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

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Your point... the premise of your argument... is untrue. Massive early population growth rates in midwestern cities occurred because of European immigration, not because of southern migration.

Look at historical population growth rates in the cities of the Midwest from Buffalo to Chicago... the greatest growth occured between the 1850s and 1910. This was due to European immigration.

To argue otherwise is factually inaccurate.


Your assorted points below are all false:

Except you're completely ignoring the fact that the growth wasn't "massive," comparatively speaking.

Modest, yes. But growth of only 6.8 million over a span of 60 years is hardly "massive" when compared to the growth of ~14 million and ~20 million over the next 120 years.

And again, I don't get the point of bringing up individual cities when we're discussing regions vs. regions. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

[10023]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Been saying for years, the popularity of the Sunbelt will eventually become its own demise. California is merely the first, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas will be next. When Mississippi and Louisiana start to become "popular" Sunbelt destinations then you know they're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel and the glory days of Sunbelt growth will be over.

Amen.

Mississippi is barely fit for human habitation, climate-wise.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Except you're completely ignoring the fact that the growth wasn't "massive," comparatively speaking.

Modest, yes. But growth of only 6.8 million over a span of 60 years is hardly "massive" when compared to the growth of ~14 million and ~20 million over the next 120 years..

It’s massive because growth rates after that were lower, and population gains after that point were at least in part due to childbirths.

[CaliNative]

Most people born in a region stay put, if they can make a living there and afford to live there. Their friends are there. Their family is there. Inertia is a powerful force. Moving is costly and hard. People move out of necessity. That being said, in the next few decades I do expect that net migration from east to west, and north to south could zero out, if not reverse. I myself, born in California, have considered moving. But inertia keeps me here. I suppose if costs continue to increase, I might move. Perhaps to a cheaper "sunbelt" state, or perhaps to a midwestern or northeastern state. I do actually enjoy 4 seasons, and I enjoy the history found in the northeast.

I'm scared of earthquakes, yet here I am, earthquake central. I do realize that there are some quake zones in the midwest & northeast (New Madrid, Charleston, Boston) but the quakes tend to be rarer and the big ones very rare. There is security being far from a plate boundary and the "ring of fire". I would take a hurricane or even tornado risk over a megaquake any day. Hurricanes & tornados give you warning time. Quakes are now unpredictable.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I see global warming as making the Great Lakes region much more desirable.

Droughts are impossible - unlimited cheap fresh water
No impact from rising sea levels
Milder winters
No exposure to hurricanes

Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc... I think they will all have a second coming as the boom towns of America.

Yes, there are engineering solutions to many of the problems coastal and dryer regions will face, but that will cost enormous sums of money and make the cost of living in those regions even more prohibitive.

If Chicago became much milder, it would be my first choice in moving north. But that won't happen in my lifetime or most of ours.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'm sort of on the edge of where it goes from kind of cloudy all the time to kind of sunny all the time, and as i get older i realize that (because of my profession) if it were any sunnier the chances of skin cancer really go up. in fact skin cancer is a problem in my office (environmental consulting/ engineering).

Didn't realize we're in the same business. Have had skin cancer several times, largely because of my Scottish heritage, but also because it's moderately sunny here, especially during the summer. I wear SPF 50 every day, even when it's cloudy, which lately has been almost all the time.

[James Bond Agent 007]

This thread is making me think I should start wearing long pants and long sleeves while doing yard work, even in 90 degree weather in the summer. KC is pretty sunny.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

Didn't realize we're in the same business. Have had skin cancer several times, largely because of my Scottish heritage, but also because it's moderately sunny here, especially during the summer. I wear SPF 50 every day, even when it's cloudy, which lately has been almost all the time.

there’s several of us on here!

sorry to hear that, as i get a little but older these things start to come to mind. i’m pretty bad about not wearing sun screen...i typically try to in the june-august timeframe but i’m outside year round...not every day but a lot.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

there’s several of us on here!

sorry to hear that, as i get a little but older these things start to come to mind. i’m pretty bad about not wearing sun screen...i typically try to in the june-august timeframe but i’m outside year round...not every day but a lot.

