Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comeback Cities
Edward GlaeserHarvard University
Photo by PostdilAlfred Peet
Detroit’s Bankruptcy
Photo by Mike Russell from wikipedia
Comeback Questions
• Why Did So Many Cities Decline?
• Why Did Some But Not All Come Back?
• What should the US Government be doing about declining cities?
• What should the UK government be doing to ensure more urban comebacks?
• Spoiler: The last two questions do not have the same answer.
City 1950 Pop. 2010 Pop. Change
New York 7,891,957 8,175,133 +4 %
Chicago 3,620,962 2,695,598 -26%
Philadelphia 2,071,605 1,526,006 -26%
Los Angeles 1,970,358 3,792,621 +92%
Detroit 1,849,568 713,777 -61%
Baltimore 949,708 620,961 -34%
Cleveland 914,808 396,815 -56%
St. Louis 856,796 319,294 -63%
Washington 802,178 601,723 -25%
Boston 801,444 617,594 -23%
The Rise of the Industrial City
Ford’s More Extreme Industrialization
The Decline of the Costs of Moving Goods
Dolla
rs p
er
Ton M
ile (
Real)
Railroad Revenue per Ton Mileyear
1890 2000
.02323
.185063
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.1
Ave
rage
Po
pula
tion
Gro
wth
by
Cou
nty,
200
0-20
10
1 2 3 4 5
Average Population Growth by Average January Temperature(Quintiles)
Liverpool: Industry and the Mersey
UK Value Added and Pop Growth
GVA per worker 2013 (£)
Population Growth 1981-2013 .
30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
-.13488
.707723
Aberdeen
Aldersho
Barnsley
Birkenhe
BirminghBlackburBlackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
BradfordBrighton
Bristol
Burnley
CambridgCardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
Norwich
Nottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
Plymouth
PortsmouPreston
Reading
RochdaleSheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Persistent Growth in the US
Akron
Albuquer
Allentow
Atlanta-
Austin-R
Bakersfi
BaltimorBaton Ro
Beaumont
Bellingh
BethesdaBirmingh
Boise Ci
Boston-Q
Boulder
BridgepoBuffalo-Cambridg
CamdenCanton-M
Charlest
Charlott
Chicago-
Cincinna
Clevelan
ColoradoColumbia
Columbus
Corpus C
Dallas-P
Dayton
Deltona-Des Moin
Detroit-
Edison
Essex CoFlint
Fort Col
Fort Lau
Fort Way
Fort WorFresno
Gary
Grand Ra
Greensbo
HarrisbuHonolulu
Houston-
IndianapJacksonv
Kansas C
Lake Cou
Lansing-
Las Vega
Lexingto
Little R
Los Ange
LouisvilMemphis
Milwauke
MinneapoModesto
Napa
Nashvill
Nassau-SNewark-UNew Orle
New YorkOakland-
Ogden-Cl
Oklahoma
Omaha-Co
Orlando-
Oxnard-T
Peoria Philadel
Phoenix-
Pittsbur
Portland
Providen
Raleigh-
Reno-Spa
Richmond Riversid
Rocheste
Sacramen
St. LouiSalinas
Salt Lak
San Anto
San Dieg
San Fran
San Jose
San LuisSanta An
Santa Ba
Santa Cr
Santa Ro
SarasotaSeattle-SpokaneStockton
Tacoma
Tampa-St
Toledo
Tucson
Tulsa
Vallejo-
Warren-F Washingt
West Pal
WichitaWilmingt
Winston-
Worceste
0.2
.4.6
Gro
wth
in 1
990
s, .1
=1
0%
0 .2 .4 .6Growth in 1980s, .1=10%
Figure 2: Housing Unit Growth in the 1980s and 1990s
Persistent Growth in the UK
Population Growth 1981-2001
Population Growth 2003-2013 .
-.2 0 .2 .4 .6
0
.1
.2
Aberdeen
AldershoBarnsley
Birkenhe
Birmingh
Blackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
BournemoBradfordBrightonBristol
Burnley
Cambridg
Cardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
NorwichNottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
Plymouth PortsmouPreston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Population Growth and Manufacturing
Manufacturing 2013 (%)
Population Growth 2003-2013 .
0.00 0.10 0.20
-.019369
.161346
Aberdeen
AldershoBarnsley
Birkenhe
Birmingh
Blackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
BradfordBrightonBristol
Burnley
Cambridg
Cardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
NorwichNottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
PlymouthPortsmouPreston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Employment and Population Growth
Population Growth 2003-2013
Employment Rate 2013 .
