What Happened to the American Boomtown? - The New York Times: "Interstate mobility nationwide has slowed over the last 30 years. But, more specifically and of greater concern, migration has stalled in the very places with the most opportunity...The places that are booming in size aren’t the economic boomtowns — the regions with the greatest prosperity and highest productivity. In theory, we’d expect those metros, like the Bay Area, Boston and New York, to be rapidly expanding, as people move from regions with high unemployment and meager wages to those with high salaries and strong job markets. That we’re not seeing such a pattern suggests that something is fundamentally amiss. The magnets aren’t working. "
------------
The article contends that the culprit is the cost and availability of housing in the places with the most opportunity. And that happens because the people who live in those places oppose new housing construction. San Francisco would have a much greater population if those who already live there weren't able to block residential real estate development--so the argument goes.
1 comment:
No city can continue grow rapidly forever. Sooner or later, people get tired of crowds, traffic, and scarcity of resources. At some point, only the very top wage earners can afford to live comfortably. Then most city residents start moving out to less populated places.
Why in the world do urban planners keep trying to funnel people into 40 urban centers? It would seem there needs to be a healthy balance between unlivable density and sparsely populated. And a whole lot of the U.S. could benefit by spreading out economic opportunities.
Post a Comment