Impact on Local Economies

Poof! Multifamily building permits have almost entirely evaporated in one of the nation's most affluent areas -- Montgomery County, MD. But in this case, don't blame high interest rates, high supply or weak rents. Instead, there's one clear driver... Rent control. Montgomery County enacted rent control in July 2024. Look at the before and after. In the first eight months of 2024, Montgomery County issued building permits for 2,093 multifamily units. That almost matched the total for all other Maryland counties combined. In the first eight months of 2025, Montgomery County issued building permits for only 54 multifamily units. By comparison, all other Maryland counties issued permits for 2,248 units. So Montgomery County plunged, while the rest of Maryland held steady -- leaving little doubt that rent control crushed MoCo's development pipeline. Interestingly: Montgomery County did exempt new construction from rent control, but only for 23 years. That quirk reflects county leadership likely lacked understanding for how apartment development capital works and thinks: Every investor is concerned about exit strategy. Who is the next buyer? That 23-year window might be a non-factor operationally for the first investor, but the looming expiration date wards off future investors -- thereby reducing the property's value. We saw a similar phenomenon in St. Paul, Minnesota, which famously enacted rent control in 2021 and thereby left itself on the sidelines of the nation's biggest apartment development boom in a half century -- depriving its residents (and future residents) of much-needed new housing supply. It's a stark reminder that while rent control may be politically popular, it's bad policy proven (by countless academic research studies) to be backfire on the very people it's intended to protect. There is no quick fix to affordability. The best, most effective and most proven solution: Build, build, build. Look at where rental affordability has improved the most in the last few years. It's not in cities with rent control. It's in cities that built a ton of new apartments. #affordability #rent #housing

$6 billion. 2,500 affordable homes. Zero taxpayer money for the stadium. Here's how one Queens project rewrote the playbook: Willets Point is building the affordable housing first. The stadium second. And the numbers tell a different story than every other stadium project: • 2,500 below-market apartments (100% affordable) • First privately-financed stadium in NYC in generations • $6+ billion economic impact over 30 years • 14,000 construction jobs + 1,500 permanent jobs • Stadium opens 2027, housing starts moving in 2026 This isn't just big. It's the largest all-affordable new construction housing project NYC has seen in 40+ years. But here's what makes this different from every other stadium deal: Most stadium projects work like this: • City pays for stadium • Developers build luxury around it • Ordinary families get pushed out • Original community sees zero benefit Willets Point works like this: • Soccer club pays for their own $780 million stadium • 2,500 affordable homes anchor the entire project • 15% of units reserved for formerly homeless New Yorkers • Local residents get hiring priority for 16,000 new jobs The timeline reveals the priorities: Phase 1 starts now: 880 affordable apartments by 2026 Phase 2 follows: Stadium + 1,400 more affordable units by 2027 They're building homes before entertainment. The location makes it work. You've got: • Mets at Citi Field next door • US Open tennis center walking distance • Subway and LIRR station right there • Three major sports venues in one transit hub Most cities build empty stadiums that sit unused 300+ days a year. NYC is building a neighborhood that works every single day. The soccer stadium just happens to be part of it. The real question: Will other cities follow this model? What do you think, is this the future of stadium development?

The idea that developing countries can skip industrialization — and instead develop based on services — is fundamentally misguided. Except for very small countries, *every* country that has transformed its economy from low- to high-income status has done so via manufacturing. Why does manufacturing matter so much? For one, manufacturing is characterized by superior potential for productivity growth and economies of scale. Manufacturing activities lend themselves more easily to mechanization, chemical processing, and spatial concentration than most services. Manufacturing is also characterized by stronger spillovers and linkages to other sectors than services. Each job in manufacturing generates more than two additional jobs elsewhere in the economy. The innovation dimension is perhaps the most crucial. Manufacturing firms spend heavily on research and development (R&D), serving as a foundation of innovation. Manufacturing accounts for a whopping 53% of global R&D activity. There is growing concern that the window for labour-intensive industrialization has closed due to AI-related automation technologies. China is debunking this myth in real time. The country has retained remarkable labour absorption in manufacturing — nearly a quarter of China’s workforce still works in its manufacturing ecosystem — alongside a surge in the adoption of industrial robots. In this week’s newsletter, I explain why manufacturing uniquely powers innovation, trade, job creation, and the foundation for a strong economy. Read the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/e9e6z7S5

