The US Census Bureau thread

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

"Second-worst" behind Nevada is still pretty bad.

It's bad but it's also not "far worse" than anyone else. Just attempting to put this into context... Although I misinterpreted his comments.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by LMich

Actually, it wasn't. Whatever outmigration was occuring was offset by births and immigration. It was only after the double whammy of both the local recession and the national recession that births and immigration couldn't keep up with the increasing outmigration.

Actually it was, we wouldn't be losing population if it weren't for the bad auto indusrty. We DID loose population.

[Standpoor]

Originally Posted by mhays

Quality of life is a huge part of it. That might be a mix of weather, cheap housing, strong inner cities, great scenery, etc. With quality of life, people will show up before they get jobs, and then look, vs. finding a job and then moving. Also, companies will relocate to your city without "incentives."

In the case of Washington, one of the "misc" factors is the military factor -- not just the bases themselves, which are growing on average, but also the fact that many people stationed here decide to come back later.

The South and West are in the midst of a "big push" style development that hinges mostly on the building of economies of scale and economic linkages. Sure wide spread air conditioning helps to develop these linkages but most of it is pure economics. People feel comfortable moving before finding a job because they are moving to an area where the average amount of time finding a job is small. Businesses invest there because they are comfortable knowing that they will be profitable which induces more people to move. More businesses move in and develop an interlocking web of forward and backward linkages. This continued level of development increases economies of scale and makes the whole thing even more profitable and self sustaining.

I think it was Paul Krugman who wrote that if there was a "big push" than the opposite could also occur, I like to call it a "big fail". Michigan has suffered greatly because the economies of scale once enjoyed by Michigan's factories have collapsed. Once a link in the chain fails the whole thing collapses. Or a more apt analogy would be a house of cards, once one card is pulled the whole thing falls down.

The South and West will assuredly hit a slow down eventually once there are no longer increasing economies of scale. For sure that will not happen anytime soon. If I had to predict it will be when the Echo Boom reaches middle age but that is just a guess.

[edluva]

the sunbelt's growth relies on an increasingly outdated model of suburbanization. it's increasingly outdated because it is increasingly unsustainable. simple economics will bear this out in the coming decades when the sunbelt realizes how difficult it will be to adapt much of what infrastructure has been invested. we are living in a different world, and the sunbelt is growing in the pattern that cities started growing about 50 years ago - the only difference is everything is newer. they are not contributing to the advancement of urban planning and the us will suffer because of it relative to newer asian societies.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by edluva

the sunbelt's growth relies on an increasingly outdated model of suburbanization. it's increasingly outdated because it is increasingly unsustainable. simple economics will bear this out in the coming decades when the sunbelt realizes how difficult it will be to adapt much of what infrastructure has been invested. we are living in a different world, and the sunbelt is growing in the pattern that cities started growing about 50 years ago - the only difference is everything is newer. they are not contributing to the advancement of urban planning and the us will suffer because of it relative to newer asian societies.

I honestly don't know what your getting at, there is so much room to grow here it's not even funny. It's cheaper, it's more practical, nothing's going to change in the future. It dosen't need to. There is no "outdated model", the world hasn't changed much from 50 years ago.

[jboy560]

You're entirely right. The world hasn't changed much. Everybody still buys American made cars, China doesn't matter in the world economy, and interracial marriage is still illegal.

Actually, come to think of it, the world has changed alot. If anybody remembers the oil price shock that we had just a few years ago, it definately showed the failings of the suburban model of development. Exurban areas were hit hardest, and suburban residents were hit harder than those in most inner cities. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but considering that the economy is going to rebound at some point and the dollar is falling fairly rapidly, I think the next time we go through sticker shock it will be even worse for people who have to commute an hour each way by highway with little to no alternative.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by jboy560

You're entirely right. The world hasn't changed much. Everybody still buys American made cars, China doesn't matter in the world economy, and interracial marriage is still illegal.

NONE of those have to do with ubran growth, which is what were obviously referring to.

Actually, come to think of it, the world has changed alot. If anybody remembers the oil price shock that we had just a few years ago, it definately showed the failings of the suburban model of development. Exurban areas were hit hardest, and suburban residents were hit harder than those in most inner cities. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but considering that the economy is going to rebound at some point and the dollar is falling fairly rapidly, I think the next time we go through sticker shock it will be even worse for people who have to commute an hour each way by highway with little to no alternative.

