Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright
I've got an Urban Economics textbook with your name on it, seriously stop by and pick it up, it's a good read. I'll quote more in a separate post from it. I've taken multiple 300 and 400 level real estate and economics courses on this including an entire course just on Urban Economics. The concept of economies of agglomeration is not up for debate, economists don't agree on much, but they all agree on the fundamental economic forces that cause cities to exist.
|
Economic theories and principles are one thing. But results are different.
Urban agglomeration in theory makes sense, and I get the argument. And I love that companies are moving downtown--its great for Chicago. It's also great for the region in that it may make the south suburbs more appealing as a place to live as more jobs are accessible to them by being downtown.
But if you take a results-oriented approach, the proof has to be in the pudding. Take change in stock value in publicly traded companies as one example. Compare a large number of companies based out of suburban campuses to a similarly sized cohort (both in a healthy mix of industries) based in urban cores. Does one group, on average, perform better than the other?
I'm just curious if anyone has ever made that comparison
Threaded Mode