My latest report has just been released by the Manhattan Institute. It’s called, “Midwest Success Stories: These 10 Cities Are Blooming, Not Rusting.”
The report digs deeper into some of the themes I’ve highlighted here in the past (and also dovetails nicely with the recent McKinsey Global Institute report on the future of work in America). It’s a look at 10 cities in nine states in the greater Midwest that are doing well economically and demographically even if they trail the performance of coastal superstars and sunbelt boomtowns.
The point I focus on again is that these places draw people almost entirely from their own home state, and are not national talent draws in the way sunbelt cities are. This is needs to change if they want to realize their full ambitions as cities – and also to continue their performance as the states they draw from stagnant or decline in population outside of their handful of growing metro regions.
The cities I look at are: Cincinnati, Columbus, Des Moines, Fargo, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Lexington (KY), Madison, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
To whet your appetite for the report, here’s a graph comparing in-state vs. out-of-state migration based on IRS tax returns for three state capital, single state metros in the Midwest and the in the South.
When I first looked at this data a while back, what popped out at me is that these Sunbelt cities are not especially drawing from their home states. Nashville and Raleigh draw fewer net migrants from their home state than any of the three Midwest cities here. So it’s not just a matter of migration favoring short distance over long distance moves (which it tends to do in general). The migration patterns are very different in these Sunbelt cities vs. the Midwest.
Click through to read the report.
I’ve begun to think that perhaps the best route for Midwestern cities is to double down on attracting international migrants, rather than focusing heavily on bringing in out-of-state migrants. To me, it seems more feasible for a city like Minneapolis to continue welcoming and empowering Somali and Burmese migrants, rather than convincing droves of entrenched coastal US residents to make the move.
Granted, immigration is a very politically sensitive subject right now. And I believe it would take a nationally coordinated effort to increase the draw of Midwestern cities for immigrants. Still, when I think about what the Midwest has done best at historically, its at providing opportunities for immigrant populations, from Germans and Italians to Somalis and Chaldeans. While some second and third generation citizens end up moving away to more “fashionable” locales, enough remain in place to make major contributions to the local economies.
“Granted, immigration is a very politically sensitive subject right now.”
This qualifies as a massive understatement. Highly-charged “third rail” would be a more apt description.
And the historic “mass” opportunities for immigrants in the Midwest are just not there today, because manufacturing doesn’t employ nearly as many pairs of hands as it once did.
@Chris Barnett: “And the historic ‘mass’ opportunities for immigrants in the Midwest are just not there today…”
You would think that, yet for example Metro Detroit has a booming Middle Eastern population, now hovering at over 200,000 people. Somehow these immigrants are getting jobs and reinvigorating communities. I think born and raised Midwesterners like myself can get a distorted view of the Midwest. Being mediocre nationally can still mean we’re pretty good internationally. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP), Cleveland has a higher GDP than Copenhagen or Vienna. Detroit has a higher GDP than Moscow (keep in mind I’m using the city names as placeholders for entire metropolitan areas).
While Cleveland and Detroit may seem like dead ends for some professionals, for many immigrants there are still a lot of opportunities to be had.
I haven’t read the report yet, but it does strike me that in the Midwest you seem to have about one city in each state that is doing fairly well, while the rest of the state suffers. I think you see that in Aaron’s list of cities he chose to review. You could add Omaha and maybe swap Louisville for Lexington. I might subtract Cincinnati-to me it’s more stable than growing (again not yet having read the reports). But those are quibbles Overall it seems that there’s one city per State that is the in-state magnet for people that want to leave their hometown but don’t want to actually leave the state for the south, a major coastal city or Chicago (unless you’re in Illinois).
That matches up with the data showing growing Midwest cities are adding in-state migrants but losers in out-of-state migration. This is significant because as Aaron points out unless these cities can break out of their state-centric growth models, eventually they will likely hit a wall.
How do you do that? Well you’re not going to attract the people who want sunny warm weather or significant geologic features like oceans or mountains. You’re urbanized and cheap, but that’s not helping the rest of the Midwest. So you have to find a way to stand out from the crowd. Find an economic niche which will actually draw people from out of state, until you can build a brand that says “move here if you want “x” even though I don’t have the amenities, weather or natural features of a coastal or sunbelt city.”