I'm either outside at a jobsite or writing a report behind a desk. I'm a civil engineer P.E. specializing in commercial real estate Property Condition Assessments. I'm 55 and have had quite a few things cut or frozen off of me, a couple of which were pre-cancerous. I get lectured about sunscreen every time I see my dermatologist but I just can't seem to get into the habit. About 5 years ago he told me I couldn't wait for yearly screenings and to start coming every 6 months.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Most people born in a region stay put, if they can make a living there and afford to live there. Their friends are there. Their family is there. Inertia is a powerful force. Moving is costly and hard. People move out of necessity. That being said, in the next few decades I do expect that net migration from east to west, and north to south could zero out, if not reverse. I myself, born in California, have considered moving. But inertia keeps me here. I suppose if costs continue to increase, I might move. Perhaps to a cheaper "sunbelt" state, or perhaps to a midwestern or northeastern state. I do actually enjoy 4 seasons, and I enjoy the history found in the northeast.

I'm scared of earthquakes, yet here I am, earthquake central. I do realize that there are some quake zones in the midwest & northeast (New Madrid, Charleston, Boston) but the quakes tend to be rarer and the big ones very rare. There is security being far from a plate boundary and the "ring of fire". I would take a hurricane or even tornado risk over a megaquake any day. Hurricanes & tornados give you warning time. Quakes are now unpredictable.

I think most people are scared of earthquakes, but here California is, with 40 million people. Why? They're not common enough to effect your life. They're not Hurricanes. The idea someone won't move to or leave California cause of Earthquakes is crazy to me. Wildfires are worse, but only if you live near the mountains or hills.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I think most people are scared of earthquakes, but here California is, with 40 million people. Why? They're not common enough to effect your life. They're not Hurricanes. The idea someone won't move to or leave California cause of Earthquakes is crazy to me. Wildfires are worse, but only if you live near the mountains or hills.

One thing to keep in mind with hurricanes, earhquakes, etc. is that to some extent they’re accounted for in insurance costs. So even if you’re not explicitly dissuaded from living in California out of fear of earthquakes, the cost just might.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I think most people are scared of earthquakes, but here California is, with 40 million people. Why? They're not common enough to effect your life. They're not Hurricanes. The idea someone won't move to or leave California cause of Earthquakes is crazy to me. Wildfires are worse, but only if you live near the mountains or hills.

Earthquakes are the great white sharks of natural disasters. They strike unpredictably, and are absolutely terrifying. They are more terrifying than a hurricane in my opinion, which you can see coming, and right up there with tornadoes. The difference is you have a warning time of many hours and days with the hurricane, and often hours or many minutes of warning with tornadoes.

[JManc]

I will never scoff at a hurricane again. I've been through half a dozen so far but we almost lost our house with Harvey and half our neighborhood was flooded out and still recovering. I can't say I didn't deal with this back up north because I went through Irene in NY and saw the devastation in Vermont...was especially bad there. Washed all the patchouli and granola away. And a few covered bridges along with them.

[maru2501]

chicago winters are already tamer than they were

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by maru2501

chicago winters are already tamer than they were

I go back and forth. They do feel shorter than I remember.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

A lot of long time Arizona residents who moved here from the Midwest would never admit it, but a lot of us secretly enjoy cloudy days since we average OVER 300 DAYS OF UNRELENTING SUNLIGHT AND IT GETS REALLY FUCKING TIRING AFTER A WHILE

Hell, I developed a sensitivity to sunlight after living in the Southwest and Southern California for over 20 years, to the point where I have to wear sunglasses even on particularly cloudy days.

I'm the same way. Vancouver is straight clouds for 8 months and then straight sun for 4, and I definitely get tired of the sun quicker than the clouds.

I will say that as a Canadian, especially one living in Winnipeg now, where Toronto is considered relatively warm, it's pretty funny seeing people talk about Chicago and Detroit as if they were in the tundra. I mean, I came to Winnipeg from Vancouver, Canada's climate snob capital, and my main impression has been "hey, it's not that bad." But I guess perception is a funny thing like that.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by JManc

I will never scoff at a hurricane again. I've been through half a dozen so far but we almost lost our house with Harvey and half our neighborhood was flooded out and still recovering. I can't say I didn't deal with this back up north because I went through Irene in NY and saw the devastation in Vermont...was especially bad there. Washed all the patchouli and granola away. And a few covered bridges along with them.

