Tag: Best Cities

  • 2009 How We Pick the Best Cities for Job Growth

    By Michael Shires

    This year’s rankings continue the methodology used last year, which emphasizes the robustness of a region’s growth and allows the rankings to include all of the metropolitan statistical areas for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports monthly employment data. They are derived from three-month rolling averages of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “state and area” unadjusted employment data reported from November 1998 to January 2009.

    The data reflect the North American Industry Classification System categories, including total nonfarm employment, manufacturing, financial services, business and professional services, educational and health services, information, retail and wholesale trade, transportation and utilities, leisure and hospitality, and government.

    “Large” areas include those with a current nonfarm employment base of at least 450,000 jobs. “Midsize” areas range from 150,000 to 450,000 jobs. “Small” areas have as many as 150,000 jobs. One community in last year’s top small MSA group grew enough that they are now considered a midsize MSA: Charleston, WV.

    This year’s rankings use four measures of growth to rank all areas for which full data sets were available from the past 10 years — 336 regions in total. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, no longer reports employment detail for MSAs with employment levels less than 30,000 in its monthly models, resulting in shifts as MSAs were dropped. As a result, this year’s rankings can be directly compared to the 2008 rankings for MSAs for the large and midsize categories, but there are some adjustments needed for year-to-year comparisons in small MSA category. In instances where the analysis refers to changes in ranking order, these adjustments have been taken into account.

    The index is calculated from a normalized, weighted summary of: 1) recent growth trend: the current and prior year’s employment growth rates, with the current year emphasized (two points); 2) mid-term growth: the average annual 2003-2008 growth rate (two points); 3) long-term trend: the sum of the 2003-2008 and 1998-2002 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 1998-2002 growth rate over the 2003-2008 growth rate (two points); and 4) current year growth (one point).

  • Large Cities Ranking – 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

    2009
    Size
    Rank
    Area
    2009
    Weighted
    INDEX
    2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)
    Size 2009
    Size
    Movement
    Overall Rank 2009
    1 Austin-Round Rock, TX              87.7
    778.5
    L
    1
    6
    2 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX              85.4
    2,609.6
    L
    2
    9
    3 San Antonio, TX              82.0
    849.8
    L
    4
    20
    4 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division              78.3
    877.5
    L
    5
    30
    5 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division              78.0
    2,102.1
    L
    7
    32
    6 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division              77.2
    1,457.8
    L
    4
    34
    7 Salt Lake City, UT              76.5
    640.2
    L
    -4
    36
    8 Raleigh-Cary, NC              74.6
    513.5
    L
    -7
    38
    9 Oklahoma City, OK              72.9
    576.8
    L
    21
    44
    10 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA              70.0
    1,020.8
    L
    1
    55
    11 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA              66.8
    468.2
    L
    21
    72
    12 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division              66.6
    2,424.3
    L
    9
    76
    13 Northern Virginia, VA              65.0
    1,305.5
    L
    4
    84
    14 New York City, NY              62.3
    3,760.2
    L
    8
    95
    15 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO              58.5
    1,228.0
    L
    5
    113
    16 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division              56.1
    1,696.4
    L
    21
    118
    17 Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY              55.7
    579.9
    L
    14
    121
    18 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC              55.5
    841.5
    L
    -13
    125
    19 Honolulu, HI              54.0
    451.5
    L
    -4
    132
    20 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA              53.6
    902.9
    L
    13
    134
    21 Rochester, NY              53.2
    518.1
    L
    40
    137
    22 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV              52.5
    894.9
    L
    -14
    142
    23 San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division              51.6
    982.3
    L
    6
    144
    24 Bethesda-Frederick-Rockville, MD Metropolitan Division              51.5
    573.0
    L
    27
    145
    25 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN              50.1
    748.6
    L
    -7
    153
    26 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL              49.8
    1,056.8
    L
    -20
    154
    27 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC              48.5
    760.9
    L
    8
    160
    28 Kansas City, MO              48.3
    564.1
    L
    8
    164
    29 Pittsburgh, PA              47.6
    1,138.9
    L
    24
    169
    30 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY              47.1
    548.3
    L
    30
    174
    31 Philadelphia City, PA              46.6
    661.4
    L
    31
    176
    32 Columbus, OH              46.4
    933.5
    L
    7
    178
    33 St. Louis, MO-IL              46.3
    1,341.9
    L
    19
    179
    34 Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division              46.2
    1,255.5
    L
    8
    180
    35 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN              44.3
    898.5
    L
    -12
    197
    36 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA              44.2
    552.7
    L
    4
    199
    37 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN              42.7
    611.0
    L
    -11
    204
    38 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN              42.5
    1,028.6
    L
    12
    207
    39 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA              42.4
    1,283.4
    L
    7
    208
    40 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division              41.6
    1,039.3
    L
    -12
    216
    41 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA              41.6
    2,374.1
    L
    -25
    217
    42 Richmond, VA              41.6
    616.9
    L
    -17
    218
    43 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ              41.4
    1,813.1
    L
    -29
    223
    44 Jacksonville, FL              40.9
    609.9
    L
    -25
    227
    45 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA              39.5
    528.9
    L
    -32
    234
    46 Memphis, TN-MS-AR              39.2
    628.4
    L
    -8
    237
    47 Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division              38.5
    1,024.2
    L
    10
    241
    48 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI              38.3
    1,754.4
    L
    0
    242
    49 Birmingham-Hoover, AL              37.9
    518.7
    L
    -5
    244
    50 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division              37.2
    759.8
    L
    -23
    253
    51 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI              37.0
    837.3
    L
    3
    254
    52 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division              37.0
    3,778.8
    L
    -3
    255
    53 Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ              36.5
    897.2
    L
    5
    258
    54 Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division              34.4
    1,010.1
    L
    -7
    269
    55 Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division              32.9
    526.7
    L
    -10
    277
    56 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division              32.6
    4,008.1
    L
    0
    279
    57 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA              31.5
    1,189.6
    L
    -33
    283
    58 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL              31.2
    1,206.6
    L
    -15
    285
    59 Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division              29.4
    1,093.9
    L
    6
    294
    60 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA              28.8
    863.2
    L
    -26
    297
    61 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division              28.2
    539.4
    L
    -20
    301
    62 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division              27.1
    1,011.6
    L
    -3
    304
    63 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division              26.2
    1,453.0
    L
    -8
    306
    64 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH              24.4
    1,033.7
    L
    0
    309
    65 Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA              21.7
    557.5
    L
    -2
    318
    66 Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division                8.9
    739.7
    L
    0
    335
  • Medium Cities Ranking – 2009 New Geography Best Cities For Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

