Suburbs

Net Domestic Migration: Shift to From Larger Metros to Smaller Areas Accelerates

Wendell Cox — Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:28:38 -0400

Late in the last decade, domestic migrants began moving to smaller metropolitan areas and micropolitan areas (CBSA’s) as domestic migration to the larger metropolitan areas fell. The trend was covered in “Domestic Migration to Dispersion Accelerates (Even Before Covid).” The trend has continued, especially in the year ended July 1, 2021, according to Census Bureau estimates.

This is indicated in Figure 1, which shows annual net domestic migration percentage by size of Core Based Statistical Areas (metropolitan areas and micropolitan areas) as well as to areas outside CBSAs (Note 1) for three periods, 2010-2015, 2015-2020 and 2020-2021. In each of the largest CBSA population categories (1,000,000 and over), the smallest net domestic migration occurred in 2020-2021, with only the 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 category gaining. The largest net domestic migration figures were achieved in 2020-2021 for the smaller population categories. At the same time, areas outside the CBSAs (which are not to be confused with rural areas, see Note 2), had the largest 2020-2021 percentage gain.

The population change data for all of the population categories is illustrated in Figure 2.

Domestic Migration by CBSA Population

The largest metropolitan areas — the two megacities, with more than 10 million residents in 2010, were already losing hundreds of thousands of net domestic migrants in 2010-2015, and more than trebled their losses by 2020-2021. New York lost 385,000, while Los Angeles lost 205,000.

The second largest metropolitan population category (5,000,000 to 9,999,999 in 2010) had a modest annual gain in 2010-2015, but by 2021 lost 151,000. However, this category included the metropolitan area with the second largest net domestic migrant gain, Dallas-Fort Worth, which added 54,000 net domestic migrants. Atlanta gained 25,000 and Houston 24,000. Chicago lost 109,000, while Washington (DC-VA-MD-WV) sustained a 67,000 loss, as did Miami (minus 55,000).

The third largest metropolitan population category (2,500,000 to 4,999,999 in 2010) had annual gains in both of the previous periods, but lost 141,000 in 2020-2021.The strongest gain in this category was in Tampa-St. Petersburg, at 42,000, followed by Riverside-San Bernardino, at 35,000. In the last year Riverside-San Bernardino passed San Francisco in population to become California’s second largest metropolitan area. The largest net domestic migration losses were in San Francisco, at minus 129,000, Boston, at minus 48,000 and Seattle, at minus 31,000. Seattle is a genuine surprise, since it had been a national domestic migration leader in most recent years.

The metropolitan areas with from 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 population in 2010 had annual net domestic migration gains in all three periods. The largest 2020-2021 gains were in Austin, at 40,000 and San Antonio, at 26,000, their urban cores being only 80 miles apart. Jacksonville gained 25,000, Charlotte 24,000 and Raleigh 22,000. The largest loss was in San Jose, at minus 61,000.

The downward trend in net domestic migration to the major metropolitan areas (the four largest categories — over 1,000,000 in 2010) has been pronounced (Figure 3).

The largest overall net domestic migration gain was in the metropolitan areas with from 500,000 to 999,999 population in 2010, at 248,000. This was nearly eight times the average from 2010 to 2015. The largest gainers were Sarasota, FL, at 29,000, Cape Coral, FL, at 26,000, Lakeland, FL, at 25,000 and Boise, ID, at 24,000. The largest loss in the category was in Honolulu, at minus 17,000.

The 250,000 to 499,999 2010 population category added net domestic migrants in 2021 at nearly six times the rate of 2010-2015. The largest gainers were Myrtle Beach, SC-NC, at 22,000 and Port St. Lucie, FL, at 16,000. The largest losses were in Salinas, CA and Santa Maria (Santa Barbara), CA at between 3,000 and 4,000.

The 100,000 to 249,999 2010 population category lost an average of 11,000 net domestic migrants, and increased to 161,000 in 2020-2021. The leaders in this category were Punta Gorda, FL and St. George, UT, at 9,000. Even with this gain, a number of CBSAs sustained losses, and the largest in this category was in Lake Charles, LA, at 12,000.

Among the CBSA’s with under 100,000 population in 2010, there was a loss of 57,000 net domestic migrants in 2010-2015, which became a 109,000 gain by 2020-2021. The Villages, FL had the largest gain, at 7,000, while Williston, ND had the largest loss, at minus 3,000.

Outside the CBSA’s there was a average loss of 59,000 in 2010-2015, which was transformed into a gain of 118,000 in 2020-2021. Their 0.66% net gain was the largest of any population category in 2020-2021. This gain was a surprise, since areas outside the CBSAs (which are not to be confused with rural areas, see Note 2), have had gained only once in the past 11 years, and even then in a much smaller amount (7,000).

Domestic Migration Percentage Leaders

The 25 CBSAs out of the total of 927 that had the highest percentage of net domestic migration in 2021 relative to their 2020 population are shown in Figure 4. The highest was The Villages, FL, with other Florida CBSAs Punta Gorda (2nd ranked), Homosassa Springs, Sarasota, Lakeland, Cape Coral, Port St Lucie, Ocala, Vero Beach and Sebring in the top 25. Each of these metros are senior citizen oriented, as well as being within hybrid or remote physical commuting distance of major job centers, such as Tampa-St. Petersburg, Miami, Orlando and Jacksonville. St. George, UT ranks third, and is both a senior magnet and also a remote/hybrid commute from metro Las Vegas. Cedar City, UT is a somewhat longer remote commute to Las Vegas. Other exurban CBSAs are also on the list, such as Jefferson, GA (near Atlanta), Coeur d’Alene and Sandpoint, ID (near Spokane), Granbury, TX (near Dallas-Fort Worth) and Pahrump, NV (near Las Vegas). Boise, ID is attracting large numbers of domestic migrants as it becomes a growing urban center in its own right.

The largest percentage losses were in energy producing Williston, ND and Lake Charles, LA. Three major metropolitan areas were among the 25 with the largest percentage loss, San Jose, San Francisco and New York (Figure 5).

Even Half a Blip Would be Substantial

It is, of course, possible that the 2021 is a blip in net domestic migration that will not be soon replicated. But critically these patterns were in place before the pandemic. And it is not clear that Covid has finished its work, with new pandemic “waves,” and even a “sixth wave” in neighboring Canada. A return to the “new normal” may not be as near as was thought. Even if in future years domestic migration should fall to only one-half its recent acceleration, it would still be substantial and mark a critical transformation of the country’s demography.

Note 1: Metropolitan and micropolitan area criteria are organized around “urban areas.” The two classifications differ in the population of the core urban area. Those with urban areas of 50,000 or more residents are metropolitan areas, while those with from 10,000 to 49,999 residents are micropolitan areas.

Note 2: Areas outside CBSA’s are not rural, they are simply not in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. As the Office of Management and Budget put it in the 2020 metropolitan area criteria, “The CBSA classification is not an urban-rural classification; Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and many counties outside CBSAs contain both urban and rural populations.” Indeed, in 2010, only 16 counties of the more than 3,100 in the United States did not have rural territory. This excludes cities that are county equivalents in Virginia, in which cities cannot be in counties.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photo: Riverside-San Bernardino: Now California’s second largest metropolitan, having displaced San Francisco, via Wikmedia.

Huge Spike in Domestic Migration from Urban Cores

Wendell Cox — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 20:28:58 -0400

Net domestic migration losses spiked perhaps as never before in the pandemic year of 2021 among urban core counties --- the counties that contain the urban cores (Note 1). This article reviews net domestic migration trend in the major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 residents) based on US Census Bureau data for 2021 and going back to 2010. The analysis is limited to 51 of the 56 major metropolitan areas that have more than one county. Since the Census Bureau does not estimate domestic migration below the county level, urban core versus outlying (or suburban) can only be calculated for metros with more than one county (Note 2). As a result, there are no results for Fresno, Honolulu, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Tucson.

