2017’s Fastest-Growing Cities in America
3:19 AMPosted by: Richie Bernardo
Experts might not agree on the “best” or the “right” recipe for rapid economic growth, but some cities know the key ingredients for long-term prosperity. Patterns emerge within those cities, allowing us to identify the contributing factors that perpetuate a lasting cycle of growth.
But the quick path toward success is not as cut and dried for every city. To determine where the fastest local economic growth has occurred in the U.S., WalletHub’s analysts compared 515 cities of varying population sizes based on 15 key measures of both growth and decline over a period of seven years. Our data set ranges from population growth to unemployment rate decrease to growth in regional GDP per capita. Read on for our findings, expert insight from a panel of researchers and a full description of our methodology.
Main FindingsEmbed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/7010/geochart-fastest-growing.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2yCKCzs;
Fastest-Growing Cities in the U.S.
*No. 1 = Fastest-Growing
|
Rank* |
Large City Name (Score) |
Rank* |
Midsize City Name (Score) |
Rank* |
Small City Name (Score) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Austin, TX (59.88) | 1 | Frisco, TX (76.01) | 1 | Meridian, ID (62.71) |
| 2 | Charlotte, NC (55.45) | 2 | Kent, WA (68.32) | 2 | Fort Myers, FL (62.33) |
| 3 | Denver, CO (54.36) | 3 | Lehigh Acres, FL (67.00) | 3 | Bend, OR (60.96) |
| 4 | Seattle, WA (52.65) | 4 | Midland, TX (62.64) | 4 | Pleasanton, CA (59.69) |
| 5 | Nashville, TN (51.38) | 5 | McKinney, TX (62.42) | 5 | Saint George, UT (58.70) |
| 6 | San Jose, CA (50.64) | 6 | Murfreesboro, TN (58.41) | 6 | Springdale, AR (56.96) |
| 7 | Miami, FL (50.01) | 7 | Irvine, CA (58.06) | 7 | Milpitas, CA (56.28) |
| 8 | Oakland, CA (48.99) | 8 | Round Rock, TX (57.87) | 8 | Boynton Beach, FL (55.67) |
| 9 | San Francisco, CA (48.98) | 9 | Cape Coral, FL (57.35) | 9 | Redwood City, CA (54.33) |
| 10 | Raleigh, NC (48.87) | 10 | Odessa, TX (57.18) | 10 | Concord, NC (54.11) |
| 11 | Atlanta, GA (48.26) | 11 | Highlands Ranch, CO (55.00) | 11 | Allen, TX (53.86) |
| 12 | Fort Worth, TX (47.63) | 12 | Pearland, TX (53.82) | 12 | Union City, CA (53.28) |
| 13 | Aurora, CO (47.41) | 13 | Hayward, CA (53.18) | 13 | Fishers, IN (52.64) |
| 14 | Tampa, FL (47.12) | 14 | League City, TX (52.53) | 14 | Fayetteville, AR (51.96) |
| 15 | Washington, DC (46.74) | 15 | Orlando, FL (52.44) | 15 | Mount Pleasant, SC (51.73) |
| 16 | San Antonio, TX (45.87) | 16 | Bellevue, WA (52.29) | 16 | Tustin, CA (50.56) |
| 17 | Dallas, TX (45.72) | 17 | Sandy Springs, GA (52.18) | 17 | Mountain View, CA (50.31) |
| 18 | Portland, OR (45.31) | 18 | College Station, TX (51.59) | 18 | Indio, CA (49.71) |
| 19 | Phoenix, AZ (45.10) | 19 | Santa Clara, CA (51.40) | 19 | Plantation, FL (48.67) |
| 20 | Colorado Springs, CO (44.94) | 20 | Charleston, SC (51.31) | 20 | Manteca, CA (48.56) |
| 21 | Las Vegas, NV (44.60) | 21 | Arden-Arcade, CA (51.07) | 21 | Somerville, MA (48.38) |
| 22 | Riverside, CA (43.71) | 22 | Daly City, CA (50.95) | 22 | Nampa, ID (48.35) |
| 23 | Mesa, AZ (43.36) | 23 | Davie, FL (50.86) | 23 | Gastonia, NC (47.72) |
| 24 | New Orleans, LA (43.14) | 24 | Hillsboro, OR (50.82) | 24 | Napa, CA (47.62) |
| 25 | Boston, MA (42.72) | 25 | Spring Hill, FL (50.59) | 25 | Wyoming, MI (47.39) |
| 26 | Columbus, OH (42.44) | 26 | Sunnyvale, CA (50.49) | 26 | Edinburg, TX (47.05) |
| 27 | Houston, TX (42.28) | 27 | Grand Rapids, MI (50.31) | 27 | Orem, UT (46.29) |
| 28 | Sacramento, CA (42.10) | 28 | North Charleston, SC (50.27) | 28 | Silver Spring, MD (46.28) |
| 29 | San Diego, CA (42.02) | 29 | Gilbert, AZ (50.26) | 29 | Flower Mound, TX (46.19) |
| 30 | Jacksonville, FL (41.85) | 30 | West Palm Beach, FL (50.02) | 30 | Sandy, UT (46.13) |
| 31 | Los Angeles, CA (41.82) | 31 | Antioch, CA (49.88) | 31 | North Richland Hills, TX (45.96) |
| 32 | Bakersfield, CA (41.61) | 32 | Irving, TX (49.65) | 32 | Deltona, FL (45.78) |
| 33 | Santa Ana, CA (41.56) | 33 | Denton, TX (49.64) | 33 | San Leandro, CA (45.02) |
| 34 | Oklahoma City, OK (40.80) | 34 | Thornton, CO (49.60) | 34 | Layton, UT (45.00) |
| 35 | Kansas City, MO (40.44) | 35 | Fremont, CA (49.54) | 35 | Palm Coast, FL (44.89) |
| 36 | Lexington, KY (39.91) | 36 | Moreno Valley, CA (49.40) | 36 | Boca Raton, FL (44.60) |
