Mapping where Millenials are moving to (and leaving)

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's already started:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300415487.html

Yep, I imagine it's the older millennials 30-34 years of age that are the ones migrating to the burbs and in another 10+ years the younger ones will come of age and do the same.

[PoshSteve]

Originally Posted by YSL

In raw numbers, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, Cleveland saw the largest drops in millenial population.
NYC, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Austin saw the largest gains.

Yeah, not sure where you get Cleveland from as one of the biggest drops. The map shows it green, and in the article there's a graph showing an increase of 1.5-2% (a big turn around for the CLE!). Speaking of my neighborhood alone (Ohio City) there has been alot of construction and rehabs lately, and I've seen and met alot of transplants. California seems to be the most common out of state license plates I see.

The article actually says: The biggest declines, however, tended to happen on the South and Midwest. Detroit, Miami, Richmond, Atlanta, and Phoenix all saw millennial population declines of 6% or more.

Just want to set that straight

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PoshSteve

The article actually says: The biggest declines, however, tended to happen on the South and Midwest. Detroit, Miami, Richmond, Atlanta, and Phoenix all saw millennial population declines of 6% or more.

The one thing all of those cities have in common is lots of nonwhite (mostly black and Latino) millennials. It makes me wonder how much of this is domestic migration by young people of color to other areas with more opportunity.

Another thing to consider, as this is a metro-wide list, is that in 2005 a lot of millennials were still teenagers living with their parents. Depending upon the definition used at that time, the oldest millennials were either still in college or just a few years out of college. Hence a lot of the net decline could just be young people moving away from their parents home in the suburbs, along with the central city not being enough of a draw to make up the difference.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Not surprised about Los Angeles.

High cost of living and a lousy job market, the worst of both worlds.

It's funny because sometimes it feels like it's not the NUMBER of jobs that sucks but the pay and field of the jobs (service sector) that sucks.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Not surprised about Los Angeles.

High cost of living and a lousy job market, the worst of both worlds.

Well, high cost of living will always apply. LA, in spite of all its livability issues, still remains a highly desirable city. The housing supply will never catch up with the demand.

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

It's funny because sometimes it feels like it's not the NUMBER of jobs that sucks but the pay and field of the jobs (service sector) that sucks.

Correct. As of March 2017, LA's unemployment rate was at 4.6% -- its lowest level in at least 30 years. That was lower than the state average of 4.9% and slightly above the national average of 4.5%.

Our local economy is in a relatively healthy state, but it's not quite booming with enough professional jobs to mitigate the high housing costs.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The one thing all of those cities have in common is lots of nonwhite (mostly black and Latino) millennials. It makes me wonder how much of this is domestic migration by young people of color to other areas with more opportunity.

Phoenix is a surprisingly Anglo city compared to, say, Tucson. Phoenix was essentially founded by westward migrating Americans rather than northward migrating Mexicans (and/or local native tribes) like Tucson. That said, I meet an awfully large number of people born and raised through college in Arizona who hav moved to the Bay Area and I bet there are even more of them in LA and San Diego--mostly white, though.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Phoenix is a surprisingly Anglo city compared to, say, Tucson. Phoenix was essentially founded by westward migrating Americans rather than northward migrating Mexicans (and/or local native tribes) like Tucson. That said, I meet an awfully large number of people born and raised through college in Arizona who hav moved to the Bay Area and I bet there are even more of them in LA and San Diego--mostly white, though.

Historically yes, Phoenix was an Anglo city not too long ago, while Tucson has always been much more 'Southwestern', similar to ABQ or El Paso. However, Phoenix, pop 1.6 million, has seen a huge shift in their demographics in the last 25 years. Non-Hispanic whites represent just 46.5% of the city (in 2010), it has surely dropped even lower in the past 7 years.

1970: White (including white hispanics) - 93.3%
2010: White (including white hispanics) - 65.9%

Phoenix's population has historically been predominantly white. From 1890 to 1970, over 90% of the citizens were white. In recent years, this percentage has dropped, reaching 65% In 2010.

