2016’s Fastest Growing Cities

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

There are usually many challenges facing experiencing rapid population growth. In my opinion, the top three are:

1. Assuring adequate infrastructure and services – streets, sewers, water, schools, public safety, parks and recreation, staffing – to meet not only the needs of the newcomers but also the “original” population”.
2. Related to the above, maintaining financial stability to provide the services, infrastructure, staffing – since they typically require a large up-front investment and the pay-off from increased revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, etc. may lag behind.
3. Maintaining the relationship and trust of the “originals” residents so that they don’t feel ignored or left behind. (For example, it is quite easy to focus on the needs of the new areas and ignore issues in the “old part” of town.)

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Developing and maintaining a planning and implementation program to address the issues (and others) described in the first question). Among the key elements:

• An up-to-date Comprehensive Land Use Plan;
• Capital Improvements Program and other financial plans closely linked to realistic  financial forecasting  to address infrastructure, facility and similar needs  required to accommodate  the growth;
• Staffing plans.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

In my opinion, this issue will really depend on the market dynamics being played out in the community. It very definitely can be a significant issue but may not always accompany rapid growth. Certainly the local governments need to very carefully and monitor the situation and be prepared to take appropriate action (such as adopting “inclusionary zoning requirements) to address the issue if it arises.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Certainly commercial/retail entrepreneurship and employment opportunities present themselves whenever more “rooftops” are easily accessible. Other opportunities are probably more dependent on the economic climate, culture, availability of capital and similar factors within the region.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

Small cities need sufficient imagination and access to resources to plan for the unknown. For example, retail development just off of a major interstate can seem like a terrific idea, and no need may be seen for clover leafs, access roads, and so on, but ten years down the road can turn what was once a matter of a 30 second drive down a few hundred yards into a 10 minute snarl, on a good day. Maybe one wouldn’t want to build the clover leaf before the growth happens. But if you put the development too close to the interstate, the clover leaf cannot ever be built, period.

Big, growing cities need to generate sufficient agreement among multiple constituencies in order to make the large changes necessary to improve the quality of life, and need to generate sufficient support to raise the huge amounts of capital necessary. Paris has built its metro 3 layers down under the city, and continues to make improvements and expansion. Washington, DC cannot seem to operate the modest sized one that it has. What’s Paris got that Washington doesn’t? One answer: Paris has been around since the 3rd century BC.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

That depends on the city. For example, a city 150 miles from a magnet city may find it difficult to compete. It might pay to develop better access to that magnet city to enhance the flow of people and ideas. This is a much better idea, in my view, than a cluster policy, or attracting a particular firm or industry. Such efforts may succeed in a narrow sense, but typically at high cost to existing residents (e.g., infrastructure expenditures, tax expenditures). I’m not against payments to bring in firms, but they should be a part of a broader strategy, and not the strategy itself.

Other cities may need to transform. Old, industrial cities may be located on (what was once) a beautiful lake. Maybe that city can become a tourist destination. It’s simply amazing how many places in Europe seem to get by on nothing more than being places where people want to relax, walk around, and go out to eat.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

I don’t’ know what is meant by “more.” Not every person is going to be able to afford to live where they want in every city at a price that they want to pay. True, work by Glaeser, Saiz, and others suggests that zoning deters building new housing where it fits – up in the sky – in many places around the country. That being said, local authorities should not run roughshod over their citizens. If there is any place for representative democracy, it is at the local level.

Complaints about high housing costs are opportunities for competing cities. Why such competition is so rare is an important question. Perhaps authorities already have too much authority that runs counter to their citizens’ interests.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Much research suggests that human resources are crucial. I focused on the role of college graduates, but, for me, the presence of college graduates was meant to capture what is in fact a much broader notion of human capacities. A top chef, architect, specialty retailer, or HVAC guy or gal may not have a college degree, but their aptitudes, abilities, and skills are an important component of what makes a city truly great. The key is growing enough of those people at home, because there is a chance that they will stay, or if they leave, come back. And that’s the key, right? Making the city a place people never want to leave, and if they leave, want to come back to.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

Growth with equity. So many programs of growth promote problematic distributions of wealth - the center city taken over by global superrich, or the movements from poorer areas that create pockets of poverty. In the U.S. the era of shantytowns seems behind us (but we have seen homeless people in tent cities during the recession) but the decay of inner-ring suburbs underscores problems ahead. Inclusive growth is better - bringing people into wider economic and social roles promotes better cities. But growth by any means or even unrestricted growth can make situations worse.

