A recent headline caught more than a few urban advocates off guard. “American’s Fleeing Big Cities.” According to a new census report nearly every large metropolitan area had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004.
Working in real estate leads to a natural interest in trends such as these. It’s hard to tell whether Pittsburgh can be included in this category. The first question is whether Pittsburgh is a big city to be fleeing from or a small town to be fleeing to.
Folks have been leaving Pittsburgh (along with Cleveland, Buffalo, Youngstown) for decades now, and while there is incidental evidence that people are now coming in, census data hasn’t yet showed that (while the losses continue to lessen).
The reason given for fleeing the biggest cities, high cost, certainly aren’t present here. That at least leaves the door open for Pittsburgh to be a place to flee to, if she plays her cards right.
The conundrum is that traditionally it has been places that people are fleeing to that experience the high real estate prices. Today it’s the places being emptied. About 60,000 people left San Francisco between 2000 and 2004, Chicago experienced similar numbers. New York City lost some 210,000. Los Angeles had losses topping 110,000.
Richard Florida, (fomer Pittsburgher and) a professor of public policy at George Mason University told USA Today that smaller, wealthier households are replacing larger families in many big metropolitan areas.
“That drives up housing prices even as the population shrinks, chasing away even more members of the middle class.”
That may be, but the question of how long can prices continue to rise when people are leaving needs to be asked. In most cities, smaller, wealthier households moving in marks a paradigm shift and poses new questions for economists. It also poses questions for the direction of the markets in places where former urbanites are moving to. It isn’t the working poor as much as the young and upwardly mobile who are choosing to relocate outside major metropolitan areas.
On the subject of trends, there are two other issues that are sure to come into play. The first is the high cost of fuel. What is that expected to do to housing markets? My inclination is it will favor cities or transit communities. Yet the fuel costs probably aren’t going to increase enough to warrant the price of urban Boston. The combination may just make life harder without having a net impact favoring suburban or urban geography.
The second is global warming. We know it’s happening whether or not it’s caused by humans. This may not in itself favor urban or suburban locations, but is sure to favor regions. Where? Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment