HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 3:13 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,483
Talent May Be Shifting Away From Superstar Cities

Talent May Be Shifting Away From Superstar Cities


November 18, 2019

By Richard Florida

Read More: https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/11...action/602200/

Quote:
In recent years, America has increasingly been defined by a winner-take-all geography, with coastal superstar cities like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., garnering a disproportionate share of high-tech startups, corporate headquarters, and innovation and talent. But surging costs and inequality in these places, elements of what I call the New Urban Crisis may be shaping the beginnings of a shift in talent to other parts of the country.

- That’s the upshot of the newly released 2019 Talent Attraction Scorecard from Emsi, a company that analyzes labor-market data. This edition of the scorecard covers America’s 3,000-plus counties, breaking out the data for three types: big counties (with more than 100,000 people), small and medium-size counties (with between 5,000 and 100,000 residents), and very small, micro-counties (with fewer than 5,000 people). The analysis is based on Emsi’s Talent Attraction Index, which is comprised of six key metrics: job growth, skilled job growth, net migration, annual openings for skilled workers (per capita), educational attainment growth (based on adults with associate degrees and above), and a broad measure of regional competitiveness.

- Among big U.S. counties, eight of the top 10 are not superstar places, including Duval County, encompassing Jacksonville, Florida and Denton County, Texas. Duval County is home to distribution centers for Amazon and Wayfair. Most of the leading big counties are part of larger Sunbelt metros where housing is relatively affordable. The report also notes the solid performance of large counties in the West, in states such as Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Oregon. Some of these counties appear to be benefiting from the movement of talented workers from high-cost cities like San Francisco and Seattle. The same general pattern comes through for smaller and medium-sized counties. Topping this ranking is Cameron County in Louisiana, followed by two counties in Georgia. Three Texas counties appear further down the list.

.....


















__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 9:38 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,995
Before the debates begin, I just want to say that it’s ultimately great in my book that talent is shifting away from the superstar cities. Talent should be evenly distributed across this country, being as large and decentralized as it is.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 3:59 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
Before the debates begin, I just want to say that it’s ultimately great in my book that talent is shifting away from the superstar cities. Talent should be evenly distributed across this country, being as large and decentralized as it is.
There needs to be some centralization for efficiency. Steel sharpens steel - to get the most out of your talent, it needs to have other talent to compete against and, like it or not, people need proximity to get the most out of competition. Distance can be overcome, but only to a certain extent.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
My current active camera gear: Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D, Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6, Nikkor 135mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikkor 55mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikon PB-4 Bellows. Collectible gear: Nikon F4s, Nikon D1, Nikon N4004s (my very first SLR)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 4:05 AM
James Bond Agent 007's Avatar
James Bond Agent 007 James Bond Agent 007 is offline
Posh
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 18,410
It's about time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 5:49 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
There needs to be some centralization for efficiency. Steel sharpens steel - to get the most out of your talent, it needs to have other talent to compete against and, like it or not, people need proximity to get the most out of competition. Distance can be overcome, but only to a certain extent.
Does it have to be this way for efficiency? For example, finance has always been centralized in New York and Chicago but there has been cities that also rose with and obtained their own famous institutions like San Francisco, Omaha, Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, etc. Media, whether it is television, movies, etc, is centralized in New York and Los Angeles, but still has visibility in Chicago, Atlanta, Jacksonville ( at one point) and probably a few others I don't know about.


The major centers of course can still be important, but it's beautiful when other cities are able to have sizable piece of the pie too. It would solve congestion problems and give people more options.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 9:34 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
Does it have to be this way for efficiency? For example, finance has always been centralized in New York and Chicago but there has been cities that also rose with and obtained their own famous institutions like San Francisco, Omaha, Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, etc. Media, whether it is television, movies, etc, is centralized in New York and Los Angeles, but still has visibility in Chicago, Atlanta, Jacksonville ( at one point) and probably a few others I don't know about.


The major centers of course can still be important, but it's beautiful when other cities are able to have sizable piece of the pie too. It would solve congestion problems and give people more options.
For some of the shiny trophy industries cities and states chase, yes, proximity does matter for efficiency. You will never see a major digital media agency pop up outside of a few usual suspects. This is for two reasons: agencies go where clients are based to maximize face time with key client decision makers, and talent goes to where agencies cluster because it gives them the most opportunities. I can jump from one agency to another, from media to client, from client to media, from media to publisher, etc etc, each time negotiating a raise or better terms. This isn’t possible in smaller metros.

I’m sure we will see a diffusion of back ops talent or development talent who can just use Slack or Teams remotely. But don’t expect to see all that much diffusion with the front end, client-facing roles. This goes for Finance, definitely goes for Life Sciences and biochem, fin-tech, ad-tech, etc.
__________________
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Harlan Ellison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 11:44 AM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 609
I believe we're entering in a new age of centralization, after decades of suburbanization and growing of mid-sized cities. New York's renaissance, London booming, Berlin booming, Tokyo dodging population decline are the most obvious cases.

Massive metropolises which were seen in a very dystopian way in the 1970's and 1980's, even by its own inhabitants, boost now civic pride, better quality of living, good economic prospects and are once again perceived as places to be.

There are some challenges as the high cost of living, the troubles faced by the middle-class in most countries, but I believe soon or later they will be tackled by governments. Also, population stagnation/decline everywhere will put less pressure on real estate prices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 4:47 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,785
I would still argue that the USA is largely undeveloped.

100 years ago we were just barely leaving the "wild west" there were still saloons, cowboys and Indian Wars right up through WW1. Most people today dont realize how close that seemingly mythical era really is to us because in Europe things were already very modern and mechanized.

The growth of the sunbelt and inter-mountain west is just the natural progression of money from developed areas chasing new opportunity.

This Is why I still expect that flushing out this century we will see more of the inter Mountain west like Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming etc. There is still a ton of land that can and will be developed as technology and wealth from earlier developed areas can suddenly make harsh areas more livable and productive.

What I think is interesting is what will happen with communication technology on where people choose to live. Just like we are seeing people actively choose to live in urban areas when they dont actually have too I think you will see people move to smaller quieter areas if that appeals to them.

You dont really need to be anywhere specific in most cases anymore. Analysts and bankers dont need to be within shouting distance of each other in NYC like its 1880.

I think we will really see some surprising developments as people become more able to live wherever they want.

I still expect the cities to grow immensely however, but it doesn't take a lot of high wealth guys with an internet connection moving to Bozeman or Lincoln Nebraska to change how that town operates and the services/products that will be needed to support them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 5:46 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,757
^ yeah its weird how both centralization and descentralization are pulling at each other. or just interesting i should say. florida is bringing us good news as you don't need massive groups of people working in industrial settings and big factories anymore, so this also makes sense. however, people in general are still flocking to cities and to the biggest cities, so talent easily and naturally continues to flock there too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 12:05 AM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is online now
crisis actor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: under the coin of caesar
Posts: 9,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
I would still argue that the USA is largely undeveloped.

100 years ago we were just barely leaving the "wild west" there were still saloons, cowboys and Indian Wars right up through WW1. .
100 years ago the united states was a heavily urban
nation primarily centered upon the midwest and northeast.
__________________
t h e r e is no C h a o s.... . . . only g r e a t E n e r g y
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 1:20 AM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis View Post
100 years ago the united states was a heavily urban
nation primarily centered upon the Midwest and northeast.
You should work for the press because that really has nothing to do with my statement and a purposeful mischaracterization

Good job! I see a bright career in your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 2:35 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis View Post
100 years ago the united states was a heavily urban
nation primarily centered upon the midwest and northeast.
Yes and No. The US wasn't really that urbanized, however what was urbanized was centered on the Northeast and Midwest in 1920.

The Urban Population as a Percentage of the Total Population by U.S. (1920, 2010)

1920:
US: 51.2%
Northeast: 75.5%
Midwest: 52.3%
South: 28.1%
West: 51.8%

90 years later:

2010:
US: 80.7%
Northeast: 85.0%
Midwest:75.9%
South:75.8%
West:89.8%

No surprise here. The US has increasingly become more urban in every region. 2020 will probably show that the midwest is the least urbanized region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 3:20 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis View Post
100 years ago the united states was a heavily urban nation primarily centered upon the midwest and northeast.
overall, i wouldn't say that the nation was heavily urbanzied back then, but of the major cities that did exist, they definitely were concentrated in the NE and MW for the most part, with the big exception of coastal california.



here's one source i found for metro areas over 500,000 in 1920:

NE - green
MW - blue
West - red


Metropolitan Areas -- 1920

1.New York -- 8,490,694 ***
2.Chicago -- 3,521,789 **
3.Philadelphia -- 2,714,271 **
4.Boston -- 2,315,111 **
5.Pittsburgh -- 1,759,989 *
6.Detroit -- 1,305,798 *
7.St. Louis -- 1,139,877 **
8.San Francisco -- 1,009,467
9.Los Angeles -- 997,830
10.Cleveland -- 972,162 *
11.Baltimore -- 852,051
12.Buffalo -- 753,393
13.Minneapolis -- 704,566
14.Cincinnati -- 628,999 *
15.Washington -- 571,882 *
16.Milwaukee -- 539,449
17.Providence -- 536,572
18.Kansas City -- 528,833

source: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.phpt=913696


asterisks indicate the number of MLB teams a given metro area had at the time. 16 teams located in just 10 cities all in the northeast quadrant of the nation.

the main reason that SF and LA didn't have MLB in those days is that travel time by train out to the west coast (~3 days) was simply too great for MLB's intensive schedule.

the arrival of large scale passenger air travel in the 1950s finally made it practical for MLB to expand out west.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Nov 21, 2019 at 5:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 3:30 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
I would still argue that the USA is largely undeveloped.