    2009
    Size
    Rank
    Area
    2009
    Weighted
    INDEX
    2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)
    Size 2009
    Size
    Movement
    Overall Rank 2009
    1 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX                     87.6
    221.1
    M
    3
    7
    2 Tulsa, OK                     85.1
    436.6
    M
    36
    10
    3 Lafayette, LA                     84.1
    151.2
    M
    7
    14
    4 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC                     82.3
    291.0
    M
    7
    19
    5 Kansas City, KS                     81.1
    446.4
    M
    11
    22
    6 Corpus Christi, TX                     80.8
    182.8
    M
    28
    23
    7 Baton Rouge, LA                     79.2
    377.4
    M
    10
    27
    8 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA                     77.6
    180.1
    M
    14
    33
    9 Anchorage, AK                     76.7
    169.7
    M
    43
    35
    10 Mobile, AL                     74.7
    183.3
    M
    34
    37
    11 El Paso, TX                     74.6
    278.8
    M
    15
    39
    12 Huntsville, AL                     74.6
    211.6
    M
    -7
    40
    13 Bakersfield, CA                     71.1
    237.5
    M
    -4
    50
    14 Provo-Orem, UT                     70.1
    188.2
    M
    -13
    54
    15 Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC                     69.4
    295.5
    M
    -9
    58
    16 Framingham, MA  NECTA Division                     68.7
    159.5
    M
    34
    62
    17 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA                     68.2
    321.9
    M
    -2
    65
    18 Peoria, IL                     67.6
    189.8
    M
    3
    69
    19 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO                     67.1
    207.0
    M
    1
    71
    20 Savannah, GA                     66.8
    157.6
    M
    -17
    73
    21 Boulder, CO                     65.9
    166.9
    M
    11
    79
    22 Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division                     65.8
    277.6
    M
    -20
    81
    23 Wichita, KS                     63.8
    311.0
    M
    1
    88
    24 Spokane, WA                     63.7
    215.9
    M
    -10
    91
    25 York-Hanover, PA                     63.7
    182.9
    M
    -2
    92
    26 Albuquerque, NM                     63.0
    393.5
    M
    9
    94
    27 Salem, OR                     61.4
    150.1
    M
    -2
    100
    28 Ogden-Clearfield, UT                     61.1
    198.0
    M
    -20
    101
    29 Springfield, MO                     60.9
    197.6
    M
    -16
    102
    30 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL                     60.0
    189.3
    M
    40
    105
    31 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR                     59.7
    344.5
    M
    -3
    106
    32 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC                     59.4
    314.7
    M
    -14
    107
    33 Lincoln, NE                     58.9
    172.4
    M
    15
    109
    34 Charleston, WV                     57.5
    151.5
    M
    106
    114
    35 Columbia, SC                     56.6
    362.1
    M
    -16
    116
    36 Montgomery, AL                     55.6
    176.9
    M
    -5
    123
    37 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX                     55.2
    163.1
    M
    3
    127
    38 Syracuse, NY                     54.6
    325.0
    M
    39
    129
    39 Trenton-Ewing, NJ                     54.4
    238.4
    M
    19
    130
    40 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division                     51.1
    394.5
    M
    29
    148
    41 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ                     50.5
    340.8
    M
    20
    151
    42 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA                     50.1
    171.9
    M
    14
    152
    43 Madison, WI                     49.2
    343.6
    M
    24
    158
    44 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA                     48.7
    327.1
    M
    30
    159
    45 Fresno, CA                     48.4
    297.9
    M
    0
    161
    46 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY                     48.4
    254.8
    M
    37
    162
    47 New Haven, CT NECTA                     48.0
    277.2
    M
    32
    166
    48 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC                     47.9
    214.0
    M
    15
    167
    49 Asheville, NC                     47.6
    172.3
    M
    -42
    168
    50 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY                     46.5
    446.9
    M
    31
    177
    51 Lancaster, PA                     46.1
    235.2
    M
    6
    182
    52 Jackson, MS                     45.7
    258.9
    M
    -3
    184
    53 Gary, IN Metropolitan Division                     45.4
    279.0
    M
    19
    186
    54 Chattanooga, TN-GA                     45.3
    244.3
    M
    5
    188
    55 Colorado Springs, CO                     45.1
    254.2
    M
    -14
    190
    56 Boise City-Nampa, ID                     44.8
    261.6
    M
    -44
    191
    57 Winston-Salem, NC                     44.8
    214.7
    M
    -24
    192
    58 Lexington-Fayette, KY                     44.8
    253.6
    M
    -16
    194
    59 Knoxville, TN                     44.6
    330.1
    M
    -20
    195
    60 Roanoke, VA                     44.5
    160.9
    M
    20
    196
    61 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL                     44.1
    205.7
    M
    -10
    200
    62 Tallahassee, FL                     42.9
    175.3
    M
    -25
    202
    63 Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA                     42.8
    259.2
    M
    15
    203
    64 Eugene-Springfield, OR                     42.6
    151.7
    M
    -28
    206
    65 Green Bay, WI                     42.0
    166.8
    M
    11
    212
    66 Reading, PA                     41.5
    171.8
    M
    7
    219
    67 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA                     41.4
    192.4
    M
    -1
    221
    68 Tucson, AZ                     41.4
    374.1
    M
    -22
    222
    69 Akron, OH                     41.2
    334.0
    M
    -5
    225
    70 Worcester, MA-CT NECTA                     40.7
    245.4
    M
    12
    228
    71 Stockton, CA                     39.6
    204.8
    M
    -41
    233
    72 Fort Wayne, IN                     39.5
    213.4
    M
    13
    235
    73 Calvert-Charles-Prince George’s, MD                     39.5
    388.1
    M
    -20
    236
    74 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA                     39.0
    412.8
    M
    -12
    240
    75 Springfield, MA-CT NECTA                     37.9
    293.2
    M
    13
    245
    76 Baltimore City, MD                     36.8
    364.0
    M
    16
    256
    77 Rockford, IL                     36.1
    156.4
    M
    -30
    262
    78 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division                     34.3
    345.4
    M
    -13
    272
    79 Lansing-East Lansing, MI                     34.2
    223.0
    M
    11
    273
    80 Modesto, CA                     34.1
    153.6
    M
    -5
    274
    81 Evansville, IN-KY                     32.5
    174.2
    M
    3
    280
    82 Canton-Massillon, OH                     31.3
    169.8
    M
    9
    284
    83 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL                     29.8
    208.0
    M
    -40
    291
    84 Greensboro-High Point, NC                     28.9
    358.0
    M
    -29
    296
    85 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL                     27.3
    164.6
    M
    -58
    302
    86 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI                     24.3
    376.2
    M
    0
    310
    87 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA                     23.9
    283.8
    M
    0
    311
    88 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA                     23.9
    182.2
    M
    -28
    312
    89 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL                     23.4
    162.8
    M
    -35
    313
    90 Reno-Sparks, NV                     23.4
    206.4
    M
    -61
    314
    91 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL                     21.4
    202.2
    M
    -20
    319
    92 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA                     20.7
    230.5
    M
    2
    321
    93 Ann Arbor, MI                     20.5
    193.1
    M
    2
    322
    94 Dayton, OH                     20.1
    388.8
    M
    2
    323
    95 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL                     19.6
    262.4
    M
    -27
    325
    96 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC                     17.0
    154.6
    M
    -7
    327
    97 Toledo, OH                     11.8
    309.5
    M
    -4
    332
  • Small Cities Rankings – 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