| 37 | Minneapolis, MN (39.50) | 37 | Fort Collins, CO (49.10) | 37 | Loveland, CO (44.53) |
| 38 | Fresno, CA (39.46) | 38 | Port Saint Lucie, FL (49.06) | 38 | Hesperia, CA (44.50) |
| 39 | Stockton, CA (39.32) | 39 | Richardson, TX (49.01) | 39 | Sparks, NV (44.46) |
| 40 | Saint Paul, MN (38.93) | 40 | Henderson, NV (48.89) | 40 | O Fallon, MO (44.43) |
| 41 | Indianapolis, IN (38.69) | 41 | Spring Valley, NV (48.73) | 41 | Alameda, CA (44.30) |
| 42 | Corpus Christi, TX (38.59) | 42 | Fargo, ND (48.57) | 42 | Tracy, CA (44.18) |
| 43 | Anaheim, CA (38.52) | 43 | Berkeley, CA (48.48) | 43 | Weston, FL (44.03) |
| 44 | Omaha, NE (38.46) | 44 | San Mateo, CA (48.45) | 44 | Medford, OR (43.91) |
| 45 | Arlington, TX (38.41) | 45 | North Las Vegas, NV (48.35) | 45 | Lynwood, CA (43.90) |
| 46 | Pittsburgh, PA (38.22) | 46 | Temecula, CA (48.08) | 46 | Sugar Land, TX (43.85) |
| 47 | Long Beach, CA (36.87) | 47 | Greeley, CO (47.92) | 47 | Yorba Linda, CA (43.81) |
| 48 | Philadelphia, PA (36.60) | 48 | Grand Prairie, TX (47.67) | 48 | Missouri City, TX (43.78) |
| 49 | Honolulu, HI (36.45) | 49 | Tempe, AZ (47.45) | 49 | Carmel, IN (43.68) |
| 50 | New York, NY (36.39) | 50 | Murrieta, CA (47.35) | 50 | Santa Monica, CA (43.65) |
| 51 | El Paso, TX (35.83) | 51 | San Angelo, TX (47.29) | 51 | Baldwin Park, CA (43.60) |
| 52 | Louisville, KY (35.69) | 52 | Cary, NC (47.18) | 52 | Bryan, TX (43.55) |
| 53 | Saint Louis, MO (35.37) | 53 | Roseville, CA (47.09) | 53 | Lake Forest, CA (43.53) |
| 54 | Chicago, IL (34.52) | 54 | Elk Grove, CA (47.01) | 54 | Merced, CA (43.39) |
| 55 | Tulsa, OK (34.24) | 55 | Fairfield, CA (46.90) | 55 | Asheville, NC (43.21) |
| 56 | Baltimore, MD (33.81) | 56 | Reno, NV (46.87) | 56 | San Marcos, CA (43.17) |
| 57 | Virginia Beach, VA (32.55) | 57 | Centennial, CO (46.78) | 57 | Miami Beach, FL (42.83) |
| 58 | Milwaukee, WI (30.67) | 58 | Coral Springs, FL (46.61) | 58 | Livermore, CA (42.80) |
| 59 | Detroit, MI (29.63) | 59 | Inglewood, CA (46.60) | 59 | Chino, CA (42.75) |
| 60 | Albuquerque, NM (29.31) | 60 | Boulder, CO (46.14) | 60 | Mission Viejo, CA (42.71) |
| 61 | Wichita, KS (29.19) | 61 | Scottsdale, AZ (46.08) | 61 | Folsom, CA (42.62) |
| 62 | Memphis, TN (28.43) | 62 | Concord, CA (45.90) | 62 | Plymouth, MN (42.54) |
| 63 | Tucson, AZ (27.37) | 63 | Hollywood, FL (45.87) | 63 | Hemet, CA (42.32) |
| 64 | Cleveland, OH (25.40) | 64 | Surprise, AZ (45.64) | 64 | Rochester, MI (42.24) |
| 65 | Peoria, AZ (45.52) | 65 | Avondale, AZ (42.21) | ||
| 66 | Lakewood, CO (45.50) | 66 | Vacaville, CA (41.78) | ||
| 67 | Santa Rosa, CA (45.45) | 67 | Pharr, TX (41.77) | ||
| 68 | Pompano Beach, FL (45.24) | 68 | Lauderhill, FL (41.65) | ||
| 69 | Enterprise, NV (45.23) | 69 | Spokane Valley, WA (41.63) | ||
| 70 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA (44.82) | 70 | Longmont, CO (41.45) | ||
| 71 | Fontana, CA (44.64) | 71 | Chino Hills, CA (41.27) | ||
| 72 | Boise, ID (44.60) | 72 | Citrus Heights, CA (41.01) | ||
| 73 | Broken Arrow, OK (44.58) | 73 | Lake Charles, LA (40.86) | ||
| 74 | Pembroke Pines, FL (44.48) | 74 | Melbourne, FL (40.71) | ||
| 75 | Salt Lake City, UT (44.38) | 75 | Deerfield Beach, FL (40.64) | ||
| 76 | Sioux Falls, SD (44.15) | 76 | Roswell, GA (40.32) | ||
| 77 | West Jordan, UT (43.98) | 77 | Westminster, CA (40.19) | ||
| 78 | Fullerton, CA (43.96) | 78 | South Gate, CA (40.10) | ||
| 79 | Miramar, FL (43.88) | 79 | Santa Fe, NM (40.06) | ||
| 80 | Arvada, CO (43.65) | 80 | Beaverton, OR (39.92) | ||
| 81 | Ontario, CA (43.62) | 81 | Edmond, OK (39.79) | ||
| 82 | Corona, CA (43.58) | 82 | Tuscaloosa, AL (39.71) | ||
| 83 | Saint Petersburg, FL (43.55) | 83 | Hawthorne, CA (39.68) | ||
| 84 | Vista, CA (43.50) | 84 | Whittier, CA (39.05) | ||
| 85 | Madison, WI (43.41) | 85 | Sunrise, FL (39.01) | ||
| 86 | Carlsbad, CA (43.36) | 86 | Bethlehem, PA (38.99) | ||
| 87 | Richmond, CA (43.35) | 87 | Rio Rancho, NM (38.92) | ||
| 88 | Durham, NC (43.26) | 88 | Rock Hill, SC (38.89) | ||
| 89 | Vancouver, WA (43.10) | 89 | Baytown, TX (38.70) | ||
| 90 | Carrollton, TX (43.08) | 90 | Upland, CA (38.60) | ||
| 91 | Santa Clarita, CA (42.96) | 91 | Compton, CA (38.52) | ||
| 92 | Modesto, CA (42.90) | 92 | Gulfport, MS (38.07) | ||
| 93 | Plano, TX (42.77) | 93 | Champaign, IL (38.00) | ||
| 94 | Richmond, VA (42.69) | 94 | Newton, MA (37.83) | ||
| 95 | Glendale, CA (42.61) | 95 | Largo, FL (37.71) | ||
| 96 | Pomona, CA (42.11) | 96 | Bellflower, CA (37.69) | ||
