Advocates on opposite sides of urban debates often spend a great deal of time talking past each other. That's because there's a certain Mars-Venus split in how they see the world. In effect, there are two very different and competing visions of what an American city should be in the 21st century, the “high quality” model and the “high quantity” model One side has focused on growing vertically, the other horizontally. One group wants to be Neimans or a trendy boutique and ignores the mass market. The other focuses more on the middle class, like a Costco and Target. It should come as no surprise that there's seldom agreement between the two.
America's “High Quality” cities are the traditional large tier-one metro areas, but also include smaller cities like Seattle and Portland. They stress high wage activities such as finance, high tech, and luxury consumption. In this model, traditional growth in areas like population, jobs, or the size of the urban footprint are less important and even seen as a negative. Understandably so. It's difficult to see, for example, how another million people living in the Bay Area would improve the fortunes of companies like Google or Facebook, or another million Angelenos helping Hollywood.
Indeed many residents would oppose such growth due to increased traffic, infrastructure spending, and other of the challenges associated with it. In effect, the anti-growth agenda that dominates the culture of many of these places is not based simply on environmental concern, but the economic interests of their dominant regional elites. These places have already achieved the size to support their urban amenities.
Another reason not to press the growth button: on measures of urban quality such as economic output and income, most are clearly doing very well. Most of these places generate GDP per capita far above the US metro average of $41,737. With the exception of Chicago, they are also growing at a pace that beats the US average. These cities also boast incomes – although often a cost of living – generally well above average, though have been mixed in performance on that metric over the last decade.
|“High Quality” Cities|
|Quality Indicators||Quantity Indicators|
|MSA||2008 Real GDP per Capita||Percent Change in GDP per Capita, 2001-2008||2008 Per Capita Income as Pct of US Average||PCI Change vs. US Average||2009 Pop.||Pop. Pct. Change 2000-2009||2009 Jobs||Percent Change in Jobs 2000-2009|
But if these areas are doing well, for those who can afford to live them at least, they tend to do poorly on quantity measures. Many of them have anemic population growth, albeit from a large base. And virtually all of them actually destroyed jobs in the last decade. The ravenous maw of Washington, DC of course, being the great exception.
This mixed performance isn't surprising. High end activities are by definition exclusive. The specialized environments they require, and the high value and wealth they create, create expensive places to do business. Unless you have to be in one of these places, such as to take advantage of industry clusters or specialized labor markets, it doesn't make sense to pay the price to do so. Clearly, mass employers have voted with their feet.
Four data points from Silicon Valley sum it up. Between 2001 and 2008, the San Jose MSA’s: a) real GDP per capita increased by 20.8% b) total real GDP increased by 25.9%, c) real GDP per job increased by 39.6%, BUT d) total employment declined by 9.4%. That's the high quality city dynamic in a nutshell.
America's “High Quantity” cities follow the opposite pattern. They might have their occasional claims to fame, but few feature the high end business or glamorous lifestyles of America's premier metros – even though some have spent big bucks on vanity projects to polish their reputations. Rather, what these cities do well is provide quality workaday environments for the middle class. And create jobs – lots of jobs, the Great Recession notwithstanding.
This is again backed up by the numbers. These cities fare well on quantity measures such as population growth, where they crush the US average of 8.8%, and job growth, where several of them actually managed to post double-digit gains during the generally anemic 2000s.
|“High Quantity” Cities|
|Quality Indicators||Quantity Indicators|
|MSA||2008 Real GDP per Capita||Percent Change in GDP per Capita, 2001-2008||2008 Per Capita Income as Pct of US Average||PCI Change vs. US Average||2009||Pop.||2009 Jobs||Percent Change in Jobs 2000-2009|
|Salt Lake City||46453||9.30%||95||0||1130||16.20%||610.8||8.00%|
But all is not well with these cities just because they are adding jobs and people. Their GDP per capita is generally above average, but is growing slowly. Their per capita income may be lower than some, but their cost of living is rock bottom, enabling a high quality of life. But worryingly, those incomes are often not keeping pace with the US average.
These two dynamics reflect what has happened throughout America, from retail to media, where there has been a great “hour glassing” effect in the marketplace. A small but significant high end is thriving, almost everywhere but particularly in the quality oriented cities. The low end is also doing well, particularly in the quantity oriented cities. Neimans and Wal-Mart, indeed.
In the future, both models face big challenges. The high quality cities continue to become more exclusive. The problem with getting high end on a smaller base is that your market is asymptotically zero. And as high quality talent gets squeezed out – by being not quite elite enough, for lifestyle, affordability or other reasons – the quantity cities start to poach great people and start stealing even more market share. It's always easier to climb up the value chain than go down it. At some point, these cities could run out of room to shimmy up the flag pole.
Some high quantity cities may face even greater risks. America's great elite metropolises have proven they can stand the test of time. New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco – all have made it through many economic cycles, fundamental transformations, and even great physical disasters. Few of the high growth cities have proven they've got staying power after exhausting their first great growth phase. Detroit, Cleveland, and other Rust Belt burgs were yesterday's Sun Belt boomtowns. They serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of not having a quality calling card to fall back on when your allure as a growth story fades
Partisans of these two models need to learn how to learn from each other. The high quality cities need to learn again the lessons of their youth about the importance of growth. And the high quantity cities need to create environments that will sustain them after they've lost greenfield advantages. An hourglass America is not one most of us want to live in for the long term. Maintaining a stable commonwealth for the long term means striving again to restore some new 21st century version of our lost middle ground.
Real GDP per Capita (in 2001 chained dollars) is from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis
Per Capita Personal Income as a percentage of the US average is from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Population is the from the annual mid-year estimates from the US Bureau of the Census.
Total jobs from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics program.
Data changes are calculated.
Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.