Fastest Growing U.S. Metros: Atlanta tops all

[Buckley]

Originally Posted by DBR96A

Using the weather as an excuse to move is lame. I lived in Athens, GA for 10 years. The average high temperature there in January is 53, and the average low is 32. That means it freezes on an average January night. Also, while 53 is too warm for snow, it's still too cold to be comfortable, or to be conducive to outdoor activities. As far as I'm concerned, if it's going to be too cold to be "comfortable," then it may as well be cold enough to snow, because snow is at least nice to look at, unlike yellow sod and dead trees.

Before I lived in Athens, I lived in Pittsburgh. I remember days in January when the temperatures were in the 60's. I also remember going to a Q-Zar lock-in in Atlanta in January 2003. Low temperatures in Atlanta were in the single digits that night. It was cold enough that they had to turn the heat on in the arena, even though people were running around.

People who hate snow are pussies, as far as I'm concerned.

Having lived in PA and GA mysef, I have a different take. Hi temps of 50 in January are very conducive to being outside and doing active things (probably not swimming). Otherwise, you'd have to argue October/November and March/April in Pittsburgh are just as unattractive as January in Atlanta. Also, outside of the Great Lakes region and New England, there aren't many places where it snows often enough to participate in things like cross country skiing, ie a truly snowy climate. In a place like Pittsburgh it snows just enough to be interesting for a day or 2, then it just sits in dirty piles next to the road or turns to ice. It is not a winter wonder land all season, rather typical days are hi's in the 30's, grey, and brown.

[RobMidtowner]

I saw snowflakes last night at midnight from my condo in midtown Atlanta...no joke!

[atlantaguy]

Yeah, it's all over the news. We had fairly heavy flurries last night all over the Metro. My poor plants........

[Trae]

It is more than just the weather. Jobs, schools, cheaper housing.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by austin356


To many people from the rust belt just cannot accept that their governments economic policies are piss poor.


Agreed, austin356. I don't like the sunbelt and don't want to emulate its pattern of growth... but the north already has... all of the north's growth in the past 50 years has been the same sprawl we deride in the sunbelt... it's just we actually had some legacy urban centers that we managed to destroy in the process.

Our economic policies stink. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, etc. are all economic basketcases... the prevailing policy is to throw a few million in incentives to get some special firm to stay... instead of improving the business climate. People can talk about weather or politics or whatever... the biggest reason the North continues to fail in comparison to the South is delusional economic policy. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It's just pure economics... and northern states make decisions that deter organic economic growth.

[steel]

Very True Evergrey

Chicago(city) is still losing population but the metro added some 400,000! That means all the growth is suburban. Yikes! Luckily many neighborhoods and downtown have remained urban and are getting more so and many new neighborhoods have reurbanized too.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by cabasse

ohh, snap!

i. the city is also the fastest growing part of the metro now; i can't stress this enough.

just give atlanta a decade or two; i think by then it will suprise even the most steadfast haters here.

That a great thing..provided it isn't all auto centric development. Atlanta is ahead of every city in the south because of MARTA.

I don't hate Atlanta. It's hard to hate a place you've never visited. What brings out my wrath...is the boosters. If you could tape their mouths...Atlanta's reputation would be better immediately. I don't understand why the continually equate census figures and rankings to equal a city's importance. Also, it boggles my mind that they have no concern about problems that can arise with super heated growth in a short time. The older cities had the same heated population growth that spawned some of the most rancid slums filled with newly arrived immigrants...that make today's slums look like suburbia.

Also...I still think it is valid that certain cities up north are saddled with negatives that define them while cities in the SunBelt can have the same issues and not have it hurt them. Case in point...Detroit and Miami in the 1980's. One a declining industrial hub...the other was a tourist mecca that was also seeing decline...most notably in Miami Beach. Both had nationally acclaimed crime problems....racial isssues...Detroit had riots in 68...Miami had two riots within 10 years in the 80's...high levels of people living in poverty...blight and abandonment and most growth happening far outside the city core.

So why is Detroit is still trying to stop the bleeding from 40+ years of decline and Miami looks like Dubai with all the cranes on the skyline and turning into Florida's Urban Crown Jewel. Easy....the sun, sand and nightlife of Miami easily overshadowed the negatives of the past....whereas Detroit's negatives pretty much define the city because what positives there are....are never heard about. it's just easier to think of Detroit as a dead and lost city because of it's enviroment. Detroit will have to work 1000x harder than Miami did to shed it's negative image because Miami's Sunbelt profile makes it much easier to sell.

