The Midwest, where millenials go to retire!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

the loop gained nearly 50k people between 2010 and 2015. i think the gentrification trends we see on the coasts are finally catching up to interior markets also. i was looking at real estate in my hometown (ann arbor) and its like Portland prices out there. they're building luxury townhomes and loft conversions that are going for 700k. wow! say it with me now, Washtennnnaw!! doesn't that sound sexy? but yeah, Midwestern population graph aren't 45% degree angles, they are more like 5 percent slow and steady trickles. anyone around here from upstate new York? Rochester and buffalo seem intriguing, especially buffalo...but there is definitely coastal quality growth happening at the metro level in some ciites, oklahoma city grew by 8 percent in that same time, indy, minneapolis and columbus all grew by 5% also. that's pretty good for the snowy cradle of hellllll. if you consider Nashville the Midwest, they grew by nearly 10 percent. eh, its pretty close.

If the country grows by 2,500,000 (or 3,000,000) per year, net immigration is 1/3 of that, and births/deaths are in similar ratio everywhere (they're not), then you're basically standing still in terms of migration by growing at 0.5% per year, or something like that.

BTW the Loop grew nothing like that. You're thinking a much larger area. Impressive in any case of course.

[the urban politician]

Young people are moving to cities. Period. That's happening everywhere. Old fogies are moving to where it's warm. Simple stuff.

Chicago missed out on the "cool and hip" movement that painted places from the 1960's onward. I think the root of that is Mayor Daley and the 1968 Democratic convention. As a result of that, the counterculture never took root here the way it did elsewhere, and the city has had a bit of an image mishap ever since. Perceptions are slowly changing, but the "cool" factor is not something one buys without it appearing contrived.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This couldn't be further from the truth. Actual demographic trends are that rich, white millenials are flooding into Midwestern inner cities. They are also joined by some boomers migrating to downtown for a "downsizing". However, retiring boomers are a sizable chunk of the population that is leaving. This has been ongoing from decades much as it do for large parts of the country where people migrate to Florida and Arizona to die. The largest demographic leaving midwestern rust belt cities is African American in what is, as someone else said, essentially a reversal of the great migration. The change that is happening in several parts of Chicago right now is downright astonishing. It's almost entirely due to milennials returning to the core en masse. Then there are your midsized midwestern towns like Des Moines or Madison that people move to for school or a first job and never really have a reason to leave. The winter is bad, but your quality of life is way higher across the board for a much lower cost than just about anywhere else on earth.

You claim "demographic trends" but don't quote or cite any. Yes, of course retirees are moving to the sunbelt and I've argued as much in another thread, but some are also moving "home" to wherever in the heartland they grew up or their families still live and a few are moving to midwest places they've never lived because of the very low cost of living. The net migration is probably still away from midwestern state for this age group but there is both an inflow and the better known outflow.

As for the millennials, there are midwestrn places that were never abandoned by them and those are mostly where they are going. I would argue Pittsburgh is one such. Sure, the steel mills have closed but Pittsburgh always had its fan club and an economic base beyond steel including Carnegie-Mellon University. Schools in midwestern states are also still magnets for some millennials and also foci of ongoing economic activity that retains some and lures others (Madison certainly falls in that category). But aside from those lured in by these academic centers and the economic activity they spawn, I think the numbers attracted to the heartland who've never lived there is small. For this group, who see their future before them and everything is opportunity, I don't think cheap living is much of a lure.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by mhays

If the country grows by 2,500,000 (or 3,000,000) per year, net immigration is 1/3 of that, and births/deaths are in similar ratio everywhere (they're not), then you're basically standing still in terms of migration by growing at 0.5% per year, or something like that.

BTW the Loop grew nothing like that. You're thinking a much larger area. Impressive in any case of course.

right, not just the loop proper but near north, near west and near south. so mega loop. the very central core plus those close in peripheral neighborhoods. that's what I meant. loopish....

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Young people are moving to cities. Period. That's happening everywhere. Old fogies are moving to where it's warm. Simple stuff.

