A map of U.S. data centers. Courtesy of Rice Businesses Wisdom

A new study shows why some facilities cluster in cities for speed and access, while others move to rural regions in search of scale and lower costs. Based on research by Tommy Pan Fang (Rice Business) and Shane Greenstein (Harvard).

Key findings:

  • Third-party colocation centers are physical facilities in close proximity to firms that use them, while cloud providers operate large data centers from a distance and sell access to virtualized computing resources as on‑demand services over the internet.
  • Hospitals and financial firms often require urban third-party centers for low latency and regulatory compliance, while batch processing and many AI workloads can operate more efficiently from lower-cost cloud hubs.
  • For policymakers trying to attract data centers, access to reliable power, water and high-capacity internet matter more than tax incentives.

Recent outages and the surge in AI-driven computing have made data center siting decisions more consequential than ever, especially as energy and water constraints tighten. Communities invest public dollars on the promise of jobs and growth, while firms weigh long-term commitments to land, power and connectivity.

Against that backdrop, a critical question comes into focus: Where do data centers get built — and what actually drives those decisions?

A new study by Tommy Pan Fang (Rice Business) and Shane Greenstein (Harvard Business School) provides the first large-scale statistical analysis of data center location strategies across the United States. It offers policymakers and firms a clearer starting point for understanding how different types of data centers respond to economic and strategic incentives.

Forthcoming in the journal Strategy Science, the study examines two major types of infrastructure: third-party colocation centers that lease server space to multiple firms, and hyperscale cloud centers owned by providers like Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Two Models, Two Location Strategies

The study draws on pre-pandemic data from 2018 and 2019, a period of relative geographic stability in supply and demand. This window gives researchers a clean baseline before remote work, AI demand and new infrastructure pressures began reshaping internet traffic patterns.

The findings show that data centers follow a bifurcated geography. Third-party centers cluster in dense urban markets, where buyers prioritize proximity to customers despite higher land and operating costs. Cloud providers, by contrast, concentrate massive sites in a small number of lower-density regions, where electricity, land and construction are cheaper and economies of scale are easier to achieve.

Third-party data centers, in other words, follow demand. They locate in urban markets where firms in finance, healthcare and IT value low latency, secure storage, and compliance with regulatory standards.

Using county-level data, the researchers modeled how population density, industry mix and operating costs predict where new centers enter. Every U.S. metro with more than 700,000 residents had at least one third-party provider, while many mid-sized cities had none.

ImageThis pattern challenges common assumptions. Third-party facilities are more distributed across urban America than prevailing narratives suggest.

Customer proximity matters because some sectors cannot absorb delay. In critical operations, even slight pauses can have real consequences. For hospital systems, lag can affect performance and risk exposure. And in high-frequency trading, milliseconds can determine whether value is captured or lost in a transaction.

“For industries where speed is everything, being too far from the physical infrastructure can meaningfully affect performance and risk,” Pan Fang says. “Proximity isn’t optional for sectors that can’t absorb delay.”

The Economics of Distance

For cloud providers, the picture looks very different. Their decisions follow a logic shaped primarily by cost and scale. Because cloud services can be delivered from afar, firms tend to build enormous sites in low-density regions where power is cheap and land is abundant.

These facilities can draw hundreds of megawatts of electricity and operate with far fewer employees than urban centers. “The cloud can serve almost anywhere,” Pan Fang says, “so location is a question of cost before geography.”

The study finds that cloud infrastructure clusters around network backbones and energy economics, not talent pools. Well-known hubs like Ashburn, Virginia — often called “Data Center Alley” — reflect this logic, having benefited from early network infrastructure that made them natural convergence points for digital traffic.

Local governments often try to lure data centers with tax incentives, betting they will create high-tech jobs. But the study suggests other factors matter more to cloud providers, including construction costs, network connectivity and access to reliable, affordable electricity.

When cloud centers need a local presence, distance can sometimes become a constraint. Providers often address this by working alongside third-party operators. “Third-party centers can complement cloud firms when they need a foothold closer to customers,” Pan Fang says.

