TIP Strategies is a privately held Austin-based economic development consulting firm committed to providing quality solutions for public and private‑sector clients.
This blog is dedicated to exploring new data and trends in economic development.
By: John Karras, Consultant, TIP Strategies
Last month (Sept. 14-16, 2015), I attended the Inner City Economic Summit in Detroit with Jeff Marcell, Senior Partner from our firm’s Seattle office. We spent the first part of the week in Detroit, engaging with leaders from other urban markets and national experts on the subject of inner city economies. Following the conference, we joined our clients at the East Michigan Council of Governments in Saginaw to share what we learned and to continue our work helping evaluate options for establishing a center of excellence. The work is part of the implementation phase of our prior engagement which resulted in a plan to boost economic development in the 8-county region centered on Saginaw.
The Inner City Economic Summit was created by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC), the Harvard-based think tank established by Michael Porter, and was sponsored by three other organizations: the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Economic Development Quarterly from Sage Publications. For those of you not familiar with the ICIC, it’s worth getting to know their organization and their work. My favorite aspect of the ICIC is their incredibly useful “library of best practices in urban economic development.” The summit was hosted at the Detroit Marriott Renaissance Center (the same complex where GM is headquartered) on Day 1 and at the Detroit branch of the Chicago Federal Reserve on Day 2. During both days, we heard presentations and panel discussions from national experts on urban economic development, including a keynote from Michael Porter. We learned first-hand about the unprecedented private sector investments centered on downtown and Midtown Detroit, led primarily by Rock Ventures. We also participated in a three-hour bus tour through several revitalized and distressed areas in Detroit. And at the end of the conference, we took our own “self-guided” tour of the most challenged neighborhoods before heading up to Saginaw for the second part of our Michigan visit.
The Summit was filled with high-quality presentations, panel discussions, and conversations with leaders from urban markets across the US. But three presentations rose to the top as the most insightful and relevant to the challenges and opportunities facing urban economic development:
1. Michael Porter, the famed Harvard economist and corporate strategy expert. Porter revisited 20 years of groundbreaking research and experience on inner city economies and their competitive advantages, reflecting on lessons learned and providing perspective on what’s next for the field. [Read more]
2. Matthew Cullen, President and CEO of Rock Ventures. Cullen provided an in-depth perspective on how private sector investment has shaped Detroit’s infrastructure, economy, and culture in recent years. [Read more]
3. Martin Lavelle, Business Economist with the Detroit branch of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank. Lavelle shared an overview of Detroit’s current economic situation and offered perspectives on where it is headed, including some of the remaining barriers and potential pitfalls facing the city’s economy. [Read more]
Throughout the summit, an underlying theme emerged during the discussions about Detroit’s economic future:
Does urban economic development need to be big or small?
I would argue that, in order for cities to have the greatest shot at success, their economic development programs must include a combination of big and small initiatives. Detroit is focusing on both ends of the spectrum, which is a good thing, given the serious challenges facing the city’s economic development. I’ll share with you the highlights from the summit, including what Detroit is doing to catalyze economic growth. But first, let me share a brief summary of how the city arrived at its current state of affairs. There are an infinite number of things that can be said about Detroit’s economic history (people have written lengthy essays and books about it), but I’ll be as short and to-the-point as possible. Here goes…
Detroit, Michigan played a leading role in the development of the US economy during the 20th century. It was the birthplace of modern manufacturing and large-scale industrial production. Henry Ford’s Model T and the innovative assembly line that made it possible transformed the global economy in ways that no one could have anticipated. Detroit was arguably the most important city in the world from 1900 to 1950, from an economic development perspective. The city was, and still is, the global epicenter of the automotive industry. Only a handful of US cities dominate a single industry in the same way (New York with finance, Houston with energy, and Los Angeles with film/entertainment). Detroit also occupies an important place in our nation’s cultural identity, thanks in large part to Motown.
But despite its many accolades, Detroit is better known today for its epic decline. Even though its business leaders and companies were responsible for revolutionizing the world’s economy, the city has become a universal symbol of economic failure. Detroit is the only city in US history to have reached the 1,000,000 mark in population and subsequently drop down below that mark. Even worse, Detroit came close to the 2,000,000 mark around 1950 (estimated at 1.85 million in 1950) before its population decline. Detroit is by no means the only US city where such a dramatic economic decline took place…but it is the by far the largest and most well-known. In 2010, the city’s population stood at 713,777. In 2013, the city entered the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history. The latest 2014 estimates for Detroit show a population of 680,250, less than 37 percent of its 1950 peak. And the city’s decline has taken place against a backdrop of racial inequities. With a city population that is 83 percent black and 11 percent white, compared with a metro area population that is roughly 70 percent white and 23 percent black, the city offers a glaring example of racial segregation. Interestingly, the city’s decline over the last several decades has played out within the context of a relatively stable metro area population. The Detroit metro area was home to 4,490,902 residents in 1970, compared with 4,296,611 in 2014, a decline of only four percent (compared with a 45 percent decline in the city’s population during the same period).
