Census figures undercut theories on cities’ growth

FOR several years, commentators have said the future lies in urban areas that embrace mostly leftwing political ideology to attract younger workers. Urban centers are in, suburbs are out, and areas that want new residents must adjust to this reality.

Newly released Census numbers undermine that narrative, depicting a nation where millennials are now moving to the suburbs while smaller metros are experiencing better growth than some of the largest cities so often cited as models.

In a recent article for City Journal, which focuses on urban policy, Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox write, “The trend of people moving to metros with the densest urban cores — a mainstay of media coverage — is clearly over. The nation’s two megacities, New York and L.A., are shedding domestic migrants far faster than smaller metropolitan areas.”

According to new 2017 Census estimates, Kotkin and Cox note that medium-size metropolitan areas (those home to 500,000 to 1 million people), “gained 105,000 net domestic migrants, far outpacing the negative 165,000 net domestic migrants for those with populations greater than 1 million.” They note places like Des Moines, Columbus, and Indianapolis are now growing much faster than New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. (Oklahoma City is also among the smaller metros gaining population.)

Nationally, there was a shift from urban centers to suburbs in 2017, with core counties losing nearly 440,000 net domestic migrants, and suburban counties gaining more than 250,000. Kotkin and Cox point out this also occurred in New York, where the city’s suburbs “gained five people for each one who moved to Gotham over the last year,” a reversal from trends earlier in the decade.

The two attribute the shift in part to “the aging of the millennial generation.”

“As members of this large cohort enter their thirties and look to buy houses and raise families, they seek out suburbs and more affordable metropolitan areas,” they write. “Many of the metros with the fastest growth are those where buying a home remains feasible for middleand even working-class families.”

Kotkin and Cox are officials at the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, which is considered a right-leaning organization. But their counterparts on the left have reached similar conclusions. William H. Frey, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, writes, “The new numbers leave little doubt that suburbanization is on the rise, after a decided lull in the first part of the decade.”

Suburbanization trends “seem to be associated with recent improvements in the economy and housing market that have lifted the constraints to suburban relocation among potential movers, including young adult millennial households,” Frey writes. “There is reason to believe the trend is likely to continue.”

Put simply, people will still move to places where good jobs are available and housing is affordable. The supply of both, but especially housing, is more abundant in low-tax, low-regulation locales. In contrast, some futurists have suggested a focus on “artisanal” eateries and similar amenities now has greater sway in promoting population growth. The Census numbers suggest otherwise.

Those who want their communities to grow are still better off focusing more on economic basics and less on the latest cultural trends.