That hybrid pattern — massive regional hubs complementing strategic colocation — may define the next phase of data center growth.

Looking ahead, shifts in remote work, climate resilience, energy prices and AI-driven computing may reshape where new facilities go. Some workloads may move closer to users, while others may consolidate into large rural hubs. Emerging data-sovereignty rules could also redirect investment beyond the United States.

“The cloud feels weightless,” Pan Fang says, “but it rests on real choices about land, power and proximity.”

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Written by Scott Pett.

Pan Fang and Greenstein (2025). “Where the Cloud Rests: The Economic Geography of Data Centers,” forthcoming in Strategy Science.

There's no crystal ball, but this researcher from Rice University is trying to see if some metrics work for economic forecasting. Photo via Getty Images

Houston researcher tries to crack the code on the Fed's data to determine economic outlook

houston voices

Research by Rice Business Professor K. Ramesh shows that the Fed appears to harvest qualitative information from the accounting disclosures that all public companies must file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These SEC filings are typically used by creditors, investors and others to make firm-level investing and financing decisions; and while they include business leaders’ sense of economic trends, they are never intended to guide macro-level policy decisions. But in a recent paper (“Externalities of Accounting Disclosures: Evidence from the Federal Reserve”), Ramesh and his colleagues provide persuasive evidence that the Fed nonetheless uses the qualitative information in SEC filings to help forecast the growth of macroeconomic variables like GDP and unemployment.

According to Ramesh, the study was made possible thanks to a decision the SEC made several years ago. The commission stores the reports submitted by public companies in an online database called EDGAR and records the IP address of any party that accesses them. More than a decade ago, the SEC began making partially anonymized forms of those IP addresses available to the public. But researchers eventually figured out how to deanonymize the addresses, which is precisely what Ramesh and his colleagues did in this study.

"We were able to reverse engineer and identify those IP addresses that belonged to Federal Reserve staff," Ramesh says.

The team ultimately assembled a data set containing more than 169,000 filings accessed by Fed staff between 2005 and 2015. They quickly realized that the Fed was interested only in filings submitted by a select group of industry leaders and financial institutions.

But if Ramesh and his colleagues now had a better idea of precisely which bellwether firms the Fed focused on, they still had no way of knowing exactly what Fed staffers had gleaned from the material they accessed. So the team decided to employ a measure called "tone" that captures the overall sentiment of a piece of text – whether positive, negative, or neutral.

Building on previous research that had identified a set of words with negatively toned financial reports, Ramesh and his colleagues examined the tone of all the SEC filings accessed by Fed staff between one meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) and the next. The FOMC sets interest rates and guides monetary policy, and its meetings provide an opportunity for Fed officials to discuss growth forecasts and announce policy decisions.

The researchers then examined the Fed's growth forecasts to see if there was a relationship between the tone of the documents that Fed staff examined in the period between FOMC meetings and the forecasts they produced in advance of those meetings.

The team found close correlations between the tone of the reports accessed by the Fed and the agency’s forecasts of GDP, unemployment, housing starts and industrial production. The more negative the filings accessed prior to an FOMC meeting, for example, the gloomier the GDP forecast; the more positive the filings, the brighter the unemployment forecast.

Ramesh and his colleagues also compared the Fed's forecasts with those of the Society of Professional Forecasters (SPF), whose members span academia and industry. Intriguingly, the researchers found that while the errors in the SPF's forecasts could be attributed to the absence of the tonal information culled from the SEC filings, the errors in the Fed’s forecasts could not. This suggests both that the Fed was collecting qualitative information that the SPF was not—and that the agency was making remarkably efficient use of it.

"They weren’t leaving anything on the table," Ramesh says.

Having solved one mystery, Ramesh would like to focus on another; namely, how does the Fed identify bellwether firms in the first place?

