?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The Math of Cities - Input Junkie
December 23rd, 2010
09:40 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Math of Cities
Geoffrey West is a physicist who searches for fundamental laws, and he likes finding them in areas which haven't already been picked over.
If West’s basic idea was familiar, however, the evidence he provided for it was anything but. The challenge for Bettencourt and West was finding a way to quantify urban interactions. As usual, they began with reams of statistics. The first data set they analyzed was on the economic productivity of American cities, and it quickly became clear that their working hypothesis — like elephants, cities become more efficient as they get bigger — was profoundly incomplete. According to the data, whenever a city doubles in size, every measure of economic activity, from construction spending to the amount of bank deposits, increases by approximately 15 percent per capita. It doesn’t matter how big the city is; the law remains the same. “This remarkable equation is why people move to the big city,” West says. “Because you can take the same person, and if you just move them to a city that’s twice as big, then all of a sudden they’ll do 15 percent more of everything that we can measure.” While Jacobs could only speculate on the value of our urban interactions, West insists that he has found a way to “scientifically confirm” her conjectures. “One of my favorite compliments is when people come up to me and say, ‘You have done what Jane Jacobs would have done, if only she could do mathematics,’ ” West says. “What the data clearly shows, and what she was clever enough to anticipate, is that when people come together, they become much more productive.”

However, low-density cities don't work as well.
In recent decades, though, many of the fastest-growing cities in America, like Phoenix and Riverside, Calif., have given us a very different urban model. These places have traded away public spaces for affordable single-family homes, attracting working-class families who want their own white picket fences. West and Bettencourt point out, however, that cheap suburban comforts are associated with poor performance on a variety of urban metrics. Phoenix, for instance, has been characterized by below-average levels of income and innovation (as measured by the production of patents) for the last 40 years. “When you look at some of these fast-growing cities, they look like tumors on the landscape,” West says, with typical bombast. “They have these extreme levels of growth, but it’s not sustainable growth.” According to the physicists, the trade-off is inevitable. The same sidewalks that lead to “knowledge trading” also lead to cockroaches.

I wonder whether the web is a sort of loose urbanization.

Some caveats:
While listening to West talk about cities, it’s easy to forget that his confident pronouncements are mere correlations, and that his statistics can only hint at possible explanations. Not surprisingly, many urban theorists disagree with West’s conclusions. Some resent the implication that future urban research should revolve around a few abstract mathematical laws. Other theorists, like Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, in Orange, Calif., argue that the working model of Bettencourt and West is already obsolete and fails to explain recent trends. “In the last decade, suburbs have produced six times as many jobs,” Kotkin says. And these aren’t just unskilled service jobs. Kotkin says the centers of American innovation are now low-density metropolitan areas like Silicon Valley and Raleigh-­Durham, N.C. “For a supposedly complete theory” of cities, Kotkin says, “this work fails to explain a lot of what’s happening right now.”

The sting in its tail:
But it turns out that cities and companies differ in a very fundamental regard: cities almost never die, while companies are extremely ephemeral. As West notes, Hurricane Katrina couldn’t wipe out New Orleans, and a nuclear bomb did not erase Hiroshima from the map. In contrast, where are Pan Am and Enron today? The modern corporation has an average life span of 40 to 50 years.

This raises the obvious question: Why are corporations so fleeting? After buying data on more than 23,000 publicly traded companies, Bettencourt and West discovered that corporate productivity, unlike urban productivity, was entirely sublinear. As the number of employees grows, the amount of profit per employee shrinks. West gets giddy when he shows me the linear regression charts. “Look at this bloody plot,” he says. “It’s ridiculous how well the points line up.” The graph reflects the bleak reality of corporate growth, in which efficiencies of scale are almost always outweighed by the burdens of bureaucracy. “When a company starts out, it’s all about the new idea,” West says. “And then, if the company gets lucky, the idea takes off. Everybody is happy and rich. But then management starts worrying about the bottom line, and so all these people are hired to keep track of the paper clips. This is the beginning of the end.”

The danger, West says, is that the inevitable decline in profit per employee makes large companies increasingly vulnerable to market volatility. Since the company now has to support an expensive staff — overhead costs increase with size — even a minor disturbance can lead to significant losses. As West puts it, “Companies are killed by their need to keep on getting bigger.”