That last sentence I think sums up the brutal truth for Midwest cities. There is no feasible way for them to ever compete with the amenities of coastal or sunbelt cities (with maybe Chicago as the only exception due to its size). There is no policy that will ever give them anything as nice as California’s weather, beaches, and mountains. NYC, Boston, and DC will always outclass the Midwest in terms of job opportunities and urban amenities, not because of brilliant policies or branding, but simply because of accidents of history and geography. Detroit perhaps come closest to something unique by selling its destitution; it is the place so poor that you can live on so little money that you can pursue ambitions there that may never bring much, if any money.
California’s climate is becoming expensive for governments, home owners, and insurance companies. No city is entirely an ‘accident.’ Boston and New York are the product of intentional efforts to build their social, cultural, physical, and economic structures.
Up to the 1950s, Atlanta grew on migration from the Southeast. From the 1960s onward, people began to arrive from beyond the Southeast. The earlier era’s development support the later development. Nashville, Charlotte, and Houston followed similar patterns to draw from beyond the Southeast, Midwestern cities can do the same. It’s a long game and takes decades, but they could build themselves into something that attracts those leaving the coastal metros looking for cheaper smaller metros that still have superior public services and urban forms than those found in the South.
Matt, I agree. Yes, the Midwest cities compare poorly on many amenities vs. the coasts, but Midwest cities are very competitive vs. the Sunbelt. Other than weather, Nashville on net has nothing on Columbus, for example.
You mean Nashville on net has nothing on Columbus beside being the home of the Country Music industry, right? That is head and shoulders above being the home of TOSU, or of Batelle, or of Nationwide.
That industry helped create and sustain the out-of-region draw, IMO.
Until fairly recently, country music was a negative for the region. Even today, you don’t see coastal dwellers listening to it.
Obviously country music is an asset, but all of the Midwest cities have their own assets that the Nashville’s of this world don’t have.
Country has been mainstream for at least 20 years, and Nashville is the epicenter. It was their “whitespace” and they now own it.
Your data show that similarly sized Midwest metros lack Nashville’s regional/national distinction (and thus, regional/national population attraction). This is despite more/better pro sports, legacy businesses, legacy institutions, and high culture in those other metros
I believe there’s a simple answer to “what, besides climate, does Nashville have that competing mid-continent metros don’t?”.
True, although Nashville isn’t flat as a washboard. That was one of the most jarring immediate changes for me going from New England to Columbus-how flat and un-tree’d (outside of the central city) it was. Tennessee is a pretty, partly-mountainous State, although I’ve never been to Nashville itself. But my son went on a mission trip and to his 14-year old brain it was memorable. He said “We saw downtown, we were on top of a mountain and it was right there, but it took 45 minutes to get down the mountain and into downtown!” Now “mountain” is relative, since he’s a flatlander, but he’s said that numerous times, so clearly the setting had an impact on him.
Don’t dismiss the weather either. Columbus was just ranked as one of the 10 gloomiest cities in the U.S. I can say it’s much cloudier in the winter than New England! It has an impact.
These aren’t major things, and I agree that you can compare Nashville and Columbus analytically and not see a major difference, but the visceral first reaction can make a big difference. My guess is that Nashville comes off better at first blush.
Heck, my sister’s family came in from NY over the summer and we went to a Cleveland Indians game. As we drove into downtown my brother-in-law exclaims “Oh this is a real city!” So some of the impression depends on where you’re from and what you’re looking for.
I haven’t been to the coasts much, but tons of people around Chicago and in Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. listen to country music. Southern culture in general is pretty trendy right now and anecdotally I’d consider it a draw for some Midwesterners, “Southern culture” meaning anything from “I get to wear cute boots” to “country music and whiskey” to “certain folk know their place down there.”
I agree that Nashville’s countryside is prettier to look at; I’d also add that the city is better sited for weekend warriors than most places in the Midwest. You’re not going to see the Great Smokies out your window but they’re a lot closer than, say, Indianapolis. I’m only half-joking when I say that techies (really anyone with the agency to move wherever they feel like in the country) won’t go anywhere without mountains.
Something else that hasn’t come up is that Tennessee has no state income tax. The largest group of Chicagoans I see moving down there are semi-retired Boomers who’ve worked out a scheme to not pay taxes on income derived from Chicagoland. Columbus can turn its nose up at Cleveland and vote for union-busting neoliberal governors, but it’s still the capital of Ohio.
