Dallas

Heavy Metal Is Back: The Best Cities For Industrial Manufacturing

Joel Kotkin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:39:59 -0500

For a generation American manufacturing has been widely seen as a “declining sport.” Yet its demise has been largely overplayed. Despite the many jobs this sector has lost in the past generation, manufacturing remains remarkably resilient, with a global market share similar to that of the 1970s.

More recently, the U.S. industrial base has been on a powerful upswing, with employment climbing steadily since 2009. Boosted by productivity gains and higher costs in competitors, including China, U.S. manufacturing exports have grown at their fastest rate since the late 1980s. In 2011 American manufacturing continued to expand, while Germany, Japan and Brazil all weakened in this vital sector.

To determine the best cities for manufacturing my colleague Mark Schill at Praxis Strategy Group measured the 51 largest regions in the country in terms of how they expanded their “heavy metal” sector — think automobiles, farm and energy equipment, aircraft, metal work and machine shops. We averaged absolute growth rate and momentum in 148 heavy metal manufacturing industries over ten-, five-, two-, and one-year time frames.

Our top ranked area, Houston, is one of only four regions that enjoyed net job growth in manufacturing in the past 10 years. This year its heavy manufacturing sector expanded by almost 5%. Houston’s industrial growth is no fluke; over the past year its overall job growth has been about the best among all the nation’s major metros.

Houston’s industrial success owes much to the city’s massive port and booming energy sector, says Bill Gilmer, senior economist at the Federal Reserve office of Dallas. “Houston is about energy — it’s about fabricated metals and machinery,” he says. “It’s oil service supply and petrochemicals. It’s all paced by a high price of oil and new technology that makes it more accessible.”

This shift towards domestic energy augurs well for a huge and economically beneficial shift in America’s longer term economic prospects, he points out. Cheap natural gas, for example, makes petrochemical production in America more competitive than anyone could have imagined a decade ago. Linkages with Mexico in terms of energy as well as autos has made Texas — which is also home to No. 4 ranked San Antonio and No. 15 ranked Dallas — the nation’s primary export super-power, with current shipment 15% to 20% above pre-crisis levels.

The energy and industry connection also can be seen in No. 10 Oklahoma City, where heavy industry has been booming through much of the recession due to its strong fossil fuel industry. This synergy between energy and manufacturing could also spread to other regions, including many not associated with large fossil fuel deposits New finds in the Utica shale in Ohio, for example, could be worth as much as $500 billion; one energy executive called it “the biggest thing to hit Ohio since the plow.”

These gas finds may help ignite the heavy metal revival. As coal-fired plants become more expensive to operate due to concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, the region will have a new, cleaner and potentially less expensive power source.

Already the boom in natural gas has sparked a considerable industrial rebound in parts of eastern Ohio including the building of a new $650 million steel plant for gas pipes in the Youngstown area. Karen Wright, whose Ariel Corporation sells compressors used in gas plants, has added more than 300 positions in the past two years. “There’s a huge amount of drilling throughout the Midwest,” Wright says. “This is a game changer.”

But the industrial rebound is not only about energy. Another critical factor is rising wages in East Asia, including China. Increasingly, American-based manufacturing is in a favored position as a lower-cost producer. Concerns over “knock offs” and lack of patent protection in China may also spark a growing “Made in the USA” trend.

The shift back to U.S. production may be a great sign for many regions. Our No. 3 ranked area, Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, is picking up heavy metal jobs associated with the aerospace industry. A growing focus on domestic production for Boeing’s new aircraft could bring even more prosperity to the high-flying region, which also ranked No. 1 on our recent technology industry growth ranking.

If new industrial growth is just another piece of good news in the Pacific Northwest, it’s manna from heaven to the long suffering industrial heartland heavily concentrated in the Great Lakes region, which includes much of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois , Wisconsin and Minnesota. Long reviled as the “rust belt” this area now leads in the industrial rebound with over 100,000 new manufacturing jobs in just the past year.

Particularly well positioned is No. 2 ranked Milwaukee, which is home to a wide array of specialized manufacturing firms ranging from machine tools to energy. Over the past year alone the region added almost 3900 heavy metal jobs and has consistently led other Great Lakes communities in job creation.

But Milwaukee is not the only rust belt rebound town. The greater Detroit area, No. 6 on our list, actually added the most heavy metal jobs — more than 12,000 — than any region of the country. The area’s ranking, however, was dragged down by its legacy; greater Detroit still has lost almost 130,000 positions in the past decade.

The heavy metal revival has a long way to go. And we cannot expect it to produce the same kinds of jobs produced in the last century. For example, the new jobs will be more highly skilled; even as the share of the workforce employed in manufacturing has dropped from 20% to roughly half that, high skilled jobs in industry have soared 37%, according to a New York fed study.

Regions seeking strong industrial growth will have to focus more and more on training more skilled workers. Even after years of declining employment and surplus numbers of graduates in the arts and law, manufacturers in heavy industry are running short on skilled workers. Industry expert David Cole predicts there could be demand for 100,000 new workers by 2013. According to Deloitte Touche, 83% of all manufacturers suffer a moderate or severe shortage of skilled production workers.

The resurgence of heavy metal should lead regions, and the federal government, to consider shifting their emphasis toward productive, skilled based training and away from a single-minded focus on the BA or graduate degree. Few regions suffer a shortage of art history or English graduates. This more practical emphasis is particularly critical for the Midwest, which is home to four of the ten highest-ranked industrial engineering schools in the nation.

Even more important: training workers for the assembly lines of tomorrow. These jobs, notes Ariel’s Karen Wright, will require not BA degrees but high degrees of math and mechanical skills that can be apply to expanding companies like hers.

As we enter a new economic era, regions should look beyond the current obsession with “creative” and “information” industries. Instead, they should focus on a resurgent industrial economy — which then can provide a customer base for advertising, graphics and software companies — as a primary driver of economic growth. Turn down those soulful Adele tracks: Heavy metal is back.

The Top Regions for Heavy Metal
Manufacturing Job Growth
Score consists of 10, 5, 2, and 1 year job growth rate and job momentum and 2011 industry concentration.
Rank	MSA Name	Score
1	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	68.5
2	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	65.6
3	Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	64.7
4	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	60.7
5	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	60.4
6	Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI	58.2
7	Kansas City, MO-KS	56.3
8	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT	56.1
9	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	54.4
10	Oklahoma City, OK	53.3
11	Pittsburgh, PA	53.2
12	Salt Lake City, UT	52.6
13	Richmond, VA	52.0
14	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	51.8
15	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	51.5
16	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	51.3
17	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	51.3
18	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	50.5
19	Raleigh-Cary, NC	50.1
20	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	48.7
21	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	48.0
22	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	47.9
23	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	47.6
24	Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN	47.3
25	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	47.2
26	St. Louis, MO-IL	46.8
27	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	46.7
28	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	46.2
29	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	45.7
30	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH	44.9
31	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI	44.6
32	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	44.0
33	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	43.9
34	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	42.9
35	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	42.9
36	Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA	42.9
37	Rochester, NY	42.3
38	Columbus, OH	42.2
39	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	41.9
40	Jacksonville, FL	41.1
41	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA	40.2
42	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL	40.1
43	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	39.8
44	Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	39.1
45	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	38.7
46	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	37.9
47	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	35.7
48	Baltimore-Towson, MD	34.3
49	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	31.0
50	New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA	30.1
51	San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA	24.5

Analysis includes job data from 148 six-digit NAICS industry sectors covering Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS 331), Fabricated Metal Manufacturing (332), Machinery Manufacturing (333) and Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (336).
Data Source: EMSI Complete Employment, 2011.4

This piece first appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and contributing editor to the City Journal in New York. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

Mark Schill of Praxis Strategy Group perfomed the economic analysis for this piece.

Photo courtesy of BigStockPhoto.com.

More Americans Move to Detached Houses

Wendell Cox — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 01:38:34 -0400

In defiance of the conventional wisdom in the national media and among most planning professionals, Americans continue not only to prefer, but to move into single family detached houses. Data from the 2010 American Community Survey indicates that such housing attracted 79.2% of the new households in the 51 major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 population) over the past decade.

In contrast households in multi-unit buildings (apartments and condominiums) represented 11.8% of the new housing, while two-unit attached housing represented 11.3% of the increase. There was a 2.3% decline in the "other" category of new housing, which includes mobile homes and boats. A total of 4 million net new occupied detached houses were added in the largest metropolitan areas, while there were 590,000 additional apartments and condominiums and 570,000 attached houses (Figure 1).

Detached Vacancy Rate Rises Less than Multi-Unit: Another conventional assumption is that single family homes have been disproportionately abandoned by their occupants, particularly since the collapse of the housing bubble. This is also not true. In 2010 detached housing enjoyed a 92.4% occupancy rate in 2010 which is higher than the 89.4% occupancy rate in attached housing and 84.2% occupancy rate in multi-unit buildings. Because a more of the multi-unit housing is rental, it is to be expected that the vacancies would be the highest in this category. However, at the national level, overall vacancy rates rose the most in multi-unit housing, with an increase of 61%, from 10.7% in 2000 to 17.1% in 2010. The vacancy rate in detached housing rose at a slower rate, from 7.3% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2010, an increase of 48%. Attached housing – such as townshouses – have the slowest rise in vacancy rate, from 8.4% in 2000 to 11.0% in 2010, an increase of 32% (Figure 2).

Detached and Attached Up in Most Markets, Apartments and Condominiums Down in Most: The move to detached housing was pervasive at the major metropolitan area level. Among the 51 largest metropolitan areas, the share of detached housing rose in 44 and declined in seven. The share of attached housing rose in 32 of the metropolitan areas, while declining in 19. Multi-unit housing experienced an increase in its market share in only three markets, while declining in 48.

Largest Metropolitan Areas: Detached housing also increased more than attached housing and multi-unit housing in each of the nation's five largest metropolitan areas.