    2009
    Size
    Rank
    Area
    2009
    Weighted
    INDEX
    2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)
    Size 2009
    Size
    Movement
    Overall Rank 2009
    1 Odessa, TX          100.0
    64.8
    S
    3
    1
    2 Grand Junction, CO             92.4
    66.5
    S
    7
    2
    3 Longview, TX             90.0
    98.4
    S
    8
    3
    4 Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA             88.0
    97.8
    S
    18
    4
    5 Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX             87.9
    128.4
    S
    34
    5
    6 Laredo, TX             87.1
    91.3
    S
    27
    8
    7 Athens-Clarke County, GA             85.0
    86.2
    S
    36
    11
    8 Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA             84.7
    93.7
    S
    8
    12
    9 Morgantown, WV             84.5
    63.4
    S
    6
    13
    10 Fargo, ND-MN             83.9
    122.4
    S
    18
    15
    11 College Station-Bryan, TX             83.5
    96.3
    S
    76
    16
    12 Coeur d’Alene, ID             83.0
    55.8
    S
    -9
    17
    13 Bismarck, ND             82.8
    61.0
    S
    17
    18
    14 Alexandria, LA             81.7
    67.0
    S
    52
    21
    15 Cheyenne, WY             80.8
    44.9
    S
    6
    24
    16 Olympia, WA             80.1
    103.3
    S
    4
    25
    17 Sioux Falls, SD             79.9
    135.6
    S
    12
    26
    18 Greeley, CO             78.8
    82.5
    S
    0
    28
    19 Tyler, TX             78.7
    96.3
    S
    34
    29
    20 Las Cruces, NM             78.0
    69.4
    S
    26
    31
    21 Joplin, MO             73.1
    80.9
    S
    31
    41
    22 Fayetteville, NC             73.1
    129.0
    S
    12
    42
    23 Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR             73.0
    58.4
    S
    62
    43
    24 Greenville, NC             72.4
    77.2
    S
    -14
    45
    25 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO             72.3
    136.6
    S
    6
    46
    26 Midland, TX             72.0
    71.3
    S
    -25
    47
    27 Gainesville, GA             71.1
    76.9
    S
    -14
    48
    28 Auburn-Opelika, AL             71.1
    54.3
    S
    -23
    49
    29 Columbia, MO             70.7
    93.4
    S
    36
    51
    30 Lynchburg, VA             70.5
    109.3
    S
    8
    52
    31 Dubuque, IA             70.4
    55.4
    S
    28
    53
    32 Iowa City, IA             69.8
    90.9
    S
    10
    56
    33 Warner Robins, GA             69.4
    58.0
    S
    -16
    57
    34 Rapid City, SD             69.4
    60.3
    S
    62
    59
    35 Amarillo, TX             69.4
    113.2
    S
    32
    60
    36 Wilmington, NC             69.1
    142.7
    S
    -30
    61
    37 St. Joseph, MO-KS             68.5
    58.9
    S
    -12
    63
    38 Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA             68.2
    58.5
    S
    11
    64
    39 Santa Fe, NM             68.2
    65.0
    S
    6
    66
    40 Billings, MT             68.0
    79.3
    S
    -17
    67
    41 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX             67.8
    125.3
    S
    34
    68
    42 Grand Forks, ND-MN             67.2
    54.8
    S
    14
    70
    43 Lubbock, TX             66.7
    131.1
    S
    77
    74
    44 Bellingham, WA             66.6
    84.1
    S
    -30
    75
    45 Cedar Rapids, IA             66.4
    138.7
    S
    37
    77
    46 Pueblo, CO             66.2
    58.4
    S
    -6
    78
    47 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD             65.8
    76.5
    S
    77
    80
    48 Valdosta, GA             65.6
    56.5
    S
    10
    82
    49 Champaign-Urbana, IL             65.6
    116.3
    S
    84
    83
    50 Lafayette, IN             64.9
    96.6
    S
    94
    85
    51 Abilene, TX             64.7
    68.1
    S
    6
    86
    52 Fort Smith, AR-OK             64.2
    124.3
    S
    2
    87
    53 Charlottesville, VA             63.8
    100.5
    S
    -26
    89
    54 Ithaca, NY             63.8
    64.7
    S
    36
    90
    55 Pascagoula, MS             63.0
    58.6
    S
    -19
    93
    56 St. Cloud, MN             61.8
    102.0
    S
    -8
    96
    57 Bowling Green, KY             61.8
    61.4
    S
    -45
    97
    58 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI             61.5
    93.9
    S
    71
    98
    59 Hattiesburg, MS             61.4
    60.6
    S
    -22
    99
    60 Waco, TX             60.4
    107.6
    S
    -13
    103
    61 Topeka, KS             60.1
    111.7
    S
    69
    104
    62 State College, PA             59.3
    74.2
    S
    21
    108
    63 Rochester, MN             58.8
    106.0
    S
    23
    110
    64 Flagstaff, AZ             58.8
    63.5
    S
    4
    111
    65 Tuscaloosa, AL             58.8
    96.8
    S
    -14
    112
    66 La Crosse, WI-MN             57.2
    74.7
    S
    51
    115
    67 Bloomington-Normal, IL             56.5
    91.8
    S
    51
    117
    68 Lake Charles, LA             55.9
    92.8
    S
    25
    119
    69 Spartanburg, SC             55.8
    128.0
    S
    58
    120
    70 Springfield, IL             55.6
    111.9
    S
    71
    122
    71 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA             55.6
    90.0
    S
    35
    124
    72 St. George, UT             55.3
    50.7
    S
    -70
    126
    73 Manchester, NH NECTA             55.1
    101.6
    S
    15
    128
    74 Gainesville, FL             54.1
    134.9
    S
    -3
    131
    75 Visalia-Porterville, CA             53.7
    112.0
    S
    -1
    133
    76 Eau Claire, WI             53.3
    82.3
    S
    -3
    135
    77 Yakima, WA             53.3
    77.5
    S
    2
    136
    78 Wheeling, WV-OH             53.2
    68.2
    S
    78
    138
    79 Jefferson City, MO             53.1
    79.5
    S
    12
    139
    80 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL             52.9
    56.0
    S
    -80
    140
    81 Glens Falls, NY             52.7
    52.8
    S
    -11
    141
    82 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA             52.3
    71.9
    S
    75
    143
    83 Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA             51.5
    54.5
    S
    -14
    146
    84 Macon, GA             51.4
    101.3
    S
    69
    147
    85 Erie, PA             50.6
    132.2
    S
    37
    149
    86 Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL             50.6
    73.1
    S
    -60
    150
    87 Johnstown, PA             49.7
    61.5
    S
    25
    155
    88 Decatur, IL             49.5
    54.8
    S
    20
    156
    89 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH             49.4
    119.6
    S
    5
    157
    90 Utica-Rome, NY             48.4
    132.6
    S
    44
    163
    91 Binghamton, NY             48.2
    114.1
    S
    30
    165
    92 Bend, OR             47.6
    66.3
    S
    -85
    170
    93 Nashua, NH-MA  NECTA Division             47.5
    132.5
    S
    14
    171
    94 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA             47.4
    102.2
    S
    -14
    172
    95 Duluth, MN-WI             47.4
    131.3
    S
    9
    173
    96 Florence, SC             47.0
    87.5
    S
    -64
    175
    97 Bangor, ME NECTA             46.1
    66.2
    S
    38
    181
    98 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA             45.9
    121.7
    S
    48
    183
    99 Salinas, CA             45.6
    126.9
    S
    12
    185
    100 Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH  NECTA Division             45.3
    76.6
    S
    26
    187
    101 Napa, CA             45.3
    62.4
    S
    -2
    189
    102 Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH             44.8
    72.8
    S
    -1
    193
    103 Merced, CA             44.2
    57.2
    S
    -27
    198
    104 Bloomington, IN             43.4
    83.5
    S
    9
    201
    105 Sheboygan, WI             42.6
    62.5
    S
    32
    205
    106 Wichita Falls, TX             42.4
    61.2
    S
    -3
    209
    107 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ             42.4
    61.7
    S
    47
    210
    108 Johnson City, TN             42.4
    80.4
    S
    2
    211
    109 Decatur, AL             41.7
    57.4
    S
    -54
    213
    110 Jackson, TN             41.7
    60.6
    S
    -15
    214
    111 Anniston-Oxford, AL             41.7
    52.1
    S
    -13
    215
    112 Ocala, FL             41.5
    101.2
    S
    -77
    220
    113 Columbus, GA-AL             41.2
    120.0
    S
    34
    224
    114 Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA             41.2
    133.6
    S
    11
    226
    115 New Bedford, MA NECTA             40.6
    65.4
    S
    43
    229
    116 Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC             40.6
    112.5
    S
    -108
    230
    117 Dover, DE             40.5
    64.1
    S
    -45
    231
    118 Appleton, WI             39.9
    116.1
    S
    -2
    232
    119 Barnstable Town, MA NECTA             39.1
    93.7
    S
    32
    238
    120 Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH  NECTA Division             39.0
    117.3
    S
    19
    239
    121 Monroe, LA             38.2
    78.3
    S
    40
    243
    122 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA             37.9
    83.8
    S
    -59
    246
    123 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV             37.6
    100.1
    S
    5
    247
    124 Medford, OR             37.6
    81.4
    S
    -80
    248
    125 Harrisonburg, VA             37.5
    62.8
    S
    -63
    249
    126 Springfield, OH             37.5
    52.0
    S
    43
    250
    127 Salisbury, MD             37.5
    54.2
    S
    -46
    251
    128 Prescott, AZ             37.3
    58.7
    S
    -109
    252
    129 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI             36.5
    63.0
    S
    2
    257
    130 Racine, WI             36.4
    79.0
    S
    25
    259
    131 Albany, GA             36.2
    63.4
    S
    11
    260
    132 Peabody, MA  NECTA Division             36.1
    99.8
    S
    30
    261
    133 Clarksville, TN-KY             36.0
    82.3
    S
    -56
    263
    134 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI             35.2
    142.1
    S
    14
    264
    135 Chico, CA             34.9
    73.5
    S
    -35
    265
    136 Yuma, AZ             34.9
    52.1
    S
    -112
    266
    137 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA             34.8
    91.8
    S
    -77
    267
    138 Altoona, PA             34.8
    61.1
    S
    -19
    268
    139 Gulfport-Biloxi, MS             34.3
    107.6
    S
    -75
    270
    140 Dothan, AL             34.3
    61.0
    S
    -79
    271
    141 Danbury, CT NECTA             33.9
    68.6
    S
    -26
    275
    142 Missoula, MT             33.9
    54.7
    S
    -53
    276
    143 Wausau, WI             32.8
    70.9
    S
    -11
    278
    144 Kingston, NY             32.4
    62.3
    S
    -1
    281
    145 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL             31.9
    80.6
    S
    -48
    282
    146 Burlington, NC             30.9
    59.3
    S
    -68
    286
    147 Terre Haute, IN             30.8
    72.7
    S
    19
    287
    148 Mansfield, OH             30.5
    56.5
    S
    22
    288
    149 Muncie, IN             30.3
    52.9
    S
    16
    289
    150 Port St. Lucie, FL             30.2
    124.8
    S
    -100
    290
    151 Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA  NECTA Division             29.4
    87.1
    S
    -28
    292
    152 Williamsport, PA             29.4
    52.7
    S
    -2
    293
    153 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA             29.1
    122.5
    S
    -1
    295
    154 Naples-Marco Island, FL             28.5
    124.0
    S
    -45
    298
    155 Winchester, VA-WV             28.5
    54.8
    S
    -114
    299
    156 Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA             28.2
    111.2
    S
    -20
    300
    157 Kalamazoo-Portage, MI             27.3
    141.6
    S
    -8
    303
    158 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ             26.9
    144.3
    S
    5
    305
    159 Rocky Mount, NC             25.0
    63.4
    S
    -45
    307
    160 Lima, OH             24.4
    54.0
    S
    8
    308
    161 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ             23.3
    48.9
    S
    -77
    315
    162 Janesville, WI             22.2
    66.3
    S
    -70
    316
    163 Waterbury, CT NECTA             22.0
    66.2
    S
    -18
    317
    164 Anderson, SC             21.2
    61.2
    S
    -26
    320
    165 Holland-Grand Haven, MI             20.1
    107.8
    S
    -1
    324
    166 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI             18.9
    61.9
    S
    -7
    326
    167 Redding, CA             16.9
    60.6
    S
    -62
    328
    168 Elkhart-Goshen, IN             16.3
    111.7
    S
    -66
    329
    169 Dalton, GA             14.1
    71.6
    S
    -9
    330
    170 Battle Creek, MI             12.2
    56.6
    S
    3
    331
    171 Flint, MI             10.4
    139.3
    S
    0
    333
    172 Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI               9.5
    85.2
    S
    0
    334
    173 Jackson, MI               4.7
    55.9
    S
    -6
    336
  • New Survey: Improving Housing Affordability – But Still a Way to Go

