For years, if not decades, we’ve been hearing a familiar tale- that anyone and everyone is moving from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and West. This trend began during and after the collapse of Northern manufacturing, and as higher cost of living began to make the lower-cost South more attractive in particular. However, a lot of the South’s growth over the years- indeed a majority- never had anything to do with region-to-region migration. Instead, it was due largely to natural growth (births vs. deaths) and international migration, particularly from Central America. What received all the attention, though, was the belief that people were packing up and moving to the South from places like Ohio and other struggling Northern states. While that may have been true for a while, that is increasingly looking like it is no longer the case.
The Midwest, especially, has been derided as the region no one wants to live in. Despite its growing population approaching 66 million people, the common refrain was that its colder winters, flailing economies and questionable demographic future meant that it was simply a region being left behind by the booming Southern states.
Recently, the US Census released estimates for 2015-2016 geographic mobility, and they tell a very different story altogether. Regional domestic migration in 2016 may have actually bucked the trends.
First, let’s look at the total domestic migration moving to the Midwest from other regions. South to Midwest: +309,000 West to Midwest: +72,000 Northeast to Midwest: +61,000 Total to Midwest: +442,000
And then compare that to the total that the Midwest sends to other regions. Midwest to South: -254,000 Midwest to West: -224,000 Midwest to Northeast: -34,000 Total from Midwest: -512,000
Net difference by region. Midwest vs. South: +55,000 Midwest vs. West: -152,000 Midwest vs. Northeast: +27,000 Total Net: -70,000
So while the Midwest is seeing an overall net domestic migration loss, it is entirely to the Western states.
This could just be an off year, as almost all recent years showed losses to the South, but then again, maybe not. The South has been in a boom for several decades now, and in that time, the region still lags the other 3 in almost every quality of life metric used. All booms end eventually, and the South’s 2 biggest perceived advantages, low cost of living and business-friendly climate, have been gradually eroding over time. As Census surveys show, people don’t actually move for a change in weather, so it’s the economic factors that are going to make the biggest impacts long-term. The Midwest now has many cities and several states that are doing well economically, including Columbus, and perhaps they are becoming more attractive than they have in many years. Time will tell, but last year, the narrative of an unattractive Midwest vs. South was at least temporarily shelved.
One of the more interesting things the Census measures is the population from “City Hall”, or basically the metro population by distance from downtown. The metric measure population at every mile out from the center of each city’s downtown area. Since city boundaries come in all different sizes, this is a good way to compare urban populations.
I looked at the 15 largest Midwest metros for these numbers.
First, here is a breakdown of aggregate population at each mile marker in 2010. Aggregate means that with each mile added, the population within all previous miles are added together.
This is a pretty bad showing in this list. In 2010, Columbus had the lowest downtown population, or population at Mile 0, of any of the largest 15 Midwest metros.
So while Columbus’ downtown is down at the bottom in this list to start, it ends up being a top 5 within just a few miles. Clearly, though, the city needs to do better at getting people in the center.
Columbus seems to hold its own from Mile 2 through about Mile 15 or 16, and then begins to fall back as full metro populations begin to take shape.
So now we know the exact populations by distance, but what about how those are changing over time? Here are the same miles and their total change from 2000 to 2010.