| 97 | Glendale, AZ (42.08) | 97 | Brooklyn Park, MN (37.53) | ||
| 98 | Westminster, CO (42.03) | 98 | Federal Way, WA (37.31) | ||
| 99 | Pasadena, CA (41.79) | 99 | New Rochelle, NY (37.16) | ||
| 100 | Fort Lauderdale, FL (41.67) | 100 | Troy, MI (37.15) | ||
| 101 | Olathe, KS (41.60) | 101 | Town 'n' Country, FL (37.10) | ||
| 102 | Salem, OR (41.58) | 102 | Newport Beach, CA (37.04) | ||
| 103 | Rialto, CA (41.57) | 102 | Rapid City, SD (37.04) | ||
| 104 | Victorville, CA (41.46) | 104 | Mission, TX (36.96) | ||
| 105 | Lakeland, FL (41.41) | 105 | Lynchburg, VA (36.94) | ||
| 106 | Clovis, CA (41.35) | 106 | Quincy, MA (36.93) | ||
| 107 | Sunrise Manor, NV (41.33) | 107 | Lakewood, CA (36.84) | ||
| 108 | Orange, CA (41.24) | 108 | Ogden, UT (36.74) | ||
| 109 | Overland Park, KS (41.13) | 109 | Carson, CA (36.74) | ||
| 110 | Vallejo, CA (41.07) | 110 | Buena Park, CA (36.60) | ||
| 111 | Clarksville, TN (40.79) | 111 | Apple Valley, CA (36.16) | ||
| 112 | Provo, UT (40.60) | 112 | Turlock, CA (35.94) | ||
| 113 | Huntington Beach, CA (40.46) | 113 | Bloomington, MN (35.84) | ||
| 114 | Escondido, CA (40.41) | 114 | Pawtucket, RI (35.80) | ||
| 115 | Paradise, NV (40.38) | 115 | Missoula, MT (35.76) | ||
| 116 | Lincoln, NE (40.35) | 116 | Palatine, IL (35.58) | ||
| 117 | Chattanooga, TN (40.26) | 117 | Westland, MI (35.52) | ||
| 118 | Rochester, MN (40.24) | 118 | Bellingham, WA (35.50) | ||
| 119 | West Valley, UT (40.15) | 119 | Farmington, MI (35.42) | ||
| 120 | Billings, MT (40.13) | 120 | Southfield, MI (35.39) | ||
| 121 | West Covina, CA (40.12) | 121 | Bolingbrook, IL (35.34) | ||
| 122 | Brandon, FL (39.91) | 122 | Iowa City, IA (35.24) | ||
| 123 | Lancaster, CA (39.83) | 123 | Redding, CA (34.99) | ||
| 124 | Oceanside, CA (39.72) | 124 | Reading, PA (34.91) | ||
| 125 | Columbia, MO (39.70) | 125 | Santa Barbara, CA (34.55) | ||
| 126 | Springfield, MO (39.66) | 126 | Framingham, MA (34.22) | ||
| 127 | Salinas, CA (39.54) | 127 | Alhambra, CA (34.16) | ||
| 128 | Palm Bay, FL (39.25) | 128 | Bloomington, IL (33.94) | ||
| 129 | Santa Maria, CA (39.23) | 129 | Lawrence, MA (33.87) | ||
| 130 | Chandler, AZ (39.22) | 130 | Hoover, AL (33.76) | ||
| 131 | Palmdale, CA (39.16) | 131 | New Bedford, MA (33.67) | ||
| 132 | Lubbock, TX (39.06) | 132 | Muncie, IN (33.63) | ||
| 133 | Tyler, TX (39.04) | 133 | Schaumburg, IL (33.58) | ||
| 134 | Jersey City, NJ (39.03) | 134 | Redondo Beach, CA (33.56) | ||
| 135 | Huntsville, AL (39.02) | 135 | Union City, NJ (33.44) | ||
| 136 | Athens-Clarke, GA (38.96) | 136 | Lees Summit, MO (33.42) | ||
| 137 | Kansas City, KS (38.95) | 137 | Greenville, NC (33.06) | ||
| 138 | Arlington, VA (38.93) | 138 | Redlands, CA (33.01) | ||
| 138 | Torrance, CA (38.93) | 139 | Albany, NY (32.98) | ||
| 140 | Metairie, LA (38.92) | 140 | Appleton, WI (32.86) | ||
| 141 | Burbank, CA (38.89) | 141 | Saint Joseph, MO (32.71) | ||
| 142 | Savannah, GA (38.85) | 142 | Lynn, MA (32.71) | ||
| 143 | Alexandria, VA (38.84) | 143 | Suffolk, VA (32.69) | ||
| 144 | Tacoma, WA (38.83) | 144 | Scranton, PA (32.56) | ||
| 145 | Everett, WA (38.80) | 145 | Eau Claire, WI (32.21) | ||
| 146 | Waco, TX (38.72) | 146 | Kalamazoo, MI (32.10) | ||
| 147 | Warren, MI (38.71) | 147 | Lawrence, KS (32.07) | ||
| 148 | Sterling Heights, MI (38.67) | 148 | Bloomington, IN (32.01) | ||
| 149 | El Cajon, CA (38.60) | 149 | Norwalk, CT (31.85) | ||
| 150 | El Monte, CA (38.52) | 150 | Clifton, NJ (31.73) | ||
| 151 | Downey, CA (38.48) | 151 | Danbury, CT (31.71) | ||
| 152 | San Bernardino, CA (38.44) | 152 | Chico, CA (31.67) | ||
| 153 | Chula Vista, CA (38.12) | 153 | Livonia, MI (31.53) | ||
| 154 | Lewisville, TX (38.09) | 154 | Dearborn, MI (31.28) | ||
| 155 | Elgin, IL (38.01) | 155 | Saint Cloud, MN (31.16) | ||
| 156 | Miami Gardens, FL (38.00) | 156 | Fall River, MA (31.16) | ||
| 157 | Ann Arbor, MI (37.86) | 157 | Ellicott City, MD (31.09) | ||
| 158 | Stamford, CT (37.78) | 158 | Passaic, NJ (30.93) | ||
| 159 | Hialeah, FL (37.67) | 159 | Kenosha, WI (30.93) | ||
| 160 | Laredo, TX (37.64) | 160 | Sioux City, IA (30.58) | ||
| 161 | Cambridge, MA (37.54) | 161 | Warwick, RI (30.58) | ||
| 162 | Killeen, TX (37.52) | 162 | Mount Vernon, NY (30.57) | ||
| 163 | Gresham, OR (37.34) | 163 | Cheektowaga, NY (30.18) | ||
| 164 | Oxnard, CA (37.22) | 164 | Lorain, OH (29.89) | ||
| 165 | Pasadena, TX (37.17) | 165 | Nashua, NH (29.65) | ||