-.05 0 .05 .1 .15
61.4
78.5Aberdeen
Aldersho
Barnsley
Birkenhe
BirminghBlackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
Bradford
BrightonBristol
Burnley
Cambridg
CardiffChatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
London
Luton
Manchest
MansfielMiddlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
NorthampNorwich
Nottingh
Oxford Peterbor
Plymouth
Portsmou
Preston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
TelfordWakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Unhappiness and Urban Decline
Subjective Well-Being and Population Growth
-.2
-.1
0.1
.2
Ha
pp
iness a
fte
r e
xog
en
ou
s d
em
og
rap
hic
con
tro
ls, 2
00
5-2
01
0
0 1 2 3 4Change in Log Population, 1950-2000
Unhappiness and Decline in the UK
Population Growth 1981-2011
Average Life Satisfaction .
-.174052 .685479
7.00
7.50
8.00
.
.
Liverpoo
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wolverha
.
.
....
.
.
.
. .
.
Sheffiel
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Birmingh
.
Leeds..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
Ribble V
.
.
.
.Bristol,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
Kirklees
Kensingt.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bradford
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
Westmins
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wandswor
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hammersm..
.
.
.
.
.
.
New Fore
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
..
....
.
South No
.
Hackney
.
.
.
.
...
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
East Cam
Tower Ha
Milton K
The Unhappiness Seems to Have Come Before the Decline
Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?
Photo by Daniel Schwen
0.0
5.1
.15
Ave
rage
Po
pula
tion
Gro
wth
by
Cou
nty,
200
0-20
10
1 2 3 4 5
Average Population Growth by Share with BA in 2000(Quintiles)
Skills and Growth (UK)
Level 4+ Quals 2004
Population Growth 2003-2013 .
10 20 30 40 50
-.05
0
.05
.1
.15
Aberdeen
AldershoBarnsley
Birkenhe
Birmingh
Blackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
BournemoBradford BrightonBristol
Burnley
Cambridg
Cardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
NorwichNottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
Plymouth PortsmouPreston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Skills and Price Growth (UK)
Level Four Qualifications Plus
Change in Log Price 1995-2013 .
18.9 74.6
.5
1
1.5
2
.
.. ...
..
.
..
. .
.. . .
.
..
.
.Bristol,
....
..
.
..
.
. .. .
..
.
.Milton K
.
..
.
County D
..
.
Cornwall
Wiltshir
...
..
.
.
East Cam. .
..
.
.
.
. .
. .
...
..
...
...
. ..
.
..
.
..
...
.
.
.
.
...
. ..
..
.. ...
..
.. New Fore. .
.. .
.
.
. .
.
.
... .
... ..
.
. .
.. ..
.
...
.. ..
. ...
..
..
.
...
South No.
. .
.
..
.
.. .
..
..
.
..
...
.
..
..
.
...
. ...
.
.. .
. .
.
.
....
.. .
..
.
..
..
.
.
. ..
..
.
..
.
. .
.
.
Liverpoo
.
.
.
..
.SheffielBirmingh
.
..
.
. WolverhaBradford.
KirkleesLeeds
.
City of
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hackney Hammersm
.
.
.
..
.
Kensingt
.
.
...
.
..
.
Tower Ha.
Wandswor
Westmins
..
.
.
..
..
.
..
.
. .
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
Productivity and Skills (USA)
Share w. BAs 2000
Per Capita GDP 2010 .
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
o
o
o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o oo
oo
o
oo
o oo
o
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
DETROITo
o o
o
o o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o o
oATLANTA
oo
o oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CHICAGO
oo
o
BOSTON
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
DALLAS
oo
o
o
o
o
oo
o
NEW YORK
RIVERSID
o
LAS VEGA o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
SAN FRAN
o
o
o
o
oo
LOS ANGE
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
SAN JOSE
o
o
o
WASHINGT
o
Productivity and Skills (UK)
Worker Share w Leve 4+ Qual
GVA Per Worker 2013 .
20 40 60 80
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
AberdeenAldersho
BarnsleyBirkenhe
Birmingh
Blackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
Bradford
Brighton
Bristol
Burnley
Cambridg
Cardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
London
Luton
Manchest
MansfielMiddlesb
Milton K
NewcastlNewportNorthamp
Norwich
Nottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
Plymouth
Portsmou
Preston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Skills Beget More Skills (USA)
Share w/BAs 1940
Change in Share w/BAs 1940-2000 .
.02 .04 .06 .08 .1
.1
.2
.3
.4
HUNTSVIL
o
oooo
oo
o
o
o
oo
o
ooo
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
oDETROIT
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
ATLANTA
o
o
o
o
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CHICAGO
o
BOSTON
o
o
o
o
o
DALLASo
oo
o
o
o
o
NEW YORK
RIVERSID
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
SAN FRAN
o
o
o
o
LOS ANGE
o
o
SAN JOSE
o
o
WASHINGTo
Knowledge Services
Knowledge Services2013
Population Growth 2003-2013 .