Working with an interdisciplinary team, we have developed a website to communicate how the White House's proposed cuts to health research would cause losses of $16B and 68,500 jobs. Find out how your community may be impacted at SCIMaP: https://scienceimpacts.org As context, on Feb. 7th, 2025, the White House ordered across-the-board cuts to NIH funded research. The order drastically reduces the amount that universities/hospitals/institutes receive for essential facilities, services, and staff required for health research. Nearly two dozen states and allied institutions sued leading to a temporary injunction to across-the-board cuts nationwide. The NIH distributes approximately $37B in external grants/awards in FY 2024. These grants/awards have a force-magnifying effect, generating $2.56 of economic activity for each $1 supported, i.e., more than $94B in activity and more than 400K jobs (source: United for Medical Research). But this impact is hard to see and interpret. You might wonder: perhaps the impacts are focused only on a few, potentially 'elite' institutions? The answer is far different. Soon after the executive order was released, it became apparent that these across the board cuts would have damaging & consequential effects in communities across the United States, in places like State College, PA, Birmingham, AL, and across the medical research infrastructure of Texas. Led by the efforts of Allie Sinclair joint with Emily Falk, Clio Andris and more, we have developed an interactive visualization of the impact of federal cuts to health research in communities nationally. In practice, we take anticipated reductions in NIH supported grants and then leverage US census data on commuting to project the impact of these cuts across and within communities. Through interactive, data-driven visualizations, we aim to help Americans explore how research fuels the economy, supports jobs, and improves health outcomes. This website and interactive visualization is a step in that direction, with more to come joint with Alyssa (Allie) Sinclair (now at UPenn), Emily Falk (UPenn), Clio Andris (GT) + others in The Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project: https://scienceimpacts.org

A common argument against immigration is that immigrants take jobs from native workers. A new study of South Korea found the opposite. When COVID border closures cut the supply of low-skilled guest workers by 22%, firms were more likely to close, production was disrupted, and native Korean workers suffered wage declines – suggesting that immigrant and native workers were complements, rather than substitutes. Good policy starts with evidence over gut feel. "The Effects of a Sudden Stop in Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from Korea’s Guest Worker Program" by Jongkwan Lee, Giovanni Peri, and Hee-Seung Yang.

For every degree of warming, we lose 130 calories in nutrition, and without the right investments, 950 million more people will slide into extreme hunger by 2030. Luckily, there is a solution. One that not only improves nutrition, increases attendance at schools, and improves education outcomes but, drives economic growth and development. For every $1 invested in nutrition, you can expect a $7 to $35 return on investment. And for every 100,000 school meals served, 1,377 jobs are created. That is why we are proud to announce our $100 million commitment to expand and strengthen school meal programs across more than a dozen countries, including the U.S. This is part of our broader $220M investment in food systems. At #N4GParis, The Rockefeller Foundation’s Executive Vice President of Programs, Elizabeth Yee, spoke with FRANCE 24 about nutrition's pivotal role in children’s academic success, economic growth, and farmers' livelihoods. Watch her interview here: https://bit.ly/4l6bQX6

They bought 135 acres for $88M. And turned it into a $3.5B development. All because they knew what a stadium could really do. Here's the mixed-use play that's transforming San Diego: Most people saw an old stadium. Smart money saw a catalyst. And they were right. Here's how San Diego State turned dead space into the city's biggest bet: This isn't about sports. It's about raising the economic floor. Most people see: • One $310M stadium • 35,000 seats for games • Nice new venue Smart money sees: • Economic gravity center • Rising tide that lifts all boats • Productivity boost per square foot The secret? Think ecosystem. 24/7 activation vs. ghost town model. Traditional stadiums deliver: • Event-day revenue only • Empty parking lots between games • Dead zones 320+ days per year Their multipurpose approach creates: • Year-round programming • Multiple tenant anchors • Constant economic activity No more wasteland between events. Instead, they're stacking revenue streams. They're not building one business. They're building five: • College football (SDSU Aztecs) • Pro soccer (San Diego FC - MLS) • Women's soccer (San Diego Wave) • Major concerts and events • Training facilities and academy Plus the surrounding development: • Housing • Office and retail • Hotels • 80 acres of parks Look at the scale: • $88M land acquisition • $310M stadium investment • $150M training campus • $3.5B total development value That's a 40X multiple on the initial land buy. This heals urban divides. Connects previously disconnected neighborhoods. Creates a self-reinforcing economic ecosystem. The stadium doesn't just generate revenue. It elevates everything around it. When you buy land next to economic gravity centers like this, you're not just buying real estate. You're buying into the rising tide.