And America has been suburbanizing since 1776, not going to change. Suburbia has fueled the richest and most sucessful nation in the history of the world.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Onn

And America has been suburbanizing since 1776, not going to change. Suburbia has fueled the richest and most sucessful nation in the history of the world.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by edluva

the sunbelt's growth relies on an increasingly outdated model of suburbanization. it's increasingly outdated because it is increasingly unsustainable. simple economics will bear this out in the coming decades when the sunbelt realizes how difficult it will be to adapt much of what infrastructure has been invested. we are living in a different world, and the sunbelt is growing in the pattern that cities started growing about 50 years ago - the only difference is everything is newer. they are not contributing to the advancement of urban planning and the us will suffer because of it relative to newer asian societies.

We don't have city and county numbers out yet, but here's my take...

The sunbelt cities have sown the seeds of suburbanization long enough, and have already started to "wise up". I think growth will continue to be strongest in the South and West over the next decade because now these same cities are shifting rapidly to infill and better sustainability practices. However, I agree that we can't continue to grow in the suburban model and expect no consequence.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

It's all true. Early Americans didn't live in tight urban cities, they lived on the farm, they lived far apart. It was an early form of suburbia.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

The sunbelt cities have sown the seeds of suburbanization long enough, and have already started to "wise up". I think growth will continue to be strongest in the South and West over the next decade because now these same cities are shifting rapidly to infill and better sustainability practices. However, I agree that we can't continue to grow in the suburban model and expect no consequence.

What consequence? That's what everyone says, but we have no evidence. It's an unfounded fear!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Onn

It's all true. Early Americans didn't live in tight urban cities, they lived on the farm, they lived far apart. It was an early form of suburbia.

so i suppose the boston massacre and the boston tea party took place on a farm owned by some dude named "Samuel Boston"?

you just don't have any freaking clue when to stop digging that hole, do you?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Onn

And America has been suburbanizing since 1776, not going to change. Suburbia has fueled the richest and most sucessful nation in the history of the world.

Originally Posted by Onn

It's all true. Early Americans didn't live in tight urban cities, they lived on the farm, they lived far apart. It was an early form of suburbia.

Lol your lack of historical knowledge is amusing. You do know that there were no such thing as "big cities" in 1776? Therefore at some point between now and 1776 the United States must have gone through a period of urbanization which caused massive cities to exist. In 1800 about 5% of Americans lived in cities, that number now exceeds 80%. So no, you couldn't be more wrong.

The concept of the suburb didn't even exist until Frank Lloyd Wright invented it in the early 1900s. It didn't become popular until the 1950's and the post war boom. And no, early American agricultural communities weren't early forms of suburbia. Rural life is extremely different than suburban life. Suburbs are, by definition, based on a reliance on commuting from suburban residential areas to urban centers or regional centers for work, entertainment, and shopping. This is why suburbs are call suburbs they are subURBAN, meaning they rely on an urban area for their existence. You apparently have never seen a rural area or you would realize rural residents are largely self-sufficient with only the occasional need to travel somewhere to get manufactured goods. All the work for rural residents lies on their farms or their business that provides services to farms.

Additionally, most indicators suggest the trend of suburbanization that began 50 years ago is now receding in favor of renewed urban growth. So you are wrong there as well.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so i guess the boston tea party took place on a farm owned by some dude named "Samuel Boston"?

you just don't have any freaking clue when to stop digging that hole, do you?

America's growth has a long history of happening outside large cities, and in cities too. But we did create the idea of expanding outward, and that has been happening LONG before the 1940s.

I'm smarter than that. The smartest people out there always "dig" themselves into a hole because no one wants to belive them when their ideas are contraty to the norms of the time.

[blade_bltz]

Originally Posted by Onn

But we did create the idea of expanding outward, and that has been happening LONG before the 1940s.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Steely Dan]

^ i know, it just keeps getting better and better.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The concept of the suburb didn't even exist until Frank Lloyd Wright invented it in the early 1900s. It didn't become popular until the 1950's and the post war boom. Most indicators suggest the trend of suburbanization that began 50 years ago is now receding in favor of renewed urban growth.

Not literally suburbia, but an earlier form that put emphasis on outward expanion. Drive though small towns in America from the 19th century and you'll see many of the same characteristics that you see in modern subrubs today. They just were smaller.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ i know, it just keeps getting better and better.

Just because I don't think the same as you do, a little childish no?

[SD_Phil]

^I think it's a matter of the difference between:

1. Thinking whatever you want (which you are of course allowed to do)

and

2. Having your beliefs line up with facts


You think you're doing the second. You're not.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

^I think it's a matter of the difference between:

1. Thinking whatever you want (which you are of course allowed to do)

and

2. Having your beliefs line up with facts


You think you're doing the second. Your not.

What am I thinking whatever I want on?