0.06 0.32
-.019369
.161346
Aberdeen
AldershoBarnsley
Birkenhe
Birmingh
Blackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
Bradford BrightonBristol
Burnley
Cambridg
Cardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
NorwichNottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
PlymouthPortsmouPreston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Photo by Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz
Chinitz: Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh
0.5
11.
5A
vera
ge E
mpl
oym
ent G
row
th, 1
977-
2000
Lowest Second Third Fourth HighestSource: County Business Patterns, 1977 and 2000
Average Employment Growth, 1977-2000by Quintile of Average Firm Size, 1977
Figure 10:
Start Ups and Growth (UK)
Firm Start Ups/100
Population Growth 1981-2013 .
20 40 60 80
-.13488
.707723
Aberdeen
Aldersho
Barnsley
Birkenhe
BirminghBlackbur Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
BradfordBrighton
Bristol
Burnley
CambridgCardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
Norwich
Nottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
Plymouth
PortsmouPreston
Reading
RochdaleSheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Firm Size and Growth (UK)
SME Density 2013 (per 10,000 pop
Population Growth 1981-2013 .
100 200 300 400
-.13488
.707723
Aberdeen
Aldersho
Barnsley
Birkenhe
BirminghBlackbur Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
BradfordBrighton
Bristol
Burnley
CambridgCardiff
Chatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
Doncaste
Dundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
Ipswich
Leeds
Leiceste
Liverpoo
LondonLuton
Manchest
Mansfiel
Middlesb
Milton K
Newcastl
Newport
Northamp
Norwich
Nottingh
Oxford
Peterbor
Plymouth
PortsmouPreston
Reading
RochdaleSheffiel
Southamp
Southend
Stoke
Sunderla
Swansea
Swindon
Telford
Wakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
The UK and the US: similar economics, different geographies and government
• The UK and the US are remarkably similar on economics (even the French are too).
• But there are five major differencies:– Geographic gaps are much wider in the US– Housing Supply is more restricted in the UK– Social ties to place are much weaker in the US– US has a strong traditional of empowered local
governments– National capacity for effective government is much
higher in the UK
Distances
• Detroit Miami = 1150 Miles– This is comparable to London -> Tunis
• Detroit Los Angeles = 2000 Miles– This is 400 miles more than London to Moscow
• London Liverpool = 200 MilesHartford (Connecticut) -> Philadelphia (Penn) and these are really both parts of Greater New York.
• Large Distances imply that weather gaps are huge and that there is much empty space in the between NYC Buffalo is 300 miles from NYC
Space and Construction
• Both the US and the UK have plenty of local nimbyism.
• But the US has vastly more land and consequently it is easy to abandon older housing.
• Moreover, new cities are frequently able to make rules that make mass production of housing incredibly easy.
Marin County, CaliforniaSan Mateo County, California
Santa Clara County, California
Pitkin County, Colorado
Nantucket County, Massachusetts
New York County, New York0
2000
0040
0000
6000
0080
0000
1000
000
Med
ian
Hou
sing
Val
ue, 2
000
-.5 0 .5 1Population Growth, 2000-2010
Median Housing Value by Population Growth
Building and Prices in the UKM
ea
n h
ou
se p
rice
20
14
(£
)
Growth in Stock 2004-20130 .05 .1 .15
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
Aberdeen
Aldersho
Barnsley
Birkenhe Birmingh
Blackbur
Blackpoo
Bolton
Bournemo
Bradford
Brighton
Bristol
Burnley
Cambridg
CardiffChatham
Coventry
Crawley
Derby
DoncasteDundee
Edinburg
Glasgow
Gloucest
Grimsby
Hastings
Huddersf
Hull
IpswichLeedsLeiceste
Liverpoo
London
Luton Manchest
MansfielMiddlesb
Milton K
Newcastl NewportNorthamp
Norwich
Nottingh
Oxford
PeterborPlymouth
Portsmou
Preston
Reading
Rochdale
Sheffiel
Southamp
Southend
StokeSunderla
Swansea
Swindon
TelfordWakefiel
Warringt
Wigan
Worthing
York
Price Divergence in the UK
Log of Price 1995
Change in Log Price 1995-2013 .
10.2921 12.1118
.5
1
1.5
2
.
. . ...
..
.
..
. .
... .
.
..
.
.Bristol,
... .
. .
.
..
.
....
..
.
.Milton K
.
..
.
County D
..
.
Cornwall
Wiltshir
. ..