| 166 | Ventura, CA (37.17) | 166 | Yuma, AZ (29.60) | ||
| 167 | Wilmington, NC (37.03) | 167 | Waukesha, WI (29.45) | ||
| 168 | Independence, MO (36.94) | 168 | Evanston, IL (29.34) | ||
| 169 | East Los Angeles, CA (36.92) | 169 | Cranston, RI (29.13) | ||
| 170 | Knoxville, TN (36.89) | 170 | Toms River, NJ (28.81) | ||
| 171 | Norwalk, CA (36.66) | 171 | Kendall, FL (28.76) | ||
| 172 | Des Moines, IA (36.59) | 172 | Canton, OH (28.64) | ||
| 173 | Eugene, OR (36.50) | 173 | Portsmouth, VA (28.54) | ||
| 174 | Fort Wayne, IN (36.48) | 174 | Wilmington, DE (28.50) | ||
| 175 | Norman, OK (36.28) | 175 | Dothan, AL (28.41) | ||
| 176 | Brownsville, TX (36.16) | 176 | Yakima, WA (28.32) | ||
| 177 | Winston-Salem, NC (36.07) | 177 | Waterloo, IA (28.28) | ||
| 178 | Tallahassee, FL (36.04) | 178 | East Orange, NJ (27.94) | ||
| 179 | Garden Grove, CA (36.04) | 179 | Skokie, IL (27.78) | ||
| 180 | Columbia, SC (36.02) | 180 | Brockton, MA (27.73) | ||
| 181 | Garland, TX (35.97) | 181 | Albany, GA (27.56) | ||
| 182 | Naperville, IL (35.51) | 182 | Flint, MI (27.52) | ||
| 183 | McAllen, TX (35.39) | 183 | Camden, NJ (27.34) | ||
| 184 | Clearwater, FL (35.11) | 184 | Trenton, NJ (27.32) | ||
| 185 | Birmingham, AL (35.09) | 185 | Duluth, MN (27.24) | ||
| 186 | Visalia, CA (35.08) | 186 | Waukegan, IL (27.04) | ||
| 187 | Green Bay, WI (35.00) | 187 | Longview, TX (27.02) | ||
| 188 | Mesquite, TX (34.63) | 188 | Youngstown, OH (26.99) | ||
| 189 | Chesapeake, VA (34.58) | 189 | Arlington Heights, IL (26.32) | ||
| 190 | Wichita Falls, TX (34.53) | 190 | Cicero, IL (26.08) | ||
| 191 | High Point, NC (34.53) | 191 | Hammond, IN (26.01) | ||
| 192 | Columbus, GA (34.50) | 192 | Parma, OH (25.96) | ||
| 193 | Simi Valley, CA (34.49) | 193 | Gary, IN (25.90) | ||
| 194 | Lansing, MI (34.34) | 194 | Roanoke, VA (25.50) | ||
| 195 | Costa Mesa, CA (33.96) | 195 | Kenner, LA (25.26) | ||
| 196 | Columbia, MD (33.58) | 196 | Lawton, OK (25.25) | ||
| 197 | Lowell, MA (33.57) | 197 | New Britain, CT (24.74) | ||
| 198 | Abilene, TX (33.57) | 198 | Erie, PA (24.46) | ||
| 199 | Aurora, IL (33.39) | 199 | Racine, WI (23.24) | ||
| 200 | Cedar Rapids, IA (33.34) | 200 | Fort Smith, AR (23.21) | ||
| 201 | Greensboro, NC (33.24) | 201 | Decatur, IL (22.54) | ||
| 202 | Lafayette, LA (32.99) | 202 | Jacksonville, NC (19.06) | ||
| 203 | Allentown, PA (32.98) | ||||
| 204 | Cincinnati, OH (32.92) | ||||
| 205 | Pueblo, CO (32.87) | ||||
| 206 | Thousand Oaks, CA (32.80) | ||||
| 207 | Yonkers, NY (32.63) | ||||
| 208 | Providence, RI (32.30) | ||||
| 209 | Worcester, MA (31.88) | ||||
| 210 | Joliet, IL (31.72) | ||||
| 211 | Spokane, WA (31.70) | ||||
| 212 | Manchester, NH (31.57) | ||||
| 213 | Amarillo, TX (31.47) | ||||
| 214 | Akron, OH (30.98) | ||||
| 215 | Elizabeth, NJ (30.86) | ||||
| 216 | Norfolk, VA (30.78) | ||||
| 217 | Springfield, MA (30.77) | ||||
| 218 | Evansville, IN (30.75) | ||||
| 219 | Jackson, MS (29.98) | ||||
| 220 | Gainesville, FL (29.60) | ||||
| 221 | Newark, NJ (29.59) | ||||
| 222 | Little Rock, AR (29.35) | ||||
| 223 | Hartford, CT (29.30) | ||||
| 224 | Bridgeport, CT (28.97) | ||||
| 225 | New Haven, CT (28.83) | ||||
| 226 | Newport News, VA (28.76) | ||||
| 227 | South Bend, IN (28.26) | ||||
| 228 | Beaumont, TX (28.16) | ||||
| 229 | Buffalo, NY (28.15) | ||||
| 230 | Anchorage, AK (27.76) | ||||
| 231 | Dayton, OH (27.61) | ||||
| 232 | Rockford, IL (27.40) | ||||
| 233 | Rochester, NY (27.32) | ||||
| 234 | Mobile, AL (27.15) | ||||
| 235 | Hampton, VA (26.50) | ||||
| 236 | Paterson, NJ (26.30) | ||||
| 237 | Toledo, OH (26.01) | ||||
| 238 | Augusta, GA (25.69) | ||||
| 239 | Springfield, IL (25.45) | ||||
| 240 | Peoria, IL (25.04) | ||||
| 241 | Las Cruces, NM (24.79) | ||||
| 242 | Syracuse, NY (24.79) | ||||
| 243 | Topeka, KS (24.09) | ||||
| 244 | Waterbury, CT (23.40) | ||||
| 245 | Davenport, IA (22.98) | ||||
| 246 | Baton Rouge, LA (22.81) | ||||
| 247 | Montgomery, AL (22.72) | ||||
| 248 | Fayetteville, NC (20.97) | ||||
| 249 | Shreveport, LA (17.38) |
*No. 1 = Fastest-Growing
Ask the Experts
Rapid city growth can yield both positive and negative effects. Some cities thrive with the influx of newcomers whereas others struggle to keep up. For insight into these dynamics, we asked a panel of experts to weigh in with their thoughts on the following key questions:
- What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?