In the largest metropolitan area, New York, 51.9% of the new housing was detached. This is considerably more than the 36.9% detached market share in 2000. Multi-unit housing accounted for 24.1% of the increase in the market. This is a far smaller share than the 55.7% that multi-unit housing represented in 2000. Attached housing was 19.9% of the increase, nearly 3 times its 2000 share of 6.7%. This movement of New Yorkers to less dense housing forms is particularly significant, in view of the fact that New York has historically had the lowest share of lower density housing (detached and attached) and the highest share of multi-unit houses.
In the second largest metropolitan area, Los Angeles, 96.0% of the new housing was detached. This is nearly double the 49.7% that detached housing represented of the market in 2000. The balance of the new housing was split between a share of 18.6% for multi-unit housing and a loss of 11.8% in the attached housing. The share of new units represented by multi-unit houses was less one-half than its percentage of the market in 2000 (39.0%).
In the third largest metropolitan area, Chicago, 95.9% of the new housing was detached, well above the 52.5% share in 2000. There was a huge loss in apartment and condominium share, at 31% of the market, while attached housing captured 40.4% of the market.
In the fourth largest metropolitan area, Dallas Fort Worth, 84.3% of the new housing was detached, well above the 62.0% share in 2000. Multi-unit housing accounted for 13.5% of the increase, approximately one-half the 2000 market share. Attached housing represented 3.2% of the increase.
In the fifth largest metropolitan area, Philadelphia, 77.6% of new housing was detached, well above the 45.3% market share for detached housing in 2000. Apartments and condominiums accounted for 27.7% of the increase between 2000 and 2010, slightly more than the 2000 market share 23.7%. Attached housing represented a minus 4.3% of the new housing.

Despite being only the fourth largest metropolitan area, Dallas-Fort Worth accounted for 46% of the new housing in the five largest metropolitan areas (Figure 3).

The three largest metropolitan markets where there was an increase in multi-unit housing share were San Jose, New Orleans and Denver. In San Jose, 55.5% of new housing was multi-unit, while only 10.3 percent was detached. New Orleans had a similar 10.5% detached new housing share, while 65.8% of the new housing was multi unit. In Denver, 31.3% of the new housing was multi-unit, while 60.2% was detached.

The share of detached housing also declined between 2000 and 2010 in Boston, Kansas City, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Portland. In each of these metropolitan areas, the share of attached housing increased, while the share of multi-unit housing decreased. Nonetheless, detached housing continued to attract a majority of new housing in Kansas City (70.8 percent) and Portland (56.6 percent). Despite Portland's strong planning emphasis on high density housing, its share of multi-unit housing, and 26.8% between 2000 and 2010 was less than its 2000 market share of 27.5%, with a strong 20.6 percent share in attached housing. Attached housing also accounted for a comparatively large share of new housing in Boston (45.7 percent), Minneapolis-St. Paul (39.7 percent) and Kansas City (25.8 percent). The stronger densification policies that existed in Minneapolis-St. Paul until the middle of the decade may have artificially raised the share of attached new housing.

Share by housing type data is provided for the major metropolitan areas in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1
Occupied Housing by Major Metropolitan Area: 2000

Metropolitan Area	Detached	Attached	Multi-Unit	Other

Atlanta, GA	66.6%	3.5%	25.5%	4.4%
Austin, TX	57.7%	3.7%	32.1%	6.6%
Baltimore, MD	46.0%	28.5%	24.2%	1.3%
Birmingham, AL	68.3%	2.6%	17.9%	11.2%
Boston, MA-NH	48.9%	4.4%	45.4%	1.3%
Buffalo, NY	60.0%	2.8%	35.1%	2.1%
Charlotte, NC-SC	67.5%	3.4%	21.8%	7.3%
Chicago, IL-IN-WI	52.5%	6.3%	40.1%	1.1%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	64.7%	3.6%	27.8%	3.9%
Cleveland, OH	65.7%	5.5%	27.7%	1.2%
Columbus, OH	62.8%	5.5%	29.1%	2.6%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	62.0%	3.1%	30.3%	4.6%
Denver, CO	60.9%	7.8%	29.0%	2.3%
Detroit, MI	70.5%	5.5%	20.7%	3.3%
Hartford, CT	60.0%	5.2%	34.1%	0.8%
Houston, TX	61.4%	3.6%	29.1%	6.0%
Indianapolis. IN	68.4%	5.2%	23.2%	3.3%
Jacksonville, FL	63.5%	3.9%	22.3%	10.3%
Kansas City, MO-KS	71.3%	4.6%	21.4%	2.6%
Las Vegas, NV	53.4%	6.0%	34.7%	5.9%
Los Angeles, CA	49.7%	8.6%	39.6%	2.0%
Louisville, KY-IN	70.7%	2.1%	22.2%	5.0%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR	69.1%	3.8%	22.8%	4.2%
Miami, FL	45.4%	9.9%	42.1%	2.6%
Milwaukee,WI	55.7%	5.3%	38.3%	0.7%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	62.8%	7.7%	27.4%	2.0%
Nashville, TN	64.9%	4.4%	24.4%	6.2%
New Orleans. LA	59.9%	7.7%	28.5%	3.9%
New York, NY-NJ-PA	36.9%	6.5%	56.3%	0.4%
Oklahoma City, OK	71.6%	3.1%	19.2%	6.0%
Orlando, FL	61.5%	4.5%	25.1%	8.9%
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	45.3%	29.8%	23.5%	1.4%
Phoenix, AZ	61.6%	6.1%	24.9%	7.4%
Pittsburgh, PA	68.8%	6.5%	20.4%	4.4%
Portland, OR-WA	63.8%	3.3%	27.5%	5.5%
Providence, RI-MA	54.3%	2.9%	41.6%	1.2%
Raleigh, NC	63.6%	5.2%	21.5%	9.8%
Richmond, VA	71.3%	4.9%	20.4%	3.4%
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	67.0%	5.1%	18.6%	9.3%
Rochester, NY	65.7%	4.3%	26.5%	3.5%
Sacramento, CA	66.1%	6.0%	24.0%	3.9%
Salt Lake City, UT	67.0%	4.8%	25.4%	2.8%
San Antonio, TX	67.4%	2.9%	22.2%	7.5%
San Diego, CA	51.7%	9.4%	34.5%	4.4%
San Francisco-Oakland, CA	50.3%	9.3%	39.1%	1.3%
San Jose, CA	57.0%	9.1%	30.5%	3.4%
Seattle, WA	60.2%	3.5%	31.6%	4.8%
St. Louis,, MO-IL	70.2%	3.1%	21.9%	4.8%
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	58.4%	4.6%	25.7%	11.4%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	61.4%	10.4%	25.2%	3.0%
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	47.6%	19.4%	32.1%	0.8%
Average (Weighted)	55.9%	7.5%	33.3%	3.3%

Data from 2000 Census
Metropolitan areas over 1,000,000 population as defined in 2010

Table 2
Occupied Housing by Major Metropolitan Area: 2010

Metropolitan Area	Detached	Attached	Multi-Unit	Other

Atlanta, GA	69.2%	5.3%	22.7%	2.7%
Austin, TX	60.4%	2.6%	31.8%	5.1%
Baltimore, MD	47.4%	27.3%	24.2%	1.1%
Birmingham, AL	70.8%	2.4%	16.8%	10.0%
Boston, MA-NH	48.7%	5.9%	44.2%	1.2%
Buffalo, NY	62.3%	2.9%	33.0%	1.8%
Charlotte, NC-SC	68.9%	5.1%	20.4%	5.6%
Chicago, IL-IN-WI	54.2%	7.6%	37.1%	1.1%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	68.9%	4.8%	23.2%	3.1%
Cleveland, OH	68.7%	5.1%	25.1%	1.1%
Columbus, OH	64.1%	7.3%	26.6%	2.1%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	65.9%	3.1%	27.4%	3.6%
Denver, CO	60.8%	7.9%	29.4%	1.9%
Detroit, MI	71.6%	6.3%	19.1%	2.9%
Hartford, CT	60.9%	5.3%	33.1%	0.7%
Houston, TX	65.1%	3.5%	26.0%	5.3%
Indianapolis. IN	71.3%	5.0%	21.1%	2.6%
Jacksonville, FL	66.3%	4.8%	21.3%	7.6%
Kansas City, MO-KS	71.3%	6.4%	20.1%	2.2%
Las Vegas, NV	60.9%	5.4%	29.9%	3.8%
Los Angeles, CA	51.0%	8.0%	39.0%	1.9%
Louisville, KY-IN	71.6%	3.6%	20.9%	4.0%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR	72.5%	3.3%	20.4%	3.7%
Miami, FL	47.0%	10.8%	40.0%	2.1%
Milwaukee,WI	56.2%	6.5%	36.5%	0.8%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	61.5%	11.0%	25.9%	1.6%
Nashville, TN	67.2%	5.6%	22.3%	4.9%
New Orleans. LA	65.1%	6.1%	24.6%	4.2%
New York, NY-NJ-PA	37.2%	6.7%	55.7%	0.4%
Oklahoma City, OK	74.3%	3.0%	17.1%	5.6%
Orlando, FL	64.1%	5.5%	23.4%	6.9%
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	46.6%	28.5%	23.7%	1.3%
Phoenix, AZ	67.2%	4.8%	22.2%	5.8%
Pittsburgh, PA	69.4%	7.5%	19.1%	4.0%
Portland, OR-WA	62.8%	5.5%	27.4%	4.3%
Providence, RI-MA	55.7%	3.7%	39.6%	1.0%
Raleigh, NC	65.4%	8.0%	20.5%	6.2%
Richmond, VA	73.2%	4.9%	19.0%	3.0%
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	70.7%	4.3%	17.1%	7.9%
Rochester, NY	66.9%	4.8%	25.3%	2.9%
Sacramento, CA	68.8%	5.6%	22.6%	3.0%
Salt Lake City, UT	67.8%	6.1%	23.9%	2.2%
San Antonio, TX	70.8%	2.2%	21.1%	5.9%
San Diego, CA	53.0%	9.0%	34.5%	3.5%
San Francisco-Oakland, CA	50.7%	9.4%	38.8%	1.1%
San Jose, CA	54.3%	10.7%	32.0%	3.0%
Seattle, WA	60.5%	4.2%	31.5%	3.8%
St. Louis,, MO-IL	70.8%	4.2%	21.1%	3.9%
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	59.6%	5.6%	24.7%	10.1%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	62.5%	11.1%	24.0%	2.5%
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	48.1%	19.6%	31.7%	0.7%
Average (Weighted)	57.8%	7.9%	31.5%	2.8%

Data from 2010 American Community Survey
Metropolitan areas over 1,000,000 population as defined in 2010

In Housing, Preference Trumps Policy: The trend of the last decade is evidence of a continued preference of American households for detached housing. The results are remarkable for at least two reasons:

The first is that there have been unprecedented policy initiatives to discourage, if not to prohibit the building of new detached houses. It seems likely that the miniscule new detached housing share in San Jose, for example, is a direct result of that metropolitan area's virtual prohibition of new detached housing, rather than any evidence that households have begun to prefer higher density housing. A small detached housing share in the face of a strong public policy bias toward higher density housing says nothing about preferences.

