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.
Its not a slight towards Philly buddy. Philly Im sure has a great biopharma cluster, but this is more towards the five markets that added pretty much 90% (More than) of all Biotech jobs since 2010. (Seattle, SF, SJ, Boston, San Diego)... I didnt even say the DMV or NYC area and they have decently sized pharma. Philly isnt as Biotech dominant or has been selling out lab space in the past 2 months as a handful of cities have. Im simply just making a statement on well Biopharma/Life Science cities will due in this recession. I didnt make this post to shame Philly. Truthfully, I honestly dont care.
The reason I bring up Madison WI or RDU is that biopharma proportionally makes up a larger presence of their metropolitan areas. Yet smaller in production, have a substantial amount of biotech for their size. As does Huntsville Alabama or Pittsburgh.
But that wouldn't make them "biopharma capitals" per se. Unlike state capitals, which in the US are often not the largest cities in their states, "capitals" of an industry are usually the cities where the most activity in that industry takes place, regardless what percentage of the local economy that industry represents.
Philly may not be "biotech dominant," but — like in Boston and (to an extent) New York — the region's biotech industry operates in a much larger healthcare sector that is one of the dominant economic drivers of the region. But you also did leave out the DMV, where biotech is big but the federal government bigger, I'll grant.
For the record (apologies if shared already) Brookings recently released a study of metro areas ranked by employment concentration in "high risk" industries (as in most susceptible to being impacted by recession).
Here's a quick rank of large metros (from least to most "high risk")
San Jose
DC
Philadelphia
Boston
Minneapolis
New York
Seattle
San Francisco
Denver
San Diego
LA
Dallas
Chicago
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Notable that Philadelphia ranks very well, but no true surprise given how diverse its economy is. The Northeast Corridor appears to generally be the most resilient. The Sun Belt looks disproportionately vulnerable.
But that wouldn't make them "biopharma capitals" per se. Unlike state capitals, which in the US are often not the largest cities in their states, "capitals" of an industry are usually the cities where the most activity in that industry takes place, regardless what percentage of the local economy that industry represents.
Philly may not be "biotech dominant," but — like in Boston and (to an extent) New York — the region's biotech industry operates in a much larger healthcare sector that is one of the dominant economic drivers of the region. But you also did leave out the DMV, where biotech is big but the federal government bigger, I'll grant.
Yeah Im talking about Biopharma clusters. I cant bring up everyone's city below the Boston and SF mega clusters. Im well aware Philly has a decent size Life Science Cluster, im not shooting down Philly at all here. I just didnt think to include it with my list.
For the record (apologies if shared already) Brookings recently released a study of metro areas ranked by employment concentration in "high risk" industries (as in most susceptible to being impacted by recession).
Here's a quick rank of large metros (from least to most "high risk")
San Jose
DC
Philadelphia
Boston
Minneapolis
New York
Seattle
San Francisco
Denver
San Diego
LA
Dallas
Chicago
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Notable that Philadelphia ranks very well, but no true surprise given how diverse its economy is. The Northeast Corridor appears to generally be the most resilient. The Sun Belt looks disproportionately vulnerable.
I think that's what many people are hoping, but no one really knows which cities are going to suffer the most. I've seen articles that has Georgia as the least vunerable state in this current crisis. These rankings are all over the place.
Even if those bottom cities were to suffer, it's not going to deter too many people from moving to those places.
For the record (apologies if shared already) Brookings recently released a study of metro areas ranked by employment concentration in "high risk" industries (as in most susceptible to being impacted by recession).
Here's a quick rank of large metros (from least to most "high risk")
San Jose
DC
Philadelphia
Boston
Minneapolis
New York
Seattle
San Francisco
Denver
San Diego
LA
Dallas
Chicago
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Notable that Philadelphia ranks very well, but no true surprise given how diverse its economy is. The Northeast Corridor appears to generally be the most resilient. The Sun Belt looks disproportionately vulnerable.
As much as I respect and follow Brookings, I'm not buying this at all. Atlanta has one of the most diversified metropolitan economies in the country. It is not similar to Houston by any economic metric.
For the record (apologies if shared already) Brookings recently released a study of metro areas ranked by employment concentration in "high risk" industries (as in most susceptible to being impacted by recession).
Here's a quick rank of large metros (from least to most "high risk")
San Jose
DC
Philadelphia
Boston
Minneapolis
New York
Seattle
San Francisco
Denver
San Diego
LA
Dallas
Chicago
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Notable that Philadelphia ranks very well, but no true surprise given how diverse its economy is. The Northeast Corridor appears to generally be the most resilient. The Sun Belt looks disproportionately vulnerable.
