Dallas will be number two. It has the least amount of encumbrances; natural disaster, high prices, high heat, intense nimbyism, tax unfriendly....texas is the new California without the progressive politics and lower prices.

yeah front “yards” do serve a purpose...helps with a tree canopy which is wildly important in a hot summer climate. if you’ve ever lived in sfh/row with just a front door stoop to the sidewalk the street noise can be annoying...coughing, talking, cars...i mean its not terrible but can be annoying. in walkups and euroblocks its less of an issue.

That's a good point. In arid regions, storm runoff is a big issue. Instead of precious rain waters replenishing aquifers, it's channeled out to sea, or in inland areas, it evaporates before it can percolate.

I should have been more specific.

This:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8651...7i16384!8i8192

or this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8568...7i13312!8i6656
is not this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8328...7i13312!8i6656



Trust me, I didn't get a ground-level apartment because of noise. I understand the issues. I don't think its weird Americans don't prefer Philly style row homes but I think front yards, overall, are too large. As far as actually using their yards, most people prefer privacy, you don't get that in the front yard. Also, more backyards are fenced than front yards, so people are more likely to trust their kids running around there or their dogs. Point? People use their backyards more, we all know this. Most people anyways. So the huge football field front yard makes zero sense to me.

They need to create more to be the 'new' California. Poaching companies and workers makes you a cheap alternative, it doesnt make you California.

I don't think it has to be one or the other. California and Texas will most likely remain population and economic powerhouses.

Texas definitely has the space to continue to grow rapidly this century.

^^^^^

Too much size. The state is bigger than France.

Agreed. It's like all those place calling themselves Hollywood of the South, North etc Or Silicon Praires, Alley, etc. It's never going to be the same.

Industry poaching is actually another characteristic of the Sun Belt. California has done its fair share of it (especially L.A.), but nothing like the scale of the newer Sun Belt destinations.

Californians leaving California seem to think Texas is the next best thing. That was their top destination last year. Of the nearly 700k people who left, 10 percent ended up in Texas. Business also sees the writing on the wall as more and companies move their headquarters and large office dependent operations. I read somewhere genentech laid off about 300 workers in the south bay. Guess where 300 new genentech workers magically ended up? Portland , two floors below me where office space is a third of bay area prices....

This stuff always gets blown out to fit certain poster's narratives.
So out of 40 million people, 70,000 people moved to Texas? Whats 700,000 out of 40 million?
Whats the percentage of these things?

If you listen to certain "media" you would believe these numbers would be MUCH HIGHER than they actually are. As Diamondpark stats showed, Texas didn't even gain 1 more percent of job growth for this decade than California.

I believe Idaho was the first choice for Californians's, if you go by percentage.

Depends on what time frame those 700,000 left. If it's within a year, that's a lot even for California's population. If it's over a 5-10 period, not so much of a big deal.

RE: Idaho v. Texas, I would imagine Californians who pick one over the other do it for very different reasons. ID strikes me as a destination for more well-to-do Californians who reject CA's 'liberalism' or looking for slower pace of life where as Texas is just an affordable alternative regardless of politics.

It was for one year, but 500,000 moved in from other states too.

Texas, New York and Florida also had 450,000 people move out last year. By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california.

I think the listed cities will grow but the real emphasis in the next decade will be on the 2nd tier of cities. Nashville, Charlotte, & Austin are already beginning to siphon off projects and construction that a couple of decades ago would never have considered them in the running. As an example Nashville scores huge with part of the Amazon expansion. Twenty years ago Atlanta or Dallas or Houston would have easily scored it. My point is instead of one of the historically larger cities continuing exponential growth many companies are looking to these second tier cities as having more potential.

I've been living in Florida on and off the last 15 years. Livability has gone down dramatically in the state (specifically in the larger metros). The infrastructure hasn't kept up with growth and the cost of living is rising exponentially. I don't know what it's like to live in Texas, but I'd imagine population will start to head to less populated sunbelt states in the future. Florida will definitely no longer be a bargain in the next 10 years or so. All they are building is overpriced, overcrowded apartment complexes now and people under 40= are so broke that I'm sure another housing bubble is on the way.

And if you notice, the current tech streaming trend is still largely centered in California for the most part. That's where the creativity is.

Similar scenario to bigger metros here in Texas. New houses not in the exurban hinterlands are expensive as are multifamily development. You can still find a cheap house or apartment in the city but they are going to be older, in need of some repair and/or on the 'wrong side of the tracks'.

Wait, what?

List of U.S. states annual net domestic migration.

1] Florida -- 132,602
2] Arizona -- 83,240
3] Texas -- 82,569
4] North Carolina -- 66,991
5] South Carolina -- 50,775
6] Nevada -- 47,596
7] Washington -- 46,549
8] Colorado -- 43,293
9] Georgia -- 41,914
10] Tennessee -- 39,952

-----

Here's the negative net domestic states:

24] Vermont −62
25] District of Columbia −936
26] Wisconsin −1,011
27] North Dakota −2,379
28] Rhode Island −2,639
29] Missouri −2,790
30] Iowa −2,886
31] Nebraska −3,314
32] Wyoming −3,686
33] Oklahoma −4,474
34] New Mexico −5,851
35] West Virginia −7,029
36] Virginia −9,831
37] Alaska −10,752
38] Mississippi −10,818
39] Ohio −12,146
40] Hawaii −12,430
41] Kansas −12,564
42] Michigan −16,766
43] Pennsylvania −20,463
44] Connecticut −21,509
45] Maryland −24,518
46] Massachusetts −25,755
47] Louisiana −27,914
48] New Jersey −50,591
49] Illinois −114,154
50] California −156,068
51] New York −180,306


And here's the top 3 states Net International Migration:

1] Florida 175,670
2] California 117,797
3] Texas 104,976

As overpriced as Florida real estate has become, it's still about 1/3 - 1/5 the price of California depending on city v city location comparisons.

Obviously, I didn't mention net migration. Not sure why these things are so hard to understand.