Many of Nashville’s companies are “legacies’ of other cities. They moved to Nashville to lower their costs, but they weren’t created there. They are literally the ‘legacy’ of NYC, Chicago, etc. transplanted to Nashville.
Country going mainstream is as preposterous as Polka going mainstream, except it actually happened.
Weather and topography are both significant challenges for Columbus but they are not insurmountable. There have to be certain, marketable sports or outdoor activities that are more conducive to, or at least neutral in regards to, flat land and can be enjoyed in cooler weather.
Much of the outmigration from Columbus, for example, is people who previously came to Columbus for that first job, first internship, first degree, first relationship even. Columbus is their stepping stone to the big time. The outmigration is ,ironically, part of the appeal for the in-migration. People come to Columbus to gain something specific and then take that experience, connections, relationships, etc to the next stage of their ‘life plan.’ Columbus’ ability to provide such experiences cheaply and easily is why many come to Columbus in the first place. If Columbus only provided dead end jobs that did not lead to something more and people got ‘stuck’ there, no ambitious people would come in the first place….it’d be like the City That Shall Not Be Named.
When did Nashville become a Sunbelt city? The weather is very similar to Louisville…maybe a few degrees difference. Also, Ky is mostly referenced as a Southern state….it’s cities are also ‘southern’.
I have lived in both Columbus and Nashville. Columbus, despite ranking a distant #3 behind Cleveland and Cincinnati in this regard, is infinitely more walkable than Nashville and has real, live, and fully-functioning historic 19th century & early 1900s neighborhoods. Nashville is devoid of pretty much any walkability, has almost zero historic buildings, doesn’t have real neighborhoods, is situated on an ugly and unimpressive river, and its rural surroundings are no more attractive than those found just outside any of Ohio’s cities. Many outsiders seem to think that Nashville is right next to the Smoky Mountains when in fact the park is a 5+ hour drive away, or the same travel time from…Ohio.
Check your map again, Jake. Nashville to Gatlinburg is 220 miles, under 4 hours. Cincinnati to Gatlinburg is 291 miles, about 5 hours…and that’s the closest Ohio city. Columbus is 7 hours.
(In all fairness, Columbus is about 4 hours from the New River Gorge area of West Virginia.
Cleveland has beaches and is only a couple of hours from the mountains of WPA and NY Southern Tier. And Cincinnati is most definitely not Midwest Flat.)
Multi-hour backups on I-40 on the Cumberland Plateau are commonplace and not much of I-40 between Nashville and Knoxville has been widened to six lanes. By comparison, the entirety of I-75 south from the Ohio River to Corbin has been widened to six lanes, eliminating most backups with the obviously exception of Jellico Mountain, which is still four lanes.
Jellico is a pain, and we usually use US 25 to avoid the congestion…even if 75 clears and is faster, 25 is more sane with fewer idiots climbing up your rear. Those who think Nashville music is only the Grand Ole Opry know little about County and Western music, Nashville or music in general. Nashville is a fun town. As for Harvey’s “certain people know their place” remark, I’d suggest he keep to his Northeastern corridor life…bless his heart. Southern hospitality, charm and manners extend to everyone–people of every color & creed seem more polite and friendly the further from the eastern metros.
With all due respect, Chicago is not Northeastern – it may be coastal in the limnological sense – and we don’t need to sugarcoat “jagoff” with whimsical faux-concern.
That said, it does seem to be a largely white cohort – ranging from bungalow belt holdouts to collar county suburban late boomers that are headed to Tennessee and, irony of all ironies, a lot of public-sector retirees getting all they can from generous years-of-work/highest average salary provisions permissible in Illinois. So yeah, I think it might be a group that might not want to deal with demos in the deeper South and in erstwhile traditional IL retirement hotbeds e.g. FL, AZ, and NV. Tennessee, along with Arkansas the Carolinas (South C. is more retiree, North C. is slightly more working age) fill that growing niche.
As a tourist, I found Chicagoans much friendlier than Nashvillians.
My comment was about non-Southerners who move to the South pursuing a shallow, romantic ideal of “Southern culture,” and one of those fantasies involves a Jim Crow-era social order. It’s not necessarily a comment on any native Southerner living today that some radicalized, ill-informed white Northerners show up expecting to find Bull Connor still running the show.