Planning for and controlling growth is often an obstacle as well. Many of the most liveable aspects of older cities - development of parks, public squares and spaces of art, relaxation and community, patterned subsequent growth. It is challenging to remember to plant these seeds of the future in a time of rapid expansion. Perhaps one of the great choices to make for a future concerns transportation; transportation-oriented development, for example, demands more initial investments and control of settlement than highways - but the latter produce sprawl and other problems. Anticipating, controlling and even denying growth are real challenges nonetheless.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Equity is clearly central. But it is also important to produce a clear, inclusive and civic-engaged vision of what authorities and people want in a good city. This is harder than borrowing ideas that are already out there but ultimately vital to the quality of urban life for the future.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

This is not easy given the role of the free property market nationwide. But there are also anchors that can promote stability - the use of conservancies, or partnerships with local institutions like churches to protect and improve the housing of their members. Chinatowns, for example (one of my research specialties) often have complex webs of ownership by associations that anchor a wider community in the face of gentrification. But yes, blending populations in an inclusive fashion is fundamental to good growth.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Yes is the answer, but the questions of equity, future planning and choice of what opportunities are best for whom make this complicated.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

Adequate infrastructures to meet the needs of the population.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Quality public education, public safety and good government officers.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

Yes. The local government can provide incentives to increase the supply of residential housing units for current residents to afford.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Yes. Growing cities always have more entrepreneurs create businesses and jobs and pay taxes.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

1. Improve the skills of the population especially by providing high quality schooling.
2. Make the city an attractive place to live.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Population growth in cities is strongly related to job growth. So, employment opportunities are usually better in such places. Entrepreneurial activity should also be greater in faster growing cities simply because there would be more opportunity for entrepreneurs.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

This depends a lot on whether the growth is in "greenfield" developments on the edges of existing cities, or is attempting to fit more people into a city's existing footprint. Sprawl poses environmental problems, while infill is more likely to trigger "not in my backyard" opposition, or to displace underrepresented communities.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Most local leaders want their cities to grow economically but there can be sharp differences of opinion about whether they should accommodate population growth. In California, there is a recurring tension between the state government, which requires cities to plan to meet future housing needs, and local authorities who resist these mandates. And for the cities that do go ahead and plan for more housing density, there is often local resistance to every new development project. The best that local authorities can do is to engage with their communities in the design and placement of new housing.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

The traditional economic school of thought is that intervening in the housing market with rent control and other measures just leads to other undesirable outcomes, like deteriorating infrastructure and a reduction in new developments. But traditional economics aren't working in some of the areas that have seen the fastest growth in real estate prices, so there's increasingly a need for policy interventions to keep communities in established neighborhoods.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

There is more of a regional effect. Of the fastest growing city jurisdictions listed by the Census Bureau, most are in or adjacent to metropolitan areas with the fastest growth in employment. It's no surprise that building housing and adding employment in the fastest growing sectors spurs the demand for other services too -- the big question is whether the people who provide those services can afford to live in the same area.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

Without a doubt, the extension and maintenance of infrastructure and how that infrastructure will be paid for are the biggest challenges. Norman, Oklahoma experiences strong growth which stresses its existing infrastructure – water, wastewater, stormwater, roads, parks, libraries and schools. This stress has prompted a heated debate between some citizens who feel growth does not fully fund future infrastructure capacity needs and developers who argue that they will go elsewhere if impact fees and development requirements are too onerous. Public officials are left with a balancing act. Unfortunately, the power of the development community often means costs are not fully borne by new development and ratepayers pick up the difference creating equity issues.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Public officials must develop policies that fairly capture the costs of growth without discouraging that growth. Unfortunately, this can be a hard course to sustain when developers offer up the promise of huge new investment. A lot of the academic and professional literature, however, reminds us that the most cost effective growth strategies are focused on supporting local small businesses, building a 21st century workforce, and revitalizing and preserving existing neighborhoods.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

Affordability is a big challenge and, yes, local officials need to do more to protect current residents. Norman is just starting to struggle with this challenge as the college student housing market displaces some of our older, low income multifamily housing.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Being in a college town, Norman enjoys a huge advantage in developing a well-educated, high skill workforce that is attractive to entrepreneurs and employers. That is not necessarily a product of growth. Our problem is slightly different in how to retain students with local employment opportunities. Again, this means a community must be very strategic in its focus and recognize that growth in the housing sector alone is not the equivalent of workforce development and retention.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