Although there are stark challenges facing Detroit’s economic future, there are some major signs of life in the city. Private sector investment, business expansions, and job growth are beginning to take place in portions of the city, especially in downtown and Midtown. Positive things are happening in Detroit on a level not seen in more than half a century. It’s too early to gauge whether these recent changes will turn the tide, but there is finally a reason to be optimistic about Detroit’s future. At the very least, it is an unprecedented experiment in urban economic development that will provide the rest of us with case studies and lessons learned for years to come. Hopefully those future lessons will be referred to as “best practices” instead of cautionary tales. Time will tell…
So, back to our question of whether urban economic development needs to be big or small: What does a struggling urban economy need to get back on track? What does Detroit need to change the course of its economy- many small things or a few big things?
Detroit has an aversion to big things. For nearly a century, their economy has been defined by big auto companies, big unions, and big government. All three of these big things have dramatically (and permanently) decreased. So it is understandable that many residents are placing their hopes of recovery in small things (e.g., block-by-block revitalization of Midtown, expansion of the Eastern Market as a local food hub, a new protected bike lane on Jefferson Avenue). On top of that, the city’s business and community leaders are equally concerned with pursuing larger, more transformative, strategies (e.g., the massive private sector investments from Dan Gilbert, a new streetcar line, the innovation/acceleration efforts lead by TechTown Detroit).
Below are three additional ideas for Detroit to consider as part of its “all of the above” approach to transform the local economy, each of which could potentially include a combination of big and small things:
1. R&D and higher education.
2. International development.
3. Aggressive business recruitment and expansion.
R&D and higher education. When we completed the Regional Prosperity Strategy last year for the 8-county region in East Central Michigan, one of the most surprising findings from our data analysis was how concentrated the academic R&D investments in Michigan are in the state’s top two schools. The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is the nation’s number two institution ranked by academic R&D spending (nearly $1.4 billion in FY 2013). The state’s other top school and research powerhouse, Michigan State University in East Lansing, spent $516 million on R&D in FY 2013.Together, those two institutions account for more than 83 percent of Michigan’s total academic R&D expenditures. While this is greatly beneficial for those institutions, it’s a huge missed opportunity for the rest of the state. In fact, Michigan has a higher percentage of academic R&D investments in its top two universities than the investments in the top two universities in the other top 10 states in the US ranked by total academic R&D expenditures. This is especially frustrating for the Detroit metro area which accounts for nearly half of the state’s population but less than 10 percent of the state’s academic R&D spending. Wayne State University in Midtown Detroit is the city’s only significant research institution, with $224 million in academic R&D investments in FY 2013. Wayne State is certainly playing a critical role in the revitalization of Midtown, thanks in large part to its 27,000 students and its nearly 6,000 employees, but it is still a far cry from being one of the world’s preeminent research universities. The link between higher education and economic development is well-established. Besides the most prevalent examples (Stanford University in Silicon Valley, Harvard and MIT in Boston, and the University of Texas in Austin), dozens of communities across the US can trace their economic development success to the role of higher education. Which is why it’s no coincidence that Ann Arbor, just 40 miles from Detroit, is the best performing metro area in the state (along with Grand Rapids), having surpassed its pre-recession employment levels by 5 percent as of July 2015.
International development. With Windsor, Ontario right across the river from downtown, Detroit is part of the largest integrated, bi-national metropolitan economy in North America. Many people do not realize that the automotive manufacturing cluster centered on metro Detroit is actually a highly connected economic region that extends well into Canada. Given the city’s strong existing international ties, the multitude of nonstop international flights at Detroit-Wayne County International Airport, and the city’s global business connections, international business development represents a significant opportunity for Detroit.
Aggressive business recruitment and expansion. There is an untapped potential to bring in large private investment and business expansions from outside of Michigan into Detroit. An aggressive business recruitment program could play a large role in Detroit’s resurgence, while the city has a global brand and a reputation as an up-and-coming place for Millenials. The relocation of firms from Detroit’s suburbs into the urban core (e.g., Quicken Loans, Little Caesars) is wonderful for downtown, but the real opportunity lies in attracting new businesses from outside of the state. This won’t be easy, but business recruitment will be critical to the long-term growth of Detroit’s economy.
