Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#31

Post by Eric_WVGG »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #17

This probably gonna get me killed but I've got to put it out there. I was so disappointed by the food and music scene in Nashville. Literally every restaurant was some trendy clone of some vaguely hipster cracker barrel (one exception). The music I could find (with one exception) was just sad cover bands doing the same Counting Crows covers over and over again. Redeeming restaurant: Princes hot chicken. Got that shit…

Culture counts.

This is probably gonna get me killed, but I would have qualms with starting or moving a business to a city where reproductive rights are under continual attack. The situation is inhumane.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#32

Post by moate »

jefftk wrote: post #13
futureastronaut wrote: post #3

That map is confusing, regions are colored grey that are clearly in the top 20 MSA, like the entire urbanized northeast. Also the article's mostly about Nashville, not its title.

> regions are colored grey that are clearly in the top 20 MSA, like the entire urbanized northeast It's not the 20 MSAs with the most jobs, it's the 20 MSAs with the most job growth, as a percentage, since 1990.

This seems to be the problem people have with the thesis. If you're defining "superstars" as "cities that got highest% bigger since date X" and not "The Biggest Cities" your point and overall concept seem weaker.

From the article>>"...40% of the new jobs generated during that time went to the top 20 places, along with a similar share of the additional wages. Those cities represent only about a quarter of the country’s population and are concentrated in the fast-growing southern and coastal states. None were in the northeast, and only two were in the “rust belt” interior - Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a rebounding Detroit."

New York City is the capital of Norther American commerce and because of that it really can't expand the way that can, which weakens the overall point about "slow growth" or "getting left behind". Growth doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#33

Post by moate »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #31
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #17

This probably gonna get me killed but I've got to put it out there. I was so disappointed by the food and music scene in Nashville. Literally every restaurant was some trendy clone of some vaguely hipster cracker barrel (one exception). The music I could find (with one exception) was just sad cover bands doing the same Counting Crows covers over and over again. Redeeming restaurant: Princes hot chicken. Got that shit…

Culture counts. This is probably gonna get me killed, but I would have qualms with starting or moving a business to a city where reproductive rights are under continual attack. The situation is inhumane.

Part of the problem with places like Alabama getting left in the dust is opinions voiced by elected officials in Alabama.

There's literally nothing that would motivate me to move to a place like that despite extremely low cost of living.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#34

Post by quaquaqua1 »

appleshore wrote: post #24
pm90 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad take. You're assuming that incoming folks won't change the politics of funding decisions of the city. In most cases, they do change them, and change cities for the better.

Do you have an example of that? Perhaps I’m biased being in LA and SF but those city budgets seem irreplaceable broken. Infinite amounts to pensions while no one can propose viable fixes to problems.

This is the correct opinion.

What is worse is that the bugs are features.

Politicians and their donors deliberately broke cities for their own personal financial gain,

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#35

Post by BowBun »

nostrademons wrote: post #27

Perez's Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital makes the point that when a technological revolution occurs, gains are frequently concentrated in a small number of locales that are the first to adopt the new technology and adapt their local industries to the new structure of the economy. This results in significant economic (short term), military (medium term), and geopolitical (long term) power. The changing…

Fundamentally, fragmentation. I think the Civil War is a relevant example, honestly. What happens when the disparity between the Silicon Valley elite and the Iowa cattle farmers becomes too much for one side to bear? What's weird this time is the technocrats are pretty spread out on the coasts, and then you have cities like Denver right in the middle. It will be a bit more nuanced than "North vs. South" next time.

Personally, I'd keep an eye out for easy scapegoats like immigration and other cultural issues to spark conflict. I'd also pay attention to economic churn rather than physical conflict. I have a hard time imagining our apathetic population going to war with each other in our day and age, but I can easily picture technology folks blacklisting 'undesirable' customers and blocking access to services, and rural folks putting obstacles in place for access to natural resources they largely control.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#36

Post by taiwanboy »

There are a few dynamics at play here

1.) even with some declining cities, US cities are still some of the most powerful in the world. According to https://howmuch.net/articles/the-economic-size-of-metro-area... (2017) Bay Area economy is as large as the entire country of Nigeria, NY area is as largest as Canada, LA is as big as turkey! Even Portland is as big as Qatar! And with the global slowdown in 2018 and 2019, while US is the sole bright spot, the dominance will only be magnified.

2.) demographics is now shifting to where gen z is the biggest generation now. In 5-10 years they will be establishing families and moving to less crowded suburbs and smaller cities. Which means the mega cities will lose some growth and the secondary cities will gain.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#37

Post by nostrademons »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #16

Don't forget cities that have influxes of young population so have increasing tax receipts but much lower legacy costs (retirees, infrastructure maintenance, stable growth rate education costs per capita). Most of those cities will mismanage the growth and 20-40 years from now you'll be reading about Nashville and how it was gutted when the software jobs dried up. These come in cycles and cities that have some sort o…

A lot of those geographic reasons to exist will probably cease to exist in the next 50 years, as global warming opens up new shipping lines, makes previously verdant areas uninhabitable, makes uninhabitable deserts verdant, changes ocean currents, remakes national borders, and prompts large & powerful cities to divert rivers away from weaker and wetter ones. Containerization already led to large shifts in the fortunes of some port cities, and that was just a technological development that encouraged deepwater ports. Imagine if the sea lanes themselves change.

I can see Northern Canada becoming an enormous boom area in 50 years, with the opening of the Northwest Passage for Asia Europe trade, the need for resupply cities along that sea route, and the melting of the permafrost opening up parts of the tundra to agriculture or tar sands mining. Meanwhile, Florida and New Orleans may be underwater.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#38

Post by porknubbins »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #17

This probably gonna get me killed but I've got to put it out there. I was so disappointed by the food and music scene in Nashville. Literally every restaurant was some trendy clone of some vaguely hipster cracker barrel (one exception). The music I could find (with one exception) was just sad cover bands doing the same Counting Crows covers over and over again. Redeeming restaurant: Princes hot chicken. Got that shit…

Having lived there 3 years I don’t think I’d go back. There is some good food in East Nashville and I enjoyed the country music at Roberts (more often real country instead of the commercial Nashville sound most places). But you are essentially paying 2x everywhere else in TN to be in bad traffic with faux Southern/ faux hipster transplants, like some kind of big city “lite” version.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#39

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

porknubbins wrote: post #38
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #17

This probably gonna get me killed but I've got to put it out there. I was so disappointed by the food and music scene in Nashville. Literally every restaurant was some trendy clone of some vaguely hipster cracker barrel (one exception). The music I could find (with one exception) was just sad cover bands doing the same Counting Crows covers over and over again. Redeeming restaurant: Princes hot chicken. Got that shit…

Having lived there 3 years I don’t think I’d go back. There is some good food in East Nashville and I enjoyed the country music at Roberts (more often real country instead of the commercial Nashville sound most places). But you are essentially paying 2x everywhere else in TN to be in bad traffic with faux Southern/ faux hipster transplants, like some kind of big city “lite” version.

The 'diet'-south. Half the racism with all the calories.

Re: As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

#40

Post by jmastrangelo »

sbierwagen wrote: post #26

>But interviews with entrepreneurs and officials in Nashville point to a mix of factors behind its success, including some that were out of the city’s control, such as the state’s lack of an income tax, and others associated with its unique local assets. NYC and SF, both big tech hubs, both have income taxes.

NYC and SF both have tremendous advantages that Nashville doesn't, Nashville needs to compete.

I don't know if NYC and SF are examples of good governance, or examples that show great cities can support lots of poor governance as long as they retain the things that make them great.

Post reply on HN