One of the biggest challenges fueled by rapid urbanization is violence. Latin America and the Caribbean experienced some of the fastest urbanization rates in the world over the 1970s-1990s, much of it driven by civil wars and other rural-urban conflicts. Now the civil wars in the region have all drawn to a close (with the open question of Colombia). But conflict dynamics there have not only urbanized, but also morphed, coming to be increasingly characterized by fights over shares in global illicit markets -- narcotics, arms, humans, counterfeit merchandise, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, etc. Cities in the region are more and more characterized by economic exclusion of the poor via militarized policing, physical barriers, and neglected informal settlements (referred to alternately as slums, barrios, favelas, bidonvilles, etc.). The Latin American and Caribbean region now boasts a rate of homicide per 100,000 people of over 22 -- outstripping by far the global average of roughly 4.5, and dwarfing all other major geographic regions. The worry is that currently urbanizing regions, sub-Saharan Africa in particular, will begin to exhibit some of the same phenomena. Indeed, many African cities are already struggling with violent urban actors in narco and endangered species trades.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Inclusive growth should be a key priority for urban planners today. This entails eliciting community-driven solutions to challenges relating to lack of access to jobs, education, healthcare, fresh food, environmental degradation, and climate change. Many of these challenges can be addressed by planning for walkability -- being able to walk to a job, schools, shops, and health clinics increases access for the rich and poor alike, whilst reducing the carbon footprint of the community.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

To be clear: gentrification is a sign of something going right -- demand is growing for the urban environment being co-created. Happily, most of the gentrification we see in the rich world is occurring in walkable urban neighborhoods. The problem with un-managed gentrification is that it may adversely affect the poor and destroy the character and solidarity of social communities. While it's true that a poor family may be able to obtain a higher price for a house or apartment they own because of gentrification, the poor are obviously less likely to own their dwelling in the first place. Therefore, they must simply move, weakening the social networks they participate in -- social networks that often provide services to members in non-market forms. Such services may include reciprocal childcare, lending / saving circles, community gardens, and informal education and sports, arranged by cultural or community centers, religious institutions, etc. The trick, then, is to leverage the influx of wealth to build an inclusive community. The most progressive way of doing that is probably via tax increment financing, though that may entail losses for city budgets.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

There is an endogenous loop that describes the relationship between the growth of any given sector of the economy and population: the more biomedical firms locate in San Diego, for instance, the more biomedical engineers and programmers will move there. The more biomedical engineers and programmers move there, the stronger the pull for biomedical firms not already located in San Diego. This is what urban economists refer to as "increasing rates of return" in urban areas. So in general, there is a force favoring large cities in the knowledge economy. On the other hand, primary cities often host large, dominant firms in their sector. Small start-ups and entrepreneurs may find it difficult to compete initially with these corporate giants, who may enjoy monopoly or monopsony power locally. In that sense, secondary cities may serve the function of start-up incubators, whilst primary cities allow successful, maturing enterprises to scale up. This is one reason why it is often important at the national level to foster a balanced "system of cities", rather than favoring the growth of a few megacities.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

Inequality. Many U.S. cities experiencing population growth are doing so by attracting a relatively young (ages 25-45) upwardly mobile demographic. Balancing the needs of this very attractive cohort with those of existing residents - particularly poor, elderly, racial minorities, and other marginalized groups - is a perennial challenge. The spatial effects of public and private provisions are often quite striking.

How cities rebrand themselves is also a huge challenge. Cities tend to learn from each other, thus they adopt similar jargon and strategies in planning for the future, but every city can't be the creative hub. Developing a distinct identity to go along with related policies and practices is also difficult.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Given my response to the previous question, I can't think of more important priorities than inclusion and equity. Cities may successfully attract firms and millennials but people and firms will not want to remain in place and grow if disparities between haves and have-nots seem entrenched. For instance, a city is costly if public schools are actually or perceived as poor quality as "haves" turn to costly private schools. The city is geographically small if large swaths of the city are actually or perceived as crime-ridden. Healthy growth entails a combination of attraction and retention. Innovative targeted programs that improve spatial, economic and social conditions for disadvantaged communities often generate net benefits for more advantaged communities as well. I don't think the reverse has proven to be true.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

Yes. Established residents "priced out" of neighborhoods tend to be renters who are unable to renew their lease because of exorbitantly inflated rent. Cities could incentivize owners willing to not raise rent above a "reasonable" amount. The more common term is "rent stabilization" programs. Unlike inclusionary zoning or mixed income housing policies that apply to new build developments, stabilization programs apply to existing units. The amount of increase allowed varies but 10% is common. These programs are most effective when matched with "just cause eviction" ordinances. However, interest in city growth has often trumped concerted efforts to mitigate displacement. Interestingly, growing vibrant cities like Portland, Seattle, Oakland, and Berkeley have begun to implement anti-displacement ordinances.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

I think so. Good entrepreneurial ideas are catalyzed through interactions and an understanding of unmet needs in the city. In growing cities there are more opportunities for identifying the skill sets needed to address unmet needs. Growing cities are more willing to take risks. So people in growing cities are more inclined to take risks and cultivate "crazy" ideas. Surely, urbanization economies and other efficiencies can also explain why opportunities are better in growing cities.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

