Depressed Cities that might be "Turning Around" & "Hot" Cities that might be Peaking

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by goat314

I've always thought that Indy and Nashville have a government model that should be implemented in St. Louis. St. Louis probably misses out on a lot of growth, because of the corrupt and fragmented local government structure. It really holds the city back. The argument could be made that a lot of the Lower Midwest/Upper South cities are growing at a relatively impressive clip, because St. Louis has been so dysfunctional in controlling it's traditional hinterlands.

yeah i mean, we are surrounded by lower midwest and southern cities that have figured this out. nashville, louisville, indianapolis.... and of course kansas city and memphis have much, much larger boundaries while not the same as a unigov are advantageous. but, yes, why cant we do what f'n louisville has done?

[Centropolis]

granted all of these other cities didn't have a basket of uber-established 100 year old + suburbs with their own pre-war housing vernaculars and street grid.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

climate change will affect chicago and the midwest just as much as anywhere else. perhaps not from a rising seawater perspective, but to think the city and the region will simply exist in some magical bubble where it will be insulated from larger catastrophic implications of this trend is extremely myopic. if in 50 years Miami and Austin are uninhabitable, chicago may be inhabitable, but it certainly wont be pleasant. and seeing this as a "win" for the city at the expense of the entire planet is absurd
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html

chicago is predicted to have the climate of modern day Austin by the end of the century. i dont know if youve ever lived through an Austin summer, but its not something i recommend, and will certainly decimate our agricultural industry, tree canopy, native vegetation, the health of the lake, the way we spend time outdoors, etc etc. Reality is if this comes to pass, we are screwed in so many ways beyond quaint concerns like real estate....

You're misinterpreting my post. I'm not saying climate change is going to be a blessing for Chicago or the Midwest in general. My point is climate change will drive up demand for the area as it has access to fresh water and will be more hospitable than places in the southern U.S. That's not me saying climate change is a positive...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Predicting the future is always dicey, ask Paul Saffo, but most futurists see previous trends/outcomes as the best predictors for future trends, e.g. close horizons. Predicting out past two generations is really just an exercise in wishful thinking.

As a futurist myself, this is spot on and can't be emphasized enough. We use previous trends/outcomes merely as a basis for going forward. Btw, checkout Saffo's work with Singularity University.

[Pedestrian]

Evidence Seattle has peaked? At least somewhere else may get a lot of help "turning around".

Amazon starts search for second headquarter location . . . .
Sep. 7, 2017 7:32 AM ET|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor

Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) announces plans to open an over $5B secondary headquarters in North America.

The headquarters, dubbed HQ2, will employee as many as 50K people.

Amazon has opened HQ2 request for proposal for local and state government officials . . . .

https://seekingalpha.com/news/329406...na-r-and-d-hub

[mhays]

It's evidence that the amount of growth they're causing in Seattle might be hitting barriers. And we're pretty punitive with giant fees anytime someone wants to build something.

[Black Box]

Hmmmm, Amazon is definitely nearing a peak in Seattle, though whether that means Seattle is peaking is up for debate. Maybe we are going to peak, then softly plateau? Or maybe we're going to stop growing after Amazon HQ2 goes up. Until then, several tens of thousands more Amazonians are coming, though that'll slow down eventually (I'm so ok with this.). The city and region still have lots of new things happening over the next 10-20 years (elevated highway tear down, new waterfront park, dramatic build out of light rail, a new second tallest, Yesler Terrace build out, new streetcar line, major airport expansion). Life goes on in this boom and bust city. We're due for a bust soon.....

[mhays]

What makes you think we're a boom and bust city? Not in the past but now.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Predicting the future is always dicey, ask Paul Saffo, but most futurists see previous trends/outcomes as the best predictors for future trends, e.g. close horizons. Predicting out past two generations is really just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Reading this as I contemplate whether or not to get my Dick Tracy wrist radio:


https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-3/

I've been using a communicator a la Star Trek (slightly modified) for a decade now:

• Video Link

Adittedly, I don't have Hal:

• Video Link

I have Alexa:


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00X4WHP5E...s_ods_fs_ha_dr

[hammersklavier]

Predicting up-and-comers is tricky because innovation is chaotic and tends to lead to unexpected results. Saying that the Midwest is bottoming out and will start to broadly rebound, though, is probably not untrue; there is evidence of this is pretty much every large Midwestern metro (pop. 2m+)'s core city.