- What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?
- Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents?
- To what extent are zoning policies and “NIMBY-ism” responsible for skyrocketing housing costs in cities experiencing population growth?
- Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?
Tom Daniels Professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania
Thomas Barrie Professor of Architecture and Director of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Initiative in the College of Design at North Carolina State University
Stephen J. Conroy Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Professor of Economics in the School of Business at the University of San Diego
Sam A. Williams Retired Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce President, Assistant Director for External Relations and Professor of Practice in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University
Noli Brazil Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Ecology at the University of California, Davis
Melanie Bowers Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and Administration at Rutgers University, Camden
John Infranca Associate Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School
Jerry N. Conover Director of the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University Kelley School of Business
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?
- Providing adequate public services -- schools, sewer and water facilities, and roads;
- Schools can become overcrowded, roads congested;
- Housing shortages often occur, and house prices and rents can rapidly increase.
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? Transportation, affordable housing, and environmental and cultural sustainability are typically the most important challenges. What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?
- Housing is key. Maintaining and/or advancing a diversity of housing options is essential.
- Developing and implementing a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system.
- Creating a sustainable future that dramatically reduces the carbon footprint of a metro region, and incorporates a range of green spaces with the goal of a biodiverse region.
- Authentically responding to local contexts and needs, and effectively educating and engaging the public in planning for the future.
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? Rapid population growth creates many challenges. I will focus on three of these here. First, the housing stock is essentially fixed or growing slowly over time, so rapid population increases can cause temporary housing shortages. As housing inventories fall, prices rise, causing spikes in home prices and rental rates. Affordability can become an issue, and some at the lower end of the housing ladder may either have to crowd into smaller spaces, move somewhere else, or end up homeless. Imagine a situation where population growth is caused by the introduction of a new industry in town, which pays high salaries and wages. Those who move to the city to be close to work and receive the high-paying salaries are able to afford housing and may, in the process, push out "legacy" renters. If markets are functioning well, the spike in demand will induce a supply response. However, providing new housing takes time, as new construction involves planning, zoning, permitting, financing and construction. Thus, even if markets end up in a "good equilibrium" over time, there are likely to be lags with short-run disruptions. Public schools may also find themselves overwhelmed by population increases. Building new classrooms and schools often takes time, and capital expenditures are generally funded from different government budgets. While more residents generally mean more school revenue in the long run, the need for new classroom space can occur almost overnight. Other aspects of infrastructure can also be impacted by rapid population growth. Demands on existing infrastructure, such as streets, sewers and electricity can cause rapid degradation. Further, strains on fire/rescue and police services can result in more dangerous and volatile living conditions. What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities? It depends on whether the source of population growth (generally caused by new and/or rapidly growing firms or industry) has already been established. If this source of growth has not yet been identified, cities should try to create a climate which is hospitable and welcoming to business. Building or designating a new industrial park/zone or actively wooing large companies to relocate, including by offering short-term tax incentives, is a common practice. If the source of growth is already established (e.g., the city has a growing industrial base), then local authorities would want to focus on creating policies and procedures that are very responsive to changing conditions. Each of the three "challenges" of rapid growth discussed above involves a time lag between changing conditions and appropriate responses by markets or governments. Every effort should be made to reduce this lag. Further, cities can try to move towards a proactive, rather than simply reactive strategy for provision of services. Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren't “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents? Buyers are generally attracted to new or "like new" housing stock. Thus, if local authorities promote new construction of attractive, multi-family and multi-use space, then many new residents will likely be attracted to this housing, leaving existing renters in place. However, it is unlikely that housing markets would remain constant, and some disruption is inevitable. One suggestion is to focus on either vacant lot urban infill projects, or industrial-to-residential construction projects, which do not take away from the existing housing stock to add to a new one. Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so? There is a concept in urban economics called "agglomerative economies." The idea here is that firms that locate closely to one another reduce travel times for customers, and can also create large labor pools of workers who share similar skill sets. Each city seems to want to create their own "Silicon Valley" (the 21st century equivalent of steel towns or auto towns), which can be an engine for economic growth. To the extent that there is labor- and knowledge-sharing, there are opportunities for economies of scale. As such, employment opportunities may be disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly, as growth promotes growth. Entrepreneurship may also be fostered by having a business-friendly environment (including incubators, subsidized shared space, etc.) and a robust venture capital community. Over time, "seeding" the economy with start-ups can pay huge dividends if even a few of these sprout up into full-fledged businesses. Sam A. Williams Retired Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce President, Assistant Director for External Relations and Professor of Practice in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University 
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? Seemingly every big city wants to grow within its metro footprint, and Atlanta is no exception. While the city of Atlanta is about 9 percent of the region's population, our city planning director is publishing a play this fall that calls for the city to grow by over 50 percent in the next twenty years, compared to about 5 percent growth in the last ten years, after stagnant growth for decades. In contrast, metro Atlanta has added about one million people per decade for 30 years. In the last five years, the city has seen a jump in apartment construction, with about 12,000 units under construction now, mainly in mid-town and Buckhead. Our universities and hospitals are huge anchor institutions that continue to grow, and stabilized the city when out-migration was strong. Our challenge continues to be race, with the biggest issue being public education and income inequality. Atlanta is the birthplace of civil rights, but the struggle for better employment and power sharing is always at hand. The current mayor's race is an example, with over ten candidates. Like many diverse cities, the struggle is how to educate low-income children so they can escape the cycle of poverty, when many studies show the zip code is a big factor in the future of children. Transportation is the biggest job challenge. Jobs are frequently a long commute, especially for service workers, since they live in a subsection of the region not connected to the suburbs. Our regional Council of Governments shows that over 60 percent of our region's citizens don't work in their county of residence, and our rapid transit system, MARTA, hasn't been expanded in over 30 years, mainly due to suburban opposition, while metro DC has had over a dozen limbs added. The region voted down a 1 percent sales tax for transportation four years ago. The city recently approved an additional penny for bus and related transit. Big businesses have voted with their feet to move near transit stations like Porsche USA, NCR, Mercedes Benz, new speculative office buildings and others. Now, suburban counties are actively lobbying the state legislature's committee on transit considerations. What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities? Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren't “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents? Workforce housing is a critical issue for any city that wants to grow. Many tools are available to cities who must act before gentrification occurs. Homeownership is tougher to deal with than apartments. Property tax breaks based on income or age, municipal services and other tools can help. Local government can incent developers to build 20 to 30 percent affordable units by offering density approvals, parking or other perks. Zoning controls are another approach to make it harder for redevelopment to occur. Pushing into established neighborhoods is more political. The key is to make these plans before infrastructure, parks or other municipal investments are made. Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so? Universities are the big newly recognized magnet for jobs, especially those related to technology. Georgia Tech's adjacent neighborhoods are hot spots for start-ups, and especially larger companies who want to engage professors in research, hire interns and recruit the best and brightest. Noli Brazil Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Ecology at the University of California, Davis 
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? In the United States, the main driver of urban population growth is migration. There are two forms of migration: domestic (within the United States) and international. Cities that are considered to be traditional immigrant gateway destinations -- like Los Angeles and Miami, and several cities in the South and Midwest whose economies rely on the manufacturing and construction industries, such as Atlanta -- draw much of their population growth from immigrants. In contrast, Sunbelt cities like Houston and Phoenix, and employment hubs such as San Francisco and Austin draw from domestic migrants. All cities experiencing rapid growth will confront challenges related to environmental sustainability and the scaling of services to meet rising demand. For example, when cities grow, they often eat up adjacent land, which has consequences for the natural ecosystems in those areas. Other environmental issues include increased greenhouse gas emissions and the creation of urban heat islands, particularly for growing cities in the Southwest, such as Phoenix and Las Vegas. In cities receiving large numbers of immigrants, particularly in metros that are non-traditional immigrant destinations, receiving communities will need to incorporate populations with different cultures, and whose primary language is not English. In employment hubs receiving large numbers of domestic migrants, particularly high-skilled migrants, issues of inequality may be a larger concern. City governments are often more reactive than proactive when confronting the challenges posed by dramatic population shifts. As such, city services such as housing, education, employment and infrastructure are often catching up to growth. As a consequence, these resources are often not equally distributed across the socioeconomic spectrum, with the wealthier often at the front of the line, leading to potential increases in economic inequality, which has consequences for social disorder and public distrust of city governance. What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities? There are two broad priorities. First, ensure that health, education, employment, housing and social services scale up to meet rising population. Moreover, ensure that these services are fairly distributed. Second, local authorities need to ensure that environmental sustainability scales up to meet population growth. And this scaling also applies to companies. A popular strategy in city population growth efforts is to attract company headquarters or manufacturing facilities into the area. Local authorities should work with parent companies to ensure that their facilities meet existing sustainability standards. I think tackling these issues as population grows is important, particularly in those earlier years of growth, when cities are adapting to increasing size. Studies have shown that success, once achieved, is sustained for several decades or longer. San Jose is a good example. This also goes for failure: urban decay is very hard to turn around -- Buffalo is a good example. Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren't “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? In short, yes. But, keep in mind that population growth comes in different flavors. In cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and San Antonio, housing authorities were able to keep housing prices relatively stable because they rapidly increased supply, largely because they had the open space in adjacent suburban areas to build new housing. In contrast, in very dense areas like New York and San Francisco, land is scarce and thus, any new housing comes from tearing down existing infrastructure or building in environmentally sensitive areas. In cities like San Jose and Austin, incoming migrants are highly skilled workers, and thus local authorities must deal not only with increasing housing demand, but a specific type of housing (and other amenity) demand that higher-income residents prefer. What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents? Gentrification without displacement has become an ideal for those seeking urban policy that can ameliorate some of gentrification's negative impacts. It's seen as a benign process of "positive gentrification," in which middle-class in-movers are not pushing low-income residents out of the neighborhood but, through filling vacancies or increasing housing densities, are expanding the total population so that the proportion, but not the absolute number of low-income residents declines. Not only is the concentration of poverty diluted, but the resulting social mix is supposed to bring added benefits by offering the tax base and political effectiveness of the middle class, and in the process, improves the quality of life for all of a community's residents. The City of Vancouver offers an example. Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so? There are studies showing that urban indicators scale with city size. These indicators include rates of innovation and per capita productivity. Innovation is typically measured as the number of new patents or R&D employment. There are a couple of reasons for increased productivity and innovation in cities experiencing population growth. One, the space required per capita shrinks, thanks to denser settlement, which allows for greater collaboration. Second, the pace of activity accelerates, leading to higher productivity. Three, social and economic activity diversifies, resulting in greater division of labor, and new forms of social expression. These studies also found that economic indicators such as GDP and employment also scale up with increasing city population size. In general, they found that size is the major determinant of most characteristics of a city. This finding also applies to many negative phenomena, including crime and traffic congestion. Overall, practical and far-sighted urban policy coupled with realistic short-term expectations should accompany any population growth agenda. Melanie Bowers Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and Administration at Rutgers University, Camden 