Second; the media and wishful advocates of denser settlement patterns have continuously referred to detached housing as having been severely overbuilt during the housing bubble, while suggesting an imperative for households to move into multiunit, often rented housing. The new data, with the larger increase in multi-unit vacancy rates, indicates that there was at least as much overbuilding in more dense housing types as there was in detached housing.

Despite the expressed preferences of planners, academics and even many builders, American households continue to make their own decisions about housing.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

Lead photo: Houses in Los Angeles. Photograph by author.

Major Metropolitan Commuting Trends: 2000-2010

Wendell Cox — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:38:33 -0400

As we indicated in the last article, solo automobile commuting reached an all time record in the United States in 2010, increasing by 7.8 million commuters. At the same time, huge losses were sustained by carpooling, while the largest gain was in working at home, which includes telecommuting. Transit and bicycling also added commuters. This continues many of the basic trends toward more personalized employment access that we have seen since 1960.

Solo Automobile Commuting: Among the nation’s 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million population, 38 experienced increases in solo automobile commuting between 2000 and 2010. More than 80% of commuting is by solo automobile in 25 of the 51 largest metropolitan areas, with the highest rates being in Birmingham, Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Kansas City. Another 28 metropolitan areas have single automobile commute shares of between 70% and 80%, with Boston, Washington and San Francisco between 60% and 70%. As would be expected, the lowest solo automobile commute share was in New York at 51%.

Car Pools: The national data also showed a nearly 2.4 million loss in carpool use. The losses were pervasive, occurring in all 51 metropolitan areas. Riverside-San Bernardino had the highest carpool market share at just under 15%, while all other major metropolitan areas were below 12%. Car pools have been losing market share for decades.

Work at Home (Includes Telecommuting): In what we have previously labeled as The Decade of the Telecommute, the nation experienced a 1.7 million increase in working at home over the past decade. The market share gains in working at home were as pervasive as the losses in carpooling, with all 51 metropolitan areas registering increases. Austin had the strongest work-at-home market share, at 7.3%, followed by Portland at 6.5%, San Francisco and Denver at 6.2%, Phoenix at 6.0%, with San Diego, Raleigh and Atlanta above 5.5%. Overall, working at home exceeded transit commuting in 37 major metropolitan areas out of 51 in 2010, up from 27 in 2000. Three metropolitan areas had work at home market shares of less than 3%, including Memphis, New Orleans and last place Buffalo.

Transit: As noted before, transit enjoyed its first 10 year gain since journey to work data was first collected by the Census Bureau 50 years ago. Overall, transit added 900,000 daily commuters, roughly half that for telecommuters. Transit's market share increased in 25 of the top 51 metropolitan areas. It is also notable that in a number of the metropolitan areas with the largest expenditures for new rail systems, there were either losses or commuting gains were concentrated in the more flexible bus services.

New York: As so often has been the case, transit was largely a "New York story." More than one half of the new transit commuters were in the New York metropolitan area, more than 450,000 of the 900,000 increase. New York boasts by far the most extensive transit system in the nation, which serves the second largest central business district in the world and by far the nation’s most important. In 2000, New York had a transit work trip market share of 27.4%. By 2010, New York's transit work trip market share had risen to 30.7%, more than double that of any other metropolitan area. More than 70% of the new transit commuters in the New York area were on its subway (Metro), suburban rail and light rail systems.

San Francisco: San Francisco retained its position as the second strongest transit metropolitan area, with a 14.6% work trip market share in 2010. This is up from 13.8% in 2000.

Washington: Washington was the third strongest transit commuting market, with a 14.0% work trip market share in 2010. This modest increase from 13.4% nonetheless produced the second largest ridership increase in the nation, at more than 130,000. This reflects the strength of Washington's job market over the decade. Rail ridership accounted for 53% of this increase, while buses accounted for the other 47%.

Boston and Chicago: Boston passed Chicago to become the fourth strongest transit market, at 11.8% in 2010. This is an increase from 11.2% in 2000. Chicago ranked fifth at 11.2%, a small reduction from the 11.3% in 2000.

Los Angeles: Los Angeles had the third largest increase in transit commuting, adding 60,000 daily transit commuters. Approximately 75% of these new commuters were attracted by the region's extensive bus system as opposed to its very expensive but limited rail system. This increase placed Los Angeles in a virtual tie with Portland, with a work trip market share of 6.2%.

Portland: Portland continued to experience its now 30 year transit market share erosion, despite having added three new light rail lines between 2000 and 2010. Portland's transit work trip market share fell to 6.2% from 6.3% and now trails the work at home and telecommute market share of 6.5%.

Seattle:Seattle added 29,000 new transit commuters for the fourth strongest growth in the nation. Approximately 75% of the new commuters were on the metropolitan area's bus system.

Atlanta: Atlanta, which is home to the third largest postwar Metro system in the nation (MARTA) gained nearly 9000 new transit commuters, all of them on the bus, while losing more than 3000 rail commuters.

Miami:Miami added 16,000 new transit commuters, though more than 90% were attracted to the bus system, rather than the rail services.

Rail and Bus in Texas: Other metropolitan areas with new and expanded rail systems did not fare as well. In Dallas-Fort Worth, the light rail system was more than doubled in length, yet there was a reduction of more than 3000 daily transit commuters. The transit work trip market share in Dallas-Fort Worth dropped from 1.8% to 1.4%, approximately one quarter lower than that of any other major metropolitan area with a new light rail or Metro system. Houston, which built its first light rail line during the period, lost nearly 3000 daily transit commuters, with its transit work trip market share dropping by nearly one-third, from 3.2% to 2.3%. By contrast, the third largest metropolitan area in Texas, San Antonio, lost no commuters from its bus only transit system.

Other New Rail Metropolitan Areas: Other metropolitan areas with new rail systems experienced modest ridership increases, with 60 to 70 percent of the increase on the bus systems in Charlotte, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Phoenix. Salt Lake City experienced a small decline in transit commuting.

Below 1 Percent: Four metropolitan areas had transit work trip market shares of less than 1%, including Indianapolis, Raleigh, Birmingham and last place Oklahoma City, with a market share of 0.4%.

Bicycles: It was also a good decade for bicycle commuting, with the national increase of nearly 250,000. The bicycle commuting market share rose in 45 of the 51 largest metropolitan areas. Portland had the highest bicycle market share at 2.2%, with three other metropolitan areas at 1.5% or above, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose. The lowest bicycle commuting market shares were in San Antonio, Cincinnati, Birmingham and Memphis, all at 0.1 percent.

Walking: There was little change in walking among the nations major metropolitan areas. The largest shares were in New York (5.9%) and Boston (5.4%), with the smallest shares in Raleigh (1.1%), Orlando (1.1%) and Birmingham (1.0%).

Drifting Away from Shared Commuting: In some ways, the 2000s were different than previous decades, especially with the reversals in bicycle commuting and transit. However, overall, shared ride commuting (transit and car pools) lost share due to the precipitous decline in car pooling. Longer term share increase trends also continued in single-occupant automobile commuting and working at home. The bottom line: personal employment access (personal mobility plus working at home) continues to carve away at the smallish share still held by shared commuting.

-------------

Data: The 2000 and 2010 commuting market shares by mode are shown in Tables 1 and 2 (2010 metropolitan area boundaries).

------------

Table 1
Work Trip Market Share: 2000
Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population in 2010

Metropolitan Area	Car, Truck or Van: Alone	Car/Van Pool	Transit	Bicycle	Walk	Other	Work at Home (Includes Telecommute)

Atlanta	77.0%	13.7%	3.4%	0.1%	1.3%	1.1%	3.5%
Austin	76.5%	13.7%	2.5%	0.6%	2.1%	1.1%	3.6%
Baltimore	75.5%	11.5%	5.9%	0.2%	2.9%	0.9%	3.2%
Birmingham	83.3%	12.0%	0.7%	0.1%	1.2%	0.7%	2.1%
Boston	71.1%	8.6%	11.2%	0.5%	4.6%	0.8%	3.3%
Buffalo	81.7%	9.4%	3.3%	0.2%	2.7%	0.5%	2.1%
Charlotte	80.7%	12.8%	1.4%	0.1%	1.2%	0.8%	2.9%
Chicago	70.4%	11.0%	11.3%	0.3%	3.1%	1.0%	2.9%
Cincinnati	81.3%	10.1%	2.8%	0.1%	2.3%	0.6%	2.7%
Cleveland	81.3%	8.8%	4.1%	0.2%	2.2%	0.6%	2.7%
Columbus	82.1%	9.7%	2.1%	0.2%	2.3%	0.6%	3.0%
Dallas-Fort Worth	78.7%	13.9%	1.8%	0.1%	1.5%	1.0%	3.0%
Denver	76.0%	11.7%	4.4%	0.4%	2.1%	0.8%	4.6%
Detroit	84.7%	9.2%	1.7%	0.1%	1.4%	0.6%	2.2%
Hartford	82.6%	8.7%	2.8%	0.2%	2.5%	0.6%	2.6%
Houston	77.0%	14.3%	3.2%	0.3%	1.6%	1.1%	2.5%
Indianapolis	82.8%	10.4%	1.3%	0.2%	1.7%	0.7%	3.0%
Jacksonville	80.3%	12.6%	1.3%	0.5%	1.7%	1.4%	2.3%
Kansas City	82.6%	10.6%	1.2%	0.1%	1.4%	0.7%	3.5%
Las Vegas	74.6%	14.7%	4.4%	0.5%	2.3%	1.3%	2.3%
Los Angeles	71.9%	14.6%	5.6%	0.7%	2.7%	1.0%	3.5%
Louisville	81.8%	11.2%	2.0%	0.2%	1.7%	0.7%	2.5%
Memphis	80.7%	13.3%	1.6%	0.1%	1.3%	0.9%	2.2%
Miami-West Palm Beach	77.3%	13.1%	3.2%	0.5%	1.7%	1.2%	3.1%
Milwaukee	79.7%	9.9%	4.2%	0.2%	2.9%	0.6%	2.6%
Minneapolis-St. Paul	78.3%	10.0%	4.4%	0.4%	2.4%	0.6%	3.8%
Nashville	80.5%	13.1%	0.8%	0.1%	1.5%	0.8%	3.2%
New Orleans	72.9%	14.6%	5.4%	0.6%	2.7%	1.3%	2.4%
New York	52.7%	9.3%	27.4%	0.3%	6.0%	1.5%	2.9%
Oklahoma City	81.6%	12.1%	0.5%	0.2%	1.7%	1.0%	2.9%
Orlando	80.6%	12.1%	1.6%	0.4%	1.3%	1.1%	2.9%
Philadelphia	73.1%	10.2%	8.9%	0.3%	3.9%	0.7%	2.9%
Phoenix	74.6%	15.3%	1.9%	0.9%	2.1%	1.4%	3.7%
Pittsburgh	77.5%	9.8%	5.9%	0.1%	3.6%	0.6%	2.5%
Portland	73.1%	11.5%	6.3%	0.8%	2.9%	0.8%	4.6%
Providence	80.7%	10.5%	2.4%	0.2%	3.3%	0.8%	2.2%
Raleigh	80.8%	12.1%	0.9%	0.2%	1.6%	1.0%	3.5%
Richmond	81.7%	10.9%	1.9%	0.2%	1.8%	0.8%	2.7%
Riverside-San Bernardino	73.5%	17.6%	1.6%	0.5%	2.2%	1.2%	3.5%
Rochester	81.7%	9.1%	2.0%	0.2%	3.5%	0.6%	2.9%
Sacramento	75.3%	13.5%	2.7%	1.4%	2.2%	0.9%	4.0%
Salt Lake City	76.0%	13.4%	3.3%	0.5%	2.1%	0.7%	4.0%
San Antonio	76.2%	14.9%	2.7%	0.1%	2.4%	1.2%	2.6%
San Diego	73.9%	13.0%	3.3%	0.6%	3.4%	1.4%	4.4%
San Francisco-Oakland	62.8%	12.7%	13.8%	1.1%	3.9%	1.3%	4.3%
San Jose	77.2%	12.4%	3.4%	1.2%	1.8%	0.9%	3.1%
Seattle	71.6%	12.7%	7.0%	0.6%	3.1%	0.8%	4.2%
St. Louis	82.5%	10.0%	2.2%	0.1%	1.7%	0.6%	2.9%
Tampa-St. Petersburg	79.7%	12.4%	1.3%	0.6%	1.7%	1.2%	3.1%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk	78.8%	12.1%	1.7%	0.3%	2.7%	1.6%	2.7%
Washington	67.5%	13.4%	11.2%	0.3%	3.0%	0.9%	3.7%
Top 51 Metropolitan Areas	73.2%	11.8%	7.5%	0.4%	2.9%	1.0%	3.2%