It's worth pointing out, however, that innovation advantages can't be counted on forever. Detroit burned its innovation advantage out quickly as the auto industry massively centralized even when it was practically still in the cradle; San Francisco has been much more enduring because of how decentralized its tech culture is (not in terms of area, but in terms of companies there are involved).

BUT no economy as successful as San Francisco's in a single sector will remain so forever. Detroit's economy had become fragilely auto industry-centric and so imploded in the 70s and early 80s against Japanese competition (the metro economy has rebuilt and is much more diverse today). And Shenzhen is quickly developing as a major tech capital in East Asia with an innovation model aping San Francisco's.

[mhays]

San Francisco has also benefitted from the tech industry's tendency to cluster. Other industries have typically branched out more.

One reason is that with software and internet services, the "factory" is comprised of highly-paid people at the headquarters. Historically they prefer the top cities and have been able to afford them. That suggests other cities rising too, but SF's synergies have kept the big cluster together. Today the cost-benefit has become too much for a bigger chunk of the sector so it's losing some of its market share, but that's an equilibrium issue, and equilibrium can be at an enormous price point.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

San Francisco has also benefitted from the tech industry's tendency to cluster . . . . Today the cost-benefit has become too much for a bigger chunk of the sector so it's losing some of its market share, but that's an equilibrium issue, and equilibrium can be at an enormous price point.

I think the main reason the Bay Area percentage of the total tech industry is declining is because the industry is growing; not because it's shrinking in the Bay Area which it isn't: The tech sector is leaving the rest of the US economy in its dust

On thing I HAVE noticed recently--really, quite recently--is that Austin almost always gets mentioned in the same conversations (about growth of the tech industry) as the West Coast (mainly the Bay Area and Seattle). It's really the only other city that does. You used to hear more about places like North Carolina's Research Triangle but that is oriented primarily toward biotech and drug research, an industry which has been in the shade compared to IT recently.

[RC14]

This is a difficult question to answer.
I think the future "hot cities" will be cities that aren't even on our radar now.

I don't think New York, San Francisco, LA or Boston are ever going away although they will have their ups an downs.

I am skeptical about the return of most rust belt and Midwest cities. I think they will come back but I don't think places like Detroit will become "Hot cities" again. Chicago could be an exception there but I could see Chicago going either way.

Cities that I think have peaked are Denver, Seattle and maybe Miami.

20 years from now I'm sure the world will look nothing like what I described in this post.

[Black Box]

Originally Posted by mhays

What makes you think we're a boom and bust city? Not in the past but now.

Soon was a poor choice of words. Again is what I meant. When Amazon hits hard times, that could cause Seattle to go bust. If Boeing yanked operations or a massive earthquake..

[mhays]

Sure, if one of them cut 30,000 overnight. But we're much less bust-prone now than we used to be.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

BUT no economy as successful as San Francisco's in a single sector will remain so forever . . . . Shenzhen is quickly developing as a major tech capital in East Asia with an innovation model aping San Francisco's.

It is some kind of modern myth that San Francisco is a "single sector" economy.

The city began as the best natural harbor on the west coast. But it grew as a result of the gold rush which led to its being the terminus of the "pony express' and th transcontinental railroad. It coined the gold and silver from Nevada mines into cash and became a banking center which it has been ever since. More recently it has been and remains the financial capital of the west coast with nearly every major New York investment banker and/or mutual fund empire having a branch. It houses more than 30 of the largest non-American banking institutions, including Barclays Bank of the United Kingdom, Sumitomo Bank of Japan, Banco di Roma of Italy, Banque Nationale de Paris of France, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank of China, Lippo Bank of Indonesia, and the Royal Bank of Scotland. It also has office buildings packed with lawyers and is a headquarters city for the likes of companies such as Chevron (energy), McKesson (pharmaceutical wholesaler/distributor), Levi Strauss (clothing), Bechtel (global engineering), Lucasfilm (er, movies), Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo. Essentially the entire historical financial district (the "FiDi" north of Market St.) is tech-free. It is the newer South Financial District and adjacent South of Market neighborhoods where all the tech companies have set up shop.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by RC14

This is a difficult question to answer.
I think the future "hot cities" will be cities that aren't even on our radar now.

I don't think New York, San Francisco, LA or Boston are ever going away although they will have their ups an downs.

