A climate for growth
IN SOME places, April is a delightful month where cherry blossoms bloom in the warmth of spring. But not in Boston. As we watch northeasters chill marathon runners, global warming starts looking less like the environmental crisis that it is and more like a good regional development strategy.
This winter that would not end seems to explain the new Census figures, released on April 5, that show that Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix were America's four fastest growing metropolitan areas. Each added more than 750,000 people between 2000 and 2006, while snowy Boston added a mere 63,000. Our 1.4 percent growth rate was slower than 277 other metropolitan areas.
Los Angeles became a great city because of its weather. Its great industries, such as movies and aerospace, were led by early migrants, like D.W. Griffith and Donald Douglas, who moved there because they liked its Mediterranean climate.
But while it might seem that people just find warmth irresistible, the growth of the Sun Belt today has much less to do with climate than with housing permits.
The growth of the Sun Belt today is no longer led by the temperate areas on the California coast. Since the 1970s, growth has been increasingly centered in the cities of Texas and the Southwestern desert -- areas that are far less pleasant than California. This switch came about as coastal Californians became more and more hostile to new development.
Environmental groups shut down construction near the San Francisco Bay. The California Supreme Court switched its allegiance from local political leaders to preservationists in rulings that required environmental impact reviews for vast numbers of new building projects. As it got harder to build, developers moved to places like Houston and Las Vegas, which are distinguished more by pro-growth politics than delightful weather.
How do I know that rapid growth in Houston and Dallas reflects a ready housing supply rather than demand for warmth? The most basic principles of economics tell us that if growth is driven by demand, for warmth or anything else, then we should expect to see high prices. If growth is driven by supply, then we should expect to see low prices. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sales price for a home was $150,000 in Houston, $170,000 in Atlanta and $400,000 in Boston. If Americans were flocking to Houston because of its great climate then it would not be so cheap. Houston's climate is not great, and neither is the climate in Atlanta, Dallas, or even Phoenix. Their relatively low prices, especially relative to coastal California, reflect their terrible summers.
In the 1990s, urban growth was more strongly correlated with hot, unpleasant Julys than with warm, appealing Januarys. People are not moving to the really nice areas in the South and West, which have restricted construction and become unaffordable, but to much less pleasant places, some of which aren't even warm. Boise, Idaho, and Provo, Utah, are two of the nation's fastest-growing areas, and their winters are comparable to our own.
What does this mean for Massachusetts? First, weather isn't destiny. The fault for our underperformance lies not with the sun but with ourselves. Massachusetts has high income levels and housing prices, which means that there is plenty of demand to live in the Bay State. To grow, we just need to allow more supply.
Second, the growing Sun Belt reminds us that Boston is doing a bad job relative to Texas and Nevada at making life affordable for middle-income people. We Bostonians pride ourselves on our social responsibility, but the cost of living is 50 percent higher in Boston than in Houston. Until we produce more housing, Greater Boston will be a region that takes better care of its rich than its poor.
Third, the growth of the Sun Belt reminds us that local environmentalism is often bad environmentalism. By protecting areas close to San Francisco, Californians made their own region greener, but they just pushed development into the desert. When we push development to low density areas --where there are fewer people to object -- we ensure more driving and energy use.
I don't want Boston to look like Las Vegas, but I do believe this region should grow. More people should live in Boston, instead of those Sun Belt cities that have neither high incomes nor pleasant climates. That can only happen if we permit more housing.
Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard, is director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. He is a guest columnist. 