Urban Core Counties

Among these urban core counties there was a net loss of 1,122,000 net domestic migrants in 2021. (see Table) This is a 140% increase from the minus 466,000 in 2020 and nearly 10 times the average net domestic migration loss of 115,000 in the first five years of the decade (2010 to 2015). The peak net domestic migration for these metropolitan areas was in 2012, when there was a loss of about 2,000.

In the second half of the decade (2016 to 2020), the average urban core county net domestic migration loss was 425,000, as there was a pronounced shift of net domestic migration away from the larger metropolitan areas to other areas of the country. This was before the spike in net domestic migration that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of course, it’s likely that the out-migration will slow as the pandemic wanes. But still, central business districts are particularly vulnerable as many of its long-time workforce labor in “laptop economy jobs” to the shift to on-line work.

Outlying (Suburban) Counties

At the same time, the outer (suburban) counties of the major metropolitan areas experienced a net domestic migration gain of 395,000, their largest gain since 2011. Even as urban core domestic migration was plummeting, the outlying counties experienced a more than 50% increase from their 2016 to 2020 average (231,000), and an even stronger gain relative to earlier in the decade (2011 to 2015), when the average gain was 177,000.

Over the decade the suburban counties added net domestic migrants in every year. The outlying counties gained a minimum of 119,000 more net domestic migrants than the urban core counties (2012), which rose to an average of 656,000 in the last half of the decade. In 2021, the outlying counties gained 1,481,000 more net domestic migrants than the urban core counties. The 2021 results are consistent with research indicating substantial movement away from urban cores, to the periphery of metropolitan areas and even beyond.

Metropolitan Area Highlights

The largest net domestic migration loss occurred in the New York metropolitan area at 385,000. The city of New York accounted for 342,000 of this loss, with a much smaller net out migration of 43,000 from the suburbs.

Metro Los Angeles had the second largest net migration loss at 205,000, with a 180,000 loss in core Los Angeles County.

The San Francisco metropolitan area lost 129,000 net domestic migrants, 56,000 of which were from core San Francisco County and 73,000 from the other four counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo counties).

Chicago continued its long-lasting string of net domestic migration losses at a minus 107,000 in the metropolitan area. Most of the loss (98,000) was from core Cook County. The outer counties had a relatively modest loss of 9000 net domestic migrants.

The Washington DC-VA-MD-WV metropolitan area lost 67,000 net domestic migrants. The net domestic migration loss in the core city (county equivalent) of Washington, stood at 23.000, while the outlying counties lost a larger 44,000 (only in San Francisco and Washington was the suburban loss greater than the urban core county loss).

Some metropolitan areas that have had strong net domestic migration fell on much harder times in 2021. Seattle had a net domestic migration loss of 31,000 in 2021, after having gained 147.000 between 2010 and 2020. The 2021 loss was concentrated in core King County which lost 33,000 net domestic migrants, while the other two counties had a net domestic migration gain of more than 1,000.

Portland Oregon lost more than 7,000 net domestic migrants, with a 13,000 loss in core Multnomah County, and a suburban gain of 6,000 net domestic migrants. This is after a 129,000 net domestic migration gain in the 2010s.

Denver had a 2021 net domestic migration loss of 7,000, with a 9,000 loss in the city of Denver (county equivalent) and a small gain in the outlying counties. This is after a 204,000 net domestic migration gain between 2010 and 2020.

In Seattle, Portland and Denver, the strong net domestic migration was strongest early in the decade and fell as the decade was closing.

So, if these stellar performers of the last decade lost migrants, which metros gained?

The largest net domestic migration gainer was Phoenix, with 67,000 net domestic migrants. This included a gain of 47,000 in core Maricopa County and 20,000 gained in the other core county. The Maricopa County gain was the largest of any urban core county.

Dallas Fort Worth gained 54,000 net domestic migrants for the second strongest gain. However, core Dallas County had a loss of 45,000, while the outlying counties gained 99,000 net domestic migrants.

Tampa-St. Petersburg had net domestic migration of 42,000, 10,000 to core Hillsborough County, with 32,000 to outlying counties.

Austin had the fourth largest net domestic migration in 2021. However, the core county, Travis, had a small net domestic migration loss (200), with suburban counties accounting for a 41,000 gain.

The situation was similar in Houston where core Harris County lost 44,000 net domestic migrants while the outer counties gained 64,000 for an overall gain of 19,000.

There is increasing evidence that the increased metropolitan core migration losses could continue given the less than robust return to the jobs in the nation’s largest central business districts (downtowns). In San Francisco, it has been projected that ridership on the regional rail system, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) may not reach pre-pandemic levels for a decade. The hybrid work and remote work arrangements, that have made the five day work week a thing of the past and facilitated the decentralization are being embraced not only by employees but also by corporate leadership.

Note 1: The urban core counties contain the city hall of the historic core municipality in metropolitan areas. In all but one case the historical core municipality is the largest in the metropolitan area (the exception is the city of Norfolk (county equivalent) in Virginia Beach. In the case of New York, there are five urban core counties, all of which comprise the city of New York.

Note 2: The use of counties for analyzing decentralization in metropolitan areas is not ideal, since there is such great variation among the urban core counties. Some urban core counties contain vast swaths of suburban development, such as Maricopa (Phoenix), with a 2010 urban density of 3,100 per square mile, King (Seattle), at 3,500, Multnomah (Portland) at 4,400 or Bexar (San Antonio (at 3,100) or Fulton (Atlanta) at 2,200. At the same time other urban core counties have little or no suburban development, such as the five New York City counties at 27,000, San Francisco, at 17,000, and Suffolk (Boston), at 12,600. In some cases, the much higher urban densities extend into adjacent counties, especially in Boston and New York. This lack of more local data on domestic migration limits the precision of the analysis. Factors other than net domestic migration can be assessed using census tract or zip code data (such as our City Sector Model).

Photo: Phoenix, AZ — Strongest major metropolitan area net domestic migration 2021

Table 1 (back to reference)

Net Domestic Migration: Urban Core and Outlying Counties: 2021
	Total	Urban Core Counties	Suburban (Outlying) Counties	Suburban Migration Compared to Urban Core
Atlanta, GA	19,358	(7,786)	27,144	34,930
Austin, TX	40,264	(172)	40,436	40,608
Baltimore, MD	(5,561)	(6,678)	1,117	7,795
Birmingham, AL	(2)	(5,283)	5,281	10,564
Boston, MA-NH	(48,040)	(28,850)	(19,190)	9,660
Buffalo, NY	(924)	(1,121)	197	1,318
Charlotte, NC-SC	23,970	(4,293)	28,263	32,556
Chicago, IL-IN-WI	(106,897)	(98,205)	(8,692)	89,513
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	(213)	(5,268)	5,055	10,323
Cleveland, OH	(6,089)	(10,359)	4,270	14,629
Columbus, OH	2,487	(9,799)	12,286	22,085
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	54,319	(44,650)	98,969	143,619
Denver, CO	(6,507)	(9,115)	2,608	11,723
Detroit, MI	(18,841)	(15,857)	(2,984)	12,873
Grand Rapids, MI	310	(2,472)	2,782	5,254
Hartford, CT	832	(1,161)	1,993	3,154
Houston, TX	19,426	(44,409)	63,835	108,244
Indianapolis, IN	6,732	(10,836)	17,568	28,404
Jacksonville, FL	24,815	646	24,169	23,523
Kansas City, MO-KS	748	(1,732)	2,480	4,212
Los Angeles, CA	(204,776)	(179,757)	(25,019)	154,738
Louisville, KY-IN	(358)	(4,458)	4,100	8,558
Memphis, TN-MS-AR	(3,041)	(6,132)	3,091	9,223
Miami, FL	(55,305)	(44,787)	(10,518)	34,269
Milwaukee,WI	(8,780)	(12,764)	3,984	16,748
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	(15,462)	(18,903)	3,441	22,344
Nashville, TN	12,328	(14,770)	27,098	41,868
New Orleans, LA	(9,824)	(6,699)	(3,125)	3,574
New York, NY-NJ-PA	(385,455)	(342,449)	(43,006)	299,443
Oklahoma City, OK	10,224	(1,277)	11,501	12,778
Orlando, FL	4,019	(16,184)	20,203	36,387
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	(14,763)	(28,226)	13,463	41,689
Phoenix, AZ	66,850	46,866	19,984	(26,882)
Pittsburgh, PA	(3,993)	(7,635)	3,642	11,277
Portland, OR-WA	(7,441)	(12,983)	5,542	18,525
Providence, RI-MA	2,427	(2,427)	4,854	7,281
Raleigh, NC	21,743	10,518	11,225	707
Richmond, VA	6,788	(887)	7,675	8,562
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	34,859	3,608	31,251	27,643
Rochester, NY	(2,938)	(3,381)	443	3,824
Sacramento, CA	6,963	(2,639)	9,602	12,241
St. Louis,, MO-IL	(7,277)	(7,577)	300	7,877
Salt Lake City, UT	(4,629)	(7,447)	2,818	10,265
San Antonio, TX	25,660	4,687	20,973	16,286
San Francisco, CA	(128,870)	(55,631)	(73,239)	(17,608)
San Jose, CA	(52,932)	(54,801)	1,869	56,670
Seattle, WA	(31,489)	(32,802)	1,313	34,115
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	42,089	9,600	32,489	22,889
Tulsa, OK	6,757	965	5,792	4,827
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	(321)	(3,540)	3,219	6,759
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	(66,811)	(23,030)	(43,781)	(20,751)

