Presentation on theme: "Land Use and Modern Cities O’Sullivan Chapter 9. For Wednesday (Response Paper in Class) Read: –Mieszkowski, Peter and Edwin S. Mills, (1993). “The Causes."— Presentation transcript:
Land Use and Modern Cities O’Sullivan Chapter 9
For Wednesday (Response Paper in Class) Read: –Mieszkowski, Peter and Edwin S. Mills, (1993). “The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization,” Journal of Economics Perspectives, vol. 7, Summer 1993, pp –Nachyba, Thomas J. and Randall P. Walsh (2004) “Urban Sprawl” Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol 18 (4).
Suburbanization Explores economic forces behind monocentric city. Why does employment is split localized CBD, suburban centers and other space. Suburbanization of Population Suburbanization of Manufacturing Suburbanization of Office Space
Suburbanization of Population Population Gradient where Factors that potentially contributed to suburbanization: –Rising Incomes –Lower Commuting Costs –Old Housing in Central City –Racial Conflict, Crime and Education –Central City Fiscal Problems
Suburbanization of Manufacturing Improvements on Merchandise Transportation: –Intracity trucks –Intercity trucks Improvements on workers transportation –Automobile Other factors –Assembly line –Airports
Suburbanization of Office Space Advances in communication technology: – –Teleconferencing
Group Discussion (5 minutes) Some retailers locate along major streets, forming commercial streets. Why don’t these retailers locate in the city center or in a suburban mall?
Glaeser and Kahn (Brookings, 2001) Goal of the Paper: Address employment decentralization of American cities. –Analyze stylized facts of the Monocentric City –Examine why firms choose particular locations: Land costs Access to ideas Access to workers Transport costs savings
Distribution of People and Jobs in Metro Areas
Distribution of Industry in Metro Areas
Roadmap of the paper 1.Define measure of employment concentration 2.Test for Monocentric City Model 3.Explain the decentralization of employment across MSA’s 4.Explain the decentralization of Employment across SIC’s
Empirical Tests of the Monocentric City Model Poverty is concentrated in poor cities Commuting times raise with distance from city center Incomes raise with distance to the city Are edge cities polycentric or just diffused
Main measure of employment concentration Employment Gradient (β): Intuition: If β Large City Concentrated in CBDIf β Small Diffused e u e u
Tests Monocentric City Model Poor households live in the CBD (Figure 7) Commuting Time Raises with u (Figure 8) Income Raises with Distance to the City (Figure 9) Suburban employment is decentralized, not polycentralized
Tests for the Monocentric City: Figures 7-10
Decentralized Employment across MSA Population & Employment (Figure 10) City Age & Decentralization (Figure 11) City Year Built & Decentralization (Figure 12) Results from Table 7 (Dependent Variable is β) »What matters? Industry Type and City Age
Figure 11 and Figure 12
Decentralization Across Industries Results Table 8: –Correlation between worker density and employment density (Causality?) –Test for transportation costs –Test for knowledge & information economies –Test for land costs –Politics and decentralization (employment border effects)
Discussion: What matters? After the evidence presented by Kahn and Glaeser, what seems to be driving the decentralization of employment: city characteristics or industry technological change?