Calculated from Census Bureau data
Metropolitan areas as defined in 2010

Table 2
Work Trip Market Share: 2010
Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population in 2010

	Car, Truck or Van: Alone	Car/Van Pool	Transit	Bicycle	Walk	Other	Work at Home (Includes Telecommute)

Atlanta	77.6%	10.3%	3.4%	0.2%	1.3%	1.5%	5.8%
Austin	75.6%	10.5%	2.3%	0.6%	1.9%	1.8%	7.3%
Baltimore	76.5%	9.6%	6.0%	0.2%	2.6%	1.0%	4.1%
Birmingham	84.8%	10.0%	0.6%	0.1%	1.0%	0.5%	3.1%
Boston	69.5%	7.5%	11.8%	0.7%	5.4%	0.8%	4.4%
Buffalo	82.0%	7.5%	3.8%	0.3%	3.0%	1.1%	2.3%
Charlotte	80.6%	10.0%	2.0%	0.2%	1.5%	0.6%	5.1%
Chicago	71.0%	8.5%	11.2%	0.6%	3.1%	1.0%	4.5%
Cincinnati	84.1%	7.9%	2.1%	0.1%	2.0%	0.4%	3.4%
Cleveland	82.3%	7.2%	3.6%	0.3%	2.2%	0.7%	3.7%
Columbus	82.4%	8.0%	1.7%	0.5%	2.3%	0.6%	4.6%
Dallas-Fort Worth	81.3%	10.1%	1.4%	0.2%	1.2%	1.4%	4.6%
Denver	76.3%	9.6%	4.1%	0.8%	1.9%	1.1%	6.2%
Detroit	84.6%	8.5%	1.5%	0.2%	1.4%	0.8%	3.0%
Hartford	81.5%	7.9%	3.1%	0.3%	3.0%	1.0%	3.2%
Houston	79.4%	11.5%	2.3%	0.3%	1.4%	1.7%	3.4%
Indianapolis	83.9%	8.2%	0.9%	0.3%	1.5%	0.8%	4.3%
Jacksonville	82.5%	8.9%	1.0%	0.5%	1.4%	1.2%	4.5%
Kansas City	83.7%	8.5%	1.2%	0.2%	1.4%	0.9%	4.1%
Las Vegas	78.9%	10.5%	3.8%	0.6%	1.6%	1.3%	3.3%
Los Angeles	73.5%	10.7%	6.2%	0.9%	2.6%	1.2%	5.0%
Louisville	83.5%	9.2%	1.9%	0.2%	1.3%	0.9%	3.1%
Memphis	83.6%	10.3%	1.0%	0.1%	1.5%	0.9%	2.7%
Miami-West Palm Beach	78.8%	9.4%	3.5%	0.6%	2.0%	1.4%	4.4%
Milwaukee	80.1%	9.3%	3.4%	0.5%	2.6%	0.7%	3.4%
Minneapolis-St. Paul	78.3%	7.9%	4.8%	0.7%	2.4%	0.9%	4.9%
Nashville	81.3%	10.7%	1.0%	0.2%	1.2%	1.0%	4.6%
New Orleans	78.1%	11.0%	3.2%	0.7%	2.6%	1.9%	2.5%
New York	50.5%	6.8%	30.7%	0.5%	5.9%	1.6%	3.9%
Oklahoma City	82.7%	10.6%	0.5%	0.3%	1.6%	1.0%	3.4%
Orlando	82.1%	9.2%	1.6%	0.3%	1.1%	1.4%	4.4%
Philadelphia	73.9%	8.0%	9.6%	0.5%	3.5%	0.8%	3.8%
Phoenix	76.7%	11.8%	2.0%	0.6%	1.5%	1.5%	6.0%
Pittsburgh	77.0%	8.9%	5.6%	0.3%	3.7%	0.9%	3.5%
Portland	72.1%	8.8%	6.2%	2.2%	3.3%	0.9%	6.5%
Providence	81.3%	8.3%	2.6%	0.5%	3.2%	0.9%	3.2%
Raleigh	82.0%	8.7%	0.9%	0.3%	1.1%	1.1%	5.9%
Richmond	81.2%	10.1%	1.8%	0.4%	1.2%	0.7%	4.6%
Riverside-San Bernardino	76.1%	14.8%	1.7%	0.4%	1.8%	1.4%	3.8%
Rochester	82.6%	7.1%	1.8%	0.4%	3.9%	0.7%	3.6%
Sacramento	75.6%	11.2%	2.9%	1.7%	1.9%	1.1%	5.5%
Salt Lake City	77.7%	11.3%	2.9%	0.8%	2.3%	1.0%	4.0%
San Antonio	79.5%	11.5%	2.1%	0.1%	2.0%	1.4%	3.3%
San Diego	76.2%	10.1%	3.3%	0.8%	2.8%	1.0%	5.9%
San Francisco-Oakland	61.5%	10.6%	14.6%	1.7%	4.2%	1.2%	6.2%
San Jose	77.5%	10.3%	2.9%	1.6%	1.8%	0.9%	5.1%
Seattle	70.5%	10.2%	8.2%	1.1%	3.5%	1.0%	5.5%
St. Louis	83.0%	7.7%	2.6%	0.2%	1.9%	0.8%	3.7%
Tampa-St. Petersburg	80.3%	9.5%	1.6%	0.8%	1.4%	1.4%	5.0%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk	80.9%	9.4%	1.8%	0.5%	3.3%	0.9%	3.1%
Washington	65.6%	10.6%	14.0%	0.5%	3.5%	1.0%	4.9%
Top 51 Metropolitan Areas	73.7%	9.4%	7.9%	0.6%	2.8%	1.2%	4.4%

Calculated from Census Bureau data
Metropolitan areas as defined in 2010

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

Photo: Manhattan (New York), with the Woolworth Building in the distance (by author)

Comparing Perry’s Texas to Romney’s Massachusetts

Rob Sentz — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:38:14 -0400

Republican primary front-runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are each basing a large part of their campaigns on their economic track records. So who is better when it comes to jobs and the economy — Romney or Perry?

Let’s put each of their states under the microscope to see what the data says. In this exercise we will use Analyst, EMSI’s web-based labor market analysis tool, to help us see the ins and outs of the Massachusetts and Texas economies.

Notes:

1. All data, graphs, and tables are from Analyst’s 2011.3 dataset, which is based on BLS, Census, BEA, and nearly 80 other sources.

2. As an economics firm we want to stress this point — businesses and economic activity create jobs, not politicians.

3. Gov. Perry (2000-current) and Romney (Massachusetts Governor from 2003-2007) do not have perfectly overlapping times in office, so we are going to consider the 10-year time frame and then look at how the states have performed during the recession, which would tend to reflect the legacy of each politician (e.g., politicians always inherit the blessings or curses of the previous administration).

4. Performance during the recession is the key point of data we want to look at. Which state is strong when tough times arise?

TEN-YEAR TRENDS

Right off the bat we see that the Texas economy is the clear leader. The state grew by 18%, or about 2.2 million jobs, in the last 10 years. Over that same time period Massachusetts grew by 2%, or less than 100,000 jobs.

(click images to enlarge)

Almost every industry sector in Texas grew from 2001 to 2011. Agriculture, information, and manufacturing were the only ones to actually decline. The big leaders were health care (43% growth, 421,000 jobs), government (17% growth, 282,000 jobs), oil and gas (111% growth, 257,000 jobs), finance and insurance (38% growth, 216,000 jobs), and professional and technical services (29% growth, 210,000 jobs).

