Don't forget cities that have influxes of young population so have increasing tax receipts but much lower legacy costs (retirees, infrastructure maintenance, stable growth rate education costs per capita). Most of those cities will mismanage the growth and 20-40 years from now you'll be reading about Nashville and how it was gutted when the software jobs dried up. These come in cycles and cities that have some sort of reason to exist (natural ports/harbors, river confluences, trade points, etc) will continue to exist and most of the rest will not.
Perez's <i>Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital</i> makes the point that when a technological revolution occurs, gains are frequently concentrated in a small number of locales that are the first to adopt the new technology and adapt their local industries to the new structure of the economy. This results in significant economic (short term), military (medium term), and geopolitical (long term) power. The changing power balance usually sparks a war and a realignment of the global order.<p>In the industrial revolutions of the 19th and early 20th centuries, though, nation states usually adopted the new technologies en masse, with the whole nation sharing in the gains. So you had rising nations like Britain, America, Prussia, and Japan which could challenge declining empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, China, and the Ottomans.<p>This technological revolution is different, because you have specific <i>parts</i> of nations that are adapting to the new technologies and thriving, while other parts get left behind and see the power they had wilt away. There's relatively little historical precedent for this; the only ones I can think of might be the decline of the Roman empire (where the Eastern Mediterranean remained up-to-date and civilized, while the Northern European hinterlands disintegrated and broke up) and the American Civil War (where the industrial North conquered the agrarian South). And this pattern isn't just U.S-based: China also has a dramatic disparity in wealth & power between coastal cities and the inland hinterland, as well as one between the high-tech South (centered around Shenzhen and the Pearl River Delta) and more politically powerful North (around Beijing).<p>I don't know exactly what it means, but I don't think it bodes well for either of the major global superpowers.
So if I understand the article correctly the cities that succeeded were the ones that allowed for new industries and businesses to flourish whereas the ones lagging are ones that were built on traditional manufacturing industries that have since dried up in the face of foreign competition and automation.<p>Am I missing something? That seems pretty obvious to me that the industries that wouldn't recover jobs from a recession are the ones already on their way out and the ones that would thrive are the ones that were starting to emerge during the same time period.
This probably gonna get me killed but I've got to put it out there.<p>I was <i>so</i> disappointed by the food and music scene in Nashville. Literally every restaurant was some trendy clone of some vaguely hipster cracker barrel (one exception). The music I could find (with one exception) was just sad cover bands doing the same Counting Crows covers over and over again.<p>Redeeming restaurant: Princes hot chicken. Got that shit at a XXX and it melted my face. Wonderful.<p>Redeeming venue: High Watt/ Mercy lounge. I don't remember who I saw but it was great.<p>If you know better places to eat/ find good up-and-coming music in Nashville, please let me know. I want it to live up to what I think it could be.
It would be interesting to find out how much debt these "superstar" cities have taken on and the structure of their "portfolio"s. Almost all revenue generation done by local municipalities is through property taxes so it's very important to evaluate these places by some sort of Sharpe Ratio or else you're just encouraging these places to be the next Detroit.
Basically a summary:<p>1. Focuses mostly on Nashville<p>1. Cities that have a young urban population with job creation that isn't tied to old industries are thriving.<p>2. Nashville has no State Income tax, and most cities and states that have no State Income tax are doing well as remote work takes over and tech workers relocate to take advantage.<p>3. Mention building a convention center for $600MM but no real numbers on what that had to do with the cities expansion. Uncorrelated at best.<p>4. One major change was the overhaul in zoning regulations that allowed developers to build vertically to accommodate a growing population. Perhaps an parallel to what is happening in San Francisco.<p>----<p>Summary: The economic turnaround from the recession has unevenly favored cities that are tied to non failing industries in decline. Seems pretty obvious.
That map is confusing, regions are colored grey that are clearly in the top 20 MSA, like the entire urbanized northeast. Also the article's mostly about Nashville, not its title.
There are a few dynamics at play here<p>1.) even with some declining cities, US cities are still some of the most powerful in the world. According to <a href="https://howmuch.net/articles/the-economic-size-of-metro-areas-compared-to-countries" rel="nofollow">https://howmuch.net/articles/the-economic-size-of-metro-area...</a> (2017) Bay Area economy is as large as the entire country of Nigeria, NY area is as largest as Canada, LA is as big as turkey! Even Portland is as big as Qatar! And with the global slowdown in 2018 and 2019, while US is the sole bright spot, the dominance will only be magnified.<p>2.) demographics is now shifting to where gen z is the biggest generation now. In 5-10 years they will be establishing families and moving to less crowded suburbs and smaller cities. Which means the mega cities will lose some growth and the secondary cities will gain.
odd title, the word 'superstar' is used once outside of the title by an MIT economist proposing federal subsidies for cities/towns with research universities.<p>no mention of NYC, Boston, nor do they appear on the infographic.<p>so it seems so called superstar cities aren't really defined as i would expect them to be.
This ties nicely with another HN post just a few days ago [1] where a person heavily involved in civil engineering talks about why he moved away from the free market view of city growth.<p>You have a bunch of struggling cities without any funding for basic services, that spend massive amounts in attempt to attract businesses without a way to recoup losses. Which causes a sort of nasty cycle where people move towards cities which have more resources.<p>Since the word 'taxes' is essentially a forbidden word, the only option is for these cities to receive federal assistance. Or else get left behind even further.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20460509" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20460509</a>
I don't see anything special to US in that phenomenon. I'd even say that US is notably better than most of the world in keeping its 2nd tier cities alive economically.<p>Most of Asia had that problem for decades, where only 1st tier cities had market for jobs above the "better than nothing" level.<p>It is either USA becoming more like Asia here, after few decades lag, or it is American second tier cities actually sliding back.
>But interviews with entrepreneurs and officials in Nashville point to a mix of factors behind its success, including some that were out of the city’s control, such as the state’s lack of an income tax, and others associated with its unique local assets.<p>NYC and SF, both big tech hubs, both have income taxes.