The beginning of something new? Or the beginning of the end?
This post could leave off on a positive note, citing once again the incredible transformation of downtown/Midtown Detroit. Or it could end on a less optimistic note, acknowledging the realities of a still-declining city that has yet to turn the tide. I’m going to do both.
Google Maps has a really cool new feature. You’ve probably used the Street View tool before, but you may not be aware that you can now use Street View to see the same photo perspective from multiple points in time. This is especially useful for cities that are experiencing rapid change, whether the change is positive or negative.
In Detroit’s case, I will leave you with two sequences of photos from Google’s StreetView. The first shows a house in the city’s near-East side neighborhood of McDougall-Hunt in 2009, 2011, and 2013. The second sequence shows Campus Martius Park in downtown Detroit in 2008, 2011, and 2015.
I’ll let the images speak for themselves.
Highlighted Inner City Economic Summit Presenter Summaries in Detail:
Michael Porter’s presentation was a comprehensive overview of the challenges and opportunities for inner cities, based on multiple decades of research and observation. It was fascinating, not only because Porter is a dynamic and incredibly knowledgeable speaker, but because he did a great job of tying the challenges facing inner city economic development to the realities in the larger national economy. You can download Porter’s presentation here [PDF]. You can also see a re-cap of his talk on YouTube. Porter began his talk by describing the structural challenges facing the US economy, concluding that “strengthening America’s inner cities has become more challenging due to the overall state of the US economy.” He contrasted this with the relatively strong national economy in 1990, back when ICIC was first getting off the ground. ICIC defines an inner city as “contiguous census tracts within central cities that are economically distressed”. Their definition of distressed is based on the following two criteria: 1) “a poverty rate of 20 percent or higher, excluding students” or; 2) “a poverty rate, excluding students, of 1.5x or more than the MSA” and at least one of two other criteria: “median household income 50 percent or less than the MSA” or “unemployment rate 1.5x or more than the MSA”. One of the more interesting points in Porter’s presentation was that inner city economic success is not closely correlated with overall metropolitan economic success. At first glance, this seems to go against commonly held beliefs that a strong inner city is needed for a strong metro economy. But Porter was also keen on pointing out that the central cities (not including the portions classified as inner city according to ICIC’s definition) accounted for all of the net job growth in the US from 2003 to 2013. He also shared several key findings about how to stimulate economic development in inner city economies, including: the importance of clusters as drivers of growth, connecting inner cities to regional clusters, and capitalizing on anchor institutions present in inner cities. While Porter’s talk touched on many of the challenges and opportunities facing inner city economic development, he did not cover one key area, real estate. Urban areas have many barriers impacting real estate development that don’t exist in suburban and exurban areas. Fortunately, the other keynote presentation from Matthew Cullen did cover real estate.
Matthew Cullen, head of Rock Ventures, also gave a dynamic keynote presentation. Rock Ventures is the umbrella entity created to manage Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert’s portfolio of 110 companies, investments, and real estate development projects in Detroit primarily, and to a lesser extent, in Cleveland. Cullen’s talk showcased the major transformations in downtown and Midtown Detroit, largely spearheaded by Rock Ventures and other private sector leaders (e.g., the Illitch family, which is bringing its Little Caesars corporate HQ from the suburbs into Midtown and is also building a new arena for the Red Wings hockey team as part of a new mixed-use district). It’s funny…at TIP we sometimes joke about the ”fairy godfather/godmother” strategy for downtown revitalization. As the story often goes, “all you have to do is find a rich/famous person with an affinity for your community, and then convince them to funnel millions of dollars into the renovation of historic buildings to create a bunch of cool new offices, restaurants, and loft apartments.” Well, downtown Detroit may be the best example ever of this strategy, with Dan Gilbert serving as Chief Executive Fairy Godfather and Matthew Cullen serving as Chief Operating Fairy Godfather. You can see Cullen’s presentation for yourself (parts 1 through 5 on YouTube), but I’ll give you the highlights. Since 2010, Rock Ventures has been responsible for the creation of 13,000 jobs, nearly $2 billion in investment, and the renovation/redevelopment of 13 million square feet of building space (office, residential, retail). They are also leading an effort to create a new $140 million streetcar line (with a remarkable $100 million coming from private and philanthropic investors, and only $40 million in public funds) that will connect downtown to Midtown after construction is completed in 2017. Rock Ventures has also invested in a downtown broadband internet infrastructure known as RocketFiber, which is purported to be 100x faster than Comcast. It’s pretty obvious that Gilbert’s efforts are