The only city that was saddled with a horrible negative image that overcame it was New York...which being a big media capital...was pretty much enevitable.

[Sulley]

You make some good points, but there are more factors at play in Miami. A large chunk of Miami's boom comes from foreign real estate investors capitalizing on a weak dollar. Many of these condo owners are wealthy jetsetters from Europe and South America.

The political situation with your beloved Hugo is also sending all of Venezuela's elite Miami's way... so blame him

[crisp444]

Originally Posted by PhillyNation

I don't hate Atlanta. It's hard to hate a place you've never visited. What brings out my wrath...is the boosters. If you could tape their mouths...Atlanta's reputation would be better immediately.

I'll have to disagree here: the boosters make the place seem like a beautiful mecca and get their friends and family members from around the country to visit (and many choose to stay!) The former happened to me but the latter did not: Atlanta was described to me as it is to so many other people and when I first saw it, I was impressed but very underwhelmed... it's just not urban enough for me and everything is just too spread out for my liking. They're working on that though, so I think the city has a very bright future.

I think Atlanta is absolutely fanstastic in theory but very mediocre in practice. I would much rather have a city promoted as a mecca, an exciting metropolis than the negativity that characterizes places in the Rustbelt. Maybe a little Atlanta boosterism and positivity would go a long way for places like Cleveland, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cincinnatti...

[Trae]

Originally Posted by PhillyNation

That a great thing..provided it isn't all auto centric development. Atlanta is ahead of every city in the south because of MARTA.

I don't hate Atlanta. It's hard to hate a place you've never visited. What brings out my wrath...is the boosters. If you could tape their mouths...Atlanta's reputation would be better immediately. I don't understand why the continually equate census figures and rankings to equal a city's importance. Also, it boggles my mind that they have no concern about problems that can arise with super heated growth in a short time. The older cities had the same heated population growth that spawned some of the most rancid slums filled with newly arrived immigrants...that make today's slums look like suburbia.

Also...I still think it is valid that certain cities up north are saddled with negatives that define them while cities in the SunBelt can have the same issues and not have it hurt them. Case in point...Detroit and Miami in the 1980's. One a declining industrial hub...the other was a tourist mecca that was also seeing decline...most notably in Miami Beach. Both had nationally acclaimed crime problems....racial isssues...Detroit had riots in 68...Miami had two riots within 10 years in the 80's...high levels of people living in poverty...blight and abandonment and most growth happening far outside the city core.

So why is Detroit is still trying to stop the bleeding from 40+ years of decline and Miami looks like Dubai with all the cranes on the skyline and turning into Florida's Urban Crown Jewel. Easy....the sun, sand and nightlife of Miami easily overshadowed the negatives of the past....whereas Detroit's negatives pretty much define the city because what positives there are....are never heard about. it's just easier to think of Detroit as a dead and lost city because of it's enviroment. Detroit will have to work 1000x harder than Miami did to shed it's negative image because Miami's Sunbelt profile makes it much easier to sell.

The only city that was saddled with a horrible negative image that overcame it was New York...which being a big media capital...was pretty much enevitable.

MARTA just needs to expand, before it is left in the dust by other southern metros. It id getting there, though, and Atlanta has plenty of transit ideas on paper (Beltline, etc.).

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by austin356

To many people from the rust belt just cannot accept that their governments economic policies are piss poor.

I promise you Lmich, if I had policy authority in Michigan you could have 3-4% unemployment, even with the fact that the autos are fucking your town.


You dont have to have population growth to have a decent economy, but you cannot have population growth without a decent economy.

Maybe you should study the reasons as to why taxes had to be raised. I can only give Philadelphia's story. Much of what is blighted today was redlined many years ago . That is where many of the old factories of industrial Philadelphia were located. With the area redlined...money could not be borrowed for upgrades in homes, businesses..practially everything in the zone. The factories were obsolete by the 1930's. Philadelphia was already in industrial decline by the Depression as the city was continuing to grow population wise. WW2 only delayed the inevitable manufacturing decline as old factories were kept in use for war production. So...much of North and West Philly was abandoned as a result of earlier redlining policies and any future tax revenue on the properties abandoned was lost. The city had to keep taxing what was left to keep the city running. Once the practice of redlining was gone...it was too late to save what was destroyed. Now please tell me how cities that were fucked by government and banking redlining policies were supposed pay for city services? How nice that when conservatives grabbed control of government...SunBelt cities saw the most benefit. Dick Cheney raped Philadelphia of it's military jobs when he was Secretary of Defense...moving most of them south. The Philadelphia Navy Base's job of refurbishing ships...moved to Mississippi and the Navy Base closed. Please don't give me the excuse it was to save money.....it was to give the party base's region the jobs in exchange for political support as the expense of a Democratic stronghold. So there went well paying jobs out the door too...and it had nothing to do with lower taxes or local economic policies. The citizens of Pennsylvania had to ante up 450 million to get a shipbuilder toset up shop at the Navy Yard...not the feds who raped the city...but hey there were nice enough to leave the mothballed ships to blight our landscape. I guess Mississippi was too good for that.....