It's fact more complicated than that. I've known "old fogies" (are older people the only ones you are allowed to call derogatory names still or can one use the "n" and "f" words and all manner of other slurs here too?) who've moved to the sun belt, then moved back, then moved again to the sun belt several times, for different reasons each time.

What you say is "happening everywhere" is indeed, but other things are happening too. Florida and Arizona are getting expensive and the grandkids are not there. And sometimes, when a retired couple moves way and one of the them dies and the other needs help, they have to move back to where the family is. These things happen all the time and everywhere too but those too recently out of diapers may not be aware.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Young people are moving to cities. Period. That's happening everywhere. Old fogies are moving to where it's warm. Simple stuff.

Chicago missed out on the "cool and hip" movement that painted places from the 1960's onward. I think the root of that is Mayor Daley and the 1968 Democratic convention. As a result of that, the counterculture never took root here the way it did elsewhere, and the city has had a bit of an image mishap ever since. Perceptions are slowly changing, but the "cool" factor is not something one buys without it appearing contrived.

As a former resident I disagree. Chicago was actually doing fine even during the 60s and 70s when NYC was suffering. It was certainly doing fine in the 80s and 90s, and even early 2000s. Think Oprah and Jordan. But now they are gone! As one person said, much of the problems now are due to the south and west sides especially emptying out. Blacks are leaving for suburbs and the South, and the Mexican migration has stopped. But downtown is doing fine as is the near south and north sides. I think people are spooked out from the crime wave, which is mostly south and west sides, and the financial problems of Illinois. I've considered retiring there but am being told by friends to reconsider given the looming pension crisis, which will probably cause taxes to skyrocket.

[the urban politician]

^ Huh?

Chicago was not doing fine in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Population was declining, white flight was happening, jobs were suburbanizing, crime was really up there.

The 90s were great. But I strongly disagree

[Chef]

I'm not sure that the conversation in this thread has much to do with what the article is about. The data isn't really about Chicago or the Rust Belt. It is about the cities of the Midwest that were never part of the Rust Belt, they seem to be doing a good job of giving Millenials lives that they can afford. Some of these cities are starting to see pretty healthy growth. Des Moines has grown by almost 10% so far this decade, which is a sun belt style number.

[eschaton]

In general states in the Midwest have the highest proportion of residents born within the state in the country. And except for minor levels of cross-border movement between states on the edge of a region (e.g., Pennsylvanians moving to Ohio) people from outside the Midwest aren't moving to anywhere in the Midwest.

However, many midwestern cities (particularly the less Rust Belty ones) are seeing significant inward migration from more rural portions of the Midwest. One could read this as young people becoming increasingly concentrated in these core metropolitan areas. That doesn't mean they have national pull however.

[Kenmore]

Every middle class white person with kids leaves the city unless they earn multiple times the median income and can afford private schools. I watch family after family grow and leave right around school age.

People on this board love to hype the Loop apartment boom and it's nice to see young 20-somethings choosing to live in the city, but they too will leave for Naperville or Austin when lil' Jayden is ready for school.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

Every middle class white person with kids leaves the city unless they earn multiple times the median income and can afford private schools. I watch family after family grow and leave right around school age.

People on this board love to hype the Loop apartment boom and it's nice to see young 20-somethings choosing to live in the city, but they too will leave for Naperville or Austin when lil' Jayden is ready for school.

Ugh, maybe people who name their child Jayden...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Chef

I'm not sure that the conversation in this thread has much to do with what the article is about. The data isn't really about Chicago or the Rust Belt. It is about the cities of the Midwest that were never part of the Rust Belt, they seem to be doing a good job of giving Millenials lives that they can afford. Some of these cities are starting to see pretty healthy growth. Des Moines has grown by almost 10% so far this decade, which is a sun belt style number.

Yeah, there are two or three Midwests. The demographic trends in Minneapolis or Des Moines are pretty distinct from those of Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland.

