We know that innovation and economic growth tends to be unevenly distributed. This is the bull case for living in cities and, more particularly, for living in certain cities. But of course, the big question these days is whether or not our little work from home experiment has proven that, for the first time ever, work can now decentralize.
Well here is a unique study that looked at 29 disruptive technologies over the last two decades in the United States. Using three main sources -- patents, job postings, and hundreds of thousands of earnings calls -- the team traced where new innovations/technologies have tended to emerge and then how they spread (or didn't spread) across the rest of the US.
Their initial findings won't surprise regular readers of this blog. There are indeed a certain number of pioneering superstar cities. Within their list of new disruptive innovations, the team found that about 40.2% of them came from California. The next "super-cluster" was along the Boston-Washington corridor in the northeast with ~21.2%. By narrowing down their list to "disruptive patents", as opposed to all patents, innovation looks even spikier.
Next the team looked at how these disruptive technologies tend to diffuse across the country. This is where job postings and earnings calls come into play. New technology gets created in California garage. Cool. But at what point do CEOs across the country start talking about it and hiring people who are capable of doing things with it? This next figure shows that diffusion at various time intervals.
Now here are the important takeaways. New disruptive technologies clearly take time to spread. However, high-skilled hiring tends to spread much more slowly than low-skilled hiring. This kind of makes sense as you've got a built up and entrenched knowledge base in these pioneering locations.
But what this also means is that pioneering locations tend to maintain their hegemony for quite some time -- decades. The high-paying jobs stick closer to home for much longer, presumably because geography makes it harder to transfer knowledge. This is, of course, based on historical data. But I remain highly suspect that Zoom calls can really disrupt the importance of our superstar cities.
Maps: Vox
The research isn't absolutely conclusive, but Matt Clancy -- who is an assistant teaching professor of economics at Iowa State -- makes an interesting case (over here) about entrepreneurship being mostly contagious.
The article cites a long list of studies that have more or less found that being around entrepreneurs can have a measurable positive effect on whether you yourself might also become one.
There is evidence to suggest that this is true whether you're a scientist working with someone who has previously commercialized a piece of research, a community with entrepreneurial neighbors, a student with an entrepreneurial mentor, or a child with parents who have started their own business(es).
According to one Swedish study, the children of entrepreneurs are about 12 percentage points more likely to start a business at some point in their life compared to people with non-entrepreneur parents.
But as I said at the beginning of this post, the research isn't entirely conclusive. Could a proclivity for risk and independence be instead genetic? Could it be that entrepreneur types simply seek out other entrepreneurs to hang out with? Perhaps these associations aren't causal. Maybe.
But my gut tells me that there has got to be some contagiousness. Here's an excerpt from Matt's article:
...being around someone who has done it plants the seed in your mind that it’s a possibility, something you really could do. For most of the studies, the population exposed to entrepreneurship is a population that wouldn’t normally consider it. For them, exposure has a measurable positive effect.
What this once again tells me is that there's immeasurable value in people clustering in cities, local communities, offices, coffee shops, and many other spaces. It's a hard (probably impossible) thing to replace. And it could be the difference between taking initiative and starting a business, and not doing that.
It was recently announced that the City of London -- the historic town center and primary CBD of the region -- is aiming to create at least 1,500 new residential units in the Square Mile by 2030. Part of its strategy is to convert disused office buildings into residential. Currently, the City has about 7,850 residences, which is a drop in the bucket and whole lot smaller than its 19th century population of 125,000.
Tony Travers, director of LSE London, is quoted in FT saying that the City is really facing "twin challenges." You've got Brexit, which caused prime office cap rate rates to stagnate in the UK, and you've now got the whole work from home thing. Nobody really knows how this latter piece will fully shake out when it's all said and done, but we shouldn't forget the power of agglomeration economies. It's what powers cities.
Calgary is another example of a city that is looking to encourage change. Last month a $1-billion plan was approved to help convert office buildings into housing. (Shout out to Steven Paynter of Gensler who is quoted in the article talking about what makes for a suitable office conversion project.)
What's interesting about these announcements is that oftentimes cities cling to their non-residential spaces out of fear that once that supply gets converted it will never come back. That is certainly the case here in Toronto with its office replacement policies, although many years ago when downtown living wasn't nearly as cool, there was a similar push to encourage more residential development in the core. Looks like that idea worked.
We know that office space isn't going away. Zoom is an awful substitute for in-person interactions. People need to congregate (and tend to like doing it). Urban agglomeration economies drive innovation. Bigger cities with higher population densities tend to create more wealth for their inhabitants. So perhaps the takeaway from these announcements should be that, yeah, office space is vital, but it's okay to do a little rebalancing once in a while.
