Report: Americans fleeing nation's big cities

[Zapata]

Just found this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12395115/

Report: Americans fleeing nation's big cities

People moving further from metropolitan areas in search of cheaper homes

The Associated Press

Updated: 8:31 a.m. ET April 20, 2006

WASHINGTON - Americans are leaving the nation

[BWSchultz]

Interesting because of the way county lines are drawn here, I'll be soon leaving Harris County (negative growth) and moving to Brazoria County (positive growth). The catch is that I'll actually be moving 6 miles closer to Houston, as defined by downtown. So I'm both fleeing Houston and moving closer to it at the same time! HA! Take that statisticians!

Edited April 20, 2006 by BWSchultz

[Guest danax]

It will be really interesting to watch what happens in our big brother metros like LA and NY once the "exurbs" get too expensive. I suppose then the flight to distant states and affordable cities, like ours, will just increase. Then, prices in the huge metros will decline and attract more people once again.

It would be also interesting to see what the exact demographics are of the ones who are "driving up the prices" in these cities, or "them" as Garnet Coleman says. Are they all gay? Here we've got gays, DINKS, and high-income families building McMansions. Are there enough of "them" to sustain the urban renaissance for long?

I love watching the ebb and flow of free-market tides and the sociological adjustments that follow.

[bachanon]

I love watching the ebb and flow of free-market tides and the sociological adjustments that follow.

as do i danax.

it will be interesting to see what occurs if the housing boom slows dramatically or busts. if the economy should become such that it isn't worth having alot of money in real estate and the people running up the real estate values in the big cities decide to move their money elsewhere (say stocks/bonds/currency), what then would occur?

[KinkaidAlum]

Uh, where did this guy get his stats?

Houston didn't lose population from 2000 to 2004, much less Harris County. He very clearly has Harris County listed as DARK BLUE and that is simply not correct.

That said, Fort Bend, Montgomery, and Brazoria are growing much faster but Harris is still in major growth form!

[YakuzaIce]

Are they using CMSA's? Because I think some were altered after the 2000 census which resulted in differing populations. As for the numbers I have found...

.................................2000..............2004............Change

New York (metro).....18,323,002.....18,709,802.... (+386,800)

New York (city)..........8,008,278.......8,104,079.... (+95,801)

Los Angeles (metro).12,365,627......12,925,330.... (+559,703)

Los Angeles (city).....3,694,820.........3,845,541.... (+150,721)

Chicago (metro).......9,098,316.........9,391,515.... (+293,199)

Chicago (city)..........2,896,016.........2,862,244.... (-33,772)

Houston (metro).......4,715,407.........5,180,443.... (+465,036)

Houston (city)..........1,953,631.........2,012,626.... (+58,995)

Philadelphia (metro).5,687,147.........5,800,614.... (+113,467)

Philadelphia (city)....1,517,550.........1,470,151.... (-47,399)

DFW (metro)...........5,161,544.........5,700,256.... (+538,712)

Dallas (city)............1,188,580.........1,210,393.... (+21,813)

Miami (metro).........5,007,564.........5,361,723.... (+354,159)

Miami (city)...............362,470............379,724.... (+17,254)

Washington (metro).4,796,183.........5,139,549.... (+343,366)

Washington (city).......572,059............553,523.... (-18,536)

Also just because I am confused by their map...

Harris.....................3,400,578.........3,693,050 (2005)....(+292,472)

San Bernardino.......1,709,434.........1,963,535 (2005)....(+254,101)

As you can see both had similar growths. Yet on the map San Bernardino is labeled as dark red (10,000 and above) while Harris is listed as dark blue (-10,000 and above). So are they only talking about people leaving, and disregarding those who move in? Also if they are moving to the exurbs as the article states, won't they probably still count in the metro population. I am guessing that it is saying 10,000+ moved from Harris to somewhere like Fort Bend.

As you can see, theses stats vary wildly from what this article says. I only did eight metros (just because I don't have all night for this), but none of the top 8 MSA's lost population. Not to mention as you go down the list, Atlanta, Detroit, Boston, San Fransisco, Riverside/San Bernardino, Phoenix, and Seattle all rose in population. That rounds out the top 15 by the way. Thus going by MSA's the top 15 metros all gained population. I have to wonder how the census was able to overlook the 840,000 people the article claims NYC lost.