TOTAL	(763,571)	(1,122,342)	358,771	1,481,113
Derived from US Census Bureau data
Excludes metropolitan areas with only one county (Fresno, Honolulu, Las Vegas, San Diego & Tucson)

The Biggest Cities Are Past Their Prime

Joel Kotkin — Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:28:58 -0400

As the centers of media and political discourse, large cities, notably New York, have a unique ability to promote themselves, asserting that dense, core urban areas own the future. Yet in reality, even during good times, and well before the pandemic, Americans have been headed, in increasing numbers, to suburbs, exurbs and to smaller cities. Romantic illusions to past urban recoveries may make people feel better, but they ignore both long-lasting trends and new realities.

People vote with their feet, and today, only a small percentage of Americans live in or around the core urban counties. In 1950, the core cities accounted for nearly 24% of the U.S. population; today the share is under 15%. In contrast, the suburbs and exurbs grew from housing 13% of the metropolitan population in 1940 to 86% in 2017, a gradual increase of 2% a year. Despite all the talk of young people and families and others coming “back to the city,” suburbs accounted for about 90% of all U.S. metropolitan growth since 2010; over that time, suburbs and exurbs of the major metropolitan areas gained 2 million net domestic migrants, while the urban core counties lost 2.7 million.

Much the same can be said about the economy. During the last decade, roughly 80% of all job growth has been in the suburbs. Suburbs also generate the bulk of patents; in fact, three-quarters come from areas with less 3,500 people per square mile, less than half the density associated with urban centers.

The pandemic accelerated these already existing trends. New census numbers show that San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles led the population loss sweepstakes over the past year, while people headed to the Sunbelt, suburbs, exurbs or even small towns.

But the real issue now is not so much the pandemic per se but the rise of dispersed work. Midtown offices are still more than half empty — and that’s not just the pessimist’s way of seeing the glass. While they will recover some, they will likely not replace a large portion of what was lost. Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom suggests that remote workers will ultimately constitute at least 20% of the workforce, more than three times the pre-pandemic rate.

This leaves the large central business districts such as Midtown particularly exposed. As long-time urban booster Richard Florida notes, central business districts represent “the last gasp of the old Industrial age.” He adds, “This idea that you have to pack and stack these office workers and they have to commute in at 9 and leave at 5 and work in cubicle farms— it’s just silly. It is completely out of touch with the way people work.”

Read the rest of this piece at NY Daily News.

Joel Kotkin is the author of The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class. He is the Roger Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and Executive Director for Urban Reform Institute. Learn more at joelkotkin.com and follow him on Twitter @joelkotkin.

Photo:Steve Guttman via Flickr under CC 2.0 License.

Census 2021 Estimates: Increased Dispersion

Wendell Cox — Fri, 25 Mar 2022 20:28:58 -0400

According to the US Census Bureau, the year ended July 1, 2021, grew the slowest of any year on record. The driving factor was the Covid-19 pandemic, which increased morbidity and substantially reduced the natural increase of population (births minus deaths).

At the same time, there was a perhaps unprecedented rise in net domestic migration. The Census Bureau characterized it as in some cases “a shift from larger, more populous counties to medium and smaller ones.” This was accelerated by the rise of remote work that kept organizations opened, even during lockdowns, while many households took advantage of the opportunity to obtain more space — inside and out — farther away from workplaces.

This article focuses on trends over the 15-month period from the 2020 Census (April 1, 2020) to the just released July 1, 2021, estimates for the 56 major metropolitan areas (more than 1,000,000 population).

Even with the slower growth, some major metropolitan areas continued to gain population and attract more domestic migrants. At the same time, the losses tended to be more significant, with the lower natural growth rates and increased domestic outmigration in a number of metros.

Population Growth

Among the top 15 metropolitan population percentage gainers, 13 were in the South, with two in the West (Phoenix and Las Vegas). Austin had the strongest population growth (3.0%), followed by Raleigh (2.4%), Phoenix (2.4%) and Jacksonville (2.0%). Nine more metros exceeded growth rates of 1.0%: San Antonio (1.7%), Dallas-Fort Worth (1.6%), Charlotte (1.5%), Tampa-St. Petersburg (1.4%). Las Vegas (1.2%), Houston (1.2%), Riverside-San Bernardino (1.2%), Nashville (1.2%), and Oklahoma City (1.1%). Atlanta and Tulsa grew 0.9% (Figure 1).

The largest numeric gains were in Dallas-Fort Worth (122,000), Phoenix (100,00) and Houston (85,000).

The largest losses were in the San Francisco Bay area, with metro San Francisco losing the most, (-2.6%) and San Jose second (-2.4%). Four more metros lost more than one percent, including New York (-1.8%), Los Angeles (-1.5%), Honolulu (-1.5%) and Chicago (-1.1%). Losses of from -0.8% to -0.4% occurred in Boston, New Orleans, Miami, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee. Rochester and Washington (Figure 2).

The largest numeric population losses were in New York (-372,000), Los Angeles (-204,000) and San Francisco (-126,000).

Domestic Migration

Domestic migration is measured by net relocation of people between the nation’s counties.

Among the 15 strongest domestic major metropolitan migration gainers, 12 were in the South, with three in the West (Phoenix, Tucson, and Las Vegas). As in population growth, Austin (2.3%) led in net domestic migration. Raleigh and Jacksonville gained 1.9%, followed by Phoenix at 1.8% and Tampa-St. Petersburg. San Antonio gained 1.3% and Charlotte gained 1.2% in net domestic migration. Tucson gained 1.0%. Each of these metros have had a recent history of strong domestic migration gains, with the exception of Tucson, which after small gains and losses, has experienced increases from 2016 to 2021.

Dallas-Fort Worth, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Nashville, Riverside-San Bernardino, Tulsa, and Richmond rounded out the top 15 (Figure 3).

The largest net domestic migration numeric gains over the 15-month period were in Phoenix (87,000), Dallas-Fort Worth (69,000) and Austin (53,000).

The six metros with the largest domestic migration losses were San Jose and San Francisco (-2.9%), New York (-2.2%), Los Angeles and Honolulu (-1.7%) and Chicago (-1.3%), Washington (-1.2%) as well as Boston and Miami (-1.1%). The balance of the 15 metros losing the largest percentage in domestic migration included New Orleans, San Diego Seattle, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Seattle is particularly significant, as a leading exporter of residents, after its strong attraction of domestic migrants during the 2010s (Figure 4).

The largest numeric domestic migration losses were in New York (-443,000), Los Angeles (-238,000) and San Francisco (-142,000).

