Today's post is perhaps a good follow-up to yesterday's post about housing supply in Ontario. Below are a few charts taken from a recent article by Wendell Cox looking at net domestic migration across the US. The takeaway here is that the shift from larger cities to smaller cities seems to be accelerating, following a trend that started before COVID.

The data in these charts is organized according to population and by Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs). At the bottom are America's two megacities: New York and Los Angeles. Both have metro areas that exceed 10 million people. As you can, these two city regions have been losing the most people, both in terms of total humans and on a percentage basis. The goldilocks sweet spot seems to be cities in the 500k to 1 million range.

But the most telling figure is probably this one here:

This chart adds up all major metropolitan areas with a population greater than 1 million, and then shows net migration over the last decade. Here you can see when this trend started (around 2016) and how it has been accelerating. In this case, it does appear that COVID added some fuel to the fire. But the question remains: Why is this longer-term trend even happening?

Is it a short-term phenomenon? Is it because once a city reaches a certain size it simply becomes more annoying to live in it and people would prefer to live elsewhere? Or is it more about overall affordability? That is, if we could figure out how to deliver more affordable housing in our cities, could we stymie the bleeding toward smaller and more affordable ones?

I don't know the answers to the questions. But they have been widely debated and I still think they're interesting ones. If all things were equal (or closer to equal), how and where would most people choose to live? Put differently, how much of this is some sort of natural market outcome and how much of it is a direct result of our actions (or inactions)?

The Guardian is running a series right now called: The next 15 megacities. A megacity is typically (but loosely) defined as a city (or metropolitan area) with a population of at least 10 million people. 

By 2035, another 15 cities are expected to become megacities according to the United Nations. Hence the above series. None of these new entrants will be in the Americas. And only one – London – is anticipated to be in the West.

The first city in their series is Baghdad. The second is Dar es Salaam. And the third, and latest, is Tehran. They are such interesting reads.

I have said this before on the blog, but the pace of growth in many of these cities is astounding. Dar es Salaam – one of the fastest growing cities in the world – is adding about half a million people ever year.

For the full megacities series, click here.

Parag Khanna recently published an article in the New York Times calling for a new map for America. 

Here’s why:

“The problem is that while the economic reality goes one way, the 50-state model means that federal and state resources are concentrated in a state capital — often a small, isolated city itself — and allocated with little sense of the larger whole. Not only does this keep back our largest cities, but smaller American cities are increasingly cut off from the national agenda, destined to become low-cost immigrant and retirement colonies, or simply to be abandoned.”

This is something that I’ve been writing about for awhile on this blog. As we continue to transition to an urban-based information economy, it strikes me that, here in North America, we’re going to need to refocus our governance structures around cities. We’re going to need to place our metropolitan regions at the fore if we want to continue competing with rising powers like China – which, by the way, seem to be adopting a megacity model.

Here’s another snippet from the article:

“While Detroit’s population has fallen below a million, the Detroit-Windsor region is the largest United States-Canada cross-border area, with nearly six million people (and one of the largest border populations in the world).

Detroit’s destiny seems almost obvious if we are brave enough to build it: a midpoint of the Chicago-Toronto corridor in an emerging North American Union.”

I’ve argued for this before and I continue to believe that it makes a lot of sense.

Image: New York Times