Will the Migration from "Snowbelt" to "Sunbelt" Reverse in the U.S.?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The one-time mass migration to the Snowbelt was an anomaly, mainly because of the automobile and the collapse of the confederacy following the civil war. People put up with the harsh weather up north mainly to feed their families.

Before then, Most of the country's population was in the Sunbelt region and also along the east coast.

huh?

during the civil war, the union was home to ~22 million people and the confederacy was home to ~9 million people.

the great migration was not what made the north larger than the south, the north started out over twice as populated.


but since the dawn of air conditioning 7 decades ago, the south has caught up to the north and will likely surpass it it in total population sometime this year.

2017 macro-region population estimates:

the NE + MW: 124,649,932
the south: 123,658,624

source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/data...mponent=growth

[Buckeye Native 001]

As mentioned before, if people want winter, they will generally want it in a smaller dose. Places like Asheville NC, Columbia SC, Nashville, Albuquerque, Flagstaff AZ, etc will become more desirable before Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, etc. Asheville and Albuquerque have winters, but the winters are done for good by the end of February. March feels like spring, not an extension of winter.

Please don't move to Flagstaff. We've got enough transplants from Phoenix and California and our infrastructure can barely handle what we've got now...

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

huh?

during the civil war, the union was home to 22 million people and the confederacy was home to 9 million people.

the great migration was not what made the north larger than the south, the north started out over twice as populated.


but since the dawn of air conditioning 7 decades ago, the south has caught up to the north and will surpass it it in total population sometime this year.

2017 macro-region population estimates:

the NE + MW: 124,649,932
the south: 123,658,624

source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/data...mponent=growth

I said the Sunbelt *and* the east coast.

The "Snowbelt" (the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest) was, for the most part, still undeveloped. It didn't really take off until the manufacturing revolution during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

As mentioned before, if people want winter, they will generally want it in a smaller dose.

True, and those people are weak-willed and my life will be better if they're not around me.

Anyone who has a hankering to move to somewhere like Nashville because they want milder winters can't get away from me and my kind soon enough.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Will climate change, water shortages, and high housing costs in the "sunbelt" states cause a reverse migration back to the northern and eastern "snow belt" states in the future? I wouldn't rule it out. Costs are totally insane out here in sunny California, and we are smack dab starting another drought. I myself (a native Californian) peruse housing costs enviously in places like Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh.

Probably not

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The "Snowbelt" (the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest).

places like boston and NYC are absolutely in the snow belt too.

it's not some term exclusive to the upper midwest.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The "Snowbelt" (the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest) was, for the most part, still undeveloped. It didn't really take off until the manufacturing revolution during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

uhhh, chicago had 112,000 people in 1860, FAR larger than any city down south other than new orleans.

and by 1870 it was home to 300,000 and was the 5th largest city in the nation.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Not really much of an exaggeration. Getting snow in March and April is enough, even if it melts soon. And even if there's not snow on the ground in those months, it still feels like late winter, not early spring. People like leaves on the trees in April and May. You can drive through the Southern Tier of New York on Memorial Day weekend and the trees are as far along in that region as they are in early April here in Delaware.

As mentioned before, if people want winter, they will generally want it in a smaller dose. Places like Asheville NC, Columbia SC, Nashville, Albuquerque, Flagstaff AZ, etc will become more desirable before Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, etc. Asheville and Albuquerque have winters, but the winters are done for good by the end of February. March feels like spring, not an extension of winter.

Where aren't there leaves in April and May?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

places like boston and NYC are absolutely in the snow belt too.

it's not some term exclusive to the upper midwest.

There is not a single definition for "Snowbelt." For example, many define it simply as areas in the Great Lakes region.

uhhh, chicago had 112,172 people in 1860, FAR larger than any city down south other than new orleans.

and by 1870 it was home to 300,000 and was the 5th largest city in the nation.

That doesn't really dispute my point. Chicago is not most of the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest. And I'm not sure why you brought up 1870 (post-Civil War).

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Where aren't there leaves in April and May?

It depends.

If the winter is long and rough, the trees will not bloom up north until well into May.

Meanwhile, here, trees are leafing out by late March / early April (this year, they're leafing out now).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

There is not a single definition for "Snowbelt." For example, many define it simply as areas in the Great Lakes region.

and i contend that people that define it that way are stupid.


average annual snowfall:

boston - 44"
chicago - 36"

in what universe does it make any sense to place the "snowbelt" label on chicago, but not on boston as well?

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

That doesn't really dispute my point. Chicago is not most of the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest. And I'm not sure why you brought up 1870 (post-Civil War).

yes it does. the great lakes region already had a city much larger than any city in the southeast by 1860.

and i posted the 1870 figure to show that chicago was growing at an utterly insane rate at that time

but that insane growth wasn't from southern migration, rather it was primarily from european immigration, particularly germany and ireland.