    The 5th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey covers 265 metropolitan markets in six nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand), up from 88 in 4 nations in the first edition (see note below). This year’s edition includes a preface by Dr. Shlomo Angel of Princeton University and New York University, one of the world’s leading urban planning experts. Needless to say, there have been significant developments in housing affordability and house prices over the past year. In some parts of the United States, the landscape has been radically changed by rapidly dropping house prices.

    Our measure of housing affordability is the “Median Multiple,” which is the annual pre-tax median house price divided by the median household income. Over the decades since World War II, this measure has typically been 3.0 or below in all of the surveyed nations and virtually all of their metropolitan areas, until at least the mid-1990s. There were bubbles before that time in some markets, but during the “troughs” most markets returned to the 3.0 or below norm.

    Unfortunately, the most recent bubble was and continues to be the most severe since records have been kept. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey rates housing affordability using five categories, indicated in the table below.

    Demographia
    Housing Affordability Ratings

    Rating

    Median Multiple

    Severely Unaffordable

    5.1 & Over

    Seriously Unaffordable

    4.1 to 5.0

    Moderately Unaffordable

    3.1 to 4.0

    Affordable

    3.0 or Less

    Median Multiple: Median House Price divided by Median Household Income

    At the height of the current bubble, some markets saw remarkable declines in housing affordability. In some Median Multiples exceeded three times the historic norm. Among major markets (metropolitan markets with more than 1,000,000 population), Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego all reached or exceeded a Median Multiple of 10. Many other markets saw their Median Multiples rise to double the historic norm and beyond, such as New York, Miami, Boston, Seattle, Sacramento and Riverside-San Bernardino. Other major US markets – such as Portland, Orlando, Las Vegas, Providence and Washington, DC – rose to above 5, a figure rarely seen in any market before the currently deflating bubble.

    America has hardly been an exception. Outside the United States, virtually all major markets in Australia were well over 6.0, as well as London and Auckland in New Zealand. Vancouver was the most unaffordable major market, with a Median Multiple of 8.4. Of particular note is barely growing Adelaide, which nonetheless has seen its Median Multiple rise to 7.1.
    But, at least in the US, the unaffordability wave has crested. Generally, the house prices peaked in the United States in mid-2007. Since then the markets with the biggest bubbles took the lead in bursting. By the third quarter of 2008 (the Survey reports on the third quarter each year), the Median Multiple in San Francisco had dropped to 8.0, San Jose to 7.4, Los Angeles to 7.2 and San Diego to 5.9. Of course, even at these levels, housing affordability in these metropolitan areas remained worse than ever before. History would suggest that housing prices in these markets have a long way to go before they hit bottom.

    Other markets have improved affordability more substantially. Inland California markets like Sacramento and Riverside-San Bernardino have gone from the “seriously” to only the “moderately unaffordable” category, with rates now in the mid-3.0s. Data for the fourth quarter is likely to indicate that Sacramento will be the first major housing market in California to return to a Median Multiple of 3.0, a rather large fall from its peak of 6.6 in 2005.

    Outside California, other markets have experienced significant price declines. But some, like Miami still at 5.6, have a long way to go before they reach the historic norm of 3.0. Las Vegas and Phoenix (which nearly reached 5) may be closer, falling to the “moderately unaffordable ” category with Median Multiples of between 3.1 and 4.0. Seattle and Portland have fallen 10 percent or more as of the third quarter but remain severely overpriced, suggesting they, like Miami, have more price declines in the offing.

    Much of the blame for the bubble has been placed at the feet of a mortgage finance industry that passed out money as if it was not its own. Not surprisingly, the ready availability of money had its effect on the market. Demand rose sharply and included many who couldn’t afford to pay.

    But profligate lending practices represent only a relatively minor cause of the bubble. This was missed by all but a few economists, notably Dr. Angel’s Princeton colleague and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugmann. He could see that there was not one “national bubble” but a series of localized ones. The real villain, he noted, lay in land use regulations.

    In reality the bubble missed much of the country – from Atlanta to El Paso to Omaha and Albany. There were house price increases, of course, but they were generally within the Median Multiple ceiling norm of 3.0. There were a few exceptions, but even they did not exceed 3.0 by much.

    Rising demand was not the big problem. Housing affordability remained at virtually the same Median Multiple level in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, the three fastest growing metropolitan areas of more than 5,000,000 population in the developed world. Many other major markets across the South and Midwest experienced little price increase and maintained their affordability. Indianapolis, which has a Median Multiple of 2.2, continued to gain domestic migration from other areas and has a near Sun Belt growth rate. Kansas City, Louisville and Columbus remain affordable and are attracting people from elsewhere.

    Although there are signs of a correction in parts of California, Nevada and Arizona, some bubbles in high-regulation markets are still in the early stage of deflating. New York, Boston, Portland and Seattle particularly may be in danger; the worst consequences of their bubbles lie ahead.

    The longer-term question remains whether these and other still highly over-valued markets in California, the Pacific Northwest, Florida and the Northeast will return to affordability, at or near a Median Multiple of 3.0. The necessary price drops would be bad news for regional economies because of the losses homeowners and financial institutions would sustain.

    At the same time maintenance of the currently elevated prices would also be bad news. In the past 7 years, 4.5 million people have moved from higher-cost markets to lower-cost markets in the United States. The formerly attractive markets of the California coast alone have seen more than two million people depart for other places since 2000. For these areas, a return to historic levels of housing affordability may be a prime pre-requisite to restoring economic health.

    HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RATINGS UNITED STATES METROPOLITAN MARKETS OVER 1,000,000
    Rank Metropolitan Area Median Multiple
    AFFORDABLE  
    1 Indianapolis 2.2
    2 Cleveland 2.3
    2 Detroit 2.3
    4 Rochester 2.4
    5 Buffalo 2.5
    5 Cincinnati 2.5
    7 Atlanta 2.6
    7 Pittsburgh 2.6
    7 St. Louis 2.6
    10 Columbus 2.7
    10 Dallas-Fort Worth 2.7
    10 Kansas City 2.7
    10 Mem[hios 2.7
    14 Oklahoma City 2.8
    15 Houston 2.9
    15 Louisville 2.9
    15 Nashville 2.9
    MODERATELY UNAFFORDABLE  
    18 Minneapolis-St. Paul 3.1
    18 New Orleans 3.1
    20 Birmingham 3.2
    20 San Antonio 3.2
    22 Austin 3.3
    22 Jacksonville 3.3
    24 Phoenix 3.4
    25 Sacramento 3.5
    26 Tampa-St. Petersburg 3.6
    27 Denver 3.7
    27 Hartford 3.7
    27 Las Vegas 3.7
    27 Raleigh 3.7
    27 Richmond 3.7
    32 Salt Lake City 3.8
    33 Charlotte 3.9
    33 Riverside-San Bernardino 3.9
    33 Washington (DC) 3.9
    36 Milwaukee 4.0
    36 Philadelphia 4.0
    SERIOUSLY UNAFFORDABLE  
    38 Chicago 4.1
    38 Orlando 4.1
    40 Baltimore 4.2
    41 Virginia Beach-Norfolk 4.3
    42 Providence 4.4
    43 Portland (OR) 4.9
    SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE  
    44 Seattle 5.2
    45 Boston 5.3
    46 Miami-West Palm Beach 5.6
    47 San Diego 5.9
    48 New York 7.0
    49 Los Angeles 7.2
    50 San Jose 7.4
    51 San Francisco 8.0
    2008: 3rd Quarter  
    Median Multiple: Median House Price divided by Median Household Income
    Source: http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

    Note: The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is a joint effort of Wendell Cox of Demographia (United States) and Hugh Pavletich of Performance Urban Planning (New Zealand).

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.

  • Charlotte’s Expanding Financial Web

    The takeover of Merrill Lynch by Charlotte-based Bank of America represents another step in the emergence of a true full-tilt competitor to New York as a financial capital. Already dominant in commercial banking, the acquisition places the North Carolina metropolis into the first ranks of cities in wealth management.

    Charlotte’s emergence has been remarkably rapid. When John Harris was growing up on a dairy farm outside Charlotte some six decades ago, it was still a sleepy little southern town. “It was a quiet kind of place back then,” he recalls. “We were a stepchild to the people back East.”

    Today, Charlotte is a stepchild no longer. Taking advantage of a traditional Southern sense of being under-estimated, the leadership in this region of some 1.5 million has worked to become not only a bigger place but an important one.

    “The stepchild always has to work harder,” explains Harris, one of the region’s leading real estate powers. “We’ve always known what it’s like to be ‘have nots,’ not the ‘haves.’”

    Like Houston, Charlotte represents a classic opportunity city, a place built by newcomers used to not getting too much respect. While other New York rivals like Chicago and San Francisco could seem cosmopolitan enough to be real contenders, Charlotte has emerged very much out of nowhere, in a charge led by people who, at least before the last decade or so, seemed like nobodies.

    Charlotte’s ascendancy has not been brought about by a well-developed hierarchy but by entrepreneurs like Bank of America’s Hugh McColl, many of whom came from smaller southern cities to Charlotte in the 1960s and 1970s. In the ensuing decades, through mergers and regional expansion, Charlotte has vaulted past not only its southern rivals but traditional banking power centers like Chicago, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.


    Although Charlotte had been home to banks for generations, two men dominated the city’s ascendancy, McColl and Wachovia’s Ed Crutchfield. Taking advantage of North Carolina’s liberal banking laws, these two dynamic leaders spent much of the 1980s and 1990s gobbling up other region’s banks, including the 1998 takeover of San Francisco’s greatest financial institution, the Bank of America.

    In the process, Charlotte basically wiped out most of its major competitors, and now has more than three times the assets of the remaining San Francisco banks. Today only New York stands ahead of Charlotte — and as the Merrill takeover suggests, what’s left of its humbled financial sector now sits in the crosshairs. Like other opportunity cities, Charlotte has the lure of greater affordability to lure younger talent to their city. The top flight multi-millionaire players may stay in New York and Greenwich for decades to come, but Harris and others believe more and more of the financial industry will continue to migrate to their city.

    “People come down here for the cost of living and the weather,” suggests Buffalo native Joe Riley, a recruiting consultant at Wachovia, who claims 50 percent of his recent hires hail from the Northeast and Midwest. “Everyone misses the food and culture, but it’s great to be in a growing city, and be a part of it.”

    Although banks are important, they are not the only major players. Equally important, Charlotte has become home to other big Fortune 500 employers such as Nucor Steel, Duke Power and Lowe’s. Unlike New York, San Francisco and Chicago, which are all rapidly losing their good blue-collar jobs, Charlotte continues to develop its industrial and warehousing sectors. Over the last 15 years, for example, the Charlotte area has added jobs at a 2.57 percent rate, compared to under one percent for New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago.

    Reasonable housing costs and a diversified employment base, notes Harris, allows Charlotte to compete broadly not only at the top levels of management, but across the board far more than a more expensive metropolitan region. “It’s hard to be a mass employer in San Francisco,” he notes.

    Yet, despite the relative advantage of affordability, the financial industry will likely determine the city’s future. Much as Houston has used its port and the energy industry to move from an opportunity to a nascent world city, Charlotte’s business leaders feel that the clustering of financial and high-end business service firms in the area will take them to the next level.

    “Charlotte for years was not quite a world class city but a very large town,” notes real estate broker Louis Stephens. “But now it’s a very fine city that’s trying to be a world class city.”

    The appeal of the area can be seen in the migration numbers. Latino immigrants, for example, feature prominently in both lower-end service, construction as well as skilled trade. The region had among the fastest growth rate in immigration of any major U.S. region over the past decade.

    Equally important, the city, like much of the Carolinas, has emerged in the last decade as a primary draw for people fleeing the high costs and slow job growth of the Northeast. Prominent among these newcomers are a strong wave of educated migrants — since the mid-1990s it has ranked among the top two or three destinations per capita for those with college degrees.

    The popularity of Charlotte among younger educated workers has allowed large companies to find adequate trained staff. Perhaps more importantly — note this New York! — the town has been developing more sophisticated financial firms, including boutique capital market companies, even before the Merrill acquisition.

    Although both Bank of America and Wachovia have been hit by the problems afflicting investment banks everywhere, it would be not be surprising that in the next expansion, more of the action may shift from New York and San Francisco to Charlotte, largely due to its greater affordability. Like Houston after the 1980s energy bust, Charlotte may be well positioned to pick up the pieces even as the finance industry hits the skids.

    “You see a migration of talented educated people from the Northeast and the rest of the world,” notes one native entrepreneur, Tim Stump, who runs his own capital market firm in the city. “There’s increasingly an international dimension here that puts us past the regional playpen. We can play in the national and international market.”

    For all the big city talk among its elites, many Charlotteans understand that their city’s key competitive edge lies not in becoming not too much like New York. Of course, both natives and newcomers alike appreciate the city’s evolving cultural scene, its improving restaurants as well as some very charming, well-maintained urban districts within walking distance of the burgeoning downtown office district.

    But at the end of the day, Charlotte is not New York, and likely will never be. In this sense, history does not repeat itself. What it offers instead is the prospect of a quality of life — a nice house in a good neighborhood, decent schools, particularly in the affordable nearby suburbs, access to the countryside — that has become prohibitive for most in entrenched urban centers.

    “Many people come here kicking and screaming,” Tim Stump observes. “Then they get here and they realize it’s a lifestyle that is abundant and they don’t want to go.”

    “You see people get involved in the arts, the little league, that you have a quality of life where you work hard but you can also be involved in your church and your community. You can live a balanced kind of life here and still be very successful.”

    Joel Kotkin is the Executive Editor of Newgeography.com.

  • Milken’s List of Top-performing Cities Heavy with Small Metro Areas

    The Milken Institute just released its report about the country’s top-performing cities. The list is heavy with the names of small and mid-size cities and also has a good deal in common with Inc.’s Best Cities list which came out a few months prior. The list of the top ten with last year’s ranking is below:

    1. Provo-Orem, Utah (8)
    2. Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina (10)
    3. Salt Lake City, Utah (18)
    4. Austin-Round Rock, Texas (20)
    5. Huntsville, Alabama (16)
    6. Wilmington, North Carolina (2)
    7. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas (7)
    8. Tacoma, Washington (50)
    9. Olympia, Washington (37 in the 2007 ranking of small metros)
    10. Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina (12)

    Newgeography has run several articles about the advantages of small cities. “Why Small Cities Rock” and “Sprawl Beyond Sprawl: America Moves to Smaller Metropolitan Areas” are two of them. For an entire list click on the “Small Cities” tab on the home page.

  • Which Cities Will the High Cost of Energy Hurt (and Help) the Most?

