Over at NewGeography.com Joel Kotkin explores the topic of cities that are “best positioned to grow and prosper in the coming decade.”
Of the 52 metro areas studied only Providence (RI-MA), Detroit and Cleveland ranked lower than Chicago, which was tied with Los Angeles for 47th place.
How were the rankings determined?
We started with job growth, not only looking at performance over the past decade but also focusing on growth in the past two years, to account for the possible long-term effects of the Great Recession. That accounted for roughly one-third of the score. The other two-thirds were made up of a broad range of demographic factors, all weighted equally. These included rates of family formation (percentage growth in children 5-17), growth in educated migration, population growth and, finally, a broad measurement of attractiveness to immigrants — as places to settle, make money and start businesses.
Very interesting! Especially considering that I, after spending the first seven years of my career since college in Chicago, have made the decision to move to Austin, TX.
I can keep my same job, role, ect while making the move, no impact there; I’m moving completely by choice. I’m now absolutely confident that I’ll be happier there than in Chicago, and it should be even better for my career than Chicago on top of that!
Still, Chicago, NYC, LA, Miami, San Fran and Boston will remain the best and most popular cities in this country no matter how much some suburban loving fool tries to talk up Austin.
Btw, Austin becoming more of a boom town than NYC? Please, who comes up with this sh!t? For every 10 buildings that goes up in NYC, 1 goes up in Austin and for every 3-5 buildings that goes up in Chicago, 1 goes up in Austin.
Ron, I think you’re missing the definition of a ‘boomtown’.
Does calling a city a ‘boomtown’ mean it’s going overtake NYC, LA? No. It means that those ‘boomtown’ cities will grow and improve at a faster rate than the established cities.
Ron,
The folks at Brookings are suburban-loving fools? Who knew?
What’s foolish is ignoring the fact that Austin has been adding more jobs than Chicago (PDF). Buildings are nice for a city; jobs are better. Facebook did its first major expansion outside Palo Alto in Austin.
Austin issued more building permits for housing in 2010 than the Chicago metro area did. Houston issued nearly 4x Chicago; Dallas nearly 3x. Chicago barely beat out San Antonio in building permits for housing last year.
Do you have any backup for the numbers you cite?
As a person you lived in Austin for 4 years, I can tell you it’s another bubble. Think 5 straight months of grinding heat, mediocre restaurants, and zero public transit. Furthermore, it’s very isolating. You step one foot outside of Travis county and you can feel your IQ drop like a stone.
Houston??? Be my guest. I will take 15 years of a Chicago winter before I spend 3 minutes in that dump.
BTW, all those jobs they added are in the construction industry. They are the same people who left Arizona, Vegas, and the California Central Valley after the bust. Austin is way overbuilt. Classic Texas!
You’ll see.