EDIT: When I started writing this there was only one reply , I wasted too much time on this.

Edited April 21, 2006 by YakuzaIce

[RedScare]

It took me awhile to figure this out, too. It is "Domestic" migration, meaning Americans moving within the US. The increases in population apparently come from immigrants offsetting the domestic outflow.

[YakuzaIce]

It took me awhile to figure this out, too. It is "Domestic" migration, meaning Americans moving within the US. The increases in population apparently come from immigrants offsetting the domestic outflow.

The article still seems somewhat alarmist, bending the facts to suit their needs. They don't even mention "Domestic migration" until the fourth paragraph. This quote below is a perfect example. They make no mention that it only pertains to "domestic migration". I am still looking for figures, all I can find are by race and very general (i.e northeast, south, etc.). Also, are they saying that NYC got 1,226,800 foreign immigrants to move there in the last four years?

Nearly every large metropolitan area had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004, with a few exceptions in the South and Southwest, according to a report being released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

[RedScare]

Also, are they saying that NYC got 1,226,800 foreign immigrants to move there in the last four years?

If we are to believe the Census estimates that NYC metro has gained 400,000 since 2000, yet believe the Census domestic migration estimate that 850,000 New Yorkers left, I know of no other group that could have made up the difference than immigrants. How else can the difference be made up?

One possibility could be the ever changing definition of a metro area. For instance, Houston and DFW have not grown as fast as the 2000-2004 numbers suggest. The OMB changed the definition of the MSA of each of these metros, adding counties, which made the metro bigger. The 2000 MSA has fewer counties, and therefore fewer popultion than the 2004 MSA. Other than that, I don't know how the numbers would jibe, other than immigrants replacing domestics.

[YakuzaIce]

If we are to believe the Census estimates that NYC metro has gained 400,000 since 2000, yet believe the Census domestic migration estimate that 850,000 New Yorkers left, I know of no other group that could have made up the difference than immigrants. How else can the difference be made up?

One possibility could be the ever changing definition of a metro area. For instance, Houston and DFW have not grown as fast as the 2000-2004 numbers suggest. The OMB changed the definition of the MSA of each of these metros, adding counties, which made the metro bigger. The 2000 MSA has fewer counties, and therefore fewer popultion than the 2004 MSA. Other than that, I don't know how the numbers would jibe, other than immigrants replacing domestics.

I realize that (for the first thing you said), I was merely stating it as a somewhat ridiculous number. As for your second point I find that much more likely.

But back to the supposed population shifts in New York City. From 2000-2004 it seems that 3,683,684 people came to the United States. I would be hard pressed to believe that 33% of them settled in new York City. Especially when over the last 4 years about 15-20% of those have come from Mexico. I of course am not saying Mexicans don't go to NYC, but it is less likely that they (New York) could experience such a percentage settling there when most immigrants do not come in through New York as they once did.

Ahh, I finally found a better spreadsheet. Over the 4 or so years in question, New York State was the place of intended residence for approximately 325,000 immigrants. Not even close to the 1,226,800 for NYC alone. Granted others could have moved there later, but they could move out also.

Edited April 21, 2006 by YakuzaIce

[worldlyman]

Interesting stats.

The "Inland Empire." Those home prices...

As far as Riverside-San Bernardino...what's the point of living out there? For the cost of those homes just marginally less than the plum areas in Orange, West LA and San Diego Counties...the summer heat out there defeats the purpose. Once a mere few miles away from the Pacific, it can get pretty hot out here in SoCal and there's not much in the way of A/C. It can really scorch closer to the desert like the Inland Empire.

Houston would be much better than the "Inland Empire" because it's green, quite closer to the open water, a heck of a lot cheaper house-wise and has more culture. People out there have to brave 4 hour round-trip commutes just to "enjoy" Los Angeles and the coast. In H-town, it's all there for the most part.

It's not a bad looking area, San Bernardino/Riverside...but it seems like a more affluent version of East Houston.

[JasonDFW]

Once a mere few miles away from the Pacific, it can get pretty hot out here in SoCal and there's not much in the way of A/C. It can really scorch closer to the desert like the Inland Empire.

Have you ever lived in the Valleys of SoCal? They have drier air there that creates larger diurnal variation than even LA proper. The average low even in July in San Bernardino is around 60