starting to pay off in a major way. All it takes is a 10-minute walk through downtown Detroit, and you feel like you’re in an emerging hipster haven. Take another 20 minute walk north to Midtown, and you’ll find growing clusters of creative businesses like Shinola among the large anchor institutions of Wayne State University, the Detroit Medical Center, and the Detroit Institute of Arts. Lastly, Rock Ventures is keenly aware that bringing jobs and investment into the urban core will not create a vibrant district without a thoughtful approach toward improving the urban design, or the “connective tissue” as Cullen described it. Of course, it’s worth keeping in mind that, no matter how inspiring the work of Rock Ventures and other private sector leaders, the downtown/Midtown area only represents a small portion of Detroit, roughly 6 to 8 percent of the city’s land area, depending on how you define it. And when you consider the fact that the city’s urban core has seen a large amount growth (investment, job growth, and residential growth) while the city as a whole is still losing more than 8,000 residents a year (from 2010 to 2014), it is clear that the rest of the city is still declining rapidly. It will be interesting to watch the evolution of Detroit’s downtown/Midtown urban renaissance over the coming years. Hopefully, the success of the city’s urban core can translate into broader economic development for the rest of the city.
Martin Lavelle, an economist with the Detroit branch of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank, gave a brief talk as part of the introductory set of presentations. (You can find his presentation at the tail end of this document.) I really appreciated Lavelle’s comments because he cut through the hype and gave a realistic assessment of where Detroit is and where it might be headed from an economic development perspective. Lavelle started by acknowledging the major progress in the city: improving city services, ongoing investment (largely in the downtown/Midtown area), a growing neighborhood focus, and a greater willingness among civic leaders to discuss the tough issues. Lavelle then went on to discuss some of the significant structural impediments that act as barriers to economic development in the city, most notably the lack of a premier research university and an inadequate public transportation system. He also highlighted several potential pitfalls that could send the city back into bankruptcy including: tax revenue declines, fiscal challenges facing other regional entities (e.g., Detroit Public Schools, Wayne County), and a potential return of corrupt elected leadership—a long-time hallmark of Detroit’s government. Finally, Lavelle touched on some of the key issues the city must tackle in order to become a prosperous community: reform of Detroit Public Schools, addressing the city’s many unique land use challenges, and regional cooperation.
By: Alan Flippen
Via: The New York Times
Annie Lowrey writes in the Times Magazine this week about the troubles of Clay County, Ky., which by several measures is the hardest place in America to live.
The Upshot came to this conclusion by looking at six data points for each county in the United States: education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity. We then averaged each county’s relative rank in these categories to create an overall ranking.
(We tried to include other factors, including income mobility and measures of environmental quality, but we were not able to find data sets covering all counties in the United States.)
The 10 lowest counties in the country, by this ranking, include a cluster of six in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Kentucky (Breathitt, Clay, Jackson, Lee, Leslie and Magoffin), along with four others in various parts of the rural South: Humphreys County, Miss.; East Carroll Parish, La.; Jefferson County, Ga.; and Lee County, Ark.
We used disability — the percentage of the population collecting federal disability benefits but not also collecting Social Security retirement benefits — as a proxy for the number of working-age people who don’t have jobs but are not counted as unemployed. Appalachian Kentucky scores especially badly on this count; in four counties in the region, more than 10 percent of the total population is on disability, a phenomenon seen nowhere else except nearby McDowell County, W.Va.
Remove disability from the equation, though, and eastern Kentucky would still fare badly in the overall rankings. The same is true for most of the other six factors.
The exception is education. If you exclude educational attainment, or lack of it, in measuring disadvantage, five counties in Mississippi and one in Louisiana rank lower than anywhere in Kentucky. This suggests that while more people in the lower Mississippi River basin have a college degree than do their counterparts in Appalachian Kentucky, that education hasn’t improved other aspects of their well-being.
As Ms. Lowrey writes, this combination of problems is an overwhelmingly rural phenomenon. Not a single major urban county ranks in the bottom 20 percent or so on this scale, and when you do get to one — Wayne County, Mich., which includes Detroit — there are some significant differences. While Wayne County’s unemployment rate (11.7 percent) is almost as high as Clay County’s, and its life expectancy (75.1 years) and obesity rate (41.3 percent) are also similar, almost three times as many residents (20.8 percent) have at least a bachelor’s degree, and median household income ($41,504) is almost twice as high.
