Creative Class Warfare

Steve Sailer's review of Richard Florida's book can't be found at the website of its original publication or his own, but I've copied it here.

Isn't a large part of the growth in cities due to their ability to grow? With the incredibly high population density in New York, Boston, San Francisco, et cetera, there is very little additional growth that can occur, regardless of the type of people who live there and the sorts of industries and creativity that occur in those places.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything on it before, but is there any sort of study that has been done on maximum population density and how that affects growth?

If middle class families are the key to growth then Houston, Atlanta, Dallas should be the next "hot areas." Low cost of living, better than average schools and good job growth. Houston for instance, I just visited there, has great growth and I saw construction on practically every street.

-BT

It is a silly argument.

Florida said "The best cities and the best regions offer something for everyone."

Enough said.

With the incredibly high population density in New York, Boston, San Francisco, et cetera, there is very little additional growth that can occur,

Possibly true with Boston, doubtful with respect to New York, certainly not true with San Francisco. Plenty of additional growth is possible, just not with current restrictive zoning policies and neighborhood sentiment that opposes higher density housing. Economic research by Ed Glaeser suggests that it's zoning, not the inherent cost of land caused by running out or too high density, that is responsible for the high cost of living in those areas. See for example some of the links that Virginia Postrel provides here.

Of course, if you include the opinions and preferences of the locals as a political reality that's most of why little growth can occur, then it renders the question moot.