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? Probably the single greatest challenge these cities face is amplifying existing inequality. Inequality is neither new nor specific to growing cities, but growth puts upward pressure on scarce resources, namely space and housing. This increased demand drives up prices not just for homes, but also for commercial space, making it increasingly difficult for lower- and middle-income people to live a comfortable life. In most of the fastest growing cities, we see annual increases in housing prices in the 8-10% range; in very few cases do incomes rise at commensurate rates. As a result, many people are priced out of homeownership, rental rates increase, low-income homeowners face property tax increases they may not be able to afford, small businesses struggle to find affordable space, and goods and services increase in price to accommodate their rising costs. These forces have led to an inversion in many cities, where the poor are pushed out of the city and into surrounding suburbs, increasing commute times and making it more difficult and expensive for these individuals to access employment. In addition, many cities face infrastructure challenges. Virtually all of the fastest growing cities are located in the South and West, so many have historically been small or medium-sized cities with limited public transit, and an infrastructure built for much smaller populations. In the short term, this means that roads and public transportation systems are often congested and ill-equipped to handle the population. Whether a city can fix this challenge depends a lot on local politics -- i.e., willingness to pay for improved transit and new roads -- and geography. Unfortunately, places like Seattle and San Francisco have geographic constraints that make new infrastructure development more challenging, and as a consequence, commute times are very high for the average person, and quality of life is diminished. What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities? There are two key components to growth. On the one hand, you need to have jobs to get people into a city, but on the other hand, people have to want to move to your city and stay there in order for it to grow. There is a lot of debate about how to get the first aspect -- jobs. Traditionally, many economic development professionals have identified business attraction as the key to growth. This has led many cities to offer large incentives to attract companies. The problem with this is that without an inherent reason to be in the city -- a comparative advantage, if you will -- companies often look for the next best thing as soon as incentives expire. To avoid this, a city needs companies to want to come to their city. There are a variety of things that attract companies -- in the modern, advanced economy, one of the most important is a highly skilled workforce. We see this in Amazon’s recent search for a second headquarters. One of the key things they are looking for is proximity to universities -- a highly trained workforce. Cities don’t necessarily control university locations, but they do influence the pipeline of future workers. Thus, investing in a great school system, having cooperative relationships with community colleges who can provide technical training, and strengthening relationships with nearby universities is an important precursor to attracting jobs. This has the added benefit of attracting long-term residents to the city. We’ve seen millennials flock to cities over the last decade, generating a lot of optimism about the future of urban areas, but as the oldest ones have school-aged children, we are also seeing a retreat to the suburbs. It is very hard for prime, working-aged people to stay in cities that don’t have good schools. Thus, if a city wants to grow, investing in its education system is a good start. In addition, allowing nimble, community-driven innovation is essential. There are a lot of tools and theories about economic development, but they don’t work universally. Cities have to figure out their individual assets and turn to the community for ideas and innovations. Economic development tools should then be used selectively to amplify existing strengths. Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren't “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents? Yes. Gentrification is a by-product of redevelopment, but redevelopment isn’t bad in and of itself. In fact, in many places that eventually become gentrified, activists have been trying for years to increase jobs, improve blight and decrease substandard housing, because there is broad recognition that communities should not have to live in extreme poverty. The reality, though, is that when neighborhoods change, not everyone can stay, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. First, low-income populations tend to be transitory and move more often than higher-income populations, regardless of redevelopment. Research tracking these residents in gentrifying areas show that the majority move to similar or better neighborhoods than the ones they left. Second, working class homeowners who choose to sell benefit from an increased sales price that can be life-changing. Almost everyone who is from cities like Denver and Seattle know an average family who bought their home 20 years ago, and just sold it for profits ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Finally, in very poor areas with significant blight, crime, poor schools -- things we almost universally agree are detrimental to the people who live in these communities -- you really need some middle- and upper-income people to see things change. Total displacement is not what I’m advocating, but successful neighborhoods need money -- taxes, capital investments, business buy-in -- and the poor typically do not have these resources. So, the key is to use tools to help residents who want to stay, and to give them a voice about how redevelopment happens. The key then is to redevelop in ways that are conscientious of existing residents. This can and should include participatory planning, and then some assortment of tools like increased mixed-income housing, inclusionary zoning where new development is required to have a part set aside for affordable housing, rental protections that limit rent increases, support for existing small businesses, and innovative community benefit agreements that require developers to contribute positive elements, like parks and schools to the broader community. Every community facing displacement due to increasing housing prices should also develop some type of property tax protections for existing homeowners. To what extent are zoning policies and “NIMBY-ism” responsible for skyrocketing housing costs in cities experiencing population growth? Whether zoning plays a big role in housing prices somewhat depends on the city in question. The idea that zoning has a big impact stems from the reality that housing is like any other market good -- if you increase supply relative to demand, you decrease cost. When demand increases, the easiest way to keep costs in check is to create more housing. If land is scarce, one of the only ways to do this is through high-density, frequently high-rise buildings, that zoning doesn’t always allow. So, if you are talking about the cost of housing in a central city or in a city with limited land, there is an argument to be made that zoning has a pretty big effect. That said, unlike cities in the Northeast and a few on the West Coast where land is scarce, many fast-growing cities in states like Florida and Texas have a decent amount of available land. So, if you are looking at housing prices in the metro area, as opposed to just the central city, you don’t necessarily need high density housing and altered zoning to increase the stock of housing. Further, in cities like Denver, where you have high growth and some land, we have actually seen an increase in higher density housing, even if it is in the form of small apartments and townhomes, rather than high-rise buildings. As to the second part of the question, we see NIMBY efforts successfully keep out homeless shelters and, at times, affordable housing. But, inclusionary zoning and mixed-income development have actually helped overcome these efforts to a degree. So, I don’t think NIMBY-ism is to blame in any large sense. Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so? It depends on how you define “better” and who you are. These cities are often growing because of available employment -- people don’t move to places that don’t have jobs -- and growth and jobs are self-perpetuating -- a larger population has more needs and demands, creating new opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs. This growth is often driven by high-wage/high-skill sectors that pay good salaries and have great opportunities for advancement. Growth also creates a lot of opportunity for middle-skill workers, like plumbers and electricians, who are in short supply across the country, but particularly so in high-growth areas. On the flip side, these jobs are supported by many sectors where pay has not kept up with the cost of living. Think of the teacher in San Francisco, who may be able to get a job, but cannot afford to live within an hour and a half of the city, or the fast food workers in Seattle who, even at $15 an hour, cannot afford rent. The jobs may be there, but that doesn’t mean they are a better opportunity than the same job in a more reasonably priced, slower growing area. John Infranca Associate Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School 