Now that TIP Strategies has a permanent presence in both Austin, Texas and Seattle, Washington we’ve been having fun comparing and contrasting the two regions. One feature the two share: momentous growth. According to two recent articles, Austin’s metro area is the “fastest growing large metro area” and the City of Seattle is the “fastest growing large city.” This growth is a direct result of another commonality between Austin and Seattle, a cool factor that generates a gravitational pull of people, investment, and attention.
Speaking of cool, Seattle was recently named America’s Most Hipster City by “Thrillist” …Austin came in at #3. And between the two cities, you have a long list of internationally recognized events and festivals: South by Southwest, the Austin City Limits Music Festival, the Formula 1 U.S. Grand Prix, Bumbershoot, the Seattle International Film Festival, Seafair, and many others. If you want to define cool, you can’t get closer than Austin and Seattle. The evidence is substantial:
- Austin and Seattle were both ranked in the “Top 10 Cities to be a Moviemaker” by Movie Maker Magazine (Austin is #1, Seattle is #3).
- Both cities were included in the “Top 10 Most Vegan-Friendly Cities” by PETA (Austin is #1, Seattle is #6).
- Conde Nast Traveler recently named Austin and Seattle as two of “America’s Best Cities for Foodies” (Austin is #16, Seattle is #13).
- Both cities were included in Trulia’s list of “The 10 Best Cities To Dine With Your Valentine” (Austin is #7, Seattle is #8).
While the competition for cool is a fun conversation, we at TIP Strategies do take successful economies very seriously. There is much more than the entertaining buzz of oddball rankings that drives the success of these regions. Our firm has identified the formula to economic success as Talent, Innovation, and Place. Austin and Seattle have tapped into this formula and are benefiting from job growth and investment because they deliver on these critical components of a successful economy.
The regions are similar in a number of important ways:
- The Austin and Seattle metros are national leaders in population growth as evidenced by the latest Census data.
- Both cities also lead the nation in job growth. In fact, the U.S. News & World Report recently included Austin and Seattle in its list of “The 10 Best Cities to Find Jobs” (Austin is #5, Seattle is #6).
- The Austin and Seattle regions contain the most significant concentrations of high-tech companies in the country outside of Silicon Valley and Boston, thanks to headquarters and major facilities of tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Dell, Apple, Samsung, and many others.
- Both cities have high levels of educational attainment (44.8% of Austin residents age 25 and older hold a bachelor’s degree and 56.5% of Seattle residents age 25 and older hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to a U.S. average of 28.5%).
But each region meets the Talent, Innovation, and Place formula in its own unique way. Let’s briefly explore how the regional economies of Seattle and Austin are leading the pack:
Austin and Seattle are both magnets for talented professionals and entrepreneurs. The talent pool in each metro area is the basic building block of each region’s economy. Of course, the cool factor in both cities helps to attract talent from across the country. But each city also has a strong pool of locally grown talent thanks in large part to the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Washington, two of the top public universities in the world. As economic development professionals, we understand that access to talent is the number one issue for both companies and communities. Here’s how Austin and Seattle compare in the competition for talent:
- A recent study by the Milken Institute ranked the Austin and Seattle metro areas as two of the “Top 10 Best-Performing Cities” (Austin is #1, Seattle is #6). The study analyzed the 200 largest metro areas based on job, wage, and technology growth.
- Both cities were named as two of the “Best Cities for Twentysomethings” by CreditDonkey (Austin is #1, Seattle is #6).
- Niche.com recently named Austin and Seattle among the “25 Best Cities for Millenials” (Austin is #2, Seattle is #13).
- Austin and Seattle were included in the “35 Best Cities for People 35 and Under,” Vocativ.com’s Livability Index (Austin is #2, Seattle is #4).
- Both cities were included in The Daily Beast’s list of “America’s Thriving Cities” (Austin is #4, Seattle is #6).
There’s a special kind of energy in Austin and Seattle that you just don’t feel in most cities. Both places are hotbeds of creativity and innovation. This is partly due to the influx of people moving to these cities each day, but it’s also due to the level of growth taking place in locally based start-ups and small businesses. Austin and Seattle are among an elite group of cities that are on the cutting edge of innovation and entrepreneurship.
Here are a few examples of how the economies of Austin and Seattle are driving innovation:
- Business Insider recently named Austin and Seattle as two of “The 15 U.S. Cities That Are Driving The Future” (Austin is #1, Seattle is #6).