In the former, you have large rural hinterlands that are emptying out into proximate metropolitan centers. In the latter, you have older industrial cities that are still dealing with deindustrialization and racial issues, and where the hinterlands tend to move to North Carolina and the like.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Huh?

Chicago was not doing fine in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Population was declining, white flight was happening, jobs were suburbanizing, crime was really up there.

I think the comparison was relative. One could argue that Chicago performed well relative to other major cities from the 60's through 80's. For one, the city didn't go bankrupt, or completely collapse. Population loss was much less than in other cities. Downtown remained fairly desirable, and there was always a sizable affluent favored quarter.

[the urban politician]

^ There is also Cooper, Hunter, Sullivan, Colby, Parker, etc

There is this newish trend, particularly among white Americans, to give their kids a first name that traditionally has been a last name.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

Every middle class white person with kids leaves the city unless they earn multiple times the median income and can afford private schools.

most do leave, but i have several good white middle class friends who are raising their school-age kids in the city (lakeview, lincoln square, and jeff park) and sending them to CPS schools, so it's not every white middle class person.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ There is also Cooper, Hunter, Sullivan, Colby, Parker, etc

There is this newish trend, particularly among white Americans, to give their kids a first name that traditionally has been a last name.

i really had to rein in my wife when it came to naming our children because she initally wanted unique/uncommon/unusual names that weren't actually first names, or even people names at all (hippy-dippy bullshit like "Lavender").

we ended up going with names that kind of honor our respective european ancestries, but that aren't terribly common over here in the states: Liviana (italian) for our daughter and Otto (german) for our son. they're somewhat unusual to an american ear, but at least they're still actual first names.

[biscuit]

Delete

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

Every middle class white person with kids leaves the city unless they earn multiple times the median income and can afford private schools. I watch family after family grow and leave right around school age.

That isn't true. I'm 37, have two kids, and my daughter is in second grade. She attends a magnet school here in the city of Pittsburgh. While her magnet school is majority black (and many of the black families are low income) the white families are almost entirely middle class professionals.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ There is also Cooper, Hunter, Sullivan, Colby, Parker, etc

There is this newish trend, particularly among white Americans, to give their kids a first name that traditionally has been a last name.

I hated this trend, and hated it even more when I heard the origin of it was from old money. Essentially when two prestigious families married, one of the sons would typically be given his mother's last name as a first name. As a result, having a surname as a first name (so long as it's very WASP) comes across as sophisticated.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In general states in the Midwest have the highest proportion of residents born within the state in the country. And except for minor levels of cross-border movement between states on the edge of a region (e.g., Pennsylvanians moving to Ohio) people from outside the Midwest aren't moving to anywhere in the Midwest.

However, many midwestern cities (particularly the less Rust Belty ones) are seeing significant inward migration from more rural portions of the Midwest. One could read this as young people becoming increasingly concentrated in these core metropolitan areas. That doesn't mean they have national pull however.

arguably, its better than having national pull. you're retaining your own people and you don't have to outsource! that's the best news midwest cities could have. 20 years ago Midwest prospects looked pretty dim after college so i split. so did every other nirvana shirt wearing college kid. every gen-x person I meet on the west coast isn't from here. maybe millenials are starting to get a different travel brochure. it cool to hear midwest cities mentioned in certain circles though. grand rapids is now shaping up to be quite the Michigan success story and is now arguably the craft beer capital of the east.

[Centropolis]

the heavily industrial midwestern cities have pockets (or big chunks) of authentic weirdness (not to mention a much larger stock of better period housing that i like whether that be 1950s modernist or 1880s) that make living in the midwest tolerable to me. the des moines type midwestern cities full of "big state" educated millennials have a distinctly different feel that i find suffocating. i feel like i have more "breathing room" in the rustbelt.

[pdxtex]

^^^do you like Omaha? its got lots of interesting houses and some odd gritty parts. and lots of nice parts too. I haven't been there in awhile but it seemed like it kind of split the difference between the great lake's and plain's urbanity.