Larger cities (let's say 200,000+) where a lot of the population are from the city? (fit in, transplants)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the things I don't really like about where I live is that there's too much transience. People come and go at an alarming rate. What are some bigger cities where a large portion of the residents are people who grew up there?
Buffalo and Rochester in NY are a couple cities where this is the case to a good degree, but both get some transient and out of folks due to colleges, companies, etc. I'd say that many/most Rust Belt cities with over 200,000 people would fit.
New Orleans is a good fit for this criteria. About 80% of our metro population is from here. The 20% on the other side increasing at a rapid pace though.
Philadelphia. It's easily the "most provincial" big city in the US. It has lots of homebodies who grew up in/around the area who stay there and a staggering number who rarely vacation beyond the South Jersey Shore, otherwise known as Philly-By-The-Sea.
One of the things I don't really like about where I live is that there's too much transience. People come and go at an alarming rate. What are some bigger cities where a large portion of the residents are people who grew up there?
You live in a town that is dominated by a very large university. So, of course there's going to be a lot of transience there.
Many other inner suburbs of Washington, D.C. have much less transience comparatively. When you start having your own family this becomes more noticeable.
A staggering number of Detroit and Detroit-area residents have never left that metro. Some transience with higher level auto company people or those connected with higher education, but by and large it's born in Detroit, live in Detroit, die in Detroit. And I am including the suburbs (many of which are quite pleasant) as well as the city itself.
One of the things I don't really like about where I live is that there's too much transience. People come and go at an alarming rate. What are some bigger cities where a large portion of the residents are people who grew up there?
Interesting, while people can come and go too much to the point where its hard to make friends, I would say transplants are the main reason WHY I prefer metro areas.
I'm more of a nature/outdoor guy. I would live in smaller cities, if they WEREN'T dominated by people from there. I find it very difficult to fit in, I feel very self conscious when every is in the "inner circle" but me. Always feel like foreigh exchange student. Therefore I love western cities, because of the wildland-urban interface, close to walkable, hip places with people from all over who enjoy the outdoors.
To answer your question, any large city that are limited in their career opportunities, slow economy therefore attracting fewer people.
Interesting, while people can come and go too much to the point where its hard to make friends, I would say transplants are the main reason WHY I prefer metro areas.
There are pros and cons to metros with lots of transients vs those with more stable populations. I lived in a booming sunbelt city for many years with LOTS of transplants. It was interesting to meet folks from all over the world. The downside was that none of us had a lot invested in the city - we were there only to make money. One outcome of that is that few people really cared when there was development willy-nilly and as a result, the city is actually pretty damned ugly.
Since moving to Philly a few years back, I was struck by the high percentage of folks who are native to the area. While relationships run deep, I have found it open and an easy city in which to make new friends. A refreshing part of the DNA here is that folks are really invested in their neighborhoods and the city in general. There is debate over development to ensure it betters the city as a whole and not just the developers' pockets. After all those years in a city full of transplants, I enjoy being in one where the city pride runs deep.
There are pros and cons to metros with lots of transients vs those with more stable populations. I lived in a booming sunbelt city for many years with LOTS of transplants. It was interesting to meet folks from all over the world. The downside was that none of us had a lot invested in the city - we were there only to make money. One outcome of that is that few people really cared when there was development willy-nilly and as a result, the city is actually pretty damned ugly.
Since moving to Philly a few years back, I was struck by the high percentage of folks who are native to the area. While relationships run deep, I have found it open and an easy city in which to make new friends. A refreshing part of the DNA here is that folks are really invested in their neighborhoods and the city in general. There is debate over development to ensure it betters the city as a whole and not just the developers' pockets. After all those years in a city full of transplants, I enjoy being in one where the city pride runs deep.
Understandable. I would say if I was married, I could see a more stable population appealing, but as a single guy, it would be hard to meet people, and especially date, if there weren't other people moving there that don't have a lot of connections, and therefore have to go out of their way to make friends and join meetups, etc.
But again, in that case, I would go for a small city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.