Tag: aaron renn

• How superstar cities can continue to scale

  Aaron Renn’s latest article in the Manhattan Institute is about how America’s top cities can “grow to new heights.” Usually when we talk about urban problems, it is because of failures. But in this case, it is about problems of success (though I suppose you could argue these are still failures).

  Cities such as New York and San Francisco have, in his view, stopped thinking like growth cities and that is leading to high home prices and overburdened infrastructure. But we all know that these problems are not unique to only “superstar cities.”

  Not surprisingly, Aaron argues that we need to stop implementing land use policies that only exacerbate our housing supply problems. Things like rent control and inclusionary zoning. And in some cases, it may be time for states to start intervening in local planning decisions.

  For the full article, click here.

  2020.02.10

• HQ2 isn’t coming to Toronto

  So I was wrong. Amazon didn’t pick Toronto for HQ2. It instead picked Crystal City, Virginia (Washington) and Long Island City, NY (New York City). More on that, here, in the NY Times. Confession: My prognostication was at least partially about trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  In any event, it’s interesting to consider the locations that they did pick – as well as the fact that they ended up picking multiple cities. This was not part of their RFP. Though, many have convincingly argued that this process was over before it even began. HQ2 was always going to end up on the east coast, near one of Bezos’ homes.

  Nevertheless, urbanists such as Aaron Renn took the announcement as a direct repudiation of the American heartland. He believed that Amazon would be far more cost conscious in their decision making and ultimately elect for a lower cost locale in the middle of the country. Instead, the coastal hegemony won out. 

  Joe Cortright of City Observatory correctly predicted that Amazon would, for a few reasons, parlay their HQ2 search into multiple smaller locations (HQ2, HQ3, and so on). One of the reasons for this is that it gives the company more leverage when it comes negotiating subsidies on a go-forward basis. If NYC doesn’t want our next round of hires, we’ll take them to Washington.

  Looking at the locations, one of the first things I noticed is that both are just outside of their respective “downtowns” (across a body of water), as well as adjacent or on the way to an international airport. Crystal City is across the street from DCA and Long Island City is a 15 minute drive from LGA. Both are situated on top of higher order transit. Makes sense to me.

  Now, who wants HQ4?

  2018.11.07

• The new donut

  Years ago Aaron Renn coined an urban paradigm that he labeled “the new donut.” The old donut, of course, is one that many of you will know well: poor downtown (hole in the donut) and wealthy suburbs (ring around the hole in the donut). This is a well documented phenomenon in many American cities.

  The new donut reflects today’s return to city centers. It is the filling in – albeit only partially – of the middle of the donut. The reason I say only partially is because the data clearly suggests that, in many cases, there’s now a trough between the immediate core and the outer suburbs. 

  In 2015, the University of Virginia published a study called The Changing Shape of American Cities. It looked at things like educational attainment and per capita income in 1990 and then compared it to more recent 2012-2015 data. But most significantly, it plotted this data against “miles from city center.” (I discovered this study via City Observatory.)

  Here are educational attainment and per capita income for the 50 largest metro areas in the US. The orange line is 1990 data. The brown line is 2012 data. And the blue line is 2015 data. The x-axis is “miles from city center.”

  

  Compared to 1990, it is clear that there has been noticeable spike in education and income in city centers. For the above composite index, more than 50% of adults over 25 now have a bachelor’s degree. But it has also accentuated the trough that appears to sit, on average, about 5 miles out from the center. 

  In some metro areas, such as Charlotte (shown below), there has almost been a complete inversion. Education and income were highest 5 to 10 miles out from the center, but that has since flipped, along with a dramatic spike right in the center.

  

  This is the new donut. If you’d like to see the graphs for all 66 American cities that form part of the study, you can do that here. 

  2018.09.30

• Winner take all

  We have talked a lot on this blog about the concentration of economic activity in global cities. Here is an old post about a paper called “winner-take-all-cities”, which documents the overrepresentation of talent, economic activity, innovation, and wealth creation in a select number of alpha cities.

  But this same phenomenon is playing out in a myriad of different ways. Aaron Renn calls this the “superstar effect” and has been writing about it for years. Another more recent example is this post by Richard Kerby called: Where did you go to school?

  Kerby looked at where venture capitalists in the US went to school and discovered that around 40% of them have gone to one of two schools: Stanford or Harvard. His argument is that not only is the venture capital industry lacking in gender and racial diversity, but it’s also lacking in cognitive diversity.

  My point with this post, though, is one of hyper-concentration. Tech is a dominant force in today’s economy. And in 2017, nearly 45% of all venture capital investment in the US went to companies located in the Bay Area – meaning San Francisco and San Jose.

  So here is an example of a select number of schools training a select number of minds that then go on to invest in a select number of cities. Fred Wilson, who is a venture capitalist, has a good response to this problem of diversity in the VC industry.

  But, of course, this is bigger than just the VC business.

  2018.08.10

• Hypervacancy in America’s legacy cities

  

  I was reading Aaron Renn’s post this morning on America’s vacant housing challenge and I was reminded of the stark contrast between what we are experiencing here in Toronto and what the US is experiencing in a lot of its coastal cities, compared to what is happening in many legacy cities in the US. The former industrial centers. In this latter case, the discussion is around neighborhoods reaching a tipping point in terms of vacant homes and then spiralling out of control. Below is an excerpt from a study that Renn cites in his post. It is from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and it’s called “The Empty House Next Door.” The above chart should also tell you a lot about the magnitude of this problem.