- Austin and Seattle were both ranked among “The 7 Hottest Startup Scenes in the U.S.” by Entrepreneur Magazine (Austin is #1, Seattle is #2).
- Both cities were included in the “Top 30 Cities for Young Entrepreneurs” (Austin is #1, Seattle is #10).
- Austin and Seattle were recently named among “The Most Tech-Savvy Digital Cities” by Digital Communities (Austin is #6, Seattle is #4).
The level of growth (population, jobs, investment) taking place in the regional economies of Austin and Seattle is strong evidence of each metro area’s quality of place. You can experience this first-hand simply by seeing the amount of construction cranes towering over each city’s urban core. Yet even if you’ve never visited either city, chances are you have a good impression of them. Each city has its own unique brand, but they are both vibrant cities with strong identities.
If a quick look at the population and job growth data (or construction cranes) isn’t enough to convince you that Austin and Seattle are two of the most appealing places in the U.S., here are a few more examples that might do the trick:
- Jones Lang Lasalle recently named Austin and Seattle among the “World’s 20 Most Dynamic Cities” as part of its proprietary City Momentum Index (Austin is #7, Seattle is #18).
- A recent Brookings Institution study includes Austin and Seattle in the top tier of “U.S. metro areas with the highest percentage of international trade” among the 100 largest metro areas (Austin is #9, Seattle is #12).
- Both cities were rated among the “Top 15 Aspirational Cities in the U.S.” by newgeography.com as part of an index that included both jobs and culture (Austin is #1, Seattle is #12).
- Austin and Seattle both rank highly on the “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard” LINK http://aceee.org/local-policy/city-scorecard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (Austin is #6, Seattle is #5).
- Both cities ranked highly on the Urban Land Institute’s “U.S. Markets to Watch in 2014” (Austin is #7, Seattle is #6).
TIP Strategies is linked to each of these metropolitan economies like no other economic strategy firm. Our approach is grounded in understanding these economies, taking what we know to be their successful components, and applying and leveraging these lessons for the benefit of the communities we work with across the country. Being connected to and engaged in the two capitals of Talent, Innovation, and Place is our strategic advantage.
While our staff will continue to have fun debating which TIP location is cooler, we will always place serious emphasis on the lessons we can take from each of these metropolitan economies, lessons we can bring to our clients to help them build their own unique brands through Talent, Innovation, and place.
By: Rob Sentz
Click here to see the interactive map
Which industries are the top drivers of job growth for each of the 100 largest U.S. markets? Which metros have added the most jobs post-recession? Which metros have the biggest concentration of jobs in healthcare, technology, construction, manufacturing, energy and other top fields?
The U.S. economy is composed of hundreds of industries that are spread across thousands of counties, and the interactions of these industries are huge engines for job formation and economic prosperity.
CareerBuilder and EMSI have teamed up to create a powerful interactive map that applies big data to visualize the enormous size, scope and diversity of the U.S. economy. The map uses EMSI’s rich labor market database of over 90 national and state employment resources to identify key industries that are driving job growth for the 100 most populous U.S. metros. 1
Viewers can click on each metro and the map reveals 10 of the most important detailed industries for that location, based on number of 2013 jobs, job growth since 2010 and job concentration. From well-known economic forces (e.g., finance in New York City and aerospace products and parts manufacturing in Seattle) to emerging sectors (e.g., motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing in Nashville and data processing and hosting in San Antonio), the map provides comprehensive – and often surprising – insights.
Viewers can also click on an industry menu to see a list of metros where a specific industry is a major economic driver.
“Since 2010, the national workforce has grown four percent, but more than 40 large metros have eclipsed the national growth rate,” said Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder. “These are metros with a strong concentration of computer systems design, software publishing and data processing and hosting firms. These are metros benefiting from the resurgence in U.S. manufacturing, and the nation’s need to find new energy sources and expand healthcare services.”
In a separate study of the same 100 metros, CareerBuilder and EMSI discovered which metros have added the most jobs per capita post-recession:
1. Salt Lake City, UT – added over 62,000 jobs since 2010, up 9% (534 new jobs per 10,000 people)
Originally a farming community, Salt Lake City has grown into an industrial center for the state. Industries that have experienced strong job growth in this metro include electronic shopping and mail order houses (up 43%), software publishing (up 28%), specialized freight trucking (up 23%) and credit intermediation (up 22%).
2. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI – added over 39,000 jobs since 2010, up 10% (513 new jobs per 10,000 people)
This manufacturing heavyweight has benefited from the rebound of production jobs after the recession. The metro saw job increases in various manufacturing segments such as plastics product (up 35%), motor vehicle parts (up 33%), metalworking machinery (up 30%) and office furniture (up 12%). Hospitals also accounted for an upswing in jobs (up 16%).
3. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA – added over 91,000 jobs since 2010, up 10% (498 new jobs per 10,000 people)
It’s no surprise that software publishing (up 30%), computer systems design (up 19%), data processing and hosting (up 16%), computer manufacturing (up 12%) and scientific research (up 9%) are big contributors to employment for this Silicon Valley metro.
4. Austin-Round Rock- San Marcos, TX – added over 90,000 jobs since 2010, up 11% (488 new jobs per 10,000 people)
Austin has made a name for itself as a technology and business hub, fueling job growth in management, scientific and consulting services (up 35%), computer systems design (up 35%), data processing and hosting (up 35%) and semiconductor manufacturing (up 17%).
5. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX – added over 281,000 jobs since 2010, up 10% (451 new jobs per 10,000 people)
Energy-rich Houston continues to see job growth in utility system construction (specifically, oil and gas pipeline, up 45%), mining support (up 38%), metal and mineral (except petroleum) wholesalers (up 31%), oil and gas extraction (up 25%), and architectural and engineering services (21%).
6. Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN – added over 71,000 jobs since 2010, up 9% (432 new jobs per 10,000 people)
A popular music center, Nashville saw a 25% increase in jobs for independent artists, writers and performers. The metro also saw notable jumps in jobs for motor vehicle manufacturing (up 61%), accounting services (up 37%), general freight trucking (up 17%) and specialty hospitals (up 15%).
7. Provo-Orem, UT – added over 24,000 jobs since 2010, up 12% (427 new jobs per 10,000 people)
The mid-sized Utah metro is well concentrated in a number of fast-growing tech industries: software publishing (up 51%), computer systems design (up 30%) and semiconductor manufacturing (up 14%).
8. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX – added over 267,000 jobs since 2010, up 9% (400 new jobs per 10,000 people)
Part of the Silicon Prairie, Dallas saw a boost in jobs in computer systems design (up 32%) and communications equipment manufacturing (up 18%). Other key growth areas include oil and gas extraction (up 27%), office administration (up 22%) and credit intermediation (up 13%).
9. Bakersfield-Delano, CA – added 33,000 jobs since 2010, up 11% (394 new jobs per 10,000 people)
Growth in this metro has been fueled by agriculture-related industries such as crop production (up 14%) and dairy product manufacturing (up 11%). Bakersfield has also benefited from an upswing in utility system construction (specifically, oil and gas pipeline), an industry that has more than doubled in employment since 2010 and is nearly seven times as concentrated in Bakersfield than the national average.
10. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC – added over 70,000 jobs, up 8% (381 new jobs per 10,000 people)
In addition to spectator sports (up 37%), this metro also experienced growth in tech-related industries such as telecommunication carriers (up 31%), management, scientific and consulting services (up 22%), scheduled air transportation (up 17%) and data processing and hosting (up 14%).
Meanwhile, the poorest-performing labor markets are in Scranton–Wilkes-Barre and Albuquerque, both of which have roughly the same number of workers today as they did in 2010. Ten other metros, headlined by Providence, Dayton, and Syracuse, have only grown 1 percent.
The map also reveals pockets of the U.S. where key industries are clustered among the largest cities:
Oil and gas extraction is a major driver of high-wage job growth in Texas, Oklahoma and the surrounding region. It’s also becoming a driver of job growth in Denver.
General freight trucking is concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast (Nashville, Memphis, Jacksonville, etc.), where transportation routes are plentiful and huge population centers are in close range.
Software publishing has a big presence in Silicon Valley, but is also growing in major markets such as Seattle, Boston, Atlanta and Denver.
General medical and surgical hospitals are driving jobs in Columbus, Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, Rochester and St. Louis, among others.
Highway, street and bridge construction has seen an uptick in jobs in Baton Rouge, Oklahoma City and San Antonio as cities rebuild after natural disasters and address other public concerns.
CareerBuilder and EMSI are national leaders in providing labor market data and tools to dig deeper and better understand national and local economies.
1 EMSI data is collected from more than 90 federal and state sources, such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, and state labor departments. EMSI removes suppressions often found in publicly available data and includes proprietors, creating a complete picture of the workforce.