[Chef]

The noreasters that go up the east coast are bigger storms than Minnesota ever sees.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and i contend that people that define it that way are stupid.


average annual snowfall:

boston - 44"
chicago - 36"

in what universe does it make sense to lay the "snowbelt" label on chicago, but not on boston?

I guess we're all entitled to our own opinons.

Cities like Boston and NYC are different in that they can go several consecutive winters with long periods of no snow falling / on the ground.

Part of the reason their averages are so high is because they will frequently see a one-hit-and-done 2-3 feet Nor'easter that melts away 2-3 days later.

Meanwhile, cities like Detroit and Chicago tend to see numerous light/moderate snowfalls via. Alberta Clippers (versus the frequently massive snowstorms with the help of the Atlantic Ocean) and far fewer thaws that completely wipes out their snowcover (they have lower temperature averages).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

It depends.

If the winter is long and rough, the trees will not bloom up north until well into May.

Meanwhile, here, trees are leafing out by late March / early April (this year, they're leafing out now).

Can you get more specific than up north? I have never experienced this.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Where aren't there leaves in April and May?

There are. Even close to the Lakes which are still cold, there are leaves in April and May. Leaves on trees start coming out in March. In higher elevation areas, Spring comes later.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

It depends.

If the winter is long and rough, the trees will not bloom up north until well into May.

Meanwhile, here, trees are leafing out by late March / early April (this year, they're leafing out now).

How far "up north" are you talking about?

Even with a long, rough winter, leaves start coming out in March. In Pittsburgh right now on Feb 23, there are buds on a few trees in my backyard. Get close to the Lakes and it's about 2.5 weeks behind.

I think you are full of poop.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but that insane growth wasn't from southern migration, rather it was primarily from european immigration, particularly germany and ireland.

Really? I thought it was "mainly because of the automobile and the collapse of the confederacy following the civil war"
as claimed

You know, all those southern good ol' boys who came in through Ellis Island to populate our northern cities!

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Can you get more specific than up north? I have never experienced this.

I'm referring to the region that's the topic of this discussion, the "Snowbelt." I'm specifically referring to areas downwind of the Great Lakes, which tend to see a ton of cloud cover.

But like I said, it depends on how rough and long the winter is. In 2012, when the winter was warm and not snowy, the trees were in full bloom by the end of March.

That said, in 2014 with the Polar Vortex dipping so far south, the trees didn't fully bloom until well into May. I also recall it snowing on Flower Day in 2016 (which was on May 15th).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I guess we're all entitled to our own opinons.

but all opinions are not equal.

an opinion formed from facts is superior to one formed from "impressions".

on average, boston sees more snowfall than chicago in any given winter.

and no, that's not because boston routinely gets one-time 176" snowfalls one year, and then no snow for 3 years.

that's a ridiculous claim. stop being ridiculous.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but all opinions are not equal.

an opinion formed from facts is superior to one formed from "impressions".

on average, botson sees more snow than chicago in any given winter.

and no, that's not because boston routinely gets one-time 176" snowfalls one year, and then no snow for 3 years.

that's a ridiculous claim.

Sure it is. Why would you think that's not possible. That's exactly how "average" works.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Sure it is. Why would you think that's not possible.

when the fuck has boston ever received a one-time 176" snowfall?

that's a ridiculous claim. stop being ridiculous.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Really? I thought it was "mainly because of the automobile and the collapse of the confederacy following the civil war"
as claimed

You know, all those southern good ol' boys who came in through Ellis Island to populate our northern cities!

The numbers speak for themselves.

The Great Lakes and Upper Midwest didn't see huge population growth until the Industrial Revolution (specifically after the Civil War ended). And ever since employment in Manufacturing peaked in the 1970s, net migration has been back in the Sun Belt.

[jd3189]

As one who was born up north and lived south for most of my life, I'm surprised to hear that living here makes one weaker. Maybe in terms of winter, but I always heard people complain about the heat and humidity during the summer in Florida. I have learned to live with it, but it's basically the same as dealing with winters up north. You're dealing with harsh weather.

As for the reverse migration, it's unforseen what could happen in the future. Traditionally in human history, most people have always lived closer to the equator or south if in the northern hemisphere where it is warmer year around. Seasons are great, but if the winter is heavy and you have a choice, why deal with it?


Yeah, the Midwest and Northeast have more urban cities on average but that's because they had more opportunities to develop earlier. If people found ways to deal with the Southern weather earlier, the cities would probably be up to par right now instead of being mostly sprawl.


The half way migration is actually good and I hope more of it happens. The Appalachians are beautiful and cities like Chattanooga have good bones to grow. Even Atlanta has room to grow if they change how they grow.