Additional Highlights

Among the major metropolitan areas, the data further reveals (Table):

Riverside-San Bernardino became the nation’s 12th largest metropolitan area, displacing San Francisco, fell to 13th largest. Riverside-San Bernardino becomes California’s second largest metropolitan area and San Francisco California’s third largest.
Phoenix enters the top ten among metropolitan areas, having passed Boston. It seems likely that Boston would have ever fallen out of the top ten, for the first time since the initial 1790 US Census.
Honolulu, which reached 1,000,000 just last year, suffered a large loss, dropping its population down to 1,001,000, and would drop below that figure if losses continue.
There were signs of life in the Midwest’s “Flyover Country.” Despite the negative trends around the country, Columbus, OH, Indianapolis, IN and Kansas City, MO-KS each posted small gains in both population and net domestic migration.
Like Seattle, Portland lost both population and domestic migrants, after a long run of gains.
Denver’s gain was only 3,300 in the last 12 months, after a gain of 5,500 in just the three months from April 1 to July 1, 2020.

There were other significant developments beyond the metropolitan area data, such as:

The population and domestic migration losses in New York City were unusually high (337,000 and 383,000) over the 15 months. New York City had 43.5% of the state’s population (8,804,000) in April 2020. Since that time, the city accounted for 92.2% of the New York State’s population loss and 94.3% of its net domestic migration.
Among counties with more than 20,000 residents in the nation, New York County (Manhattan) had the largest percentage population loss since the census, at 6.90%, while San Francisco County (the city of San Francisco) had the second largest loss, at 6.7%.
The largest overall county population loss was 184,000 in Los Angeles County, with New York County (Manhattan), which has one-fifth as many people, having the second largest loss, at 117,000.
The city of St. Louis (also a county) fell below 300,000 to 293,000, its lowest population since the 1860s. St. Louis peaked at 857,000 in 1950 and has lost 66% of its residents since that time.

Moving Toward Normal?

The 15-month data from April 2020 to July 2021 corresponds closely with the early pandemic era, with the widespread lockdown strategies generally beginning in March. When the pandemic effects fade, we should see the return of more normal natural population growth.

The one factor, however, that may well have changed is the nature of work and its impact on where people live. Gallup, in describing its continuing examination of employee attitudes toward commuting and working at home suggested that: “We're not returning to the same workplace we left. And employees with the ability to work remotely are largely anticipating a hybrid office environment going forward.” Critically , the increased dispersion of the last 15 months may a maturation of trends already evident late in the 2010s, as domestic migration was already shifting away from larger metro areas (See “Domestic Migration to Dispersion Accelerates [Even Before COVID]).” Many employers are adopting hybrid work models featuring onsite schedules that permit working at home some days. It seems likely that the work-related dispersion will continue, with ultimate impacts still unknown.

Photograph: New York City’s Mid-Town Manhattan (New York County): Largest percentage loss in population of any county: April 1, 2020, Census to July 1, 2021.

Table 1 Back to reference

Major Metropolitan Areas: Population & Net Domestic Migration
April 1 2020 (2020 Census) to July 1, 2021
		Population in Millions				Net Domestic Migration
Rank	Metropolitan Area	2020	2021	Change	%	In Millions	%
1	New York, NY-NJ-PA	20.140	19.768	(0.372)	-1.8%	(0.443)	-2.2%
2	Los Angeles, CA	13.201	12.997	(0.204)	-1.5%	(0.238)	-1.8%
3	Chicago, IL-IN-WI	9.619	9.510	(0.109)	-1.1%	(0.128)	-1.3%
4	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	7.637	7.760	0.122	1.6%	0.069	0.9%
5	Houston, TX	7.122	7.207	0.085	1.2%	0.024	0.3%
6	Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	6.385	6.356	(0.029)	-0.4%	(0.075)	-1.2%
7	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	6.245	6.229	(0.016)	-0.3%	(0.017)	-0.3%
8	Atlanta, GA	6.090	6.144	0.054	0.9%	0.025	0.4%
9	Miami, FL	6.138	6.092	(0.047)	-0.8%	(0.067)	-1.1%
10	Phoenix, AZ	4.846	4.946	0.100	2.1%	0.087	1.8%
11	Boston, MA-NH	4.942	4.900	(0.042)	-0.8%	(0.055)	-1.1%
12	Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	4.600	4.653	0.053	1.2%	0.038	0.8%
13	San Francisco, CA	4.749	4.623	(0.126)	-2.6%	(0.142)	-3.0%
14	Detroit, MI	4.392	4.365	(0.027)	-0.6%	(0.025)	-0.6%
15	Seattle, WA	4.019	4.012	(0.007)	-0.2%	(0.029)	-0.7%
16	Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	3.690	3.691	0.000	0.0%	(0.017)	-0.5%
17	San Diego, CA	3.299	3.286	(0.013)	-0.4%	(0.027)	-0.8%
18	Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	3.175	3.220	0.044	1.4%	0.052	1.6%
19	Denver, CO	2.964	2.973	0.009	0.3%	(0.004)	-0.1%
20	Baltimore, MD	2.845	2.838	(0.006)	-0.2%	(0.008)	-0.3%
21	St. Louis,, MO-IL	2.820	2.809	(0.011)	-0.4%	(0.009)	-0.3%
22	Charlotte, NC-SC	2.660	2.701	0.041	1.5%	0.032	1.2%
23	Orlando, FL	2.673	2.692	0.019	0.7%	0.007	0.3%
24	San Antonio, TX	2.558	2.602	0.044	1.7%	0.032	1.3%
25	Portland, OR-WA	2.513	2.512	(0.001)	0.0%	(0.005)	-0.2%
26	Sacramento, CA	2.397	2.411	0.014	0.6%	0.008	0.3%
27	Pittsburgh, PA	2.371	2.354	(0.017)	-0.7%	(0.005)	-0.2%
28	Austin, TX	2.283	2.352	0.069	3.0%	0.053	2.3%
29	Las Vegas, NV	2.265	2.292	0.027	1.2%	0.020	0.9%
30	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	2.257	2.260	0.003	0.1%	(0.000)	0.0%
31	Kansas City, MO-KS	2.192	2.199	0.007	0.3%	0.001	0.1%
32	Columbus, OH	2.139	2.151	0.012	0.6%	0.003	0.1%
33	Indianapolis. IN	2.111	2.127	0.016	0.7%	0.008	0.4%
34	Cleveland, OH	2.088	2.076	(0.013)	-0.6%	(0.008)	-0.4%
35	Nashville, TN	1.990	2.012	0.023	1.2%	0.017	0.9%
36	San Jose, CA	2.000	1.952	(0.048)	-2.4%	(0.061)	-3.0%
37	Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	1.800	1.803	0.004	0.2%	(0.001)	0.0%
38	Providence, RI-MA	1.677	1.676	(0.001)	0.0%	0.002	0.1%
39	Jacksonville, FL	1.606	1.638	0.032	2.0%	0.030	1.9%
40	Milwaukee,WI	1.575	1.566	(0.008)	-0.5%	(0.010)	-0.6%
41	Raleigh, NC	1.414	1.448	0.034	2.4%	0.027	1.9%
42	Oklahoma City, OK	1.426	1.442	0.016	1.1%	0.013	0.9%
43	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	1.338	1.336	(0.002)	-0.1%	(0.004)	-0.3%
44	Richmond, VA	1.314	1.324	0.010	0.7%	0.008	0.6%
45	Louisville, KY-IN	1.285	1.285	(0.001)	-0.1%	(0.000)	0.0%
46	Salt Lake City, UT	1.258	1.263	0.005	0.4%	(0.005)	-0.4%
47	New Orleans. LA	1.272	1.262	(0.010)	-0.8%	(0.011)	-0.9%
48	Hartford, CT	1.214	1.212	(0.002)	-0.1%	(0.001)	-0.1%
49	Buffalo, NY	1.167	1.162	(0.005)	-0.4%	(0.002)	-0.1%
50	Birmingham, AL	1.115	1.114	(0.001)	-0.1%	(0.000)	0.0%
51	Grand Rapids, MI	1.088	1.092	0.004	0.4%	0.000	0.0%
52	Rochester, NY	1.090	1.085	(0.005)	-0.5%	(0.004)	-0.4%
53	Tucson, AZ	1.043	1.052	0.009	0.8%	0.011	1.0%
54	Tulsa, OK	1.015	1.024	0.009	0.9%	0.008	0.8%
55	Fresno, CA	1.009	1.014	0.005	0.5%	(0.001)	-0.1%
56	Honolulu, HI	1.017	1.001	(0.016)	-1.5%	(0.018)	-1.8%
Derived from Census Bureau data

Flyover Country Needs to Keep Our Biggest Edge: Housing Affordability

Dale Buss — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 20:28:58 -0500

If there’s one location advantage for the heartland that’s become clear during the last several years, it’s the edge we enjoy over the coasts in housing affordability. Time and again, people who locate in or come back to Flyover Country cite the fact they can afford to live in a decent home – and they can’t do that on the seaboards, especially in big metro areas.