For West, the impermanence of the corporation illuminates the real strength of the metropolis. Unlike companies, which are managed in a top-down fashion by a team of highly paid executives, cities are unruly places, largely immune to the desires of politicians and planners. “Think about how powerless a mayor is,” West says. “They can’t tell people where to live or what to do or who to talk to. Cities can’t be managed, and that’s what keeps them so vibrant. They’re just these insane masses of people, bumping into each other and maybe sharing an idea or two. It’s the freedom of the city that keeps it alive.”


This entry was posted at http://nancylebov.dreamwidth.org/452929.html. Comments are welcome here or there. comment count unavailable comments so far on that entry.

(14 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:ashnistrike
Date:December 23rd, 2010 04:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Which gives some real insight into why "run a country like a corporation" is such a terrible idea. It sounds like we should be trying to run corporations more like countries and cities.
[User Picture]
From:nancylebov
Date:December 23rd, 2010 04:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I was wondering about that. I'm not sure whether you can get the advantages of a city without actually being a city.
[User Picture]
From:ashnistrike
Date:December 23rd, 2010 05:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Probably not entirely. But you can cut back on top-down control of schedules, and set up situations that facilitate serendipitous interactions.
[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:December 23rd, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Should we? Is it necessarily a bad thing that most companies only last a few decades?
[User Picture]
From:nancylebov
Date:December 23rd, 2010 06:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If they were more resilient and livelier, they might be more productive and better places to work.

A tremendous amount of effort is wasted as corporations become senescent and knowledge is lost when corporations go under.
[User Picture]
From:ashnistrike
Date:December 23rd, 2010 07:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That they're mortal? No. That they tend to hurt people and the environment as they're spiraling downhill? Yes.
[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:December 24th, 2010 12:39 am (UTC)
(Link)
They're not particularly benevolent on the uphill slope, either.
[User Picture]
From:nancylebov
Date:December 24th, 2010 02:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
Do you have a preferred organizational structure?
[User Picture]
From:sodyera
Date:December 23rd, 2010 06:25 pm (UTC)

Clue from the City Witch

(Link)
All this is why I could sympathise with Mr. Zorg from The Fifth Element, which btw is set in NYC+ 250 years. I know that staying in The City on a fixed income, my lifestyle remains middle-class, where if I were to be priced out to anywhere else I would be poor! Living in NYC means I don't have to spend money on car upkeep. I love cars but they're very expensive; even my ZipCar membership is going up next year. I caught a major deal on housng costs but they are up for everybody.

It used to be that places in SubUrbia were cheaper. Uh-uh. Even if I could find a cheap room I'd have to spend $500/mo minimum to keep a vehicle, or get used to the indignity of waiting for somebody else to take me places. Not my style at all. I'll stay right where I am and maintain my strategic strike range.
[User Picture]
From:madfilkentist
Date:December 23rd, 2010 06:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's a bit of support for my view that the tendency of corporations isn't to expand without limit, as some socialists claim. To the extent that they do, it's because they're in a better position to get governmental favors. In a really free economy, I think megacorporations would be rarer and shorter-lived.
[User Picture]
From:darius
Date:December 23rd, 2010 10:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I haven't read the article, but it seems odd to list higher per-capita spending on construction as a sign of greater efficiency.
[User Picture]
From:whswhs
Date:December 25th, 2010 03:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The death of large organizations is a good thing; it limits the accumulation of rent-seeking and makes room for new growth. Unfortunately, while it applies to corporations, it seems to happen much less with government agencies, which are not dependent on the market for continued funding.
[User Picture]
From:nancylebov
Date:December 25th, 2010 03:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Would it be better if there was reasonably frequent city turnover? I'm thinking of cities having a typical lifespan of about a century-- for some reason people are apt to lose interest in particular cities and establish new cities somewhere else.

I'm not sure what could make this happen-- maybe geo-engineering on a grand scale coming into use combined (and I have no idea how this could happen) with a legal regime which makes it legally unproblematic to move rivers, shorelines, and mountains.
[User Picture]
From:whswhs
Date:December 25th, 2010 10:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think of cities more along the line of Australian "firestick farming": You set fire to the brush and burn off all the vegetation, and then a couple of decades later you have a new forest in the same place, because that's a place that wants to have a forest. But you don't necessarily have any individual entity persisting. Consider the case of Rome, which effectively died for a while when the Empire collapsed . . . but there it is again at the old stand.
nancybuttons.com Powered by LiveJournal.com