The Grow th of W orcester in National Perspective Edw ard Glaeser - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Grow th of W orcester in National Perspective Edw ard Glaeser Director, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston and Professor of Economics, Harvard University www.hks.harvard.edu/ centers/ rappaport

Grow th and I ncom e in MA Growth and Income Worcester County, Massachusetts .06 Suffolk County, Massachusetts Plymouth County, Massachusetts Population Growth, 2000-2010 .04 Hampshire County, Massachusetts Norfolk County, Massachusetts Essex County, Massachusetts Middlesex County, Massachusetts Bristol County, Massachusetts .02 Hampden County, Massachusetts 0 Franklin County, Massachusetts -.02 Berkshire County, Massachusetts Barnstable County, Massachusetts 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Median Income, 2000

50000 .15 Average Population Change, 2000-2010 Average Median Income, 2000 45000 .1 40000 .05 35000 0 30000 -.05 0 2 4 6 8 10 10 quantiles of popdens2000 Average Median Income, 2000 Average Population Change

Average Population Growth by Median Income in 2000 (Quintiles) Average Population Growth by County, 2000-2010 .15 .1 .05 0 1 2 3 4 5

Average Population Growth by Distance to Nearest Port (Quintiles) Average Population Growth by County, 2000-2010 .08 .06 .04 .02 0 1 2 3 4 5

The Central Paradox Why is it that in an era in which transportation and communication costs have virtually vanished, cities have become more important than ever? Urban resurgence is visible in high income levels, robust housing prices, and a concentration of innovation in urban areas. This is even clearer in the developing world.

I nnovation in the I ndustrial Age Francis Cabot Lowell goes to Manchester and memorizes the structure of power looms– Boston associates establish Lowell and Lawrence. The “father of American watch-making,” “went to Boston to perfect himself as a journeyman watchmaker ... so that he could get the instruction of Tubal Hone, then the best watch- maker in America.” Lawrence establishes the Lawrence Scientific School at Harvard; Rogers comes to Boston for the scientific atmosphere and gets the legislature to found M.I.T.

Ford’s Big I dea ( River Rouge)

The Decline of the Costs of .185063 Moving Goods Dollars per Ton Mile (Real) .02323 1890 2000 year Railroad Revenue per Ton Mile

Average Population Growth by Average January Temperature (Quintiles) Average Population Growth by County, 2000-2010 .1 .08 .06 .04 .02 0 1 2 3 4 5

Tem perature and Grow th: Large Cities Population Growth 2000-10 . .4 Raleigh Bakersfi Fort Wor Charlott Fort Way Las Vega Albuquer .2 Greensbo Austin c Stockton Riversid Aurora c Plano ciSan Anto Fresno c Colorado El Paso Sacramen Lincoln Oklahoma Anchorag Madison Wichita Columbus Mesa cit Tampa ci Portland Miami ci Corpus C Arlingto Phoenix Denver c Seattle Houston Scottsda Tucson c San Dieg San Jose Washingt Fremont Garland Omaha ci Boston c Kansas C San Fran Norfolk Glendale Jersey C Virginia Los Ange Anaheim New York Montgome Newark c Atlanta Philadel Dallas c Baton Ro Long Bea Minneapo Milwauke Tulsa ci Shrevepo 0 St. Paul Memphis Hialeah St. Pete Oakland Santa An Rocheste Baltimor Chicago Akron ci St. Loui Toledo c Pittsbur Cincinna Buffalo Birmingh Clevelan -.2 Detroit New Orle -.4 0 20 40 60 80 Jan Temp 2000

Tem perature and Grow th: Sm all Cities Population Growth 2000-10 . .6 .4 .2 0 -.2 0 20 40 60 80 Jan Temp 2000

City 1950 Pop. 2000 Pop. Change New York 7,891,957 8,008,278 +1.5 % Chicago 3.620,962 2,896,016 -20% Philadelphia 2,071,605 1,517,550 -27% Los Angeles 1,970,358 3,694,820 +87% Detroit 1,849,568 951,270 -52% Baltimore 949,708 651,154 -32% Cleveland 914,808 478,403 -48% St. Louis 856,796 348,189 -60% Washington 802,178 572,059 -29% Boston 801,444 589,141 -26%

Figure 7: Change in Population, 1970-2000 by Quintile of Percent College Graduates, 1970 Mean Change in Population, 1970-2000 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4: Population Growth for MSAs in the Northeast and Midwest 60% 53% 50% Average Population Growth (1970-2000 40% 30% 20% 20% 15% 15% 8% 10% 0% 0 - 7.5% 7.5% - 9.5% 9.5% - 11% 11% - 15% 15%-31% Percent of Population with a BA (1970) Data from the United States Census

Average Population Growth by Share with BA in 2000 (Quintiles) Average Population Growth by County, 2000-2010 .15 .1 .05 0 1 2 3 4 5

