The 2007 edition of the Milken Institute’s top performing metros is out. Here’s the top ten.
1. Provo-Orem, Utah
2. Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina
3. Salt Lake City, Utah
4. Austin-Round Rock, Texas
5. Huntsville, Alabama
6. Wilmington, North Carolina
7. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas
8. Tacoma, Washington
9. Olympia, Washington
10. Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina
What do you think? Does this list jibe with your own thoughts and indicators of America’s top-performing places?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I’ll have to dig into the study to take a closer look at the methodology and sources, but will some of the top cities make sense (Provo, SLC, Raleigh, Huntsville), others leave me with questions, such as McAllen, TX in the #7 slot.
McAllen is a Texas border town, with crippling poverty. I’ve read that over 40% of the population live below the poverty line.
Bakersfield, CA is beset with high unemployment rates, and hit hard by the foreclosure/subprimne housing meltdown.
Giving a quick look at the numbers, I see that some of the metrics are from 2005 and 2006, which be part of the problem. Many local economies were still running on remnants of our nation’s heady housing boom, and have since come back to earth – hard.
Hopefully, this will be one landing we will all be able to walk away from intact.
b.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I wouldn’t want to live in most of them.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I’ve been puzzled by McAllen TX showing up on some “top performers” lists too. But maybe Bert Sperling is on to something when he points out the high poverty rates. If one looks at percentage improvement in economic and other activity, a poor place doesn’t have too improve much to appear fast growing — one new factory or big employer might do it.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Is it bad that I’d only want to live in (3) of them? Tacoma is nice, but there’s no way you could get me to live there. Have you ever seen COPS? The BEST episodes of COPS take place in Tacoma and Olympia….TRUE STORY!
September 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Very true, Wendy. When things have been very bad, you don’t need to improve much to register a big percentage gain.
This reminds me of Inc. magazine’s Best Cities for Business rankings, which a year or so ago selected Yuma, AZ as its #1 spot. The “study” was based on one criteria, job growth.
I had to shake my head because, to us data wonks, Yuma is (in)famous for consistently registering the one of the highest unemployment rate for metro areas, usually now 15-20%.
Yes, job growth numbers improved, but unemployment has been as much as 40% a few years ago.
b.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
As Wendy & Bert point out, we need to remember that this is “best performing” in terms of growth, not “best” or “top performing” overall. It’s like the “most improved” award in grammar school, which was seldom the top students — and often someone who climbed from an F to a C. An achievement to be sure, but not top of the class material. (To be snarky about it, sort of like being elected Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.)
The other funny thing is how they define metro areas. Tacoma is #8, Seattle-Everett is #17. Everett is 23 miles from Seattle, Tacoma is 30 miles. They’re both suburban satellites. I wonder if they took the true metro area, which would be roughly Everett to Olympia, how it would rank?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Agree, performing in WHAT? McAllen is not where anyone would want to live. And, I’m sorry, but Provo? And Bakersfield is….well, let me be charitable and call it ‘unpleasant’.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Michael, I believe they’re using the standard metros, as defined by the OMB and used by the Census, Moody’s, and others. Normally, there are 361 major metros, but some of them are too encompassing to be useful. Seattle and Tacoma are one, Orange County is included with LA, SF and Oakland, and the NYC metro area is huge, including much of NJ.
That’s o.k. if we’re looking at more regional differences, but many times we use a subset of the metros, known as ‘divisions.’ That lets us break down the largest metros into smaller areas, which may be better suited for an analysis.
Using metro divisions, the number of major metros increases from 361 to 379. For example, the NYC metro is separated from Long Island, Edison NJ and Newark NJ.
And circling back to this study, Tacoma is separated from Seattle as a separate metro division. Though as anyone familiar with the Northwest will tell you, there is one unbroken strip of hodge-podge development stretching from Olympia, through Tacoma, to Seattle, and a good way further north.
b.