20.6% of the population of the city was foreign born in 2010. Of the 1,342,803 residents over 5 years of age, 63.5% spoke only English

source

The data includes years during the GR years where Phoenix was one of the hardest hit regions the US, maybe that has something to do with it too. Also, like you said, in 2005 some millennials were only 15 years old.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Interesting map, those top cities that millennials are leaving are either shrinking (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland) or are extremely sprawling (Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix), Miami seems to be a bit of an outlier.

Should those trends continue I wonder how much it will effect the future success of these cities, especially the ones that are already shrinking?

Originally Posted by Chef

It is interesting that, despite popular perception, millenials are leaving Portland. This also shows that it may be time to invent the concept of the Old Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, Toledo, Flint) vs the New Midwest (Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Omaha, Grand Rapids, Iowa and the Dakotas). They are on clearly different tracks.

Just need to call out two more people who's map skills aren't very good.

Cleveland displays a gain. Quit picking on Cleveland.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Just need to call out two more people who's map skills aren't very good.

Cleveland displays a gain. Quit picking on Cleveland.

Oops! I think the thread starter mentioned Cleveland so I mentioned it as well without really looking at the map.
It looks like it's Cincinnati that experienced a drop.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Oops! I think the thread starter mentioned Cleveland so I mentioned it as well without really looking at the map.
It looks like it's Cincinnati that experienced a drop.

I know, I was really just being snarky. Should have included a with my response. I wouldn't have been surprised at all if it showed Cleveland losing millennials.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Just need to call out two more people who's map skills aren't very good.

Cleveland displays a gain. Quit picking on Cleveland.

Originally Posted by balletomane

Oops! I think the thread starter mentioned Cleveland so I mentioned it as well without really looking at the map.
It looks like it's Cincinnati that experienced a drop.

I did the same thing.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Monday morning

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/D...nt-8329970.php

Looks like SF needs to start photo IDing these peasants, then figuring out a way to bill them.

[Nomad9]

Interesting that you don't see any broad categorical trends to take away, other than Texas continued to boom.

Each region, and most states, have population centers with growing and shrinking millennial populations. I guess you could say the plains cities (from the Dakotas/MN down to the Gulf/border) are gaining, but I don't know that those cities have anything in common other than relatively cheap COL and land to grow.

[Atlriser]

ok, Im really missing something here I guess because this data doesnt really match woth actual population trends in the Atlanta area. The average age of the metro area hasnt changed significantly and we are adding 100,000 people a year so im just stupid i suppose. Atlanta's millenial population has been booming so someones lying somewhere. Maybe because the data is 2005 to 2015 but that still doesnt match for alot of the cities according to the map shown.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Atlriser

ok, Im really missing something here I guess because this data doesnt really match woth actual population trends in the Atlanta area. The average age of the metro area hasnt changed significantly and we are adding 100,000 people a year so im just stupid i suppose. Atlanta's millenial population has been booming so someones lying somewhere. Maybe because the data is 2005 to 2015 but that still doesnt match for alot of the cities according to the map shown.

I don't get it either. You can't add the population Atlanta has been adding over the last 4 years based on the census estimates and not be adding Millennials.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

I don't get it either. You can't add the population Atlanta has been adding over the last 4 years based on the census estimates and not be adding Millennials.

It's from 2005-2015.
And yes, it's possible. Look at Florida. Millennials are fleeing FL, yet the state still has very high overall growth.

And as for the 100,000 figure above.. the majority of growth anywhere via natural increase. The number of people who actually move there (or any city) is much smaller than the total growth figures.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by YSL

It's from 2005-2015.
And yes, it's possible. Look at Florida. Millennials are fleeing FL, yet the state still has very high overall growth.

Those years cover an anomaly in the form of a massive economic event (once in a century?), the Great Recession which had a huge effect on newer established sunbelt cities/states. The data might be accurate, but should have an asterisk associated with it.

[Atlriser]

Atlanta does have a nice natural growth rate and I understand the demographic change occurring in much of south Florida with retirees and even the Phoenix area but most southern metros are not just booming with older people but all demographics/ages.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Atlriser

Atlanta does have a nice natural growth rate and I understand the demographic change occurring in much of south Florida with retirees and even the Phoenix area but most southern metros are not just booming with older people but all demographics/ages.

Yep, some will be surprised that Phoenix is actually much younger than what is perceived. Younger than many other cities. Young families are flocking there.