Having grown up in a small town on Maui, I vividly recall my first time visiting a city – Honolulu. I was amazed by so many things: the skyscrapers, the freeways, the people, the dynamism and the sense of opportunity that came with being in Hawaii’s largest city. My notions of what a “real” city changed on family trips throughout the U.S. West Coast and British Columbia, and were rocked again when, as a high schooler, I had the opportunity to live for three months in the world’s largest metropolis: Tokyo.

All of this is to say that, I find the structure and design of cities incredibly fascinating. How cities grow, how they function, even how they look, in my opinion, says a lot about the vitality of the region, government policies, and many more. Los Angeles epitomizes sprawl, New York (Manhattan in particular) and Hong Kong exemplify vertical growth, and cities like Vancouver seem to be a combination of both. After finishing up Edward Glaeser’s excellent book on urban development in “Triumph of the City”, I thought about which cities in the developing world could fall into these three categories.

I’ve only been to a handful of cities in China and Malaysia, so my awareness of the composition and structure of cities in the developing world is pretty limited. Shanghai seemed to be a combination of Los Angeles and New York: skyscrapers were everywhere, not just concentrated in one core area; sprawl as far as the eye could see; cars were common, but the busses and metro were always packed. Living in Shanghai was an eye opening experience for me, because I could literally see the rapidity with which cities in the developing world are growing. The pace, though arguably not as high as in years past, is still remarkable when compared to growth rates of cities in the developed world. Back to Glaeser. One of the central points Glaeser advocates is that cities in the developing world will have a huge effect on the world’s ability to manage climate change. In his book, he writes,

“Over the next forty years, India and China will continue to urbanize rapidly. Their decisions about land use will have a huge impact on energy consumption and carbon emissions. If they live at high densities and use public transit, then the whole world will benefit. If they sprawl, then we will all suffer from higher energy costs and higher carbon emissions.”

I couldn’t have agreed more. Urbanization trends in the developing world, particularly in China and India, will have a significant impact on the environment not just in those two countries, but also worldwide. Even if policies that clamp down on carbon emissions are passed in the EU (as they are) or on a case by case basis in North America (as is the case with California’s stringent auto standards), these arguably have only a small impact on carbon reduction than the potential negative effects mass urbanization in the developing world will have on the environment. Development is certainly good, but can it be done in a way that is environmentally friendly, yet still meets the aspirations of millions of rural migrants to cities in the developing world who want their very own home?

As a researcher, I’m curious to see if there has been any research done that looks at examining in depth the question of “building up” versus “building out” on a city-by-city basis in the developing world. I’d imagine that conducting such a comprehensive study would be a pretty extensive, time consuming endeavor; however, the insights gained from such research, in my opinion, would be incredibly useful and worthwhile to know.

As I’ve previously mentioned, one of the biggest takeaways from last year was my attempt to learn how to code. After going through Code Academy’s HTML/CSS/JS courses, Zed Shaw’s Learn Python the Hard Way, I felt marginally capable to experiment and build something with my newfound knowledge. I even set up a launch page for a web application on something that I love and wish I had the time to do more of – traveling. Although that project has been put on indefinite hold, and honestly it’s been months since I’ve sat in front of TextWrangler, this article in the New York Times got me thinking about the various motivations people have for learning to code.

Before going any further, to summarize, the article discusses the advent of a relatively new profession: the mobile application developer. Lured by multi-million dollar successes like Angry Birds and Instagram, hundreds (perhaps thousands) have delved into the world of mobile application development, many with the hopes of striking it rich. The article rightly points out that despite the boom, only few actually achieved the payout they envisioned.

Although Instagram and other blockbuster apps were certainly motivators to learn, for me coding initially was really just a challenge to learn something new. As a researcher, coding seemed like a great opportunity for me to develop the skills that could potentially enable me to create something that others could find useful. Although at times frustrating and difficult to understand, I soon realized that coding (if you could call what I was doing coding) was actually kind of fun. I liked the fact that at its core, coding is all about problem solving. I liked that there were multiple ways to write code to do the same thing.

I liked everything about coding, until I realized that most applications are ill received by the marketplace, and are rarely if ever used. The thought of spending hundreds of hours working on a product, if only to realize that there is little to no market for it, was kind of disappointing. Obviously, identifying a target market is a fundamental concept of the Lean Startup, but even then, with fierce competition in an already saturated market, the task of creating a well received product seems insurmountable and not worthwhile.

Being a creator of a meaningful product is still an aspiration of mine, and one day I hope to actually achieve this goal. For now though, rather than rushing into the market with the hopes of making it big, I’ll continue learning about the problems that matter most to me: urbanization, the environment and mental health. Perhaps by deeply understanding these problems, I can one day create something that will meaningfully positively impact the lives of others.

For the past couple of months, I’ve taken an interest in understanding the economics of cities. Like development economics, a core aspect of urban economics is the understanding of economic growth. In my opinion, I think both are particularly complementary subfields of economics, especially considering that the majority of economic growth in developing and underdeveloped countries over the next several decades will take place in urban areas. Although much of the literature on urban economics focuses on cities in the developed world, I think the same theories – Ed Glaeser’s Human Capital Theory, Richard Florida’s Creative Class, and Jane Jacobs perspectives on urban design – are certainly applicable to the rapid growth happening in the developing world.

One idea that I found particularly interesting, if only because it seems so obvious, is that specialized cities – dominated by a single industry (or worse, a single company) typically have a much harder time reinventing themselves amidst a changing economy. The American rust belt is littered with prime examples of the consequences that come with specialization: cars in Detroit, steel in PIttsburgh, manufacturing in Buffalo, etc. While cities like Pittsburgh arguably have bounced back, others like Detroit continue to struggle with economic development. Glaeser points out in his book, Triumph of the City, that while in its heyday the Big Three brought prosperity to Detroit, it unknowingly stymied the growth and development of other industries.

Detroit’s story from prosperity to struggle, in large part due to its reliance on the auto industry, got me thinking about other cities in America that presumably are dominated by a single industry. Initially, it was fairly easy to come up with a short list of highly specialized cities: banking and finance in New York, energy in Houston, entertainment in Los Angeles, and technology in Silicon Valley. On further inspection however, it’s obvious that, with the exception of Silicon Valley, these cities are highly diversified: media, publishing, advertising in New York, shipping and distribution in Houston and Los Angeles. Silicon Valley on the other hand, is unequivocally dominated by the tech industry. This great piece from the Director of International Programs at Code for America, details just how big of a problem this truly is for Silicon Valley.

While I highly doubt anyone would consider Silicon Valley as a future Detroit, I do think the leaders of industry and policy in San Jose should do more to diversify their economic base beyond technology. Being the world’s epicenter of innovation is a fantastic achievement, but as history tells us, nothing lasts forever. Who would’ve thought a hundred years ago would’ve thought that South Korea and Japan would rival American and European auto manufacturers for global dominance?