Problem is, the current acceleration in home prices in most of our region could be whittling away at our competitive advantage in housing affordability, the most important component of the overall reasonable cost of living that has been attracting so many folks to our locales.

And if we lose a significant piece of that advantage, fewer people will be interested in looking at all the other quality-of-life aspects of living out here. Such a development could blunt the economic momentum we’ve achieved recently.

“What’s kind of new on the horizon is that cities around Flyover Country that thought of this as a San Francisco problem or New York problem are seeing it’s their own problem too,” Cullum Clark, director of the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative, in Dallas, tells me. “It’s a huge issue.”

In the wake of a wave of New Yorkers decamping to Florida amid the pandemic, says Richard Florida, “Go try and find a house in Miami now.” The founder of the Creative Class Group and author of books including The New Urban Crisis says, “Where can you buy an affordable house? Austin is out now, too. The coastal hubs also are unaffordable. Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit [areas] all have beautiful homes, though, with nice neighborhoods and school districts. Where can normal, average, middle-class people live?”

‘Pa’ Bailey Was Right

It may seem obvious, but we need to remind ourselves of the primeval and continuing importance for Americans of being able to afford where they want to live. As savings-and-loan-chief “Pa” Bailey put it in It’s a Wonderful Life, advising his intrepid son George, “It’s deep in the race for a man to want his own roof and walls and fireplace.”

“Affordability” was the No. 1 answer given by people surveyed by Prudential Financial when asked why they chose to live where they did, topping “job prospects” and “school quality,” Clark has noted. The lack of affordable housing in thriving cities is the main reason geographic mobility among lower-educated Americans receded in the United States before the pandemic, economists Peter Banong and Daniel Shoag have pointed out.

For decades now, coastal denizens have been complaining about the stratospheric costs of housing. Increasing emigration from California is one proof that unaffordable housing finally is pushing the middle class out of locales that haven’t been able to get their arms around this problem. Many of these folks are heading inland where, data and perceptions tell them, they might actually be able to afford to put one of Pa Bailey’s roofs over their heads.

Read the rest of this piece at Flyover Coalition.

Dale Buss is founder and executive director of The Flyover Coalition, a not-for-profit organization aimed at helping revitalize and promote the economy, companies and people of the region between the Appalachians and Rockies, the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. He is a long-time author, journalist, and magazine and newspaper editor, and contributor to Chief Executive, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and many other publications. Buss is a Wisconsin native who lives in Michigan and has also lived in Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Photo: Nathan Metcalf, via Wikimedia CC 4.0 License.

Canada: Suburbs Dominate Growth - 2021 Census

Wendell Cox — Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:28:58 -0500

Canada has released early results of the 2021 Census, with a detailed analysis of growth in Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs). Among the 41 metropolitan areas, 77% of the population growth between the 2016 and 2021 censuses was in the suburbs, with 23% in the urban core (Figure 1). The suburbs have 78.5% of the total CMA population, with 21.5% in the urban core (Figure 2)

Functional v. Jurisdictional Analysis of Metropolitan Area Components

These population data within CMAs reflect a new classification of CMA components into Downtown, Urban Fringe (which this article calls Inner Fringe, see Note), Near Suburbs (under 20 minutes by car in off peak travel to downtown), Intermediate Suburbs (20-30 minutes by car) and Distant Suburbs (30 minutes and over with off-peak traffic).

This is a considerable improvement on the default core city versus everything else as suburbs (by municipal jurisdiction), long the default option before the major data improvements made possible by advanced information technology. This new Stats Canada classification is similar in concept to a metropolitan area component classification system by David Gordon et al (Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario), my own City Sector Model and a joint MIT-Queen’s University program developed by Gordon and MIT’s Alan Berger. The Statistics Canada classification uses time radii --- travel time by car to downtown, while the other three approaches use demographic factors, such as population density and work trip travel modes.

MSA’s Over 1,000,000 Population

This article focuses on the six CMAs with more than 1,000,000 residents, as analyzed by Statistics Canada using its new functional classification (above). Statistics Canada has provided a more detailed analysis, including maps (Canada’s large urban centres continue to grow and spread).

Toronto is the largest CMA, with a population of 6,202,000. Toronto is, according to the Stats Canada classification, 88.5% suburban, with 11.5% in the urban core (Downtown and Inner Fringe). The largest population is in the Distant Suburbs (30 minutes and more from Downtown), at 37.5%, with the Intermediate Suburbs housing 29.3% (Figure 3, below). The suburbs dominated population growth, capturing 84% (Figure 1, above). Toronto’s Downtown growth was impressive in percentage terms, but its small size kept the number of new residents to one-sixth the gain of the suburbs.

Montreal is the second largest CMA, with a population of 4,292,000. Montreal is 80.7% suburban, with 19.3% of the population in the widely-defined urban core. The largest population is in the Near Suburbs, at 32.5%, followed by the Intermediate Suburbs at 25.3% (Figure 4, below). About 77% of the growth was in the suburbs (Figure 1, above). Montreal’s Downtown had by far the strongest percentage growth, but with numeric growth less than one-seventh that of the suburbs. due to its small population base.

Vancouver is the third largest CMA, with a population of 2,643,000. Vancouver is 82.9% suburban, with 17.1% in the urban core. The largest population is in the Distant Suburbs, at 41.3%, followed by the Intermediate Suburbs, at 25.9% (Figure 5). More than 88% of the population growth was in the suburbs (Figure 1, above)

The three CMA’s with between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 residents have much smaller Distant Suburbs population shares, largely due to the fixed 30 minute limit, which is well beyond most of the urbanization. Many of the residents who would have located in the Distant Suburbs likely settled in the Intermediate Suburbs (or even the Near Suburbs) in these smaller CMAs.

Ottawa-Gatineau emerged as the fourth largest metropolitan area, passing Calgary and Edmonton, with a population of 1,488,000. The suburbs had 68.9% of the population, while the urban core had 31.1% (Figure 6). The largest population was in the Near Suburbs, at 42.3%, followed by the Inner Fringe at 25%.

Calgary is fifth largest, with a population of 1,482,000. The suburbs have 80.1% of the population, while the urban core has 19.9%. The largest share of the population is in the Near Suburbs, at 51.4%, followed by 23.9% in the Intermediate Suburbs (Figure 7). The Distant Suburbs had only 3.2% of the population.

Edmonton is the sixth the largest CMA, with 1,418,000 residents. The suburbs have 78.1% of the population, with 21.9% in the urban core. The largest share of the population is in the Near Suburbs, at 55.1%, followed by the Inner Fringe, at 18.0%. (Figure 8).

Suburban Nation

Like Australia and the United States, Canada is, as David Gordon put it in 2013, a “suburban nation.” The trend in the five years since the 2016 census only reinforces that judgment. Not only do by far the majority of CMA residents live in suburban areas, but suburbs continue to capture more than three quarters of the population growth.

Note: This article uses the term “Inner Fringe” instead of the Statistics Canada term “Urban Fringe” to avoid potential confusion. “Urban fringe” is often use to denote the edge of an urban area or population centre (the Stats Canada term which is equivalent to the US “urban area.), where the urbanization ends and rural territory begins.

