My theory is that when you have multiple metros in the same region built on similar economic bases (as Chicago, StL, and a bunch of similar Rust Belt Midwestern cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, are) and the economy changes (to become more service-based), the biggest one in the region (Chicago) will win out. As an example, …
My theory is that when you have multiple metros in the same region built on similar economic bases (as Chicago, StL, and a bunch of similar Rust Belt Midwestern cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, are) and the economy changes (to become more service-based), the biggest one in the region (Chicago) will win out. As an example, look at lawyers in the Midwest. Every other Midwestern city has lost in numbers of lawyers besides Chicago. Probably because many companies have decided that if they are going to maintain a Midwestern hub, they'd probably maintain it in Chicago rather than some other Midwestern city. You'd probably see similar stories in other business support industries like accounting and management consulting. Likewise, outside of a few industries (banking in Charlotte), I expect Atlanta to dominate the Southeast. In TX and CA, energy is driving Houston and tech the SF Bay Area (and in TX, Austin is the tech hub). Otherwise, they would lose out to the DFW Metroplex and LA respectively.
Network effects are a big deal!
IMO, while Houston and DFW are neck-to-neck in size right now, with climate change (Houston is not well-situated for climate change as flooding in recent years has shown) and a big energy transition happening, I'm much more bullish on DFW than Houston.
BTW, StL's best bet is to become the food/ag science hub of the US. It's well-situated for that.
I was going to say that I’m much more bullish on DFW than Houston and Atlanta than Miami due to climate change (I’m more bullish on the central FL agglomeration than Miami for the same reason), though I suppose it may also depend on the relative advantages of air vs sea travel in the TX case.
Still, over the long run, I think Miami is doomed and the major inland metropolises in the US will be Atlanta, Chicago, DFW, and Denver (which will grow to rival the others with growth in the Mountain West).
On Houston (and New Orleans)... Water shipping is just too much cheaper than air for them to disappear. Different needs, unless air transport becomes much cheaper.
True, but cities don't have to be that big to handle a lot of cargo. Savannah and Charleston are a couple of the largest container ports in the US but aren't big cities. And a lot that's shipped out from Houston and the rest of the southern Louisiana/Texas Gulf Coast complex are fossil fuels, which may decrease quite a bit in the future.
And it also shows that one thing is a port, another is a market. If you have a port but don’t develop its corresponding market, you don’t accrue network effects maybe
My theory is that when you have multiple metros in the same region built on similar economic bases (as Chicago, StL, and a bunch of similar Rust Belt Midwestern cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, are) and the economy changes (to become more service-based), the biggest one in the region (Chicago) will win out. As an example, look at lawyers in the Midwest. Every other Midwestern city has lost in numbers of lawyers besides Chicago. Probably because many companies have decided that if they are going to maintain a Midwestern hub, they'd probably maintain it in Chicago rather than some other Midwestern city. You'd probably see similar stories in other business support industries like accounting and management consulting. Likewise, outside of a few industries (banking in Charlotte), I expect Atlanta to dominate the Southeast. In TX and CA, energy is driving Houston and tech the SF Bay Area (and in TX, Austin is the tech hub). Otherwise, they would lose out to the DFW Metroplex and LA respectively.
Network effects are a big deal!
IMO, while Houston and DFW are neck-to-neck in size right now, with climate change (Houston is not well-situated for climate change as flooding in recent years has shown) and a big energy transition happening, I'm much more bullish on DFW than Houston.
BTW, StL's best bet is to become the food/ag science hub of the US. It's well-situated for that.
Did you read this?
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/why-cities-are-fractal
I have now!
I was going to say that I’m much more bullish on DFW than Houston and Atlanta than Miami due to climate change (I’m more bullish on the central FL agglomeration than Miami for the same reason), though I suppose it may also depend on the relative advantages of air vs sea travel in the TX case.
Still, over the long run, I think Miami is doomed and the major inland metropolises in the US will be Atlanta, Chicago, DFW, and Denver (which will grow to rival the others with growth in the Mountain West).
I hear you.
On Houston (and New Orleans)... Water shipping is just too much cheaper than air for them to disappear. Different needs, unless air transport becomes much cheaper.
True, but cities don't have to be that big to handle a lot of cargo. Savannah and Charleston are a couple of the largest container ports in the US but aren't big cities. And a lot that's shipped out from Houston and the rest of the southern Louisiana/Texas Gulf Coast complex are fossil fuels, which may decrease quite a bit in the future.
Good point
Or Anchorage’s airport
True now, probably less so earlier on.
And it also shows that one thing is a port, another is a market. If you have a port but don’t develop its corresponding market, you don’t accrue network effects maybe