Middle-Class Americans Moving to Fly-Over Cities

[Frodo]

Affordable Housing Drives Middle Class to Cities Inland

By SHAILA DEWAN
AUG. 3, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY — Americans have never hesitated to pack up the U-Haul in search of the big time, a better job or just warmer weather. But these days, domestic migrants are increasingly driven by the quest for cheaper housing.

The country’s fastest-growing cities are now those where housing is more affordable than average, a decisive reversal from the early years of the millennium, when easy credit allowed cities to grow without regard to housing cost and when the fastest-growing cities had housing that was less affordable than the national average. Among people who have moved long distances, the number of those who cite housing as their primary motivation for doing so has more than doubled since 2007.

Rising rents and the difficulty of securing a mortgage on the coasts have proved a boon to inland cities that offer the middle class a firmer footing and an easier life. In the eternal competition among urban centers, the shift has produced some new winners.

Oklahoma City, for example, has outpaced most other cities in growth since 2011, becoming the 12th-fastest-growing city last year. It has also won over a coveted demographic, young adults age 25 to 34, going from a net loss of millennials to a net gain. Other affordable cities that have jumped in the growth rankings include several in Texas, including El Paso and San Antonio, as well as Columbus, Ohio, and Little Rock, Ark.

[ElectionsGuy]

Good for them. I'm glad every day people are moving to more affordable places. In the next census Texas may have over 40 EV's and Florida over 30. Reasons like this are why.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Maybe that'll help Indiana in the long run. We got the most affordable of the smaller cities in my hometown.

[memphis]

Detroitmentum

[GaussLaw]

Detroitmentum

I've actually read that cities like Detroit are beginning to make a big comeback, along with Cleveland, Flint, etc.

It may actually be happening.

[memphis]

Detroitmentum

I've actually read that cities like Detroit are beginning to make a big comeback, along with Cleveland, Flint, etc.

It may actually be happening.

The Census Bureau estimates that Detroit lost another 25,000 people from 2010-2013. In the same period, Cleveland is down 6,000 and Flint is down 3,000. In contrast, in coastal, high cost of living cities, Boston is up 28,000, New York is up 230,000, DC is up 45,000, San Francisco is up 32,000.

[GaussLaw]

Detroitmentum

I've actually read that cities like Detroit are beginning to make a big comeback, along with Cleveland, Flint, etc.

It may actually be happening.

The Census Bureau estimates that Detroit lost another 25,000 people from 2010-2013. In the same period, Cleveland is down 6,000 and Flint is down 3,000. In contrast, in coastal, high cost of living cities, Boston is up 28,000, New York is up 230,000, DC is up 45,000, San Francisco is up 32,000.

Well, I was wrong then.  And that makes the article seem fishy too.

I suppose "Flyover country" means west of the Mississippi, or perhaps beginning with the Great Plains.

[Person Man]

People are moving to places that no one really wants to live because they don't have the skills to live in nicer places?

[Padfoot]

Columbus has been the best place to live in Ohio since well before the recession and associated housing crisis.  I won't go so far as to say we're attracting people from places like NYC and LA but the Northeast Ohio population drain typically dumps people squarely in the Columbus metro. 

[Heimdal]

Detroitmentum

I've actually read that cities like Detroit are beginning to make a big comeback, along with Cleveland, Flint, etc.

It may actually be happening.

The theme of Detroit coming back is sort of like Texas returning to the Democrats. We keep hearing that it is right around the corner, but it never actually happens

[memphis]

Probably worth pointing out as well that enormous coastal cities don't need more people and may be smart not to encourage more people to move there. The last thing Southern California needs is a few million more people, fighting for the same space on the highways and the housing markets. As Americans, we're so thoroughly conditioned to believe growth is always good, when it's clearly not.

[traininthedistance]

Probably worth pointing out as well that enormous coastal cities don't need more people and may be smart not to encourage more people to move there. The last thing Southern California needs is a few million more people, fighting for the same space on the highways and the housing markets. As Americans, we're so thoroughly conditioned to believe growth is always good, when it's clearly not.

In 1950, Philadelphia had 2,071,605 people.  Today (2013 estimates, that is) it has 1,553,165 people.

The coastal cities can absolutely handle more people, if we make the right investments and don't let NIMBYism ruin everything.  And, of course, the people need our coastal cities too, and the failure of them to accommodate everyone who wants to move in (without pushing the current residents out) is one of the greatest tragedies in American life today.

[memphis]

Probably worth pointing out as well that enormous coastal cities don't need more people and may be smart not to encourage more people to move there. The last thing Southern California needs is a few million more people, fighting for the same space on the highways and the housing markets. As Americans, we're so thoroughly conditioned to believe growth is always good, when it's clearly not.

In 1950, Philadelphia had 2,071,605 people.  Today (2013 estimates, that is) it has 1,553,165 people.

The coastal cities can absolutely handle more people, if we make the right investments and don't let NIMBYism ruin everything.  And, of course, the people need our coastal cities too, and the failure of them to accommodate everyone who wants to move in (without pushing the current residents out) is one of the greatest tragedies in American life today.

In 1950, average household size was at a level that 21st century people would find extremely undesirable and most of those households had either exactly one car on the road or none at all. I suppose Philadelphia could handle a few hundred thousand new people better than Manhattan could, but just as sprawl can easily reach a point that is an inefficient logistical clusterInks, so can extreme density. Philly is a fairly dense city in its own right, of course, though it's not at the absurd level of New York, and that is reflected (with the obvious caveat of certain federal policies) in the cost of living there. As a practical matter, Philadelphia benefits from being much less trendy than New York, and as you note extreme popularity does have a tendency to push local people out as well, a salient point that I hadn't even touched upon. There are many good things about New York, and I'm not here just to knock on the big city a la Sarah Palin, but it's hard to take a look at life there and (unless you have some serious cash) say, "You know, this is a totally practical thing."

[Stranger in a strange land]

There are very few phrases in the American vocabulary that I detest more than "Flyover Country" and the rank elitism and classism of those who say it.