5 ms·

Before industrialization, land that mattered was farmland. Then as industrialization took hold, urban land became more important as the grouping of people toget

Before industrialization, land that mattered was farmland. Then as industrialization took hold, urban land became more important as the grouping of people together allowed for economies of scale in manufacturing. But then the petrochemical revolution put things in reverse, as people could live anywhere and travel by car. Suddenly, open space was economically desirable, as it made more sense to build a factory in super-cheap Nowheresville, Arkansas than crowded, expensive Philadelphia. But the rise in global supply chains - the shipping container in particular - meant that it makes more sense to build just about everything in a few massive hubs (Shenzhen as the prime example), and then ship things all around the world, at a much cheaper rate than if the widget or smartphone were made at home. Likewise for services, like IT and finance, it makes much more sense for all of these professionals to work together in the same places, which is why a handful of cities are crushing the Information Age while hundreds of other towns and cities are either dying slowly or are on life support (higher education economy, tax-break-driven manufacturing, etc) Will we see the same resurgence of sprawl as followed the petrochemical revolution? I'm not sure. Remote work has its niches but I couldn't imagine a serious major company like Google or IBM existing without a lot of corporate real estate and proximate workers. And as I've argued elsewhere on HN, today's professionals have professional needs: doctors, lawyers, teachers, all things they expect to have within their area. Rural areas and even small to medium sized cities have trouble competing for the best-in-class services that the upper echelons of professionals demand (and given that this class is both responsible for and generally the beneficiary of globalization, that makes it very hard to say that, say, Rochester, NY could become the next great tech hub (a decent tech hub perhaps, but no Silicon Valley) without a LOT more to attract the highest end professional class. Maybe self-driving cars (personally I predict RVs) will be able to make sprawl great again, but even then it would still be a concentration around a (albeit larger) major metropolitan area. Urban/rural was the most important divide of the 19th-20th centuries. It looks like it will continue throughout the 21st.

justinator 9y ago
Google, Amazon (for example), are building large work centers in desirable places to work, which are raising the cost of living of everyone else in the town that may not have a six figure income. Google is moving to Boulder, CO as we speak; Denver was on the shortlist for Amazon. It's the same problem with kicking out artists in a dilapidated warehouse area, and moving in boring professionals to live in lofts built on the same foundations: your renewed neighborhood loses all the reasons it was appealing. In Boulder already you cannot really afford living in town with a service industry job, but people who want to work in Google also want to go out and have a beer after work. Those service industry workers need to commute into town, which is time-consuming, adds expense, worsens traffic, and lowers their quality of life.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > kicking out artists in a dilapidated warehouse area, and moving in boring professionals So artists are wonderful, interesting people, and professionals are boring and unappealing? Wow.
  - asdffdsaaasdf 9y ago
    Generally speaking yes, I think artists add an element of interest and entropy in an area compared to professionals in white collar positions. Wouldn't agree on the 'wonderful' or 'unappealing' value judgments though; I think you added them for rhetorical emphasis.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      I did add "wonderful" for rhetorical emphasis, but "unappealing" came from the parent.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    Speaking as a boring professional, yes, artists may be insufferable in plenty of ways, but boring they are not and their presence is important for establishing and growing a local culture, whereas professionals are good for growing an economy and both are needed for a healthy, vibrant city.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      I know some artists, and many of them are definitely boring :-) Just because someone decides to be an artist and sticks seashells on a model house doesn't make them interesting. And why would, for example, playing a trumpet well make you intrinsically more interesting than mastering complex mathematics? I'd rather have lunch with the mathematician. In fact, Feynman is at the top of the list of people I'd like to have lunch with, and it's not about his bongo drum playing. (P.S. I learned to play the trumpet in my youth.)
      - 9y ago
saas_sam 9y ago
I think the question to answer is this: What does Small Town, U.S.A. have to offer the world that people are willing to pay for? My sense is that until very recently, the answer was "stuff the locals want plus a few large operations that 'plugged into' the national economy like farms and factories." Now, as you point out, the barriers to consolidating industry into mega-hubs like Shenzhen are dissolving. The only reasons to start or keep a business somewhere now are 3: 1. Physical resource dependence (ex. mining operations need to be where the mine is), 2. Regulatory (ex. tax policies), and 3. Talent. Small towns used to rely on #1, which is now a losing strategy since global markets have dramatically driven down the costs of extracting and moving physical resources. Now they're trying to do more of #2, which works for a little while but there's always another government somewhere willing to cut a better deal. The only way small towns can compete is to focus on #3: Talent. They have to develop highly skilled workforces. That's literally all they can do.
- brewdad 9y ago
  They have to develop highly skilled workforces AND keep them there. My smallish town where I grew up certainly hasn't done that. Of all of my classmates who attended college directly after high school, I can count on one hand with spare fingers the number still living in the area. I'd say well over half don't even live in the state anymore. Mind you, nobody in my high school attended any fancy private universities. We almost all went to state schools. (Big Ten, MAC, and smaller schools.) The private school attendees went to local religious affiliated colleges. Developing talent does no good if you can't stop the brain drain.

