Read more on the nature of the AI sector in the UK here: thedatacity.com/blog/3-key-f...

In contrast, 28% of large AI firms are under UK ownership.

This means that the US is the most common country of ultimate ownership for large AI companies operating in the UK.

So repeat after me: Good economic policymaking doesn't mean giving everywhere the same thing.

The report is helpful in showing the scale of the viability gap.

But it reminds us of where we do need to be building, and where we shouldn't, rather than a call to arms to mass subsidise housebuilding in areas with poor viability.

(
@antbreach.bsky.social
&
@mauricelange.bsky.social
have done a lot of work on this)

If Manchester performed like its other G7 peers, this viability would be much higher.

So the public sector should be intervening here, using potential viability as the measure, to build more homes at higher densities as part of a plan to get MCR playing the role it should be in the national economy

Let me temper that though.

We shouldn't just use actual viability as a measure, but 'potential' viability.

Why? There are some places e.g. inner city Manchester, where viability should be much higher than it is. But its underperforming economy today pulls viability down.

✅We need more homes.
❌But we don't need more homes blanket across the country.
✅We need them where people want to live.

This price signal tells us to deliver homes where people do want to live, and not try to deliver them where people don't want to live. What would the point in that be?

So fair play.

You can see our full briefing here:

www.centreforcities.org/publication/...

The strategy recognises this, and makes a choice to support large city regions.

A sector only approach (as done in previous strategies) would reinforce existing strengths only.

A sector + place approach gives room to support places which should also be stronger than they are.