Between 2006 and 2008, the metropolitan areas that enjoyed the fastest percentage shift toward educated and professional workers and industries included nominally “unhip” places like Indianapolis, Charlotte, N.C., Memphis, Tenn., Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, Fla., Tampa, Fla., and Kansas City, Mo.
The overall migration numbers are even more revealing. As was the case for much of the past decade, the biggest gainers continue to include cities such as San Antonio, Dallas and Houston. Rather than being oases for migrants, some oft-cited magnets such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago have all suffered considerable loss of population to other regions over the past year.
…More important, the key group leaving New York and other so-called “youth-magnets” comprises the middle class, particularly families, critical to any long-term urban revival. This year’s Census shows that the number of single households in New York has reached record levels; in Manhattan, more than half of all households are singles. And the Urban Future report’s analysis found that even well-heeled Manhattanites with children tend to leave once they reach the age of 5 or above.
The key factor here may well be economic opportunity. Virtually all the supposedly top-ranked cities cited in this media narrative have suffered below-average job growth throughout the decade. Some, like Portland and New York, have added almost no new jobs; others like San Francisco, Boston and Chicago have actually lost positions over the past decade.
In contrast, even after the current doldrums, San Antonio, Orlando, Houston, Dallas and Phoenix all boast at least 5% more jobs now than a decade ago. Among the large-narrative magnet regions only one–government-bloated greater Washington–has enjoyed strong employment growth.
The impact of job growth on the middle class has been profound. New York City, for example, has the smallest share of middle-income families in the nation, according to a recent Brookings Institution study; its proportion of middle-income neighborhoods was smaller than that of any metropolitan area except Los Angeles.The same pattern has also emerged in what has become widely touted as America’s “model city” — President Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago.
– Joel Kotkin, editor of NewGeography.com, in a new story about migration and employment growth in 29 metropolitan areas. The numbers, he says, do not support claims made in recent The Wall Street Journal and Atlantic Monthly articles, both of which predicted a movement of people and businesses to high-density, “youth magnet” cities.
It is sad to think that the middle class is shrinking in the Chicagoland area, but I have seen signs of it at work. In the IT sector, where you can live anywhere with an Internet connection, there is this push to live in cities that are “more affordable”. By more affordable, the focus is on taxes, real estate and price of dependent services (ie daycare). A number of the young adult who worked in the dotcom era are now in there 30s and starting families of there own. Big cities with great night life, hip factors and urban living are no longer top on the priority list.
It will be interesting to see if the shift continues over the next decade.
The trend of places emptying out of children has been in place and reported-on for years. On a national level, nothing beats Japan. But on a city level, a few years ago the MSM was reporting that San Francisco, Boston, NYC and a few other hip and expensive coastal cities were emptying out of children to the point where grade schools were being closed.
Demographics is a great topic, and I’m sure everybody has different opinions so nobody needs to hear mine! But one of the things I keep an eye on is efforts in places (say, France, or San Francisco, or Japan) to induce people to have children. Its weird to me how some people think a “normal” neighborhood necessarily must include children, whereas other people think children are the last thing that defines a “normal” neighborhood.
One last thought on the coastal cities. As the populations of children decrease, so does the overall populations. Several of the most expensive places in America are literally losing population at the same time as the cost of living is increasing, or at least staying at relatively-high levels!
I don’t buy into the hype of “Hip Cities”, but at the same time I’ve learned to ignore almost anything Joel Kotkin writes – he has his own axe to grind. Take a look at the data he is using and the conclusions he draws, he uses Net Migration stats and applies them to small demographic slices, the Brookings data he links to covers 1970 to 2000 and he treats it as though it is current. He also cherry picks what he wants to see and draws the exact opposite conclusions than the authors of the studies, who looked at ALL their data as a whole. He uses an Urban Futures study to show how NYC is dying, while the authors of the study state “our conclusion is that a strong middle class remains in New York, and that there are considerable grounds for optimism about its future”.
Attrill,
I don’t ignore Kotkin, nor do I always agree with the conclusions he draws from the data he presents.
You’re selectively quoting the authors of the Brookings study. Saying that “a strong middle class remains in New York” is consistent with Kotkin’s portrayal of middle class decline.
The Brookings authors are, in general, in agreement with Kotkin.
Mr. Kotkin is definitely good for drawing a hard, black-and-white line where the answer is almost certainly grey, but if there is one thing controversy is good for, it is discussion.
If the stats presented on Chicago’s decline are real, then the challenge is to reverse them. How? I am only an architect, but I suggest lowering taxes and incentives for small business to spur job creation within city limits. After all, with the telecommuting ability that Dan mentions above, Chicago is competing directly against cities it might not have considered 15 years ago.
Andy
[1016] Architecture, Inc.
http://www.1016architecture.com