America's Fastest-Growing Cities Since The Recession

bigstock-New-Orleans-Morning-969398.jpg

It was widely reported that the Great Recession and subsequent economic malaise changed the geography of America. Suburbs, particularly in the Sun Belt, were becoming the “new slums” as people flocked back to dense core cities.

Yet an analysis of post-2007 population trends by demographer Wendell Cox in the 111 U.S. metro areas with more than 200,000 residents reveals something both very different from the conventional wisdom and at the same time very familiar. Virtually all of the 20 that have added the most residents from 2007 to 2012 are in the Old Confederacy, the Intermountain West and suburbs of larger cities, notably in California. The lone exception to this pattern is No. 15 Portland. The bottom line: growth is still fastest in the Sun Belt, in suburban cities and lower-density, spread out municipalities.

The No. 1 city on our list, New Orleans, fits this picture to a degree as a quintessentially Southern city, but it’s a bit of an anomaly. Its fast growth is partially a rebound effect from its massive population loss after Katrina, but is also a function of a striking economic revival that I have seen firsthand as a consultant in the area.

Since 2007 New Orleans’ population has grown 28% to 370,000. Many are newcomers who came, at least initially, to rebuild the city.  But the city is still way below the 2002 population of 472,000, much less its high of 628,000 in 1960.

New Orleans is one of six cities where the population of the core has grown more in total numbers than the surrounding suburbs. (The other five are New York; San Jose, Calif.; Providence, R.I.; Columbus, Ohio; and San Antonio.) This is also a product of the fact that, when the Greater New Orleans region began to recover, the return to the suburban regions, for the most part, came before that to the city.

Nothing in the data, however suggests a revival of the older, dense “legacy” cities that were typical of the late 19th century and pre-war era. Most of the fastest-growing big cities since 2007 are of the sprawling post-1945 Sun Belt variety, including Charlotte, N.C. (No. 4); Ft. Worth, Texas (No.  6); Austin, Texas, (10th); El Paso, Texas (11th); Raleigh, N.C. (12th); and Oklahoma City (18th). Some of the fastest-growers are also outside the major metropolitan areas,  such as No. 5 Bakersfield in California’s Central Valley, the North Carolina cities of Greensboro and Durham, (9th and 14th, respectively), and  Corpus Christi, Texas (16th).

Among the big Northeast cities, the best performer is Washington (27th with 7.8% population growth) followed by Boston (71st, 2.2%). New York has managed only 0.3% population growth since 2007 (88th). Among other leading U.S. cities San Francisco’s population is up 3.3%, Los Angeles has grown 2.1%, and Chicago’s population has dropped 3.4%.

The other somewhat surprising result is the strong performance of more purely suburban cities, that is, ones that have grown up since car ownership became nearly universal. They are not the historic cores of their regions but have developed into major employment centers with housing primarily made up of single-family residences. These include the city that has grown the second most in the U.S. since 2007: Chula Vista, a San Diego suburb close to the Mexican border, whose population expanded 17.7%. It’s followed in third place by the Los Angeles suburb of Irvine (16.3%); No. 7 Irving, Texas; and the California cities of Fremont (13th) , located just east of San Jose-Silicon Valley, and Oxnard (17th), north of Los Angeles.

What do these results tell us? First, that Americans continue to move decisively to both lower-density, job-creating cities and to those less dense areas of major metropolitan areas particularly where single-family houses, good schools and jobs are plentiful.

Irvine, a planned postwar city of some 230,000 which ranks as the country’s seventh-wealthiest municipality, has three jobs for every resident; roughly two in five residents work in the city. Irvine’s 16.3% growth rate since 2007 has been bolstered by a strong inflow of Asians. Once overwhelmingly white, Irvine’s population is now roughly 40% Asian and 9% Hispanic.

Similarly, Irving, Texas, also thrived through the recession. Like Irvine this Dallas-area suburb is a major job center. Headquarters for Nokia , NEC Corporation of America, Blackberry, and Exxon Mobil, Irving’s population has soared over 13% over the past five years to 225,000.