Photo: Toronto – toward the distant suburbs (by author)

Is Suburbia’s Global Benchmark Share of Urban Jobs 87%?

Wed, 02 Feb 2022 20:28:58 -0500

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

That was from a speech by former US Democrat President John F Kennedy, while speaking at Yale in 1962. I came across it during a visit to the Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston a few years ago. How true it still is.

The myth of the centralised urban economy is certainly persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. It qualifies as opinion unchallenged by uncomfortable thought. It is also subject to prefabricated interpretations. It goes something like this: CBDs are where the majority of people work. Therefore we need planning that reinforces a centralised economy and we need to prevent people living far away from CBDs, instead providing more housing nearer to the centre – because this is where the jobs are and where everyone wants to be if they could. Attracting more jobs to a metro region is best done by ploughing more taxpayer dollars into CBD amenity, or into transport networks that serve the inner city. That simplistic outline crudely (and sadly) sums up too much of what passes for urban planning orthodoxy.

Census after census has proven this wrong. In Australia, the CBD share of metro jobs in major cities is between 10% and 15%. In the smaller capitals it falls between 15% and 20%. (It is also shrinking because the suburban economy is growing faster than the CBD, thanks mainly to industries like health and education). How does our CBD share compare on a global scale? Some argue that Australian cities need more centralisation to be efficient. Compared with what?

Comparing Australian cities to some global benchmarks is an interesting exercise. A study of around 100 cities in Australia, Europe, Asia, Canada and the USA tallied more than 300 million metropolitan jobs. Of these, under 30 million were in CBDs. The average was 9%. But these were mostly 1990 data, and some of the cities were not very comparable to Australia. So I selected a slightly more comparable list and updated the data to around 2016 to 2020 numbers. For Australian cities, the CBD was the 2016 Census SA2 boundary while the Greater Metropolitan area was used for the whole. While the numbers will have changed, the proportions won’t have changed much, so it’s useful as a guide.

Based on this selection, the average CBD share of metro wide jobs for a city in a modern western economy is around 13%. Not 30% or 50% or 60% but 13%. Meaning globally some 87% of people living in cities of substantial scale and with substantial urban economies, do not work in the CBDs but are more likely to be found working in suburbs.

Sometimes, in efforts to bolster the numbers to favour the centralisation narrative, the definition of a CBD is enlarged to something like a 5 kilometre radius – which in most cities reaches very much into suburbia. While it is true that CBD boundaries don’t fully reflect the extent of near city employment, it is also true that metro boundaries don’t fully reflect the boundaries of suburban employment. Too often the inner city is broadly defined and the outer urban narrowly defined. Do both, and hey presto you can prove anything with statistics.

Read the rest of this piece at The Pulse.

Ross Elliott has more than thirty years’ experience in urban development, property and public policy. In addition to his consulting work he is Chair of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane’s Better Suburbs Initiative, a director of The Suburban Alliance, and District Chair of the ULI in Brisbane, Australia. His past roles have included a number of industry leadership positions. He has written and spoken extensively on a range of public policy issues centering around urban issues, and maintains his interest in public policy through ongoing contributions such as this or via his monthly blog, The Pulse.

Photo: Into Dubbo from the west, by Tim J. Keegan via Flickr under CC 2.0 License.

Nashville: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Sun, 23 Jan 2022 20:28:58 -0500

Nashville’s has long been known as “Music City,” a title that dates nearly a century to 1925 when the first “Grand Ole Opry” performance was held in the Ryman Auditorium (above). For even longer, Nashville has been the capital of Tennessee, with the 10th oldest state capitol building in the nation (below). But the big story increasingly has been the area’s rapid growth, Nashville --- the metropolitan area --- (see: Note on Cities 1) has grown by five times in the post-World War II era and doubled since 1990. Nashville, with nearly two million residents had become the nation’s 36th largest metropolitan area according to the 2020 Census.

Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, Tennessee in public domain, photo by Kaldari.

The Metropolitan Area: Nashville is a recent addition to the list of major metropolitan areas, having had a population of only 320,000 residents in 1950 and nearing 2,000,000 residents in the 2020 census. In 1950, the entire metropolitan area was confined to Davidson County, and the central city of Nashville had about 175,000 residents. The Nashville metropolitan area was the third largest in the state, after Memphis (not yet having spread into Arkansas and Mississippi) which was 50% larger and Knoxville, which was about five percent larger.

During the 1960s, there was a merger of much of Davidson County and the city of Nashville, which greatly increased the population of the “central city” by incorporating vast suburban areas. The successor government is the “Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County” (often referred to as Nashville-Davidson).

Now, Nashville is the largest metro in the state, with about 50% more population than Memphis (1.34 million), which now stretches into Arkansas and Mississippi, and more than double the 880,000 population of the Knoxville metropolitan area.

Between 2010 and 2020, metro Nashville grew 20.9%, trailing only Austin, Orlando and Raleigh among the 56 major metropolitan areas (more than 1,000,000 population).

Consistent with national trends much of the recent growth has been in the suburbs. The metropolitan area now has thirteen counties. Since 1990, 77% of the population growth has been in the suburban counties (as currently defined) outside Davidson County (Figures 1 & 2).

The Urban Area

The Nashville urban area (see: Note on Urban Areas 2) reaches beyond Nashville-Davidson, to include all or part of cities like Franklin and Smyrna (Figure 3: Map).

As elsewhere, both in the United States and outside, the Nashville urban area has declined in density. In 1950, when urban areas were first designated by the US Census Bureau, Nashville’s urban footprint covered fifty-five square miles, with a population of 259,000 and an urban density of about 4,800 residents per square mile.

By 2010, the urban area covered 560 square miles, with a population of 970,000 and a population density of 1,720. The urban density of core Davidson County in 2010 was 2,050. This low density is reflective of the overwhelmingly suburban form of the county.

Exurban areas, which are within the metropolitan area, but outside the Nashville urban area, accounted for a plurality of the population (Figure 4).

Domestic Migration

The Nashville metropolitan area has become one of the strongest destinations for domestic migration (moving from one county within the US to another) in the nation. The metropolitan area added 177,000 net domestic migrants between 2010 and 2020, according to US Census Bureau estimates.

Further, net domestic migration to the Nashville metropolitan area was all to the suburban counties between 2010 and 2020. Core Davidson County lost 7,800 net domestic migrants, while all suburban counties added net domestic migrants and gained a total of 185,000 (Figure 5 & 6).

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times “The Great California Migration” series, focused on Nashville, and quotes one ex-Californian’s reasons for moving: “We wanted to go to a state where we can actually live and have a cost of living that someone young like myself could start a life,” The Nashville metro attracted 58% of Tennessee’s net domestic migration between 2010 and 2020, double its share of the state’s 2020 population.

Tennessee’s Rising Net Domestic Migration

The article also noted the rising popularity of Tennessee as a domestic migration destination for exiting Californians: “Some from Golden State flock to Texas or Nevada, but others find Tennessee’s charm, affordability more alluring.” Nashville’s rise is part of a broader state-wide phenomena. Tennessee has emerged as one of the leading destination states for net domestic migration. Internal Revenue Service data indicates that Tennessee ranked 10th in attracting Californians, following leaders Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and four others between 2014 and 2019 (Figure 7).

The latest Census Bureau estimates, for 2021 and limited to states, indicate that Tennessee is starting the current decade with even stronger net domestic migration, while other leading states have faltered. Tennessee attracted 61,000 net domestic migrants in 2021, up from the 41,000 annual average from 2015 to 2020. Washington had a small 2021 decrease (28), compared to its 2015-2020 average of 50,000. Nevada fell from 40,000 to 25,000, Colorado from 38,000 to 13,000 and Oregon from 32,000 to 8,000 (Figure 8).

Business Migration

Tennessee is also attracting businesses from elsewhere. A Hoover Institution report by Joseph Vranich and Lee E. Ohanian found that in a 3.5-year period ending in June 2021, 272 the corporate headquarters of 272 companies left California, with Tennessee ranking as the second leading destination state, following Texas. Tennessee’s second ranking was an improvement over previous years, when Arizona or Nevada ranked second (based on related research).