justinator 9y ago

Google, Amazon (for example), are building large work centers in desirable places to work, which are raising the cost of living of everyone else in the town that may not have a six figure income. Google is moving to Boulder, CO as we speak; Denver was on the shortlist for Amazon. It's the same problem with kicking out artists in a dilapidated warehouse area, and moving in boring professionals to live in lofts built on the same foundations: your renewed neighborhood loses all the reasons it was appealing. In Boulder already you cannot really afford living in town with a service industry job, but people who want to work in Google also want to go out and have a beer after work. Those service industry workers need to commute into town, which is time-consuming, adds expense, worsens traffic, and lowers their quality of life.

WalterBright 9y ago
> kicking out artists in a dilapidated warehouse area, and moving in boring professionals So artists are wonderful, interesting people, and professionals are boring and unappealing? Wow.
- asdffdsaaasdf 9y ago
  Generally speaking yes, I think artists add an element of interest and entropy in an area compared to professionals in white collar positions. Wouldn't agree on the 'wonderful' or 'unappealing' value judgments though; I think you added them for rhetorical emphasis.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    I did add "wonderful" for rhetorical emphasis, but "unappealing" came from the parent.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  Speaking as a boring professional, yes, artists may be insufferable in plenty of ways, but boring they are not and their presence is important for establishing and growing a local culture, whereas professionals are good for growing an economy and both are needed for a healthy, vibrant city.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    I know some artists, and many of them are definitely boring :-) Just because someone decides to be an artist and sticks seashells on a model house doesn't make them interesting. And why would, for example, playing a trumpet well make you intrinsically more interesting than mastering complex mathematics? I'd rather have lunch with the mathematician. In fact, Feynman is at the top of the list of people I'd like to have lunch with, and it's not about his bongo drum playing. (P.S. I learned to play the trumpet in my youth.)
    - 9y ago

saas_sam 9y ago

I think the question to answer is this: What does Small Town, U.S.A. have to offer the world that people are willing to pay for? My sense is that until very recently, the answer was "stuff the locals want plus a few large operations that 'plugged into' the national economy like farms and factories." Now, as you point out, the barriers to consolidating industry into mega-hubs like Shenzhen are dissolving. The only reasons to start or keep a business somewhere now are 3: 1. Physical resource dependence (ex. mining operations need to be where the mine is), 2. Regulatory (ex. tax policies), and 3. Talent. Small towns used to rely on #1, which is now a losing strategy since global markets have dramatically driven down the costs of extracting and moving physical resources. Now they're trying to do more of #2, which works for a little while but there's always another government somewhere willing to cut a better deal. The only way small towns can compete is to focus on #3: Talent. They have to develop highly skilled workforces. That's literally all they can do.

brewdad 9y ago
They have to develop highly skilled workforces AND keep them there. My smallish town where I grew up certainly hasn't done that. Of all of my classmates who attended college directly after high school, I can count on one hand with spare fingers the number still living in the area. I'd say well over half don't even live in the state anymore. Mind you, nobody in my high school attended any fancy private universities. We almost all went to state schools. (Big Ten, MAC, and smaller schools.) The private school attendees went to local religious affiliated colleges. Developing talent does no good if you can't stop the brain drain.