That said, I’ve worked a couple jobs where I provided phone support for a back office or warehouse in Tennessee, and there was ALWAYS some belligerent white guy down there who would try to pull rank or establish dominance over me. It’s bizarre. I’ve never encountered that kind of aggressive caste assertion in any other region, but independently it keeps cropping up from Tennessee. FWIW I’m also white with a giveaway regional accent.
People from northern and rust belt cities are fleeing racial and ethnic diversity when they move to Nashville, Atlanta, or Charlotte? Have you been to these cities?
Ohio actually does have a variety of landscapes. Hocking Hills an hour southeast of Columbus is a good example. Beautiful area with limestone outcroppings carved into steep gorges, waterfalls and recess caves. While it’s not New River or the Smokies, it is very nice for a quick weekend getaway. So is Lake Erie. So the reputation is worse than the reality. Or course, if mountain climbing or surfing is your thing, well…
Appalachian Ohio is beautiful country…my roots are there and I’ve been visiting and exploring different parts of it all my life.
I think people vastly over rate the importance of urban amenities and under rate the importance of winter temperatures in analyzing why the Sunbelt is booming and the Midwest is not. In all of the metro areas of the US, the majority of the population lives in suburban areas, not in dense, walkable, amenity filled urban areas. So for most people, the question isn’t whether they are going to live in downtown Cleveland or downtown Orlando (does Orlando have a downtown?), but rather if they will live in suburban Cleveland or suburban Orlando (or Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc.). In which case, those urban amenities just don’t matter; how often does one go to a show or a fancy restaurant downtown? Not half as often as most people take a walk outside somewhere.
For the West and NE coasts, I think that people are there mostly for career or family reasons, not for the amenities. Some are there for the amenities, but again, most people live in the suburbs , drive their car everywhere, and don’t go to shows but every once in while. Maybe it is a bit different on the West coast with people going to the beach or hiking or skiing in the mountains. The sunbelt is full of people from California and NY and Boston who, having established their careers, realized they could live better in the Sunbelt suburbs than in the suburbs of the coasts.
People move to the sunbelt for the weather but sit inside watching TV just as much as people in the north.
People move to the sunbelt for low taxes, less government regulation, and to participate in the changing geographic distribution of capital in America. The rest is just rationalization after the fact. If Michigan had no income tax, texas-style low regulation, and a record of providing the highest returns on real estate investment in the recent years, Detroit would be attracting much of this investment.
No. people move to the sunbelt for bigger, newer cheaper housing, job opportunities, and, in some cases, lower taxes (have you looked at the mill rates in Texas suburbs? Few beyond the ownership class even think of “participating in the changing distribution of capital” other than “hey….I wanna work for this company which happens to be in Plano. Does the average suburbanite in Plano or The Woodlands even want “less regulation”? The private CC&Rs in Houston metro can be pretty rigid, and Plano is a typical heavy handed uppoer middle class suburb. Unless by lower regulations you mean merely “the FREEDUMB to dump my company’s toxins in the river and stiff the employees on their overtime pay”.
Almost everyone in America “participates in the distribution of capital.” That’s what makes our economy function. The only exception would be self-sufficient hermits!
Land use, business activities, labor regulations, and many other things are much less regulated in southern states. These things are why many large businesses are there at all. They certainly aren’t there to get access to a deep pool of highly educated high-skill professionals. They have to import those from other regions. What you may personally think about this fact, is another matter entirely.
Statistically, I think this is untrue. People are much more “active” outdoors in places like L.A, the Bay Area, Colorado, Seattle. But it depends strongly on your definition of “The Sunbelt”. I would bet few people are outdoors much in the humidity of the Deep South or East Texas. The Midwest has the worst of both worlds….draining humidity during the summers (when it is not raining) and enervating cold during the winters.
You can’t be active outdoors in the summer in much of the southeast..the heat and humidity are intense.
I said that very thing. It depends on your definition of “The Sunbelt”.
I agree with P Burgos.
(This is an old point of contention on this blog…probably going back 10 years.)
Depends on your definition of “live better”. “Have a five bedroom McMansion for my family of three in a flat, treeless Texas suburb and attend a Megachurch by the freeway with easy parking” may work for some people.
That isn’t only a Texas suburban phenomenon.
No, but it is archetype. 🙂 (Suburban Nashville, for instance, is very “pretty” and wooded. As is Atlanta.