Metro Nashville has been a strong competitor for corporate headquarters relocation, with the automobile industry being an example. Two national automobile corporate headquarters --- Nissan and Mitsubishi --- have relocated from California to metro Nashville, both located in suburban Franklin.

Suburban Nashville is also home to two automobile manufacturing plants, including the largest America, originally built to produce GM’s now discontinued Saturn line of cars. Nissan also has a manufacturing facility in Franklin. The state has also become an emerging center for electric cars as well.

Comparative Advantages

Not only has metro Nashville emerged as one of the principal growth centers of the nation, but its momentum may be improving, especially due to net domestic migration. These improved demographics arises, at least in part, from widening competitive advantages, such as its low cost of living, and the absence of a state income tax. Nashville --- like Raleigh and newly emerging southern metros --- appear to have a bright future ahead.

Note on Cities

There are two generic forms of cities. (1) Urban areas, which are the physical extent of built up (developed) land and exclude all urban land and (2) Metropolitan areas, which are centered around the urban area, but which also include exurban areas from which sufficient numbers of resident workers commute to jobs in the urban area.

Note on Urban Areas

Urban areas are the contiguous built-up development that normally includes all or part of multiple municipalities around which, in the United States, metropolitan areas (composed of entire counties) are designated. Urban areas (originally called urbanized area) have been designated for each of the decennial censuses, starting with 1950. For example, the Los Angeles urban area includes the city of Los Angeles and other municipalities stretching 40 miles to the east (city of Ontario) and 50 miles to the south (city of Irvine in Orange County). A map (Figure 9) of the Los Angeles urban area shows all of the included municipalities, with the large yellow area to the left being the city of Los Angeles. At the time of this map (2010), the city of Los Angeles had 3.8 million residents, which is less than one-third of the Los Angeles urban area (12.2 million residents).

Top photo: Ryman Auditorium, the Mother church of country, Nashville, Tennessee - by Daniel Schwen, via Wikimediaunder CC 4.0 License.

The Next American Cities, a New Report from Urban Reform Insitute

Charles Blain — Fri, 14 Jan 2022 20:28:58 -0500

The urban form has shifted throughout history. This has been critical to its success. Today we are on the cusp of another transition, ushered in by new technologies and changing demographics, and accelerated by a devastating pandemic. Although these forces affect all geographies, the best chance of success and growth lies in what we define as The Next American City.

This newly released report from Urban Reform Institute examines the places that offer opportunity for a revitalized American Dream for more citizens. The introduction is excerpted below:

Can cities withstand the social, economic, and migratory challenges they face today, or will a new model prove to be the answer for Americans seeking better opportunities for their families? Cities will continue to thrive, but they seem politically and economically not well-suited for middle- and working-class families of all races.

The Next American City offers an answer to the problem plaguing those living in and around major cities. Offering a combination of affordability, amenities, and proximity to the large cities, but without the burdensome, heavy-handed regulations of local government or many of the social ills running rampant in our cities, these places – like the Woodlands and Bridgeland – are quickly shaping up to be the urban destinations of the future.

The locale of places of opportunity for new citizens and minorities have changed. The pandemic has led to people seeking more space which has driven the cost of housing. Couple that with the issues of crime, blight, cost of living, and standard of living in our large cities, it’s no surprise that the urban cores are beginning to dwindle and that homeownership rates in the suburbs far outpace that of the cities.

These Next American Cities provide opportunities that many families thought were long gone.

America needs a revitalization of what was the American Dream. The desires remain the same, opportunity, affordability, and safety. What we need are more communities that address that aspiration.

After visiting burgeoning communities across the country, interviewing industry experts and residents, and looking at data, we came up with the Next American City concept. Places that offer everything, and more, that our major cities do, but minimize the downsides. As Americans continue to seek out new, affordable, safe alternatives to the status quo, New American Cities could become centers of growth — if they do not fall prey to the policies and politics that have driven people away from urban cores.

View/download the full report here

Charles Blain, CEO of Urban Reform Institute, has focused on free market solutions to urban issues and creating opportunity for all in America's metropolitan areas. Charles has been published in The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, The Hill, and Wired. Originally from New Jersey, he lives in Houston, and serves on the boards of Prison Entrepreneurship Program, Good Policy Society, and Texas Families First. In 2021, Charles was appointed to a 4-year term to the Texas State Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

New U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates: A New World?

Wendell Cox — Sun, 26 Dec 2021 20:28:58 -0500

The United States Census Bureau released its July 1, 2021 population and annual net domestic migration estimates for states and the District of Columbia on Tuesday, December 21. This article highlights trends from that release. The table at the end of the article summarizes the data.

California: Exodus Reported to be Stronger

The new data was released just days after the California Department of Finance released state population and net domestic migration figures for the same period. The state release was on Friday, December 17 and we reported on that release on Monday, December 20. The Census Bureau report indicated a larger population loss and a larger net domestic migration loss (Figures 2 and 3).

California lost 262,000 residents according to the Census Bureau, more 50% above the state’s estimate of 173,000. The Census Bureau also reported a greater net domestic migration loss, at 367,000, more than a quarter above the state estimated loss of 277,000. Both the population loss and the domestic migration loss were increased by the 56,500 Covid pandemic related deaths (Figures 4 and 5, below).

The population loss figure is the largest in California history. The domestic migration loss is the largest in the 21st century, greater than the 313,000 in 2006, as the housing bust was unfolding. The domestic migration percentage loss in 2021 was minus 0.93% (as a percentage of the 2020 population), slightly above the 2006 loss of minus 0.87%.

New York: Proportionately Worse than California

New York’s state population loss was 319,000, 22% more than the California loss. New York’s population decline was minus 1.58%, compared to minus 0.66% in California. The difference is attributable to the fact that the state of California has about twice the population of New York.

New York’s domestic migration loss was nearly equal to that of California, at minus 334,000. This is a loss of minus 1.75%, about double that of California’s 0.89%. It is an increase in net domestic migration from New York’s 2010-2020 annual average of minus 155,000.

New York, Florida and Texas

Finally, the 2020 census was the first time in history that the population of New York exceeded 20 million. The 2021 estimate indicates a drop back to 19.84 million. At the beginning of the year starting July 1, 2020, New York, the third more populous state, was 1.415 million behind number two Florida. In a single year, Florida, with the second strongest state growth (210,000) increased its margin over New York by more than 500,000, to 1.945 million. Number one Texas added 310,000 residents, the largest gain of any state.

The Northeast, Midwest and West: Moving to the South

At the regional level, all net domestic migration was to the South, compared to the previous decade when the West had net domestic migration gains in each year (Figure 1).

The West Falls to Equal the Rising Midwest

In an astounding development, the West fell to the Midwest level net domestic migration. That had never occurred in the annual state estimates, at least back to 2000. In 2021, the Midwest lost 0.18% of its population to net domestic migration, virtually the same as the West which stood at. By comparison, from 2010 to 2020, the Midwest lost 0.27% of its population annually to net domestic migration compared to a 0.10% annual gain in the West.

In the longer run, this could presage a demographic shift, or a rebalancing of domestic migration outside of the south and Intermountain West.

Changing Domestic Migration in the West?

Despite the West’s regional net domestic migration loss, the three strongest states in net domestic migration percentage (compared to 2020 population) also were in the West: Idaho, Utah and Montana. Altogether, these states gained 100,000 net domestic migrants. This is an increase in the total average annual domestic migration in these states of 30,000 in the 2010s.

At the same time Oregon and Washington have seen their net domestic migration plummet. Oregon, which attracted an annual average of 25,000 net domestic migrants in the 2010s, fell two-thirds, to a gain of only 8,000 in 2021. Washington, which had gained 37,000 net domestic migrants annually in the 2010s, fell to a small loss in 2021. Colorado, which averaged an annual net domestic migration gain of 38,000 in the 2010s fell by two-thirds to 13,000. Thus, Idaho, Utah and Montana, with about 6 million residents, had a 2021 net domestic migration gain nearly five times that of Washington, Colorado and Oregon, with their nearly 18 million residents.