Yes I've "sat thru" quite a few in my day but once you've been through a close call - when that water starts rising into your house and the wind is going crazy and those second thoughts - you always evacuate after that!

[Docta_Love]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

If Chicago became much milder, it would be my first choice in moving north. But that won't happen in my lifetime or most of ours.

What most people don't know about the Great Lakes Region especially the central and eastern parts is that they create their own micro climate not just with the snowbelts which tend to be the areas downwind of the eastern and southern shores of the Great Lakes.

There was a study done a few years ago that updated the US climate zone designations around the Great Lakes area to reflect the fact that they create a moderating effect on the weather and their own micro climates. Another example of the micro climate positive of the Great Lakes region is during the spring season aka tornado season the still cold waters of the lakes moderate and stabilize warm most air coming from the Gulf of Mexico.

Once again its the central and eastern lakes areas that see the most pronounced effects and the area is considered to be the "safest" in the country from natural disasters. Of course if conditions are just right i.e. a wind with a direct southerly fetch this point can be moot in the 50's the northern burbs of Flint were hit by a very deadly F-5 but this seems to be the exception not the rule. Great Lakes cities are outside of Tornado Ally and "Hosier Ally" while most tornadoes are generally brief and weak there are always exceptions.

But the effect I want to mention is that in Metro Detroit specifically there is an area of climate zone 6b which on its northern end extends west from Anchor Bay on Lake St. Clair over to Utica then the western border of this micro zone extends southwest down into Ferndale then continues southward again through the inner westside of the city down through Southwest ending about at Zug Isle.

Windsor Ontario is situated on its own peninsula "sandwiched" so to speak between Lakes Erie and St. Clair it's also a climate zone 6b, on the palm trees of Canada thread this subject was touched on Magnolia Trees are Grown in Windsor.

The West Coast of Michigan also gets a strong marine influence so much so that almost the entire coast is a climate zone 6b as well. There is a small gap from Ludington to Manistee where the climate zone is rated a colder 6a. This is because of a narrowing of Lake Michigan in this area providing slightly less marine influence during the winter time. But with the lake becoming wider again the after Manistee the Coast west of Traverse City is also a 6b Climate zone which is prolly one of the reasons why the area so such rich orchards and vineyards.

BTW the climate zone rating designations are derived by the coldest average winter night time lows for the area. For reference D.C. and most of Virginia except the highlands and the extreme southeast are climate zone 6b, northern Texas, Okalahoma and N.W. New Mexico are also the same climate zone as the central and eastern areas of the Detroit Metro.



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...inessZones.svg


http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm the same way. Vancouver is straight clouds for 8 months and then straight sun for 4, and I definitely get tired of the sun quicker than the clouds.

I will say that as a Canadian, especially one living in Winnipeg now, where Toronto is considered relatively warm, it's pretty funny seeing people talk about Chicago and Detroit as if they were in the tundra. I mean, I came to Winnipeg from Vancouver, Canada's climate snob capital, and my main impression has been "hey, it's not that bad." But I guess perception is a funny thing like that.

I think Victoria claims to be even milder than Vancouver--with only half the rain as well (about 25 inches per year vs over 50 in Vancouver). Victoria, Canada's true "banana belt". Also, isn't tobacco grown on the Canadian shore of Lake Erie? Cold winters, but milder than the plains or other parts of Ontario. Places near the Great Lakes tend to be milder when the winds blow off the lakes, but there can be humongous amounts of "lake effect snow".

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I think Victoria claims to be even milder than Vancouver--with only half the rain as well (about 25 inches per year vs over 50 in Vancouver). Victoria, Canada's true "banana belt". Also, isn't tobacco grown on the Canadian shore of Lake Erie? Cold winters, but milder than the plains or other parts of Ontario. Places near the Great Lakes tend to be milder when the winds blow off the lakes, but there can be humongous amounts of "lake effect snow".

Victoria's definitely milder than Vancouver, but not quite populous to be as visibly obnoxious about it