What if we designed cities for people, not just cars? Lancaster, CA, is proving it’s possible—in just 8 months, they transformed a five-lane road into The BLVD, a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined street that has become a model for urban revitalization. What did the transformation look like? Before: A five-lane thoroughfare dominated by cars, with vacant storefronts and limited community engagement. After: A pedestrian-friendly boulevard with a central "rambla" inspired by Barcelona, fostering a thriving downtown with increased foot traffic and economic growth. What’s great is that this wasn’t just an environmental benefit, it was also economic. The $11.5 million initial investment attracted $130 million in private investment and is estimated to generate $273 million in economic output within 4 years. By encouraging people to park once and explore on foot, the redesign has boosted community engagement and safety. Lancaster’s approach reflects the New Urbanism movement, prioritizing walkable, people-centered downtowns over suburban sprawl. Having lived in the Bay Area for nearly 10 years, there’s so much I love about the area — the public transit, the weather, and the people. But I see so much room for improvement. Lancaster’s development is a testament to the future of what cities can look like if we invest in sustainable urban design. I’m a huge fan of mixed-use developments to boost local economies (and imagine living above a local grocery store—no more lugging bags for blocks!). By making sure all stakeholders are involved in the planning, we can integrate green spaces and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure to create welcoming and useable public areas. Lancaster’s transformation proves that cities CAN be people-first, green, and economically booming. What would you change about your city? Drop your thoughts below! #UrbanRevival #CityDesign #SustainableCities #Placemaking #WalkableCities #UrbanPlanning #SmartGrowth

𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 — 𝗼𝗿 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀? Governments increasingly see universities as catalysts for regional economic development. The logic appears sound: higher education institutions produce skilled graduates, drive innovation, and stimulate local economies. Yet, in practice, many universities are consumed by a different ambition: the pursuit of global rankings. The result is a proliferation of institutions striving to become miniature versions of Harvard, often at the expense of their own regions. This strategy carries two significant risks. First, it weakens the local economic impact of #universities. Universities that engage in this global race, rather than anchoring talent in their surrounding economies, frequently encourage the most skilled #graduates to seek opportunities elsewhere. Instead of a regional skills dividend, many areas experience a brain drain. Second, the quest for research excellence does not always succeed. Few universities can genuinely compete at the highest level, and in stretching resources to do so, many risk losing sight of their purpose of training students for insertion in the job market and as drivers of local innovation and development. #Sweden provides a striking example of this phenomenon. My recent research with Han Wang finds that the research intensity of most Swedish universities does not translate into greater local economic prosperity. In fact, there is often an inverse relationship between elite research ambitions and regional economic vitality. The problem lies not in the volume of research produced, but in the weak links between universities and local industries. New ideas and inventions are disconnected from the local ecosystem, struggling to drive greater prosperity locally. The #UnitedStates offers a contrasting model. As a previous paper I wrote with Callum Wilkie shows, American universities tend to be far more embedded in their regional economies. Institutions actively collaborate with local businesses, ensuring that research translates into innovation, job creation, and long-term economic gains. This suggests that universities might achieve both stronger local impact and better research outcomes by prioritising regional engagement over the elusive goal of becoming globally ranked research powerhouses. If the aim is to make universities engines of economic transformation, perhaps there’s a need to must reconsider their approach. The focus should not be on producing ever more high-impact research in the abstract, but on ensuring that the knowledge universities generate is also connected to the needs of the regions that sustain them. Full studies available here: Rodríguez-Pose & Wang (2025) – https://lnkd.in/dAjdWU4Y Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie (2019) – https://lnkd.in/dbes37A2

The most important sports venue in Minnesota doesn’t host a professional team, but it still generates tens of millions of dollars for the state every year... Let me explain. 👇 This is the National Sports Center. Located less than 20 miles outside of Minneapolis in Blaine, Minnesota, it’s actually not a single stadium but rather a 700-acre youth athletic complex that features almost every playing surface imaginable, including: ∙ 60 soccer fields ∙ 8 sheets of ice ∙ 18-hole golf course ∙ Largest dome in the western hemisphere Still, it’s not the venue’s size that makes it so impressive. Instead, it’s the fact that when funding for it was approved all the way back in 1987, the state of Minnesota only had to contribute a one-time, $14.7 million payment, and even though many residents were skeptical about spending that kind of money on an amateur sports facility at the time, since opening in 1990 it’s estimated that the National Sports Center has generated over $1 billion in economic impact for the state or about $96 million every single year. And that’s not even the best part. Because while the local community benefits from having this massive complex right in their backyard, the real upside lies in tourism spending. For example, in 2024 alone, the National Sports Center calculated that across just 63 events, they were responsible for more than $71 million in direct spending from families who traveled at least 50 miles to attend an event. For context, this is money being spent on local: ∙ Hotels ∙ Restaurants ∙ Transportation ∙ Retail ∙ Recreation And that doesn’t even account for the effect of the spending recirculating into the local economy, which was estimated to be worth over $112 million. Shout out to EventConnect for helping me show the impact of youth sports 🙌 #sportsbusiness #sportsmarketing #youthsports