. .
.
.
East Cam. .
...
..
. ..
.
.
.
. .
..
...
..
...
...
...
.
...
..
...
.
.
.
.
. ..
.. .
..
. . ...
..
.. New Fore. .
.. .
.
.
..
.
.
... .
.....
.
.
..
..
. .
Ribble V.
. .
.
..
.. ..
.
. ..
.. ..
. ...
..
..
.
...
South No.
. .
.
..
.
.. .
..
..
.
..
...
.
..
. .
.
...... .
.
.. .
. .
.
.
.. ..
.. .
..
.
..
..
.
.
. ..
..
.
..
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
Liverpoo
.
.
.
.
..Sheffiel
....
Birmingh.
..
.
.WolverhaBradford.
KirkleesLeeds
.
City of
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hackney Hammersm
.
.
.
..
.
Kensingt
.
.
...
.
..
.
Tower Ha.
Wandswor
Westmins
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
The US is far more mobile
• Geographic Diversity is mixed with Social Homogeneity across Space in the US which means that mobility is typically far easier.
• The share of the UK that moves NUTS 2 regions (there are 37 of them in the UK) is 2 percent per year– the EU average is 1 percent. (France + German are 1.5; Italy is .2)
• The share of the US that moves counties was 6 and states was 3 percent in the 1990s -- but has shrunken dramatically since then.
• But the share of the UK living where they are born seems to be about 40 percent which is the same as the U.S. (Overman + Census).
Central Government is far weaker;states and cities are far stronger
• Local services, such as schooling, policing, etc., are all usually under the direct control of mayors. States can intervene but it is quite hard for the national government to do so.
• This means that the national government can either distribute cash or try to cobble together some hybrid entity (Head Start, Healthcare).
• Moreover, the structure of the senate leads to homogeneous policies everywhere, even when this makes little sense, and blocks spatial favoritism of any form (other than to low population states).
• This leads to a real and often unwise focus on infrastructure.
Advice that I glibly give in the US
• The job of the Federal government is to be spatially neutral: HELP POOR PEOPLE NOT POOR PLACES.
• This can mean transferring resources to poorer places but only if they will be targeted towards helping poor people.
• Focus on human, not physical capital, in declining places. • Charter schools have achieved some remarkable result. • Localities should attract and train smart people and get
out of their way. • Experiment with Pro Entrepreneurship policies including
training and one stop permitting.
What I Would Change Here• The situation is far less desperate here than in the US.
– Manchester is very different from Detroit (accessibility, climate and quality of government).
• The rootedness of people makes the case for place-based investments stronger.
• But still much of the best investments for a place focus on education and entrepeneurship.– I wouldn’t rule out transport, but I’d be wary.
• Connections do matter– especially since London’s space constraint create demand elsewhere– but early childhood education usually looks like a good investment relative to new trains. – We need to recognize the limits of our knowledge and keep
experimenting. This is the case for temporary “zones”.
Is Decentralization A Tool Against Urban Decline?
• Global observation # 1: Political centralization often leads to excessive urban centralization. – Corollary: Primate cities are about 50 percent larger in dictatorships than
in stable democracies. • U.S. observation # 2: The advantages of local control are hotly
disputed. – Failing cities are essentially stripped of local control– Regionalists want larger governments (transport)– Localists despise Federal activity in local activity – Competition and innovation vs. fewer externalities + NIMBYism
• U.K. observation # 3: The gap between national and local public expertise is larger in the U.K.– This will narrow with experience of decentralization
What do we know about U.S. decentralization?
• U.S. metropolitan areas differ wildly in the degree to which they are broken up into localities.
• States differ in the power that they confer upon cities. • Cutler and Glaeser (1996) find that racial segregation rises and
African-American outcomes fall in more fractionalized areas.• Hoxby (2000) finds that competition seems to improve school
districts– but Rothstein disagrees. • Resseger (2013) is a comprehensive look at correlates of
fractionalization.– More fractionalized -> Less growth but not with weather controls– More fractionized -> more population and job sprawl.
Population Growth vs. Skills Growth
Empower and Deregulate• Attract and train smart people and get out of their way. • Successful industrial policy is human capital (Singapore)-> but use
sparingly if at all. – The risks of betting too much on one sector are high.
• Universities have played a crucial role in the US– Especially when they are commercial (Hausman).
• Cheap space is an attractor in declining areas, ensure that regulations do not prevent full deliver of affordable, usable real estate. – More generally prune excess regulations.
• Tech that improves city services is useful, but not a substitute for private sector energy.
• Make sure that any transportation expenditures really satisfy cost-benefit analysis. Buses allow far more experimentation.
