One of the reasons why I remain so bullish on cities is because we know that new ideas disproportionately come from cities (typically big and dense ones). Matt Clancy does an excellent job of explaining this in a recent post. In it, he cites a number of studies that suggest density is pretty good. It's good for not only increasing innovation, but also for increasing the diversity of innovation.
One of the studies found that, all else being equal, doubling the number of jobs per square mile resulted in 20% more patents per capita. Matt argues that the reason for this is that density allows us to meet and collaborate with new people. With this is mind, what do you think that working from home (which is the opposite of job density) might do to innovation/patents?
Another one of the studies that Matt cites in his article deals with the correlation between patents and street grids. Denser street networks seem to have a marginally positive relationship with innovation.
But Matt surmises that this may not be because it means we're all serendipitously bumping into each other all over the place; instead a denser street network is likely symptomatic of other things -- namely an increase in "third places." Because if you consider which census blocks have a concentration of restaurants, cafes, and bars, the number of patents then goes up meaningfully.
One of the reasons why I remain so bullish on cities is because we know that new ideas disproportionately come from cities (typically big and dense ones). Matt Clancy does an excellent job of explaining this in a recent post. In it, he cites a number of studies that suggest density is pretty good. It's good for not only increasing innovation, but also for increasing the diversity of innovation.
One of the studies found that, all else being equal, doubling the number of jobs per square mile resulted in 20% more patents per capita. Matt argues that the reason for this is that density allows us to meet and collaborate with new people. With this is mind, what do you think that working from home (which is the opposite of job density) might do to innovation/patents?
Another one of the studies that Matt cites in his article deals with the correlation between patents and street grids. Denser street networks seem to have a marginally positive relationship with innovation.
But Matt surmises that this may not be because it means we're all serendipitously bumping into each other all over the place; instead a denser street network is likely symptomatic of other things -- namely an increase in "third places." Because if you consider which census blocks have a concentration of restaurants, cafes, and bars, the number of patents then goes up meaningfully.
As further evidence of this, Matt cites a fascinating paper from 2019 which looked at the effects of early 20th century prohibition on patents. Turns out that this is a pretty good experiment, because you can examine the impacts of prohibition, as well as compare counties that were already dry (i.e. unaffected by prohibition) against counties that were wet prior to prohibition.
What the study found was that (1) prior to prohibition wet counties were producing more patents per capita (where they bigger and denser?) and (2) wet counties saw a meaningful drop in patents right after prohibition. Previously dry counties went unchanged in terms of innovation.
If you're skeptical of the relationship between bars and innovation, I would encourage you to check out Matt's full post. But know that there is overwhelming research to suggest that new ideas tend to flourish in the big and dense places that we call cities.
The Financial Times is running a series right now on the future of the City of London. In their latest article, they looked at "How London grew into a financial powerhouse," while at the same time comparing it to other global financial centers. It's interesting to see how much of a banner year this was for companies going public. Companies listing on the Nasdaq and the NYSE raised a record $150 billion in 2020. This is compared to about $6 billion raised in London (both the London Stock Exchange and AIM). But what I really want to draw your attention to are the below maps from FT showing the clustering of banks, hedge funds, asset managers, insurers, and professional services firms in London. This is what urban agglomeration economies look like.
As further evidence of this, Matt cites a fascinating paper from 2019 which looked at the effects of early 20th century prohibition on patents. Turns out that this is a pretty good experiment, because you can examine the impacts of prohibition, as well as compare counties that were already dry (i.e. unaffected by prohibition) against counties that were wet prior to prohibition.
What the study found was that (1) prior to prohibition wet counties were producing more patents per capita (where they bigger and denser?) and (2) wet counties saw a meaningful drop in patents right after prohibition. Previously dry counties went unchanged in terms of innovation.
If you're skeptical of the relationship between bars and innovation, I would encourage you to check out Matt's full post. But know that there is overwhelming research to suggest that new ideas tend to flourish in the big and dense places that we call cities.
The Financial Times is running a series right now on the future of the City of London. In their latest article, they looked at "How London grew into a financial powerhouse," while at the same time comparing it to other global financial centers. It's interesting to see how much of a banner year this was for companies going public. Companies listing on the Nasdaq and the NYSE raised a record $150 billion in 2020. This is compared to about $6 billion raised in London (both the London Stock Exchange and AIM). But what I really want to draw your attention to are the below maps from FT showing the clustering of banks, hedge funds, asset managers, insurers, and professional services firms in London. This is what urban agglomeration economies look like.
The Penn Institute for Urban Research has just launched a new initiative called, Cities and Contagion: Lessons from COVID-19. The inaugural piece is a special edition of its Urban Link publication. But going forward, the initiative is planned to include not only publications, but a resource library, convenings (online and offline, when appropriate), and research projects. The objective is to bring together experts from different disciplines to discuss the impacts of this pandemic on cities, as well as the possible responses going forward. You can find the first set of articles, here. Some of the contributions include, "Agglomeration economies are not going away" (Jessie Handbury) and, "There's no substitute for cities" (Richard Voith and Susan Wachter). The titles alone should give you a taste of what you can expect from this first publication.
The Penn Institute for Urban Research has just launched a new initiative called, Cities and Contagion: Lessons from COVID-19. The inaugural piece is a special edition of its Urban Link publication. But going forward, the initiative is planned to include not only publications, but a resource library, convenings (online and offline, when appropriate), and research projects. The objective is to bring together experts from different disciplines to discuss the impacts of this pandemic on cities, as well as the possible responses going forward. You can find the first set of articles, here. Some of the contributions include, "Agglomeration economies are not going away" (Jessie Handbury) and, "There's no substitute for cities" (Richard Voith and Susan Wachter). The titles alone should give you a taste of what you can expect from this first publication.
