifyMoney, a subsidiary of LendingTree, analyzed the 50 largest U.S. metro areas using nine elements of data to measure and identify areas of growth, decline and inactivity. --- The analysis examined home prices, crime rates, building permits, commute times and other elements to identify areas of high metropolitan change and give each city a "Change Score" of 0 to 100.

- According to the data, Austin, Dallas - Fort Worth and Houston round out the trio of big Texas cities that received the highest Change Scores among the largest U.S. metro areas, suggesting that Texas is a hot spot for change. There is some expectation that the tech-heavy Bay Area, specifically the metro areas of San Francisco and San Jose, would rank high on an analysis on change. The San Francisco metro area has seen a 37% increase in income over the last 10 year, while the San Jose metro area is up 36%. However, while housing prices in the Bay area are among the most expensive in the country, these prices have not grown as much over 10 years as other metros like Dallas, Houston, and Austin.

- San Jose ranked No. 20 for house price growth since 2006, while San Francisco ranked No. 47, using an index that accounts for all communities in the metro, not just desirable suburbs and neighborhoods that have seen outsize appreciation. Furthermore, crime rates have not declined as rapidly in the Bay Area as in other parts of the country. On top of crime statistics, the rapid rise in commute times negatively impact the Bay area. Commute times increased 18% across both the San Francisco and San Jose metros, also ranked No. 1 of 50 metros, on top of already high levels of congestion from the peak of the last business cycle.

.....

http://cdn.magnifymoney.com/2017/10/...n-10-Years.png

http://cdn.magnifymoney.com/2017/10/...n-10-Years.png

http://cdn.magnifymoney.com/2017/10/...n-10-years.png

Depending on the individual, change due to housing prices could be a good or bad thing.

Quote:

There is some expectation that the tech-heavy Bay Area, specifically the metro areas of San Francisco and San Jose, would rank high on an analysis on change. The San Francisco metro area has seen a 37% increase in income over the last 10 year, while the San Jose metro area is up 36%. However, while housing prices in the Bay area are among the most expensive in the country, these prices have not grown as much over 10 years as other metros like Dallas, Houston, and Austin.

- San Jose ranked No. 20 for house price growth since 2006, while San Francisco ranked No. 47, using an index that accounts for all communities in the metro, not just desirable suburbs and neighborhoods that have seen outsize appreciation. Furthermore, crime rates have not declined as rapidly in the Bay Area as in other parts of the country. On top of crime statistics, the rapid rise in commute times negatively impact the Bay area. Commute times increased 18% across both the San Francisco and San Jose metros, also ranked No. 1 of 50 metros, on top of already high levels of congestion from the peak of the last business cycle.

I can't disagree with most of this. The Bay Area traffic in tremendously worse and the rising incomes probaby reflect the movement of a lot of tech, main fintech and software, into the city (or oeganic growth of those same areas of tech in the city). The fact is that the city of SF and its metro, which officially doesn't include Silicon Valley which is in the San Jose metro, didn't use to be as tech heavy as it now is--it was more about finance, law and older industries like energy. But if you go back, not 10 years but 20, to the dot-com boom years, the change might not look very dramatic because that was the last tech-centric boom.

If Philadelphia is #44 out of 50 for cities that have changed the least in the last decade, then maybe the "lack" of change is a good thing. Back in 2007 (when I was 12 and living in West Philly), crime rates were still astronomically high, we had witnessed our second full year of growth after decades of population loss, and One Liberty Place was still Philly's tallest building. Just 10 years later, entire neighborhoods are being rebuilt as the city's population continues to grow, the city has outpaced the region and nation in job growth numbers, Center City is more vibrant and dense than it has been for decades, North and West Philly continue to get better and safer, there are solid schools in certain neighborhoods, and some truly exciting and transformational projects (ex. Schuylkill Yards, the cap over I-95, the 30th Street and North Station District Plans, etc) are in the works. Even if it isn't reflected in this report, the Philly of 2017 is a vast improvement over 2007's Philly.

This is one of those topics where the list would be extremely different depending on what they count. For example they could count population or density growth.

That said, Austin would be on the top of a sizable percentage of possible lists.

^^Actually they are being pretty specific with different rankings for different things like incomes, home prices, commute times, crime rate, resident age and so on. Take a closer look at the table.

In a way I realize this makes your point but also in a way they are doing what you suggest--coming up with multiple rankings considering different variables and only then combining them to a single number.

Of course, sure, if instead of the things they looked at, they looked at other things, the combination number would come out differently. But the individual variable rankings are more interesting to me than the combo number.

My guesses were Austin and Nashville as well. Denver and Miami also come to mind immediately.

austin and its northern kissing cousins indianapolis and columbus.

I immediately thought of Austin and then Seattle.

hard to argue against Austin.. Charlotte and Raleigh definitely densifying, although in sunbelt style

in the top 5 id live in denver. ive already lived in portland
its more top 6 but denver and portland are exact same

i dont realy understand this list but whatever

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc (Post 7977421)

austin and its northern kissing cousins indianapolis and columbus.

says right there that indianapolis has changed the least.

also, columbus doesn't seem very austin-y... (much larger stock of pre-war housing, etc)

if anything, the cousin is nashville...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis (Post 7978093)

also, columbus doesn't seem very austin-y... (much larger stock of pre-war housing, etc)

columbus is a sleeper. it's got some very cool older city neighborhoods.

example: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9508...7i13312!8i6656

that could almost pass for an older part of an east coast city.

i can't find anything comparable to that in austin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen (Post 7977585)

Detroit.

Not really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 7977359)

They didn't count the factors I'd consider most important, like population growth or density growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17 (Post 7978127)

Not really.

Well, downtown specifically.

the 'ruins of detroit' are no more (except MCS). Most have been refurbished.

other cities

* Miami - built a lot more white condos with balconies (and some interesting towers as well). need neighborhoods, not condos
* New York - tons of construction and evolving neighborhoods in the outer boroughs makes it a contender, despite vast size.
* SF, Los Angeles - not enough oomph to the current boom
* Seattle - tons of changes downtown, a contender for the title
* Austin - new towers, but have they filled in all the vacant lots behind 6th street? unacceptable...city should look more 'filled in', like portland. see also: nashville. but getting there.
* Chicago - plenty of new construction, evolving neighborhoods, solid growth especially considering stagnant urban area population
* DC - solid performance, matches growth rates. flies under the radar here.
* houston - so spread out its hard to tell sometimes. inner loop progressing nicely
* dallas - see houston
* portland - lagging its PNW peers
* Philly - livable areas keep expanding nicely

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen (Post 7978228)

Austin's downtown has filled in tremendously. The west side of downtown, for example, is completely unrecognizable. I don't know about the 6th street area, since I avoid crime ridden 6th street like the plague.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen (Post 7978228)

Well, downtown specifically.

the 'ruins of detroit' are no more (except MCS). Most have been refurbished.

It's such a tiny portion of the city though, and the scale isn't nearly as impressive as what you see in other cities.