migration

The Future of Cities - AEI Event

New Geography — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 12:48:28 -0400

On October 18, AEI’s Ryan Streeter discussed the changing global urban demographics with a panel of contributors to the forthcoming volume The Future of Cities (AEI, 2023). The panel began by addressing the need for a new perspective on cities, particularly after cities recover from the pandemic.

Watch the video

Learn more about this event at AEI

The Way You Move: Author Joel Kotkin on Migration Trends and the Future of CIties

New Geography — Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:28:20 -0400

Joel Kotkin joins Spencer Levy on The Weekly Take to discuss current migration trends and the future of cities.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Related:

The Death of the American City

Why More Americans Should Leave Home and Move to Other States

New York City Net Domestic Migration Losses Improving

Wendell Cox — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:42:41 -0400

A New York Times article by Sam Roberts indicates that

"According to Census Bureau estimates released last week, in the year ending July 1, 2013, the city recorded the third consecutive gain in its non-Hispanic white population.

During that same period, the city gained more people than it lost through migration. Neither of those gains has probably happened since the 1960s, according to demographers."

It is true that net migration, domestic and international, was positive between 2012 and 2013. However, net migration was also positive in the years ended 2012 and 2011, according to Census Bureau data. Among the three recent years, the lowest net migration total was in 2013 (Table).

New York City Net Migration: 2011-2013
Year	Domestic	International	Combined
2011	(55,807)	69,076	13,269
2012	(64,383)	71,752	7,369
2013	(67,629)	73,615	5,986
Total	(187,819)	214,443	26,624
Data from Census Bureau

Further, net domestic migration has continued to be negative. The city has lost a net 187,000 domestic migrants in the first three years of the decade. This is an average of more than 60,000 annually. This is, however, an improvement from the 2000s, when net domestic migration averaged a minus 135,000.

Time Magazine Gets it Wrong on the Suburbs

Wendell Cox — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:24:02 -0400

Time Magazine's Sam Frizell imagines that the American Dream has changed, in an article entitled "The New American Dream is Living in a City, Not Owning a House in the Suburbs." Frizell further imagines that "Americans are abandoning their white-picket fences, two-car garages, and neighborhood cookouts in favor of a penthouse view downtown and shorter walk to work." The available population data shows no such trend.

Frizell's evidence is the weak showing in single family house building permits last month and a stronger showing in multi-family construction.

This is just the latest in the "flocking to the city" mantra that is routinely mouthed without any actual evidence (see: Flocking Elsewhere: The Downtown Growth Story). The latest Census Bureau estimates show that net domestic migration continues to be negative in the core counties (which include the core cities) of the major metropolitan areas (those with more than 1,000,000 residents). The county level is the lowest geographical level for which data is available.

At the same time, there is net domestic inward migration to the suburban counties. Moreover, much of the net domestic migration to metropolitan areas has been to the South and Mountain West, where core cities typically include considerable development that is suburban in nature (such as in Austin, Houston and Phoenix). As the tepid "recovery" has proceeded, net domestic migration to suburban counties has been strengthened (see: Special Report: 2013 Metropolitan Area Population Estimates), as is indicated in the Figure.

There is no question but that core cities are doing better than before. It helps that core city crime is down and that the South Bronx doesn't look like Berlin in 1945 anymore. For decades, many inclined toward a more urban core lifestyle were deterred by environments that were unsafe, to say the least. A principal driving force of this has been millennials in urban core areas. Yet, even this phenomenon is subject to over-hype. Two-thirds of people between the ages of 20 and 30 live in the suburbs, not the core cities, according to American Community Survey data.

To his credit, Frizell notes that the spurt in multi-family construction is "not aspirational," citing the role of the Great Recession in making it more difficult for people to buy houses. As I pointed out in No Fundamental Shift to Transit: Not Even a Shift, 2013 is the sixth year in a row that total employment, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was below the peak year of 2007. This is an ignominious development seen only once before in the last 100 years (during the Great Depression).

In short, urban cores are in recovery. But that does not mean (or require) that suburbs are in decline.

Business Insider: "Americans are Still Moving to the Suburbs"

Wendell Cox — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:06:41 -0500

Andy Kiersz's article in the Business Insider (see Americans are Still Moving to the Suburbs) summarizes data from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) to conclude that "Americans still love the suburbs, and are still moving there from big cities."

This has long been and continues to be indicated in the data, even as major media rely on anecdotes are to suggest that large numbers of people are leaving the suburbs to "return" to the core cities (from which, by the way, most never moved). There is no doubt that the core cities are doing much better than before, and that is a good thing. Much of this is because the cities are safer than in the 1970s and 1980s. The historic urban core has been restored as an integral part of the modern urban area. However, promoting the health of core cities does not require demeaning or dismissing the suburbs, which are just as integral to modern urbanism as core cities.

