Tag: rural

• Cities are labor markets

  Eduardo Porter recently published this piece in the New York Times on the “relentless economic decline” of small-town rural America. We often talk about rising income inequality, but the greater concern is the alarming rate of joblessness in many of these communities. Earning less than others is not as bad as earning nothing.

  I think the below map from the article, depicting population density by county, starts to show how uneven the economic landscape is across the US. Porter puts it this way: “This is the inescapable reality of agglomeration, one of the most powerful forces shaping the American economy over the last three decades.”

  

  But, of course, we don’t really have a solution to this problem. Some are suggesting employment subsidies, such as the earned-income tax credit. While others are suggesting that we need to make it easier to build in the large blue spikes shown above. That way we’ll be able to more affordably accommodate the people who will ultimately need to move from rural to urban.

  While this latter suggestion may seem grim for small-town America, it is perhaps a reminder of what cities really are at their core: Cities are labor markets. They are the places where people come to get a job and make money.

  2018.12.15

• Urban, suburban, and rural home prices in the U.S.

  Zillow.com recently published some research where they looked at U.S. home prices broken down according to location: urban, suburban, and rural.

  Here’s what they found:

  

  As you can see, urban homes across the U.S. largely trailed their suburban counterparts in terms of absolute value up until the end of 2014. At that point, urban homes then surpassed suburban homes for the first time in the last two decades. (I wonder if this is a first or there was another crossover point before the late 1990s.)

  But if you dig a little deeper and look at both the rate of appreciation and prices per square foot (as opposed to just absolute value), urban home prices appear even stronger. 

  Here’s a snippet from Zillow’s post:

  “Over the past five years (2010-2015), average urban home values have grown 28.4 percent, compared to 21.1 percent for suburban home values. In the past year alone, U.S. urban home values grew 7.5 percent, compared to 5.9 percent for suburban homes.

  On a per-square-foot-basis, homes in urban areas nationwide used to be worth roughly the same as suburban homes, before a gap started emerging in the late 1990s which has become progressively wider over the past roughly two decades. Currently the gap stands at 24.5 percent, with suburban homes valued at $156 per-square-foot and average U.S. urban homes worth $198 per-square-foot.”

  And here is that same chart showing per square foot prices:

  

  Everyone who reads this blog knows that there is a growing interest in urban centers. But if you look at the above charts for specific cities, there are still many cases where urban home prices are well below suburban ones. 

  To me, that serves as a reminder of the spikiness of this urban transformation, but also that it is likely still in its infancy. As recent as 20 years ago, Toronto largely didn’t believe that people would want to live downtown in modern apartments. Today we take that for granted.

  So even with all of the gushing about urban centers, I still think we are only just getting started when it comes to creating the great urban neighborhoods of the future.

  2016.02.10

• Pick one or the other

  Two days ago I posted a neat interactive map of carbon footprints across America. It was taken from an Atlantic Cities article. But in the same post, I questioned the (Atlantic Cities) article’s headline and main assertion that increasing population density won’t help to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

  This didn’t make sense to me.

  Well it turns out that the supporting research data was slightly misinterpreted. According to the Per Square Mile blog, the UC Berkeley study associated with the interactive map reveals a more nuanced relationship between population density and carbon emissions. It turns out that people who live in the middle of nowhere (rural residents) actually have fairly low carbon footprints. Even though they’re reliant on cars, they tend to drive and consume relatively little.

  And so initially, as population densities increase, so do carbon footprints. That is until it reaches about 3,000 people per square mile. At that point, carbon emissions start to drop off dramatically—roughly 35% on average from suburb to city.

  Below is a graph I found in the comment section of the original Atlantic Cities article that demonstrates this phenomenon. Population density is on the x-axis and carbon emissions are on the y-axis.

  

  So here’s the big takeaway. If you’re looking to optimize around your carbon footprint, you need to pick a side: Either be urban or be rural. But don’t be somewhere in the middle. Don’t be suburban.

  2014.01.13