Here is another chart, similar to Figure 1 from the previous post. The y-axis is still the change in real income per capita. I have annualized it here. And the x-axis is now annual population growth instead of annual housing permits per capita. I think this provides a visual way to think about housing deprivation. Starting with the idea from the last post, think of the current economic growth rate of a given city in terms of the horizontal red arrow. Austin is currently booming, so there is potential for Austin’s population to grow by more than 3% annually.
Good series of posts. I tend to think about agglomeration of many American cities as a 19th century phenomenon because that's when proximity and density had the biggest impact on growth patterns. Boston and New York are still benefitting from the decisions made by property owners and investors from that era--most of who would be perplexed by the regulatory environment that arose in the post-war period. The business cores of Manhattan and Boston are a bit of distraction compared to the comprehensive density of residential neighborhoods that are within a 10 mile radius of downtown. Increasing density in the "middle ring" of these cities requires deep pockets and celestial patience.
Good series of posts. I tend to think about agglomeration of many American cities as a 19th century phenomenon because that's when proximity and density had the biggest impact on growth patterns. Boston and New York are still benefitting from the decisions made by property owners and investors from that era--most of who would be perplexed by the regulatory environment that arose in the post-war period. The business cores of Manhattan and Boston are a bit of distraction compared to the comprehensive density of residential neighborhoods that are within a 10 mile radius of downtown. Increasing density in the "middle ring" of these cities requires deep pockets and celestial patience.