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? Rapid population growth in most cities is typically indicative of a thriving economy and strong job prospects for new residents. However, most such cities face the challenge of providing an adequate supply of housing, at a range of rent levels. Absent an increase in housing supply, rapid population growth will inevitably drive up housing prices, causing hardship particularly for renters and for new arrivals to the city. In addition, throughout the United States, but particularly in older cities, urban transportation infrastructure is in drastic need of additional funding. Boston and New York City have seen particularly glaring examples of this, as an aging transportation system, already operating at or above capacity, simply cannot be sustained without additional funding. In many cities, public transportation networks are controlled by state-level or regional entities, creating additional political challenges for cities, even in cases where local residents and local governments possess the political will to improve the transportations system. Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren't “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents? It should be mentioned at the outset that the empirical evidence suggests that gentrification does not cause displacement to the extent that many perceive. Instead, gentrifying neighborhoods, where rents typically rise at a faster rate than other parts of a city, typically change socio-economic and racial composition, not because of who is moving out of the neighborhood due to displacement, but because of who is moving in. New residents over time are likely to be wealthier as rents rise. Inclusionary zoning is among the more promising models for maintaining a mix of income levels and more affordable housing options in such neighborhoods. Inclusionary zoning requires some percentage of the units in a new housing development to be priced at more affordable levels. In growing cities with significant demand for housing, such programs are often quite successful at adding new and more affordable units. Such units are typically not affordable to the lowest-income households, but are more often priced at levels affordable to moderate income households (with income at, say, 50-80% of the area median income). Other options for cities seeking to address neighborhood change include a strategic use of city-owned land in the area, to provide more affordable housing, and the targeted use of housing subsidies. To what extent are zoning policies and “NIMBY-ism” responsible for skyrocketing housing costs in cities experiencing population growth? Zoning policies and “NIMBY-ism” play a significant role in rising housing costs. Absent more supply, population growth in cities -- following the basis laws of supply and demand -- will drive up housing prices. In too many cities, zoning is too restrictive in terms of what can be built, and the approval process is too onerous and time-consuming. So long as zoning policies restrict supply, housing prices will rise, and the only option for providing affordable housing will be more and more costly subsidies, which cities lack the money and the political will to provide. In general, most cities would benefit from up-zonings that allow significantly more as-of-right development. I will concede that existing residents are right to raise legitimate questions regarding the ability of existing infrastructure, particularly, as mentioned earlier, transportation infrastructure, to sustain increased density. Cities would benefit, in my mind, in addressing these concerns, and enable the increased housing density necessary to accommodate population growth. Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so? If a city’s population is growing quickly, this is typically a signal that employment opportunities are strong and are drawing individuals to that city. In general, as many prominent economists have noted, cities produce significant agglomeration benefits, as the clustering of individuals and firms in large and dense urban areas increases productivity and innovation. Jerry N. Conover Director of the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University Kelley School of Business 
What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth? Some rapidly growing cities are challenged to provide public services (e.g., police and fire coverage, utilities, municipal office services, etc.) to an increasingly large geographic area. Others wrestle with zoning regulations that were designed for a smaller city, and may not effectively address the needs of increasingly dense areas in the city. What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities? A top priority is often to cultivate increased job opportunities for a growing population. Companies consider the size and capabilities of the region’s workforce seriously when choosing places to locate or expand. While some types of businesses (e.g., retail services) naturally follow a growing population, others tend to go where suitable property is available, the costs of utilities and services are reasonable, and government doesn’t unduly get in the way of business. Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren't “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth? What are good models for supporting gentrification without displacing residents? This can indeed be a concern, especially in older neighborhoods, where home values have grown slowly. Such areas tend to attract and retain households with more limited incomes. But in some cases, a trend toward gentrification of older neighborhoods, with upscale residents buying property and upgrading the housing, can lead to rising property taxes that push long-timer residents out of the neighborhood. Cities can identify certain areas to apply local policies limiting such effects. To what extent are zoning policies and “NIMBY-ism” responsible for skyrocketing housing costs in cities experiencing population growth? Zoning policies and restrictions imposed by planned developments can place limits on where affordable housing is feasible to be built. But residences tend to follow opportunities for income. Cities with growing workforces, especially in jobs that employ talented, in-demand workers (e.g., Boulder, Colorado), often experience housing costs that are out of reach of much of the middle class. Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so? Not necessarily. While cities with strong entrepreneurial activity often benefit from increased job opportunities and growing demand for consumer goods and services, the impact on employment depends on whether the growing firms need skills or experience that’s present in the local workforce. In some cases, the characteristics employers seek are easier to find outside the city itself.
Methodology
In order to determine the most rapidly growing local economies, WalletHub’s analysts compared 515 cities of varying population sizes based on two key dimensions, “Sociodemographics” and “Jobs & Economy.”
We evaluated those dimensions using 15 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the fastest economic growth. For each metric, we analyzed data spanning from 2010 to 2016 with the exception of “Unemployment Rate Decrease,” “Job Growth” (from 2011 to 2016), “Increase in Number of Startups” (from 2010 to 2014) and “Increase in Number of Businesses” (from 2010 to 2015).
Finally, we determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its total score and used the resulting scores to rank-order the cities in our sample.
In determining our sample, we considered only the “city proper” in each case and excluded cities in the surrounding metro area. We categorized each city according to the following population-size guidelines:
- Large cities: More than 300,000 people
- Midsize cities: 100,000 to 300,000 people
- Small cities: Fewer than 100,000 people
- Population Growth: Double Weight (~25.00 points)
- Working-Age Population Growth: Full Weight (~12.50 points)Note: “Working-Age Population” includes individuals aged 16 to 64.
- College-Educated Population Growth: Full Weight (~12.50 points)Note: “College-Educated Population” includes individuals with at least an associate’s degree.
- Job Growth: Double Weight (~3.70 points)
- Increase in Ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time Jobs: Half Weight (~1.85 points)
- Median Household Income Growth: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Unemployment Rate Decrease: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Poverty Rate Decrease: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Growth in Regional GDP per Capita: Double Weight (~7.41 points)
- Increase in Number of Businesses: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Increase in Number of Startups: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Increase in Venture Capital Investment Amount: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Median House Price Growth: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Building-Permit Activity Growth: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
- Foreclosure Rate Decrease: Full Weight (~3.70 points)
Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Venture Capital Association and Renwood RealtyTrac.
from Wallet HubWallet Hub
via Finance Xpress
0 comments