NAICS Code	Description	2001 Jobs	2011 Jobs	Change	% Change	2011 Earnings
62	Health Care and Social Assistance	985,667	1,407,160	421,493	43%	$49,118
90	Government	1,679,431	1,961,341	281,910	17%	$59,455
21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction	231,809	488,494	256,685	111%	$136,302
52	Finance and Insurance	575,109	791,054	215,945	38%	$69,091
54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	713,722	923,621	209,899	29%	$74,784
72	Accommodation and Food Services	789,913	987,746	197,833	25%	$19,814
56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services	744,446	932,960	188,514	25%	$33,979
53	Real Estate and Rental and Leasing	410,363	559,112	148,749	36%	$31,946
81	Other Services (except Public Administration)	592,116	708,981	116,865	20%	$28,597
23	Construction	849,097	950,903	101,806	12%	$54,438
61	Educational Services	148,927	214,526	65,599	44%	$36,378
55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	41,840	105,073	63,233	151%	$102,137
71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	171,298	230,177	58,879	34%	$24,422
44-45	Retail Trade	1,350,407	1,400,681	50,274	4%	$30,803
48-49	Transportation and Warehousing	506,512	553,486	46,974	9%	$60,395
42	Wholesale Trade	508,024	552,876	44,852	9%	$80,704
22	Utilities	52,813	55,870	3,057	6%	$118,804
11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting	345,303	319,410	(25,893)	(7%)	$20,912
51	Information	299,481	227,513	(71,968)	(24%)	$73,610
31-33	Manufacturing	1,066,622	871,533	(195,089)	(18%)	$79,460
	Total	12,062,901	14,242,517	2,179,616	18%	$53,493
Source: EMSI Complete Employment - 2011.3

Massachusetts’ growth sprung primarily from health care (24% growth, 111,000 jobs), professional and technical services (10% growth, 37,000 jobs), educational services (19% growth, 35,000 jobs), and real estate (27% growth, 34,000 jobs). A big thing to note is that nine industry sectors — utilities, government, transportation, retail trade, management of companies, wholesale trade, information, construction, and manufacturing — lost jobs from 2001-2011.

NAICS Code	Description	2001 Jobs	2011 Jobs	Change	% Change	2011 Earnings
62	Health Care and Social Assistance	468,668	579,523	110,855	24%	$60,616
54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	363,592	400,919	37,327	10%	$96,534
61	Educational Services	184,644	220,002	35,358	19%	$56,621
53	Real Estate and Rental and Leasing	125,313	159,096	33,783	27%	$32,018
72	Accommodation and Food Services	249,024	277,782	28,758	12%	$22,995
81	Other Services (except Public Administration)	179,165	203,904	24,739	14%	$33,199
71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	84,064	105,900	21,836	26%	$28,814
52	Finance and Insurance	232,356	253,578	21,222	9%	$115,262
56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services	212,872	213,893	1,021	0%	$39,572
21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction	2,604	3,398	794	30%	$148,741
11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting	20,552	20,373	(179)	(1%)	$33,359
22	Utilities	12,332	11,383	(949)	(8%)	$135,669
90	Government	432,156	426,859	(5,297)	(1%)	$66,827
48-49	Transportation and Warehousing	124,887	111,495	(13,392)	(11%)	$52,693
44-45	Retail Trade	406,859	393,365	(13,494)	(3%)	$32,842
55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	72,884	58,796	(14,088)	(19%)	$125,760
42	Wholesale Trade	150,660	134,602	(16,058)	(11%)	$91,749
51	Information	122,543	100,471	(22,072)	(18%)	$100,676
23	Construction	219,882	195,324	(24,558)	(11%)	$66,726
31-33	Manufacturing	398,839	264,887	(133,952)	(34%)	$94,358
	Total	4,063,896	4,135,549	71,653	2%	$63,647
Source: EMSI Complete Employment - 2011.3

Since much of the discussion in the Republican primary has to do with the nation’s more recent economic turmoil, let’s refocus our analysis to 2007 – 2011.

MASSACHUSETTS FACTS

The current population of Massachusetts is 6.6 million with 4.1 million jobs. The unemployment rate is 7.6%, and average earnings in the state are more than $63,000 per year. The gross regional product (GRP), which is the value of all goods and services produced in a region by all industries, is $378 billion per year.

In Massachusetts, nearly 80% of the population is White, Non-Hispanic. The age demographics tell us the state is pretty balanced, and educational attainment is high.

Massachusetts ’07-11

From 2007-2011, jobs declined by 1% (overall loss of 34,000). All things considered — not bad. The biggest losses were felt in construction and manufacturing (total losses of 82,000 jobs). The biggest gains were in health care (45,000 jobs), educational services (11,000 jobs), professional and technical (11,000 jobs), and accommodation and food services (10,000 jobs).

NAICS Code	Description	2007 Jobs	2011 Jobs	Change	% Change	2011 Earnings
62	Health Care and Social Assistance	534,634	579,523	44,889	8%	$60,616
61	Educational Services	209,184	220,002	10,818	5%	$56,621
54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	390,170	400,919	10,749	3%	$96,534
72	Accommodation and Food Services	267,731	277,782	10,051	4%	$22,995
52	Finance and Insurance	245,717	253,578	7,861	3%	$115,262
81	Other Services (except Public Administration)	196,358	203,904	7,546	4%	$33,199
71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	98,450	105,900	7,450	8%	$28,814
22	Utilities	10,653	11,383	730	7%	$135,669
21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction	2,854	3,398	544	19%	$148,741
11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting	19,934	20,373	439	2%	$33,359
51	Information	100,643	100,471	(172)	0%	$100,676
90	Government	427,688	426,859	(829)	0%	$66,827
53	Real Estate and Rental and Leasing	162,635	159,096	(3,539)	(2%)	$32,018
55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	62,367	58,796	(3,571)	(6%)	$125,760
48-49	Transportation and Warehousing	116,671	111,495	(5,176)	(4%)	$52,693
44-45	Retail Trade	404,423	393,365	(11,058)	(3%)	$32,842
42	Wholesale Trade	148,614	134,602	(14,012)	(9%)	$91,749
56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services	227,964	213,893	(14,071)	(6%)	$39,572
23	Construction	236,308	195,324	(40,984)	(17%)	$66,726
31-33	Manufacturing	306,523	264,887	(41,636)	(14%)	$94,358
	Total	4,169,521	4,135,549	(33,972)	(1%)	$63,647
Source: EMSI Complete Employment - 2011.3

Also, here is a view of 6-digit (NAICS) industries that grew and declined from 2007-11. In the table above we looked only at 2-digit NAICS. When we use the 6-digit sectors we can see much more specific industry detail. Portfolio management was the highest growing industry from 2007-11 in Massachusetts.

Here is a list of occupations that grew and declined from ’07-11. These are 5-digit occupations (SOC codes). Consistent with the industry data, the fastest-growing occupation is personal financial advisors.

TEXAS FACTS

Texas has a total population of 25.6 million with 14.2 million jobs. The average earnings is $53.5K per year, and the unemployment is 972,000. The unemployment rate is 8.4%, which is a tad higher than Massachusetts’. The state’s GRP is $1.2 trillion per year.

In terms of demographics, Texas is 46% White, Non-Hispanic, 36% Hispanic, and 11% Black or African American. Educational attainment is lower than Massachusetts. Texas also appears to have a slightly younger population when compared to Massachusetts.

Texas ’07-11

From 2007-2011, the Texas economy grew by 3% (391,000 jobs gained overall). The state had huge job gains in oil and gas extraction (56% growth and 175,000 jobs), health care (14% growth and 171,000 jobs), and government (7% growth and 125,000 jobs). Other sectors like finance and insurance, accommodation and food, professional and technical, and educational services all had decent gains. Losses occurred in construction and manufacturing (about 192,000 jobs), retail trade (41,000 jobs or -3%), information (35,000 jobs or -13%), transportation (24,000 jobs or – 4%) and wholesale trade (13,000 jobs or -2%).

NAICS Code	Description	2007 Jobs	2011 Jobs	Change	% Change	2011 Earnings
21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction	313,502	488,494	174,992	56%	$136,302
62	Health Care and Social Assistance	1,235,840	1,407,160	171,320	14%	$49,118
90	Government	1,836,081	1,961,341	125,260	7%	$59,455
52	Finance and Insurance	717,799	791,054	73,255	10%	$69,091
72	Accommodation and Food Services	943,336	987,746	44,410	5%	$19,814
54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	892,977	923,621	30,644	3%	$74,784
61	Educational Services	192,643	214,526	21,883	11%	$36,378
55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	83,783	105,073	21,290	25%	$102,137
81	Other Services (except Public Administration)	689,944	708,981	19,037	3%	$28,597
71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	215,084	230,177	15,093	7%	$24,422
22	Utilities	50,935	55,870	4,935	10%	$118,804
11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting	317,762	319,410	1,648	1%	$20,912
56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services	934,474	932,960	(1,514)	0%	$33,979
53	Real Estate and Rental and Leasing	564,471	559,112	(5,359)	(1%)	$31,946
42	Wholesale Trade	565,616	552,876	(12,740)	(2%)	$80,704
48-49	Transportation and Warehousing	577,467	553,486	(23,981)	(4%)	$60,395
51	Information	262,342	227,513	(34,829)	(13%)	$73,610
44-45	Retail Trade	1,441,632	1,400,681	(40,951)	(3%)	$30,803
23	Construction	1,025,977	950,903	(75,074)	(7%)	$54,438
31-33	Manufacturing	989,430	871,533	(117,897)	(12%)	$79,460
	Total	13,851,095	14,242,517	391,422	3%	$53,493
Source: EMSI Complete Employment - 2011.3

Here is a look at 6-digit industries and 5-digit occupations that grew and declined at the largest clip in Texas from ’07-11. As you can see, oil and natural gas extraction is a very big driver for the state. Under Perry, the state also picked up quite a few local government jobs during the recession.

CONCLUSION

Based on job numbers, both candidates do have legitimate claims that their states have done well through the recession. In this comparison — Texas really benefits from the huge grow within oil and natural gas. See this recent interactive display to better visualize this trend.

When looking at data like this, it is important to keep in mind that the economies of states (and these two states in particular) are quite different in terms of total population, demographics, and industry composition. Both states have some strong qualities, but based on raw numbers, Texas is the obvious choice.

Rob Sentz is the marketing director at EMSI, an Idaho-based economics firm that provides data and analysis to workforce boards, economic development agencies, higher education institutions and the private sector. He is the author of a series of green jobs white papers. Email Rob with questions at rob@economicmodeling.com.

Lead illustration by Mark Beauchamp

The Shifting Geography of Black America

Aaron M. Renn — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:38:32 -0400

Black population changes in various cities have been one of the few pieces of the latest Census to receive significant media coverage. The New York Times, for example, noted that many blacks have returned to the South nationally and particularly from New York City. The overall narrative has been one of a “reverse Great Migration.” But while many northern cities did see anemic growth or even losses in black population, and many southern cities saw their black population surge, the real story actually extends well beyond the notion of a monolithic return to the South.

The map below, showing total growth in Black Only population from 2000 to 2010, indeed shows that northern and west coast cities had low or even negative growth while various southern cities boomed.