BTW...do you include in the great SunBelt economic policies of how states hand out corporate welfare checks to lure companies down there? You don't think the CEO's just wake up one day and declare they are moving south? I wonder who subsidizes that?

[bricky]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't know what this is based on, but according to the Statscan on the 2006 census, the annual growth rate was 1.08%, and the highest of the G8 nations.

Alberta is growing at over 2% annually, and even higher in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. If you have any data on growth rates of the sunbelt, I'd love to see it.

Now you get, its about economy. Moreso than weather at least.

Someone in the other thread brought up economic policies of the rustbelt, which may not be as attractive as those in the south. Also, the racial issues of the 60s seemed to help speed up the decay.. something cities like Phoenix didn't have to deal with. (but speaking of weather - who in their right mind would find Phoenix attractive in that sense? Its a fucking desert)

I don't see what Canada has to do with this thread, but just for the hay, check out the Atlanta fastest growing metro thread. You'll find that Phoenix and Riverside metros grew by 24% in 6 years. Even with compounding, that sounds like it's well over 2% growth.

I also think economic policies have something to do with lack of growth in the rustbelt. But the rustbelt comprises many states and municipalities with different tax and regulatory environments. Surely somewhere there should be business friendly cities. As for racial issues, the South had the Midwest beat by a mile when it came to racism and tension back in the 1960s and beyond I would guess. But it's growth had already started by then, and the rustbelt's decay was already underway. And surprisingly, many people do like the weather in Phoenix. For most, it seems that cold is worse than hot. I'll be honest, it is for me as well.

And someone else made a good point earlier. Even in Canada, population and growth (with the exception of oil rich Alberta) has been concentrated in the warmer parts of the country, near the American border.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by Sulley

You make some good points, but there are more factors at play in Miami. A large chunk of Miami's boom comes from foreign real estate investors capitalizing on a weak dollar. Many of these condo owners are wealthy jetsetters from Europe and South America.

I do know that foreigners are fueling the boom down there. Again...did these investors stop for a second and say "Miami?...Isn't that the place where tourists were attacked and shot in their rental cars? Why would I want to own a condo in a place like that?" No...it was more like..."How much is the premium for ocean view?" (so they don't have to look at the low income neighborhoods a few miles inland).

Build the same building on the lakefront in Cleveland and being able to enjoy the World Class Cleveland Art Museum or the World Class Cleveland Symphony (since these are jetsetters and supposedly enjoy such things)...along with the view of Lake Erie (it water isn't it?) and you would be lucky these people would buy a unit for their hired help to go to for a vacation. They probably think that all women in Cleveland look like Mimi Bobek.

[whyhuhwhy]

np

[Sulley]

Originally Posted by PhillyNation

I do know that foreigners are fueling the boom down there. Again...did these investors stop for a second and say "Miami?...Isn't that the place where tourists were attacked and shot in their rental cars? Why would I want to own a condo in a place like that?" No...it was more like..."How much is the premium for ocean view?" (so they don't have to look at the low income neighborhoods a few miles inland).

Build the same building on the lakefront in Cleveland and being able to enjoy the World Class Cleveland Art Museum or the World Class Cleveland Symphony (since these are jetsetters and supposedly enjoy such things)...along with the view of Lake Erie (it water isn't it?) and you would be lucky these people would buy a unit for their hired help to go to for a vacation. They probably think that all women in Cleveland look like Mimi Bobek.

I would imagine that most wealthy South Americans view Miami as the closest "big city" to home that retains some of the culture and economic ties that they are familiar with.

Of course, the fantastic ocean views don't hurt either.

[ginsan2]

Originally Posted by PhillyNation

Build the same building on the lakefront in Cleveland and being able to enjoy the World Class Cleveland Art Museum or the World Class Cleveland Symphony (since these are jetsetters and supposedly enjoy such things)...along with the view of Lake Erie (it water isn't it?) and you would be lucky these people would buy a unit for their hired help to go to for a vacation. They probably think that all women in Cleveland look like Mimi Bobek.

