Fastest Growing U.S. Metros: Atlanta tops all

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Actually, if you want to talk about what are the biggest factors then climate would fall well below the economy.

No one beats San Diego in the weather department, but clearly it's not growing as fast as it should if it was just about nice weather.

Oh absolutely!...cheap housing, warm climate, favorable economy...in other words, plenty of reasons why the big sunbelt metropolises are growing like crazy.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by SoFla951

Yes Atlanta is booming. Alot of people I know are thinking about moving up there......it's not that they like Atlanta its just that its too expensive in South Florida and they say they're basically going to Atlanta for the cheap housing. I was in Atlanta this summer and let me tell you the heat there is just unbearalbe, at least in florida you have the breeze off the ocean. I would never want to live there, but I guess If I couldn't afford to live down here I would have to move there If I still wanted to be somewhat close to family in Florida. The reason places are as expensive as they are is because they are desirable...which is why places like NY, LA, SF and Boston are as expensive as they are.

That ocean breeze stops a couple miles on shore. Atlanta is in the Piedmont region of the Appalachian Mountains, with an average elevation of approximately 1,000 ft, and, as a result, it has a significantly "cooler" summer than many other areas of the deep south. Atlanta summers are far more desirable than most (not all) of Florida, since it's cooler!

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Silver Spring is strange . . . . I have a friend who lives on the fringes of downtown near the Safeway, and the nearby residental blocks look terrible.

The very concept of "downtown Silver Spring" is quite foreign to me (and I'm not sure where the Safeway would now be). We lived up the hill from Sligo Creek Park off a street called Dennis Ave.--little 3-bedroom, 1 bath split level houses. Anyway, the last member of my family--my sister--is now outta there; she moved to Ormond Beach, FL where my mom also lives.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Actually, if you want to talk about what are the biggest factors then climate would fall well below the economy.

No one beats San Diego in the weather department, but clearly it's not growing as fast as it should if it was just about nice weather.

San Diego has the most perfect weather on earth, but only in a narrow zone near the water. That's true up and down the CA coast but especially in San Diego--you don't have to go far inland to be in the Mojave and it's hot as blazes in the summer. Anyway, I don't think there's much of the temperate coastal land left in SD. It can grow by getting denser, but for many people it's not the same if they can't have their sprawly house and yard and garden (preferably with a view of the Pacific) and to get all that in SD now you've got to be pretty rich.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by SteveD

That ocean breeze stops a couple miles on shore. Atlanta is in the Piedmont region of the Appalachian Mountains, with an average elevation of approximately 1,000 ft, and, as a result, it has a significantly "cooler" summer than many other areas of the deep south. Atlanta summers are far more desirable than most (not all) of Florida, since it's cooler!

I challenge that. I grew up in Washington DC and lived for 4 years in Durham, NC which also has a little elevation. Then I moved to Florida: first Gainesville, then Orlando and Ormond Beach. Of them all, Washington has the worst climate. But Florida, even inland in Orlando and Gainesville, was not as hot or oppressive as up in the "deep south" states not surrounded by water. Ormond, in fact, rarely got out of the 80's on summer days. Orlando and Gainesville often did--maybe 92 but they didn't seem as bad as the Carolinas and Georgia to me (and most days there were afternoon thinder storms to cool things off).

Anyway, in SF we complain of a heat wave when it gets over 70. That's my kind of place.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by PhillyNation

...and won't those places eventually decline and be left behind? At the rate we're going through cities and throwing them away the next boomtowns will be in Nebraska.

Eventually. But I'm not the one saying anybody is going to "rise again".

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I challenge that. I grew up in Washington DC and lived for 4 years in Durham, NC which also has a little elevation. Then I moved to Florida: first Gainesville, then Orlando and Ormond Beach. Of them all, Washington has the worst climate. But Florida, even inland in Orlando and Gainesville, was not as hot or oppressive as up in the "deep south" states not surrounded by water. Ormond, in fact, rarely got out of the 80's on summer days. Orlando and Gainesville often did--maybe 92 but they didn't seem as bad as the Carolinas and Georgia to me (and most days there were afternoon thinder storms to cool things off).

Anyway, in SF we complain of a heat wave when it gets over 70. That's my kind of place.

BT, it's not really something that can be "challenged". It's not my opinion, I'm talking climate stats. I didn't say "Georgia", I said "Atlanta", which, as I pointed out, is in the Piedmont of the Appalachians (most of Georgia is not). Ironically, you picked two Florida locales, Orlando and Gainesville, which have far more stifling summers than Atlanta. You're missing the critical distinction of Atlanta's elevation, which moderates its climate relative to most (not all) of the rest of the deep south. On top of that, the humidity of Orlando and Gainesville is higher than that of Atlanta.