Here is a list of the top ten metro areas (among those with more than a million total people) for black population growth:

And here are the bottom ten (among those with more than one million people):

Of course, looking at total population numbers can mislead. Some cities grew slowly or lost people as a whole while others boomed. With Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta all adding over a million people each, it's no surprise these regions added lots of blacks. Working and middle class African-Americans likely shared many of the same motivations to move to these cities – such as lower housing prices – as Americans of other ethnicities. In that light, a look at change in black population share (the percentage of the population that is black) provides additional perspective:

Here we see not a single-minded return to the South, but a complex mixture of shrinking and growing regions in various parts of the country. This includes some surprising places, like Minneapolis-St. Paul, which was one of the top ten metros in the country for total black population growth, and also saw its black population share grow strongly. Now the Twin Cities, along with Columbus, Ohio, another strong performer, are two of the top destination for African immigrants from Somalia and elsewhere, which doubtless accounts for part of that strong growth. But anecdotal reports indicate that they are also benefitting from Chicago's expanding black diaspora, along with places like Indianapolis and various Downstate metros.

Atlanta, well known as America's premier metro area for blacks, continued to dominate the charts. Not only far and away the leader in adding raw numbers of blacks, the African-American share also grew share strongly too. Charlotte is also clearly emerging as another key black population hub, ranking #6 in America for total black population growth, which is impressive for a smaller city, and adding nearly two percentage points in black population share. It grew its black population much faster than other fast growing small cities like Raleigh or Nashville, and added share at more than three times as fast.

By contrast, Houston, which grew total black population significantly, had a much lower share gain. Austin, one of America's fastest growing metros, added only 28,000 blacks and actually lost black population share. And Washington, DC, despite being a traditional black population and cultural hub, also lost black population share regionally as gentrification in the District resulted in its loss of its black majority for the first time in decades, according to the Brookings Institution.

So even among rapidly growing metro areas in the South, the appeal to black population is selective, favoring places like Atlanta, Charlotte, Florida cities, and even slower growing cities along the length of the Mississippi River like Memphis. Even some cities in the North are retaining their allure to blacks as well. Less favored or even out of favor are metros like DC, Dallas, and Houston as well as cities such as Charleston and Savannah along the southeast coast.

Slow or negative black population growth is particularly concentrated in traditional tier one “global cities”, as well as those facing economic or other hardship like Detroit, Cleveland, and immediate post-Katrina New Orleans.

The latter may be understandable – whites have been leaving these regions as well – but the former is quite troubling. The global city model, focused on high end and creative services, is supposedly the bright and shining savior of American urbanism. Indeed, it's hard to find a city that doesn't have some aspect of that as a core plank in its civic strategy. Yet the cities that have been most focused at promoting this notion – such as New York, San Francisco, and Chicago – are generally those disproportionately driving blacks away. The reasons for this aren't clear, but the high and increasing cost of living in those places seems like one logical explanation.

Here's a more detailed look at the percentage growth in Black Only population in some tier one global type metros:

New York barely broke even on black population, while Chicago, LA, and the Bay Area all actually lost black residents, a stunning reversal from their past as black magnets. However, Boston, not a traditional black population hub, grew its black population strongly on a percentage basis, as did Miami and DC, though as noted before, the share change in DC was negative. Here is that metric for the same metros:

With the notable exceptions of Boston and Miami – and Philadelphia, seldom ranked highly as a global city but still a traditional large northern metropolis – most global city regions appear to be increasingly inhospitable to Blacks. Thus their model of success, whatever its appeal to some, at a basic level simply lacks inclusiveness. This shows its clear limits as an overall model for America’s urban centers as a whole.

Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile. Data analysis, maps, and charts in this piece were prepared with Telestrian.

The Next Boom Towns In The U.S.

Joel Kotkin — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:20:24 -0400

What cities are best positioned to grow and prosper in the coming decade?

To determine the next boom towns in the U.S., with the help of Mark Schill at the Praxis Strategy Group, we took the 52 largest metro areas in the country (those with populations exceeding 1 million) and ranked them based on various data indicating past, present and future vitality.

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 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.

We focused on these demographic factors because college-educated migrants (who also tend to be under 30), new families and immigrants will be critical in shaping the future. Areas that are rapidly losing young families and low rates of migration among educated migrants are the American equivalents of rapidly aging countries like Japan; those with more sprightly demographics are akin to up and coming countries such as Vietnam.

Many of our top performers are not surprising. No. 1 Austin, Texas, and No. 2 Raleigh, N.C., have it all demographically: high rates of immigration and migration of educated workers and healthy increases in population and number of children. They are also economic superstars, with job-creation records among the best in the nation.

Perhaps less expected is the No. 3 ranking for Nashville, Tenn. The country music capital, with its low housing prices and pro-business environment, has experienced rapid growth in educated migrants, where it ranks an impressive fourth in terms of percentage growth. New ethnic groups, such as Latinos and Asians, have doubled in size over the past decade.

Two advantages Nashville and other rising Southern cities like No. 8 Charlotte, N.C., possess are a mild climate and smaller scale. Even with population growth, they do not suffer the persistent transportation bottlenecks that strangle the older growth hubs. At the same time, these cities are building the infrastructure — roads, cultural institutions and airports — critical to future growth. Charlotte’s bustling airport may never be as big as Atlanta’s Hartsfield, but it serves both major national and international routes.

Of course, Texas metropolitan areas feature prominently on our list of future boom towns, including No. 4 San Antonio, No. 5 Houston and No. 7 Dallas, which over the past years boasted the biggest jump in new jobs, over 83,000. Aided by relatively low housing prices and buoyant economies, these Lone Star cities have become major hubs for jobs and families.

And there’s more growth to come. With its strategically located airport, Dallas is emerging as the ideal place for corporate relocations. And Houston, with its burgeoning port and dominance of the world energy business, seems destined to become ever more influential in the coming decade. Both cities have emerged as major immigrant hubs, attracting on newcomers at a rate far higher than old immigrant hubs like Chicago, Boston and Seattle.

The three other regions in our top 10 represent radically different kinds of places. The Washington, D.C., area (No. 6) sprawls from the District of Columbia through parts of Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia. Its great competitive advantage lies in proximity to the federal government, which has helped it enjoy an almost shockingly ”good recession,” with continuing job growth, including in high-wage science- and technology-related fields, and an improving real estate market.

Our other two top ten, No. 9 Phoenix, Ariz., and No. 10 Orlando, Fla., have not done well in the recession, but both still have more jobs now than in 2000. Their demographics remain surprisingly robust. Despite some anti-immigrant agitation by local politicians, immigrants still seem to be flocking to both of these states. Known better s as retirement havens, their ranks of children and families have surged over the past decade. Warm weather, pro-business environments and, most critically, a large supply of affordable housing should allow these regions to grow, if not in the overheated fashion of the past, at rates both steadier and more sustainable.

Sadly, several of the nation’s premier economic regions sit toward the bottom of the list, notably former boom town Los Angeles (No. 47). Los Angeles’ once huge and vibrant industrial sector has shrunk rapidly, in large part the consequence of ever-tightening regulatory burdens. Its once magnetic appeal to educated migrants faded and families are fleeing from persistently high housing prices, poor educational choices and weak employment opportunities. Los Angeles lost over 180,000 children 5 to 17, the largest such drop in the nation.

Many of L.A.’s traditional rivals — such as Chicago (with which is tied at No. 47), New York City (No. 35) and San Francisco (No. 42) — also did poorly on our prospective list. To be sure, they will continue to reap the benefits of existing resources — financial institutions, universities and the presence of leading companies — but their future prospects will be limited by their generally sluggish job creation and aging demographics.

Of course, even the most exhaustive research cannot fully predict the future. A significant downsizing of the federal government, for example, would slow the D.C. region’s growth. A big fall in energy prices, or tough restrictions of carbon emissions, could hit the Texas cities, particularly Houston, hard. If housing prices stabilize in the Northeast or West Coast, less people will flock to places like Phoenix, Orlando or even Indianapolis (No.11) , Salt Lake City (No. 12) and Columbus (No. 13). One or more of our now lower ranked locales, like Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, might also decide to reform in order to become more attractive to small businesses and middle class families.

What is clear is that well-established patterns of job creation and vital demographics will drive future regional growth, not only in the next year, but over the coming decade. People create economies and they tend to vote with their feet when they choose to locate their families as well as their businesses. This will prove more decisive in shaping future growth than the hip imagery and big city-oriented PR flackery that dominate media coverage of America’s changing regions.

Cities of the Future Rankings
Rank	Metropolitan Area
1	Austin, TX
2	Raleigh, NC
3	Nashville, TN
4	San Antonio, TX
5	Houston, TX
6	Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
7	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
8	Charlotte, NC-SC
8	Phoenix, AZ
10	Orlando, FL
11	Indianapolis, IN
12	Salt Lake City, UT
13	Columbus, OH
14	Jacksonville, FL
15	Atlanta, GA
16	Las Vegas, NV
16	Riverside, CA
18	Portland, OR-WA
19	Denver, CO
20	Oklahoma City, OK
21	Baltimore, MD
22	Louisville, KY-IN
22	Richmond, VA
24	Seattle, WA
25	Kansas City, MO-KS
26	San Diego, CA
27	Miami, FL
28	Tampa, FL
29	Sacramento, CA
30	Birmingham, AL
31	New Orleans, LA
32	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
33	Minneapolis, MN-WI
34	St. Louis, MO-IL
35	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
35	New York, NY-NJ-PA
37	Boston, MA-NH
38	Memphis, TN-MS-AR
39	Pittsburgh, PA
40	Virginia Beach, VA-NC
41	Rochester, NY
42	Buffalo, NY
42	San Francisco, CA
44	Hartford, CT
45	Milwaukee, WI
45	San Jose, CA
47	Chicago, IL-IN-WI
47	Los Angeles, CA
49	Providence, RI-MA
50	Detroit, MI
51	Cleveland, OH

This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

Photo by Exothermic Photography

Will J.R. Recognize the New Dallas?

Jason Thurlkill — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:38:09 -0400

In the sixties and seventies, Dallas’s prime tourist attraction was an assassination site. The town seriously needed a new image. It got one in a soap opera that revealed a city besieged by blonds, big hair and big homes. “Dallas,” which premiered in 1978, did for Big D what “Sex in the City” and “Seinfeld” did for New York: it painted a portrait of the city for the world.

The last “Dallas” episode aired in 1991, but TNT recently resurrected the hit show. This iteration features a new crop of Ewings beside originals Larry Hagman, Linda Gray, and Patrick Duffy. Dallas, of course, was never like “Dallas.” Since the series premiered, Dallas evolved. From its residents to its politics, Dallas today bears little resemblance to the city the show depicted. Which Dallas will J.R. come home to?

