People who talk about macroeconomics are captivated by the Philips curve trade-off between unemployment and inflation. The thinking has been re-packaged many times but the idea seems not to go away. When there is economic growth, there is the possibility of "overheating" and inflation. So, do something! Trouble is that the theory tells us nothing about timing. So mistakes are made and policy-induced business cycles follow.
Likewise, when it comes to cities, there is usually just one (old) idea. Spread and "sprawl" are costly and must be avoided. Contain "sprawl" and do "containment," "clustering," urban "growth boundaries," etc. Evidence that this is misbegotten arrives almost daily. Look at Newgeography.com. Also look at this morning's WSJ which includes "A Decade After the Housing Bust, the Exurbs Are Back."
Rank the top ten U.S. urbanized areas for all of the recent census years. In 1950, the top ten (in order of population) were New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Knoxville, St. Louis. For the 2010, it was New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Boston. Gordon and Lee report the ranking for all of the seven intervening census years.
Here are number of intercensal rank changes (from the top): 0,1,1,1,2,2,4,4,6,6. New York was always #1 but there is natural churn. More churn as you move down from New York. Stability towards the top.
Growth happens when net agglomeration economies prevail. How do the bigger places retain a net agglomeration advantage? By growing at the edges. No costs of sprawl. Quite the opposite.
Planners and policy makers, call your office. And do read Alain Bertaud's Order without Design.
Likewise, when it comes to cities, there is usually just one (old) idea. Spread and "sprawl" are costly and must be avoided. Contain "sprawl" and do "containment," "clustering," urban "growth boundaries," etc. Evidence that this is misbegotten arrives almost daily. Look at Newgeography.com. Also look at this morning's WSJ which includes "A Decade After the Housing Bust, the Exurbs Are Back."
Rank the top ten U.S. urbanized areas for all of the recent census years. In 1950, the top ten (in order of population) were New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Knoxville, St. Louis. For the 2010, it was New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Boston. Gordon and Lee report the ranking for all of the seven intervening census years.
Here are number of intercensal rank changes (from the top): 0,1,1,1,2,2,4,4,6,6. New York was always #1 but there is natural churn. More churn as you move down from New York. Stability towards the top.
Growth happens when net agglomeration economies prevail. How do the bigger places retain a net agglomeration advantage? By growing at the edges. No costs of sprawl. Quite the opposite.
Planners and policy makers, call your office. And do read Alain Bertaud's Order without Design.
Posts