This is another trend that could be short term or long term. However, it is not implausible that the increased opportunities in remote and hybrid work, along with the increasingly unaffordable housing in Seattle, Portland and Denver, could have contributed to the larger net domestic migration numbers in Idaho, Utah and Montana.

Remote Work Dispersion from Urban Centers?

The District of Columbia lost 23,000 net domestic migrants, and at a 3.34% loss exceeded that of New York, which at a minus 1.75% had the largest net domestic migration loss of any state. This is down from an average annual gain of 3,000 in the previous decade. This could be related to the rise of remote working and the associated dispersion away from dense urban centers this has made possible.

Interestingly, West Virginia, well within range of a remote worker spending just a few days in the month on-site, saw its net domestic migration total increase to 2,300 from its previous decade average of minus 4,600. Delaware, similarly close to Washington, as well as to Philadelphia, with the nation’s sixth largest downtown, saw its net domestic migration gain rise to 12,000, from its previous decade average of plus 5,000.

Other states in the Northeast experienced strong gains in net domestic migration that could be related to population shifts, especially from the New York City, Philadelphia and Boston employment markets (Massachusetts net domestic outmigration increased to 46,000 from its 2010s annual average loss of 19,000):

Connecticut had 5,000 net domestic migrants, compared to an annual loss of 21,000 in the 2010s.
New Jersey lost 28,000 net domestic migrants, down from its 52,000 annual loss in the 2010s.
New Hampshire gained 14,000 net domestic migrants, compared to 1,000 annual previous loss.
Vermont gained 4,600 net domestic migrants, compared with a 1,200 previous loss.
Rhode Island gained 900 in 2021, compared to its 4,100 average previous loss.
Maine gained 15,000 in 2021, up from its 2,000 annual gain in the 2010s.
Pennsylvania, with good access also to the Washington market, saw its net domestic migration loss drop to 3,000 compared to the annual loss of 28,000 in the 2010s.

Net domestic migration losses in Maryland and Virginia in 2021 were similar to their 2010s averages. This means that every state from Virginia and West Virginia to Maine had a substantial improvement in net domestic migration or remained about the same , except for the big losses in New York and Massachusetts.

There are plenty of attractive places for remote workers to settle in these recently improving domestic migration states.

A More Fluid Employment and Housing Market?

The 2021 US Census Bureau population estimates indicate some new trends, highlighted above. But the game has clearly changed, and we will see how much in the next few years.

Table 1 (back to reference)

US Census Bureau Population Estimates: July 1, 2021
US, States & DC
	Population in millions				Net Domestic Migration
	2020	2021	Change	%	Number	Rank	% of 2020	Rank

United States	331.501	331.894	0.393	0.12%

REGIONS
Northeast Region	57.526	57.160	-0.366	-0.64%	-0.390	4	-0.68%	4
Midwest Region	68.935	68.841	-0.094	-0.14%	-0.123	2	-0.18%	2
South Region	126.409	127.225	0.816	0.65%	0.658	1	0.52%	1
West Region	78.631	78.667	0.036	0.05%	-0.145	3	-0.18%	3

STATES
Alabama	5.025	5.040	0.015	0.30%	0.022	12	0.44%	19
Alaska	0.732	0.733	0.000	0.03%	-0.004	36	-0.53%	43
Arizona	7.178	7.276	0.098	1.37%	0.093	3	1.30%	3
Arkansas	3.012	3.026	0.014	0.45%	0.016	14	0.53%	17
California	39.500	39.238	-0.262	-0.66%	-0.367	50	-0.93%	48
Colorado	5.784	5.812	0.028	0.48%	0.013	19	0.23%	21
Connecticut	3.600	3.606	0.005	0.15%	0.005	24	0.14%	26
Delaware	0.992	1.003	0.011	1.16%	0.012	20	1.23%	5
Florida	21.570	21.781	0.211	0.98%	0.221	1	1.02%	7
Georgia	10.726	10.800	0.074	0.69%	0.051	7	0.47%	18
Hawaii	1.452	1.442	-0.010	-0.71%	-0.013	42	-0.87%	47
Idaho	1.848	1.901	0.053	2.88%	0.049	8	2.65%	1
Illinois	12.785	12.671	-0.114	-0.89%	-0.122	48	-0.96%	49
Indiana	6.786	6.806	0.020	0.30%	0.014	17	0.21%	24
Iowa	3.189	3.193	0.004	0.14%	0.001	30	0.03%	30
Kansas	2.936	2.935	-0.001	-0.04%	-0.005	38	-0.18%	39
Kentucky	4.504	4.509	0.005	0.12%	0.010	21	0.22%	22
Louisiana	4.651	4.624	-0.027	-0.58%	-0.030	46	-0.65%	44
Maine	1.362	1.372	0.010	0.73%	0.015	15	1.14%	6
Maryland	6.173	6.165	-0.008	-0.12%	-0.020	44	-0.32%	42
Massachusetts	7.022	6.985	-0.037	-0.53%	-0.046	47	-0.66%	45
Michigan	10.068	10.051	-0.017	-0.17%	-0.008	40	-0.08%	34
Minnesota	5.707	5.707	0.000	0.00%	-0.013	43	-0.24%	40
Mississippi	2.957	2.950	-0.007	-0.23%	-0.004	37	-0.14%	37
Missouri	6.154	6.168	0.014	0.22%	0.015	16	0.24%	20
Montana	1.086	1.104	0.018	1.66%	0.019	13	1.77%	2
Nebraska	1.961	1.964	0.002	0.11%	-0.003	35	-0.17%	38
Nevada	3.114	3.144	0.030	0.96%	0.025	10	0.81%	12
New Hampshire	1.378	1.389	0.011	0.81%	0.014	18	0.99%	8
New Jersey	9.280	9.267	-0.013	-0.14%	-0.028	45	-0.30%	41
New Mexico	2.118	2.116	-0.002	-0.08%	-0.002	32	-0.10%	35
New York	20.155	19.836	-0.319	-1.58%	-0.352	49	-1.75%	50
North Carolina	10.457	10.551	0.094	0.90%	0.089	4	0.85%	11
North Dakota	0.779	0.775	-0.004	-0.52%	-0.006	39	-0.83%	46
Ohio	11.791	11.780	-0.011	-0.09%	-0.003	33	-0.03%	33
Oklahoma	3.962	3.987	0.025	0.62%	0.025	11	0.62%	15
Oregon	4.242	4.246	0.005	0.11%	0.008	22	0.19%	25
Pennsylvania	12.990	12.964	-0.026	-0.20%	-0.003	34	-0.02%	32
Rhode Island	1.096	1.096	-0.001	-0.06%	0.001	29	0.08%	28
South Carolina	5.131	5.191	0.060	1.17%	0.065	5	1.26%	4
South Dakota	0.887	0.895	0.008	0.93%	0.006	23	0.63%	14
Tennessee	6.920	6.975	0.055	0.80%	0.061	6	0.89%	10
Texas	29.218	29.528	0.310	1.06%	0.170	2	0.58%	16
Utah	3.282	3.338	0.056	1.72%	0.032	9	0.98%	9
Vermont	0.642	0.646	0.003	0.48%	0.005	25	0.71%	13
Virginia	8.632	8.642	0.010	0.12%	-0.009	41	-0.10%	36
Washington	7.719	7.739	0.020	0.26%	0.000	31	0.00%	31
West Virginia	1.790	1.783	-0.007	-0.38%	0.002	27	0.13%	27
Wisconsin	5.892	5.896	0.004	0.06%	0.003	26	0.06%	29
Wyoming	0.577	0.579	0.002	0.27%	0.001	28	0.22%	23

DC
District of Columbia	0.690	0.670	-0.020	-2.90%	-0.023		-3.34%

Derived from US Census Bureau data

Photo: New Jersey exurbs of New York (by author).