Well, we have significantly colder weather than Miami... And we're just so cold for so long. As I look out my Dearborn window, it's still snowing here. It's still cold and gray... It's been like this for 8 months now. 8 months!

Also, the Great Lakes are in no way comparable to the ocean, especially the Pacific Ocean. We don't have any real beaches up here

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by LMich

And, you just can't even accept the idea that a lot of growth in the sunbelt is due to little more than trend and luck.

I think I'm going to have to disagree here. One significant factor that has helped Atlanta take off was the progressive attitude it had early in the game, particularly during the Civil Rights movement. Contrast that with Birmingham's attitude during the same time period, and I think it helps to explain, in part, why both cities are where they are today (for all practical purposes, Birmingham can be said to be a Rustbelt city in the Sunbelt).

North Carolina's liberal annexation laws has helped their cities expand their tax bases tremendously, resulting in great municipal fiscal health. The relaxing of the banking laws within the state has helped Charlotte establish a very healthy and growing banking cluster, which is the basis for its robust, diversifying economy. The establishment of the Research Triangle Park in the Raleigh-Durham area in the 1950's, coupled with the investment into the university system, is now paying huge dividends; Raleigh is now one of the fastest-growing cities on the East Coast and the Triangle (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) area has consistently been ranked as one of the best places for jobs and businesses in a number of reputable sources for the past several years. As a state, North Carolina is one of the cheapest in the nation in terms of the cost of doing business.

It's way more than just trend and luck in play here, much more.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy

best post in the entire thread!

Thanks!



Another big advantage southern cities have over northern cities... as alluded to by KBO679... is the fundamental difference in systems of local governance.

Most Southern states operate a "strong county" system of governance... where much of the land is unincorporated... unincorporated land is serviced by county governments... incorporated municipalities can then attempt to annex adjacent unincorporated territories... sometimes it's a difficult battle between city and county... and instead of wasting resources on a battle... they agree to a city-county merger... such as Louisville.

In many Northern states... every inch of ground is incorporated into some municipality... and the role of the county is to provide a "different set of services" to complement the services already provided by municipalities. Annexation is largely impossible due to the rights of municipalities.

There is of course variability across the regions and from state to state... but this is the general fundamental difference between North and South...

Northern cities are hemmed into tiny 19th century unable to cope with modern economic and technolgical scales... while Southern cities are more free to expand and adapt by increasing their boundaries to include hundreds of miles of fertile territory.

I wish Northern cities could do such a thing... because it would improve fiscal health, improve growth patterns and provide more resources for central cities... but there are too many people in power who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

[Wheelingman04]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Thanks!



Another big advantage southern cities have over northern cities... as alluded to by KBO679... is the fundamental difference in systems of local governance.

Most Southern states operate a "strong county" system of governance... where much of the land is unincorporated... unincorporated land is serviced by county governments... incorporated municipalities can then attempt to annex adjacent unincorporated territories... sometimes it's a difficult battle between city and county... and instead of wasting resources on a battle... they agree to a city-county merger... such as Louisville.

In many Northern states... every inch of ground is incorporated into some municipality... and the role of the county is to provide a "different set of services" to complement the services already provided by municipalities. Annexation is largely impossible due to the rights of municipalities.

There is of course variability across the regions and from state to state... but this is the general fundamental difference between North and South...

Northern cities are hemmed into tiny 19th century unable to cope with modern economic and technolgical scales... while Southern cities are more free to expand and adapt by increasing their boundaries to include hundreds of miles of fertile territory.

I wish Northern cities could do such a thing... because it would improve fiscal health, improve growth patterns and provide more resources for central cities... but there are too many people in power who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Very well said.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by PhillyNation

I don't hate Atlanta. It's hard to hate a place you've never visited. What brings out my wrath...is the boosters. If you could tape their mouths...Atlanta's reputation would be better immediately. I don't understand why the continually equate census figures and rankings to equal a city's importance. Also, it boggles my mind that they have no concern about problems that can arise with super heated growth in a short time. The older cities had the same heated population growth that spawned some of the most rancid slums filled with newly arrived immigrants...that make today's slums look like suburbia.

I agree completely. It irritates me so much. I've somehow gained the reputation among the Atlanta boosters on this forum of someone who hates Atlanta and jumps at every chance he has to bash it to pieces, simply because I usually throw some type of constructive criticism or nugget of reality into the praise party. I don't think they realize how bad they make their city look the extreme complex some of them seem to have.