This contrasts with some similarly sized suburbs that boomed in the first part of the decade. North Las Vegas added 80,000 people between 2002 and 2007 but its growth slowed down considerably as the Nevada economy cratered. This extension of Las Vegas has added a relatively paltry 12,000 people since 2007. With Phoenix losing 3.2% of its population since ’07, the nearby former boomtowns of Mesa and Scottsdale have also seen net outflows of residents.

Migration numbers for 2010 to 2012 alone hammer home that suburban areas are continuing to attract people, and that the more dense core areas do not generally perform as well. Although their growth has slowed compared to the last decade, suburban locales, with roughly three-quarters of all residents of metropolitan areas, have added many more people than their core counterparts.

Where do we go from here? The urban future will continue to evolve in directions that contradict the prevailing conventional wisdom of a shift toward more crowded living. The continued dispersion of America’s population is evidenced by the persistent, and surprising, strength of suburban towns, as well as the low-density cities of Texas and the Plains. The key to growth in the next decade may depend largely on whether these rising municipalities can continue to create the jobs, favorable educational environment and amenities necessary to attract more newcomers in the future.



MUNICIPALITIES OVER 200,000 IN 2012
25 Fastest Growing 2007-2012
POPULATION CHANGE
RANK MUNICIPALITY 2002 2007 2012 2007-2012
1 New Orleans, Louisiana     472,744     288,113     369,250 28.2%
2 Chula Vista, California     194,167     214,506     252,422 17.7%
3 Irvine, California     162,205     197,714     229,985 16.3%
4 Charlotte, North Carolina     590,857     669,690     775,202 15.8%
5 Bakersfield, California     259,146     312,454     358,597 14.8%
6 Fort Worth, Texas     570,808     680,433     777,992 14.3%
7 Irving, Texas     195,764     198,119     225,427 13.8%
8 Laredo, Texas     189,954     215,789     244,731 13.4%
9 Greensboro, North Carolina     231,415     245,767     277,080 12.7%
10 Austin, Texas     684,634     749,120     842,592 12.5%
11 El Paso, Texas     570,336     600,402     672,538 12.0%
12 Raleigh, North Carolina     313,829     379,106     423,179 11.6%
13 Fremont, California     205,034     199,187     221,986 11.4%
14 Durham, North Carolina     196,432     216,943     239,358 10.3%
15 Portland, Oregon     538,803     546,747     603,106 10.3%
16 Corpus Christi, Texas     276,877     283,445     312,195 10.1%
17 Oxnard, California     176,594     183,235     201,555 10.0%
18 Oklahoma, Oklahoma     519,100     545,910     599,199 9.8%
19 Aurora, Colorado     282,707     309,007     339,030 9.7%
20 Denver, Colorado     561,072     578,789     634,265 9.6%
21 Fontana, California     158,916     184,814     201,812 9.2%
22 Fresno, California     442,987     465,669     505,882 8.6%
23 Orlando, Florida     199,358     230,239     249,562 8.4%
24 Colorado Springs, Colorado     376,341     399,751     431,834 8.0%
25 Riverside, California     272,814     290,601     313,673 7.9%

 

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com.

New Orleans photo by Bigstock.



















Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You could post on the

You could post on the advertisements for the blog. You may catalog it's stunning . Your blog story can boost your members. http://www.rebelmouse.com/jennyboltonboostyourbustreview

source of data?

Does anyone know the source of the population data used here? Or a link to Wendell Cox's original study that this comes from? I can only find Census data up through 2011 from the American Community Survey, but this is showing 2012 data? Anyone know?

