This is an interesting way of seeing rental housing rents (national scale). And there's a lot that you can glean from a mapping like this. But it's also interesting in that what you are seeing here is a visualization of some 11 million Craigslist rental housing listings (taken from this study). The authors refer to it as a "nontraditional source of volunteered geographic information", and they argue that it's probably more granular and real-time than what is typically available when it comes to rental housing. That sounds right to me.
This is an interesting way of seeing rental housing rents (national scale). And there's a lot that you can glean from a mapping like this. But it's also interesting in that what you are seeing here is a visualization of some 11 million Craigslist rental housing listings (taken from this study). The authors refer to it as a "nontraditional source of volunteered geographic information", and they argue that it's probably more granular and real-time than what is typically available when it comes to rental housing. That sounds right to me.
The relationship between car ownership and urban density is a fairly intuitive one. Below are two charts from a study by Francis Ostermeijer, Hans Koster, Jos van Ommeren, and Victor Nielsen, showing how urban density is inversely correlated with car ownership. In other words, the more people with cars, the less dense that a particular place is likely to be.
But there's an interesting chicken-and-egg question here. Does Atlanta, which is near the bottom right in the above chart, have a lot of cars because it wasn't dense enough to support other modes of transport, or did the prevalence of cars in Atlanta cause the city to spread out and become less dense? And that is exactly what the above researchers set out to determine.
To do this, they started by looking at the presence of commercial car manufacturers in the above geographies in the 1920s. One of the things they found was that having a car manufacturer in your city at this time appears to have had no effect on population density. But over the long run, rising car ownership seems to have had a sizeable effect on reducing population densities in those places.
The conclusion they draw from this is the title of this post: cars have made cities less compact, rather than low population densities causing people to go out and buy more cars. This makes some sense to me because cities were doing just fine before we invented cars. But like all transportation innovations that allow us to move faster over longer distances, the car encouraged decentralization.
There are, of course, all sorts of possible implications for a finding like this. But the authors specifically mention developing countries where car ownership may still be relatively low. This is something to be mindful of because if you put most people into cars, history strongly suggests that it will impact the kind of city that you end up building.
The relationship between car ownership and urban density is a fairly intuitive one. Below are two charts from a study by Francis Ostermeijer, Hans Koster, Jos van Ommeren, and Victor Nielsen, showing how urban density is inversely correlated with car ownership. In other words, the more people with cars, the less dense that a particular place is likely to be.
But there's an interesting chicken-and-egg question here. Does Atlanta, which is near the bottom right in the above chart, have a lot of cars because it wasn't dense enough to support other modes of transport, or did the prevalence of cars in Atlanta cause the city to spread out and become less dense? And that is exactly what the above researchers set out to determine.
To do this, they started by looking at the presence of commercial car manufacturers in the above geographies in the 1920s. One of the things they found was that having a car manufacturer in your city at this time appears to have had no effect on population density. But over the long run, rising car ownership seems to have had a sizeable effect on reducing population densities in those places.
The conclusion they draw from this is the title of this post: cars have made cities less compact, rather than low population densities causing people to go out and buy more cars. This makes some sense to me because cities were doing just fine before we invented cars. But like all transportation innovations that allow us to move faster over longer distances, the car encouraged decentralization.
There are, of course, all sorts of possible implications for a finding like this. But the authors specifically mention developing countries where car ownership may still be relatively low. This is something to be mindful of because if you put most people into cars, history strongly suggests that it will impact the kind of city that you end up building.
I've only hung out in Decentraland a few times. One of the times was to check out a
Deadmau5
concert, which was cool, though not quite the same as a live show. But I have no doubt that all of this is a big deal and that I'll probably end up at another virtual concert at some point. JP Morgan, for example, just opened up a virtual banking lounge in Decentraland's Metajuku district, called the
talking about how the metaverse is probably a $1 trillion market opportunity (based on their projected yearly revenues).
Here are some other figures. In 2019, about $54 billion was spent on virtual/digital goods. These are things like game skins. This is compared to $42 billion at movie theaters and $30 billion on recorded music. So things that are purely digital (and have a very low marginal cost) are already a huge deal and people are spending a lot of money on them. Last year, the market cap of NFTs also surpassed $40 billion. The naysayers will tell you that you can just "right-click, save as" instead of spending any crypto on NFT images, but clearly something broader is underway.
JP Morgan is of the opinion that it is only a matter of time before the metaverse infiltrates every sector of the economy in some way, shape, or form. Would you agree?
concert, which was cool, though not quite the same as a live show. But I have no doubt that all of this is a big deal and that I'll probably end up at another virtual concert at some point. JP Morgan, for example, just opened up a virtual banking lounge in Decentraland's Metajuku district, called the
talking about how the metaverse is probably a $1 trillion market opportunity (based on their projected yearly revenues).
Here are some other figures. In 2019, about $54 billion was spent on virtual/digital goods. These are things like game skins. This is compared to $42 billion at movie theaters and $30 billion on recorded music. So things that are purely digital (and have a very low marginal cost) are already a huge deal and people are spending a lot of money on them. Last year, the market cap of NFTs also surpassed $40 billion. The naysayers will tell you that you can just "right-click, save as" instead of spending any crypto on NFT images, but clearly something broader is underway.
JP Morgan is of the opinion that it is only a matter of time before the metaverse infiltrates every sector of the economy in some way, shape, or form. Would you agree?