Unfortunately, the SEC no longer makes IP address data publicly available, which means that Ramesh and his colleagues can no longer study which companies the Fed is most interested in. Nonetheless, Ramesh hopes to use the data they have already collected to build a model that can accurately predict which firms the Fed is most likely to follow. That would allow the team to continue studying the same companies that the Fed does, and, he says, “maybe come up with a way to track those firms in order to understand how the economy is going to move.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from K. Ramesh is Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Accounting at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Report: These 10 jobs earn the biggest salary premiums in Texas

A move to Texas bolsters earnings for some, and a new SmartAsset study has revealed the top professions where the median annual earnings in the Lone Star State exceed the national median.

The report, "When it Pays to Work in Texas — and When It Doesn’t," published in April, analyzed over 700 occupations to determine which have the biggest "Texas premium" — meaning jobs where the price-adjusted median annual pay in Texas most exceeds the national median for the same occupation — and which jobs have the biggest “Texas penalty,” where the statewide median annual pay falls furthest below the national median. Salaries were sourced from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and adjusted for regional price parity.

According to the report's findings, geoscientists have the biggest "Texas premium" and make a $159,903 median annual salary. Texas' salary for geoscientists is 61 percent higher than the national median for the same position (after adjusting for regional price parity).

"Texas’s large petroleum industry helps explain why employers in the state retain so many geoscientists," the report's author wrote. "In fact, the Lone Star State is home to more geoscientists than any other state except California."

There are more than 3,600 geoscientists working in Texas, SmartAsset said.

These are the remaining top 10 occupations with the biggest "Texas premiums" (salaries are price-adjusted):

  • No. 2 – Commercial pilots: $167,727 median Texas earnings; 37 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 3 – Sailors: $67,614 median Texas earnings; 36 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 4 – Aircraft structure assemblers: $83,519 median Texas earnings; 35 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 5 – Ship captains: $108,905 median Texas earnings; 27 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 6 – Nursing instructors (postsecondary): $100,484 median Texas earnings; 26 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 7 – Tax preparers: $63,321 median Texas earnings; 25 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 8 – Chemists: $104,241 median Texas earnings; 24 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 9 – Health instructors (postsecondary): $128,680 median Texas earnings; 22 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 10 – Engineering instructors (postsecondary): $129,030 median Texas earnings; 22 percent higher than the national media

The careers where Texas workers earn less

SmartAsset said an editor is the Texas profession where workers earn the furthest below the median for the same occupation elsewhere in the U.S. Not to be confused with film and video editors, BLS defines editors as those who "plan, coordinate, revise, or edit written material" and "may review proposals and drafts for possible publication."

The study found editors make a price-adjusted median wage of $29,710, which is 61 percent lower than the national median for the same position, and there are nearly 8,200 editors in Texas.

It's worth noting that the salaries for editors may be skewed by the fact that there are not major publications in rural areas of Texas, and other professions may also have financial deviations for similar reasons.

Several healthcare jobs also appear to have the worst penalties in Texas compared to elsewhere in the country. Home health aides are the second-worst paying professions in the state, making a median wage of $24,161.

"More home health aides work in Texas than in nearly any other state, with only California and New York employing more," the report said. "However, the more than 300,000 Texans in this occupation earn median annual pay that is about 31 percent below the national median, after adjusting for regional price parity.

SmartAsset clarified that pay penalties are not consistent "across the board" for other healthcare occupations in Texas.

"For physical therapy assistants, occupational therapy assistants, and postsecondary nursing instructors, Texas may be an especially strong place to work, with these occupations offering 'Texas premiums' of between 17 percent and 26 percent," the study said.

These are the remaining top 10 occupations where median annual earnings in Texas fall furthest below the national median for the same occupation:

  • No. 3 – Cardiovascular technicians: $49,382 median Texas earnings; 27 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 4 – Semiconductor processing technicians: $38,295 median Texas earnings; 25 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 5 – Tutors: $30,060 median Texas earnings; 25 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 6 – Control and valve installers: $56,496 median Texas earnings; 24 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 7 – Mental health social workers: $46,109 median Texas earnings; 23 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 8 – Clinical psychologists: $74,449 median Texas earnings; 22 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 9 – Producers/directors: $65,267 median Texas earnings; 22 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 10 – Interpreters/translators: $46,953 median Texas earnings; 21 percent lower than the national median

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston rises in 2026 ranking of best U.S. cities to start a business

Best for Biz

Houston has reaffirmed its commitment to a business-friendly environment and now ranks as the 26th best large U.S. city for starting a business in 2026. The city jumped up eight places after ranking 34th last year.