Kiersz refers to a list of the 25 largest met migration movements between counties as reported by the ACS for 2007 to 2011. In every case, the 25 largest net domestic migration movements are from more highly urban core environments to more suburban environments (domestic migration is measured only at the county level).

The list shows that even within the nation's largest core city, New York, people are moving to more dispersed areas. This includes net migration from Manhattan to the Bronx and Brooklyn to Queens. Then there is the suburban movement, with a stream of migrants from Queens, in the city to adjacent, suburban Nassau County. Migration from Nassau County even further out, to Suffolk County also made the top 25.

The outward movement is not limited to New York. A net 50,000 people left the Los Angeles metropolitan area than arrived, just among the 25 largest county migration pairs. Most went to the Riverside-San Bernardino area (which depending on the definition can be called "exurban") and a large number to the Bakersfield metropolitan area. Within the metropolitan area, 10,000 moved from Los Angeles County to Orange County.

The city (also a county) of San Francisco, which has had the strongest growth of any fully developed major US municipality that has not annexed since 1950, lost 5,000 people to nearby suburban San Mateo County.

The top 25 also includes nearly 20,000 people moving from Chicago's core Cook County to three suburban counties.

It will probably be quite a long time, if ever, before the top 25 migration list has meaningful representation showing movement from suburban counties to core counties. Yet, today's more healthy cities will do better if they genuinely tackle their remaining challenges. Most important are their education systems that send a disproportionate share of young families to the suburbs. However, from the United States to Europe, Japan, and China, the natural order is that cities (metropolitan areas with their core cities, suburbs, and exurbs) tend to disperse as they add population. That reality is again confirmed by the new data.

Moving from Travis County (Austin) to Williamson County

Wendell Cox — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:54:41 -0400

In an article entitled, “The People Moving to Austin and ‘Ruining It’ are from Texas,” the Austinist notes that more people are moving to Austin from neighboring Williamson County than from Los Angeles County.

The article has the potential to mislead in two ways.

The lesser of the problems is that it confuses Austin with Travis County. The cited data is for Travis County, not the city of Austin. The source of the data, the American Community Survey does not report on municipal migration. (Austin is most of Travis County’s population, but itself has sections in Williamson and Hayes counties).

The bigger problem is that the article tells only half the story. Yes, 10,500 people moved from Williamson to Travis over the 2006-2010 period, but 14,200 moved from Travis to Williamson. Thus, there was a net outflow of 3,700 people from Travis to Williamson. Meanwhile, there was a net gain of residents in Travis County from Los Angeles County of approximately 800.

Thus, while there is net migration from Los Angeles County to Travis County, the net migration from Travis County to Williamson County is 4.5 times as large.

Texas Two Step

Jonathan Bowles — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:30:11 -0500

There has been a huge spike in the number of New Yorkers relocating to Texas in recent years, even at a time when fewer city residents were departing for Charlotte, Atlanta, Philadelphia and other traditional destinations.

Borough Breakdown: NYC Residents Moving to
Houston, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio (2004/05 to 2009/10)

Migration from Bronx to...
	2004/2005	2009/2010	% Change
Dallas County	77	92	19.5%
Harris County	202	310	53.5%
Tarrant County	28	58	107.1%
Travis County	22	27	22.7%
Bexar County	29	66	127.6%
Fort Bend County	31	33	6.5%
Total	389	586	50.6%

Migration from Brooklyn to...
	2004/2005	2009/2010	% Change
Dallas County	132	152	15.2%
Harris County	271	351	29.5%
Tarrant County	64	71	10.9%
Travis County	83	224	169.9%
Bexar County	76	64	-15.8%
Fort Bend County	40	62	55.0%
Total	666	924	38.7%

Migration from Queens to...
	2004/2005	2009/2010	% Change
Dallas County	146	166	13.7%
Harris County	412	404	-1.9%
Tarrant County	117	125	6.8%
Travis County	56	89	58.9%
Bexar County	80	99	23.8%
Fort Bend County	67	90	34.3%
Total	878	973	10.8%

Migration from Manhattan to...
	2004/2005	2009/2010	% Change
Dallas County	311	356	14.5%
Harris County	346	508	46.8%
Tarrant County	51	107	109.8%
Travis County	167	303	81.4%
Bexar County	96	91	-5.2%
Fort Bend County	15	54	260.0%
Total	986	1419	43.9%

Migration from Staten Island to...
	2004/2005	2009/2010	% Change
Dallas County	N/A	N/A	N/A
Harris County	36	55	52.8%
Tarrant County	N/A	N/A	N/A
Travis County	N/A	N/A	N/A
Bexar County	N/A	N/A	N/A
Fort Bend County	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	36	55	52.8%

Source: IRS Migration Data. For Staten Island, data was only available for migrations to Harris County.

This piece originally appeared a tthe Center for an Urban Future data blog.

The (White) British are Leaving (London)

Wendell Cox — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:27:52 -0500

As reported in The Evolving Urban Form: London, last July the Greater London Authority (GLA), located inside the Green Belt, grew strongly from 2001 to 2011, though remains well below its peak estimated population in 1939. Substantial domestic migration from the core area to the exurbs was a major contributor to their growth during between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1).