  Hypervacancy has been rising steadily in legacy cities since the 1990s. Although only one out of sixteen census tracts in Cleveland was hypervacant in 1990, by 2010, one out of two tracts in that city had reached hypervacancy. When vacancies rise above approximately 20 percent of an area’s total properties, the number of vacant buildings and lots may continue to grow indefinitely. Although vacancies rarely reach 100 percent—because even the most distressed neighbor- hood may have a few long-term owners—the market effectively ceases to function. Houses sell, if they sell at all, only to investors at rock bottom prices while the neighborhoods become areas of concentrated poverty, unemployment, and health problems.

  2018.07.07

• 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

• Why Detroit lost the Amazon HQ2 bid

  

  Dan Gilbert – billionaire Detroit promoter and owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers – penned this statement in response to the city’s failed Amazon HQ2 bid. He chalked up the loss to reputational hangover:

  We are still dealing with the unique radioactive-like reputational fallout of 50-60 years of economic decline, disinvestment, municipal bankruptcy, and all of the other associated negative consequences of that extraordinarily long period of time.

  This was the “elephant in the room”, though his statement is primarily centered around both talent and transportation – the two critical and lacking ingredients that allegedly disqualified Detroit.

  He ends by stressing the importance of physically visiting Detroit 2018. That is the only way, he says, people will fully appreciate the change and momentum that has taken hold in the city. (I experienced Detroit 2016 so I guess I’m overdue.)

  In response to this, Aaron Renn wrote this follow-up post suggesting that Dan take a page out of Tony Hsieh’s playbook. Tony is the founder of Zappos and the Downtown Project in Las Vegas. 

  To bring people to downtown Las Vegas, Tony – somewhat famously – rented 50 apartments in one of the only high-rises, called them “crash pads”, and offered them out for free to people who wanted to come and check out what was happening in downtown Vegas and with the Downtown Project.

  That’s certainly one way to lower the friction. 

  Equally interesting to me about this strategy, though, is that it was presumably necessary (he did it, right?) just to bring people to another part of Vegas, let alone another city altogether. 

  Full disclosure, I’ve never been to Vegas. But I understand that many people visit the place. So for me it speaks to the kinds of inducements that may be necessary just to revive or kickstart a place.

  Photo by Matthew Brzozowski on Unsplash

  2018.01.31

• 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

• Place is dead anyway

  

  Aaron Renn has a few observations up on his blog from a recent trip to San Francisco. Number 2 is as follows:

  “A curiously low energy city.  It’s tough to judge any American city’s street energy after living in New York, but San Francisco felt basically dead. Tourist areas around Union Square and the Embarcadero were crowded, and the Mission on a Friday night was hopping, but otherwise the city was very quiet. Haight-Ashbury was nearly deserted and many neighborhoods had the feel of a ghost town. It’s very strange to be walking around a city with such a dense built fabric but so few people.”

  I feel this way every, single, time, I visit San Francisco. I love San Francisco, but outside the main draws, the city feels eerily quiet. I have never understood why that is the case.

  This is something that I am sensitive to because I find it even impacts my own energy levels. For instance, Sundays in Toronto often feel too quiet for me. Fewer pedestrians. Slower drivers. Our collective metabolic rate slows down.

  I love the hustle of a busy city.

  2016.11.06

• Corporate disaggregation (and some book suggestions)

  

  The truism is that both people and companies are moving back to downtowns. We are living in an urban era. But when you really look at the data, it is clear that the suburbs are far from dead. And when it comes to companies, the way in which they are relocating to downtown is not the same as it was in previous generations.

  The Economist calls it “corporate disaggregation.” Aaron Renn calls it “executive headquarters.” And it is the idea that it is primarily the elite executive jobs that are moving back downtown. The routine jobs are remaining in the suburbs or are being pushed out to even further outposts. On top of this, a move downtown can also provide the impetus for downsizing.

  Here’s an excerpt from The Economist:

  “The best book to read if you want to understand corporate America’s migration patterns is not Mr Florida’s but a more recent study, Bill Bishop’s “The Big Sort”. It argues that Americans are increasingly clustering in distinct areas on the basis of their jobs and social values. The headquarters revolution is yet another iteration of the sorting process that the book describes, as companies allocate elite jobs to the cities and routine jobs to the provinces. Corporate disaggregation is no doubt a sensible use of resources. But it will also add to the tensions that are tearing America apart as many bosses choose to work in very different worlds from the vast majority of Americans, including their own employees.”

  It is interesting, and probably disconcerting, to note that the divisiveness we are seeing in politics is also manifesting itself in our cities. The causes are likely the same. We may be living in an urban era, but we are also living in an era where, sadly, broad-based urban prosperity appears to be declining. See Elephant Graph.

  Another somewhat related book that may be of interest is Overcomplicated: Technology at the Limits of Comprehension. It is about the increasing complexity of our cities and our inability to properly understand it all. It argues that it may be time to seek out new tools.

  2016.09.10