Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fascinating article! Its thesis is evidently that a century of federal policies promoted local independence, impeding monopolies and centralization. This precluded any one region or city from dominating the nation. Ironically, the weakening of federal authority in the last quarter of the 20th century removed these stabilizing effects, causing a few superstar cities to become dominant.
I sympathize with this narrative, though I'm not entirely persuaded. But regardless of whom we blame, a deeper question is begged: why do certain cities become dominant in the first place, while initially comparable cities recede to secondary and subsidiary position? Alternatively, why did New York City overtake Boston and Philadelphia 200 years ago?
In other words, if anti-monopolistic fetters are removed, and monopolies form (in business, in transportation, in culture and so forth), well, why does everything concentrate in one place?
The article was a bit long-winded on the regulatory history lesson that doesn't pertain today but I think it captured the high points:
* Birds of a feather flock together
* Global businesses have to cluster around good airports with competitive airfares
* Lousy local transportation infrastructure drives up the cost of commutable housing. To attract those high value employees to the region, you have to compensate them appropriately or they won't move.
In other words, if anti-monopolistic fetters are removed, and monopolies form (in business, in transportation, in culture and so forth), well, why does everything concentrate in one place?
Because success begets success. Small advantages exponentially grow into large advantages. For example, if Manhattan has the most CEOs, the other CEOs want to be there for networking, social reasons, etc. If you can have your HQ anywhere, why not put it in the "best" place? And if everyone agrees on what the best place is, even if it's only slightly better, it grows into a tremendously advantaged city.
Because success begets success. Small advantages exponentially grow into large advantages. For example, if Manhattan has the most CEOs, the other CEOs want to be there for networking, social reasons, etc. If you can have your HQ anywhere, why not put it in the "best" place? And if everyone agrees on what the best place is, even if it's only slightly better, it grows into a tremendously advantaged city.
That's an eminently sensible explanation, but is insufficient. Cleveland and Cincinnati were in their time very successful, growing exponentially... and then faded. Chicago was crushed by the 1873 fire, but recovered and burgeoned... only to fade in the mid-late 20th century, and then to spectacularly reinvent itself. Boston was exponentiating since 1620... for some 200 years... but was eventually overtaken by NYC. Baltimore had some excellent advantages... excellent port, central location between DC and the other major Eastern cities, mild climate, lots of land for expansion westward... but has been a disappointment for generations.
The critical-mass idea explains some "tipping point" growth, but not others.
That's an eminently sensible explanation, but is insufficient. Cleveland and Cincinnati were in their time very successful, growing exponentially... and then faded. Chicago was crushed by the 1873 fire, but recovered and burgeoned... only to fade in the mid-late 20th century, and then to spectacularly reinvent itself. Boston was exponentiating since 1620... for some 200 years... but was eventually overtaken by NYC. Baltimore had some excellent advantages... excellent port, central location between DC and the other major Eastern cities, mild climate, lots of land for expansion westward... but has been a disappointment for generations.
The critical-mass idea explains some "tipping point" growth, but not others.
Well, I think the story changes a bit if you are looking at cities 100 years ago. There's naturally more decentralization when travel is more expensive and phones don't exist.
If I had known about this when I was young it would have influenced where I decided to live.
If I had known about this when I was young, I would never have become an aeronautical engineer, given that our field offers jobs almost exclusively in secondary-cities and in the "heartland". Actually, that's not quite true. Pre-1990 there were numerous such jobs in America's principal cities. They subsequently migrated away. Just as "high tech" had gravitated to the glamour-cities, what remains of traditional heavy industry has diffused outwards, into places less desirable to live; or to parody Richard Florida, it's the precipitation of the uncreative class.
If I had known about this when I was young, I would never have become an aeronautical engineer, given that our field offers jobs almost exclusively in secondary-cities and in the "heartland". Actually, that's not quite true. Pre-1990 there were numerous such jobs in America's principal cities. They subsequently migrated away. Just as "high tech" had gravitated to the glamour-cities, what remains of traditional heavy industry has diffused outwards, into places less desirable to live; or to parody Richard Florida, it's the precipitation of the uncreative class.
Part of the fallout of living in a high cost of living area is that you normally end up with more accumulated wealth by the time you stop working. Your expensive house is paid off. You've been dumping 10% of your higher salary into retirement savings for your career so your retirement nest egg is bigger. You have the option of selling your expensive house and moving to a lower cost part of the country. The gain from your house enables a comfortable retirement.
Rich internationals love New York City. An ever expanding influx of international money gives New York an increasing advantage over heartland cities.
Even the heartland wealthy like the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet spend much more time in New York than any coastal elite will ever spend in Wichita or Omaha.
"Today, the commuter-rail system that once made it comparatively easy to live in suburban New Jersey and work in Manhattan is falling apart, and commutes from other New York suburbs, whether by road or rail, are also becoming unworkable. Increasingly, this means that only the very rich can still afford to work in Manhattan, much less live there, while increasing numbers of working- and middle-class families are moving to places such as Texas or Florida, hoping to break free of the gridlock, even though wages in Texas and Florida are much lower."
Yet moving to Texas and Florida may not be much better. If you are unlucky enough with a suburb-to-suburb commute in Texas, be prepared to pay tolls on the increasingly tolled freeways that connect suburbs-to-suburbs. That on top of wear-and-tear costs caused by 30-50 mile trip each way and time wasted driving (2-3 hours in rush hour, gradually becoming longer, and 1-2 hours without traffic) makes it comparable or even worse than the commuter-rail system.
Here in Katy, west of Houston, ExxonMobil chemical was in the Energy Corridor about 10 miles away. The new office in Spring, north of Houston, is about a 50 mile trip one-way from Katy. The Grand Parkway, once all sections to I-45 are completed, will make the commute will provide a little more palatable direct route from Katy but it's still a long distance (approximately 45 miles one-way).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