When the series debuted, Dallas was a conservative place. In 1980, Reagan took 59 percent in Dallas County, the anchor of the much larger Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, now home to more than 6 million people. As the county grew, it became more diverse, and consequently, more Democratic. No one would mistake it for San Francisco, politically and demographically, but it more resembles present-day Los Angeles than old Dallas.

In 2008, for example, Obama won 57 percent in Dallas County. Since “Dallas” first aired, Dallas elected two female Jewish mayors and an African-American, current U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. Although voters rejected gay marriage in 2005, they sent openly gay city councilor Ed Oakley to a mayoral runoff two years later (Oakley lost). If a real J.R. today causes trouble, he’ll contend with Sheriff Lupe Valdez, who’s also gay.

Minority growth transformed Dallas County politics. In 1980, there were two white residents for each non-white resident. Now, it’s the other way around. After “Dallas,” whites fled to northern exurbs. African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities spread throughout the urban core and inner-ring suburbs. Dallas votes Democratic; the surrounding counties don’t. Southfork Ranch, the white mansion in the “Dallas” opening, sits in rock-Republican Collin County, a mostly white, upper-middle class area with more than five times the residents as were there in 1980. In many respects, this is where “Dallas” culture – as defined by the old series – still thrives.

Outposts of the exclusive “Dallas” lifestyle still exist in much of North Dallas. George W. Bush settled into his post-presidency in an 8,500 sq. ft. Preston Hollow estate. Old-moneyed enclaves Highland Park and University Park draw the ire and envy of the metroplex. In Good Christian Bitches, socialite Kim Gatlin dishes about Botoxed beauties and Bible belt back-stabbers. These clichés sell: ABC used her Park Cities-inspired tale for their upcoming series “Good Christian Belles.”

Besides the population, the economy has also diversified: oil is now an ensemble player, not the lead. Exxon Mobil has headquarters near Dallas, but Houston is the energy superstar, despite not getting its own show. The metroplex hosts twenty Fortune 500 companies, including Southwest Airlines, Texas Instruments, and GameStop. This mix, along with the fact the region mostly avoided the housing crisis, explains why the recession hurt Dallas less than other cities.

If you only saw “Dallas,” you’d suspect shoulder pads and cowboy boots pass for high-fashion. But Dallas was always more cosmopolitan than the series let on. Neiman Marcus started in Dallas. Dallasites who can afford to—and many who can’t—gather at upscale eateries, fashion premiers, and charity galas. J.R. Ewing-types may fill Cowboys Stadium suites, but they also fill box-seats at the $354 million AT&T Performing Arts Center. It’s not all BBQ, rodeos, and pageant queens in Big D.

That perception, nonetheless, persists as does the idea of J.R. as the archetypal Texan. On a trip to Spain, his name came up after I told my hosts I was from Texas. Who knew Sevillanos loved Aaron Spelling productions? As Dallas transforms, it can’t shake the cowboy/oilman stereotype. Like a Hollywood starlet, Dallas has been typecast.

But still I hope the next “Dallas” includes a broader cast of characters. An uptown Indian high-tech executive or feisty female mayor would be nice. Producers must show off the city’s grandiosity. Dallas strives for bigger and best, for bragging rights if no more; it never lets up. The same year it lost a quixotic Olympic bid, it opened the colossal American Airlines Center. Ridiculed in the nineties, the Dallas Mavericks stand as N.B.A. champs today. Always scouting for new business, Dallas lured AT&T from San Antonio in 2008.

“Dallas” left fans wondering, “Who shot J.R.?” The real mystery, three decades later, is why a multi-layered city retains a one-note reputation. Dallas, after all, has remade itself.

Writer Jason Thurlkill grew up near Dallas. He reported for “The Hotline” and a “New York Observer” publication. Previously, he worked for a Washington D.C. political consulting firm. He studied government at the University of Texas and earned his Master of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.

Photo by david.nahas.

Listing the Best Places Lists: Perception Versus Reality

Joel Kotkin and Mark Schill — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:50:00 -0400

Often best places lists reflect as much on what’s being measured, and who is being measured as on the inherent advantages of any locale. Some cities that have grown rapidly in jobs, for example, often do not do as well if the indicator has more to do with perceived “quality” of employment.

Take places like Denver and Seattle. Both do well on what may be considered high-tech measurements – bandwidth, educated migration, entrepreneurial start ups – but have trailed other places in terms of creating jobs. Others, such as Oklahoma City and Raleigh, do better in terms of overall job creation and cost competitiveness.

There are effectively few truly objective criteria, and the Area Development list does tend to weigh a bit heavy on the factors that help more expensive – although not necessarily the most costly – cities. If cost of doing business, or regulatory environments were given more weight, some of the high fliers would not do as well.

We prefer to focus less on atmospherics and more on how people, and businesses, are voting for their feet. San Francisco and New York have generally had slower job growth and greater outmigration, but do well on lists that focus on perceived qualitative factors.

But then there is Austin. Here is one region that has it all, the low costs and favorable regulatory climate of Texas along with the amenities associated with a high-tech region. The area creates a large number of jobs of varying types and is still inexpensive enough to attract young, upwardly mobile families. This gives it a critical advantage over places like Silicon Valley, Los Angeles or New York. Unlike those three centers, Austin performs extraordinarily well in quantitative measurements.

The region that most closely matches Austin in these respects is not Seattle and Denver, but Raleigh Durham. Recently a group of leaders from Raleigh made a visit to Denver to learn what makes that city successful. Speaking to the group, we pointed out that by objective measurement – job growth, educated migration, population growth – Raleigh beat Denver by a long shot, yet it was to Denver the group was looking for inspiration. In fact, over the past three years, Americans have moved to Raleigh at a rate more than three times that of Denver. Perception can be a funny thing which makes a winner feel inferior to a clear runner-up.

Another strange result is that New York and Houston had the same number of mentions. Yet looking at numbers --- from educated migration, job growth, population increase --- Houston slaughters New York. People, from the college educated on down are flocking to Houston while fleeing, in rather large numbers, from New York. One has to wonder where the rankers live and where they are coming from. Houston triumphs on performance, while New York, to a large extent, wins on perception.

Looking simply at job growth over the past ten years for the Leading Locations mentioned on at least five surveys, the 14 regions separate themselves into three groups. The top tier of places – Austin, Raleigh, San Antonio, and Houston – all have seen job growth of more than 12% and seem to be recovering from the recession faster than the others.

Salt Lake City and Charlotte were tracking with the top tier of places until 2007 but have since fallen to the second tier of cities. The remainder of the second tier includes steady growers Dallas and Lincoln, along with Oklahoma City, a region that has seen a boom in jobs since bottoming out in 2003.

The final job growth tier of places includes five regions that have fewer jobs than ten years ago. Seattle drops just below the zero line after being hit particularly hard by the 2001 and 2008 recessions, while New York and Denver finish near the national rate. Pittsburgh and Boston spent most of the decade below their 2000 employment levels, but each seem to be recovering from the recession faster than many of the other Leading Locations cities.

But perhaps the biggest problem with lists has to do with the size of regions. Much of the fastest growth in America, particularly in terms of jobs, has been in small metros, many with fewer than 1 million or 500,000 residents. Smaller dynamic areas such as Anchorage, Alaska; Bismarck, North Dakota; Dubuque, Iowa; or Elizabethtown, Kentucky – all in the top 25 of NewGeography’s Best Cities for Job Growth 2011 Rankings – are too small to show up on some lists yet may be a location of choice for expansion. This reflects not so much their relative desirability but the fact that, unlike larger regions, they simply are not included on many rankings.

Ultimately, a list of lists does tell us much, but perhaps only so much for a specific individual or business. For someone interested in the movie business, for example, Los Angeles – and increasingly places like New Orleans or Albuquerque – are great draws, but perhaps not so much for financial services. The lists of lists are useful to identify hotspots, but for most location decisions, it may be more imperative to drill down to more detailed industry sectors and workforce attributes. And most of all, take the perception factor into account and look instead at the real numbers to tell you where to go.

This piece first appeared at AreaDevelopment.com, as part of its Leading Locations series discussing best cities rankings.

Joel Kotkin is a Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in California, an adjunct fellow with the London-based Legatum Institute, and the author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. Mark Schill is Vice President of Research at Praxis Strategy Group, an economic research and community strategy firm. Both are editors at NewGeography.com, a provider of two surveys for Area Development’s Leading Locations list.

Photo by mclcbooks

Rethinking Urban Dynamics: Lessons from the Census

Aaron M. Renn — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:39:30 -0400

Much has been made of the vaunted “back to the city” movement by “the young and restless,” young professionals, the creative class, empty nesters and others were voting with their feet in favor of cities over suburbs. Although there were bright spots, the Census 2010 results show that the trend was very overblown, affecting mostly downtown and near downtown areas, while outlying ones bled population. One culprit for this discrepancy seems to be that the intra-census estimates supplied by the Census Bureau were inflated – in some cases very inflated.

Looking at selected core cities for major US metropolitan areas, many of them were materially over-estimated:

One particularly egregious case relates to Atlanta. Its huge projected population increase in the 2000s led me to describe it as “one of America's top urban success stories.” The reality proved to be quite different. Rather than strong population growth in the city, the population growth turned out to be basically flat, quite a different story. Other declines might be more predictable, such as Detroit, or those who had previously challenged estimates like Cincinnati and St. Louis. Still, even urban cores in rapidly growing regions like Dallas and Houston were not immune from this trend.

There were some exceptions. Cities like Indianapolis, Columbus, and Oklahoma City came in slightly ahead of expectations, but the number of cities with misses and the sizes of the positive and negative misses tilted towards the down direction.

It seems clear now that the justification for much of the “back to the city” story reflected bad estimates. People can't be faulted for relying on the official government numbers – I did. But the reality of the 2010 Census, as demonstrated by Wendell Cox and others, is that the 1990s were actually better for urban population growth in America than the 2000s in many respects.

One legitimate bright spot for cities lay in the growth of downtown and near downtown areas. Though often starting from low bases, these areas often showed impressive increases. For example, St. Louis showed good growth downtown despite a very disappointing decline in total city population:

The poster child for this phenomenon was Chicago, where a fairly expansive area in the greater core showed large population growth. Areas that were formerly almost all commercial, such as the Loop, added significant residential population, while areas that were nearly derelict like the near South Side have blossomed into thriving upscale neighborhoods.

The problem, from places ranging from Chicago to Cleveland, is that the gains in the “core of the core” have been more than offset by losses elsewhere, especially the flight of blacks and other minorities – many of them immigrants – to the increasingly diverse suburbs.