Obviously, with all that growth and all that domestic out-migration, international migration had to be driving the population growth in the GLA. The British Broadcasting Corportation (BBC) confirms that, reporting that, for the first time "white British" residents of GLA represent a minority of the population. At 45 percent, this population segment is down from 58 percent in 2011.

Whites, however, remain a majority, with more than 1.3 who do not consider themselves British, according to the 2011 census data. The combined white population is nearly 60 percent of the GLA total. The table below provides the ethnic data as reported by the Office for National Statistics.

Greater London Authority: Ethnicity
2011 Census

All categories: Ethnic group	8,173,941	100.0%

White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British	3,669,284	44.9%
White: Irish	175,974	2.2%
White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller	8,196	0.1%
White: Other White	1,033,981	12.6%
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: White and Black Caribbean	119,425	1.5%
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: White and Black African	65,479	0.8%
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: White and Asian	101,500	1.2%
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Other Mixed	118,875	1.5%
Asian/Asian British: Indian	542,857	6.6%
Asian/Asian British: Pakistani	223,797	2.7%
Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi	222,127	2.7%
Asian/Asian British: Chinese	124,250	1.5%
Asian/Asian British: Other Asian	398,515	4.9%
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: African	573,931	7.0%
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Caribbean	344,597	4.2%
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Other Black	170,112	2.1%
Other ethnic group: Arab	106,020	1.3%
Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group	175,021	2.1%

Source: Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom

Moving to North Dakota: The New Census Estimates

Wendell Cox — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:26:17 -0500

The new state (and DC) population estimates indicate a substantial slowdown in growth, from an annual rate of 0.93 percent during the 2000s to 0.75% between 2011 and 2012. This 20 percent slowdown in growth was driven by a reduction in the crude birth rate to the lowest point ever recorded in the United States (12.6 live births per 1000 population).

The big surprise was the population growth leader, North Dakota, which has experienced a strong boom in natural resource extraction. Between 1930 and 2010, North Dakota had lost population. However in the first two years of the new decade, North Dakota has experienced strong growth, and reached its population peak, according to the new estimates, in 2012. North Dakota's population growth rate between 2011 and 2012 was 2.17%. Nearby South Dakota also grew rapidly, ranking 10th in population growth. The other fastest-growing states were all in the South or the West. The District of Columbia, located in the strongly growing Washington, DC Metropolitan area ranked second in growth rate behind North Dakota (Figure 1).

Two states lost population, Vermont and Rhode Island, as the Northeast and Midwest represented all but one of the 10 slowest growing states. West Virginia, in the South, was also included among the slowest growing states (Figure 2).

The domestic migration trends continue to favor the South and West. Texas continues to attract the largest number of domestic migrants (141,000), followed by Florida (101,000). These two states have been the domestic migration leaders in the nation every year since 2000 (Figure 3). Four states gained from 25,000 to 35,000 domestic migrants (Arizona, North Carolina, Tennessee and South Carolina).

Generally, the same states continued to dominate domestic migration losses, with New York losing the most migrants, Illinois ranking second, followed by California, Ohio and Michigan. With the exception of California, all of the 10 states losing the largest number of domestic migrants were in the Northeast or the Midwest (Figure 4).

Overall, domestic migration continues to be dominated by the South, which attracted 354,000 residents from other states. The West added 52,000 domestic migrants, however virtually all of this gain occurred in the Intermountain West. Gains in Oregon and Washington were far more than offset by the large losses in California, as well as losses in Hawaii and Alaska. The Intermountain West gained more than 70,000 domestic migrants. The Northeast lost 221,000 domestic migrants, while the Midwest lost 185,000.

IRS to Continue Migration Data

Wendell Cox — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:22:44 -0500

" The IRS should be applauded" --- it is hard to imagine a public statement to this effect, other than from a government insider. But this was the Tax Foundation, improbably and correctly complimenting the Internal Revenue Service in announcing that its annual income tax migration data would continue to be produced. This apparently reverses a decision to discontinue the data. The Tax Foundation noted that there was:

... outrage when the IRS announced that they were canceling the program. An IRS economist, informed of the decision by higher-ups, told the Daily Caller: "We were just told this morning that the program is indeed going to be discontinued. It is not our decision at all and we are very disappointed." Jim Pettit, of the activist group Change Maryland, penned a National Review piece noting that the decision came soon after the data put Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley on the defensive (O'Malley has routinely asserted that Maryland has a great tax system and business climate, despite strong evidence to the contrary), and the Washington Examiner followed up with an editorial saying that the data is vital for ascertaining which "model" of states (high-tax, high-service vs. low-tax, low-service) Americans were preferring. Members of Congress also started calling, demanding an explanation.

We join in the chorus. This data has been valuable for many uses and many will continue to use it in the years to come.