    A high cost energy future will profoundly impact the cost of doing business and create new opportunities, but not necessarily in the way most people expect.

    By Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires

    The New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly and the rest of the establishment press have their answer: big cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco will win out. Our assessment is: not so fast. There’s a lot about the unfolding energy economy that is more complex than commonly believed, and could have consequences that are somewhat unanticipated.

    On the plus side there are some undoubted winners — those areas that produce energy and those with energy expertise. What’s working for Moscow, St. Petersburg, Calgary, Edmonton, and Dubai is also working for the U.S. energy regions as well. Not surprisingly, many are located deep in the heart of Texas. This includes not only big cities like energy mega-capital Houston but a host of smaller ones, like high-flyers Midland, Odessa and Longview.

    But it’s not just Texas cities that are winning. A host of other places have strong ties to energy production and exploration — Salt Lake City, Denver, and the North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks. And it’s not just oil: The U.S. Great Plains have also been described as “the Saudi Arabia of wind.” If the right incentives are put in place, a wind-belt from west Texas to the Canadian border could be produce new jobs, both in building mills and also for the industries — manufacturers, computer-related companies — that will harness the relatively cheap energy.

    Alternative renewal energy producers in biofuels, thermal, and hydro-electric will also become big business. The Sierra Nevada cities like Reno could benefit from thermal; the Pacific Northwest’s hydro-power gives places like Portland, Seattle, and a host of smaller communities — Wenatchee, Bend, Olympia — a great competitive advantage in terms of dependable, low cost and low carbon energy.

    How about the big cities and metros that consume less energy? It seems logical that San Francisco, D.C., Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and New York should have an advantage over other cities and their suburban hinterlands; these cities, especially New York, have higher than average transit use. San Francisco and Los Angeles enjoy milder climates requiring less air conditioning and heating.

    But these advantages are somewhat mitigated by the fact that these same cities often pay far more for energy than their rivals. Electricity in New York, notes an upcoming study by the New York-based Center for an Urban Future, costs twice the national average. California cities also suffer much higher prices — almost 50 percent higher than their counterparts in the Midwest. So even if you use considerably less energy, you might end up paying more. Being a big, dense city clearly has advantages, but they too often are squandered by aging infrastructure, lack of new plants and high business costs.

    One other problem for big Northern cities: colder regions will feel the ripple in local economies as the impact of high heating bills is felt next winter. A cold winter will push northeastern city-dwellers to join the chorus of complaints now voiced by drivers in auto-heavy Sunbelt states like Florida and California.

    Nor is it certain suburban areas will do so much worse in tough energy times. Studies of commuting patterns in Chicago and Los Angeles show that many suburbs thirty miles or more from their downtowns — places like Naperville, Illinois and Thousand Oaks or Irvine, California — have shorter commutes than most inner-ring urbanites. This is a result of the movement of jobs to “nodes” on the periphery over the past 30 years.

    Another kind of area that will do well are those that have well-developed telecommuter economies. In Los Angeles, notes California State University at Los Angeles geographer Ali Modarres, telecommuters are concentrated not only in places like Santa Monica, but also in sections of the San Fernando Valley (which has most of the region’s entertainment workers) as well as further out inu highly educated communities like Thousand Oaks and Irvine. In the long run, the best and most energy efficient commute is none at all.

    So who are the losers? Certainly some of the distant outer suburbs, like the high desert communities far east of Los Angeles, which lack jobs for their residents, and suffer longer than average commutes. Also hurt will be poorer inner city areas where workers have to commute, by transit or car, over great distances. Sadly, it’s many of the communities that have already suffered the most. The changeover to lower mileage vehicles will be particularly tough on those communities that produce SUVs and trucks — places like Flint, Michigan; Ft. Wayne Indiana; and Janesville, Wisconsin.

    But there are also some auto centers that are likely to do better. Just follow where low-mileage vehicles, particularly those built by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and the Korean makers, are either being built or planned. This is mostly a southern play — Tupelo, Mississippi; Nashville, Tennessee; and Georgetown, Kentucky, site of the largest Toyota plant outside Japan.

    Economic change has always impacted America’s communities. But with the current energy price surge, we may find that “creative destruction” may be sweeping through many communities even faster than we anticipated.

    Cities and Oil Prices: The Winners and The Losers

    For most places, it’s hard to tell what the long-term effect of the high cost of energy might be. But there are some fairly safe bets.

    Two kinds of areas tend to perform best in a harsh energy environment. One is the energy-producing cities, whose place at the top of this list should come as no surprise. Another, though it may take a bit longer to emerge, may be those cities that are sites for production of fuel-efficient vehicles. These tend to be located in parts of the country — Texas, the Southeast, and the Great Plains — that have lower energy costs and more favorable business climates.

    Winners:

    1. Houston: This is one town where $150 a barrel gasoline is viewed more as an opportunity than an atrocity. Not that Houstonians don’t drive — like other Texans, they tend toward the profligate in energy use. But prices are not terribly high by national standards and, more to the point, energy is producing lots of high wage jobs here for both blue- and white-collar workers. As headquarters to sixteen large energy firms — far more than New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles combined — Houston, which ranks No. 4 on our list of the best large cities to do business, provides an irresistible lure to hundreds of smaller firms specializing in everything from shipping and distribution of energy, to trading, exploration and geological modeling.
    2. Midland-Odessa, Texas: Houston is no longer the oil production center it once was, but the twin cities of Midland (No. 1 on our Best Cities list overall and among small cities) and Odessa (No. 4 on the list of small cities) certainly are. The two cities, only 20 miles apart in the energy rich Permian Basin, experienced hard times when energy prices dropped. Office buildings went empty, and people fled. But now the big problem is finding enough labor to keep the rigs going. Boomtimes are back — and only a dramatic change in the energy markets will slow them down.
    3. Bismarck, North Dakota: No. 30 on our Best Cities list of small cities, Bismarck may be in the early stages of a big time expansion. It’s the closest “big” city to the rapidly developing Bakken range — rich with oil and shale deposits — and already enjoys the advantages of being the capitol of a state that boasts a $1 billion surplus. North Dakota’s biofuels, wind, and coal industries also make the city a natural focal point for Great Plains energy. As in Midland-Odessa, the biggest constraint may well prove to be the availability of labor.
    4. The Mid-south Autobelt: The shift to smaller cars may seem dismal in Detroit, but it’s pure joy to much of the mid-South. Foreign companies specializing in energy efficient vehicles — Volkswagen, Kia, Honda, Nissan — are concentrated in a belt running from Nashville (No. 18 on the large metro list) and Chattanooga (No. 59 on midsize list) in Tennessee to Huntsville, Alabama (No. 5 on the midsize list). Local universities in the area are also getting into the act, with several cooperating in an automotive research alliance.

    Our list of losers is all too familiar. Basically, these are areas dominated by America’s weak automakers and are particularly wedded to the SUVs and trucks that are losing market share at an astonishing rate. Most fall in states that are strong union bastions, have relatively high energy prices, and get much of their energy from coal, a fuel that’s even less popular with environmentalists than oil is.

    Losers:

    1. Detroit: The center of the American auto industry ranks dead last, No. 66, on our big city list. The Motor City’s legacy as headquarters town for the former Big Three is now its biggest headache. It’s not just factory workers being hurt here; Detroit is where much of the technical, manufacturing, and design talent base of the U.S. auto industry resides. It’s also where ad agencies, law firms, and other high-end business service providers to the industry cluster. All have taken big hits over the last few years, which has led to increased out-migration, high rates of foreclosure and a deteriorating fiscal situation.
    2. Flint, Michigan: No. 171 on the small city list, just two from the bottom, Flint seems to make more and more of what Americans don’t want. In 2006, it made more than 170,000 pickup trucks; it’s doubtful it will see that level of production for a long time to come. And this is a place that was hurting even before gas prices went up. Over 40 percent of all manufacturing jobs disappeared between 2002 and 2007.
    3. Ft. Wayne, Indiana: Compared to Flint or Detroit, Ft. Wayne (No. 85 on the mid-sized list) is not doing too badly. Between 2002 and 2007 manufacturing employment dropped only 2.5 percent. The big problem is the future of the industrial sector. Ft. Wayne made 200,000 pickup trucks in 2006. It’s hard to see many of these jobs surviving if energy prices stay high.
    4. Janesville, Wisconsin: No. 92 on the small list, the Janesville plant manufactures GMC Yukon, the Yukon XL, the Chevy Tahoe, and the Suburban. Although more than 200,000 SUVs were produced at this plant in 2006, the plant will close by the end of 2010. The largest private employer in Janesville is Mercy Health Systems. Being in Wisconsin helps — the state is in better shape than Midwest neighbors such as Michigan and Ohio.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of Newgeography.com.