Cities across America have invested enormous sums into downtown redevelopment and major projects in selected districts. The good news: these investments have shown some ability to move the needle in terms of attracting young professionals downtown. The bad news lies with the fact that these developments have been extremely costly, and have not transformed the overall demographic or economic climates of the cities that tried them. This demonstrates the limits of the policies. Those who aren't in the young professional, empty nester, or creative class demographic have rightly figured out that they are no longer the target market of city leadership. No surprise then that many of them have decided to vote with their feet.

Given the resulting overall negative swings, cities may want to revisit their strategy of putting all their chips in the downtown redevelopment basket in favor of less glamorous improvements in basic neighborhood safety, services, schools and other critical elements. A handful of elite enclaves and talent hubs may be able to thrive on a “favored demographic quarter” strategy, but for most places there just aren't enough young professionals and artists to go around.

Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.

* Actual population minus projected population as of 4/1/2010 using a run rate projection based on the 2008-2009 estimated population growth.
** Base is the projected 4/1/2010 population above.

Photo by Ian Freimuth

The Evolving Urban Form: Dallas-Fort Worth

Wendell Cox — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:01:52 -0400

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area (Note 1), which corresponds to the Dallas-Fort Worth urban area, provides a casebook example of expanding urbanization. Dallas-Fort Worth has been one of the fastest growing major metropolitan areas in the nation for decades. Dallas-Fort Worth was among only three US metropolitan areas adding more than 1,000,000 residents between 2000 and 2010. Only Houston's addition of 1,230,000 exceeded that of Dallas-Fort Worth, which grew by 1,210,000, a 23.4 percent growth rate. Atlanta was the third metropolitan area to add more than one million residents, at 1,021,000. During the 2000s, Dallas-Fort Worth passed Philadelphia to become the nation’s fourth largest urban area, with a population of 6,372,000. Only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are larger.

On an international scale, the United Nations estimates indicate that only Singapore, Houston and Atlanta had greater percentage growth between 2000 and 2010 among high-income world urban areas that exceed 4,000,000 in population.

The Core: The core of the metropolitan area experienced the earliest growth and has since seen its share of growth and its growth rate decline significantly. Dallas County, which includes the historical core municipality of Dallas (Note 2), had a growth rate of 6.7 percent between 2000 and 2010, approximately one third less than the national growth rate of 9.7 percent. Nearly all of the growth in Dallas County was outside the city of Dallas, which added only 0.8 percent to its population, less than one-tenth of the national rate. The city of Dallas added 9,000 residents, while the suburbs within Dallas County added 140,000 residents.

Overall, Dallas County accounted for 12 percent of the metropolitan area’s growth between 2000 and 2010. This is down from 41 percent between 1950 and 2000. Between 1900 and 1950, Dallas County accounted for an even larger share (66 percent) of growth (Figure 1). Dallas County's annual growth rate fell from 4.1 percent between 1900 and 1950 to 2.6 percent between 1950 and 2000 to 0.7 percent in the last decade (Figure 2).

Inner Suburban Counties: During the 2000s, the greatest growth was experienced in the inner suburban counties (those abutting the core county, Dallas). These six counties (Collin, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, Rockwall and Tarrant, where Fort Worth is located) experienced a population gain of 38.9 percent. Inner suburban counties now contain 56 percent of the metropolitan area population. Between 2000 and 2010, the inner suburban counties captured 82 percent of the metropolitan area, up from 53 percent between 1950 and 2000 and 38 percent between 1900 and 1950. The inner suburban counties grew 1.7 percent annually from 1900 to 1950, increasing to 3.2 percent between 1950 and 2000 and 3.3 percent in the 2000s.

Outer Suburban Counties: The outer suburban counties represent a comparatively small portion of the metropolitan area’s population. These five counties (Delta, Hunt, Jasper, Parker and Wise) accounted for only 7 percent of the metropolitan area population. The 2000 to 2010 growth rate was 20.9 percent, somewhat below the metropolitan area rate of 23.4 percent, and more than double the national population growth rate of 9.7 percent national growth rate.

Between 2000 and 2010, the outer suburban counties captured 6 percent of the metropolitan area growth, the same share as between 1950 and 2000. However, perhaps surprisingly, their combined 1950 population was 19 percent below that of 1900. This illustrates the declining fortunes in the early part of the 20th century of counties that were dominated by agriculture, as the farm population and population of many small farm dependent communities declined. Of course, the 1900 to 1950 losses have since been compensated many times over by the post 1950 suburbanization. Nonetheless, one outer suburban county, Delta is unique in continuing to lose population through the 2010 census. Delta County’s 2010 population of 5,200 is approximately one third of its 1900 population of 15,200.

The outer suburban counties lost 0.4 percent of their population annually from 1900 to 1950, but turned around to gain 2.1 percent from 1950 to 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, the growth rate fell back to 1.9 percent.

The City of Dallas: The historical core municipality of Dallas illustrates of the dynamics of aggressive annexation policies. In 1910, Dallas covered only 16 square miles (41 square kilometers) and had a population of 92,000. Even at this early date, the city of Dallas was not very dense, with 5,700 residents per square mile (2,200 per square kilometer). The city reached its peak density of 7,300 (2,800 per square kilometer) in 1940, after having expanded to 41 square miles (106 square kilometers) and a population of 295,000.. Even at this peak density, the city of Dallas remained well below the densities of other core cities, especially in the East and Midwest, most of which had densities exceeding 10,000 per square mile (3,900 per square kilometer).

By 1950, the city had expanded to 112 square miles (289 square kilometers) and with a population of 334,000, the population density had fallen to 3,900 (1,500 per square kilometer). Larger annexations were to follow, with the city reaching 343 square miles (885 square kilometers) by 2010. With a population of 1,198,000, the population density was 3,500 per square mile (1,350 per square kilometer), less than one-half the 1940 peak. Virtually all new owned housing was built consistent with the post-World War II suburban form, as occurred in metropolitan areas around the nation. The city's addition of 9,000 residents between 2000 and 2010 was far less than the 182,000 gain between 1990 and 2000. By 2000, there was little greenfield land left to develop in the city and the population could be peaking. Indeed, the population could decline in future censuses, as has happened in geographically constrained urban cores around the world. Any such decline could, however, be counteracted by immigration, as has occurred in some urban cores.

Ethic Trends in the Metropolitan Area: As would be expected in a state bordering Mexico, the Latino population of Dallas-Fort Worth grew substantially between 2000 and 2010, at a 43 percent rate. Overall, Latinos accounted for 42 percent of the metropolitan area's growth. The Latino population increase was nearly 520,000, more people than live in the core city of Atlanta.

However, unlike a number of other metropolitan areas, there was strong growth in the African-American population, which added 33 percent to its count. African-Americans accounted for 19 percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

This growth was strongest in the core county of Dallas, where Latino and African-American growth made up for a decline in the rest of the population. In the inner suburban counties, 53 percent of the growth was Latino or African-America, while the lowest share of Latino and African American growth was in the outer suburban counties, at 30 percent.

Overall, 75 percent of Latino growth and 69 percent of African-American growth took place in the suburban counties, which is a substantial change from the past (Figure 3).

The Urban Area: Urban area data has not been released from the 2010 census. However, it is clear that Dallas-Fort Worth has become less dense since 1950. Between 1950 and 2000, the population density of the urban area declined approximately 10 percent. Even so, it is surprising to some that the Dallas-Fort Worth urban area, with its low-density reputation, was only 12 percent less dense that Portland urban area in 2000, despite the aggressive densification strategies employed by Portland.

The Expanding Metropolitan Area: The story in Dallas-Fort Worth is little different (Table) from what has emerged in metropolitan areas around the world, in places like Seoul, Mexico City and Mumbai. Dallas-Fort Worth also illustrates a trend only now becoming more obvious, that middle-sized and smaller metropolitan areas are generally growing faster than the megacities within their own countries (see the report by the McKinsey Global Institute). The United States has two megacities, the New York metropolitan area, which grew 3.1 percent from 2000 to 2010 and Los Angeles, which grew 3.7 percent. Dallas-Fort Worth's far higher growth rate of 23.4 percent translated into an actual population increase of 175,000 more than the combined increase of the two megacities, despite their having five times the population.

Dallas-Fort Worth: Population Trend by Sector and County
1900-2010
	1900	1950	2000	2010
CORE COUNTY
Dallas County	82,756	614,799	2,218,899	2,368,139

INNER SUBURBAN COUNTIES	222,747	527,281	2,596,623	3,585,286
Collin County	50,087	41,692	491,675	782,341
Denton County	28,318	41,365	432,976	662,614
Ellis County	50,059	45,645	111,360	149,610
Kaufman County	33,376	31,170	71,313	103,350
Rockwall County	8,531	6,156	43,080	78,337
Tarrant County	52,376	361,253	1,446,219	1,809,034

OUTER SUBURBAN COUNTIES	149,302	120,754	346,022	418,348
Delta County	15,249	8,964	5,327	5,231
Hunt County	47,295	42,731	76,596	86,129
Johnson County	33,819	31,390	126,811	150,934
Parker County	25,823	21,528	88,495	116,927
Wise County	27,116	16,141	48,793	59,127

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA	454,805	1,262,834	5,161,544	6,371,773

The Future? It is an open question whether the rapid growth of Dallas-Fort Worth will continue. As it continues to grow, the stagnation that now afflicts the nation's two megacities and its near-megacity, Chicago could spread to Dallas-Fort Worth. On the other hand, Dallas-Fort Worth has advantages that could permit its growth to continue for multiple decades into the future. Texas has a favorable business climate, low taxes and less heavy handed regulation than New York, California and Illinois. Dallas-Fort Worth has plenty of developable land as well as a political culture not cowed by development. The economic advance of its growing population, particularly the burgeoning Latino population, depends upon public policies that favor housing affordability and urban expansion. If it continues on its current course, Dallas-Fort Worth could pass the Chicago metropolitan area in population by 2050 and could even challenge Los Angeles later in the century.

----

Note 1: As currently defined by the Census Bureau. Officially titled the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan statistical area. Metropolitan areas are essentially labor markets and include a principal urban area and rural (non-urban) areas and may include smaller urban areas.

Note 2: Fort Worth is not considered a historical core municipality, based upon the discussion in Perspectives on Urban Cores and Suburbs, though the Census Bureau considers Fort Worth and Arlington to be principal cities (which are a different thing). The "Dallas-Fort Worth" terminology is used because of its wide acceptance and to make the geographical expanse of the metropolitan area more clear.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

Photo by Trey Ratcliff