College Education and Grow th in Larger ( over 2 0 0 k) , Colder Cities Population Growth 2000-10 . .4 Raleigh Charlott Fort Way Albuquer .2 Greensbo Aurora c Colorado Oklahoma Lincoln Anchorag Madison Wichita Columbus Portland Denver c Washingt Omaha ci Boston c Kansas C Norfolk Jersey C Virginia New York Newark c Philadel Minneapo Tulsa ci Milwauke Memphis 0 St. Paul Rocheste Baltimor Chicago Akron ci Toledo c St. Loui Pittsbur Cincinna Buffalo Clevelan -.2 Detroit -.4 10 20 30 40 50 Share w. BAs 2000

College Education and Grow th: Colder, Sm aller Cities Population Growth 2000-10 . .6 Murfrees Nampa ci West Jor .4 Thornton Cary tow Concord Joliet c Aurora c Sparks c Olathe c Kennewic Suffolk Loveland Broken A Hillsbor Bolingbr Lee's Su Clarksvi Columbia Yakima c Fayettev Reno cit Flagstaf Rocheste Sioux Fa Frederic Winston- Maple Gr Durham c High Poi .2 Jonesbor Longmont Fort Col Ashevill Greeley Bellingh Champaig Edmond c Lafayett Medford Blooming Beaverto Gresham Missoula Fargo ci Overland Ames cit Kent cit Billings Norman c Blooming Lynchbur Lubbock Layton c Elgin ci Rapid Ci Johnson Huntsvil Gaithers Vancouve Salem ci Everett Brooklyn Cheyenne Idaho Fa Chesapea St. Clou Orland P Allentow Boise Ci Eden Pra Bismarck Napervil Kenosha Amarillo Jackson Lawrence St. Char Waukesha Santa Fe Alexandr Iowa Cit Bowie ci Reading Gastonia Vineland Danbury Chattano Ogden ci Fort Smi Schenect Clifton Provo ci White Pl Plymouth Council Janesvil Spokane Eau Clai New Roch West Hav Lawrence Owensbor Malden c Little R Lancaste Carson C Springfi Pocatell Berwyn c Oshkosh Bethlehe New Have Norwalk Westmins Worceste Cedar Ra Quincy c Orem cit Stamford Palatine Meriden Pueblo c Lawton c Sterling Topeka c Arvada c Springfi Wyoming St. Jose Muncie c Cambridg Elizabet Appleton Bridgepo Florissa Great Fa Haverhil Decatur Richmond Hamilton Independ North Li Portland Rocheste Hartford Waterbur Passaic Utica ci Rocky Mo Oak Lawn Knoxvill Boulder New Brit Des Moin Manchest Providen St. Pete Salt Lak Waltham Roanoke Albany c Skokie v Terre Ha Rockford Bayonne Peoria c Green Ba Newton c New Bedf Waukegan Lynn cit Lowell c Davenpor Cranston Chicopee Eagan ci Bristol Medford Springfi Midwest Dearborn Newport Wichita Burnsvil Evanston Dubuque Yonkers Nashua c Troy cit Ann Arbo Taunton Scranton Coon Rap Duluth c 0 Trenton Brockton Waterloo Des Plai Kansas C Union Ci Dearborn La Cross Lakewood Arlingto Oak Park West All Syracuse Schaumbu Elkhart Mount Ve Cicero t Paterson Battle C Erie cit Ketterin Somervil Elyria c Pawtucke Wilmingt Hammond Sioux Ci Blooming Warren c Sheboyga Westland Farmingt Minneton Camden c Fall Riv Evansvil Racine c Warwick Livonia Kalamazo Charlest Mount Pr Taylor c Lansing Hempstea Parma ci Huntingt Royal Oa Wheaton Grand Ra Portsmou St. Clai Middleto Anderson South Be Hampton Mentor c Lorain c Decatur Springfi Euclid c East Ora Lakewood Southfie Canton c Niagara Pontiac Dayton c Saginaw Flint ci Youngsto -.2 Gary cit 0 20 40 60 80 Share w. BAs 2000

Chinitz: Contrasts in Agglom eration: New York and Pittsburgh

g Average Employment Growth, 1977-2000 by Quintile of Average Firm Size, 1977 1.5 Average Employment Growth, 1977-2000 1 .5 0 Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Source: County Business Patterns, 1977 and 2000

Change in P.C. GDP 2000-2009 . .4 Wyoming North Da Oklahoma South Da .2 Alaska Oregon Montana Iowa Maryland Louisian Hawaii Vermont Nebraska Rhode Is Virginia New York Arkansas West Vir Kansas Mississi Californ Alabama New Mexi New Jers Pennsylv Idaho Maine Massachu Washingt Florida Minnesot Connecti Utah Texas New Hamp Wisconsi Delaware Colorado Kentucky Arizona Illinois Tennesse 0 Indiana North Ca Missouri Nevada Ohio South Ca Georgia Michigan -.2 10 15 20 Avg. Firm Size

W hat Does the Model Teach Us? Five variables explain about 40 percent of the growth rates in colder (under 40 degrees), smaller (under 200k) cities. • January Temperature still matters– 10 degrees, 5 percentage points more growth. • Share with HS degrees– 10 percentage points is 6.1 percentage points more growth. • Also, • Households with kids (positive), • Latin American (positive), and • Density (negative).