    Michael Shires, Ph.D. is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.

  • The New Boom Towns

    The steep hike in gas and energy prices has created a national debate about the future of American metropolitan areas — mostly about the reputed decline of suburbs and edge cities dependent on cars. But with all this focus on the troubles of traditional suburbs, one big story is overlooked: the rapid rise of America’s energy-producing metropolitan areas.

    In many of the nation’s strongest regional economies, $5 a gallon gas is less a threat than a boon. From Houston and Midland in Texas, to a score of cities across the Great Plains, today’s energy crisis is creating new wealth and new jobs in a way not seen since, well, the energy crisis of the 1970s.

    This reflects a global trend that is turning once out-of-the-way places, like Dubai and Alma Alty, into glittering high-rise cities. Other energy- and commodity-rich places are undergoing a similar boom — from Moscow and St. Petersburg in Russia, to Calgary and Edmonton in Canada and Perth in Australia.

    What all these places have going for them is control of what Kent Briggs, former chief of staff for Utah’s late Gov. Scott Matheson, once called “the testicles of the universe.” These cities base their wealth not on clever financial technology, cultural attributes or university-honed skills but on their position as centers of the global commodities boom.

    In the process, there has been a shift in the balance of economic power away from financial and information centers like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. These cities are deeply vulnerable to the national financial and mortage crises. New York, according to David Shulman, former Lehman Brothers managing director, faces upward of 30,000 to 40,000 layoffs in its financial sector. San Francisco in the last quarter gave away a Transamerica Pyramid’s worth of office space.

    In contrast, things have never looked better for cities now riding the energy and commodity boom. By far the biggest winner is Houston, whose breakneck growth has been fueled by its role as the world’s premier energy city. As with Dubai, this is less a function of the city’s proximity of actual deposits (though the Gulf of Mexico represents one of the most promising energy finds in North America), than to its premier role as the technical, trading and administrative center of the worldwide industry.

    This prominence is, in historic terms, relatively recent. As late as the 1980s “oil bust,” notes historian Joe Feagin, Houston’s energy sector remained “a colony of New York,” where many of key industry corporate and financial decision-makers still lived.

    Yet, today, Houston’s national, even global dominance, of the energy business is palpable. With the lure of low-cost office space and housing stock, as well as myriad personal ties among executives and leading engineers, Houston managed to consolidate its position as the predominant center of the oil and gas industry. In 1960, Houston had barely one of the nation’s large energy firms, ranking well behind New York, Los Angeles and even Tulsa; today it has 16, more than all those cities combined.

    High wages offered by energy firms — annual salaries for geologists average $132,000 or more; while blue-collar workers make roughly $60,000 — have attracted a new generation of skilled executives and technicians to the region, which also enjoys a far lower cost a living than many other major cities. Areas like River Oaks, Galleria and Energy Corridor are home to well-educated, upwardly mobile workers in their late 20s and 30s. The area is growing at a time when these workers are, according to recent census numbers, leaving places like San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Boston.

    “People from other areas say that you guys don’t make much down there,“ said Houston executive recruiter Chris Schoettelkotte. “[But] the guys from L.A. make the same amount of money in the same field here. We pull them from Wharton, the Ivy League and Stanford and they get paid through the nose… Houston can get the talent.”

    Houston’s status as energy capital is also propelling it into the ranks of first-tier cities. Today, Houston has the third largest representation of consular offices. It ranks behind only Los Angeles and New York, and has outstripped traditional commercial centers like San Francisco and Chicago.

    It’s energy, along with the port and growing airport, that makes the Texas city a world capital. “When I go overseas people put Houston with New York and L.A.,” said Houston salvage entrepreneur Charlie Wilson. “In many cases, Houston is considered to be at the top of the world class because of oil. If you’re in China, you’re looking at Houston because of the oil.”

    But Houston is not alone in benefiting from the rising price of energy and other commodities. According to the new Inc./Newgeography.com job growth rankings other energy cities include Dallas — home of Exxon Mobil –- as well as smaller Texas burgs like Midland, Odessa and Longview.

    This is a dramatic turnaround for places like Midland. Until recently, said Midland oilman Mike Bradford, wildcatters had held back from drilling, because they feared the high oil prices would not last. Now they are convinced that the energy market has broken free of OPEC control and prices will remain high. “We think high [oil and gas] prices are for real — and we’re going nuts,” said Bradford, who also sits on the Midland County Commission.

    But you don’t have to be in Texas to be part of an energy boomtown. Bakersfield, Calif., oil capital, is also thriving, despite the hard times throughout the Golden State because of the mortgage crisis. Alaskans, who now receive more than $1,600 per capita from the state’s Permanent Fund Dividend, twice what they received in 2005, are likely to see their wealth increase. If there’s an expansion of drilling there, look for Anchorage and other Alaskan cities to enjoy even flusher times.

    Another hot spot is in the Great Plains. Energy production and high commodity prices are pacing the economies of regional centers like Des Moines; Billings, Mont.; Cheyenne, Wy., and Sioux Falls, S.D. In Bismarck, Grand Forks and Fargo, N.D., where incomes are surging, there’s a sense that these are the best of times. One sure sign: The energy boom — coal, oil, wind as well as biofuels — has produced a a billion-dollar state surplus for North Dakota.

    The energy and commodity boom is changing the face of these small cities in key ways. Fargo, the butt of sophisticated jokes with the Coen Brothers’ movie, now boasts a first-class arena, fine restaurants, a luxurious boutique hotel and a thriving arts scene.

    Grand Forks has a growing condo market. Scores of smaller cities — like Bismarck and Dickinson – are also showing signs of a new quasi-urban sophistication. After decades of demographic stagnation, some of these towns are seeing healthy population gains.

    Rising unemployment is not a problem here; a looming labor shortage is. In some markets, there are signing bonuses and $12-an-hour wages at fast-food business.

    If energy prices hold firm, and particularly if the nation begins to ramp up energy production, we can see the boomtimes extend to energy-rich Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Louisiana. These can mean more growth in already healthy economies like Albuquerque, Salt Lake City and Denver; but also for long hard-pressed New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities.

    Finally there’s another group of potential winners: areas that have been selected to produce the energy-efficient vehicles of the future. Even as Detroit, Flint and Ft. Wayne, Ind.,– producers of SUVs and trucks — suffer, many cities in the mid-South, like Nashville, Huntsville and Chattanooga, Tenn., seem certain to gain as Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen and other foreign producers ramp up production.

    Perhaps the ultimate example of “world turned upside down” by energy prices may end up being Mississippi, long a perennial loser in the economic sweepstakes. But this week, Toyota announced it would start building its popular hybrid Prius in Blue Springs, Miss., in late 2010. That’s just outside Tupelo, Elvis’ birthplace.

    We may not see a reappearance of the King — but for many people this resurgence is just as stunning.

    None of this, however, suggests that San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York are about to be eclipsed by Houston — much less Fargo or Tupelo. But if the history of cities tells us anything, places well-positioned for growth industries tend to emerge as ever more serious players.

    It worked for industrial cities like Chicago, which emerged from obscurity in the late 19th Century; or later for high-tech centers like San Jose, Austin and Boston. If energy and commodity prices stay high for another decade, we may have to get used to a shift in the power of places across the American landscape.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and the author of “The City: A Global History.” He is executive editor of the website newgeography.com. This article first appeared at The Washington Independent.

  • Where Are the Best Cities to Do Business?

    Our comprehensive annual guide to which places are thriving — even in an economy many consider in recession.

    By Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires

    What a difference a year and a deflated housing bubble makes. Inc.com’s 2008 list of the Best Cities for Doing Business, created in conjunction with Newgeography.com, uncovered some of the most dramatic changes since we started this ranking back in 2004. Five major trends were immediately revealed; trends that are shaping the business environment right now across the country and will continue to over the next several years.

    The list focuses on short- and long-term job growth. It tells us precisely not just where jobs are being created — a sure sign of economic vitality — but where the momentum is shifting. For entrepreneurs, this suggests what may be the best places to locate or expand your business.