I am skeptical about the return of most rust belt and Midwest cities. I think they will come back but I don't think places like Detroit will become "Hot cities" again. Chicago could be an exception there but I could see Chicago going either way.

Cities that I think have peaked are Denver, Seattle and maybe Miami.

20 years from now I'm sure the world will look nothing like what I described in this post.

Chicago is only declining in overall city population. In terms of attractions and city improvements, Chicago is still up there. IMO, only NYC has reshaped its city more than Chicago in the US since 2000, especially in the downtown area. Chicago also has cultural power: music, politics, art, film, food, architecture, education, etc, and it continues to be a leader and innovator in that regard. Chicago would have to decline substantially to "lose its place". We're talking about a decline across the entire city, including downtown and the North and NW side. By decline, I mean not just population, but city services, amenties, etc. Unless some horrible disaster occurs, I don't see that happening.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It is some kind of modern myth that San Francisco is a "single sector" economy.

The city began as the best natural harbor on the west coast. But it grew as a result of the gold rush which led to its being the terminus of the "pony express' and th transcontinental railroad. It coined the gold and silver from Nevada mines into cash and became a banking center which it has been ever since. More recently it has been and remains the financial capital of the west coast with nearly every major New York investment banker and/or mutual fund empire having a branch. It houses more than 30 of the largest non-American banking institutions, including Barclays Bank of the United Kingdom, Sumitomo Bank of Japan, Banco di Roma of Italy, Banque Nationale de Paris of France, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank of China, Lippo Bank of Indonesia, and the Royal Bank of Scotland. It also has office buildings packed with lawyers and is a headquarters city for the likes of companies such as Chevron (energy), McKesson (pharmaceutical wholesaler/distributor), Levi Strauss (clothing), Bechtel (global engineering), Lucasfilm (er, movies), Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo. Essentially the entire historical financial district (the "FiDi" north of Market St.) is tech-free. It is the newer South Financial District and adjacent South of Market neighborhoods where all the tech companies have set up shop.

We've done this topic already, and what many SF boosters aren't recognizing is that the only industry where SF is shining out of proportion to its size is in tech. SF isn't particularly spectacular in anything else even though it's obviously diversified. So if this 15 year old VC/Tech thing ever flickers a bit, or perhaps deflates or slips away, SF really won't be all that white hot any more.

This is why I get a chuckle whenever I see people use NY and SF in the same breath. NY has been the capital of the world for about a century. SF has been the capital of one booming industry for hardly about 20 (with much of that industry actually located outside of the city). Yes, the rents are the same, but that is all these two cities will ever have in common.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Segun

Chicago is only declining in overall city population. In terms of attractions and city improvements, Chicago is still up there. IMO, only NYC has reshaped its city more than Chicago in the US since 2000, especially in the downtown area. Chicago also has cultural power: music, politics, art, film, food, architecture, education, etc, and it continues to be a leader and innovator in that regard. Chicago would have to decline substantially to "lose its place". We're talking about a decline across the entire city, including downtown and the North and NW side. By decline, I mean not just population, but city services, amenties, etc. Unless some horrible disaster occurs, I don't see that happening.

I would argue that no American city has seen its central area change as dramatically as Chicago in the past 17 years. New York has of course seen the most volume of construction, but it has already been a forest of skyscrapers for over a century. A couple hundred more? Hardly changes the "feel" of Manhattan. What will be exciting is to see how rapidly downtown Brooklyn changes. Already it's incredible what we are seeing across the Hudson in Jersey. NY is turning into Hong Kong with skyscraper districts on multiple river banks.

Chicago is losing population, but rapidly gaining wealthy households. Bad, good, whatever you call it, it's definitely splitting into 2 cities. And the one that's thriving is only getting more and more fun to spend time in.

[mhays]

A lot of cities can make a case depending on the criteria.

Chicago's case depends on a certain standard mixing "percent changed" and "dollar value or sf of change." It needs to be a mix of the two. If "dollar value or sf" is the criteria then it's NY. If it's "percent" then it's probably Miami or Austin.

Also the list changes depending on whether you're talking the whole metro, the city-of, greater downtown (with its various mutations), etc.

Seattle isn't going to win most versions of this, but we can make a case too if it's a certain mix of the factors. Call it greater Downtown, favor percent more than volume, and still require a sizable volume. Some would beat us in any individual category, but we can gerrymander a win.