100 years ago we were just barely leaving the "wild west" there were still saloons, cowboys and Indian Wars right up through WW1. Most people today dont realize how close that seemingly mythical era really is to us because in Europe things were already very modern and mechanized.

The growth of the sunbelt and inter-mountain west is just the natural progression of money from developed areas chasing new opportunity.

This Is why I still expect that flushing out this century we will see more of the inter Mountain west like Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming etc. There is still a ton of land that can and will be developed as technology and wealth from earlier developed areas can suddenly make harsh areas more livable and productive.

What I think is interesting is what will happen with communication technology on where people choose to live. Just like we are seeing people actively choose to live in urban areas when they dont actually have too I think you will see people move to smaller quieter areas if that appeals to them.

You dont really need to be anywhere specific in most cases anymore. Analysts and bankers dont need to be within shouting distance of each other in NYC like its 1880.

I think we will really see some surprising developments as people become more able to live wherever they want.

I still expect the cities to grow immensely however, but it doesn't take a lot of high wealth guys with an internet connection moving to Bozeman or Lincoln Nebraska to change how that town operates and the services/products that will be needed to support them.
There is room for population growth in the U.S. mainland, but we don't really need to devote more space for humans to occupy. We already have a ton of space devoted to humans that we're not using efficiently.

Last edited by iheartthed; Nov 21, 2019 at 3:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 4:10 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is room for population growth in the U.S. mainland, but we don't really need to devote more space for humans to occupy. We already have a ton of space devoted to humans that we're not using efficiently.
Since its not sim city there isn't a whole lot we can do about that, there are plenty of smaller cities in the great plains and inter mountain west and Texas that could and will potentially grow significantly in coming decades.

You cant stop that, it'll be what it will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 4:13 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Since its not sim city there isn't a whole lot we can do about that, there are plenty of smaller cities in the great plains and inter mountain west and Texas that could and will potentially grow significantly in coming decades.

You cant stop that, it'll be what it will be.
Nonsense. Plenty of things can be done. We just need to wait until a baby gets eaten by a bear for people to pay attention.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 4:44 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,502
If the topic is sprawl, of COURSE we can do something. Many cities (including several in the US) have significantly slowed sprawl. My city sprawled like hell until we made counties and cities plan and limit outward growth, and accept infill. It's difficult but can be done.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 5:06 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Nonsense. Plenty of things can be done. We just need to wait until a baby gets eaten by a bear for people to pay attention.
Baby's get eaten by animals not infrequently and have for two centuries of westward expansion. that isnt going to change

Quote:
If the topic is sprawl, of COURSE we can do something. Many cities (including several in the US) have significantly slowed sprawl. My city sprawled like hell until we made counties and cities plan and limit outward growth, and accept infill. It's difficult but can be done.
I'm not talking about "sprawl" necessarily I'm talking about people and money developing smaller towns and cities into bigger towns and cities over the coming decades specifically in the areas that are still quite undeveloped in the Mountain West and Great Plains

Obviously that will result in local sprawl. But how each place deals with its growth is largely a local matter and dependent on how people view sprawl and suburbia in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 8:20 PM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,227
between two big cities on the west coast (portland and sacremento) there are seven small cities. salem, eugene, bend, boise, medford, redding and reno. theres less chance of living in a big city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 2:24 AM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Yes and No. The US wasn't really that urbanized, however what was urbanized was centered on the Northeast and Midwest in 1920.

The Urban Population as a Percentage of the Total Population by U.S. (1920, 2010)

1920:
US: 51.2%
Northeast: 75.5%
Midwest: 52.3%
South: 28.1%
West: 51.8%

90 years later:

2010:
US: 80.7%
Northeast: 85.0%
Midwest:75.9%
South:75.8%
West:89.8%

No surprise here. The US has increasingly become more urban in every region. 2020 will probably show that the midwest is the least urbanized region.
The 2010 numbers are mostly due to the growth of suburbs so this stat can be somewhat misleading. What was considered urban in 1920 was much more urban than what is considered urban today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.