Among the biggest challenges facing cities experiencing rapid growth are related to infrastructure and services. Expanding city services like police and fire protection requires not only planning time but budgeting for the expanded capacity needed. Growth rate can sometimes create needs that outpace the budget and planning cycles. Infrastructure, like water, sewer, or sidewalks, can often be challenging for cities to expand and maintain in times of rapid growth.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

The key priority is planning. Planning for growth is critical for avoiding the negative effects of rapid growth.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

One of the ways to do this is for the planning process to embrace ‘balanced growth” so that while some residents may experience price inflation that effectively changes their options in some neighborhoods, there are other ones in the planning that are affordable. A good growth plan doesn’t try to interfere with market dynamics but rather, it creates markets based upon need and embraces a local government policy making process that fosters “balanced growth.”

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

All economic opportunities are expanded in high growth cities. Rapid growth is not anything but good for communities with good planning and management.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

The economics literature has been concerned with urban sprawl and unorganized city growth. Some negative aspects here are the loss of open space as a public good, increased traffic and air pollution, and the much higher energy consumption of low-density suburban living.

On the other hand, urban sprawl has been seen as an unavoidable outcome of higher incomes and car based living. This paper argues that urban sprawl has allowed millions of Americans to enjoy more housing and higher living standards.

In addition, population growth in general is seen as positive for cities because it states that it is an attractive place that attracts people from other less-desirable communities. The economics literature is, to my knowledge, not concerned with too fast growth much.

What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

Policy recommendations from economic models are very hard to get to. There are too many "unpriced" things that are concerned with city growth and are hard to evaluate in dollar terms. For example, if rapid city growth destroys open space at the fringe of the city, this is certainly a bad thing since people value nice landscape. However, we have little idea how much they actually value it because recreation areas are never on the market.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

The economics literature on one hand studies gentrification, but on the other hand it is really difficult to rationalize the negative picture of this process that floats in the media from an economist's perspective. In my opinion, there is little reason why current residents should have a right to stay in their neighborhoods. Housing is a good that is sold and bought in a free market. In all economic models, the person with the highest willingness to pay for a house should be able to purchase it in order to maximize social welfare. Price appreciation suggests that there is new value created and can hardly be seen as something negative from the economist's viewpoint.

There might be some negative externalities connected to the spatial clustering of the poor that could harm the society and that required government action, for example an increase in crime or negative peer effects. However, I am not aware of any studies that have shown a causal link between gentrification and clustering of low-income households. We probably know little about where the people go to once they have been priced out of their former neighborhoods.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

I am not sure about "disproportionately", but the fact that a city is growing indicates that it is more attractive than other places that lose population. In a spatial economic model, the equilibrium would be that prices and population adjust until all people in all places have the same utility. The fact that there is movement indicates that the equilibrium is not achieved and the growing city offers above-equilibrium utility levels.

What are the biggest challenges faced by cities experiencing rapid population growth?

I think (lack of) affordable housing is one of the most pressing issues facing growing cities. In addition, population growth puts pressure on lots of municipal resources, everything from transit and transportation to utilities, schools, etc. Most cities in Florida are facing these problems.



What should be the key priority for local authorities who want to grow their cities?

I feel a focus on achieving equity should be a key priority. We talk about sustainability all the time, but too much emphasis is put on the economic aspects of it, to make it more palatable I suppose, and not enough is put on making sure that jobs, resources, and quality of life are accessible to everyone.

Should local authorities do more to ensure current residents aren’t “priced out” of established neighborhoods in the face of population growth?

Without thoughtful planning, most cities seem to be caught off guard by housing pressures. And in reality, they have little control over the real estate market. If a developer wants to buy a low-middle income apartment complex and turn it into luxury condominiums… well, there is not much reason to say “no,” except that the current residents will be displaced with uncertain – and often limited – options to relocate. San Jose and the Silicon Valley area are experiencing the absolute extreme of this.

Are entrepreneurship and employment opportunities disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly? How so?

Some cities are growing quickly based on low-income, service sector jobs. So no, I don’t think entrepreneurship is necessarily disproportionately available in rapidly growing cities. In reality, cities experience economic turmoil or decline may be more ripe for such opportunities, simply because of the vacuum being created. Entrepreneurs might have better access to startup capital (less competition) and have a plethora of problems to solve. The nature of a city or region’s growth will determine the quality of employment opportunities available. Florida’s cities, in general, are creating a lot of jobs, but they are at the lower end of the pay scale, and our median income remains below the national average.