A quick note today on agglomeration economies. I have written here and there about it. There seems to be a tendency among economists to emphasize the productivity of cities as a reason for expensive housing. Like, the thing that makes our time different than previous eras is that our cities have become much more productive.
I'm wondering if "first movers" (big developers, private equity) move into these growth areas, build like crazy, and then lobby/socially engineer to prevent further development, giving them an unnatural monopoly.
This would fit with the general state of our current oligarchs, who are extractive rather than additive.
Is there any particular reason not to use other metrics for agglomeration - for example population growth (NYC grew by about 1.5mln people from 1994 to 2018 - metro area almost by 4mln) or number of job positions? Permits doesn't feel like a natural measure of agglomeration.
I’ve done figure 2 using UK data. It’s checks out https://ibb.co/Pzbmy6C
I'm wondering if "first movers" (big developers, private equity) move into these growth areas, build like crazy, and then lobby/socially engineer to prevent further development, giving them an unnatural monopoly.
This would fit with the general state of our current oligarchs, who are extractive rather than additive.
Is there any particular reason not to use other metrics for agglomeration - for example population growth (NYC grew by about 1.5mln people from 1994 to 2018 - metro area almost by 4mln) or number of job positions? Permits doesn't feel like a natural measure of agglomeration.
I like the emphasis on how nimbyism has led to millions of the poorest residents being displaced. This is not usually emphasized enough.
It would be interesting to see the permits broken out into types of units or even a measurement of dispersal of units.