Economic Modeling Specialists Intl., a CareerBuilder company, turns labor market data into useful information that helps organizations understand the connection between economies, people, and work. Using sound economic principles and good data, we build user-friendly services that help educational institutions, workforce planners, and regional developers build a better workforce and improve the economic conditions in their regions. For more information, visit www.economicmodeling.com.
CareerBuilder is the global leader in human capital solutions, helping companies target and attract great talent. Its online career site, CareerBuilder.com®, is the largest in the United States with more than 24 million unique visitors, 1 million jobs and 50 million resumes. CareerBuilder works with the world’s top employers, providing resources for everything from employment branding and talent and compensation intelligence to recruitment solutions. More than 10,000 websites, including 140 newspapers and broadband portals such as MSN and AOL, feature CareerBuilder’s proprietary job search technology on their career sites. Owned by Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE:GCI), Tribune Company and The McClatchy Company (NYSE:MNI), CareerBuilder and its subsidiaries operate in the United States, Europe, South America, Canada and Asia. For more information, visit www.careerbuilder.com.
Project Update: Woodward, Inc. HQ and Manufacturing Facility to Relocate to Downtown River District in Fort Collins, CO
by Caroline Alexander, Senior Consultant, TIP Strategies
After completing a strategic plan for the City of Fort Collins in 2012, TIP has continued to support the City’s Economic Health Office, providing research and analyses to help them refine their program and investment strategy. As such, we have been able support them in their continued efforts to put theory into practice.
Recently, the Fort Collins City Council voted to approve a $23.5 million business assistance package for Woodward, Inc. to develop a 101-acre property to house its corporate headquarters and a manufacturing facility. The company plans to invest $220 million in new buildings, relocate 600 jobs to the new facility, and create 400 new jobs. The economic impact analysis that TIP and Impact DataSource prepared estimated that the project will likely generate a net benefit for the local taxing districts of over $36 million in the first 10 years.
The significance of the project, however, moves far beyond its economic and fiscal impact: it has the potential to transform the city’s under-developed River District and spur additional investment in the area. The headquarters will anchor the southeastern edge of the River District with a major employer and will provide 29 acres of improved open space along the Poudre River. Demand for services such as hospitality and retail will grow to support the headquarters of a $2 billion global company and will generate a great deal of activity in the District. Recreational users will also be drawn to the expanded access to the river, generating even more social, retail, and dining activity. As a result of this catalytic project, the streets between the Woodward Campus and historic downtown will likely see a surge of interest and investment.
Kudos to the City of Fort Collins, the Economic Health Office, and the Downtown Development Authority for their work in making this project happen.
by Caroline Alexander, Senior Consultant, TIP Strategies
TIP, in partnership with Bob Wernersbach, recently completed a market study for the San Marcos Regional Airport (HYI). Communities often face the challenge of how to leverage an airport as an economic development asset. San Marcos provides a useful example of how to approach this challenge for general aviation airports, in particular.
The San Marcos Regional Airport is owned by the city of San Marcos and managed by Texas Aviation Partners. It is situated between Austin and San Antonio between IH-35 and the new SH-130 with access to rail and a workforce of over 1.9 million people within a 50-mile radius of the airport. It is also a short drive away from one of Texas’ most popular tourist destinations – the San Marcos Outlet Malls.
The San Marcos Regional Airport competes not only with the general aviation facilities of Austin-Bergstrom and San Antonio International Airports but also with the airports located in New Braunfels and Georgetown. To understand how the San Marcos airport fits into the regional competitive landscape, we conducted a detailed analysis to score the competing facilities based on 27 criteria across 4 topic areas. The 4 topic areas were value, location, growth potential, and airport facilities.
With the understanding of how San Marcos fits into the competitive landscape, we identified market opportunities and niches for the San Marcos Regional Airport. We proposed a vision for the airport and the surrounding land that will guide investments and development at the airport. Finally, we made specific recommendations on site preparation and infrastructure development that should made and devised a marketing strategy. These recommendations outline the steps the City of San Marcos, Texas Aviation Partners, and the Greater San Marcos Partnership must take to realize the ambitious vision for the airport.
The result of the study is a more coordinated effort to promote the airport as a growth center in the region. Through the planning process, San Marcos was able to engage its stakeholders and build support for the airport vision. Texas Aviation Partners has embraced the study and is building its business plan around it. The Greater San Marcos Partnership, too, will incorporate this study into its over-all economic development strategy. Through this coordinated effort, the community is likely to see strongly positive results.