Tag: aaron m. renn

• Branding is part of city building

  Below is a good discussion with Aaron Renn about how to brand a city. I fully agree with two of the points he makes: (1) Not enough cities are thinking holistically about this topic and (2) tech startups, bicycle lanes, and craft breweries aren’t going to cut it as a strategy. Every city is focusing on that sort of stuff these days. Zero differentiation. Find something germane to your city and start building on it. If you can’t see the embedded podcast below, click here.

  [soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/436104924″ params=”color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”300″ iframe=”true” /]

  2018.04.30

• The Human City

  As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about fluid labor markets and urban density, I thought I would present an opposing view.

  Joel Kotkin is a well known geographer and author. He has published a number of books, the most recent of which is called, The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us. He is also well known as a supporter of the suburbs, which is a somewhat contrarian view in today’s urban-centric world.

  Here is a recent interview he did with Aaron M. Renn (click here if you can’t see it below):

  [soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/257309155″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]

  One of his messages is that the urban core is great for young people without kids, but that we shouldn’t expect it to serve everyone’s needs and wants – particularly those of families. Families need space and affordability, and urban cores are simply not engineered for that.

  Long live the suburb.

  2016.11.19

• The local vs. global city

  Blogger and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Aaron M. Renn, recently published an interesting long-form article called, Rethinking America’s Cities’ Success Strategy.

  One of the central themes is the idea that globalization has caused a kind of bifurcation in cities – a disconnect between the local and the global. In an effort to compete with other global cities around the world, we have begun to turn our back on local concerns. At the same time, not every city has the market power of, say, New York or London.

  So what does this mean for cities? Here’s a quote from the article that I think does a good job explaining the mental model:

  

  At the end of the article, Aaron makes a number of recommendations for how to better think about local entrepreneurship and economic growth. The first one is as follows:

  “Local civic priorities should favor building a successful and inclusive local economy, including entrepreneurship, over global concerns and real estate development.”

  Despite this being seemingly contradictory to do what I do for a living, I think it’s important to note that on a fundamental level, architects and developers simply create space. 

  It might be a beautiful space. A space that improves well-being, creates value, and enables certain activities. But at the end of the day, there needs to be demand for that space. And a robust local economy is paramount to that equation. So I agree that we shouldn’t forget about local and expect that “if we build it, they will come.”

  If you have the time, the full article is worth a read. It’s also part of a broader series on entrepreneurship and cities, so there are a bunch of other related articles on the same page.

  2016.02.25

• Are we becoming more or less entrepreneurial?

  Aaron M. Renn of The Urbanophile, recently wrote an interesting article in Governing called, Where’s America’s Entrepreneurial Economy? In it, he argues that despite the fact that there’s a perception that entrepreneurship is on the rise, overall rates are actually declining.

  The Brookings Institution found that so-called “firm entry rates” have declined since the 1970s and that they suffered a steep fall post-2005. And though millennials are often seen as an entrepreneurial generation, The Wall Street Journal reports that business ownership among those under the age of 30 recently hit a 24-year low. Self-employment has seen a similar downward trend. A study by Economic Modeling Specialists International found that both the total number of self-employed and their share of jobs have fallen since 2006.

  His argument is that outside of tech — where yes, the barriers to entry have fallen significantly over the years — it has actually become harder to start a company in a lot of other cases. And he specifically mentions two industries where he believes that is very much the case: construction and real estate.

  Why is that?

  Well, he cites a number of possible factors, one of which is increased licensing requirements for many industries. But the two most interesting for me are slow disruption cycles and the presence of large dominant firms.

  Real estate has both of those. 

  It’s also a capital intensive industry. And it’s becoming harder for smaller private players to compete with larger institutions and pension funds who struggle with “moving the investment needle”, not with access to capital. Real estate is no longer the fringe asset class it once was.

  In contrast, you have the tech space with fast disruption cycles and low barriers to entry. Yes, you also have large dominant players (Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and so on), but even they don’t have complete immunity in an environment where new ideas frequently trump access to capital.

  A culture of entrepreneurship across all industries is important for our society. I hope we never lose that.

  2015.03.16