Weather stats: Daily average highs, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept

Orlando: 91/92/92/90
Gainesille FL 90/91/90/87
Atlanta 87/89/88/82

[danwxman]

To whoever said they love that it's in the upper 60s in February in Atlanta. Uh, the average high is 57. I'm sure it gets into the upper 60s occaisonally, but it's not like that the whole month. The average high is 87 in June, 89 in July, and 88 in August. That's pretty hot if you ask me, and those are higher averages then any city in the Northeast.

Also, for those of you who will understand this, the average dewpoint (which measures humidity) is lower in the Northeast then Atlanta. For example, the average dewpoint in June in Atlanta is 65-70 (borderline oppressive), while in New York it's 55-60 (comfortable).

Hearing about a big east coast heat wave is a major news story because it only happens a couple times a year, while in the South it's just that damn hot and humid all summer long.

[holladay]

Wow, this whole thread has practically revolved around the issue of climate. It's only one factor, people. The real issues seem to be getting lost in all the hullabaloo about humidity and winter lows. Thinking about all the growth in Atlanta I'm reminded of the recent thread centered on National Geographic's piece about Orlando. The Megachurching, Francising, McMansioning, Theme-Parking of America... That is really closer to hitting the bases for why Atlanta is at the forefront of America's growth here in 2007.

Face it, Atlanta's growth is merely emblamatic of who we are and where we are going in America. Atlanta is undergoing immense shifts in culture and urban form right now. Not only is it consuming more land through exurban development than probably every other city in America (except maybe Phoenix), it is also undergoing a really strange intown boom that is remaking the central city through a rather fragmented, disjointed process of tower-making and condo-blitzing. Plus, Atlanta is also a hub for minorities and immigrants. It's 60s strip malls are being carved up into bazaars, market-stalls, import-export shops, dim-sum restaurants, and hosts of other immigrant businesses. It also has the largest black middle-class of any city in America. Furthermore, Atlanta is deeply entrenched in Red-State territory, which since 1980 has been the political center of the US. Virtually EVERYTHING happening in Atlanta is being mutated and exported throughout America. In a lot of ways it's ahead of every other Sunbelt city, including Dallas and Houston, in presenting a new model for the 21st century. This is not a value judgment (because frankly I am growing less-and-less inclined to make those the more I think about these issues since 'moralizing' often clouds perspective). This is merely a call to everyone (even irritating Atlanta boosters who frankly also fail to really 'get' their city) to wake up and realize that, like it or not, Atlanta is a crucial city (perhaps the MOST crucial city in our era) to understand if you care at all about where America is headed. What's happening today in Atlanta is going to be happening in your city tomorrow. It's almost certainty.

[SteveD]

Well, I won't argue with any of that, which makes Atlanta, with all of its warts and flaws, a very exciting place to live.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by SteveD

BT, it's not really something that can be "challenged". It's not my opinion, I'm talking climate stats. I didn't say "Georgia", I said "Atlanta", which, as I pointed out, is in the Piedmont of the Appalachians (most of Georgia is not). Ironically, you picked two Florida locales, Orlando and Gainesville, which have far more stifling summers than Atlanta. You're missing the critical distinction of Atlanta's elevation, which moderates its climate relative to most (not all) of the rest of the deep south. On top of that, the humidity of Orlando and Gainesville is higher than that of Atlanta.

Weather stats: Daily average highs, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept

Orlando: 91/92/92/90
Gainesille FL 90/91/90/87
Atlanta 87/89/88/82

Interesting, is that why it's got the nickname "hot-lanta?"

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Interesting, is that why it's got the nickname "hot-lanta?"

well, the summers aren't cold!

[Stratosphere 2020]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Interesting, is that why it's got the nickname "hot-lanta?"

I guess, because many people speak about Atlanta and what to move there, so the place is hot, in terms of demand ( Homes, businesses and such).

[Master Shake]

Look, lets give credit where credit is due. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas are the Cities that are making things happen in America today. There is an intrinsic bias on this website against the Sunbelt up and comers,but the fact is they have alot to teach rest of the country. We should ask what these cities are doing right and what other cities like New York, yes even New York, and Detroit can do to compete.

Its not just about weather, although it certainly is a factor. I have to say though, Atlanta's success is not based on its beaches or skiiing. Lets just be honest here.

Atlanta is America's City of the moment because its a place of incredible opportunity. Low taxes, low government regulation and a can do attitude is what makes this possible. Jobs, and by that I mean high end jobs, in finance, law and engineering are what make Atlanta great. Young college graduates are flooding to these cities for a reason. The Southern conservative attitude towards limited govenment allows this to happen. Cheap housing is another factor. The cheaper housing is due in part to less government regulation of land use.