Matthew Yglesias in Slate

Rick Perry's Slam on New York Is Wrong, but Liberals Ignore Texas Growth at Their Peril

Now I think Perry's basic thesis here is wrong. But when you understand what's wrong with it, you'll also see that the kind of dismissive liberal sneering Jon Chait directs at Texas is misguided. How do I know that Perry is wrong? It's simple. If New York was a terrible place to live, work, and do business, then it would be cheap to live in New York. But New York is not cheap. It's not Detroit. It's not even average. It's, in fact, hellishly expensive. If New York emulated Texas and eliminated its income tax, rich people would bid up the finite supply of New York City land at an even more furious rate—the city wouldn't see Houston or Dallas growth rates.

New Orleans

I understand your points that growth has mostly occurred in the suburban sun-belt cities, but New Orleans' growth has helped revitalize large parts of the urban core. Neighborhoods like the Bywater, Marigny, Treme, Irish Channel, Central City are seeing the increases in newcomers. It's interesting how you lambast people that cheer on an urban renaissance in "legacy" cities, when New Orleans is actually one of those cities. The suburbs of New Orleans are slowly becoming stagnant while interest in the inner city neighborhoods haven't been this strong since the 60's.

Also, is it really that bad to cheer on an urban renaissance? What's wrong with hoping for a future where our inner cities are not covered in slums and poverty?

"Renaissance", or mandates and rent-seeking?

I think Kotkin, and Wendell Cox, are not so much attacking the cheering on of an urban renaissance; what they do, and I think it is needed, is attacking the propaganda of the "we know best for you" central planning classes, who constantly bombard us with fraudulent interpretations of trends, to seemingly justify what they wish to impose by mandate anyway.

If there is a good reason for an inner city to revitalize, it happens anyway. But there is only so much employment in sectors that suit the inner city built form, to go around the world's cities. You can't expect every city to be a "to scale" version of New York. But some advocates really are this stupid (or perhaps serving vested interests). For example:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-Australian-h...

Surprise. Good news for California on Newgeography

It's so interesting to see these statistics. 8 of the 25 fastest growing cities since the beginning of the recession are in California. Surprising since there is so much chatter of the demise of California and more specifically the Los Angeles area. It's good to see some positive results here. It would be great to see some articles on Newgeography with a more positive spin on California (and LA) instead of the relentless doomsayers ripping on the Golden State. There is some serious bias against the state. It's an amazing place and it will stay an amazing place. Obviously other people are still feeling the same as evidenced by these latest statistics.

distinction

The distinction is: California exurban and suburban communities are growing by net in-state migration, not because anyone is moving there from other states. California continues to have high out-state migration and increased in-state migration from OUT OF HIGH DENSITY CORE CITIES. That is not economic growth for California it is simply a shift within California showing people fleeing the corrupt high density cities and their crooked politicians and special interest groups.

The are always costs to imposing barriers to growth

Because California has such a desirable climate, people will sacrifice more to live there. The growth municipalities in California are probably driven by one or more of the following factors: temporary affordability post-crash; jobs-rich locations attracting residents during the post-crash respite of the "pricing out" effect; and immigrants from developing nations who are willing to endure overcrowding to compensate for high cost of housing space.

The State as a whole definitely has problems. Recall that there was an era when it was even more fast-growing, and politically pro-growth, than Texas is now. It was also affordable, as Neil Diamond sang in "I Am, I Said". There are always economic costs to imposing barriers to growth. The UK economy is a cautionary example.

You might have to go back to the 1960's and ...

... Gov. Edmund "Pat" Brown (D), father of Jerry, the current incumbent, to find a chief elected official in California that was absolutely in favor of economic expansion and growth.

Quite so

Quite so - I said there WAS an era. I probably should have said "prior to the 1970's".

Neil Diamond sang, in 1972,

LA's fine, the sun shines most of the time
And the feeling is laid back
Palm trees grow, and RENTS ARE LOW.......

("I Am, I Said")

So something obviously went badly wrong some time after that.

I was trying to explain the current "apparently fast-growth municipalities" by factors other than "pro growth" policies - which have not existed for some time.

Are we missing?

Where does Seattle fall on this list? Its growth has just about been pacing Portland/Denver and I though previously it had been growing in the 8-9% range.