Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Below is the growth percentage between 1950 and 2010 for the primary cities of 30 of the top 31 metros as of 2010 (Riverside,CA excluded). The average growth rate of these cities combined is 207%. L.A. falls in the top half, so I think it looks very Sun Belt-y city. It looks closer to a Texas city than it does to anywhere in the NE or Midwest. OTOH, San Francisco is identical to New York. It and Seattle were the only western cities in the bottom half, but no western city was in the bottom 1/3rd.
St. Louis -63%
Detroit -61%
Pittsburgh -55%
Cincinnati -41%
Baltimore -37%
Minneapolis -27%
Philadelphia -26%
Chicago -26%
Washington -25%
Boston -23%
Kansas City 1%
New York 4%
San Francisco 4%
Atlanta 27%
Seattle 30%
Denver 44%
Portland 56%
Miami 60%
Los Angeles 92%
Tampa 169%
Dallas 176%
San Antonio 225%
Sacramento 239%
Houston 252%
San Diego 291%
Orlando 446%
Charlotte 446%
Austin 497%
Phoenix 1253%
Las Vegas 2271%
|
I bolded the cities that I think everyone can agree are Sunbelt-y. Looks like a pretty accurate way of identifying Sunbelt cities. I'm on the fence about whether or not to include LA. I definitely don't think SF is the Sunbelt. For one, the city boomed way earlier than the rest of the sunbelt cities, and it's a real urban, walkable city. I think in addition to the cheap, sprawling identifier for Sunbelt cities, another thing that they have in common is orientation towards cars. SF (city) definitely isn't cheap or sprawling or oriented around cars. LA isn't cheap, but it is sprawling and it is car oriented. Maybe San Jose and SF exurbs are Sunbelt (they are much sunnier than the city, which really isn't all that sunny of a place), while the city is not. And the SoCal version would be the IE is Sunbelt (maybe OC, too) but LA isn't?