    The Bubble and the Fall of the Sunshine Boys

    Since the list’s inception, Florida has been the standout state in each of our size-based categories — small, midsize, and large. But not this year. Now, Florida is the state that fell back to earth. Stung by plummeting construction employment and the mortgage finance crisis, many of our former highfliers across the state are hurting. Ft. Lauderdale, last year’s No. 3 among the large metros, dropped 24 places. West Palm Beach, No. 6 last year, dropped to No. 41. And Jacksonville, No. 12 in the large category, fell seven places.

    The fall, however, was much more devastating for the smaller communities, such as Ft. Myers-Cape Coral. The area ranked No. 1 last year in the midsize category but plummeted 42 places this year. Lakeland-Winter Haven, down 45 places, Deltona-Daytona Beach, down 49, Palm Bay-Melbourne, down 53, and Bradentown, down 65, fared even worse. In even smaller towns, the scenario was bleaker. Ft. Walton Beach dropped 85 places and Naples-San Marco Island, No. 4 last year, plummeted 105 places, the most of any metro in our survey.

    “We’re the foreclosure capital of America,” admits Bill Valenti, founder and CEO of Florida Gulf Bank, founded in 2001 in Fort Myers on the once booming west coast of the Sunshine State. Many of the people that moved into the area bought relatively expensive homes expecting continued asset appreciation to make up for the fact that many jobs in the area pay modest or low wages. Now the area has seen median house prices drop from $320,000 to $223,000 in two years. “Something had to give and it did.”

    Although Florida’s fall was by far the biggest, the housing collapse has also humbled high fliers in other states as well. Last year’s No. 1 among the large metros, Las Vegas, dropped seven places while No. 2, Phoenix, dropped 12; the other big Arizona city, Tucson, No. 12 last year among the midsize category, fell 34 places. Midsize Reno, No. 8 last year and previously No. 1, dropped 21 places.

    Outside Florida, the sharpest pain was felt in California. Property-driven economies in Oakland, Santa Ana-Anaheim, Sacramento, and Riverside-San Bernardino all dropped by around 20 places or more. The big enchilada, Los Angeles, fell another eight places from its already mediocre 48th ranking last year. Almost every city below LA on the list is either a Rustbelt disaster or a perennially underperforming Northeastern big city.

    If this trend continues to play out, California’s problems could be worse than those in Florida. When the bubble corrects, Florida still can boast relatively low costs, no income taxes, and a favorable business climate in addition to warm weather. By contrast, California’s land use laws, high taxes, and massive $20 billion state deficit don’t bode well for the future of the state, suggests Bill Watkins, executive director of the University of California at Santa Barbara’s Economic Forecast Project. “There’s a lot of uncertainty,” he says. “If you are expanding or starting a business, there’s not a lot of reason now to come to California.”

    The Texas Ascendancy Continues

    While California is struggling, says Los Angeles-based architect David Hidalgo, Texas is thriving. Hidalgo just completed a large Latino-themed shopping center in Ft. Worth and sees more of his business coming from the Lone Star State. “That’s where the opportunities are,” he says. “Its costs, regulation, and infrastructure drive you to Texas.”

    Our rankings certainly bear out Hidalgo’s assertion. In many ways Texas has become the new Florida, dominating the top of the list. Among the largest metro areas, a remarkable five of the top 12 best places to do business are from the Lone Star State, ranging from Austin (No. 2) and Houston (No. 4) to Ft. Worth (No. 9) and Dallas (No. 12). Among the small cities, Midland, now ranks No. 1, up 10 places from last year. Odessa and Longview, both big gainers, round out the Texas stronghold on the top portion of the list.

    Texas’ boom reflects solid growth in a variety of industries, from energy and agriculture to manufacturing and trade. “The big difference for Texas is we did not rely on the real estate bubble,” suggests Bill Gilmer, a Houston-based economist for the Federal Reserve. “Our gains are based on jobs elsewhere and that has insulated us pretty well.”

    Here Come the Carolinas

    The other big winners this year are concentrated in the Carolinas. Like Texas, these two states are being fed by varied economies. Certainly, technology companies have been a factor here, many of them in Raleigh-Cary, N.C., which ranked No. 1, up six places, on our list of largest metro areas. Finance has played a large part, too, with Charlotte (No. 5), up 18 places, emerging as the big but low-cost, family-friendly alternative to the New York financial center.

    Demographics are a big part of the story here. Our analysis from Praxis Strategy Group shows that Raleigh and Charlotte, are among the biggest magnets for young, educated workers, particularly those in their late 20s and early 30s.

    “People are coming here for basic reasons and taking their families with them,” observes Sociologist John D. Kasarda, director of the Kenan Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “They are coming for jobs, particularly from the Northeast, and an affordable quality of life.”

    To some extent, Kasarda adds, Raleigh and Charlotte are well-known success stories, but he points to wider, less documented successes in the region. Driven by gains in tourism, logistics, manufacturing, and technology, more and more midsize Carolina cities are joining the party. These emerging players include Charleston, S.C. (No. 6); Asheville, N.C. (No. 7); Durham, N.C. (No. 11); Greenville, S.C. (No. 18); and Columbia, S.C. (No. 19). These cities made considerable gains over last year and should be seriously considered for new business opportunities.

    The Pacific Northwest-Intermountain West Surge Continues

    Like last year, the northwestern quarter of the country did very well. Three of the top 11 big metro areas in the region between the foggy West Coast and the high mountains, including Salt Lake City (No. 3), Seattle (No. 10) and Portland, Ore. (No. 11), all gained ground. This ascendancy was even more evident at the midsize level, with the success of cities such as Provo-Orem, Utah (No. 1); Tacoma, Wash. (No. 2); Ogden, Utah (No. 8); Boise, Idaho (No. 12); and Spokane, Wash. (No. 14). Small cities, including St. George, Utah (No. 2), Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (No. 3), Bend, Ore. (No. 7) and Grand Junction, Colo. (No. 9), also saw gains.

    In many ways, the gains here parallel those in the Carolinas. Places like Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Portland, according to the Praxis Strategy Group analysis, all continue to gain educated residents from other parts of the country. The lure, in many cases, lies with strong and diverse job growth and low housing prices compared to coastal California and the Northeast.

    Seattle continued its strong growth, notes economist Paul Sommers, due largely to the success of two companies — Microsoft and Boeing. These companies have been expanding, providing high-wage jobs, and attracting skilled talent to the area. Another key advantage in this high energy cost environment: the Northwest’s prodigious supplies of cheap and clean hydroelectric power. This helps everyone, from people building airplane parts to dot-com firms sucking copious amounts of electricity to run their servers.

    Some of the other areas in this vast region benefit from what might be called “grey power.” Older, often more educated and affluent, baby boomers are flocking to the smaller towns and cities in this region, bringing capital and, in some cases, entrepreneurial know-how. Like the Carolinas, the area between the foggy Pacific Coast and the Rockies seems poised for sustained growth.

    Revenge of the Superstars?

    Perhaps the most surprising shift in the 2008 rankings, and in some ways the most subtle, has been the improvement in a host of very expensive, highly regulated urban regions that Wharton economist Joe Gyourko calls “superstar cities.” For many years these cities — New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Boston — have clustered at the bottom of our growth-oriented list, all suffering big losses from the 2000-2001 dot-com bust.

    This year has seen the revenge of the “superstars.” Although not surpassing Texas, the Carolinas or the Northwest, these elite cities have made a strong showing. In just one year, New York (No. 22) propelled itself 21 places while San Francisco (No. 29) and San Jose (No. 33) gained at least 25 places, and Boston (No. 40) went up 19 places.

    The main reason for this modest, but significant turnaround, suggests David Shulman, former managing director of Lehman Brothers, is simple: the powerful financial sector expansion of the past few years. These are all cities where big money plays a big role, either financing new dot-com start-ups or simply serving as the places where multimillion-dollar bonuses are spent on a host of high-priced services.

    Yet, Shulman notes, these gains may be short lived. The impact of the subprime and mortgage meltdown hit first in places like California and Florida, and is only beginning to affect the major financial centers. Spurred by the credit crisis, Shulman fears new regulations will limit financial innovation and wipe out whole sections of industries like mortgage-backed securities and some derivatives.

    “A lot of these gains are going to rewind,” suggests Shulman. “New York is losing jobs as we speak. Anyplace with exposure to financial services is going to suffer over the next two years.”

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of Newgeography.com

    Michael Shires, Ph.D. is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy