Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 16%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$39 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Real Estate News & Current Events
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 10 years ago on . Most recent reply

Account Closed
  • Investor
  • San Francisco, CA
203
Votes |
577
Posts

People on the move...middle class moving from expensive cities to cheaper cities

Account Closed
  • Investor
  • San Francisco, CA
Posted

Here's an interactive map that uses the 2000 and 2010 census data. 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?ref=us

Notice the following:

Larger, expensive cities have not seen large percentage increases in population (ex. San Francisco just 3.7%, Los Angeles 3.1%, NYC about 4.5%)

Cheaper expanding cities experienced significant population growth (Austin 26.1%, Dallas Area 30-50%, Houston 20.3%, Raleigh 43.5%) 

The Midwest, particularly South Dakota, North Dakota (except Fargo), Nebraska, and Kansas, Iowa, and Montana experienced little growth

I would expect that in the last four years we've seen these trends continue...people moving, primarily the middle class, out of the more expense cities to more affordable cities.

Most Popular Reply

Account Closed
  • Investor
  • Honolulu, HI
1,698
Votes |
3,894
Posts
Account Closed
  • Investor
  • Honolulu, HI
Replied

I bet if you looked at population density per square mile growth then SF, LA and NYC would lead. 

I would also guess that the growth in population from high to lo consisted of non home owners in the high areas.  There are equity immigrants but I think their numbers are generally overstated. 

Loading replies...