Yes sprawling equals growth and prosperity, and as long as metros like SF and NYC reject sprawl, they will be at the bottom of any growth list. I am not saying the Sprawl is the answer, just look at Detroit and Buffalo, but its part of the answer. Much of the population, especially the mobile educated portion, want a certain suburban lifestyle. Metros like New York and SF are not growing fast enough to provide the affluent suburban lifeestyle of the upper middle management crowd. These metros are great if you are a millionaire or if you are 22 years old, but otherwise not so much.

High density developments may help address some of the housing costs, but the vast majority of Americans want the suburban lifestyle.

Glad to see Chicago is still booming with a rate twice the growth rate of New York, although I believe most of the growth is in exurban sprawl.

[dimondpark]

Coming from The California Coast, I must say that to me, anywhere away from this coast is hot and very uncomfortable in the summertime, be it NYC or Atlanta or Florida or Arizona. Humidity is nasty and sticky and dry heat(which from SF requires nothing more then a 30-mile drive east) feels like your in an oven. Now Ive lived in other places with hot weather, but I couldnt help in the summertime in these other places recall how cool and beautiful the weather must be back home.

[liat91]

If you read all the posts in this thread and find a compromise.
Fastest growing metros
1. Cheaper
2. Warmer
3. Booming Economy due to:
a. cheap business costs
b. lots of young talented labor due to factors 1,2 and 3
c. Conservative pro-business politics
4. Newer cities: people like new things (all sparkly and shiny and stuff)
5. Natural Social forces causing an infill of our country.

p.s. once the sunbelt matures, which I believe will come soon, our country is
settled. NO MORE PEOPLE!!!! We need a few open spaces left.

[Visiteur]

I remember a newspaper article up here a few months ago that said that a recent study at Columbia suggested that the upstate NY climate would be silmilar to the Georgian climate in 50 years if we continue to heat up at the current rate.

Nobody complained.

No word about the South though. I don't imagine if the results of that study ended up playing out, it would be much fun for the SE U.S.

[Master Shake]

p.s. once the sunbelt matures, which I believe will come soon, our country is
settled. NO MORE PEOPLE!!!! We need a few open spaces left.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...I don't think rational proposals to limit America's uncontrolled immigration is allowed on this website.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Master Shake

Metros like New York and SF are not growing fast enough to provide the affluent suburban lifeestyle of the upper middle management crowd. These metros are great if you are a millionaire or if you are 22 years old, but otherwise not so much.

High density developments may help address some of the housing costs, but the vast majority of Americans want the suburban lifestyle.

You have to be joking. The affluent upper middle management crowd invented most of San Francisco's suburbs and still inhabits them. The SF metro isn't growing, allegedly, because it has spread geographically so far that the areas that are growing don't get counted. The "official" SF-Oakland metro includes Alameda, Contra Costa, SF, San Mateo and Marin Counties. These counties are all pretty much built out. Growth is pretty much a matter of increasing density by building multi-family housing where once was single family. The growth (i.e. "sprawl") is taking place in Sonoma, Napa, Solano and San Joaquin counties. And then there's Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties which I have previously pointed out are in just about every functional way part of the same metro area as SF-Oakland (soon, the "San Francisco 49ers" may well be playing in Santa Clara).

And the city is not just for youth and millionaires. It's becoming also a place for empty-nesters and, of course, in the Bay Area, especially childless couples (gay and straight).

[austin356]

Though I like good climates why is the talk on here so focused on such?

I think many people want to hide the real factors which is the problems created by governments in the slow growth areas.

-High taxes and regulation have negatively affected the north and northeast. The exceptions to this (NYC, BOS, and SF, are in spite of, in which the spite comes because said cities are sooo very favorable to live in, build enviroment wise)

-Housing cost, of which is DIRECTLY attributable to land use policies by governments. If you look you will find that the least regulated market (Houston) is the very cheapest in the nation, while the most regulated market (SF) is the most expensive. There is a direct correlation between government intervention in land use and housing cost.

-Middle class "paradise" that has formed in southern suburbia. A brand new big house and big yard for less than 200k.


Even though I admit that the above factors I mentioned, which are problems (or solutions to some ppl) can directly attributed to the governments, there really is not that massive of a fundamental difference between even the policies of NY and Texas. The tax burden is not extremely higher and the regulatory regime, though more stringent, is not insanely so. But, there is a difference, and the last few decades show that even same changes in government can have exponentially greater effects on results (aka the market is more powerful than even I thought)



We can all see the effects, unless we are too close minded to even give the situation a unbiased analyzation. The real debate should be like this:

-Are the sideeffects of cheap, middle class housing worth the negative ramifications? (this is subjective at its very core).