WalletHub's annual report compared 100 U.S. cities based on 19 relevant metrics across three key dimensions: business environment, access to resources, and costs. Factors that were analyzed include five-year business survival rates, job growth comparisons from 2020 and 2024, population growth of working-age individuals aged 16-64, office space affordability, and more.

Florida cities locked out the top five best places in America for starting a new business: Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Hialeah, and St. Petersburg.

Houston's business environment ranked as the 19th best in the country, and the city ranked 51st in the "business costs" category. However, the city lagged behind in the "access to resources" ranking, coming in at No. 72 overall. This category examined metrics such as Houston's working-age population growth, the share of college-educated individuals, financing accessibility, the prevalence of investors, venture investment amounts per capita, and more.

"From the Gold Rush and the Industrial Revolution to the Internet Age, periods of innovation have shaped our economy and driven major societal progress," the report's author wrote. "However, the past few years have been particularly challenging for business owners in the U.S., due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Great Resignation and high inflation."

Earlier this year, WalletHub declared Texas the third-best state for starting a business in 2026, and several Houston-area cities have seen robust growth after being recognized among the best career hotspots in the U.S. Entrepreneurial praise has also been extended to five local companies that were named the most innovative companies in the world, and six powerhouse female innovators that made Inc. Magazine's 2026 Female Founders 500 list.

Texas cities with strong environments for new businesses
Multiple cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex can claim bragging rights as the best Texas locales for starting a new business. Dallas ranked highest overall — appearing 11th nationally — and Irving landed a few spots behind in the 16th spot. Arlington (No. 23), Fort Worth (No. 30), Plano, (No. 35), and Garland (No. 65) followed behind.

Only six other Texas cities earned spots in the report: Austin (No. 24), Lubbock (No. 36), Corpus Christi (No. 39), San Antonio (No. 64), El Paso (No. 67), and Laredo (No. 76).

Austin tied with Boise, Idaho and Fresno, California for the highest average growth in the number of small businesses nationally, while Corpus Christi and Laredo topped a separate list of the U.S. cities with the most accessible financing.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston humanoid robotics startup taps Amazon veteran to lead manufacturing

new hire

Persona AI, a Houston-based startup that’s developing AI-powered humanoid robots for manufacturers and other businesses, has hired Brian Davis as head of global manufacturing.

Davis previously guided teams at Amazon Robotics and Dell Technologies. During his tenure at Amazon Robotics and Dell, both companies saw major increases in manufacturing volumes within a four-year period. Davis oversaw manufacturing, supply chain, logistics, quality assurance and real estate.

“Davis steps into this role [at Persona AI] as industrial enterprises face an urgent and accelerating challenge: a structural shortage of capacity for welding, fabrication, and heavy maintenance in dynamic environments, precisely the high-value, high-risk tasks where humanoid robots can deliver the greatest impact,” according to a company news release.

Davis comes aboard as Persona AI, founded in 2024, seeks to meet demand generated by deals with HD Hyundai and POSCO Group to make humanoids for shipyards and steel plants, and by a pilot program with the State of Louisiana.

“Now is the perfect time to accelerate our production capabilities as we rapidly close the gap between what’s possible in the lab versus what’s driving real commercial value,” Davis says.

“Building industrial-rated humanoid robots and production-deployable AI is only one piece of the puzzle,” he adds. “Producing humanoids at scale will require systematic supply chain management, stringent quality control, and building the playbook for safe, high-volume manufacturing. That’s what I’m here to build.”

Last year, Persona AI raised more than more than $10 million in pre-seed funding. The company also named a new head of commercial strategy in March.