Interesting Brookings list. Just to expound, Top 20 amongst mid-to-large sized metros:
Least Vulnerable
Hartford
Albany
San Jose
Fresno
Rochester
New Haven
Washington
Bridgeport
Philadelphia
Baton Rouge
Boston
Columbia
Sacramento
Bakersfield
Dayton
Minneapolis-St Paul
New York
Buffalo
Baltimore
Albuquerque
Most Vulnerable
Las Vegas
Orlando
New Orleans
Honolulu
Charleston
Memphis
Houston
Atlanta
Nashville
Miami
San Antonio
Jacksonville
Grand Rapids
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas-Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Indianapolis
Tulsa
I wonder if there's an even more up-to-date list on COVID impact?
There seems to be a clear estimation that cities that are heavily reliant on tourism would feel the impact the worst. Interestingly, both California and the Northeast appear to have an over representation of least-vulnerable areas...
Interesting Brookings list. Just to expound, Top 20 amongst mid-to-large sized metros:
Least Vulnerable
Hartford
Albany
San Jose
Fresno
Rochester
New Haven
Washington
Bridgeport
Philadelphia
Baton Rouge
Boston
Columbia
Sacramento
Bakersfield
Dayton
Minneapolis-St Paul
New York
Buffalo
Baltimore
Albuquerque
Most Vulnerable
Las Vegas
Orlando
New Orleans
Honolulu
Charleston
Memphis
Houston
Atlanta
Nashville
Miami
San Antonio
Jacksonville
Grand Rapids
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas-Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Indianapolis
Tulsa
I wonder if there's an even more up-to-date list on COVID impact?
There seems to be a clear estimation that cities that are heavily reliant on tourism would feel the impact the worst. Interestingly, both California and the Northeast appear to have an over representation of least-vulnerable areas...
Maybe equally accurately, the Sunbelt is overrepresented in the ranks of the most vulnerable?
Outside of California (and in terms of "Sunbelt / Frost Belt", shouldn't the state be split in two somewhere around Fresno anyway?), the only Sunbelt cities I see on the "least vulnerable" list are Columbia (I presume S.C.) and Albuquerque. (Bakersfield is in the "Sunbelt" part of California; Fresno, Sacramento and San Jose are not. The microclimates of the San Francisco Bay area are quite interesting to boot: San Francisco has both palm trees and chilly summer nights [Mark Twain: "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."] I note that SF is on neither list, along with a bunch of other Northeastern and Midwestern metropolises, including Providence, Manchester, New Haven, all of Ohio's save Dayton, both of Missouri's, Milwaukee, Omaha and Des Moines.)
Meanwhile, all of the "Most Vulnerable" cities are within that territory save Chicago, Grand Rapids and Indianapolis. (Tulsa counts as "Sunbelt" too. Again, I'm assuming South Carolina for Charleston too.)
The Brookings list is much too simplistic and outdated to be very useful.
Simplistic? Maybe, though a very respected econometrician (Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, based in West Chester) put together the list of industries most likely to suffer severe setbacks as a result of this pandemic. What Brookings then did is measure the share of the metropolitan economy these industries represent in each of the 100 largest US metros (though there's a list in the article based on all 250-odd US metropolitan statistical areas).
That doesn't seem all that outlandish. The more workers employed in the hardest-hit industries in an area, and the harder those industries are hit, the more likely the area is to experience greater hardship as a result of the cutbacks.
(The list of the 15 most vulnerable and 5 least vulnerable of all US metros had Midland(-Odessa), Texas (oilpatch) at the top and Kahului, HI, Las Vegas and Atlantic City in the 2, 3, and 4 spots. Kahului is the commercial center of Maui, and LV and AC are gambling meccas; all three are tourism-dependent. Would you not say those places are extremely vulnerable, what with the wiping out of leisure travel having hit resort and tourist cities and the plunge in both that and commuter traffic having sent oil prices racing for the bottom?)
But how can a study published two months ago be "outdated" already?
But how can a study published two months ago be "outdated" already?
Yeah, I'm perplexed as to why there's such immediately dismissal of this data. It's as valid as any out there right now, and it's also very logical. Some industries are clearly more vulnerable than others; there should be no disagreement there. And the extent to which a metro is comprised of those vulnerable industries is a very legitimate way of trying to estimate recessionary impact in the short and intermediate terms.
For those who are doubtful, I'd be curious to hear how you'd scientifically evaluate each city's economic prospects for the near future.
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.