We know that innovation and economic growth tends to be unevenly distributed. This is the bull case for living in cities and, more particularly, for living in certain cities. But of course, the big question these days is whether or not our little work from home experiment has proven that, for the first time ever, work can now decentralize.
Well here is a unique study that looked at 29 disruptive technologies over the last two decades in the United States. Using three main sources -- patents, job postings, and hundreds of thousands of earnings calls -- the team traced where new innovations/technologies have tended to emerge and then how they spread (or didn't spread) across the rest of the US.
Their initial findings won't surprise regular readers of this blog. There are indeed a certain number of pioneering superstar cities. Within their list of new disruptive innovations, the team found that about 40.2% of them came from California. The next "super-cluster" was along the Boston-Washington corridor in the northeast with ~21.2%. By narrowing down their list to "disruptive patents", as opposed to all patents, innovation looks even spikier.
Next the team looked at how these disruptive technologies tend to diffuse across the country. This is where job postings and earnings calls come into play. New technology gets created in California garage. Cool. But at what point do CEOs across the country start talking about it and hiring people who are capable of doing things with it? This next figure shows that diffusion at various time intervals.
Now here are the important takeaways. New disruptive technologies clearly take time to spread. However, high-skilled hiring tends to spread much more slowly than low-skilled hiring. This kind of makes sense as you've got a built up and entrenched knowledge base in these pioneering locations.
But what this also means is that pioneering locations tend to maintain their hegemony for quite some time -- decades. The high-paying jobs stick closer to home for much longer, presumably because geography makes it harder to transfer knowledge. This is, of course, based on historical data. But I remain highly suspect that Zoom calls can really disrupt the importance of our superstar cities.
Maps: Vox
The research isn't absolutely conclusive, but Matt Clancy -- who is an assistant teaching professor of economics at Iowa State -- makes an interesting case (over here) about entrepreneurship being mostly contagious.
The article cites a long list of studies that have more or less found that being around entrepreneurs can have a measurable positive effect on whether you yourself might also become one.
There is evidence to suggest that this is true whether you're a scientist working with someone who has previously commercialized a piece of research, a community with entrepreneurial neighbors, a student with an entrepreneurial mentor, or a child with parents who have started their own business(es).
According to one Swedish study, the children of entrepreneurs are about 12 percentage points more likely to start a business at some point in their life compared to people with non-entrepreneur parents.
But as I said at the beginning of this post, the research isn't entirely conclusive. Could a proclivity for risk and independence be instead genetic? Could it be that entrepreneur types simply seek out other entrepreneurs to hang out with? Perhaps these associations aren't causal. Maybe.
But my gut tells me that there has got to be some contagiousness. Here's an excerpt from Matt's article:
...being around someone who has done it plants the seed in your mind that it’s a possibility, something you really could do. For most of the studies, the population exposed to entrepreneurship is a population that wouldn’t normally consider it. For them, exposure has a measurable positive effect.
What this once again tells me is that there's immeasurable value in people clustering in cities, local communities, offices, coffee shops, and many other spaces. It's a hard (probably impossible) thing to replace. And it could be the difference between taking initiative and starting a business, and not doing that.
It was recently announced that the City of London -- the historic town center and primary CBD of the region -- is aiming to create at least 1,500 new residential units in the Square Mile by 2030. Part of its strategy is to convert disused office buildings into residential. Currently, the City has about 7,850 residences, which is a drop in the bucket and whole lot smaller than its 19th century population of 125,000.
Tony Travers, director of LSE London, is quoted in FT saying that the City is really facing "twin challenges." You've got Brexit, which caused prime office cap rate rates to stagnate in the UK, and you've now got the whole work from home thing. Nobody really knows how this latter piece will fully shake out when it's all said and done, but we shouldn't forget the power of agglomeration economies. It's what powers cities.
Calgary is another example of a city that is looking to encourage change. Last month a $1-billion plan was approved to help convert office buildings into housing. (Shout out to Steven Paynter of Gensler who is quoted in the article talking about what makes for a suitable office conversion project.)
What's interesting about these announcements is that oftentimes cities cling to their non-residential spaces out of fear that once that supply gets converted it will never come back. That is certainly the case here in Toronto with its office replacement policies, although many years ago when downtown living wasn't nearly as cool, there was a similar push to encourage more residential development in the core. Looks like that idea worked.
We know that office space isn't going away. Zoom is an awful substitute for in-person interactions. People need to congregate (and tend to like doing it). Urban agglomeration economies drive innovation. Bigger cities with higher population densities tend to create more wealth for their inhabitants. So perhaps the takeaway from these announcements should be that, yeah, office space is vital, but it's okay to do a little rebalancing once in a while.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
